Search results

Evaluations play an important role in an organization's efforts to increase diversity. In this chapter we discuss two common evaluation biases – out-group discrimination and in-group favoritism – that are particularly relevant for concerns of increasing diversity. We examine the ethical implications of these biases, as well as the reasons individuals attempt to avoid displaying them. Some research has considered the adjustments individuals make to avoid the appearance of out-group discrimination (Carver, Glass, & Katz, 1978; Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986); however, little research has considered the adjustments individuals may make to avoid the appearance of in-group favoritism. We discuss two critical factors that may impact when the latter adjustment is more likely to occur: the relative size and status of subgroups. Paradoxically, these adjustments may negatively impact organizational efforts to increase the diversity of their work force. We discuss the implications for evaluation processes (e.g., hiring, firing, promotion) in organizations.

Hiring managers commonly rely on system-justifying motives and attitudes during résumé screening. Given the prevalent use of modern résumé formats (e.g. LinkedIn) that include not only an applicant's credentials but also headshot photographs, visible sources of information such as an applicant's race are also revealed while a hiring manager simultaneously evaluates a candidate's suitability. As a result, such screening is likely to activate evaluation bias. The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of a hiring manager's perceptions of race-system justification, that is, support for the status quo in relations between Black and White job candidates in reinforcing or mitigating hiring bias related to in-group and out-group membership during résumé screening.

Drawing from system justification theory (SJT) in a pre-selection context, in an experimental study involving 174 human resource managers, the authors tested two boundary conditions of the expected relationship between hiring manager and job candidate race on candidate ratings: (1) a hiring manager's affirmative action (AA) attitudes and system-justifying attitudes and (2) a job candidate's manipulated suitability for a position. This approach enabled us to juxtapose the racial composition of hiring manager–job candidate dyads under conditions in which the job candidate's race and competency for a posted position were manipulated to examine the conditions under which White and Black hiring managers are likely to make biased evaluations. The authors largely replicated these findings in two follow-up studies with 261 students and 361 online raters.

The authors found that information on a candidate's objective suitability for a job resulted in opposite-race positive bias among Black evaluators and same-race positive bias among White evaluators in study 1 alone. Conversely, positive attitudes toward AA policies resulted in in-group favoritism and strengthened a positive same-race bias for Black evaluators (study 1 and 2). We replicated this finding with a third sample to directly test system-justifying attitudes (study 3). The way in which White raters rated White candidates reflected the same attitudes against systems (AA attitudes) that Black raters rating Black candidates exhibited in the authors’ first two studies. Positive system-justifying attitudes or positive attitudes toward AA did not, however, translate into the elevation of same-race candidate ratings of suitability above those of opposite-race candidates.

Although the size of the sample is on par with the percentage of Blacks nationwide in private-sector managerial-level positions ideally, the authors would have preferred to oversample Black HR managers. Given the scarcity of focus on Black HR managers, future researchers, using diverse samples of evaluators should also consider not only managers' and candidates' race but also their social dominance orientation. Moreover, it is important that future researchers use more racially diverse samples from other industries to more fully identify the ways in which the dynamics of system-justifying processes can emerge to influence evaluation bias during résumé screening.

Advances in technology pose new challenges to HR hiring practices. This study attempts to fill a void regarding the unintended effects of bias during digital résumé screening. These trends have important HR implications. Initial screening of a job applicant's credentials while concurrently viewing the individual's photograph is likely to activate subconscious evaluation bias, produces inaccurate applicant ratings. This study's findings should caution hiring managers about the potential for bias to arise when viewing job candidates' digital résumés and encourage them to carefully examine various boundary conditions on racial similarity bias effects on applicant pre-screening and subsequent hiring decisions.

The study’s results suggest that bias might be attenuated as organizational leaders engage in efforts to understand their system-justifying motives and examine perceptions of the workplace social hierarchy (i.e. responses to status hierarchies) linked to perceptions of the status quo. For example, understanding how system justifying motives influence evaluation bias will inform how best to design training and other interventions that link discussions of workforce diversity to the relationships among groups within the organization's social hierarchy. This line of research should be further explored to better understand the complex forces at work when hiring managers adopt system-justifying motives during hiring evaluations.

The authors address the limitations of prior research by examining interactions between boundary conditions in a real-world context using real human resources hiring managers and more contemporary personnel-screening practices to test changes in the direction and strength of the relationship between hiring manager–job candidate race and hiring manager evaluations. Thus, the authors’ findings have implications for hiring bias and understanding of system-justification processes, particularly regarding how, when and why hiring managers support the status quo (i.e. perpetuate inequity) even if they are disadvantaged as a result.

Possible asymmetric treatment among family members has long been neglected in the field of family firm research. To fill this gap, the purpose of this study is to shed light on the heterogeneity of treatment of family members in family firms by proposing factors that influence the likelihood of bifurcation bias among “family” members.

Drawing upon social identity theory and the concept of bifurcation bias, the authors theorize that family members working in family firms are not a homogenous entity, but rather a heterogeneous entity contingent on their status and/or position in the family. To provide a comprehensive understanding of heterogeneous treatment among family members, both individual factors and societal factors should be considered.

