(no subject)
This experiment was designed to study workplace inequality created by stereotypes. Stereotypes are instantaneous, often unconscious, judgments made of people based on characteristics of the person (such as race, religion, etc.). Stereotypes are not based on any real facts, these judgments are only assumptions. This is how inequality is created and in workplace circumstances such judgments are illegal and perpetuate discrimination. This experiment specifically is setting opposing statuses against one another at the hiring level of employment to see if their choice in activities creates a bias against their resume.
At the website yahoo.com, the occupation “laboratory technician” was searched, the website provided between ten and twenty job advertisements for the occupation. An add was chosen at random, the selected add was located in Vermillion, SD. It is a full time position and does not require past experience. This healthcare occupation advertisement does not specify a minimum in education, but at least a BA in a Science field would be required to understand and perform the job. With this job in mind, two nearly identical resumes were created. These resumes select two group stereotypes to compare, that of the geek and jock. A “Jock” represents successful athletes who are not particularly intelligent. A “Geek” represents an intelligent outcast.
The resumes are identical in the objective, experience, education, and references sections. The difference lies in the activities section. Resume A is for the geek, in his activities area he is listed as an active member in The Geek Squad. Resume B is for the jock, in his activities section he is listed as a member of a Football Association. This experiment is to study people’s reactions and to discover who they would prefer to hire for a medical technician position. More specifically, this experiment is looking for bias and inequality in the employment field created by stereotypes. The athlete’s stereotypical trait of not being intelligent and the geek’s stereotypical trait of being super intelligent create an instant difference that people may automatically base judgments on.
The participants of this experiment were located in front of The Bookie so a wide variety of people were sampled, including graduates, undergraduates, faculty, and other school employees from all major areas of study. I approached every third person in front of The Bookie doors at noon on Monday, October 15th. Selecting noon as the sample time didn’t provide an easy experiment. At noon there was an overwhelming large amount of people flowing in and out of The Bookie. Many people seemed to be in a hurry and when asked to participate in the study either refused or completely ignored the question. When catching an interested and willing participant a previously memorized consent script was recited. Not every third person was sampled due to people’s refusal to participate or to the large flow of people. By the end of the hour, the desired pattern of surveying every third person became every fifth, even every sixth person. Most participants seemed to be either older staff or undergraduates.
There were a few differences in the participants’ responses to the study. Concerning resume A, two males wanted to know if there was a Pullman based Football and Rugby Association. Concerning resume B, one male mentioned he’s previously worked for Geek Squad and three girls wanted to know what Geek Squad was. There were also similarities. Three people observed the education was received at the University of OR, two people mentioned they wanted to get a medical technician occupation, and three people needed a more precise description of a medical technician job.
On a scale from one to seven, one being not at all capable and seven being extremely capable, participants rated the applicant of either resume A or B. The average jock rated higher for the following traits: good nature, self-confidence, trustworthy and friendly. The typical geek rated higher on the rest of the traits, such as responsible, efficient, organized, skilled, independent, and intelligent. For specific results and averages, see Table 1.1.
Table 1.1 A B
Responsible 5.6 6.2
Efficiency 4.8 6.0
Good-natured 6.6 5.4
Organized 4.8 6.8
Skilled 4.8 5.8
Confidence 6.8 5.8
Trustworthy 6.4 5.8
Independence 6.6 5.6
Intelligence 6.5 7.0
Based on the results of the twenty Initial Impressions Surveys, I conclude there is a bias against jocks and a preference for geeks. Resume B (the “Geek”) scored high in all the traits heavily connected with job performance such as responsibility, efficiency and organization. Resume A (the “Jock”) scored high on more personal or emotional traits such as good nature, confidence, and friendliness. On average, Resume A received two points less than Resume B when rated on intelligence. The only difference was their activities, and Resume A scored lower. This is a bias against sports playing individuals; this bias is even more obvious when compared to Resume B’s results. Whither an individual plays sports or not does not make him any less intelligent, it is a stereotype that athletes are not smart.
