Psychology 238: Organizational Psychology PDF

PSYCHOLOGY 238: Organizational Psychology Perception Perception What is perception? Complexity of perception Basic Biases in Person Perception (e.g., Similar to me, Halo) What is a stereotype? Gender stereotypes Discrimination Goldberg paradigm What is...

PSYCHOLOGY 238: Organizational Psychology Perception Perception What is perception? Complexity of perception Basic Biases in Person Perception (e.g., Similar to me, Halo) What is a stereotype? Gender stereotypes Discrimination Goldberg paradigm What is a gender stereotype? Lack of fit model Studies What should we do about bias/stereotypes?  What is Perception? Process of interpreting messages from senses to provide order/meaning to the environment People select, organize, and interpret information about other people Subjective reality What is Perception? The Situation Work setting Social setting The Target The Perceiver Ambiguity Expectations Novelty Motives Familiarity Affect Examples  The Complexity of Perception: An Example Wang, Restubog, Shao, Lu, & Van Kleef (2018) Competence based “A colleague failing to meet [Amazon CEO] Bezo’s exacting violations: followers fail standards will set off a nutter. If to apply the technical an employee does not have the right answers or tries to bluff, or skills necessary to takes credit for someone else’s perform their jobs work, or exhibits a whiff of internal politics, uncertainty, or frailty in the heat of battle—a blood vessel in Bezo’s forehead bulges and his filter falls away. He’s capable of hyperbole and Integrity based violations: harshness in these moments and followers breach ethical over the years has delivered some devastating rebukes” standards or moral Edwards (2013) standards of the workplace Study examined observer perceptions of leader effectiveness. Design of study: 2 (anger versus neutral) x 2 (integrity violation versus competence violation) The Complexity of Perception: An Example Wang, Restubog, Shao, Lu, & Van Kleef (2018) Subordinate exaggerates Subordinate exaggerates the benefits of an the benefits of an insurance insurance policy because policy because he wanted of inadequate knowledge. to increase his sales. Leader described as Leader described as becoming very angry. becoming very angry. Subordinate exaggerates Subordinate exaggerates the benefits of an the benefits of an insurance insurance policy because policy because he wanted of inadequate knowledge. to increase his sales. Leader described as Leader described as maintaining neutral maintaining neutral emotional expression. emotional expression. The Complexity of Perception: An Example Wang, Restubog, Shao, Lu, & Van Kleef (2018) Basic Biases in person perception Basic Biases in Person Perception The impressions we form of others are susceptible to a number of perceptual biases: Primacy and recency effects Reliance on central traits Implicit personality theories Projection  Primacy and recency effects Primacy – over-reliance on early cues or first impressions Often has lasting impact Recency – over-reliance on recent cues or last impressions “Close the deal” Implicit Personality Theories Beliefs about consistency and stability of traits Consistency – which traits go together “Hardworking people are also honest” “Highly intelligent people are socially awkward” Reliance on central traits Central traits – personal characteristics of a target that are of particular interest to a perceiver People tend to organize perceptions around central traits Physical characteristics: Physical attractiveness  dating & career success Physical height  leadership potential Projection Tendency for perceivers to attribute own thoughts and feelings to others Assuming others are similar to self Efficient & sensible, but inaccurate Perceptual biases in employment interviews Contrast Effects Perceptual biases in Performance Evaluations  Perceptual Biases in Performance Appraisals Rater errors: Leniency Harshness Central tendency Halo effect Similar-to-me effect Stereotyping a perceptual tendency to generalize about people based on a social category that they belong to and to ignore variations among individuals within this category Assist in processing Selective Perception/Confirmation Bias Physical Characteristics Does being attractive affect your salary?  