Pursuing Quality: How Search Costs and Uncertainty Magnify Gender-based Double Standards in a Multistage Evaluation Process

Abstract

Despite lab-based evidence supporting the argument that double standardsby which one group is unfairly held to stricter standards than another-explain observed gender differences in evaluations, it remains unclear whether double standards also affect evaluations in organization and market contexts, where competitive pressures create a disincentive to discriminate. Using data from a field study of investment professionals sharing recommendations on an online platform, and drawing on status theory, we identify the conditions under which double standards in multistage evaluations contribute to unequal outcomes for men and women. We find that double standards disadvantaging women are most likely when evaluators face heightened search costs related to the number of candidates being compared or higher levels of uncertainty stemming from variation in the amount of pertinent information available. We rule out that systematic gender differences in the actions or characteristics of the investment professionals being evaluated are driving these results. By more carefully isolating the role of this status-based mechanism of discrimination for perpetuating gender inequality, this study identifies not only whether but also the conditions under which gender-based double standards lead to a female disadvantage, even when relevant and objective information about performance is readily available.

Getting older and living up to implicit followership theories: Implications for employee psychological health and job attitudes

“…They could affect the appraisal of the actual employee (Gordon & Arvey, ). They could also cause supervisors to form different IFTs for different age groups—similar to what has been found with regard to gender (Botelho & Abraham, ). On the other hand, employees might fear being discriminated for their age.…”

Gender Bias through Recategorization of Financial Analysts

“…We suspect that women face more difficulty than men in establishing themselves into the category of "analyst" in the first place. This difficulty is reflected in recent findings by Botelho and Abraham (2017) that in online investment platforms with uncertain information, gender bias is observed in the initial selection of recommendations.…”

Women in freshwater science: challenges and solutions for achieving equity

“…lower rates of acceptance for papers, publishing in less-prestigious journals, less grant funding and fewer invitations to conferences due to gender bias) (Anon. 2017;Holman et al 2018;Nittrouer et al 2018;Sheltzer 2018;Astegiano et al 2019, European Commission 2019Fox and Paine 2019), gendered institutional cultures leading to bias at all stages of professional life (from recruitment and selection, to recommendation, evaluation, promotion, training, and compensation) (Heilman and Eagly 2008;Bohnet 2016;Botelho and Abraham 2017) and social cultures leading to imbalances in caring responsibilities (Howe-Walsh and Turnbull 2016) as well as incorrect and biased perceptions of reduced performance by mothers (Correll et al 2007). Citation metrics, which are increasingly important in the allocation of grant funding, promotions and recruitment are also biased against women (Downes and Lancaster 2020).…”