If these two resumes compete against each other in real life, the chance is that Resume A will not get the job. Any hiring employer would want competent, fast-working, smart workers. The jock stereotype puts him at an instant disadvantage based on an incorrect assumed impression. This stereotype leads to workplace inequality on the hiring level as well as possibly the promotion level. The results show it is very important to tailor one’s resume to each job. People spend very little time looking over resumes, so every single detail must count towards you, not against you. In addition, the results show that being an athlete does not impress everyone; in this case, being an athlete was actually a negative. In this study Resume B (the geek) scored very well, the single activity of The Geek Squad gave every participant the impression he was particularly bright. In reality the activities one decides to participate in do not have any real connection to traits that will help you get a job. Giving resume B the preference based on a stereotype, leaves someone possibly more capable and better suited for the job behind.
An inexperienced Junior Undergraduate designed this experiment. This study wasn’t completely under control and there were uncountable mistakes including because this was the first field survey designed and performed by myself. The results resemble people’s responses thus making the results “real”, but this experiment was not made well enough to produce perfect data or indicate all possible social processes. There are many dynamics to take into consideration when designing a study like this one, such as sample make up, sample size, sample selection, and questions to ask. If any one of these dynamics was changed, the results could change drastically as well. For example if the sample location had been located in one of the science buildings or near the gym, the participants may have had completely different views and opinions.
Asking random people to participate in a survey is only one option when wanting to study workplace discrimination. Replying to the job advertisements with these resumes is another way to test for workplace inequality, but this route takes more time. Personal reactions cannot be recorded like this though, but the survey records people’s bias exactly as they are. However, there are several areas of change or improvement for the survey. Location is key to getting expected results in this experiment; changing location would change the results noticeably. Age of participants also changes results, for example, Resume A and B were rated nearly the same when scored by a graduate or a member of the staff. The most helpful improvement would be expanding the time and sample selection of this study. More time would mean better result and maybe even more in depth answers. Also, if more the twenty surveys were taken, the results would include more varied answers. The more widespread the results, the more “real” they become and may better answer sociological questions.
At the website yahoo.com, the occupation “laboratory technician” was searched, the website provided between ten and twenty job advertisements for the occupation. An add was chosen at random, the selected add was located in Vermillion, SD. It is a full time position and does not require past experience. This healthcare occupation advertisement does not specify a minimum in education, but at least a BA in a Science field would be required to understand and perform the job. With this job in mind, two nearly identical resumes were created. These resumes select two group stereotypes to compare, that of the geek and jock. A “Jock” represents successful athletes who are not particularly intelligent. A “Geek” represents an intelligent outcast.
The resumes are identical in the objective, experience, education, and references sections. The difference lies in the activities section. Resume A is for the geek, in his activities area he is listed as an active member in The Geek Squad. Resume B is for the jock, in his activities section he is listed as a member of a Football Association. This experiment is to study people’s reactions and to discover who they would prefer to hire for a medical technician position. More specifically, this experiment is looking for bias and inequality in the employment field created by stereotypes. The athlete’s stereotypical trait of not being intelligent and the geek’s stereotypical trait of being super intelligent create an instant difference that people may automatically base judgments on.
The participants of this experiment were located in front of The Bookie so a wide variety of people were sampled, including graduates, undergraduates, faculty, and other school employees from all major areas of study. I approached every third person in front of The Bookie doors at noon on Monday, October 15th. Selecting noon as the sample time didn’t provide an easy experiment. At noon there was an overwhelming large amount of people flowing in and out of The Bookie. Many people seemed to be in a hurry and when asked to participate in the study either refused or completely ignored the question. When catching an interested and willing participant a previously memorized consent script was recited. Not every third person was sampled due to people’s refusal to participate or to the large flow of people. By the end of the hour, the desired pattern of surveying every third person became every fifth, even every sixth person. Most participants seemed to be either older staff or undergraduates.
