Gender Issues

, Volume 33, Issue 1, pp 1–21 | Cite as

Hiring Decisions: The Effect of Evaluator Gender and Gender Stereotype Characteristics on the Evaluation of Job Applicants

  • Lindsay RiceEmail author
  • Joan M. Barth
Original Article


This study examined how the gender and gender stereotype characteristics of an evaluator influenced a hypothetical hiring decision, and the effects of automatically activating gender stereotypes prior to a hiring decision. One hundred and twenty-nine undergraduates (80 female) completed a priming manipulation that activated gender stereotype-congruent or stereotype-incongruent associations, followed by an evaluation of a male or female job applicant. Results indicated that the gender and masculinity of an evaluator were related to the evaluations. After stereotype-congruent priming, men rated male applicants higher than female applicants and men’s masculinity was associated with less favorable ratings. After stereotype-incongruent priming, male participants extended a more positive evaluation toward female applicants than when stereotype-congruent gender ideas were primed. Female participants were less affected by the priming and showed more egalitarian evaluations. Findings underscore the importance of having gender-balanced search committees and interventions that address implicit gender biases in hiring decisions.


Gender stereotypes Gender roles Hiring decisions Priming 


  1. 1.
    Abcarin, R. (2014). Is fired N.Y. Times editor Jill Abramson the new Lilly Ledbetter? The Los Angeles times.
  2. 2.
    Blair, I. V., & Banaji, M. R. (1996). Automatic and controlled processes in stereotype priming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(6), 1142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Banaji, M. R., & Hardin, C. D. (1996). Automatic stereotyping. Psychological Science, 7, 136–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beede, D., Julian, T., Langdon, D., McKittrick, G., Khan, B., & Doms, M. (2011). Women in STEM: A gender gap to innovation. Retrieved January 14, 2013 from
  5. 5.
    Bilimoria, D., & Burch, K. K. (2010). The Search is on: Engendering faculty diversity through more effective search and recruitment. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning. Retrieved July 8, 2014 from
  6. 6.
    Bosak, J., & Sczesny, S. (2008). Am I the right candidate? Self-ascribed fit of women and men to leadership positions. Sex Roles, 58, 682–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bosak, J., & Sczesny, S. (2011). Gender bias in leader selection? Evidence from a hiring simulation study. Sex Roles, 65, 234–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carli, L. L. (1990). Gender, language and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 941–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carli, L. L. (2001). Gender and social influence. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 725–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dasgupta, N., & Asgari, S. (2004). Seeing is believing: Exposure to counterstereotypic women leaders and its effect on the malleability of automatic gender stereotyping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(5), 642–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Davidson, H. K., & Burke, M. J. (2000). Sex discrimination is simulated employment contexts: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 225–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Davies, P. G., Spencer, S. J., & Steele, C. M. (2005). Clearing the air: identity safety moderates the effects of stereotype threat on women’s leadership aspirations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(2), 276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Devos, T., Blanco, K., Rico, F., & Dunn, R. (2008). The role of parenthood and college education in the self-concept of college students: Explicit and implicit assessments of gendered aspirations. Sex Roles, 59, 214–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Diekman, A. B., Brown, E. R., Johnston, A. M., & Clark, E. K. (2010). Seeking congruity between goals and roles: A new look at why women opt out of STEM careers. Psychological Science, 21, 1051–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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, 1171–1188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Diekman, A. B., & Eagly, A. H. (2008). Of men women and motivation: A role congruity account. In J. Y. Shah & W. L. Gardner (Eds.), Handbook of motivation science (pp. 434–447). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Eagly, A. H., & Sczesny, S. (2009). Stereotypes about women, men and leaders: Have times changed? In M. Baretto, M. Ryan, & M. Scmidtt (Eds.), Barriers to diversity: The glass ceiling after 20 years (pp. 21–47). Washington, DC: APA Books.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(4), 735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Foschi, M. (2000). Double standards for competence: Theory and research. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 21–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1999). Sexism and other “isms”: Interdependence, status, and the ambivalent content of stereotypes. In W. B. Swann, J. H. Langiois, & L. A. Gilbert (Eds.), Sexism and stereotypes in modern society: The gender science of James Taylor Spence (pp. 193–211). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s assent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 657–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Heilman, M. E., Wallen, A. S., Fuchs, D., & Tamkins, M. M. (2004). Penalities for success: Reactions to men and women who succeed at male-gendered typed tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 416–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Jacobs, J. A. (1993). Men in female-dominated fields. Doing ‘women’s work’: Men in nontraditional occupations.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Koenig, A. M., Eagly, A. H., Mitchell, A. A., & Ristikari, T. (2011). Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological Bulletin, 137(4), 616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Milkman, K. L., Akinola, M., & Chugh, D. (2014). What happens before? A field experiment exploring how pay and representation differentially shape bias on the pathway into organizations. Social science research network. Retrieved from
  27. 27.
    Miller, C. C. (2014). Google releases employee data, illustrating tech’s diversity challenge. The New York Times. Retrieved from
  28. 28.
    National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine: Committee on Maximizing the Potential of Women in Academic Science and Engineering; Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. (2007). Beyond bias and barriers: Fulfilling the potential of women in academic science and engineering. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    National Research Council: Committee on Gender Differences in the Careers of Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Faculty; Committee on Women in Science, Engineering, and Medicine. (2010). Gender differences at critical transitions in the careers of science, engineering, and mathematics faculty. Washington DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2002). Math = male, me = female, therefore math ≠ me. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(1), 44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pedhazur, E. J., & Pedhazur Schmelkin, L. (1991). Exploratory factor analysis. Measurement, Design and Analysis: An integrated approach, pp. 590–630.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Phelan, J. E., Moss-Racusin, C. A., & Rudman, L. A. (2008). Competent yet out in the cold: Shifting hiring criteria reflects backlash toward agentic women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 406–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 743–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rudman, L. A., & Goodwin, S. A. (2004). Gender differences in automatic in group bias: Why do women like women more than men like men? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 494–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rudman, L. A., Greenwald, A. G., & McGhee, D. E. (2001). Implicit self-concept and evaluative implicit gender stereotypes: Self and in group share desirable traits. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1164–1178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rudman, L. A., & Phelan, J. E. (2010). The effect of priming gender roles on women’s implicit gender beliefs and career aspirations. Social Psychology, 41(3), 192–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Spence, J. T., & Buckner, C. E. (2000). Instrumental and expressive traits, trait stereotypes, and sexist attitudes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 2, 993–1007.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Steinpreis, R., Anders, K., & Ritzke, D. (1999). The impact of gender on the review of the curricula vitae of job applicants and tenure candidates: A national empirical study. Sex Roles, 41, 509–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Experimental designs using ANOVA. Thomson/Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Valian, V. (2004). Beyond gender schemas: Improving the advancement of women in academia. National Women’s Studies Association Journal, 16, 207–220.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Women in Science and Engineering Leadership Institute (retrieved 7/8/14). Breaking the Bias Habit: Retaining and advancing excellent faculty through bias literacy. Retrieved On July 8, 2014 from

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Psychology DepartmentThe CitadelCharlestonUSA
  2. 2.Institute for Social Science ResearchUniversity of AlabamaTuscaloosaUSA

Personalised recommendations