Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 583

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 172 of the 172 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A meta-analysis of gender stereotypes and bias in experimental simulations of employment decision making.

Koch, Amanda J., D'Mello, Susan D., Sackett, Paul R.·2015·Journal of Applied Psychology
DOI 10.1037/a0036734
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Gender bias continues to be a concern in many work settings, leading researchers to identify factors that influence workplace decisions. In this study we examine several of these factors, using an organizing framework of sex distribution within jobs (including male- and female-dominated jobs as well as sex-balanced, or integrated, jobs). We conducted random effects meta-analyses including 136 independent effect sizes from experimental studies (N = 22,348) and examined the effects of decision-maker gender, amount and content of information available to the decision maker, type of evaluation, and motivation to make careful decisions on gender bias in organizational decisions. We also examined study characteristics such as type of participant, publication year, and study design. Our findings revealed that men were preferred for male-dominated jobs (i.e., gender-role congruity bias), whereas no strong preference for either gender was found for female-dominated or integrated jobs. Second, male raters exhibited greater gender-role congruity bias than did female raters for male-dominated jobs. Third, gender-role congruity bias did not consistently decrease when decision makers were provided with additional information about those they were rating, but gender-role congruity bias was reduced when information clearly indicated high competence of those being evaluated. Fourth, gender-role congruity bias did not differ between decisions that required comparisons among ratees and decisions made about individual ratees. Fifth, decision makers who were motivated to make careful decisions tended to exhibit less gender-role congruity bias for male-dominated jobs. Finally, for male-dominated jobs, experienced professionals showed smaller gender-role congruity bias than did undergraduates or working adults.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0036734

Cites

172 of 172 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 172 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Koch, A. J., D'Mello, S. D., & Sackett, P. R.
Venue
Journal of Applied Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2015-01
Volume
100
Issue
1
Pages
128-161
ISSN
  • 0021-9010 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1854
DOI
10.1037/a0036734
OpenAlex
W1997439558
Cited by
583
References
172
FWCI
7.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.