Job applicants' sex and marital status were manipulated in a paradigm in which a resume was evaluated. Personnel recruiters were role-played by 117 MBA students, each of whom evaluated one resume. An interaction of sex of recruiter × applicant's marital status was found in relation to interviewing the applicant and applicant's motivation to work. Male recruiters rated the applicant more favorably in each case. No significant effects of applicant's sex × marital status were found. Implications for management were discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArveyR. D.Fairness in selecting employees. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1979.
2.
BeehrT. A.GilmoreD. C.Applicant attractiveness as a perceived job-relevant variable in selection of management trainees. Academy of Management Journal, 1982, 25, 607–617.
3.
CashT. D.GillenB.BurnsD. S.Sexism and beautyism in personnel consultants' decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1977, 62, 301–310.
4.
CohenS. L.BunkerK. A.Subtle effects of sex role stereotypes on recruiter hiring decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 60, 566–572.
5.
DipboyeR. L.ArveyR. D.TerpstraD. E.Sex and physical attractiveness as determinants of resume evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1977, 62, 288–294.
6.
DipboyeR. L.FromkinH. L.WibackK.Relative importance of applicant sex, attractiveness, and scholastic standing in evaluation of job applicant resumes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 60, 39–43.
7.
FerrisG. R.GilmoreD. C.Effects of mode of information presentation, sex of applicant, and sex of interviewer on simulated interview decisions. Psychological Reports, 1977, 40, 566.
8.
KreftingL. A.BriefA. P.The impact of applicant disability on evaluative judgements in the selection process. Academy of Management Journal, 1976, 19, 675–680.
9.
LathamG.WexleyK.Increasing productivity through performance appraisal. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1981.
10.
MuchinskyP. M.HarrisS. L.The effect of applicant sex and scholastic standing in the evaluation of job applicant resumes in sex-typed occupations. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1977, 11, 95–108.
11.
NievaV. F.GutekB. G.Sex effects on evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 1980, 5, 267–276.
12.
O'LearyV.Some attitudinal barriers to the occupational aspirations in women. Psychological Bulletin, 1974, 81, 809–826.
13.
RenwickP. A.TosiH.The effects of sex, marital status, and educational background in selection decisions. Academy of Mangement Journal, 1978, 21, 93–103.
14.
RosenB.JerdeeT. H.Influence of sex role stereotypes on personnel decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1974, 59, 5–14.
15.
RosenB.JerdeeT. H.PrestwichT. L.Dual-career marital adjustment: Potential effects of discriminatory managerial attitudes. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1975, 37, 565–572.
16.
SarbinT. R.AllenV. L.Role theory. In LindzeyG.AronsonE. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology. (2nd ed.) Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1968. Pp. 488–567.
17.
ShawE. A.Differential impact of negative stereotyping in employee selection. Personnel Psychology, 1972, 25, 333–338.
18.
TaylorM. S.IlgenD. R.Sex discrimination against women in initial placement decisions: A laboratory investigation. Academy of Management Journal, 1981, 24, 859–865.
19.
TerborgJ. R.IlgenD. R.A theoretical approach to sex discrimination in traditionally masculine occupations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1975, 13, 352–376.
20.
ZikmundW. G.HittM. A.PickensB. A.Influence of sex and scholastic performance on reactions to job applicant resumes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1978, 63, 252–254.
