the effect of applicant sex and scholastic standing on the evaluation of job applicant resumes in...

Journal of Vocational Behavior 11, 95-108 (1977)

The Effect of Applicant Sex and Scholastic Standing on the Evaluation of

Job Applicant Resumes in Sex-Typed Occupations

PAUL M. MUCHINSKY AND SHARON L. HARRIS

lonta State University

The purpose of this study was to examine sex discrimination in three occupa-

tions. Male and female applicants were evaluated for suitability in a managerial role for a predominately female occupation. a predominately male occupation,

and a sexually mixed occupation. The academic qualifications of the applicants

were systematically varied to be either high, average, or low. Discrimination on

the basis of sex was evidenced for all three occupations involving applicants

of average scholastic qualifications. Attitudes toward women in management

were found to be correlated with the suitability ratings. but the correlations were

greatly moderated by the sex of the rater. While some of the hypotheses were con-

firmed, the results support previous research in sex discrimination (Terborg & Ilgen, 1975).

While there is ample evidence that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 has facilitated the employment selection of racial minorities, less favorable results have occurred for women. A U. S. Department of Labor (1974) report indicates that there has been only a 1.8% increase in the professional employment of women in the 1964-1974 time period. In particular, women are grossly under-represented in managerial/administrative positions.

Several studies have examined the dispositions of individuals toward females in managerial positions. Cecil, Paul, and Olins (1973) studied the evaluation of male and female job applicants and found that different personal characteristics were seen as more important depending upon the sex of the applicant. Those qualities seen as most important for the female applicants were related to clerical duties, whereas the qualities of male applicants which received the greatest consideration were related to supervisory duties. Studies which focus on comparing the evaluations of males and females possessing equal qualifications consistently find that women are evaluated as less suitable than men for managerial positions (Dipboye, Fromkin, & Wiback, 197.5; Rosen & Jerdee, 1974; Terborg &

Address reprint requests to Paul M. Muchinsky, Department of Psychology. Iowa State

University. Ames. Iowa 5001 I.

95 Copyright @ 1977 by Academic Press. Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. ISSN 0001-8791

96 MUCHINSKY AND HARRIS

Ilgen, 1975). Sex discrimination has been evidenced not only in the decision to hire an applicant for a managerial position, but also in personnel decisions affecting females after they are hired. For example, Terborg and Ilgen ( 1975) found that women in management positions are discriminated against in regard to salary and assignment of tasks, and studies by Day and Stogdill (1972) and Rosen and Jerdee (1974) have shown discrimination in the promotion of female managers.

However, some studies have shown that ratings of male and female applicants are influenced by the type of job in question. That is, females receive more favorable ratings for jobs that are predominated by females, and males receive more favorable ratings for jobs that are predominated by males. These studies offer support for the concept of sex-role occupational stereotypes. For example, Cohen and Bunker (1975) reported that female applicants were disproportionately more acceptable for an edito- rial assistant position (a predominately female job). while male applicants were disproportionately more acceptable for a personnel technician position (a predominately male job). Similarly, Feather (1975) reported that males and females were judged to be more happy and more likely to attain success in jobs that are congruent with sex-role occupational stereotypes.

While studies that demonstrate the existence of sex-role occupational stereotypes serve to substantiate social perceptions, they do not in them- selves demonstrate sex discrimination (Ilgen & Terborg, 1975). Discrimi- nation occurs when people have equal qualifications but unequal prob- abilities of being hired (Guion. 1966). Many employers use indices of academic achievement to evaluate an applicant’s qualifications, and several studies (Dipboye et al., 1975; Landy & Bates, 1973: Hakel, Ohnesorge, & Dunnette. 1970: Wexley, Yukl. Kovacs, & Sanders. 1972) have demonstrated that very fine differentiations can be made between applicants with such information. Cohen and Bunker (1975) included some information about academic achievement in their study, but did not systematically vary the applicants’ qualifications via this means.

