DONE: Legal & Cross Cultural

Question 1

Matsumoto & Yoo (2006)

Answer 1

Cross-cultural psychological research has evolved over the
years, moving from documenting cultural differences to identifying meaningful and relevant dimensions of cultural variability,
and then to using those dimensions in creating elegant theoretical models that predict and explain the documented differences

we describe the three previous phases of cross-cultural research
methods and argue for embarking on a fourth phase,

Phase 1: Comparisons: - Documented diffs acoss groups have been useful in generating knowledge about
universal and culturally specific psychological processes.

Rivers’s (1905) study was one of the first, demonstrating that individuals from India and New Guinea were
more fooled by optical illusions than were individuals from
England.

Phase II: Identifying Meaningful Dimensions of Cultural
Variability
One of the limitations of Phase I cross-cultural comparisons (and
many Phase III cultural studies), however, is that they do not
allow for empirically justified interpretations about culture as
the source of group differences

There are many ways in which two or more
countries, ethnic groups, or racial groups may differ. Some of
these ways are cultural, and some are not. - e.g., cultural attribution fallacy

And even if the source of observed differences is indeed culture, it is not exactly clear what cultural variables
produce the differences and why.

We argue that it is time for cross-cultural research methods to
evolve once again—to Phase IV. This phase will be characterized by what we call linkage studies, because they empirically
link the observed differences in means or correlations among
variables with the specific cultural sources that are hypothesized to account for those differences.

. Without such linkage, the theories about how observed differences between groups were
produced remain speculative and empirically unjustified, despite their elegance.

, there is a distinct possibility that observed between-country differences that are assumed to occur
because of differences in individualism-collectivism may in fact
occur because of economic factors.

To the extent that personality
and culture are separate, therefore, one question that arises is
the degree to which between-country differences occur because
of culture, or because of aggregate differences in personalities in
the countries being measured

In
this model of reverse causation (Allik & McCrae, 2002), the arrows point in a different direction: biologically based personality traits ! culture ! specific mental processes and
behaviors.

Thus, causal interpretations of such
differences that suggest the arrows point in one direction or
another are, in fact, speculations. Yet researchers are often
quick to interpret their findings within an assumed model, most
often the environmental causation model (i.e., they conclude
that culture caused the differences)

Question 2

(Hofstede, 2001)

Answer 2

created the well-known set of four dimensions: Individualism Versus
Collectivism, Power Distance, Uncertainty Avoidance, and
Masculinity. and Long- Versus Short-Term Orientation.

The identification of these dimensions, their quantification on
scales, and the placement of countries on these scales were
major advances for the field, enabling researchers to predict and
explain cultural differences along meaningful dimensions
of variability.

individualism-collectivism became the most widely studied
dimension in the field and has been conceptually linked to many
psychological differences across cultures

Yet , it still did not completely address issues concerning
the cultural attribution fallacy; country names were just replaced with dimension labels.

, between-group differences could still
not be justifiably attributed to cultural sources because cultural
differences of the studied samples were being assumed

Question 3

The “cultural attribution problem was addressed by Markus and Kitayama’s
(1991) landmark work, which

Answer 3

linked individualism-collectivism on the
cultural level with the concept of self on the individual level.

Different types of self-construals, emerging from different cultural contexts, could therefore be one of the sources of observed
cultural differences

Question 4

Taras et al. (2010)

Answer 4

found that compared with personality and demographics, cultural
values had stronger associations with organizational attitudes and
weaker associations with performance, absenteeism, and turnover.
They also showed how norms (i.e., tightness) strengthened the
effect of value on organizational outcomes.

Question 5

Gelfand et al. (2017) Recommendation:

Answer 5

Take meaning of constructs across cultures more seriously:

• Research is indeed increasingly illustrating that we need to
  expand upon many of our existing constructs for them to be
  relevant beyond the West. For example, the latent construct of
  personality for Chinese goes beyond the five-factor model of
  McCrae and Costa (1997) to include emic dimensions such as
  Reng Qing (adherence to norms of interaction), Ah-Q (externalization of blame), Harmony (inner peace and interpersonal harmony),

Question 6

Gelfand et al. (2017)

On OCB definitions and goal-setting:

Answer 6

Cross-cultural differences were also evident in the meaning of organization citizenship
behavior (OCB), with employees from Hong Kong and Japan
regarding some categories of OCB as an expected part of the job,
unlike participants from the United States and Australia, who
considered OCB to be independent of the job requirements (Lam,
Hui, & Law, 1999).

