The DOI matches its Crossref record; 22 of the 22 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Constructed Criteria: Redefining Merit to Justify Discrimination
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.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
The case for motivated reasoning.
Kunda, Z. (1990) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480 · Cited by 9,022
Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037//0033-295x.109.3.573 · Cited by 7,300
The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.70.3.491 · Cited by 5,202
Heilman, M. E. (2001) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00234 · Cited by 2,482
(1975) · Sociological Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0038022919750111 · Cited by 1,919
Prejudice, Discrimination and Racism
(2005) · Understanding Critical Social Psychology · doi:10.4135/9781446217566.n6 · Cited by 1,774
Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1986) · Cited by 1,374
The bias blind spot: perceptions of bias in self versus others
Pronin, E., Lin, D. Y., & Ross, L. (2002) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167202286008 · Cited by 1,289
New Directions in Attribution Research
(2018) · Psychology Press eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203780978 · Cited by 1,175
A hypothesis-confirming bias in labeling effects
Darley, J. M., & Gross, P. H. (1983) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.20 · Cited by 1,173
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- Armor D.A. (1998). The illusion of objectivity: Bias in the belief in freedom from bias . Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
- 10.1037/0022-3514.69.1.58 · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.69.1.58 · Paper page
- 10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573 · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.109.3.573 · Paper page
- 10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491 · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491 · Paper page
- 10.1037/0033-2909.113.1.140 · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.113.1.140 · Paper page
- Kunda Z., 1990, Psychological Review, 108, 480
- 10.1037/0022-3514.77.5.1004 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students
Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J. (2012) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1211286109 · Cited by 3,150
A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and achievement.
Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2007) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.82 · Cited by 2,163
Self-citationThe psychology of self-defense: Self-affirmation theory
Sherman, D. K., & Cohen, G. L. (2006) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(06)38004-5 · Cited by 1,614
Self-citationField Experiments on Discrimination
(2017) · Handbook of Economic Field Experiments · doi:10.1016/bs.hefe.2016.08.004 · Cited by 910
The Paradox of Meritocracy in Organizations
Castilla, E. J., & Benard, S. (2010) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2189/asqu.2010.55.4.543 · Cited by 783
Metadata
- Authors
- Uhlmann, E. L., & Cohen, G. L.
- Venue
- Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2005-06
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 474-480
- ISSN
- 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9280
- OpenAlex
- W2110912171
- Cited by
- 516
- References
- 22
- FWCI
- 30.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Constructed Criteria: Redefining Merit to Justify Discrimination. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01559.x
- The paper
- Uhlmann, E. L., & Cohen, G. L. (2005). Constructed Criteria: Redefining Merit to Justify Discrimination. Psychological Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01559.x
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.