We were interested in integrating the findings from research in several areas. First, from several social psychology studies (e.g., Feather & Simon, 1975) we wished to examine three types of jobs: a male sex-role job; a female sex-role job: and a mixed job, one which was neither predominately male nor female. Secondly, we wished to examine the level of academic achievement of both male and female applicants. Since indices of academic achievement are commonly used in personnel selection, this represented a variable with considerable external validity. De- spite much research which has shown a clear main effect for applicant sex in personnel selection (e.g., males are judged superior to females), we hypothesized that the applicant’s sex, scholastic standing, and the type of job would interact in applicant ratings of employment suitability. That is, we hypothesized that a female applying for a male sex-typed occupation

APPLICANT SEX AND SCHOLASTIC STANDING 97

would be perceived less favorably than a male applying for the same position even though both applicants possessed equal qualifications. In short, we hypothesized that Guion’s (1966) definition of discrimination (individuals with equal qualifications having unequal probability of getting hired) would prevail. Although there is little empirical research to justify the following hypothesis, we also predicted that a male applying for a female sex-typed occupation would be perceived less favorably than a female applying for the same position. While Cohen and Bunker (1975) demonstrated some support for this effect for lower level jobs, we hypothesized that the effect would also hold for managerial positions, a role for which females have been consistently devalued. Specifically, the following predictions were made:

(1) Male applicants would be preferred over female applicants for a managerial position in a male sex-typed occupation.

(2) Female applicants would be preferred over male applicants for a managerial position in a female sex-typed occupation.

(3) Male and female applicants would be judged comparable for a managerial position in a non sex-typed occupation.

Finally, we were interested in examining the ratings given to male and female applicants as a function of the sex of the rater. While several studies (Dipboye et al., 1975; Hakel, Ohnesorge, & Dunnette, 1970: Landy & Bates, 1973) have shown no difference in applicant suitability ratings between professional interviewers and college students. we wished to examine if the sex of the rater would interact with the other variables. In particular, we hypothesized that an individual’s attitudes toward women in a managerial position would be related to the rating given to females applying for a managerial position. Terborg and Ilgen (1975) reported that attitudes toward women in management and ratings of women in management were significantly related, based upon a sample of male raters. On the basis of their results, we hypothesized that attitudes toward women and subsequent behavior (ratings) would be related for both male and female raters.

Subjects METHOD

Subjects were 50 male and 50 female students enrolled in an introduc- tory psychology course at a large midwestern university. The subjects received experimental credit for their participation in the study. It is certainly possible to question the ability to generalize the findings from studies that use college students as interviewers or raters. Bernstein, Hakel, and Harlan (1975) have reviewed several studies that compared the ratings given by both professional employment interviewers and college students. Bernstein et al. (1975) reported that, while college students gave more lenient ratings, the two types of raters were comparable with


respect to variances, intercorrelations, interrater agreement, and the main effects of decision process, content, and accuracy. While one cannot routinely assume generalizability of college student ratings, the prevailing evidence on this topic suggests that college students are not an unrepre- sentative sample of raters.

Procedure

The experimental task was designed to be compatible with the employment interviewing practice of screening applicants’ resumes prior to a job interview (Hakel, Ohnesorge, & Dunnette, 1970). Each applicant was presented with three packets of eight job resumes. Several pieces of information were held constant on all resumes including the applicant’s age, health, marital status, etc. In addition, each applicant was listed as having an academic minor in business administration. Three dimensions of the applicants’ resumes were systematically varied: sex, scholastic standing, and academic major. The applicant’s sex was revealed by the applicant’s name and the designation of “male” or “female” on the resume. Three levels of scholastic standing (high, average, or low) were manipulated by the applicant’s college class rank (top lO%, top 25%, or bottom Xl%), grade point average in major (3.55-3.45, 3.05-2.95, or 2.55-2.45), and total college grade point average (3.55-3.45,3.05-2.95, or 2.55-2.45). The high scholastic standing applicant was high on all three of these items; the average applicant was average on all three, etc. The applicants received their bachelor’s degree in one of three majors: mechanical engineering; child development; or journalism. Each packet of resumes contained applicants with the same major. Three job descrip- tions were presented to the subjects which described the job for which the three types of applicants (by major) were being considered. The mechanical engineering majors were applying for a job as a management trainee in the field of mechanical engineering. The job was described as one in which the individual should have a firm grasp of the field of mechanical engineering and would be trained to eventually assume the management of a team of mechanical engineers. The child development majors were applying for a job as an assistant director of a child day-care center. The job was described as one in which the individual should have a broad background in the field of child development and would be trained to eventually assume the overall supervision of approximately 120 children in a day-care center. The journalism majors were applying for a job as an assistant copy editor for a city newspaper. The job was described as one in which the individual should have solid competence in the field of journalism and would be trained to eventually assume the editorship of the domestic news department of a city newspaper. In addition to the specific knowledge and skills required of the applicant, each job descrip- tion clearly stipulated the managerial/supervisory nature of the job in question.