Likewise, a test of the goal-setting theory of
motivation in the United States and in Israel demonstrated that
Americans reached similar levels of performance under participative and assigned goals, yet Israelis performed significantly lower
under assigned than participative goals. The authors argued this
reflected Israelis’ low level of power distance (Erez & Earley,
1987).

Question 7

Murphy (2018) The intersection of law & HRM

-Major US antidiscrim laws

Answer 7

1964 Civil right’s act to protect based on: race, color, sex, national origin, religion

Age discrimination in employment act of 1967 - To protect those over 40.

Americans with disabilities act of (1990) - physical & mental disabilities

Equal pay act of 1963 - to prevent Unequal pay for equal work on jobs the that require equal skill,
effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar
working conditions

Question 8

FLSA (1938)

Answer 8

the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) of 1938 is an important piece
of legislation that can have a substantial impact on HRM policies and practices. Introduced as part
of the New Deal, the FLSA impacts millions of workers (Nordlund 1988, Perez 2015). This law
introduced the forty-hour week, a federal minimum wage (initially 25 cents per hour), time and a
half for overtime in certain jobs, and a reduction in child labor

Question 9

Right to work laws

Answer 9

The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 forbade contracts that prevented employees from joining or forming unions.

The Taft-Hartley
Act of 1947 conversely forbade contracts that required employees to become members of a union, but generally allowed union security agreements in which an employee who opts not to join the union can be compelled to pay fees to cover the cost of collective bargaining.

Starting in the late 1940s, many states, particularly in the South, Midwest, and Western
regions of the United States, adopted laws designed to limit labor unions. So-called rightto-work laws have been adopted in 26 states that prohibit or sharply regulate union security
agreements —- in general they have the effect of forbidding unions from collecting fees from nonmembers, even for services that benefit
them (e.g., collective bargaining on their behalf ), effectively reducing the power and stability of
unions and reducing the attraction of union membership.

Question 10

Important past cases (Murphy, 2018)

Answer 10

Due to common law (in the United States) several court cases have great influence on how current/future law is interpreted and
enforced. For example, Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (401 U.S. 424) established the principle that
the use of tests or assessments that had an adverse impact on the employment opportunities of
members of particular demographic groups was illegal unless the employer could prove the job
relatedness and business necessity of the tests.

Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (477 U.S. 57) established
the principle that sexual harassment that is the result of a hostile work environment constitutes
sex discrimination and can be litigated under Title VII of the CRA of 1964.

Allegations of racial discrimination are among the most frequent of the complaints investigated by the EEOC,1

. First, these differences are sufficiently large to
essentially screen Black applicants out of many highly competitive jobs (Gottfredson 1988). Second, test score differences are considerably larger than differences in job performance (McKay &
McDaniel 2006).

Age bias in hiring is believed to be endemic (Anti-Ageism Task Force 2006), even though there
is little evidence that age is related to job performance.

Perceptions that older workers are costly to employ, are close to retirement, need more
training, have greater absenteeism, and use more benefits appear to factor into decisions to lay off
older workers first (McGoldrick & Arrowsmith 2001).

As originally written, the CRA of 1964 did not forbid discrimination on the basis of sex; sex
discrimination provisions were added to the act during floor debates, allegedly in an effort to make
the law seem so extreme that it would not pass.

Approximately 30% of all discrimination claims
investigated by the EEOC involve allegations of sex discrimination

Question 11

EEOC enforcement

Answer 11

Although the EEOC
receives a huge volume of discrimination complaints, the great majority of these are not litigated and do not result in favorable outcomes for plaintiffs. For example, in more than 75% of
the investigations it performs, the EEOC reaches the conclusion that the complaint is not supported on its merits.

of more
than 175,000 ADEA charges, many of which were investigated and/or litigated by the EEOC, and
found that only 15.7% of these cases resulted in benefits to the charging parties.

Question 12

Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs

(OFCCP),

Answer 12

The OFCCP is part of the US Department of Labor, which is responsible for ensuring that
employers doing business with the federal government comply with the laws and regulations requiring nondiscrimination. The OFCCP has a somewhat more limited reach than the EEOC,
dealing only with federal contractors and subcontractors.

Between 2011 and 2016, the OFCCP
conducted more than 19,000 investigations; more than 75% of these resulted in the conclusion
that the organization being investigated was in compliance with OFCCP regulations.

Question 13

In 1978…

Answer 13

… the EEOC, Civil Service Commission, Department of Labor, and Department of Justice
adopted the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, which were designed to assist
employers in complying with federal law relevant to the use of tests, assessments, and personnel
selection procedures that might discriminate on the basis of sex, race, national origin, etc.

Despite numerous attempts to update these Guidelines, there have been few meaningful changes
since 1978, despite considerable progress in our understanding of testing, assessment, and validation, and it is believed by some that these Guidelines are a detriment to valid and fair personnel
assessment and selection (McDaniel et al. 2011). In particular, the Guidelines are based on an
outmoded understanding of validation. First, the Guidelines emphasize a sharp separation between
different strategies for validation, leading to what Landy (1986) referred to as a “stamp collecting” mentality, in which one must identify the “right” type of validation for each circumstance.
Modern conceptions of validity recognize that there are many useful methods for determining the
validity of inferences based on test scores, and that multiple lines of evidence are often pertinent to
making this assessment.

Second, the Guidelines place a stronger reliance on local validation efforts
than on the cumulative body of research on the validity of selection methods and devices. Since
the publication of the Guidelines, human resource researchers have come to understand the limits
of local studies, particularly those that rely on small samples and the value of interpreting such
studies in the light of the cumulative findings of relevant research.

Question 14

Determining if AI has occurred:

Answer 14

this literature has focused on two methods for determining whether
adverse impact can be shown: (a) a rule of thumb proposed in the Guidelines—the 4/5ths rule
(i.e., that if the success rate for one group is less than 80% the success rate of the most favored
group, adverse impact has been demonstrated), and (b) a demonstration that there are statistically
significant differences in the outcomes across protected groups.

But as selection rates get lower, very small
differences in success across groups can trigger a finding of adverse impact.

Jacobs et al. (2013)
showed that it is worse for an organization to be big than to be bad, in the sense that variation
in sample size has substantially more impact on the outcomes of significance tests than variations
in HRM policies. - . Jacobs et al. (2013) note that in very large organizations, statistically significant
differences between demographic groups are virtually assured, even if the actual differences in
outcomes are minimal.

Murphy & Jacobs (2012) proposed the use of adverse impact criteria that combined both
statistical significance tests and effect size measures, suggesting that the clearest way to demonstrate
the existence of adverse impact is to show that the differences between groups are (a) reliable and
(b) large enough to be at least minimally important.

One method of reducing adverse impact involves subgroup norming—i.e., expressing the test
scores of members of each demographic group in relation to the mean score for that subgroup
rather than in terms of the population mean. This use of subgroup norms for selection tests was
outlawed by the CRA of 1991, leading Cascio et al. (1991) to suggest an alternative—i.e., test
score banding.

Cascio et
al. (1991) suggested that other criteria should be used to rank-order candidates whose test scores
fall within the same band, and that criteria that gave weight to increasing diversity might help to
mitigate adverse impact.

Proponents of meta-analysis
(e.g., Schmidt & Hunter 2003) cast doubt on the utility of local validity studies to provide useful
information in contexts where the accumulated literature supports the validity of broad classes of
tests or assessments, whereas other authors point out that information from traditional validity
studies can be combined with meta-analytic evidence to provide Bayesian estimates of validity
(Newman et al. 2007).

However, the relevance of this literature is arguably clearer for scientific
debates than for settling legal challenges to organizational practices. For example, the Uniform
Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures places heavy emphasis on collecting evidence of the
validity of tests, assessments, and selection methods for the particular jobs and in the particular
settings in which they will be used, and these Guidelines set highly restrictive conditions on the
use of external validation evidence.

Unfortunately, some measures that are widely used to screen job applicants, most notably
credit checks and criminal background checks, show little evidence of validity while at the same
time producing considerable adverse impact.

Question 15

Murphy (2010)

Answer 15

demonstrates how conclusions about validity-adverse impact trade-offs are substantially influenced
by the way job performance is defined,

Question 16

Williams et al. (2013)

Answer 16

reviewed selection litigation, including cases that were settled prior
to trial, and suggested that employers lose these cases almost 90% of the time. However, the
major causes of these unfavorable outcomes are not due to courts dismissing the use of valid
selection tools and processes, but rather the consistent failure of organizations to employ fair,
consistent, and valid processes when making selection decisions.

