Sex Roles

, Volume 57, Issue 7–8, pp 509–514 | Cite as

A Linguistic Comparison of Letters of Recommendation for Male and Female Chemistry and Biochemistry Job Applicants

  • Toni Schmader
  • Jessica Whitehead
  • Vicki H. Wysocki
Original Article

Abstract

Letters of recommendation are central to the hiring process. However, gender stereotypes could bias how recommenders describe female compared to male applicants. In the current study, text analysis software was used to examine 886 letters of recommendation written on behalf of 235 male and 42 female applicants for either a chemistry or biochemistry faculty position at a large U.S. research university. Results revealed more similarities than differences in letters written for male and female candidates. However, recommenders used significantly more standout adjectives to describe male as compared to female candidates. Letters containing more standout words also included more ability words and fewer grindstone words. Research is needed to explore how differences in language use affect perceivers’ evaluations of female candidates.

Keywords

Gender schemas Sexism Implicit biases Hiring decisions Chemistry 

References

  1. Biernat, M., & Eidelman, S. (2007). Translating subjective language in letters of recommendation: The case of the sexist professor. European Journal of Social Psychology (in press).Google Scholar
  2. Greenwald, A., & Banaji, M. (1995). Implicit cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102, 4–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Heilman, M. E. (1995). Sex stereotypes and their effects in the workplace: What we know and what we don’t know. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10, 3–26.Google Scholar
  4. Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 657–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Heilman, M. E., Martell, R. F., & Simon, M. C. (1988). The vagaries of sex bias: Conditions regulating the undervaluation, equivalence, and overvaluation of female job applicants. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41, 98–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kunda, Z., Davies, P., Adams, B., & Spencer, S. (2002). The dynamic time course of stereotype activation: Activation, dissipation, and resurrection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 283–299.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Mehl, M. R. (2005). Quantitative text analysis. In M. Eid & E. Diener (Eds.), Handbook of multimethod measurement in psychology (pp. 141–156). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  8. Nelson, D. (2005). A national analysis of diversity in science and engineering faculties at research universities. Retrieved January 15, 2007, from http://cheminfo.chem.ou.edu.
  9. Neuberg, S. L., & Fiske, S. T. (1987). Motivational influences on impression formation: Outcome dependency, accuracy-driven attention, and individuating processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 431–444.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Pennebaker, J. W., Francis, M. E., & Booth, R. J. (2001). Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count: LIWC2001. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  11. Poehlman, T. A., Uhlmann, E., Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (2007). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  12. Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (1999). Feminized management and backlash toward agentic women: The hidden costs to women of a kinder, gentler image of middle manager. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1004–1010.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. In L. L. Carli & A. H. Eagly (Eds.), Journal of Social Issues, 57, 743–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Trix, F., & Psenka C. (2003). Exploring the color of glass: letters of recommendation for female and male medical faculty. Discourse and Society, 14, 191–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Valian, V. (1998). Why so slow? The advancement of women. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Toni Schmader
    • 1
  • Jessica Whitehead
    • 1
  • Vicki H. Wysocki
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  2. 2.Department of ChemistryUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations