Reducing sex bias in judgements of occupational suitability by the provision of sextyped personality information.

Abstract

University students were asked to act as guidance counselors rating the suitability of stimulus persons for four male-dominated and four female-dominated occupations in two studies. In study 1 (N = 76) where no personality information was attributed to stimulus persons, sex bias was found. Males and females were rated suitable to the extent that their sex was congruent with the sextype of the occupation. In Study 2(N = 115), personality information, in the form of stereotypical ly masculine, feminine, or neutral characteristics, was added to the stimulus person descriptions. Sex bias emerged again with the neutral descriptions. With the masculine and feminine descriptors, however, sextype of personality descriptors was far more important than sex of stimulus person in determining suitability ratings. In line with the social cognition model of occupational suitability judgements proposed by Kalin and Hodgins (1984), it was concluded that with the provision of personal information about the stimulus persons, social category information becomes less significant. This article is based on a M.A. thesis by the first author under the supervision of the second.

Interventions That Affect Gender Bias in Hiring: A Systematic Review

“…One study 13 manipulated the sex-typing of a neutral job (computer lab manager) by emphasizing the requirement of either stereotypic male traits (i.e., technically skilled and able to work under pressure) or stereotypic female traits (i.e., helpfulness and sensitivity to coworkers). Studies confirmed job sex-typing with pretested scales 11,22–24,26–29,35 or previous studies 12–17,19–22,25,27,28,30–34,36,37 that used, for example, job sex-typing inventories. 40–44 Twenty-three studies used ANOVA, 11–27,29,30,32–34,36,37 MANOVA, 14,16,19,35 or ANCOVA 28,36 to compare main effects of the intervention and other independent variables and to test for interactions with gender on the dependent variables of interest.…”

“…Studies established applicant gender visually by photograph 19,28,29,32–36 or video, 13,21,37 designation of sex on the application, 18,24 in-person interview, 27,37 and/or the use of gendered names and pronouns (modifications of the Goldberg paradigm 38 ). 11,12,14–18,22–32,34 Twenty-four studies 11–13,15,16,18–30,32,34–37,39 examined gender bias in decision making with regard to applicants for “male sex-typed jobs,” the term applied in much of this research to positions historically or predominantly occupied by men and/or assumed to require stereotypically male traits. Such positions included mechanical engineer, 11,24 assistant vice president for financial affairs, 18 chair of a district's association of physicians, 25,26 sales manager for a heavy-machinery company, 12 high-ranking chief executive officer, 21 and police officer.…”

“…Such positions included mechanical engineer, 11,24 assistant vice president for financial affairs, 18 chair of a district's association of physicians, 25,26 sales manager for a heavy-machinery company, 12 high-ranking chief executive officer, 21 and police officer. 22,39 Twelve studies 12–14,17,21,24,27,30,33,34,36,39 examined outcomes for female sex-typed jobs (e.g., nurse, 39 dental receptionist, 12 and day care worker 24 ) or gender-neutral jobs (e.g., copy editor, 24 assistant trainee, 21 and compensation analyst 14 ). One study 13 manipulated the sex-typing of a neutral job (computer lab manager) by emphasizing the requirement of either stereotypic male traits (i.e., technically skilled and able to work under pressure) or stereotypic female traits (i.e., helpfulness and sensitivity to coworkers).…”

“…Six of the 12 studies in this group assessed the impact on bias against female applicants for a male sex-typed job of providing clear evidence of job-related competence (relevant educational or work background, 16,17,24,33 high scholastic standing, 24,33 job-congruent personality characteristics, 30 or designation as a “finalist in the job competition” by “a panel of experts” 29 ). Such individuating information was effective in reducing 24,30,33 or eliminating 16,17,29 hiring bias.…”

“…Such individuating information was effective in reducing 24,30,33 or eliminating 16,17,29 hiring bias. Other studies assessed the impact of matching gender-stereotypic, gender-counterstereotypic, or gender-neutral traits of applicants with job sex-type.…”