Skip to main content

The Effects of the Structured Interview on Reducing Biases Against Pregnant Job Applicants

Abstract

Some research has been conducted on the discrimination faced by pregnant women in the workplace. Few studies, however, have specifically investigated how this bias is manifested in employment or hiring decisions. The current study was designed to examine possible bias during structured interviews. Participants watched a videotaped scenario in which candidates were interviewed for a job. The 2 × 2 × 2 experimental conditions were varied to represent a structured or an unstructured interview, a pregnant or nonpregnant interviewee, and the open position of either a high school teacher or sales representative. Results indicate an overall bias against pregnant women and suggested that the structured interview reduces this bias.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

REFERENCES

  • Arvey, R. D., & Campion, J. E. (1982). The employment interview: A summary and review of recent research. Personnel Psychology, 35, 281-322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bistline, S. M. (1985). Make room for baby. Association Management, 37(5), 96-98, 100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brett, M. R. (1997). Pregnant pauses. Office Systems, 14, 48-49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butensky, M. (1984). Devaluation of the competence of pregnant women: Does the spread phenomenon that operates with disabilities also occur with pregnancy? Dissertation Abstracts International, 45(02), 718, B.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campion, M. A., Campion, J. E., & Hudson, J. P. (1994). Structured interviewing: A note on incremental validity and alternative question types. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 998-1002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campion, M. A., Palmer, D. K., & Campion, J. E. (1997). A review of structure in the selection interview. Personnel Psychology, 79, 655-702.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campion, M. A., Pursell, E. D., & Brown, B. K. (1988). Structured interviewing: Raising the psychometric properties of the employment interview. Personnel Psychology, 41, 25-42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conway, J. M., Jako, R. A., & Goodman, D. F. (1995). A meta-analysis of interrater and internal consistency reliability of selection interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 565-579.

    Google Scholar 

  • Desai, S., & Waite, L. J. (1991). Women's employment during pregnancy and after the first birth: Occupational characteristics and work commitment. American Sociological Review, 56, 551-566.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dipboye, R. L. (1992). Selection interviews: Process perspectives. Cincinatti, OH: Southwestern.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, M. E. (1996). Pregnancy discrimination litigation: Legal erosion of capitalist ideology under equal unemployment opportunity law. Social Forces, 75, 247-268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, M. A., & Rosen, L. (1997). Pregnancy planning and the impact on work climate, psychological well-being, and work effort in the military. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 2, 353-361.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fay, C. H., & Latham, G. P. (1982). Effect of training and rating scales on rating errors. Personnel Psychology, 35, 105-116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, P. J. (1997). The roles of socioeconomic status and ethnicity in psychosocial processes during pregnancy. Dissertation Abstracts International, 57(8B), 5387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franco, K., Evans, C., Best, A., Zrull, J., & Pizza, G. (1983). Conflicts associated with physicians' pregnancies. American Journal of Psychiatry, 140, 902-904.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franklin-Cannon, D. (1998). Better understanding of impact of work interferences on organizational commitment. Marriage and Family Reivew, 28, 153-166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gercken, G. E. (1996, November). Five steps to more effective interviewing. Training and Development, 11-12.

  • Graves, L. M., & Karren, R. J. (1996). The employee selection interview: A fresh look at an old problem. Human Resource Management, 35, 163-180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gueutal, H. G., & Taylor, E. M. (1991). Employee pregnancy: The impact on organizations, pregnant employees, and co-workers. Journal of Business and Psychology, 5, 459-475.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halpert, J. A., & Burg, J. H. (1997). Mixed messages: Co-workers responses to the pregnant employee. Journal of Business and Psychology, 12, 241-253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halpert, J. A., Wilson, M. L., & Hickman, J. L. (1993). Pregnancy as a source of bias in performance appraisals. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 649-663.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, M. M. (1989). Reconsidering the employment interview: A review of recent literature and suggestions for future research. Personnel Psychology, 42, 691-726.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howard, J. L., & Ferris, G. R. (1996). The employment interview context: Social and situational influence on interviewer decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 112-136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huffcut, A. I., & Arthur, W. (1994). Hunter and Hunter (1984) revisited: Interview validity for entry-level jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 184-190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, J. E., & Hunter, R. F. (1984). Validity and utility of alternative predictors of job performance. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 72-98.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janz, T. (1982). Initial comparisons of patterned behavior description interviews versus unstructured interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 577-580.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klerman, J. A., & Leibowitz, A. (1994). The work-employment distinction among new mothers. Journal of Human Resources, 29, 277-303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kutcher, E. J., & Bragger, J. D. (1999, May). Selection interviews of overweight job applicants: Can structure reduce the bias? Poster presented at the meeting of the Society for Industrial Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, GA.