Question 17

Layoffs (Murphy 2018)

Answer 17

Layoffs often fall disproportionally on older workers, women, and members of racial and ethnic
minority groups, particularly if tenure is an important factor in determining who is retained (Kalev
2014).

Plaintiffs are more likely to succeed when there is no written layoff policy, no evidence of
substandard performance or reduced capability, and no review of layoff decisions.

There is
a large cross-national body of research showing widespread stigmatization and discrimination
against members of many of the same demographic groups who are protected by US federal law
(Behtoui & Neergaard 2009, Rolfe & Dhudwar 2009)

Question 18

Murphy (2018) - International Stuff

Answer 18

EU law puts the burden on employers to demonstrate that they have
not violated the principle of equal treatment.

Unlike laws in other countries, US law (specifically,
the ADEA) protects older workers only, and offers no protection against age-based discrimination
against younger workers.

The most striking difference between US law and EU law and policy regarding discrimination
in the workplace is that in the United States, policies and practices that have discriminatory impact
are legally permitted if the employer can demonstrate that they are job related. In the EU, it is
not clear that the sort of validity/job relatedness defense that is at the heart of American disparate
impact litigation is even relevant.

For example, antidiscrimination law in Germany appears to
allow for a defense that particular employment requirements represent objective requirements of
a job (similar to a bona fide occupational qualification), but it is not clear that they allow for a
defense based on validity or job relatedness (Malhmann 2015)

Question 19

Murphy (2018) Upcoming issues

Answer 19

If you are classified as an
employee of the Atlas Drywall Company, you are eligible for minimum wage, overtime pay,
worker’s compensation, and unemployment insurance; if you are classified as an independent
contractor, you are not

Under common law, the most important factor
determining whether or not an individual is an employee is the employer’s control over the work
(e.g., how the work is performed, hours, breaks), but under the FLSA, a broader array of factors
are relevant. The Department of Labor has issued detailed guidance for determining whether an
individual is in fact an employee or an independent contractor:

Is the work an integral part of the employer’s business?

Is there a permanent or indefinite relationship between employer/employee?

y, the explosive growth of the so-called gig economy, in which individuals provide ondemand services to customers, poses important legal challenges in determining who is or is not an
employee

Question 20

Third parties (Murphy, 2018)

Answer 20

The use of third-party firms to help staff contingent positions is not new; relationships of this
sort have been documented since the 1800s. However, this type of employment relationship is
becoming increasingly common (Davis-Blake & Broschak 2009).

So who ) is responsible for protecting the legal
rights of workers (e.g., rights to overtime, protection against sexual harassment).

Question 21

The Supreme Court’s Ricci v. DeStefano (557 U.S. 557)

decision

Answer 21

suggests that even when organizations take proactive steps to avoid adverse impact, there
are circumstances where they will nevertheless be held legally liable.

Decades of research demonstrating the economic utility of using valid selection tests had little impact on HRM practice (Vance & Colella 1990), but the threat
of a lawsuit often energizes organizations to take validity and validation seriously.

Laws compel people to avoid legal penalty. AND they help orgs by orgs using valid predictors of performance!

Question 22

Murphy & Jacobs (2012)

Answer 22

When PV or d is small, observed group differences should
not be taken as evidence of adverse impact, regardless of the results of significance
tests. Such an approach eliminates spurious charges of unfair discrimination, spares
employers and the courts from dealing with claims that are frivolous and based on
minutia, and helps enforcement agencies to concentrate their efforts on employment
practices that are truly discriminatory.

Disparate Treatment Versus Disparate Impact

The great majority of these charges (that the EEOC handles) are single-plaintiff cases
that relate to allegations of wrongful discharge or of other specific individual
mistreatment,

even moderately large work organizations (including tax-payer funded orgs such as fire or police) face the
potential of multimillion dollar challenges to their policies for hiring, evaluating,
promoting, rewarding, or removing employees.

