Participants Participants were 188 Introductory Psychology students at a large Midwestern University who received course credit. Five participants’ data were not recorded due to computer malfunction, and nine participants’ data were excluded because they failed a manipulation check (i.e., incorrectly recalled the gender of the applicant they evaluated or how gender bias was characterized in the confrontation). The final sample included 174 participants (42% female, = 18.94) who were primarily White (80%).1 Mage Design A 2 (confrontation: not confronted vs. confronted) X 2 (bias characterization: vs. gender-intelligence) between-participants design was used. In this experiment and Experiments 3 and 4, all confronted participants were presented with evidence of gender bias. Procedure Up to six participants completed the experiment at a time at individual computer stations. The procedure for Experiment 2 was identical to Experiment 1 until the point at which the confrontation occurred, with one exception. As in Experiment 1, confronted participants evaluated a female applicant and not confronted participants evaluated a male applicant; however, in this experiment and also in Experiments 3 and 4, the male applicant had stronger credentials (i.e., higher ACT and GPA scores, stronger statement about favorite college course) than the female applicant. Drawing from past research using a similar method (Monteith, 1993, Study 1), we varied these aspects of the applicant’s materials so that ratings of the male applicant would be positive and thus consistent with feedback that he would have been hired based on evaluations. In contrast, ratings of the female applicant were expected to be less positive and thus consistent with feedback that she would not have been hired. Indeed, in this experiment and
Participants Participants were 188 Introductory Psychology students at a large Midwestern University who received course credit. Five participants’ data were not recorded due to computer malfunction, and nine participants’ data were excluded because they failed a manipulation check (i.e., incorrectly recalled the gender of the applicant they evaluated or how gender bias was characterized in the confrontation). The final sample included 174 participants (42% female, Mage = 18.94) who were primarily White (80%).1 Design A 2 (confrontation: not confronted vs. confronted) X 2 (bias characterization: vs. gender-intelligence) between-participants design was used. In this experiment and Experiments 3 and 4, all confronted participants were presented with evidence of gender bias. Procedure Up to six participants completed the experiment at a time at individual computer stations. The procedure for Experiment 2 was identical to Experiment 1 until the point at which the confrontation occurred, with one exception. As in Experiment 1, confronted participants evaluated a female applicant and not confronted participants evaluated a male applicant; however, in this experiment and also in Experiments 3 and 4, the male applicant had stronger credentials (i.e., higher ACT and GPA scores, stronger statement about favorite college course) than the female applicant. Drawing from past research using a similar method (Monteith, 1993, Study 1), we varied these aspects of the applicant’s materials so that ratings of the male applicant would be positive and thus consistent with feedback that he would have been hired based on evaluations. In contrast, ratings of the female applicant were expected to be less positive and thus consistent with feedback that she would not have been hired. Indeed, in this experiment and
parker%2c-monteith%2c-moss-racusin%2c---van-camp-(in-press).docx