A field experiment: Reducing interpersonal discrimination toward pregnant job applicants.

Abstract

The current research targets 4 potential stereotypes driving hostile attitudes and discriminatory behaviors toward pregnant women: incompetence, lack of commitment, inflexibility, and need for accommodation. We tested the relative efficacy of reducing concerns related to each of the stereotypes in a field experiment in which female confederates who sometimes wore pregnancy prostheses applied for jobs in a retail setting. As expected, ratings from 3 perspectives (applicants, observers, and independent coders) converged to show that pregnant applicants received more interpersonal hostility than did nonpregnant applicants. However, when hiring managers received (vs. did not receive) counterstereotypic information about certain pregnancy-related stereotypes (particularly lack of commitment and inflexibility), managers displayed significantly less interpersonal discrimination. Explicit comparisons of counterstereotypic information shed light on the fact that certain information may be more effective in reducing discrimination than others. We conclude by discussing how the current research makes novel theoretical contributions and describe some practical organizational implications for understanding and improving the experiences of pregnant workers.

Subtle Discrimination in the Workplace: A Vicious Cycle

“…For example, interpersonal hostility reported by women wearing a pregnancy prosthesis when applying for a retail job was reduced when they provided counterstereotypical information that addressed the hiring manager's pregnancy-related concerns (e.g., lack of commitment, inflexibility; Morgan, Walker, Hebl, & King, 2013). However, individuation may not always be a viable strategy, particularly if the counterstereotypic information provided violates prescriptive stereotypes about the target's group (Rudman & Phelan, 2008).…”

Research performance and age explain less than half of the gender pay gap in New Zealand universities

“…Beyond gendered gaps in rank, promotion, and pay, studies suggest women are disadvantaged in peer review [55][56][57], research funding [49,58,59], authorship ranking [11], citation rates in high impact journals [60], administrative service [61][62][63][64], and teaching demands [65] and teaching evaluations [66][67][68]. Pregnant women [69] and mothers [70,71] appear further disadvantaged in employment both inside [2] and out of the university. There is even evidence of bias against research that finds gender bias [72,73].…”

Gender Inequality Issues in the Workplace: Case Study of Armenia

“…Agentic women, who behave in an assertive, task-oriented fashion, are less likable and less hirable than comparable agentic male applicants are (Heilman and Okimoto, 2007;Rudman and Phelan, 2008;Rudman et al, 2012). Besides, there is discrimination against pregnant women when they apply for jobs (Hebl et al, 2007;Morgan et al, 2013). Further, mother women are recommended for promotion less than women who are not mothers or men with or without children (Heilman and Okimoto, 2008).…”