Condoning stereotyping? How awareness of stereotyping prevalence impacts expression of stereotypes.

Duguid, Michelle M.; Thomas-Hunt, Melissa C.

doi:10.1037/a0037908

Cited by 163 publications

(144 citation statements)

References 125 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

139

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Simply increasing awareness of the ubiquity of stereotype-based bias has been shown experimentally to exacerbate the application of age, gender, and bodyweight stereotype-based bias. 71 Conversely, either informing participants that the prevalence of stereotype-based bias is low or that most people are trying to overcome the influence of stereotypes on their evaluations of others reduced the application of gender bias compared to no message or the message about the high prevalence of stereotype-based bias. 71 Building on this research, a simple intervention to study might involve randomly including such a message (e.g., “most NIH scientific peer reviewers are working hard to reduce the influence of stereotypes in their evaluation of R01s”) in the materials sent to a random sample of R01 reviewers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of National Institutes of Health R01 Application Critiques, Impact, and Criteria Scores: Does the Sex of the Principal Investigator Make a Difference?

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Prior text analysis of R01 critiques suggested that female applicants may be disadvantaged in NIH peer review, particularly for R01 renewals. NIH altered its review format in 2009. The authors examined R01 critiques and scoring in the new format for differences due to principal investigator (PI) sex. Method The authors analyzed 739 critiques—268 from 88 unfunded and 471 from 153 funded applications for grants awarded to 125 PIs (M = 76, 61% F = 49, 39%) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison between 2010 and 2014. The authors used 7 word categories for text analysis: ability, achievement, agentic, negative evaluation, positive evaluation, research, and standout adjectives. The authors used regression models to compare priority and criteria scores, and results from text analysis for differences due to PI sex and whether the application was for a new (Type 1) or renewal (Type 2) R01. Results Approach scores predicted priority scores for all PIs’ applications (P<.001); but scores and critiques differed significantly for male and female PIs’ Type 2 applications. Reviewers assigned significantly worse priority, approach, and significance scores to female than male PIs’ Type 2 applications, despite using standout adjectives (e.g., “outstanding,” “excellent”) and making references to ability in more of their critiques (P<.05 for all comparisons). Conclusions The authors’ analyses suggest that subtle gender bias may continue to operate in the post-2009 NIH review format in ways that could lead reviewers to implicitly hold male and female applicants to different standards of evaluation, particularly for R01 renewals.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of National Institutes of Health R01 Application Critiques, Impact, and Criteria Scores: Does the Sex of the Principal Investigator Make a Difference?

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Highlighting women's agency may backfire for women who are less agentic as much as emphasizing communal traits for leaders has shown to hurt agentic women (Rudman & Glick, ). Furthermore, awareness about stereotypes may also increase stereotypic evaluations (Duguid & Thomas‐Hunt, ). Therefore, organizations should provide a balanced view of women and men that emphasizes that both men and women can be agentic and communal while providing accounts of women's agency and communality.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, awareness about stereotypes may also increase stereotypic evaluations (Duguid & Thomas-Hunt, 2015). Therefore, organizations should provide a balanced view of women and men that emphasizes that both men and women can be agentic and communal while providing accounts of women's agency and communality.…”

Section: Practical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Support for quotas for women in leadership: The influence of gender stereotypes

Mölders

Brosi

Bekk

et al. 2017

Human Resource Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines support for quotas for women in leadership, a currently highly debated topic in management research and practice. Using a sample of German working adults (N = 761), our results suggest that stereotypes about women (n = 380) are significantly related to support for quotas for women in leadership. Ascriptions of agency to typical women, that is, the extent to which women are generally seen as assertive, active, and strong, were positively related to participants' support for quotas for women in leadership in male‐gendered industries and high hierarchical positions, whereas ascriptions of communality to typical women, that is, the extent to which women are seen as understanding, supportive, and caring, were generally positively related. This pattern emerged for both male and female participants. Unexpectedly, gender‐stereotypic ascriptions to men (n = 381) were also related to support for quotas for women in leadership—with a positive relationship with agency in male‐gendered industries and a general negative relationship with communality, although these results were less pronounced. Implications for organizations are derived from these results, highlighting how the introduction of quotas for women in leadership can be smoothed by addressing how employees see women in terms of agency and communality.

show abstract

“…Importantly, potential solutions to reducing assessor bias have shown mixed results. Large field experiments—all conducted outside a police recruitment context—have shown that blinding CVs may not lead to recruiting more individuals from underrepresented groups (Behaghel et al ); and implicit bias training does not seem to improve behaviour and may even backfire (Duguid and Thomas‐Hunt ). Public managers may therefore have to turn to the candidate experience to try to improve recruitment outcomes for people of colour or other underrepresented groups.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Levelling the playing field in police recruitment: Evidence from a field experiment on test performance

Linos

Reinhard

Ruda

2017

Public Administration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How to increase diversity in the police is an unanswered question that has received significant political and media attention. One area of intervention is the recruitment process itself. This study reports the results of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in a police force that was experiencing a disproportionate drop in minority applicants during one particular test. Drawing on insights from the literatures on stereotype threat, belonging uncertainty and values affirmation exercises, we redesigned the wording on the email inviting applicants to participate in the test. The results show a 50 per cent increase in the probability of passing the test for minority applicants in the treatment group, with no effect on white applicants. Therefore, the intervention closed the racial gap in the pass rate without lowering the recruitment standard or changing the assessment questions.

show abstract

Condoning stereotyping? How awareness of stereotyping prevalence impacts expression of stereotypes.

Cited by 163 publications

References 125 publications

Analysis of National Institutes of Health R01 Application Critiques, Impact, and Criteria Scores: Does the Sex of the Principal Investigator Make a Difference?

Analysis of National Institutes of Health R01 Application Critiques, Impact, and Criteria Scores: Does the Sex of the Principal Investigator Make a Difference?

Support for quotas for women in leadership: The influence of gender stereotypes

Levelling the playing field in police recruitment: Evidence from a field experiment on test performance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About