Affirmative Action Policies in Academic Job Advertisements: Do They Facilitate or Hinder Gender Discrimination in Hiring Processes for Professorships?

Evidence of female-favoring hiring preferences for assistant professorships suggests that universities can implement affirmative action programs successfully. However, research on the role of applicant gender and the actual use of affirmative action policies in hiring processes for high-level professorships remain scarce. A web-based experiment with 481 economic university members assessed whether evaluators perceived a female applicant as less qualified than a male applicant for an associate professorship position when the job advertisement highlighted the university’s commitment to affirmative action (gender-based preferential selection) but not when it solely highlighted its commitment to excellence (non-gender-based selection). Contrary to previous experimental findings that affirmative action would adversely affect female applicants, evaluators perceived the female applicant as more hirable and ranked her first for the job significantly more often than the male candidate. Furthermore, male evaluators had a stronger preference for the female candidate in the gender-based condition than in the non-gender-based condition and a stronger preference for the male candidate in the non-gender-based condition than in the gender-based condition. Overall, the results provide evidence that gender-based preferential selection policies can evoke their intended effect to bring highly qualified women to high-level professorships, especially when being evaluated by non-beneficiaries of these policies, such as men.

Weight Bias in Hiring

This study’s purpose was to assess the prevalence of weight bias in the hiring of female applicants among students attending Southern Methodist University. Weight bias in hiring for a CEO position was assessed in 87 total male and female participants by viewing one of two possible applicants’ resumés – one slim and one overweight female. Experience and qualifications for each resumé were identical, only the headshots differed. Participants saw either the overweight applicant or the slim applicant, after which they filled out a questionnaire that asked them to indicate whether they would hire the individual and state the reason for their decision. We found no significant difference between which applicant participants chose to hire. Gender did not predict which applicant participants were more likely to hire or reject. These findings contradicted our hypotheses. We had predicted that the overweight female applicant would have been hired less by participants, relative to the slim applicant. Additionally, we had predicted that this weight bias against the overweight female applicant would have a higher incidence in males. Similar studies going forward should focus on providing a truly random sample of participants and use clearer instructions to read to the participant. Experimenters should also consider using in-person interviews instead of resumés, and perhaps a larger sample size to determine if in fact there was a detectable effect present. Remaining limitations and explanations for the results will be presented in the discussion.

Effects of sexism and job–applicant match on leadership candidate evaluations

In the lack of fit model and role congruity theory it is suggested that mismatch between female candidates and agentic, male-typed jobs is responsible for discrimination when women apply for leadership positions. In 2 studies we examined the effects of job–applicant mismatch and evaluator sexism on candidate evaluations. In Study 1 (participant evaluators N = 306), mismatch between a female applicant and an agentic job was beneficial for hireability and competence when the evaluator was male and scored low in sexism. However, we were surprised by the result that female evaluators who scored high in sexism rated female applicants for communal jobs lower on competence, likeability, and hireability than did female evaluators who scored low in sexism. In Study 2 (participant evaluators N = 619), evaluator sexism was related to hireability through competence but not through likeability. Further research should be conducted to explore why sexist women devalue a female candidate who is applying for a communal position.

Age Discrimination in Hiring: An Experimental Study

This article presents the findings of the first field experiment — a resume correspondence study — on age discrimination in the Russian labor market. Correspondence studies are nowadays viewed as the most objective way to test for hiring discrimination. This method consists of sending pairs of CVs for job offers, very similar in everything except the trait to be analyzed (age in our case). Data collection for the presented study was conducted in February—March 2018. Pairs of matched applications, one from a fictitious 29-year-old female applicant and one from afictitious 48-year-old female applicant, were sent to 341 employers with job openings for accountants in Moscow, posted on one of the most popular job search websites. It turned out that the probability of receiving an invitation for an interview for an older candidate is 24–32%, whereas for a younger candidate it is 45–52%. Thus, the positive callback ratio is 1.8–2.5. The indicator of “net discrimination”, calculated as the difference in the shares of positive callbacks in the number of vacancies for which at least one response has been received, is 37–49% for the younger and older candidates. Compared with the results of the existing studies, it turns out that the obtained discrimination level is quite high. Taking into account the population aging, a reduction in the workforce and an increase in the official retirement age, measures must be taken to combat age discrimination and allow older people to work on an equal basis with young people.

Determinants of default in p2p lending: the Mexican case

P2P lending is a new method of informal finance that uses the internet to directly connect borrowers with on-line communities. With a unique dataset provided by Prestadero, the largest on-line lending platform with national presence in Mexico, this research explores the effect of credit scores and other variables related to loan and borrower´s traits, in determining default behavior in P2P lending. Moreover, using a logistic regression model, it tested whether investors might benefit from screening loan applicants by gender after controlling for loan quality. The results showed that information provided by the platform is relevant for analyzing credit risk, yet not conclusive. In congruence with the literature, on a scale going from the safest to the riskiest, loan quality is positively associated with default behavior. Other determinants for increasing the odds of default are the payment-to-income ratio and refinancing on the same platform. On the contrary loan purpose and being a female applicant reduce such odds. No categorical evidence for differential default behavior was found for gender´s case-discrimination, under equal credit conditions. However it was found that controlling for loan quality, women have longer loan survival times than men. This is one of the first studies about debt crowdfunding in Latin America and Mexico. Implications for lenders, researchers and policy-makers are also discussed.

Identical applicant but different outcomes: The impact of gender versus race salience in hiring

People belong to multiple social groups, which may have conflicting stereotypic associations. A manager evaluating an Asian woman for a computer programming job could be influenced by negative gender stereotypes or by positive racial stereotypes. We hypothesized that evaluations of job candidates can depend upon what social group is more salient, even when both are apparent. In three studies, using student (Study 1) and nonstudent (Studies 2 and 3) samples, we compared ratings of an Asian American female applicant after subtly making her race or gender salient in stereotypically male employment contexts. Consistent with our predictions, we found evidence that men rated her as more skilled (Studies 1 and 3), more hirable (Studies 1–3), and offered her more pay (Study 2) in science and technology-related positions when her race, rather than gender, was salient. The theoretical implications for person perception and practical implications in employment contexts are discussed.