Evaluating sex discrimination claims: The mediating role of attributions.

Abstract

The role of attributions in judgments of sex discrimination was examined in 2 laboratory experiments. In Study 1, participants read 1 of 12 brief scenarios in which limited information about the strength of evidence against a fictitious corporation and occupational gender stereotype were manipulated. Results suggested that attributions mediated the relationships between participants' gender, strength of evidence, and discrimination judgments. In Study 2, participants were provided with 1 of 3 detailed, typewritten summaries of evidence presented in a sex discrimination trial. Results indicated that jurors' gender was again significantly related to attributions and to sex discrimination judgments even in the face of substantial objective information related to the case. The variance in observers' judgments associated with gender, however, appeared to be greatest when information about the organization's guilt or innocence was equivocal.

Juror decision‐making in a mock sexually violent predator trial: gender differences in the impact of divergent types of expert testimony

“…The gender differences found in this study also are consistent with trends in the literature on other types of case that reflect some form of sexual coercion, such as sexual harassment, wherein men and women tend to differ in their perceptions of what constitutes harassing behavior (see, e.g., Blumenthal, 1998;Elkins & Phillips, 1999;Frazier, Cochran, & Olson, 1995;Gutek & O'Connor, 1995;Kovera et al, 1999;Rotundo, Nguyen, & Sackett, 2001;Wiener et al, 1997;Wiener et al, 1995). Within the context of hostile work environments, Wiener et al (1995) suggested that gender differences in sexual harassment judgments might result indirectly from the false consensus effect.…”

“…In retrospect, this should have been expected because gender differences in jury decision-making have been reported in several other contexts when the issue under consideration is sexual or gender based (see, e.g., Deitz, Blackwell, Daley, & Bentley, 1982;Elkins & Phillips, 1999;Foley & Pigott, 2000;Kovera, McAuliff, & Herbert, 1999;Wiener, Hurt, Russell, Mannen, & Gasper, 1997;Wiener, Watts, Goldkamp, & Gasper, 1995).…”

“…Indeed, research with jurors in both civil (see, e.g., Elkins & Phillips, 1999;Gowan & Zimmerman, 1996;Griffith, Libkuman, Dodd, Shafir, & Dickinson, 2002) and criminal (see, e.g., Ugwuegbu, 1979) cases has demonstrated a consistent gender difference in which female jurors tend to consider victims more leniently and defendants more harshly in cases involving crimes against women. Empirical findings have been equivocal regarding whether women are more conviction prone, however, with some researchers reporting support for this notion (see, e.g., Nagao & Davis, 1980), but with others not finding such support (see, e.g., Villemur & Hyde, 1983).…”

The impact of utilizing a flexible work schedule on the perceived career advancement potential of women

“…This experimental approach is common in the human resource management literature and has been used to examine such issues as disciplinary decisions (Liden et al, 1999), applicant responses to rejection letters (Ployhart, Ryan, & Bennett, 1999), and evaluations of sex discrimination claims (Elkins & Phillips, 1999). Scenarios have also been used in studies dealing with work-family conflict (for example, Greenhaus & Powell, 2003) and studies examining the decision to allow an employee to use an alternative work schedule (for example, Barham, Gottlieb, & Kelloway, 1998;Powell & Mainiero, 1999).…”

Diversity and Emotion: The New Frontiers in Organizational Behavior Research

“…Heilman, Block, Martell, & Simon, 1989). Understanding the processes shaping negative and positive stereotypes and the contextual factors that release or inhibit their expression is an important research imperative (e.g., see Blascovich, Wyer, Swart & Kibler, 1997;Brief & Hayes, 1997;Brief, Buttram, Elliot, Reizenstein, & McCline, 1995;Brief et al, 2000;Colella, DeNisi & Varma, 1998;Crosby, Clayton, Alksnis, & Hemker, 1986;Eagly & Wood, 1999;Elkins & Phillips, 1999;Zaidman, 2000).…”