Sex effects in evaluating applicant qualifications: A reexamination

Abstract

It has been hypothesized that female applicants for male sex-typed jobs are evaluated using different selection criteria than males for the same jobs (E. A. Cecil, R. J. Paul, and R. A. Olins, “Perceived Importance of Selected Variables Used to Evaluate Male and Female Job Applicants,” Personnel Psychology, 1973, 26, 397–404). The present study examined this hypothesis in two separate experiments, in an attempt to replicate the findings and conclusions of Cecil et al. Results do not support the hypothesis that applicant sex affects the ratings of importance of applicant qualifications for sex-typed jobs, although raters do appear to stereotype the kinds of jobs for which males and females are likely to apply. Type of job for which applicants apply is a stronger determinant of what qualifications are evaluated as important in an interview situation. Use of selection criteria (e.g., tests) that validly predict later job performance and that are standardized for all job applicants, might prevent sex discrimination more than training raters to be wary of sex stereotyping of required applicant qualifications.