List 1.
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).