The Effect of Evaluator Masculinity on Dyadic Hiring Decisions

  • Lindsay RiceEmail author
  • Eric T. Greenlee
Original Article


Research examining gender disparities in the workplace tends to focus on individual behavior rather than the behavior of teams or dyads, yet important workplace decisions such as hiring and promotion decisions are often made by more than one person. The primary aim of the current study was to determine the role of the evaluator masculinity in collaborative, dyadic hiring decisions. Participants were recruited in pairs and given measures to assess their self-agreement with masculine characteristics before evaluating the résumés of two candidates for a student government position. Path analyses revealed that the opinion of each dyad member was predictive of the group decision, but the more masculine member of the dyad had more influence on both the evaluation of the candidates and the hiring decision. Results are discussed in terms of practical considerations for ensuring gender and gender role balance for those engaging in evaluating others for hiring and promotion decisions.


Masculinity Gender roles Workplace behavior Decision making 



This research was supported with a research grant from The Citadel Foundation. Participants for this study were recruited from The Citadel and the College of Charleston in Charleston, SC. The authors would like to thank Dr. Lisa T. Ross from the College of Charleston and Mary Ann D. Koller for their assistance in gathering participants for this project. Finally, the authors dedicate this manuscript in loving memory of Achilles, a very special cat who was involved in many aspects of this project.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Standard

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional committees involved (The Citadel IRB and The College of Charleston IRB) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Bosak, J., & Sczesny, S. (2011). Gender bias in leader selection? Evidence from a hiring simulation study. Sex Roles, 65(3–4), 234–242. Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carli, L. L., Alawa, L., Lee, Y., Zhao, B., & Kim, E. (2016). Stereotypes about gender and science women = scientists. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(2), 244–260. Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cheng, C. (1996). “We choose not to compete”: The “merit” discourse in the selection process, and Asian and Asian American men and their masculinity. In C. Cheng (Ed.), Research on men and masculinities series. Masculinities in organizations (Vol. 9, pp. 177–200). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    De Paola, M., Scoppa, V., & Lombardo, R. (2010). Can gender quotas break down negative stereotypes? Evidence from changes in electoral rules. Journal of Public Economics, 94(5–6), 344–353. Scholar
  5. 5.
    Diekman, A. B., & Eagly, A. H. (2000). Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: Women and men of the past, present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(10), 1171–1188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eagly, A. H. (2013). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. London: Psychology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Glauber, R. (2008). Race and gender in families and at work: The fatherhood wage premium. Gender & Society, 22(1), 8–30. Scholar
  8. 8.
    Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 657–674. Scholar
  9. 9.
    Heilman, M. E., Wallen, A. S., Fuchs, D., & Tamkins, M. M. (2004). Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 416. Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hodges, M. J., & Budig, M. J. (2010). Who gets the daddy bonus? Organizational hegemonic masculinity and the impact of fatherhood on earnings. Gender & Society, 24(6), 717–745. Scholar
  11. 11.
    McKinsey & Company. (2016). Women in the workplace. Retrieved November 22, 2018, from
  12. 12.
    McKinsey & Company. (2018). Women in the workplace. Retrieved November 22, 2018, from
  13. 13.
    Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(41), 16474–16479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Olian, J. D., Schwab, D. P., & Haberfeld, Y. (1988). The impact of applicant gender compared to qualifications on hiring recommendations: A meta-analysis of experimental studies. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41(2), 180–195. Scholar
  15. 15.
    Phelan, J. E., Moss-Racusin, C. A., & Rudman, L. A. (2008). Competent yet out in the cold: Shifting criteria for hiring reflect backlash toward agentic women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32(4), 406–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rice, L., & Barth, J. M. (2016). Hiring decisions: The effect of evaluator gender and gender stereotype characteristics on the evaluation of job applicants. Gender Issues, 33(1), 1–21. Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rice, L., & Barth, J. M. (2017). A tale of two gender roles: The effects of implicit and explicit gender role traditionalism and occupational stereotype on hiring decisions. Gender Issues, 34(1), 86–102. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychological SciencesTexas Tech UniversityLubbockUSA

Personalised recommendations