Interventions That Affect Gender Bias in Hiring: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Purpose To systematically review experimental evidence for interventions mitigating gender bias in employment. Unconscious endorsement of gender stereotypes can undermine academic medicine's commitment to gender equity. Method The authors performed electronic and hand searches for randomized controlled studies since 1973 of interventions that affect gender differences in evaluation of job applicants. Twenty-seven studies met all inclusion criteria. Interventions fell into three categories: application information, applicant features, and rating conditions. Results The studies identified gender bias as the difference in ratings or perceptions of men and women with identical qualifications. Studies reaffirmed negative bias against women being evaluated for positions traditionally or predominantly held by men (male sex-typed jobs). The assessments of male and female raters rarely differed. Interventions that provided raters with clear evidence of job-relevant competencies were effective. However, clearly competent women were rated lower than equivalent men for male sex-typed jobs unless evidence of communal qualities was also provided. A commitment to the value of credentials before review of applicants and women's presence at above 25% of the applicant pool eliminated bias against women. Two studies found unconscious resistance to “antibias” training, which could be overcome with distraction or an intervening task. Explicit employment equity policies and an attractive appearance benefited men more than women, whereas repeated employment gaps were more detrimental to men. Masculine-scented perfume favored the hiring of both sexes. Negative bias occurred against women who expressed anger or who were perceived as self-promoting. Conclusions High-level evidence exists for strategies to mitigate gender bias in hiring.

Perceptions and experiences of a gender gap at a Canadian research institute and potential strategies to mitigate this gap: a sequential mixed-methods study

“…27 Our results also align with findings from a systematic review of interventions that mitigate gender bias in employment, which found bias against women being evaluated for positions that are traditionally or predominantly held by men. 28 This review identified strategies to mitigate this bias, including aiming for an applicant pool with at least 25% women, committing to the value of credentials before applicants are reviewed and training panel members in unconscious bias and the role that it can play in discussions and decisions. 28 A recent study found that a 20-minute workshop on implicit biases and strategies for overcoming them changed participants' perceptions of bias.…”

“…28 This review identified strategies to mitigate this bias, including aiming for an applicant pool with at least 25% women, committing to the value of credentials before applicants are reviewed and training panel members in unconscious bias and the role that it can play in discussions and decisions. 28 A recent study found that a 20-minute workshop on implicit biases and strategies for overcoming them changed participants' perceptions of bias. 29 Furthermore, a randomized trial involving faculty from 92 departments at 1 university showed an increase in self efficacy to engage in gender-equity-promoting behaviours after a 2.5-hour workshop 30 .…”

The Perception and Experience of Gender-Based Discrimination Related to Professional Advancement among Japanese Physicians

“…Furthermore, our result suggests that perception of genderbased obstacles may affect working patterns of female physicians. Multiple strategies have been shown to mitigate gender bias in hiring (Isaac et al 2009) and there are effective interventions to correct gender-based career obstacles and help develop women's careers (Fried et al 1996;Benz et al 1998). Gender-based discrimination must be recognized as a major problem in Japanese medical field and urgent measures are needed to ensure equal opportunities in professional advancement for both male and female physicians.…”

Physicians and Implicit Bias: How Doctors May Unwittingly Perpetuate Health Care Disparities

“…Resulting outcomes include unintentionally rating identically performing Black students as less academically capable than Whites, 8,9 and evaluating identically credentialed female applicants as less qualified than males. 10,11 Implicit bias develops early in life from repeated reinforcement of social stereotypes. Implicit pro-White bias occurs among children as young as 3 years old throughout the world.…”