Blood relatedness of family members is suggested as an important determinant of the likelihood of bifurcation bias among family members. It is also proposed that the impact of blood relatedness is likely influenced by both individual factors (familial proximity and familial tenure) and a societal factor (collectivism).

Theorizing takes a step forward to advance the understanding of interpersonal dynamics in family firms. In particular, this article expands the research boundaries of family business research by taking into account that not all “family” members are treated preferentially. Moreover, this article deepens our understanding of the nature and status of non-blood related family members by unveiling the influence of both individual and societal factors. This article also provides a theoretical foundation for human resource management (HRM) research in family businesses by addressing bifurcation bias among family members.

This chapter explores the role of language in the relationship between diversity and team performance. Specifically, we consider how a linguistic approach to social categorization may be used to study the social psychological mechanisms that underlie diversity effects. Using the results of a study examining the effects of gender, ethnicity and tenure on language abstraction, we consider the potential implications for team processes and effectiveness. In addition, we propose a revised team input-process-output model that highlights the potential effects of language on team processes. We conclude by suggesting directions for future research linking diversity, linguistic categorization, and team effectiveness.

This study examines whether Revenue Procedure 2003-61 is an improvement over Revenue Procedure 2000-15, in the areas of taxpayers’ expectations for IRS equitable relief decisions and gender-related in-group bias. The survey instrument includes a vignette adapted from a judicial decision. The results show that Rev. Proc. 2003-61 does improve upon Rev. Proc. 2000-15. Furthermore, taxpayers perceive different expectations of what the IRS should do and what the IRS would do in equitable relief decision making. Also, gender-related in-group biases are found to be present for both genders. Tax policy implications regarding equitable relief are discussed.

The key research issue addressed in this paper is whether individuals perceive advertisements featuring themes from their own religion more positively, and advertisements featuring religious themes from other religions less positively, than neutral ads. In the process, this paper aims to test whether the in-group bias theory (IGBT) and the polarized appraisal theory (PAT) apply in a religious context.

Respondents in a large Indian University were shown advertisements featuring Hindu and Muslim themes as well as a neutral advertisement in the context of pet adoption. Cognitive and affective response measures were used for evaluation.

Respondents did not evaluate advertisements with their own religion’s symbols any more positively than neutral advertisements but did evaluate advertisements with themes from other religions more negatively than neutral ads. In sum, religious advertisements did not have any positive effect on in-group respondents, but rather worked in antagonizing out-group respondents.

Both IGBT and PAT did not work as predicted when tested on in-group respondents but worked as expected on out-group respondents.

In the Indian market, using religious themes has largely negative consequences in terms of alienating out-group members, with no commensurate advantage on in-group members. Firms are better off not using religious advertising, and this decision would likely have a positive impact on a firm’s bottom line.

Though, the general topic of religious advertising has been much researched, but this paper deals with the role of religious symbols in advertising in the Indian context, which is done for the first time in a multi-religious context. Further, the applicability of IGBT and PAT is also tested for the first time in religious advertisement context.

Family business brand communication depends on the effect of the family on stakeholders' perception, and the family influences stakeholders differently, raising the question of whether family business branding varies across stakeholders. Drawing on social identity theory, this research classifies a family firm's stakeholders into family (in-group) and non-family (out-group) stakeholders and explores the communication of family business brands to these two groups of stakeholders.

Data for this research were gathered from a questionnaire survey of 327 Chinese family firms.

The results show that family business brand communication differs between family and non-family stakeholders. Additionally, family harmony has a positive relationship with family business branding to family stakeholders and an inverse U-shaped relationship with family business branding to non-family stakeholders.

This research is the first to demonstrate that family business brand communication varies across stakeholders and that the effect of family characteristics (family harmony in this research) on family business branding differs between stakeholders. In addition, it expands the scope of the out-group in family firms to embrace all non-family stakeholders and suggests an intergroup opposition between family and non-family stakeholders, which is important for advancing family firm theory.

Rules requiring the disclosure of conflicts of interest supposedly enhance transparency, reduce information asymmetries, and protect consumers from biased information; but these rules can have perverse effects. Disclosure regulation may fail to resolve many of the problems that occur with biased information-exchange and it may even make matters worse. This chapter explains these perverse effects and then examines them in light of the literature on group dynamics and information sharing in groups. In doing so, this chapter provides lessons on the pitfalls of information exchange (between individuals or groups), and it highlights some interesting ways that people follow the letter – but not the spirit – of ethical standards.

The academic literature within social psychology focuses on describing what leaders and groups do wrong rather than what they do right. We refer to this as the “negative psychology” of leaders and groups. This chapter reviews the negative and positive research perspectives on leadership and groups. We propose that scholarly research makes more references to the shortcomings of leaders and groups rather than their successes. We conjecture that the pressure by the academic community to produce compelling counterintuitive research findings fuels the tendency to concentrate on failures. In contrast, we suggest that popular articles and books more often focus on the positive achievement of leaders and groups because their audience, namely managers, are more interested in learning how to achieve positive results than to avoid negative outcomes. Finally, we suggest that scholarly research on the psychology of leaders and groups could benefit from understanding how to achieve and maintain positive outcomes, whereas popular press may better prevent organizational failure and ruin by understanding managers’ blunders and faults.