Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Hiring Decisions: The Effect of Evaluator Gender and Gender Stereotype Characteristics on the Evaluation of Job Applicants

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Gender Issues Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examined how the gender and gender stereotype characteristics of an evaluator influenced a hypothetical hiring decision, and the effects of automatically activating gender stereotypes prior to a hiring decision. One hundred and twenty-nine undergraduates (80 female) completed a priming manipulation that activated gender stereotype-congruent or stereotype-incongruent associations, followed by an evaluation of a male or female job applicant. Results indicated that the gender and masculinity of an evaluator were related to the evaluations. After stereotype-congruent priming, men rated male applicants higher than female applicants and men’s masculinity was associated with less favorable ratings. After stereotype-incongruent priming, male participants extended a more positive evaluation toward female applicants than when stereotype-congruent gender ideas were primed. Female participants were less affected by the priming and showed more egalitarian evaluations. Findings underscore the importance of having gender-balanced search committees and interventions that address implicit gender biases in hiring decisions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Abcarin, R. (2014). Is fired N.Y. Times editor Jill Abramson the new Lilly Ledbetter? The Los Angeles times. http://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-ra-new-york-times-fired-jill-abramson-20140515-column.html.

  2. Blair, I. V., & Banaji, M. R. (1996). Automatic and controlled processes in stereotype priming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(6), 1142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Banaji, M. R., & Hardin, C. D. (1996). Automatic stereotyping. Psychological Science, 7, 136–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Beede, D., Julian, T., Langdon, D., McKittrick, G., Khan, B., & Doms, M. (2011). Women in STEM: A gender gap to innovation. Retrieved January 14, 2013 from http://www.esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/reports/documents/womeninstemagaptoinnovation8311.pdf.

  5. Bilimoria, D., & Burch, K. K. (2010). The Search is on: Engendering faculty diversity through more effective search and recruitment. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning. Retrieved July 8, 2014 from http://changemag.org/Archives/Back%20Issues/July-August%202010/index.html.

  6. Bosak, J., & Sczesny, S. (2008). Am I the right candidate? Self-ascribed fit of women and men to leadership positions. Sex Roles, 58, 682–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bosak, J., & Sczesny, S. (2011). Gender bias in leader selection? Evidence from a hiring simulation study. Sex Roles, 65, 234–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Carli, L. L. (1990). Gender, language and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 941–951.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Carli, L. L. (2001). Gender and social influence. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 725–741.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dasgupta, N., & Asgari, S. (2004). Seeing is believing: Exposure to counterstereotypic women leaders and its effect on the malleability of automatic gender stereotyping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(5), 642–658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Davidson, H. K., & Burke, M. J. (2000). Sex discrimination is simulated employment contexts: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 225–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Davies, P. G., Spencer, S. J., & Steele, C. M. (2005). Clearing the air: identity safety moderates the effects of stereotype threat on women’s leadership aspirations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(2), 276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Devos, T., Blanco, K., Rico, F., & Dunn, R. (2008). The role of parenthood and college education in the self-concept of college students: Explicit and implicit assessments of gendered aspirations. Sex Roles, 59, 214–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Diekman, A. B., Brown, E. R., Johnston, A. M., & Clark, E. K. (2010). Seeking congruity between goals and roles: A new look at why women opt out of STEM careers. Psychological Science, 21, 1051–1057.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Diekman, A. B., & Eagly, A. H. (2000). Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: Women and men of the past, present and future. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1171–1188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Diekman, A. B., & Eagly, A. H. (2008). Of men women and motivation: A role congruity account. In J. Y. Shah & W. L. Gardner (Eds.), Handbook of motivation science (pp. 434–447). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Eagly, A. H., & Sczesny, S. (2009). Stereotypes about women, men and leaders: Have times changed? In M. Baretto, M. Ryan, & M. Scmidtt (Eds.), Barriers to diversity: The glass ceiling after 20 years (pp. 21–47). Washington, DC: APA Books.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(4), 735.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Foschi, M. (2000). Double standards for competence: Theory and research. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 21–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1999). Sexism and other “isms”: Interdependence, status, and the ambivalent content of stereotypes. In W. B. Swann, J. H. Langiois, & L. A. Gilbert (Eds.), Sexism and stereotypes in modern society: The gender science of James Taylor Spence (pp. 193–211). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s assent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 657–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Heilman, M. E., Wallen, A. S., Fuchs, D., & Tamkins, M. M. (2004). Penalities for success: Reactions to men and women who succeed at male-gendered typed tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 416–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Jacobs, J. A. (1993). Men in female-dominated fields. Doing ‘women’s work’: Men in nontraditional occupations.