If adverse impact is demonstrated,
organizations (particularly large ones) may move to settle a lawsuit rather than
risk the high cost and potential negative outcome of litigation.3 Thus, the crux of
many disparate impact lawsuits is the determination of whether the challenged
employment practice has resulted in systematic adverse impact

Enforcement agencies
recognize the problems inherent in significance testing with small samples, but
their definition of a “small sample” is typically N 30 or less (in which case,
organizations may be asked to cumulate data over time or over similar sites to
bring the sample size up;

Whitaker et al. v. 3M (2009) a case
in which a $12 million settlement has been approved. Because of the large number of 3M
employees included in this suit (over 30,000 for some analyses), average differences as small as 3/100th of a point on a 5-point rating scale would have been
statistically significant.

In Vulcan Society of New York City Fire Department Inc. v. Civil Service
Commission of City of New York (1973), White examinees (N 12,915) passed
one test at an 89.9% rate while Black examinees (N 1,749) passed this same test
at a 60.3% rate. This was described as a difference of more than 34 SD.

To put these standard deviation figures in context, the
difference between the highest and lowest scores in a normal distribution is
approximately 6 SD, and even with outliers, would virtually never reach the level
of 10 or 12, making differences of 20 or 30 SD appear like statistical nonsense.

Standard Deviation Analyses Would Be Interpretable If They Were Based
on Standard Deviations—They Are Not. Rather, “standard deviation”
analysis (i.e., significance tests) expresses this difference in terms of standard
errors. The standard error is an
inferential static that depends on both the variability within and between groups
as well as the sample size.

PV -
If, for example, differences between men and women
explain less than 1% of the variance in selection decisions, that figure will have
the same meaning and the same implications regardless of the sample size.

Question 23

White and Black differences in average scores on

cognitive ability tests are typically described as large (d range .801.0),

Answer 23

whereas White and Black differences in measures of job performance are typically described as small to medium in size (d range .20.30; Roth et al., 2001; Roth et al., 2003).

The unique advantages of the PV
are that this effect size can be used with comparisons among any number of
groups (the d statistic is limited to comparisons between two groups), and that this
index allows one to evaluate the importance of group differences relative to other
factors (e.g., differences between people within groups) that cause test scores or
decision outcomes to vary. PV values of .01, .05, .15, .20, respectively, are widely
used to describe small, medium, moderately large, and large effects in the social
and behavioral sciences (Cohen, 1988; Murphy et al., 2009)

the differences between groups will be
characterized as small (in particular, as too small to represent systematic adverse
impact) when d .20 or when PV .01

Question 24

Murphy et al. (2009)

Answer 24

give formulas for transforming d to PV.

The d statistic describes the
difference between groups in terms of standard deviation units, either the pooled
standard deviation of the two groups (Cohen d) or in studies comparing treatment
and control groups, the standard deviation of the control group (Glass d).

The development of minimum-effect tests (Murphy
et al., 2009) provides a simple method of integrating significance tests with effect
size measures, preserving the best of both worlds. A traditional test of statistical
significance tests the hypothesis that the difference between two groups is exactly zero.

Minimum-effect tests evaluate a different hypothesis, that the difference
between two groups is smaller than some standard. For example, Murphy et al.
(2009) provide numerous examples of tests of the hypothesis that the difference
between two groups accounts for 1 to 5% or less of the variance.

Despite several efforts to revise them, the highly influential Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, et al., 1978) still reflect the scientific and professional standards that were in place over 40 years ago.

Similarly, these
Guidelines have enshrined explicit descriptions of the two traditional methods for
detecting adverse impact: the four-fifths rule and significance testing.

First, the fear that some personnel policy in a large organization will create
significant differences between some group and some other makes it difficult for
these organizations to take advantage of scientifically proven methods of assessment (Schmidt & Hunter, 1998).
****but do we even know it’s the case that by using cog ability tests, we wouldn’t find a sufficiently high PV between races anyway?
After all, in other work, Murphy (2018 notes that previous research

Question 25

Waldman & Avolio (1991)

Answer 25

race of the rater and ratee accounted for little variance in performance evaluations after
individual differences in ability and length of experience were controlled.

Question 26

Roth et al. (2003) meta

Answer 26

Contrary to one perspective sometimes
adopted in the field, objective measures are associated with very similar, if not somewhat larger,
standardized ethnic group differences (ds) than subjective measures across a variety of indicators. This
trend was consistent across quality, quantity, and absenteeism measures. Further, work samples and job
knowledge tests are associated with larger ds than performance ratings or measures of absenteeism.

