Interventions that affect gender bias in hiring: a systematic review.

Authors:
Carol Isaac
Carol Isaac
University of Wisconsin-Madison
United States
Barbara Lee
Barbara Lee
4 Department of Social Work
Lexington | United States
Molly Carnes
Molly Carnes
University of Wisconsin-Madison
United States

Acad Med 2009 Oct;84(10):1440-6

Center for Women's Health Research, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 700 Regent Street, Suite 301, Madison, WI 53715, USA.

Purpose: To systematically review experimental evidence for interventions mitigating gender bias in employment. Unconscious endorsement of gender stereotypes can undermine academic medicine's commitment to gender equity.

Method: The authors performed electronic and hand searches for randomized controlled studies since 1973 of interventions that affect gender differences in evaluation of job applicants. Twenty-seven studies met all inclusion criteria. Interventions fell into three categories: application information, applicant features, and rating conditions.

Results: The studies identified gender bias as the difference in ratings or perceptions of men and women with identical qualifications. Studies reaffirmed negative bias against women being evaluated for positions traditionally or predominantly held by men (male sex-typed jobs). The assessments of male and female raters rarely differed. Interventions that provided raters with clear evidence of job-relevant competencies were effective. However, clearly competent women were rated lower than equivalent men for male sex-typed jobs unless evidence of communal qualities was also provided. A commitment to the value of credentials before review of applicants and women's presence at above 25% of the applicant pool eliminated bias against women. Two studies found unconscious resistance to "antibias" training, which could be overcome with distraction or an intervening task. Explicit employment equity policies and an attractive appearance benefited men more than women, whereas repeated employment gaps were more detrimental to men. Masculine-scented perfume favored the hiring of both sexes. Negative bias occurred against women who expressed anger or who were perceived as self-promoting.

Conclusions: High-level evidence exists for strategies to mitigate gender bias in hiring.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3181b6ba00DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4554714PMC
October 2009
27 Reads

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

gender bias
16
negative bias
8
bias women
8
sex-typed jobs
8
men male
8
men women
8
bias hiring
8
male sex-typed
8
interventions affect
8
affect gender
8
bias
7
gender
7
women
6
men
5
studies
5
interventions
5
difference ratings
4
25% applicant
4
bias difference
4
women's presence
4

Similar Publications

Bias against overweight job applicants in a simulated employment interview.

J Appl Psychol 1994 Dec;79(6):909-17

Department of Psychology, Finch University of Health Sciences/The Chicago Medical School, Illinois 60064.

This study assessed whether moderately obese individuals, especially women, would be discriminated against in a mock employment interview. Potential confounding factors were controlled by having 320 Ss rate videotapes of a job interview that used the same professional actors appearing as normal weight or made up to appear overweight by the use of theatrical prostheses. Results suggested that bias against hiring overweight job applicants does exist, especially for female applicants. Read More

View Article
December 1994

Context in selection of men and women in hiring decisions: gender composition of the applicant pool.

Psychol Rep 2005 Apr;96(2):349-60

Free University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

The hypothesis that the sex composition of an applicant pool affects the hiring probabilities of individual job applicants was tested using gender-distinctive information on accepted and rejected job applicants in The Netherlands. The evidence supports this hypothesis, although the effect sizes are moderate. Both men and women have a lower probability of being hired when the applicant pool contains fewer applicants from their own sex. Read More

View Article
April 2005

Constructed criteria: redefining merit to justify discrimination.

Psychol Sci 2005 Jun;16(6):474-80

Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520, USA.

This article presents an account of job discrimination according to which people redefine merit in a manner congenial to the idiosyncratic credentials of individual applicants from desired groups. In three studies, participants assigned male and female applicants to gender-stereotypical jobs. However, they did not view male and female applicants as having different strengths and weaknesses. Read More

View Article
June 2005

National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track.

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2015 Apr 13;112(17):5360-5. Epub 2015 Apr 13.

Department of Human Development, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853.

National randomized experiments and validation studies were conducted on 873 tenure-track faculty (439 male, 434 female) from biology, engineering, economics, and psychology at 371 universities/colleges from 50 US states and the District of Columbia. In the main experiment, 363 faculty members evaluated narrative summaries describing hypothetical female and male applicants for tenure-track assistant professorships who shared the same lifestyle (e.g. Read More

View Article
April 2015