The DOI matches its Crossref record; 52 of the 52 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
When Performance Trumps Gender Bias: Joint vs. Separate Evaluation
Abstract
Gender bias in the evaluation of job candidates has been demonstrated in business, government, and academia, yet little is known about how to overcome it. Blind evaluation procedures have been proven to significantly increase the likelihood that women musicians are chosen for orchestras, and they are employed by a few companies. We examine a new intervention to overcome gender bias in hiring, promotion, and job assignments: an “evaluation nudge” in which people are evaluated jointly rather than separately regarding their future performance. Evaluators are more likely to base their decisions on individual performance in joint than in separate evaluation and on group stereotypes in separate than in joint evaluation, making joint evaluation the profit-maximizing evaluation procedure. Our work is inspired by findings in behavioral decision research suggesting that people make more reasoned choices when examining options jointly rather than separately and is compatible with a behavioral model of information processing. Data, as supplemental material, are available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2186 . This paper was accepted by Uri Gneezy, behavioral economics.
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
Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness
(2008) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.46-0977 · Cited by 11,572
z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments
Fischbacher, U. (2007) · Experimental Economics · doi:10.1007/s10683-006-9159-4 · Cited by 9,510
Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464 · Cited by 9,210
Statistical Decision Theory and Bayesian Analysis
Berger, J. O. (1985) · Springer Series in Statistics · doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-4286-2 · Cited by 7,722
Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects
Holt, C. A., & Laury, S. K. (2002) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/000282802762024700 · Cited by 5,939
Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness
Adkisson, R. V. (2008) · The Social Science Journal · doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2008.09.003 · Cited by 5,543
Stigler, G. J. (1961) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/258464 · Cited by 5,155
Stigler, G. J. (1976) · Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-51565-1_86 · Cited by 3,287
Do Women Shy Away From Competition? Do Men Compete Too Much?
Niederle, M., & Vesterlund, L. (2007) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/qjec.122.3.1067 · Cited by 3,186
Harrison, A., Robinson, C., Ashenfelter, O., & Layard, R. (1989) · The Canadian Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/135687 · Cited by 3,153
Cited by
Gender Bias in Teaching Evaluations
Mengel, F., Sauermann, J., & Zölitz, U. (2019) · Journal of the European Economic Association · doi:10.1093/jeea/jvx057 · Cited by 401
Does the Gender Composition of Scientific Committees Matter?
Bagues, M., Sylos-Labini, M., & Zinovyeva, N. (2017) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.20151211 · Cited by 281
Algorithmic monoculture and social welfare
(2023) · The Societal Impacts of Algorithmic Decision-Making · doi:10.1145/3603195.3603202
Metadata
- Authors
- Bohnet, I., van Geen, A., & Bazerman, M.
- Venue
- Management Science
- Published
- 2016-05
- Volume
- 62
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1225-1234
- ISSN
- 0025-1909 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5501
- OpenAlex
- W1894997507
- Cited by
- 270
- References
- 52
- FWCI
- 39.44
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: When Performance Trumps Gender Bias: Joint vs. Separate Evaluation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2186
- The paper
- Bohnet, I., van Geen, A., & Bazerman, M. (2016). When Performance Trumps Gender Bias: Joint vs. Separate Evaluation. Management Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2015.2186
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.