As a manipulation check of the sex-typing in the three jobs, a sample of 40 subjects rated the degree of perceived sex-typing in the three jobs. The mechanical engineering job was rated to be significantly (p < .OOOl) more masculine than feminine, and the child day-care center job was rated to be significantly @ < .OOOl) more feminine than masculine. The assistant copy editor job was rated to be more masculine than feminine, but the difference was not statistically significant (p < .lO). Thus the manipulation check indicated that the jobs were perceived in the manner intended in the experimental design.

For each job, the manipulation of the information on the resumes resulted in six applicants (3 levels of scholastic standing, 2 levels of sex). To facilitate disguising the manipulation, two additional applicants were included for each job. These “bogus” applicants were both of average scholastic standing, and were always placed in the first and second position within each packet of resumes to minimize any contrast effects with the “valid” resumes. The evaluation of these resumes was not included in the data analysis. Thus, while a total of 24 resumes were evaluated by all subjects, evaluations on only 18 resumes were analyzed. The order of presentation of the six “valid” resumes was randomized within each packet.

The dependent variable was a rating on a 20-point scale adapted from Hakel, Dobmeyer, and Dunnette (1970) to measure the strength of the interviewer’s recommendation about hiring the applicant. The higher the rating, the stronger the recommendation to hire.

Following completion of the resume evaluation, each subject com- pleted the Women as Managers Scale (WAMS) (Peters, Terborg, & Taynor, 1974), a 21-item Like&type scale which measures stereotypes toward females in supervisory/administrative positions. The internal con- sistency reliability of this questionnaire has been reported to be .91 (Peters et al., 1974).

Statistical Analyses

A 2 x 2 x 3 x 3 (Sex of Rater x Sex of Applicant x Scholastic Standing x Job Type) analysis of variance with repeated measures on the last three factors was performed on the ratings. Since we were interested in comparing means only from certain conditions, post hoc analyses were performed using Dunn’s test (Keppel, 1973, pp. 147-149). Scores on the WAMS were correlated with the suitability ratings given to the female applicants for each of the three jobs.

RESULTS

The results from the analysis of variance are shown in Table 1. All four main effects were significant (p < .025 or greater) and seven interaction effects were significant (p < .05 or greater). Female raters gave significantly @ < .025) higher suitability ratings to the applicants than did male

100

Source

MUCHINSKY AND HARRIS

TABLE 1 Analysis of Variance of Subjects’ Ratings

df MS F P

Between groups 99 Rater sex (A) I

Error 98 Within groups 1700

Job type (B) 2 AxB 2

Error 196 Applicant sex (C) 1 AxC I

Error 98 Scholastic standing (D) 2 AxD 2

Error 196 BxC 2 AxBxC 2

Error 196 BxD 4 AxBxD 4

Error 392 CxD 2 AxBxD 2

Error 196 BxCxD 4 AxBxCxD 4

Error 392 Total 1799

563.36 83.20

13.66 2.41 3.95

20.27 7.35 1.78

6783.78 .77

25.56 106.89 14.82 3.32

14.75 5.93 2.42

13.09 3.29 1.74

12.06 1.82 1.82

6.77 c.025

3.46 C.025 .6l ns

Il.36 <.OOl 4.12 <.05

256.39 <.OOOl .03 ns

32.17 <.OOOl 4.46 c.025

6.08 2.45

7.54 <.OOl 1.89 ns

6.62 1.00

<.OOl <.05

<.OOl ns

raters. Applicants for the day-care center job received significantly (p < .025) higher ratings than did applicants for the mechanical engineering job. Female applicants received significantly (p < 401) higher suitability ratings than did male applicants. Applicants of high scholastic standing received significantly (p < .OOOl) higher ratings than average and low scholastic standing applicants, and average scholastic standing applicants received significantly (p < .OOO 1) higher ratings than low scholastic standing applicants.

