Constructed Criteria

This article presents an account of job discrimination according to which people redefine merit in a manner congenial to the idiosyncratic credentials of individual applicants from desired groups. In three studies, participants assigned male and female applicants to gender-stereotypical jobs. However, they did not view male and female applicants as having different strengths and weaknesses. Instead, they redefined the criteria for success at the job as requiring the specific credentials that a candidate of the desired gender happened to have. Commitment to hiring criteria prior to disclosure of the applicant’s gender eliminated discrimination, suggesting that bias in the construction of hiring criteria plays a causal role in discrimination. For traditionally male jobs, such as manager or corporate leader, women are less likely to be hired than men. They are also paid less, given less authority, and promoted less often (Biernat & Kobrynowicz, 1997; Eagly & Karau, 2002; Glick, Zion, & Nelson, 1988; Rudman & Glick, 1999). Conversely, male applicants are discriminated against for jobs that are considered feminine (Glick et al., 1988; Kalin & Hodgins, 1984). Discrimination arises, in part, from ambiguity in the qualifications of job applicants. When an applicant’s credentials are ambiguous, stereotypes are used to ‘‘fill in the blanks’’ (Darley & Gross, 1983). For example, when little is known about a woman applying for a job as factory manager, she may be viewed as lacking the masculine qualities, such as assertiveness, needed for success. Conversely, a man applying to be a nurse may be viewed as lacking the nurturing qualities that the job demands. However, although ambiguity in the target person’s credentials encourages discrimination, it is not necessary. For example, when Glick et al. (1988) provided some participants with unambiguous information about the qualifications of male and female job applicants, stereotyping in terms of personality assessments was eliminated. However, participants continued to discriminate against female applicants for traditionally male jobs (e.g., manager) and against male applicants for traditionally female jobs (e.g., secretary). We argue that discrimination can persist when ambiguity exists not in the target of judgment but in the appropriate criteria of judgment. Even without ambiguity in applicants’ credentials, the criteria used to assess merit can be defined flexibly in a manner congenial to the idiosyncratic strengths of applicants who belong to desired groups (see also Hodson, Dovidio, & Gaertner, 2002; Norton, Vandello, & Darley, 2004; Steele & Green, 1976). For example, decision makers may view the credentials of a specific male applicant as essential to job success and view his areas of weakness as nonessential. Alternatively, they may downplay the importance of a female applicant’s areas of expertise and inflate the importance of her areas of weakness. Three phenomena are relevant to this prediction. First, people define merit self-servingly, asserting criteria of excellence that put their own idiosyncratic credentials in a positive light (Dunning, Leuenberger, & Sherman, 1995; see also Dunning & Cohen, 1992; Kunda, 1987). Second, racially prejudiced individuals emphasize those indices of academic merit that happen to favor an individual White college applicant over an individual Black applicant (Hodson et al., 2002). Third, in concurrent research by Norton et al. (2004), evaluators were found to justify prejudicial hiring and admissions decisions by appealing to different performance criteria. In the present research, we examined whether people shift their very definition of merit to advantage certain groups, and whether this process plays a causal role in gender discrimination. Another novel aspect of the present research is that we assessed how much people believe that their hiring decisions are objective and free of bias. Constructing criteria in a biased manner may allow decision makers to feel objective and fair despite being discriminatory. Although gender stereotypes encourage discrimination, egalitarian norms oblige people to judge others on the basis of their merit rather than their group memberships. By defining merit in a manner tailored to the Address correspondence to Eric Uhlmann or Geoffrey Cohen, 2 Hillhouse Ave., Department of Psychology, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520; e-mail: [email protected] or geoffrey.cohen@ yale.edu. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE 474 Volume 16—Number 6 Copyright r 2005 American Psychological Society idiosyncratic strengths of an applicant from the desired group, however, decision makers can justify a discriminatory decision by appealing to ostensibly ‘‘objective’’ criteria.