Hiring decisions for disabled workers: The hidden bias.

Abstract

Hiring recommendati ons involving disabled job applicants were explored. A group of 72 supervisors and midlevel managers revi ewed the resumes of three applicants and two different job descriptions for a position being sought. Applicants* resumes varied only in disability status; one was descri bed as nondisabled, one as paraplegic, and one as having a history of mental illness. Job descriptions varied only in the amount of social contact required by the position. The results demonstrated that subj ects made different recommendati ons for hiring the paraplegic applicant than for hiring the applicant with a history of mental illness, even though no differences were percei ved in the applicants' qualifications.

Effects of Seeking Accommodation and Disability on Preemployment Evaluations

“…Evidence suggests that hiring practices are particularly less favorable for persons with psychiatric disabilities; their struggle to gain employment is aggravated by misconceptions and stigmas (e.g., Combs & Omvig, 1986;Drehmer & Bordieri, 1985;Johnson, Greenwood, & Schriner, 1988;Stone & Sawatzki, 1980). Negative attitudes toward psychiatric conditions have been found among actual employers as well (e.g., Drehmer & Bordieri, 1985;Farina & Felner, 1973). For example, in the Berven and Driscoll study, graduate students enrolled in personnel administration courses believed that an individual who had been hospitalized in the past for depression could not attend work consistently, handle work pressures, or meet high-level job responsibilities.…”

The Influence of Race, Causal Attribution, and In-Group Favoritism on Recommendations for Rehabilitation Services

“…For example, Bordieri and Drehmer (1988) found that people viewed as having an external cause of disability (i.e., not personally responsible for the cause of his or her disability) were more favored on selection criteria for employment than those viewed as personally responsible. Likewise, Drehmer and Bordieri (1985) found that an applicant with a history of mental illness (viewed as controllable and caused internally by the hypothetical consumer) was less likely to be recommended for hiring compared with a hypothetical consumer who had paraplegia. Dejong (1980), Florian (1978), and Parsons (1951) have concluded that people who are viewed as personally responsible for their disability will experience more stigma than those not personally responsible (as cited in Bordieri & Drehmer, 1988).…”

“…Dejong (1980), Florian (1978), and Parsons (1951) have concluded that people who are viewed as personally responsible for their disability will experience more stigma than those not personally responsible (as cited in Bordieri & Drehmer, 1988). To complement this conclusion, numerous studies have been conducted exploring disability and causal attribution in a variety of contexts (e.g., hiring decisions) and found that more punishment is assigned when an internal cause of disability is present (e.g., Drehmer & Bordieri, 1985). However, this construct is yet to be explored in a VR context.…”

“…The results from the current study were consistent with previous studies in showing that internal attribution of disability will negatively affect recommendations for services when disclosed. Interestingly, previous research (e.g., Bordieri & Drehmer, 1988;Chan et al, 2005;Drehmer & Bordieri, 1985) focused on describing specific disability types within their study because certain disabilities (e.g., obesity) are viewed as the result of the person's choice, and other disabilities (e.g., cancer) are viewed as not being the fault of the person. Furthermore, we found similar results to a previous study conducted by Dejoy (1989).…”

Exploring employment readiness through mock job interview and workplace role-play exercises: comparing youth with physical disabilities to their typically developing peers

“…Similarly, research on videotaped job interviews has found that applicants in wheelchairs were rated more negatively than peers without disabilities [16]. In contrast, others have found a leniency bias favoring applicants with disabilities [17]. For instance, studies involving mock employment interviews have found that applicants with physical disabilities received more positive ratings than equally qualified applicants without disabilities [18][19][20][21].…”