Four two-way interactions were significant: Sex of Rater by Sex of Applicant (p < .05); Job Type by Scholastic Standing (p < 301); Sex of Applicant by Scholastic Standing (p < 301); and Job Type by Applicant Sex (p < 3001). Three three-way interactions were significant: Sex of Rater by Job Type by Sex of Applicant (p < .025); Sex of Rater by Job Type by Scholastic Standing (p < .05); and Sex of Applicant by Job Type by Scholastic Standing (p < .OOl).

The means and standard deviations of the Sex of Applicant by Sex of Rater by Job Type interaction are shown in Table 2. Post hoc analyses


TABLE 2 Means and Standard Deviations of Suitability Ratings by

Applicant Sex, Rater Sex, and Job TypeRsb

Management Assistant Assistant Trainee Mechanical Director Child Copy Editor

Engineering Day-Care Center City Newspaper

Sex of rater Male Female Male Female Male Female

Male 14.19 14.09 13.95 + 15.15 14.85 14.01 (4.37) (4.36) (4.19) (3.78) (4.20) (4.24)

1 J 1 Female 15.01 15.76 15.15 15.94 15.81 15.28

(4.27) (4.16) (4.22) (3.63) (3.75) (4.15)

=n = 150. b Standard deviations are listed in parentheses. Note. Arrows indicate significant (p < .Ol) differences between means.

(Dunn’s test) revealed that male raters gave significantly (p < .Ol) higher ratings to female applicants for the day-care center job than male applicants. Female applicants for the mechanical engineering and copy editor jobs received significantly (p < .Ol) higher ratings from female raters than from male raters. Male applicants for the day-care center job received significantly (p < .Ol) higher ratings from female raters than from male raters.

The means and standard deviations of the Sex of Applicant by Scholas- tic Standing by Job Type interaction are shown in Table 3. Post hoc

TABLE 3 Means and Standard Deviations of Suitability Ratings of Applicants by

Applicant Sex, Scholastic Standing. and Job Type”.b

Scholastic standing

Management Assistant Trainee Mechanical Director Child

Engineering Day-Care Center

Male Female Male Female

Assistant Copy Editor

City Newspaper

Male Female

High 18.22 17.95 17.74 18.14 18.41 17.91 (2.32) (2.59) (3.04) (2.17) (2.23) (2.70)

Average 14.95 --j 15.67 14.66 + 16.28 15.80 + 14.76 (2.88) (2.88) (2.91) (2.29) (2.44) (2.79)

Low 10.62 II.15 II.25 + 12.21 Il.71 11.26 (3.93) (4.20) (3.93) (3.66) (3.79) (4. I I)

on = 100. b Standard deviations are listed in parentheses. Nore. Arrows indicate significant (p < .Ol) differences between means (all differences

between scholastic standing levels were significant (p < .Ol)).


analyses revealed that females of average and low scholastic standing applying for the day-care center job received significantly (p < .Ol) higher ratings than their male counterparts. Females of average scholastic standing applying for the mechanical engineering job received significantly @ < .Ol) higher ratings than male applicants of average scholastic standing. Lastly, males of average scholastic standing applying for the assistant copy editor job received significantly (p < .Ol) higher ratings than female applicants of average scholastic standing. The means reported in Table 3 are presented graphically in Fig. 1.

- MALE APPLICANTS --- FEMALE APPLICANTS

20 r r

LOW AVG. HIGH LOW AVG. HIGH

SCHOLASTIC STANDING SCHOLASTIC STANDING

r

I I LOW AVG. HIGH

SCHOLASTIC STANDING

MECHANICAL ENGINEERING CHILD DAY-CARE CENTER

ASSISTANT COPY EDITOR

FIG. I. Applicant Sex x Scholastic Standing interaction for three jobs.

DISCUSSION

The results revealed mixed support for our hypotheses and raised some intriguing questions about discrimination and sex-role stereotypes. We predicted that females would be rated more suitable than males for the job of an assistant director of a child day-care center, even though the females and males had equivalent academic qualifications. Our predictions were confirmed for two levels of academic achievement, with females being rated significantly more suitable than males at the low and average levels of academic achievement. Females were also rated to be more suitable than males at the high level of academic achievement, but the difference was not statistically significant.

We predicted that males would be rated more suitable than females for the job of a management trainee in mechanical engineering, even though the males and females had equivalent academic qualification. These predictions were not confirmed. There were no significant differences between male and female applicants at the low and high levels of academic achievement, and females were rated to be significantly more suitable than males at the average level of academic achievement (the opposite of what was predicted).


There are at least three (interrelated) explanations for the results obtained for these two jobs. The first explanation is that traditionally mechanical engineering has been perceived to be a “harder”, more demanding academic major than the area of child development. That is, traditionally masculine academic majors have been perceived to be more difficult than traditionally female academic majors. Females who apply for a traditionally male job may be perceived as having excelled in a difficult academic area. Their unusual (atypical) prowess may be perceived as especially commendable and noteworthy, to the point that females are judged comparable (and in one case superior) to males in this area. That is, people may judge females who enter and succeed in traditionally masculine areas to possess extraordinary capabilities, which in turn would result in their positive evaluations. On the other hand, child development is traditionally perceived as a “softer”, less demanding academic major. Females who enter and succeed in this area may be perceived to be performing at their own stereotypical level of competence. Males, on the other hand, may be perceived as entering somewhat of a demeaning position for males, and are not judged to be as suitable for employment. Holland (1973) has presented evidence documenting the stereotypes of academic majors, and his work is supportive of this type of explanation. There is some empirical evidence which indirectly addresses this issue in the present study. The average suitability rating for the mechanical engineering job was 14.76, while the average suitability rating for the child day-care center job was 15.05, a statistically significant @ < .025) difference. One interpretation of this difference may be that the day-care center job is perceived to be easier than the mechanical engineering job since the mean suitability rating was significantly higher for the former (e.g., it is easier to be suitable for a less demanding job).

The second explanation has its basis in social congruity theory. Tradi- tionally female jobs have less status and power than male jobs. Females applying for female jobs have less status and power than males. Females applying for female jobs are congruent. Females are doing the best that can be expected or desired of them. However, males traditionally have higher status and more power than females. When a male applies for a “female” job, he loses status and is rated lower. Conversely, females applying for a “male” job gain status, and thus receive a higher rating. Research from social psychology (e.g., Feather, 1975; Feather & Simon, 1975) is most supportive of this type of explanation.

Lastly, there may be a general effect associated with considering females for traditionally masculine jobs. Due to the impact of Affirmative Action programs, the popular media’s presentation of Women’s Lib, etc., it may be socially desirable to evaluate females more positively than males, since, historically, females have been the victims of sex discrimination. While the law prohibits sex discrimination in either direction. far


more attention has been given to females entering traditionally masculine vocations than vice versa. Whatever the reason(s) for the results, it is evident that on the basis of sex alone, applicants with equal qualifications in all cases did not have equal chances for selection, a statement reflecting Guion’s (1966) definition of discrimination.

In regard to the third job, it was predicted that males and females should receive comparable ratings. Our predictions were confirmed for the low and high levels of scholastic standing, however males were rated to be significantly more suitable than females of average scholastic standing for the job of an assistant copy editor. The explanation for this finding may be that while journalism as an academic major is empirically popu- lated by both males and females, the profession of journalism may be perceived as a predominantly male occupation. This explanation lacks empirical support in the present study however, as the job of an assistant copy editor was rated to be a non-sex-typed position. Another related explanation may be that while males and females have equal qualifications and both are applying for a traditionally non-sex-typed profession, managerial roles are traditionally masculine in nature. That is, while the profession may not be sex-typed, the particular role of a manager is sex-typed. Thus, males are apt to be more suitable managers than females, ceteris paribus.

A particularly noteworthy finding from this study concerns the particular level of academic achievement where discrimination (e.g., one sex being rated significantly more suitable than the other given equal qualifications) was evidenced. For all three jobs significant differences were obtained between males and females of a\-erage scholastic standing. Conversely, no significant differences occurred between applicants of high scholastic standing, and no significant differences occurred between applicants of low scholastic standing in two of the three jobs. Perhaps sex discrimination is more likely when judges operate under the greatest amount of uncertainty. That is. applicants who possess patently superior qualifications will be judged comparably suitable for employment regard- less of their sex and the degree of sex-typing in the job. Similarly. applicants who possess low qualifications will be judged comparably unsuitable for employment. However, when the applicant possesses average qualifications. being perceived as neither a “shoo-in” nor a “dud”, the judgment of raters will become more influenced by factors extraneous to the applicant’s qualifications, such as stereotypical impressions in- duced by the nature of the profession or the nature of the role in question. That is, when the information available to a rater is not potent enough to influence a judgment one way or the other, the rater’s evaluation will more likely become influenced by stereotypical perceptions. This suggests that applicants who are not at the extremes of a distribution of


qualifications will be most susceptible to discrimination, and accordingly most applicants would fall in this category. The hypothesis that discrimination is more likely to occur when the rater is operating under uncertainty directly supports a finding reported by Terborg and Ilgen (1975). They found that stereotypical beliefs about females in business were related only to the access discrimination variable of a suitability (hire) rating, and not to a treatment discrimination variable such as promotability. Terborg and Ilgen (1975) state, “That is, at the time of hiring when little is known about the job applicant, it is relatively easy to categorize the female applicant as an undifferentiated member of the subgroup of women. These findings suggest that stereotypes influence sex discrimination most when little is known about the female’s potential (e.g., hiring decision), and that the affect of sex-role stereotypes diminishes as more information about the female worker is obtained” (p. 373). The results from this study indicate that discrimination which results from uncertainty also applies to males entering a predominately female occupation, as well as vice versa.

As can be seen in Table 2, female raters gave higher ratings than male raters to applicants of both sex for all three jobs. Female raters gave significantly (p < .Ol) higher ratings than male raters to females applying for the mechanical engineering and assistant copy editorjobs. In addition, male raters perceived male applicants to be significantly (p < .Ol) less suitable than female applicants for the child day-care center jobs, as well as rating male applicants significantly @ < .Ol) less suitable for this job than female raters rating male applicants. Both male and female raters perceived male applicants to be more suitable than female applicants for the assistant copy editor job, and both male and female raters perceived female applicants to be more suitable than male applicants for the child day-care center job. Male raters perceived male applicants to be more suitable than female applicants for the mechanical engineering job, while female raters perceived female applicants to be more suitable than male applicants for this job.

It was hypothesized that the ratings given to female applicants for the three managerial jobs would be related to the raters’ attitudes toward women in management. Consequently the ratings given to the female applicants were correlated with the raters’ score on the Women as Mana- gers Scale (WAMS). The results yielded highly significant positive correlations, which initially tended to confirm our hypotheses. However, subsequent analyses disconfirmed (for the most part) our hypotheses. Male raters scored an average of 108.12 on the WAMS, while the mean WAMS score for female raters was 127.44. The difference between these two means is statistically significant (t = 5.60, p < .OOl). When the correlations between the WAMS and the suitability ratings were recomputed separately for male and female raters, mostly nonsignificant correlations


resulted. Thus the initial significant correlations obtained when both male and female raters were combined into one sample were due to the fact that female raters scored significantly higher on the “predictor” (WAMS) and significantly higher on the “criterion” (suitability ratings, Table 2) than male raters. However the ensuing analyses revealed basically no subgroup (sex of rater) validity of the WAMS. An insightful graphic presentation of these data (combined group validity but no subgroup validity) is shown in Bartlett and O’Leary (1969, p. 14), and is discussed by Kunce and Miller (1974). In short, the results indicated that females held more positive attitudes than males toward women in management, and, correspondingly, females gave higher ratings than males to women applying for managerial jobs. There were no significant correlations between the WAMS and the ratings for female raters. For the male raters the WAMS correlated significantly with the ratings given to females of average scholastic standing (r = .30, p < .02) and high scholastic standing (r = .24, p < .05) applying for the mechanical engineering job. Thus there was some mild support that attitudes and behavior were correlated for male raters; however for female raters their attitudes toward women in management and their behavior (suitability ratings) were uncorrelated. These results only partially support the findings of Terborg and Ilgen (1975), who reported a correlation of 58 between the WAMS and suitability ratings given to female applicants by male raters. It should be noted, however, that the only significant correlations that were obtained in the present study occurred in the male dominated profession, where the attitudes toward women (held by men) entering that profession in a managerial role logically should be more related to behavior than in a profession predominated by females or a sexually mixed profession.

In summary, the results from this study offer additional insights into the area of sex discrimination and sex-role stereotypes. Discrimination on the basis of sex was manifested in the three types of jobs examined and was manifested in those conditions where the rater’s uncertainty about the applicants was greatest. These results support the findings reported by Terborg and Ilgen (1975). Females held more positive attitudes than males about women in managerial roles and correspondingly gave females higher ratings. However, within each sex of rater subgroup there ap- peared little support that attitudes were related to behavior. Perhaps most importantly, the study revealed that discrimination is influenced by factors acting in combination rather than in isolation. As has been suggested previously, recent social and legal forces may have reduced the frequency of blatant discrimination, but discrimination may yet still be pervasive as a result of subtle interactive effects. The results from this study and previous investigations (e.g., Dipboye et al., 1975: Terborg & Ilgen, 1975) would suggest that future studies should take cognizance of the apparent


complexity involved with the various forms (access and treatment), types (race, sex, age, etc.), and subtle causes (occupational stereotypes, role stereotypes, etc.) of discrimination.

REFERENCES Bartlett, C. .I., & O’Leary. B. S. A differential prediction model to moderate the effects of

heterogeneous groups in personnel selection and classification. Personnel Psychology. 1969. 2.2, l-17.

Bernstein, V., Hakel, M. D., & Harlan, A. The college student as interviewer: A threat to generalizability? Journal of Applied Psycholog.~, 1975, 60, 266-268.

Cecil. E. A.. Paul, R. J.. & Olins, R. A. Perceived importance of selected variables used to evaluate male and female job applicants. Personnel Psychology, 1973, 26, 397404.

Cohen, S. L.. & Bunker, K. A. Subtle effects of sex role stereotypes on recruiters’ hiring decisions. Journal qf Applied Psychology, 1975, 60, 566-572.

Day. D. R.. & Stogdill. R. M. Leader behavior of male and female supervisors: A comparative study. Personnel Psychology. 1972, 25, 353-360.

Dipboye, R. L., Fromkin, H. L., & Wiback. K. Relative importance of applicant sex, attractiveness, and scholastic standing in evaluation ofjob applicant resumes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 60, 39-43.

Feather, N. T. Positive and negative reactions to male and female success and failure in relation to the perceived status and sex-typed appropriateness of occupations. Journal o-f Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 31, 536-548.

Feather, N. T.. & Simon, J. G. Reactions to male and female success and failure in sex-linked occupations: Impressions of personality, causal attributions, and perceived likelihood of different consequences. Journal of Personality and Social Psycholog.v, 1975. 31, 20-31.

Guion, R. M. Employment tests and discriminatory hiring. Industrial Relations, 1966. 5, 20-37.

Hakel. M. D., Dobmeyer, T. W., & Dunnette, M. D. Relative importance of three content dimensions in overall suitability ratings of job applicants’ resumes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1970, 54, 65-71.

Hake], M. D., Ohnesorge, J., & Dunnette, M. D. Interviewer evaluations ofjob applicants’ resumes as a function of the qualifications of the immediately preceding applicants: An examination of contrast effects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1970, 54, 27-30.

Holland. J. Making vocational choices: A theory of careers. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall. Inc., 1973.

Ilgen, D. R.. & Terborg, J. R. Sex discrimination and sex-role stereotypes: Are they synonymous? No! Organizational Beha\,ior and Human Performance. 1975, 14, 154- 157.

Keppel, G. Design and analysis; A researcher’s handbook. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1973.

Kunce. J. T., & Miller. D. E. Correlational anomalies. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1974. 21, 251-253.

Landy, F. J., & Bates, F. Another look at contrast effects in the employment interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1973, 58, 141-344.

Peters, L. H., Terborg, J. R., & Taynor, J. Women as managers scale (WAMS): A measure of attitudes toward women in management positions. JSAS Catalog of Selected Docu- ments in Psychology, 1974, NO. 585.

Rosen, B., & Jerdee, T. H. Influence of sex role stereotypes on personnel decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1974. 59, 9-14.


Terborg, J. R., & Ilgen, D. R. A theoretical approach to sex discrimination in traditionally masculine occupations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 1975, 13, 252-276.

U. S. Department of Labor. Manpower report to the presiderIt. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1974.

Wexley, K., Yukl, G., Kovacs, S., & Sanders, R. Importance of contrast effects in employment interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1972. 56, 45-48.

Received: August 19. 1976.

the effect of applicant sex and scholastic standing on the evaluation of job applicant resumes in...

Documents