List 1.

Three categories of interventions on gender bias in hiring settings as found in a review of 27 published reports from 1973 to 2008^*

Information provided to raters in application

• Job-relevant individuating information (educational background,16,17,24 past work experience,33 scholasticstanding,24,33 personality,30 performance ability29)

• Gender stereotypic, counterstereotypic, or neutral individuating intormation12,13,16,30,33,34

• Parental status17,18,23

• Ambiguous or explicit gender34

• Marital status17

• Life philosophy statements13

• Employment discontinuities14

Applicant behavior, scent, or appearance

• Physical attractiveness19,28,32,33,36

• Interview style (self-promoting or self-effacing speech and mannerisms37; direct, self-confident [agentic] interview style13)

• Masculine or feminine appearance28

• Masculine, feminine, or no perfume27

• Expression of anger21

Conditions under which raters assessed applicants

• Threat of accountability11

• Order of rating separate qualifications and providing summary judgments32

• Priming with counterstereotypic information35

• Proportion of women in the applicant pool15

• Evaluation after counterstereotype training, with or without distraction or filler task25

• Evaluation after counterstereotype training, before or after trait rating task26

• Employment equity directives20,39

• Attentional demand during evaluation28

• Commitment to value of credentials before or after reviewing applicants22

^*The categories were (1) varying the information provided to raters in the application (n = 12), (2) changing the behavior, scent, or appearance of the applicant (n = 9), and (3) altering the conditions under which raters assessed applicants (n = 10).