  25. Koenig, A. M., Eagly, A. H., Mitchell, A. A., & Ristikari, T. (2011). Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological Bulletin, 137(4), 616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Milkman, K. L., Akinola, M., & Chugh, D. (2014). What happens before? A field experiment exploring how pay and representation differentially shape bias on the pathway into organizations. Social science research network. Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2063742.

  27. Miller, C. C. (2014). Google releases employee data, illustrating tech’s diversity challenge. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/28/google-releases-employee-data-illustrating-techs-diversity-challenge/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0.

  28. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine: Committee on Maximizing the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering; Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. (2007). Beyond bias and barriers: Fulfilling the potential of women in academic science and engineering. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

  29. National Research Council: Committee on Gender Differences in the Careers of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Faculty; Committee on Women in Science, Engineering, and Medicine. (2010). Gender differences at critical transitions in the careers of science, engineering, and mathematics faculty. Washington DC: National Academies Press.

  30. Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2002). Math = male, me = female, therefore math ≠ me. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(1), 44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Pedhazur, E. J., & Pedhazur Schmelkin, L. (1991). Exploratory factor analysis. Measurement, Design and Analysis: An integrated approach, pp. 590–630.

  32. Phelan, J. E., Moss-Racusin, C. A., & Rudman, L. A. (2008). Competent yet out in the cold: Shifting hiring criteria reflects backlash toward agentic women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 406–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 743–762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Rudman, L. A., & Goodwin, S. A. (2004). Gender differences in automatic in group bias: Why do women like women more than men like men? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 494–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Rudman, L. A., Greenwald, A. G., & McGhee, D. E. (2001). Implicit self-concept and evaluative implicit gender stereotypes: Self and in group share desirable traits. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1164–1178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Rudman, L. A., & Phelan, J. E. (2010). The effect of priming gender roles on women’s implicit gender beliefs and career aspirations. Social Psychology, 41(3), 192–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Spence, J. T., & Buckner, C. E. (2000). Instrumental and expressive traits, trait stereotypes, and sexist attitudes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 2, 993–1007.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Steinpreis, R., Anders, K., & Ritzke, D. (1999). The impact of gender on the review of the curricula vitae of job applicants and tenure candidates: A national empirical study. Sex Roles, 41, 509–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Experimental designs using ANOVA. Thomson/Brooks/Cole.

  40. Valian, V. (2004). Beyond gender schemas: Improving the advancement of women in academia. National Women’s Studies Association Journal, 16, 207–220.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Women in Science and Engineering Leadership Institute (retrieved 7/8/14). Breaking the Bias Habit: Retaining and advancing excellent faculty through bias literacy. Retrieved On July 8, 2014 from http://wiseli.engr.wisc.edu/bias.php.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Psychology Department, The Citadel, 171 Moultrie Street, Charleston, SC, 29409, USA

    Lindsay Rice

  2. Institute for Social Science Research, University of Alabama, Box 870216, Tuscaloosa, AL, 35487-0216, USA

    Joan M. Barth

Authors
  1. Lindsay Rice
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Joan M. Barth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lindsay Rice.

Additional information

All participants for the current study were recruited from The University of Alabama.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rice, L., Barth, J.M. Hiring Decisions: The Effect of Evaluator Gender and Gender Stereotype Characteristics on the Evaluation of Job Applicants. Gend. Issues 33, 1–21 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-015-9143-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-015-9143-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation