My research project from last year sought to highlight an eventual difference in the evaluation of men and women regarding recruitment. It consisted in an adaptation and comparison of the results from researches designed and realised repeatedly by Foschi and Valenzuela in Canada (Foschi & Valenzuela, 2008, 2012, 2015).
The study was based on the double-standard theory developed by Foschi (2000). According to her, for many social interactions’ situations, an indivual compares a peer to others or to a norm, or to a standard. That comparison is based on the social characteristics that individual perceives such as gender, age or origin. A double-standard occurs when a different pattern is used to evaluate the same attribute for two different persons. Even if he or she owns objective information, the evaluation formed by an individual is subjected to her or his interpretation. Thus, the evaluation is biased by the individual’s own stereotypes about the way in which every person has to behave according to her or his characteristics or attributes. These attributes, according to Conner and Fisek (as cited in Ehrlich, 1979), are composed of two polarities with one being more valued than the other. Since many studies demonstrated that women suffer from discrimination in the workplace, it is assumed that for the characteristic of gender, being a man is more valued than being a woman in our societies. Then, women will have to bring more evidence of their competence to be evaluated as such as competent than men.
With that theoretical background, we conducted an experiment in which 169 participants of a mock hiring situation had to evaluate two candidates who applied for three different job offers. Two documents were presented : the job offer and an application form filled by the candidates with scholar and work experiences background. These data consisted in objective evidences of their competences. Furthermore, they had been written in a way that only the gender of the applicants allows to differentiate them.
Multiple conditions were proposed : the job they applied was considered as gender neutral (biology engineer), masculine (research and development engineer) or feminine (human resources officer). The gender type of these jobs has been evaluated by a previous sample of participants who responded to a poll. Every participant had to evaluate two pairs of candidates, in the first condition (File 1), they were either two women or two men, in the second condition (File 2, the “critical” one), the candidates were a man and a woman. The independent variables were 1) the sex of the participants (male vs female), 2) the sex of the candidates in the same-sex pairs (male/male vs female/female) and 3) the gender type of the job in the different-sex pairs (neutral vs feminine vs masculine). That experimental design is summarized in the following table :
The dependent variables were 1) the choice of each participant for one or none of the candidates, 2) the evaluation of the competence level of each candidate and 3) the evaluation of the job suitability level of each candidate.
The results demonstrated that, when they had to evaluate two candidates of the same gender (File 1), participants don’t discriminate the two male candidates but express a difference between the two female applicants. For the second file, when they evaluated two candidates who differed only by the gender, all conditions mingled regarding the gender type of the job, the male candidate is preferred even if the ratings of the competence and suitability levels are equal.
Since the research question was « Is gender a criterion that an individual takes into account when he or she has to recommend a male or a female candidate ? », these results could demonstrate that, because the man is more frequently recommended than the woman whereas competence and suitability rates are similar, a double standard has occur in that situation in favor of the male applicant. Men are confronted with less drastic evaluation criteria and have to provide less evidences of their competences than women to be considered as competent.
Even if the participants had objective evaluations of the candidates through their standardized application forms (e.g. school results or previous work experiences) to form their judgement, it can be subjected to an interpretation. Then, it will be interesting to compare our results in further research with a situation in which these objective evaluations leave no doubts that women are way better than men.
References :
Ehrlich et al. (1979). Psychologie sociale. L’année Psychologique, 79(1), 318-330.
Foschi, M. (2000). Double standard for competence : theory and research. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 21-42.
Foschi, M. & Valenzuela, J. (2008). Selecting job applicants : effects from gender, self-presentation and decision type. Social Science Research, 37, 1022-1038.
Foschi, M. & Valenzuela, J. (2012). Who is the better applicant ? Effect from gender, academic record, and type of decision. Social Science Research, 41, 949-964.
Foschi, M. & Valenzuela, J. (2015). Choosing between two semi-finalists : on academic performance gap, sex category, and decision question. Social Science Research, 54, 195-208.
Hi, I am Marion, born 24 years ago in a small city near Brest, in Brittany, where I have achieved my first three years of Psychology degree. I came to Nantes last year to take an occupational psychology Master degree. When I am not in class, I like to read (Amélie Nothomb is my favorite author and The Long Walk by Stephen King my favorite novel) or watch TV Shows. Anyway, I have a cat named Dewey after a famous 2000’s TV Show character.