Sexual orientation information and hiring: Can individualizing information lead to negative stereotyping of sexual minority group members?

Abstract

In a work context, impression formation processes may determine individuals' success or failure. For example, when hiring, personnel managers often evaluate a large quantity of application material in a short time. Determining personal careers, managers decide for whom they open or close the doors to climb up the career ladder.Equal Treatment Acts prescribe that hiring decisions are unbiased by stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination. In practice, stereotyping is hard to avoid even if individuals try to avoid biased impressions based on social-group memberships. Nowadays, avoiding stereotyping could be even harder because many employers use the strategy of searching for private information about applicants on social networks. Thus, they gain access to a lot of additional and personal |

Editorial to Part II: Revisioning, Rethinking, Restructuring Gender at Work: Contributors to Gender‐Role Stereotyping

“…Instead, these received higher ratings in suitability and higher starting salaries than gender‐normative applicants. However, similar to Niedlich et al's (2022) study, it is not yet clear whether these findings generalize to other, less gender‐egalitarian contexts or whether these findings display an overcompensation for existing stereotypes similar to the “women‐are‐wonderful” effect (Eagly & Mladinic, 1994).…”

“…As Special Issue Editors, we strongly believe in the importance of publishing such null findings instead of contributing to the so‐called “file drawer problem.” Only if we gain a complete picture of when gender stereotypes are found and when they are not can we advance theory and practice and contribute to policy development. Additionally, we see it as a strength that the majority of studies included in both parts of this Special Issue used experimental study designs (Baldner et al, 2022; Gloor et al, 2022; Hernandez Bark, Seliverstova, et al, 2022; Kahalon et al, 2022; Klysing et al, 2022; Nett et al, 2022; Niedlich et al, 2022; Obioma, Hentschel, et al, 2022; Raymondie & Steiner, 2022; Sczesny et al, 2022; Süssenbach & Carvacho, 2022) which allows drawing causal inferences. Nevertheless, we see the need for future research on this topic.…”

“…Additionally, we see it as a strength that the majority of studies included in both parts of this Special Issue used experimental study designs (Baldner et al, 2022;Gloor et al, 2022;Hernandez Bark, Seliverstova, et al, 2022;Kahalon et al, 2022;Klysing et al, 2022;Nett et al, 2022;Niedlich et al, 2022;Obioma, Hentschel, et al, 2022;Raymondie & Steiner, 2022;Sczesny et al, 2022;Süssenbach & Carvacho, 2022) which allows drawing causal inferences. Nevertheless, we see the need for future research on this topic.…”

“…Yet, two studies in this Special Issue attempt to take on a broader perspective on the role of gender at work, focusing on individuals' sexual orientation (Niedlich et al, 2022) and the nonbinary conceptualization of gender (Klysing et al, 2022). Focusing on biases in a hiring context based on sexual orientation, Niedlich et al (2022) studied whether gay candidates would be evaluated differently from heterosexual candidates and whether being in a nonnormative (polyamory) versus a normative (monoamory) relationship would affect perceptions of agency, communion, and hireability. The results of an online experiment, in which the participants adopted the recruiter's perspective, did not provide evidence of discrimination against gay job candidates.…”

Editorial to Part I “Revisioning, Rethinking, Restructuring Gender at Work: Quo Vadis Gender Stereotypes?”

“…In Part I, we present studies showing that differences in gender stereotypes still exist (Gartzia, 2022), confirm disadvantages for women in male‐dominated roles and sectors (Henningsen et al, 2022) and when the employment sector is not specified (Gloor et al, 2022; Hernandez Bark et al, 2022), but also disadvantages for men in female‐dominated roles and sectors (Sczesny et al, 2022). In contrast to this general trend, one paper in Part II of this Special Issue found a preference for women over men as job candidates in their study (Niedlich et al, 2022; Study 1). Incongruence emerged as a striking common theme to explain these gender differences, whereby some studies focused on the perceived incongruence from the actor's perspective and how external factors contribute to these perceptions (Henningsen et al, 2022; Meeussen et al, 2022), whereas others looked at the perceived incongruence from the observer's perspective (Gloor et al, 2022; Hernandez Bark et al, 2022; Nett et al, 2022; Raymondie & Steiner, 2022; Sczesny et al, 2022).…”