Effects of sex and sex-typing on job applicant evaluations

• Main Author: MacLeod, Allison Anne
• Language: English
• Published: 2009
• Online Access: http://hdl.handle.net/2429/7883

This research examined the effects of sex differences in rater and ratee on hiring decisions for masculine and feminine sex-typed jobs. This research has implications for hiring and promotion decision making within the real world. Specifically, an examination of the possible factors and their interactions involved in the creation of stereotypes may help alleviate hiring biases. Subjects were presented with a bogus cover letter and resume, and were required to evaluate an applicant for an entry level, as well as a managerial level position. In the managerial level condition, the applicant did not clearly possess the required job skills, as they did in the entry level position. This missing information created a condition where the rater was required to infer whether or not the applicant possessed the required jobrelevant characteristics. Sex stereotyping occurs when raters allow general beliefs about a particular sex to influence their evaluation, even though no specific information to support those beliefs is present. It was expected that for the managerial level job, when a greater level of inference was required, a greater degree of sex stereotyping would be evident in the evaluative decision making. In contrast, no sex stereotyping was expected for the entry level position, as all applicants were clearly qualified. In addition, the sex-typing of the occupation (whether a job is traditionally held by males or females) was manipulated: The application was for a job as either an engineer or a nurse. The sex-typing of the occupation combined with the job level and sex of rater was expected to influence which ratee sex would be favoured. In the feminine managerial occupation (nursing), it was expected that females would be favoured, and in the masculine managerial occupation (engineering) it was expected that males would be favoured. It was expected that males would be more stereotypical in their responses than females. Raters had to evaluate applicants along a number of dimensions, including a hiring decision, an estimated salary, and an estimated level of competence. Results indicated effects of rater sex, ratee sex and sex-typing of occupation. Contrary to the hypotheses, females responded more stereotypically than the males. Compared to female raters, male raters were more likely to report that they would hire women in each of the conditions. Moreover, female raters favoured males for the engineering job, and females for the nursing job. Also, females were given higher salaries as engineers, and males were given higher salaries as nurses. Finally, women ratees were viewed as more competent, by both male and female raters, regardless of job or job level. Some explanations of these results are discussed, including the awareness of today's students of the current political climate, and the potential impact of different ethnicities. Implications of these results are also explored, including recommendations for future studies in this area.