There were a few differences in the participants’ responses to the study. Concerning resume A, two males wanted to know if there was a Pullman based Football and Rugby Association. Concerning resume B, one male mentioned he’s previously worked for Geek Squad and three girls wanted to know what Geek Squad was. There were also similarities. Three people observed the education was received at the University of OR, two people mentioned they wanted to get a medical technician occupation, and three people needed a more precise description of a medical technician job.
On a scale from one to seven, one being not at all capable and seven being extremely capable, participants rated the applicant of either resume A or B. The average jock rated higher for the following traits: good nature, self-confidence, trustworthy and friendly. The typical geek rated higher on the rest of the traits, such as responsible, efficient, organized, skilled, independent, and intelligent. For specific results and averages, see Table 1.1.
Table 1.1 A B
Responsible 5.6 6.2
Efficiency 4.8 6.0
Good-natured 6.6 5.4
Organized 4.8 6.8
Skilled 4.8 5.8
Confidence 6.8 5.8
Trustworthy 6.4 5.8
Independence 6.6 5.6
Intelligence 6.5 7.0
Based on the results of the twenty Initial Impressions Surveys, I conclude there is a bias against jocks and a preference for geeks. Resume B (the “Geek”) scored high in all the traits heavily connected with job performance such as responsibility, efficiency and organization. Resume A (the “Jock”) scored high on more personal or emotional traits such as good nature, confidence, and friendliness. On average, Resume A received two points less than Resume B when rated on intelligence. The only difference was their activities, and Resume A scored lower. This is a bias against sports playing individuals; this bias is even more obvious when compared to Resume B’s results. Whither an individual plays sports or not does not make him any less intelligent, it is a stereotype that athletes are not smart.
If these two resumes compete against each other in real life, the chance is that Resume A will not get the job. Any hiring employer would want competent, fast-working, smart workers. The jock stereotype puts him at an instant disadvantage based on an incorrect assumed impression. This stereotype leads to workplace inequality on the hiring level as well as possibly the promotion level. The results show it is very important to tailor one’s resume to each job. People spend very little time looking over resumes, so every single detail must count towards you, not against you. In addition, the results show that being an athlete does not impress everyone; in this case, being an athlete was actually a negative. In this study Resume B (the geek) scored very well, the single activity of The Geek Squad gave every participant the impression he was particularly bright. In reality the activities one decides to participate in do not have any real connection to traits that will help you get a job. Giving resume B the preference based on a stereotype, leaves someone possibly more capable and better suited for the job behind.
An inexperienced Junior Undergraduate designed this experiment. This study wasn’t completely under control and there were uncountable mistakes including because this was the first field survey designed and performed by myself. The results resemble people’s responses thus making the results “real”, but this experiment was not made well enough to produce perfect data or indicate all possible social processes. There are many dynamics to take into consideration when designing a study like this one, such as sample make up, sample size, sample selection, and questions to ask. If any one of these dynamics was changed, the results could change drastically as well. For example if the sample location had been located in one of the science buildings or near the gym, the participants may have had completely different views and opinions.
Asking random people to participate in a survey is only one option when wanting to study workplace discrimination. Replying to the job advertisements with these resumes is another way to test for workplace inequality, but this route takes more time. Personal reactions cannot be recorded like this though, but the survey records people’s bias exactly as they are. However, there are several areas of change or improvement for the survey. Location is key to getting expected results in this experiment; changing location would change the results noticeably. Age of participants also changes results, for example, Resume A and B were rated nearly the same when scored by a graduate or a member of the staff. The most helpful improvement would be expanding the time and sample selection of this study. More time would mean better result and maybe even more in depth answers. Also, if more the twenty surveys were taken, the results would include more varied answers. The more widespread the results, the more “real” they become and may better answer sociological questions.