Male-female differences: A computer simulation.

Martell, Richard F.; Lane, David M.; Emrich, Cynthia G.

doi:10.1037/0003-066x.51.2.157

Cited by 363 publications

(259 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

247

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although the differences in ratings may be perceived as modest, the effect sizes were all moderate to large (d = 0.60-0.75). Thus, the current results suggest that subtle gender bias is important to address because it could translate into large real-world disadvantages in the judgment and treatment of female science students (39). Moreover, our mediation findings shed light on the processes responsible for this bias, suggesting that the female student was less likely to be hired than the male student because she was perceived as less competent.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 74%

Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students

Moss‐Racusin

Dovidio²,

Brescoll

et al. 2012

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

2,454

1,878

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite efforts to recruit and retain more women, a stark gender disparity persists within academic science. Abundant research has demonstrated gender bias in many demographic groups, but has yet to experimentally investigate whether science faculty exhibit a bias against female students that could contribute to the gender disparity in academic science. In a randomized double-blind study ( n = 127), science faculty from research-intensive universities rated the application materials of a student—who was randomly assigned either a male or female name—for a laboratory manager position. Faculty participants rated the male applicant as significantly more competent and hireable than the (identical) female applicant. These participants also selected a higher starting salary and offered more career mentoring to the male applicant. The gender of the faculty participants did not affect responses, such that female and male faculty were equally likely to exhibit bias against the female student. Mediation analyses indicated that the female student was less likely to be hired because she was viewed as less competent. We also assessed faculty participants’ preexisting subtle bias against women using a standard instrument and found that preexisting subtle bias against women played a moderating role, such that subtle bias against women was associated with less support for the female student, but was unrelated to reactions to the male student. These results suggest that interventions addressing faculty gender bias might advance the goal of increasing the participation of women in science.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 74%

Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students

Moss‐Racusin

Dovidio²,

Brescoll

et al. 2012

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

2,454

1,878

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, the gender differences were large enough to be statistically significant, and although the effect was small, research by Martel, Lane, and Willis (1996) has shown that seemingly small gender differences may have enormous impact when compounded over time. Thus, small differences or what seem like molehills of disparity can become mountains of disparity over time and experiences (see Valian, 2000).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender and letters of recommendation for academia: Agentic and communal differences.

Madera

Hebl

Martin

2009

Journal of Applied Psychology

477

345

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2 studies that draw from the social role theory of sex differences (A. H. Eagly, W. Wood, & A. B. Diekman, 2000), the authors investigated differences in agentic and communal characteristics in letters of recommendation for men and women for academic positions and whether such differences influenced selection decisions in academia. The results supported the hypotheses, indicating (a) that women were described as more communal and less agentic than men (Study 1) and (b) that communal characteristics have a negative relationship with hiring decisions in academia that are based on letters of recommendation (Study 2). Such results are particularly important because letters of recommendation continue to be heavily weighted and commonly used selection tools

show abstract

“…We expect our moderate gender differences in negotiator ethics to matter in practical terms because simulations suggest that even small differences have important practical consequences. In one simulation, Martell, Lane, and Emrich (1996) explored the effects of bias in work performance ratings on women's representation in leadership positions. When gender bias comprised only 1% of the variance in performance ratings, only 35% of topranking positions in an organizational hierarchy were filled by women.…”

Section: Potential Practical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A social-cognitive approach to understanding gender differences in negotiator ethics: The role of moral identity

Kennedy

Kray

2017

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tTo date, gender differences in ethics have received little theoretical attention. We utilize a socialcognitive framework to explain why these differences emerge and when women engage in less unethical negotiating behavior than do men. We propose that, relative to men's, women's stronger moral identities suppress unethical negotiating behavior. Study 1 establishes a gender difference in moral identity strength through a meta-analysis of over 19,000 people. Study 2 observes gender differences in two aspects of negotiator ethics -moral disengagement and opportunism. Study 3 establishes moral identity strength as an antecedent to negotiator ethics. Finally, Studies 4 and 5 explore financial incentives as a situational moderator. Because financial incentives temporarily decrease the salience of moral identity, they could mitigate gender differences in negotiator ethics, leading women to act more like men. Across both studies, financial incentives impacted women's (but not men's) unethical negotiating behavior. Our findings help to explain why and when gender differences in ethics emerge.

show abstract

Male-female differences: A computer simulation.

Cited by 363 publications

References 6 publications

Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students

Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students

Gender and letters of recommendation for academia: Agentic and communal differences.

A social-cognitive approach to understanding gender differences in negotiator ethics: The role of moral identity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About