Mental framing by consequence thinking: Its effects on judgements of gender-based employment selection

Abstract

The study aims to (1) identify the key reasons as to why people support meritocracy or preferential treatment in employment selection practices, (2) examine the effect of an overall mental frame in terms of supporting or opposing a selection practice on subsequent judgements about preferential selection, and (3) explore the effects of gender and employment status on people's views on merit vs. preferential selection. Three sets of results are noteworthy: first, regression analyses revealed that people support merit selection because this practice ‘rewards the most deserving’ and ‘gets the most effective person for the job’. People support preferential selection because the practice ‘compensates women for past disadvantages’ and ‘helps having female role models in the workforce’. Second, a person's prior decision as a result of consequence thinking may act as a mental frame for subsequent judgements about preferential selection, and that the frame is likely to suppress the effect of the provision of justification. Third, gender and employment status had an effect on people's choice of the employment selection practices.