Stereotypes attractive and unattractive faces What is beautiful is good Five years after graduation, lawyers of above average attractiveness were earning 8- 9% more than those below Social Competence average attractiveness. Social Skills After 15 years the difference Intellectual was 12-13% (Stone et al., 1992) Competence Adjustment Face source: http://www.uni- General Metal Health regensburg.de/Fakultaeten/phil_F ak_II/Psychologie/Psy_II/beautych Of 700 MBA students, male graduates eck/english/index.htm rated most attractive got starting salary of $5,000 more than those rated least attractive (Frieze et al., 1991) Hosoda, Stone-Romero, & Coats (2003) Description: Meta-analytic review of experimental studies dealing with the biasing effect of physical attractiveness on a wide assortment of job-related outcomes. This effect is highly robust, does not matter: (a) what type of job or the gender of the individual; (b) job relevant information; (c) the type of participant; (d) the sex of the target; or (e) the type of job related outcome (e.g., hiring, promotion etc) Overall the effect size is in the range of.34-.37. Stereotypes: Gender  Stereotyping and Discrimination Opportunities = Qualifications OPPORTUNITIES QUALIFICATIONS  Stereotyping and Discrimination Opportunities < Qualifications OPPORTUNITIES OPPORTUNITIES QUALIFICATIONS QUALIFICATIONS Discrimination: Correlational Data All workers 73 cents on the dollar Full-time workers 81 cents on the dollar 800 700 600 500 Women Men 400 300 200 Total White African Asian Hispanic American  Correlational Studies Education Gender PAY Correlational Studies: Explaining the Wage Gap Wages = gender + years of education + job experience + other factors Within- occupation versus between-occupation wage gap studies.  Gender Discrimination: Promotions Hierarchical level # Men # women Percent men Percent women Ratio of men for promoted promoted every woman CEO 1.06 -- -- 16 Executive 10 1.25 10% 5% 8 Manager 100 25 10% 5% 4 Supervisor 1,000 500 10% 5% 2 Worker 10,000 10,000 10% 5% 1  Correlational Studies ???? Gender PAY  Experimental Evidence: The Goldberg Paradigm James has recently undergone the company-wide annual performance review and he received consistently high evaluations. He has been designated a “stellar performer” based on sales volume, number of new client accounts, and actual dollars earned. His performance is in the top 5% of all employees at his level.  Experimental Evidence: The Goldberg Paradigm Andrea has recently undergone the company-wide annual performance review and she received consistently high evaluations. She has been designated a “stellar performer” based on sales volume, number of new client accounts, and actual dollars earned. Her performance is in the top 5% of all employees at his level. The Goldberg Paradigm in Action  Goldberg Paradigm: Gender (Rosen & Jerdee) 5 4.5 4 3.5 Hiring 3 2.5 Male 2 Female 1.5 1 0.5 0 Demanding Job Non Demanding Job  Summary: Davison & Burke— meta-analysis 5 4.5 4 Work Relevant Outcome 3.5 3 2.5 Men 2 Women 1.5 1 0.5 0 Masculine Feminine Gender Neutral Perception What is perception? Complexity of perception Basic Biases in Person Perception (e.g., Similar to me, Halo) What is a stereotype? Gender stereotypes Discrimination Goldberg paradigm What is a gender stereotype? Lack of fit model Studies What should we do about bias/stereotypes? Stereotypes: Gender Descriptive = What is or what group members are like versus Prescriptive = What should be or how group members should be or behave Stereotypes: Gender AGENTIC COMMUNAL Scientific Helpful Determined Good Natured Skillful Sincere Industrious Sociable Shrewd Warm Automatic Gender Stereotypes (Banaji et al.,) 1) Sensitive  John INCONGRUENT 2) Sensitive  Mary CONGRUENT 3) Determined  John CONGRUENT 4) Determined  Mary INCONGRUENT Automatic Gender Stereotypes (Banaji et al.,) 600 500 400 300 Female Trait Male Trait 200 100 0 Female Name Male Name Lack of Fit Model Gender Stereotype Degree of Expectations Fit Stereotype of Position  5 4.5 4 Work Relevant Outcome 3.5 3 2.5 Men 2 Women 1.5 1 0.5 0 Masculine Feminine Gender Neutral  Back to the Lack of Fit Model Female Stereotype Degree of Expectations Fit Stereotype of Position Heilman & Okimoto (2008) GENDER PARENT PARENT YES NO MALE FEMALE  Heilman & Okimoto (2008) 7 6.5 6 Promotion Decision 5.5 No Children 5 Children 4.5 4 3.5 Male Target  Heilman & Okimoto (2008) 7 6.5 6 Promotion Decision 5.5 No Children 5 Children 4.5 4 3.5 Male Target Female Target There is no arguing with success