The focus on performance rather than prejudice - Ekonomistas
Top Contributors japanese legal system Johanna Möllerström Jesper Roine Lars EO Svensson Daniel Waldenström Jonas Vlachos Robert Ostling Ekonomistas Guest Contributors Earlier writers Martin Flodén japanese legal system Eve Dark Categories Labour Behavioural Economics Housing Policy Finance Business Financial Stability International Curiosities Suggested Reading Macro Method Environment Public Sector Monetary policy Politics Education and research Welfare Archives 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 Links Other blogs Data Resources About About Ekonomistas say about us
How can the employment decisions are made without preconceptions about people japanese legal system based on their gender, for example, come into play? How is that decisions are based on actual performance rather than on prejudice? One way is clear that decoding applications, i.e. not give information on the queue (if this research has Ekonomistas written earlier). But often it is not possible or even desirable. Iris Bohnet, Alexandra van Geen and Max Bazerman has tested a small but powerful intervention that seems to do the trick, although information about sex can not be hidden: the evaluation of candidates in groups rather than individually.
In "When performance trumps gender bias: joint versus separate evaluation", they take their starting point in research that shows that when you find out a person's sex is activated prejudices about the person. This is done automatically and is difficult to influence, even for a person who considers himself (and may also be) aware that this is happening. The hypothesis tested in the paper, and the authors also find support for, is that when people are evaluated invididuellt dates such prejudices greater leeway than when several candidates japanese legal system are evaluated simultaneously and compared against each other.
Bohnet, van Geen and Bazerman conducted a laboratory experiment in which they had 550 people act as "employer". Employers' task was to evaluate the "candidates" (in the experiment included a total of 100 people as candidates) who would carry out a task. Employers had to decide who would "employ" and they were paid more in the experiment if their employees did a great job. In the first part of the experiment performed candidates japanese legal system a number of math tasks. Men and women passed the task equally well, but employers japanese legal system Prejudice was that men could do it better. Employers were then informed that they would now have the opportunity to hire a candidate and that they would get paid based on how well the employee performed a similar task a second time (the correlation between how well the candidates japanese legal system completed the task first and the second time was obviously high).
Subsequently presented each employer with a number of different candidates. For half of the 550 employers was the presentation of the candidates individually: they saw one candidate at a time, with information about the candidate's gender japanese legal system and how well the hen coped with the task in the first round. The second half of the employers were the presentation of the candidates in the group: they got to see information about all the candidates they had to choose between simultaneously, and also this related information candidates' sex and how well they coped with the task in the first round.
The difference may seem small, japanese legal system but it made a big difference to how employers decisions about who should be hired. After the presentation of the candidate was focused individual employers less on how well they had passed the task and let themselves rather than be led by the prejudices they had tied to the person's gender (ie men "should" handle the task better). This led to the employee more men who performed poorly in the first round and at the same time rejected high-performing women. After the presentation of the candidates japanese legal system instead was such that several candidates were pitted against each other ended employers focus instead on how well they had passed the task in the first round. japanese legal system This led, in turn, to a much larger extent hired the candidate who had performed best, no matter what gender the person had. The result was not only to male and female candidates now had the same chance of being employed, but also to those hired performed better. A win-win situation, in other words.
How can the difference be so big? Bohnet, van Geen and Bazerman explain their results by using previous research showing that when people evaluate one option at a time, without having anything japanese legal system to explicitly compare against, they use a way of thinking based on intuition japanese legal system (what Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman call for systems 1 in his bestselling book "Thinking, Fast and Slow"). This intutionsbaserade way to make decisions easily influenced by prejudice. When several options are presented simultaneously activated instead a more logical and reasoning ways of thinking (system 2 with Kahneman's words). Then it harder for prejudices based on such sex to get a say in the matter, but instead the focus is on track facts. (More research on this sole
Top Contributors japanese legal system Johanna Möllerström Jesper Roine Lars EO Svensson Daniel Waldenström Jonas Vlachos Robert Ostling Ekonomistas Guest Contributors Earlier writers Martin Flodén japanese legal system Eve Dark Categories Labour Behavioural Economics Housing Policy Finance Business Financial Stability International Curiosities Suggested Reading Macro Method Environment Public Sector Monetary policy Politics Education and research Welfare Archives 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 Links Other blogs Data Resources About About Ekonomistas say about us
How can the employment decisions are made without preconceptions about people japanese legal system based on their gender, for example, come into play? How is that decisions are based on actual performance rather than on prejudice? One way is clear that decoding applications, i.e. not give information on the queue (if this research has Ekonomistas written earlier). But often it is not possible or even desirable. Iris Bohnet, Alexandra van Geen and Max Bazerman has tested a small but powerful intervention that seems to do the trick, although information about sex can not be hidden: the evaluation of candidates in groups rather than individually.
In "When performance trumps gender bias: joint versus separate evaluation", they take their starting point in research that shows that when you find out a person's sex is activated prejudices about the person. This is done automatically and is difficult to influence, even for a person who considers himself (and may also be) aware that this is happening. The hypothesis tested in the paper, and the authors also find support for, is that when people are evaluated invididuellt dates such prejudices greater leeway than when several candidates japanese legal system are evaluated simultaneously and compared against each other.
Bohnet, van Geen and Bazerman conducted a laboratory experiment in which they had 550 people act as "employer". Employers' task was to evaluate the "candidates" (in the experiment included a total of 100 people as candidates) who would carry out a task. Employers had to decide who would "employ" and they were paid more in the experiment if their employees did a great job. In the first part of the experiment performed candidates japanese legal system a number of math tasks. Men and women passed the task equally well, but employers japanese legal system Prejudice was that men could do it better. Employers were then informed that they would now have the opportunity to hire a candidate and that they would get paid based on how well the employee performed a similar task a second time (the correlation between how well the candidates japanese legal system completed the task first and the second time was obviously high).
Subsequently presented each employer with a number of different candidates. For half of the 550 employers was the presentation of the candidates individually: they saw one candidate at a time, with information about the candidate's gender japanese legal system and how well the hen coped with the task in the first round. The second half of the employers were the presentation of the candidates in the group: they got to see information about all the candidates they had to choose between simultaneously, and also this related information candidates' sex and how well they coped with the task in the first round.
The difference may seem small, japanese legal system but it made a big difference to how employers decisions about who should be hired. After the presentation of the candidate was focused individual employers less on how well they had passed the task and let themselves rather than be led by the prejudices they had tied to the person's gender (ie men "should" handle the task better). This led to the employee more men who performed poorly in the first round and at the same time rejected high-performing women. After the presentation of the candidates japanese legal system instead was such that several candidates were pitted against each other ended employers focus instead on how well they had passed the task in the first round. japanese legal system This led, in turn, to a much larger extent hired the candidate who had performed best, no matter what gender the person had. The result was not only to male and female candidates now had the same chance of being employed, but also to those hired performed better. A win-win situation, in other words.
How can the difference be so big? Bohnet, van Geen and Bazerman explain their results by using previous research showing that when people evaluate one option at a time, without having anything japanese legal system to explicitly compare against, they use a way of thinking based on intuition japanese legal system (what Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman call for systems 1 in his bestselling book "Thinking, Fast and Slow"). This intutionsbaserade way to make decisions easily influenced by prejudice. When several options are presented simultaneously activated instead a more logical and reasoning ways of thinking (system 2 with Kahneman's words). Then it harder for prejudices based on such sex to get a say in the matter, but instead the focus is on track facts. (More research on this sole
