Gendered White Lies: Women Are Given Inflated Performance Feedback Compared With Men

Jampol, Lily; Zayas, Vivian

doi:10.1177/0146167220916622

Cited by 35 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 86 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, “criticism related to general business outcome” appeared significantly less frequently in women’s reviews, but such criticisms have a significantly larger negative effect on women’s ratings than on men’s ( p < .05). Experimental research shows that when individuals underperform, women are more likely to receive “white lies,” or feedback that is more positive but less truthful (Jampol and Zayas 2020). Yet, critical feedback that is withheld could still result in lower ratings or other negative long-term career effects.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inside the Black Box of Organizational Life: The Gendered Language of Performance Assessment

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Organizations implement formalized procedures to eliminate the biasing effects of gender and other characteristics on evaluations. Prior work shows managers play a key role, but researchers have been unable to observe the thought processes guiding managers’ evaluations. This article takes a first step in examining managers’ sensemaking as they interpret and evaluate employee behaviors. Our data include managers’ written performance reviews and numeric ratings of employees at a Fortune 500 technology company. Our theoretical model—the Viewing and Valuing Social Cognitive Processing Model—explains how and when gender beliefs frame managers’ evaluations, affecting what behaviors managers notice (i.e., view) and rate highly (i.e., value). After conducting a detailed coding of the language in reviews, we assess whether there are gender differences in (1) the language used to describe performance (i.e., viewing differences) and (2) the correlations between that language and numeric ratings (i.e., valuing differences). Our analysis of 88 language attributes reveals where gender frames managers’ evaluations and where the process instead operates gender-neutrally. For example, men and women are equally likely to be described as having technical ability, while women are viewed as too aggressive and men as too soft. Furthermore, some behaviors, such as “taking charge,” are more valued for men than for women: “taking charge” is associated with the highest performance ratings for men but not for women. Overall, our analysis identifies novel ways that gender biases emerge in a process intended to be meritocratic.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inside the Black Box of Organizational Life: The Gendered Language of Performance Assessment

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A communicator, for instance, may be motivated to believe that a target is less competent or more fragile than he or she really is, as in the example above. This may be particularly problematic for populations that, due to interpersonal biases, are perceived as especially fragile or incompetent (e.g., Jampol & Zayas, 2020). Results from Studies 4a and 4b corroborate this possibility: Communicators underestimated the instrumental value of truth, relative to third-party judges, suggesting that communicators may have been motivated to see the truth as less valuable.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Community standards of deception: Deception is perceived to be ethical when it prevents unnecessary harm.

Levine¹

2022

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We frequently claim that lying is wrong, despite modeling that it is often right. The present research sheds light on this tension by unearthing systematic cases in which people believe lying is ethical in everyday communication and by proposing and testing a theory to explain these cases. Using both inductive and experimental approaches, the present research finds that deception is perceived to be ethical and individuals want to be deceived when deception is perceived to prevent unnecessary harm. This research identifies eight community standards of deception: rules of deception that most people abide by and recognize once articulated, but have never previously been codified. These standards clarify systematic circumstances in which deception is perceived to prevent unnecessary harm, and therefore, circumstances in which deception is perceived to be ethical. This work also documents how perceptions of unnecessary harm influence the use and judgment of deception in everyday life, above and beyond other moral concerns. These findings provide insight into when and why people value honesty and paves the way for future research on when and why people embrace deception.

show abstract

“…The authors of both essays were supposedly boys, and no additional information about membership in other stereotype-relevant groups was provided (e.g., social class). Research on both feedback and judgments has established differential effects by gender Jampol & Zayas, 2020;Kleen & Glock, 2018). Thus, how information about different intersecting group memberships is integrated and influences biases is an important avenue for future research.…”

Section: Limitations and Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Non-communicated judgements of, versus feedback on, students’ essays: Is feedback inflation larger for students with a migration background?

Nishen

Kessels

2021

Soc Psychol Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When providing feedback, teachers are concerned not only with the simple transmission of information, but also with motivational and interpersonal dynamics. To mitigate these concerns, teachers may inflate feedback by reducing negative or increasing positive content. The resulting difference between initial judgments and feedback may be even more drastic for ethnic minority students: In non-communicated judgments, negative stereotypes may result in more negative judgments, whereas in feedback, concerns about being or appearing prejudiced may inflate feedback towards ethnic minority students. These hypotheses were tested in a sample of 132 German teacher students in a 2 (between subjects: feedback vs. non-communicated judgment) × 2 (within subjects: target student's migration background: Turkish vs. none) design in which participants read supposed student essays and provided their written impressions to the research team or the supposed student. Findings revealed that teacher students’ feedback was more positive than their non-communicated judgments on a multitude of dimensions. Contrary to expectations, these effects were not stronger when the student had a Turkish migration background. Instead, teacher students rated the essay of the student with a Turkish migration background more favorably both in the judgment and feedback conditions. Our results suggest that teachers adapt their initial judgments when giving feedback to account for interpersonal or motivational dynamics. Moreover, ethnic minority students may be especially likely to receive overly positive feedback. While the motivational/interpersonal dynamics may warrant some inflation in feedback, negative consequences of overly positive feedback, for which ethnic minority students may be especially vulnerable, are discussed.

show abstract

Gendered White Lies: Women Are Given Inflated Performance Feedback Compared With Men

Cited by 35 publications

References 86 publications

Inside the Black Box of Organizational Life: The Gendered Language of Performance Assessment

Inside the Black Box of Organizational Life: The Gendered Language of Performance Assessment

Community standards of deception: Deception is perceived to be ethical when it prevents unnecessary harm.

Non-communicated judgements of, versus feedback on, students’ essays: Is feedback inflation larger for students with a migration background?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About