Question 27

Salas (SIOP, 2013)

Answer 27

SIOP’s formal recommendation to review the Uniform Guidelines of 1978

Question 28

ADEA (1967)

Answer 28

age discrimination in employment act of 1967

Question 29

ADA (1990

Answer 29

Americans with disabilities act

Question 30

The Civil Rights Act of 1991 outlawed

Answer 30

race norming

Wasn’t Casio (1990) who came up with it?

Question 31

mixed-motive cases

Answer 31

• when employer uses both valid criteria for selection as well as discriminatory criterion/a.

Question 32

Family and medical leave act of 1993 (FMLA)

Answer 32

covers all private employers with 50 or more employees - 12 weeks of unpaid leave each year for a new child. , or to care for a spouse, parent, or child with serious health condition, or for the employee’s own serious health condition.

Question 33

Colella et al. (2017)

Answer 33

1917–1969: was an Era of Discrimination Research That
Was Discriminatory Itself.

To the landmark Civil Rights Act
(CRA) of 1964. Though there was not a great deal of power in
enforcing this legislation initially, it emerged as the single most
meaningful piece of legislation to date forbidding discrimination
based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.

The majority of such studies, particularly those conducted in the first half of the 20th century, did not question
whether such differences existed. Rather, researchers attempted
to quantify the amount, extent, and nature of such differences
between groups of people,

even when null results were found, the absence of such differences
was reported. Across more than 50 years, quite a few null differences were found, thereby providing the foundation to scrutinize
the general ideology.

It seems that while great strides were made in
antidiscrimination legislation and the civil rights movement during
the 1960s, it was not until the 1970s that enforcement of legislation
came to be a major issue to employers. It was then that questions
arose that were of interest to the field of applied psychology,
spurring a great deal of research

, in
Griggs v. Duke Power Company (1971) it was required businesses would have to show business necessity for a selection method used, if it produced AI.

Also, sexual harassment was ruled to be
in violation of Title VII in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986).

). Kraiger and Ford (1985)’s
meta-analysis (N “ 81) supported the finding of Rater # Ratee
effects such that the average effect size for White raters was d “
.37 (in favor of Whites) and for Black raters d “ $.45 (in favor of
Black rates).

For gender, the only moderator examined
with any consistency was the gender of the rater but the evidence
was not strong

McEvoy and Cascio (1989) found no relationship between age and
productivity (r “ .07, ns) or objective ratings (r “ .03, ns

Female leaders are rewarded more for showing people-oriented, nurturing, or
low power leadership styles and punished for using more aggressive, autocratic, agentic styles than men.

From a
methodological viewpoint, discrimination has not been an easy
topic to study; challenges include getting real world samples,
identifying people as members of an identity group, and social
desirability effects

Employment
discrimination is certainly a result of multilevel factors and occurs
over time, yet research in JAP has not been multilevel or longitudinal. Such approaches allow for consideration of how discrimination processes may change over time and how discrimination
can be conceptualized and analyzed at the individual, group, and
organizational level.

What works: we know that openly disclosing a stigma, increasing
one’s positivity and likability, and distinguishing oneself from
stereotypical associations are at least somewhat effective strategies
for targets to pursue. H

Question 34

Heisman et al. (1973)

Answer 34

First, male, but

not female, stereotypes coincide with manager stereotypes.

Question 35

in 1990, the ______ was passed, requiring employers to provide
reasonable accommodations that are not significantly difficult or
expensive to employees with disabilities.

Answer 35

ADA (1990)

Question 36

Heilman et al., 1991;

Answer 36

Selection method affected the task preferences of women but not men, and women selected preferentially chose the less demanding task compared to those chosen based on merit.

Women’s retrospective
reports of their managerial ability were also considerably less favorable in the preferential selection condition than in the merit
condition.

Question 37

In 2009, President Obama signed

Answer 37

the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 (“Act”). This law overturned the Supreme Court’s decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc., 550 U.S. 618 (2007), which severely restricted the time period for filing complaints of employment discrimination concerning compensation.

Question 38

Pulakos & Schmitt (1996)

Answer 38

Attempted to find 2 strategies to reduce subgroup differences leading to AI, as well as whether those methods still had high validity.

1. Using broader range of cog & noncog abilities relevant according to a work analysis.
2. Using an alt measure of verbal ability (e.g., a video administered writing test)

Subgroup diffs were reduced for each, especially for the broad-based ability assessment.

validity was also increased by the broad-based ability assessment.

But validity was reduced for the alt measure of verbal ability.