DONE: D&I

Question 1

King & Cortina (2010)

Answer 1

organizations share responsibility for the social good of the
communities in which they operate, including the LGBT.

A review of published studies on LGBT workplace experiences indicated that between 25% and 66% of LGBT
employees reported that they had experienced discrimination, with higher rates
being reported by individuals who had disclosed their sexual orientation (Croteau,
1996

There is no federal legislation protecting LGBT individuals from employment
discrimination in the United States.

Though, the Supreme court ruled in the summer of 2020 that discrimination based on LGBT attritubtes violates Title 7 of the ‘64 CRA.

Arguments: Organizations share responsibility for the social good of the communities in which they
operate.

Second, orgs have an economic imperative: For example, perceived
heterosexism is negatively associated with
job satisfaction

Recommendations:

1. Include sexual orientation in antidiscrim statements & policies, which has been found to be + correl with LGBT workers’ job sat.
2. diversity management may
   be most successful to the extent that they
   include ‘‘structures of responsibility’’ (such
   as diversity committees or equal employment staff members) wherein oversight and
   advocacy efforts can be centralized and
   groups and individuals held accountable.

Question 2

Steele & Aronson (2004)

Answer 2

Argues against Sacket et al. (2004) by pointing out they (S&A) never claimed stereotype threat fully accounts for the race gap.

and address: “It is the no-threat conditions that
are unlike real-life testing. They present the
test as nondiagnostic of the participants’
ability or of their group’s ability—in
stark contrast to real-life testing situations.

Question 3

Landy (2008)

Answer 3

Descriptive stereotypes are beliefs about what attributes a group possesses, whereas prescriptive
stereotypes are beliefs about what attributes
a group should possess.

Stereotype research basically exploded in the 1990s onward.

Question 4

Greenwald et al., 2002

Answer 4

have championed
the hypothesis that automatic cognitive
mechanisms are responsible for discriminatory behavior

E.G. - it should
take less time to make an association
between the words ‘‘insect’’ and ‘‘bad’’ or
‘‘flower’’ and ‘‘good’’ than between ‘‘insect’’
and ‘‘good’’ or ‘‘flower’’ and ‘‘bad.’’

Criticisms of IAT:

 There is no very good theory behind
the hypothesis, that is, there is little
plausible theory to describe why such
associations may be formed (Fazio &
Olson, 2003).

There is little evidence to show any
connection between this proposed
tendency and actual work behavior
(McConnell & Leibold, 2001).
-Only ‘‘microlevel’’ criteria like gaze or smiling.

The test–retest reliability of .60 is well
below what might be considered
acceptable (Murphy & Davidshofer,
2005).

some
people are more likely to hold biased
implicit associations than others
(Fazio & Olson, 2003).

‘‘Validity’’studies of the IAT
are generally limited to the ‘‘microlevel behaviors’’ described above

The phenomenon is limited to concepts and categories and seems unIATrelated to known or familiar individuals
(e.g., DeHouwer, 2001).

some research has shown that the
‘‘implicit negative associations’’ can
be shown most clearly in associations
between categories or concepts and
nonsense words (Brendl et al., 2001).
Thus, it is possible to conclude that any
bias may stem more from lack of
salience or from unfamiliarity with
the object in question rather than any
implicit prejudice against the properties of the object. 

Greenwald and Krieger (2006)
acknowledge that even the tenuous IAT race
effect disappears when known faces of
admired African Americans (scientists,
artists, and political leaders) are used as stimuli rather than abstract concepts such as African American or European American.

In other words, as researchers have found
consistently in the study of stereotypes, even
Greenwald finds the mitigating effect of individuating information in his IAT studies.

Greenwald and Krieger note that ‘‘research
has shown that when a person forms a new
personal connection with a member of a previously devalued out-group, implicit attitudes toward that group may change
dramatically and rapidly’’

Real world selection scenarios have characteristics that vary substantially from the
typical paradigm used to study stereotyping. These characteristics include the
following:

1. the college students have never been trained on doing evals
2. the supervisors often have substantially more experience in making evalutions (and may have seen when initial evals were wrong0
   - Individuating information:

in most lab studies, students evaluate other students on task perf.

But contrast the typical study of stereotypes
with the real work setting. The supervisor
knows the subordinate very well, having
interactedwiththe person often over a period
of many years. Thus, the supervisor has individuating information about the subordinate—information specific to that person
that goes well beyond simple categories of
race, gender, or age. Interestingly, research
on stereotypes has demonstrated that such
individuating information can quickly and
dramatically reduce the possibility and need
for heuristics (such as stereotypes) in individual evaluation.

Question 5

Landy (2010)

Answer 5

I have recently finished
a review of potential performance
appraisal ‘‘bias’’ against protected
groups and found little or no evidence
for such bias