Advertisement

Sex Roles

pp 1–12 | Cite as

When Job Ads Turn You Down: How Requirements in Job Ads May Stop Instead of Attract Highly Qualified Women

  • Lien Wille
  • Eva Derous
Original Article

Abstract

Qualification-based targeted recruitment strategies aim to increase the number of qualified applicants from certain social groups, such as women. Typically, such strategies assume that individuals are more likely to apply for a job when they possess the requirements needed for that job. However, how job seekers react to requirements in job ads is not often considered and is explored in the present study. In two experimental studies with Belgian university students we investigated whether person requirements about which women have negative meta-stereotypes (like the trait of emotionality) and the way such requirements are formulated in job ads (i.e., using trait-like adjectives, “You are calm/not nervous,” or behavior-like verbs, “You remain calm in stressful situations”) affected women’s job attraction and decision to apply. A repeated measures ANOVA showed that job attraction was lower if women held negative meta-stereotypes about required personality traits in job ads (Study 1; 218 women; M age = 23.44 years, range = 21–42; 97% ethnic majorities). Moreover, qualified women applied to a lesser extent if a negatively meta-stereotyped trait was worded in a trait-like way than when it was worded in a behavior-like way (Study 2; n = 183; M age = 23.68 years, range = 21–44; 58% women; 97% ethnic majorities). A practical implication is that recruiters should be sensitive to how they formulate job ads if they wish to attract a highly qualified and gender-diverse applicant pool.

Keywords

Gender Job advertisement Job attraction Application decision Targeted recruitment 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge Naomi Mike for her help in collecting the data.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animals Rights

The research involves human participants. The study was carried out in accordance with the guidelines of the ‘General Ethical Protocol for Scientific Research at the Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences’ of the Ethical Commission of the Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, which is the relevant university institutional review board that considers ethical aspects. APA ethical standards were followed in the conduct of the study.

Informed Consent

In accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, participants provided informed consent prior to their participation. Only when individuals gave their informed consent, the questionnaire was presented.