Violating Gender Stereotypes: Daring to succeed in a Male World Masculine Job Female Neutral Job Male Feminine Job Heilman, Wallen, Fuchs, & Tamkins (Study 2: 2004) 8 7.5 7 Male Target 6.5 Female Target 6 5.5 Male Gender job Female Gender Job Violating Gender Stereotypes: Daring to succeed in a Female World Violating Gender Stereotypes: Daring to succeed in a Female World (Heilman & Wallen, 2010) 8.5 8 7.5 7 Male Target Female Target 6.5 6 5.5 LIKING RESPECT Male Job Female Job Male Job Female Job Engaging in Gender Stereotypic Behavior: Do women benefit from helping at work? Females Helping Males  Heilman & Chen (2005) 6 5.8 5.6 5.4 Performance Evaluation 5.2 5 Male Target 4.8 Female Target 4.6 4.4 4.2 4 Helps Does not Help No information  Heilman & Chen (2005) Male Target 6 5.8 5.6 Performance Evaluation 5.4 5.2 5 Male Target 4.8 4.6 4.4 4.2 4 Helps Does not Help No information  Heilman & Chen (2005) Female Target 6 5.8 5.6 Performance Evaluation 5.4 5.2 5 Female Target 4.8 4.6 4.4 4.2 4 Helps Does not Help No information  Heilman & Chen (2005) 6 5.8 5.6 5.4 5.2 5 Male Target 4.8 Female Target 4.6 4.4 4.2 4 Helps Does not Help  Reaping the Rewards for Helping MEN Promotion WOMEN HELPING (OCB) From Allen, 2006  Female Competence, Ambiguity, and Team Performance Attributional Rationalization Mixed Gender Team Setting Heilman & Haynes (2005) Provide individuals with performance information about successful team or individual performance INFORMATION ABOUT TEAM INFORMATION ABOUT INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE PERFORMANCE MALE TEAM MEMBER FEMALE TEAM MEMBER  Heilman & Haynes (2005) 9 8.5 8 7.5 7 6.5 Male 6 Female 5.5 5 4.5 4 Individual Feedback  Heilman & Haynes (2005) 9 8.5 8 7.5 7 6.5 Male 6 Female 5.5 5 4.5 4 Individual Feedback Group Feedback Summary of Gender Stereotypes and Perceptions Goldberg paradigm Descriptive and prescriptive Lack of Fit model Violating stereotypes Helping behavior Ambiguity Beyond Ratings: The Impact of Stereotypes on Behaviour Perceiver Judgements Target Stereotype Behaviour Perceiver Behaviour  Example Direct Path to Target Behaviour: Racial & Ethnic Stereotypes Resume whitening – conceal/change racial information on job applications Kang, DeCelles, Tilcsik, & Jun (2016) Resume audit study – sent resumes to 1,600 job postings Black & East Asian applicant Whitened names Lamar J. Smith  L. James Smith Lei Zhang  Luke Zhang Whitened experience Removed words & experiences associated with minority status Kang, DeCelles, Tilcsik, & Jun (2016)  PSYCHOLOGY 238: Organizational Psychology What should we do about stereotypes and bias?  What should we do about bias, stereotypes, and prejudice? Interventions Affirmative Action/Employment Equity Awareness Caveats and other Considerations Affirmative Action or Employment Equity Strong preference policies give preference to historically disadvantaged groups Beneficiaries with less regard to People who materially qualifications. benefit from policies Weak preference policies use group Nonbeneficiaries status to decide People who do not benefit between two equally materially from the policies qualified candidates.  Affirmative Action or Employment Equity: Possible Barriers and Problems Nonbeneficiary  Affirmative Action: Hideg, Michela, & Ferris (2011) PSYCHOLOGICAL ATTITUDES & PARTICIPATION OWNERSHIP BEHAVIOUR Manipulated the type Key difference of participation: between the studies Instrumental versus is the context varied: noninstrumental Gender participation Visible Minority  Affirmative Action: Hideg, Michela, & Ferris (2011): Study 1 Instrumental Non Instrumental Affirmative Action (Hideg, Michela, & Ferris, 2011): Behavioural Intentions Measure  Hideg, Michela, & Ferris (2011): Results 0.6 Behaviour Endorsement 0.5 0.4 0.3 Women Men 0.2 0.1 0 Noninstrumental Instrumental  Hideg, Michela, & Ferris (2011): Results- Attitudes towards policy 5.5 5 4.5 4 ATTITUDE 3.5 Women 3 Men 2.5 2 1.5 1 Noninstrumental Instrumental  Awareness of Bias Duguid & Thomas-Hunt (2015)  Awareness-Does it actually help? Duguid & Thomas-Hunt (2015) Studies 1a, 1b, & 1c: Research Question: Does information about the prevalence of stereotyping influence individual’s stereotype expressions? Prevalence Prevalence High Low No information Try to Avoid Awareness of Stereotypes-Does it actually help? Duguid & Thomas-Hunt (2015) Final Points: Difference does not automatically mean bias and Fallacy of Single Cause