  • Latham, G. P., Saari, L. M., Pursell, E. D., & Campion, M. A. (1980). The situational interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 65, 422-427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyness, K. S. (1999). Work and pregnancy: Individual and organizational factors influencing organizational commitment, timing of maternity leave, and return to work. Sex Roles, 41, 485-508.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maurer, S. D., & Fay, C. (1988). Effect of situational interviews, conventional structured interviews, and training on interview rating agreement: An experimental analysis. Personnel Psychology, 41, 329-347.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDaniel, M. A., Whetzel, D. L., Schmidt, F. L., & Maurer, S. D. (1994). The validity of employment interviews: A comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 599-616.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, M. W., & Seres, J. J. (1987, June). Using scorable interview “tests” in hiring. Personnel, 57-60.

  • Motowidlo, S. J., Carter, G. W., Dunnette, M. D., Tippins, N., Werner, S., Burnett, J. R., & Vaughan, M. J. (1992). Studies of the structured behavioral interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 5, 571-587.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pulakos, E. D., & Schmitt, N. (1995). Experience-based and situational interview questions: Studies of validity. Personnel Psychology, 48, 289-308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singer, M., & Bruhns, C. (1991). Relative effect of applicant work experience and academic qualification on selection interview decisions: Astudy of between-sample generalizability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 550-559.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suiss, D. J. (1996). Women breaking through: Overcoming the final 10 obstacles at work. Princeton, NJ: Peterson's Pacesetter Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, S. E., & Langer, E. J. (1977). Pregnancy: A social stigma? Sex Roles, 3, 27-35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, C. A., Beauvais, L. L., & Lyness, K. S. (1999). When work-family benefits are not enough: The influence of work-family culture on benefit utilization, organizational attachment, and work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 392-415.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Labor, Employment, and Training Administration. (1991). Dictionary of occupational titles (4th ed.). Lanham, MD: Bernan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weekley, J. A., & Gier, J. A. (1987). Reliability and validity of the situational interview for a sales position. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 484-487.

    Google Scholar 

  • Werbal, J. (1998). Intent and choice regarding maternal employ-ment following childbirth. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 53, 372-385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiesner, W. H., & Cronshaw, S. F. (1989). A meta-analysis investigation of the impact of interview format and degree of structure on the validity of the employment interview. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 61, 275-290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, L. G., Campion, J. E., Malos, S. B., Roehling, M. V., & Campion, M. A. (1997). Employment interview on trial: Linking interview structure with litigation outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 900-912.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, P. M., Lichtenfels, P. A., & Pursell, E. D. (1989). The structured interview: Additional studies and a meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62, 191-199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zack, J. (1996, September). Making the right hire: Behavioral interviewing. Tax Advisor, 570-573.

  • Zedeck, S., Tziner, A., & Middlestadt, S. (1983). Interview validity and reliability: An individual analysis approach. Personnel Psychology, 36, 355-370.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bragger, J.D., Kutcher, E., Morgan, J. et al. The Effects of the Structured Interview on Reducing Biases Against Pregnant Job Applicants. Sex Roles 46, 215–226 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019967231059

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019967231059

  • pregnant women
  • discrimination
  • bias
  • hiring decisions