References

  1. Ashfort, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20–39.  https://doi.org/10.2307/258189.Google Scholar
  2. Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2009). The HEXACO-60: A short measure of the major dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91, 340–345.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890902935878.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., Perugini, M., Szarota, P., de Vries, R. E., Di Blas, L., … De Raad, B. (2004). A six-factor structure of personality-descriptive adjectives: Solutions from psycholexical studies in seven languages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 356–366.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.2.356.
  4. Auster, E. R., & Prasad, A. (2016). Why do women still not make it to the top? Dominant organizational ideologies and biases by promotion committees limit opportunities to destination positions. Sex Roles, 75, 177–196.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0607-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Autin, F., Branscombe, N. R., & Croizet, J. (2013). Creating, closing, and reversing the gender gap in test performance: How selection policies trigger social identity threat or safety among women and men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38, 327–339.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684313510485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Avery, D. R., & McKay, P. F. (2006). Target practice: An organizational impression management approach to attracting minority and female job applicants. Personnel Psychology, 59, 157–187.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00807.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barber, A. E. (1998). Recruiting employees: Individual and organizational perspectives. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Beatty, P. C., & Willis, G. B. (2007). Research synthesis: The practice of cognitive interviewing. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71, 287–311.  https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfm006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Behling, O., Labovitz, G., & Gainer, M. (1968). College recruiting: A theoretical basis. The Personnel Journal, 47, 13–19.Google Scholar
  10. Born, M. P., & Taris, T. W. (2010). The impact of wording of employment advertisements on students’ inclination to apply for a job. The. Journal of Social Psychology, 150, 485–202.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224540903365422.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Bosak, J., & Sczesny, S. (2008). Am I the right candidate? Self-ascribed fit of women and men to a leadership position. Sex Roles, 58, 682–688.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9380-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bosak, J., & Sczesny, S. (2011). Gender bias in leader selection? Evidence from a hiring simulation study. Sex Roles, 65, 234–242.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0012-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Breaugh, J. A. (2008). Employee recruitment: Current knowledge and important areas for future research. Human Resource Management Review, 18, 103–118.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2008.07.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Casper, W. J., Wayne, J. H., & Manegold, J. G. (2013). Who will we recruit? Targeting deep- and surface-level diversity with human resource policy advertising. Human Resource Management, 52, 311–332.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cheryan, S., Plaut, V. C., Davies, P. G., & Steele, C. M. (2009). Ambient belonging: How stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 1045–1060.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016239.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Collins, M. W., & Morris, S. B. (2008). Testing for adverse impact when sample size is small. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 463–471.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.463.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Cundiff, J. L., & Vescio, T. K. (2016). Gender stereotypes influence how people explain gender disparities in the workplace. Sex Roles, 75, 126–138.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0593-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. De Corte, W. (2011). An integrated decision-aid for shaping recruitment and selection decisions. Paper presented at the EAWOP Small Group Meeting, June 22–24, Athens, Greece.Google Scholar
  19. de Vries, R. E., Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2009). De zes belangrijkste persoonlijkheidsdimensies en HEXACO persoonlijkheidsvragenlijst [The six most important personality dimensions and the HEXACO personality inventory]. Gedrag en Organisatie, 22, 232–274.Google Scholar
  20. Derous, E., & Ryan, A. M. (2012). Documenting the adverse impact of resume screening: Degree of ethnic identification matters. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 20, 464–474.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Derous, E., Ryan, A. M., & Serlie, A. W. (2015). Double jeopardy upon resume screening: When Achmed is less employable than Aisha. Personnel Psychology, 68, 659–696.  https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Else-Quest, N. M., & Hyde, J. S. (2016). Intersectionality in quantitative psychological research: I. Theoretical and epistemological issues. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40, 155–170.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684316629797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Emerson, K. T. U., & Murphy, M. C. (2014). Identity threat at work: How social identity threat and situational cues contribute to racial and ethnic disparities in the workplace. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 20, 508–520.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035403.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Civil Service Commission, Department of Labor, & Department of Justice. (1978). Uniform guidelines on employee selection procedures. Retrieved from http://www.uniformguidelines.com/uniformguidelines.html#129.
  25. European Commission. (2016). Report on equality between women and men in 2015.  https://doi.org/10.2838/782115.
  26. Garcia, M., Posthuma, R., & Quiñones, M. (2010). How benefit information and demographics influence employee recruiting in Mexico. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25, 523–531.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9175-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gaucher, D., Friesen, J., & Kay, A. C. (2011). Evidence that gendered wording in job advertisements exists and sustains gender inequality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 109–128.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022530.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Guion, R. M. (2011). Assessment, measurement, and predictions for personnel decisions. East Sussex, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Güngör, G., & Biernat, M. (2009). Gender bias or motherhood disadvantage? Judgments of blue collar mothers and fathers in the workplace. Sex Roles, 60, 232–246.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9540-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Herriot, P. (1993). A paradigm bursting at the seams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 371–375.  https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030140407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Highhouse, S., & Hoffman, J. R. (2001). Organizational attraction and job choice. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 16, 37–64.Google Scholar
  32. Highhouse, S., Thornbury, E. E., & Little, I. S. (2007). Social-identity functions of attraction to organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103, 134–146.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.01.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Higuera, L. (2001). Adverse impact in personnel selection: The legal framework and test bias. European Psychologist, 6, 103–111.  https://doi.org/10.1027//1016-9040.6.2.103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kamans, E., Gordijn, E. H., Oldenhuis, H., & Otten, S. (2009). What I think you see is what you get: Influence of prejudice on assimilation to negative meta-stereotypes among Dutch Moroccan teenagers. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 842–851.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Latu, I. M., Schmid Mast, M., & Stewart, T. L. (2015). Gender biases in (inter)action: The role of interviewers’ and applicants’ implicit and explicit stereotypes in predicting women’s job interview outcomes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 39, 539–552.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684315577383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Leary, M. R., & Allen, A. B. (2011). Self-presentational persona: Simultaneous management of multiple impressions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1033–1049.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023884.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2004). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO personality inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 329–358.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3902_8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2008). The HEXACO personality factors in the indigenous personality lexicons of English and 11 other languages. Journal of Personality, 76, 1001–1054.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00512.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. McNab, S. M., & Johnston, L. (2002). The impact of equal employment opportunity statements in job advertisements on applicants' perceptions of organizations. Australian Journal of Psychology, 54, 105–409.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00049530210001706573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Newman, D. A., & Lyon, L. S. (2009). Recruitment efforts to reduce adverse impact: Targeted recruiting for personality, cognitive ability, and diversity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 298–317.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013472.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Newman, D. A., Jones, K. S., Fraley, R. C., Lyon, J. S., & Mullaney, K. M. (2013). Why minority recruiting doesn’t often work, and what can be done about it: Applicant qualifications and the 4-group model of targeted recruiting. In K. Y. T. Yu & D. M. Cable (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of recruitment (pp. 492–526). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Oostrom, J. K., & Born, M. P. (2014). Using cognitive pretesting to explore causes for ethnic differences on role-plays. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 41, 138–149.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2013.12.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Owuamalam, C. K., & Zagefka, H. (2011). Downplaying a compromised social image: The effect of metastereotype valence on social identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 528–537.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Owuamalam, C. K., & Zagefka, H. (2014). On the psychological barriers to the workplace: When and why metastereotyping undermines employability beliefs of women and ethnic minorities. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 20, 521–528.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037645.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Purdie-Vaughns, V., Steele, C. A., Davies, P. G., Ditlmann, R., & Crosby, J. R. (2008). Social identity contingencies: How diversity cues signal threat or safety for African Americans in mainstream institutions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 615–630.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.615b.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Reeve, C. L., Highhouse, S., & Brooks, M. E. (2006). A closer look at reactions to realistic recruitment messages. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14, 1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2006.00330.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Remedios, J. D., & Snyder, S. H. (2015). How women of color detect and respond to multiple forms of prejudice. Sex Roles, 73, 371–383.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-015-0453-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rubini, M., & Menegatti, M. (2008). Linguistic bias in personnel selection. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 27, 168–181.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X07313653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Ryan, A. M., & Tippins, N. T. (2004). Attracting and selecting: What psychological research tells us. Human Resource Management, 43, 305–318.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rynes, S. L. (1991). Recruitment, job choice, and post-hire consequences: A call for new research directions. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, 2nd ed., pp. 399–444). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Google Scholar
  52. Schmidt, J. A., Chapman, D. S., & Jones, D. A. (2015). Does emphasizing different types of person-environment fit in online job ads influence application behavior and applicant quality? Evidence from a field experiment. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30, 267–282.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-014-9353-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schuster, C., & Martiny, S. E. (2017). Not feeling good in STEM: Effects of stereotype activation and anticipated affect on women’s career aspirations. Sex Roles, 76, 40–55.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0665-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Semin, G. R. (2008). Language puzzles: A prospective retrospective on the linguistic category model. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 27, 197–209.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X07313664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Semin, G., & Fiedler, K. (1991). The linguistic category model, its bases, applications and range. European Review of Social Psychology, 2, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Stevens, C. D., & Szmerekovsky, J. G. (2010). Attraction to employment advertisements: Advertisement wording and personality characteristics. Journal of Managerial Issues, 1, 107–126.Google Scholar
  57. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.Google Scholar
  58. Tippins, N. T. (2010). Adverse impact in employee selection procedures form the perspective of an organizational consultant. In J. L. Outtz (Ed.), Adverse impact. Implications for organizational staffing and high stakes selection (pp. 201–225). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  59. Van de Vijver, F., & Hambleton, R. K. (1996). Translating tests: Some practical guidelines. European Psychologist, 1, 89–99.  https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040.1.2.89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. van Hooft, E. A. J., Born, M. P., Taris, T. W., & Van der Flier, H. (2006). Ethnic and gender differences in applicants’ decision-making processes: An application of the theory of reasoned action. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 14, 156–166.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2006.00341.x.
  61. Volpone, S. D., Thomas, K. M., Sinisterra, P., & Johnson, L. (2013). Targeted recruiting: Identifying future employees. In K. Y. T. Yu & D. M. Cable (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of recruitment (pp. 492–526). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Vorauer, J. D., Main, K. J., & O’Connell, G. B. (1998). How do individuals expect to be viewed by members of lower status groups? Contents and implications of meta-stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 917–937.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.4.917.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Vorauer, J. D., Hunter, A., Main, K. J., & Roy, S. A. (2000). Meta-stereotype activation: Evidence from indirect measures for specific evaluation concerns experienced by members of dominant groups in intergroup interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 690–707.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.690.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Walker, H. J., & Hinojosa, A. S. (2013). Recruitment: The role of job advertisements. In K. Y. T. Yu & D. M. Cable (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of recruitment (pp. 269–283). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Walker, H. J., Feild, H. S., Giles, W. F., & Bernerth, J. B. (2008). The interactive effects of job advertisements characteristics and applicant experiences on reactions to recruitment messages. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 81, 619–638.  https://doi.org/10.1348/096317907X252487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wayne, J. H., & Casper, W. J. (2016). Why having a family-supportive culture, not just policies, matters to male and female job seekers: An examination of work-family conflict, values, and self-interest. Sex Roles, 75, 459–475.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-016-0645-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wessel, J. L., Hagiwara, N., Ryan, A. M., & Kermond, C. M. Y. (2015). Should women applicants “man up” for traditionally masculine fields? Effectiveness of two verbal identity management strategies. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 39, 243–255.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684314543265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Windsheid, L., Bowes-Sperry, L., Kidder, D. L., Cheung, H. K., Morner, M., & Lievens, F. (2016). Actions speak louder than words: Outsiders’ perceptions of diversity mixed messages. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 1329–1341.  https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Zedeck, S. (2010). Adverse impact: History and evolution. In J. L. Outtz (Ed.), Adverse impact: Implications for organizational staffing and high sakes selection (pp. 3–27). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Personnel Management, Work and Organizational PsychologyGhent UniversityGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations