Literature DB >> 15943674

Constructed criteria: redefining merit to justify discrimination.

Ericluis Uhlmann1, Geoffrey L Cohen.   

Abstract

This article presents an account of job discrimination according to which people redefine merit in a manner congenial to the idiosyncratic credentials of individual applicants from desired groups. In three studies, participants assigned male and female applicants to gender-stereotypical jobs. However, they did not view male and female applicants as having different strengths and weaknesses. Instead, they redefined the criteria for success at the job as requiring the specific credentials that a candidate of the desired gender happened to have. Commitment to hiring criteria prior to disclosure of the applicant's gender eliminated discrimination, suggesting that bias in the construction of hiring criteria plays a causal role in discrimination.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15943674     DOI: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01559.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Sci        ISSN: 0956-7976


  31 in total

1.  Examining faculty awards for gender equity and evolving values.

Authors:  Stephanie Abbuhl; Mirar N Bristol; Hera Ashfaq; Patricia Scott; Lucy Wolf Tuton; Anne R Cappola; Seema S Sonnad
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2009-08-29       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 2.  Interventions that affect gender bias in hiring: a systematic review.

Authors:  Carol Isaac; Barbara Lee; Molly Carnes
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 6.893

3.  Sexist attitudes: Most of us are biased.

Authors:  Jennifer Raymond
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2013-03-07       Impact factor: 49.962

4.  Stuck in the out-group: Jennifer can't grow up, Jane's invisible, and Janet's over the hill.

Authors:  Anna Kaatz; Molly Carnes
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2014-05-20       Impact factor: 2.681

5.  Low agreement among reviewers evaluating the same NIH grant applications.

Authors:  Elizabeth L Pier; Markus Brauer; Amarette Filut; Anna Kaatz; Joshua Raclaw; Mitchell J Nathan; Cecilia E Ford; Molly Carnes
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2018-03-05       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Are Female Applicants Disadvantaged in National Institutes of Health Peer Review? Combining Algorithmic Text Mining and Qualitative Methods to Detect Evaluative Differences in R01 Reviewers' Critiques.

Authors:  Wairimu Magua; Xiaojin Zhu; Anupama Bhattacharya; Amarette Filut; Aaron Potvien; Renee Leatherberry; You-Geon Lee; Madeline Jens; Dastagiri Malikireddy; Molly Carnes; Anna Kaatz
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2017-03-10       Impact factor: 2.681

7.  Promoting Institutional Change Through Bias Literacy.

Authors:  Molly Carnes; Patricia G Devine; Carol Isaac; Linda Baier Manwell; Cecelia E Ford; Angela Byars-Winston; Eve Fine; Jennifer Thurik Sheridan
Journal:  J Divers High Educ       Date:  2012-01-19

8.  The effect of an intervention to break the gender bias habit for faculty at one institution: a cluster randomized, controlled trial.

Authors:  Molly Carnes; Patricia G Devine; Linda Baier Manwell; Angela Byars-Winston; Eve Fine; Cecilia E Ford; Patrick Forscher; Carol Isaac; Anna Kaatz; Wairimu Magua; Mari Palta; Jennifer Sheridan
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 6.893

9.  Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students.

Authors:  Corinne A Moss-Racusin; John F Dovidio; Victoria L Brescoll; Mark J Graham; Jo Handelsman
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2012-09-17       Impact factor: 11.205

10.  Patterns of Feedback on the Bridge to Independence: A Qualitative Thematic Analysis of NIH Mentored Career Development Award Application Critiques.

Authors:  Anna Kaatz; Melissa Dattalo; Caitlin Regner; Amarette Filut; Molly Carnes
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2015-09-29       Impact factor: 2.681

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.