Journal of Business and Psychology

, Volume 2, Issue 2, pp 150–159 | Cite as

An investigation of gender bias in the job evaluation process

  • Jeffrey S. Hornsby
  • Philip G. Benson
  • Brien N. Smith
Articles

Abstract

This study investigated the potential impact of gender segregation of jobs on evaluation bias in judgments of the relative worth of those jobs. Four job descriptions were selected which were ambiguous as to gender mix; these were artificially labeled as predominantly male or predominantly female. In addition, two clearly gender-stereotyped jobs (clerk, mechanic) were included, and were labeled as predominantly female and male, respectively. Another job (juvenile probation officer) was included as relatively gender neutral. Finally, a matron or jailer job description was included; these job descriptions were identical except for gender-based pronouns. For the four gender-ambiguous jobs, no evaluation bias was found, which is consistent with previous research. For the less artificial matron/jailer manipulation, however, evaluation bias was found. Finally, for the mechanic job some evidence was found to suggest evaluation bias based on the gender of the job evaluator. Results are discussed in terms of appropriate manipulations for studies of gender bias in job evaluations.

Keywords

Social Psychology Evaluation Process Social Issue Gender Bias Probation Officer 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Benson, P. G., & Smith, B. N. (1986, April). Job analysis and job evaluation: Impacts of job analysis on compensation. In S. Gael (Chair),Advances in tailoring job analysis methods for specific applications. Symposium presented at the annual midyear conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago.Google Scholar
  2. Cascio, W. F., & O'Reilly, C. A. (1981, August).Comparable worth and job evaluation: The biasing effects of subfactors and contextual cues. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  3. Doverspike, D., Carlisi, A. M., Barrett, G. V., & Alexander, R. A. (1983). Generalizability analysis of a point-method job evaluation instrument.Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 476–483.Google Scholar
  4. Giese, S. L. (1985, December).Comparison of a point method job evaluation instrument using student raters and professional raters. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, Akron, OHGoogle Scholar
  5. Grams, R., & Schwab, D. P. (1985). An investigation of systematic gender-related error in job evaluation.Academy of Management Journal, 28, 279–290.Google Scholar
  6. Henderson, R. I. (1982).Compensation management: Rewarding performance (3rd ed.). Reston, VA: Reston Publishing.Google Scholar
  7. Krefting, L. A., Berger, P. K., & Wallace, M. J., Jr. (1978). The contribution of sex distribution, job content, and occupational classification to job sex-typing: Two studies.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 13, 181–191.Google Scholar
  8. Livernash, E. R. (Ed.). (1980).Comparable worth: Issues and alternatives. Washington, D.C.: Equal Employment Advisory Council.Google Scholar
  9. Reskin, B. F., & Hartmann, H. I. (Eds). (1986).Women's work, men's work: Sex segregation on the job. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  10. Schwab, D. P., & Grams, R. (1985). Sex-related errors in job evaluation. A “real-world” test.Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 533–539.Google Scholar
  11. Treiman, D. J., & Hartmann, H. J. (Eds.). (1981).Woman, work, and wages: Equal pay for jobs of equal value. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  12. U.S. Civil Service Commission (1977).Instructions for the Factor Evaluation System. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeffrey S. Hornsby
    • 1
  • Philip G. Benson
    • 2
  • Brien N. Smith
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Management ScienceBall State UniversityMuncie
  2. 2.New Mexico State UniversityUSA
  3. 3.Auburn UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations