Abstract
The usage of a “sex matching heuristic” in the evaluation of job applicants was investigated. Specifically, we hypothesized that subjects would evaluate applicants more favorably when their gender matched both the sex-role orientation of the job and the predominant gender of future subordinates. Evidence of the first type of sex matching was found only among male subjects who evaluated female applicants. There was an unexpected, but consistent effect for subordinate gender. Applicants who would be supervising predominantly male subordinates were seen as having better job futures than applicants who would be supervising predominantly female subordinates. Both absence of sex matching and the presence of subordinate gender effects were explained by the consideration of when people use stereotypes and the continued existence of stereotypes about the competence of men and women.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
