Who is the better applicant? Effects from gender, academic record, and type of decision

This experiment recreates several features of the selection of candidates for junior professional positions. The situation of central interest involves an assessor (either male or female) and a pair consisting of a male and a female applicant with either equivalent or slightly different academic records. We also investigate effects from quality of record (either excellent or poor) and type of decision (namely, choice between applicants, and ratings of competence and suitability). Our hypotheses consider both gender as social status and as social identity, and predict different outcomes depending on decision type. In line with those predictions, findings show that, at both levels of performance, the question about competence elicited effects only from the two applicants’ relative academic standing, while the choice and suitability measures show effects from that standing as well as from sex category of applicant and of assessor. Results and their interpretation are presented and discussed in detail.

► We investigate gender bias in the assessment of man–woman pairs of applicants. ► Each pair had equivalent academic records (either excellent or poor). ► As expected: (1) Results show no such bias in competence ratings. (2) Gender bias emerged in choice reports and suitability ratings.