Search

PurposeDespite the fact that Hispanics are the largest and fastest growing segment of the population and that 44 percent of Hispanics of 18 years of age and older speak English less than very well, research examining the impact of Spanish‐accented English on employment‐related decisions has been scarce. Therefore, the present study aimed to examine the effects of the accent (standard American English and Mexican Spanish) of a hypothetical job applicant on employment‐related judgments and hiring decisions.Design/methodology/approachParticipants made employment‐related decisions (i.e. job suitability ratings, likelihood of a promotion, and hiring decision) and judgments of personal attributes (i.e. perceived competence and warmth) of a hypothetical applicant for an entry‐level software engineering job. The accent of the applicant was manipulated using the matched‐guise technique.FindingsResults showed that compared to an applicant with a standard American‐English accent, one with a Mexican‐Spanish accent was at a disadvantage when applying for the software engineering job. The Mexican‐Spanish‐accented applicant was rated as less suitable for the job and viewed as less likely to be promoted to a managerial position. In addition, fewer participants decided to hire the Mexican‐Spanish‐accented applicant than the standard American English‐accented applicant.Practical implicationsGiven the negative evaluations of the Mexican‐Spanish‐accented applicant, recruiters and interviewers should be selected who do not view foreign accents negatively. Furthermore, organizations should make a conscious effort to regard foreign accents as assets to their businesses.Originality/valueThis research contributes to our understanding of how foreign accents influence decisions that have important economic consequences for individuals.

PurposeAlthough statistical evidence clearly demonstrates discrimination against foreign‐accented individuals in the workplace, surprisingly little research attention has been paid to how such individuals are evaluated when they apply for jobs. Thus, the aim of this paper is to examine the effects of applicant accent on access‐related employment decisions across four jobs that differed on job status and communication demands.Design/methodology/approachThe study used a 3 (applicant accent: Standard American English, French, and Japanese) × 2 (job status: low vs high)×2 (communication demands: low vs high) mixed‐factorial design, and data from 286 college students at two different locations.FindingsResults show that in comparison with French‐accented applicants, Japanese‐accented applicants fared worse on employment‐related decisions, especially for jobs that had high communication demands, even after controlling for applicant understandability and location. French‐accented applicants were viewed as favorably as, or more favorably than, Standard American English‐accented applicants.Research limitations/implicationsApplicant accent was confounded with applicant names. Thus, it is not known whether the obtained results are due to applicant accent, names, or both.Practical implicationsIt was found that organizations could do one of the following: use structured interviews; train interviewers on potential biases against foreign‐accented applicants; and provide more individuating information to reduce the effects of accent‐based stereotypes on employment‐related decisions.Originality/valueThe paper considers the communication demands of jobs and job status as influences on the evaluation of foreign‐accented applicants.

Despite the passage of civil rights legislation, racial and ethnic minorities continue to experience unfair discrimination in the workplace. Therefore, considerable research in human resource management and social psychology has examined the factors thought to affect unfair discrimination in organizations [Cox, T. (1993). Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research, and practice . San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler]. Although research has focused on unfair discrimination, researchers have argued that the construct and external validity of the results have been adversely affected by methodological problems [e.g., Stone, E.F., Stone, D.L., & Dipboye, R.L. (1992). Stigmas in organizations: Race, handicaps, and physical unattractiveness. In Kelly, K. (Ed.). Issues, theory, and research in industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 385–457). Amsterdam: Elsevier]. Given this critique, the present paper (a) examines the degree to which recent research suffered from a number of methodological problems (e.g., obtrusive measures, non-representative samples, and demand characteristics), (b) identifies strategies for overcoming these problems, and (c) offers recommendations for advancing our understanding of unfair discrimination in organizational contexts.

Using a 2 × 2 (Coworker Race × Task Demand) design and data from 180 White women who worked in dyads with a male confederate, the present study examined the effects of coworker race (White vs. Black) and task demand (low vs. high cognitive demand) on evoked affect, task attention, task performance, task satisfaction, and the desire to work alone (as opposed to with a coworker). As expected, results showed that coworker race and task demand evoked differing levels of affect, which, in turn, influenced several other outcomes. These findings have important implications for promoting racial diversity in organizations.

We report the findings of a meta-analytic review of experimental studies concerned with the biasing effect of physical attractiveness on a variety of job-related outcomes. In support of implicit personality theory, attractive individuals were found to fare better than unattractive individuals in terms of a number of such outcomes. The weighted mean effect size, d, was .37 for all studies. In addition, tests for moderating effects showed that (a) the attractiveness bias did not differ between studies that provided low versus high amounts of job-relevant information about the targets, (b) the same bias was greater for within-subjects research designs than for between-subjects designs, (c) professionals were as susceptible to the bias as were college students, (d) attractiveness was as important for men as for women, and (e) the biasing effect of attractiveness has decreased in recent years. Implications of these findings are considered.

The present study examined the main and interactive effects of race, gender, and job type on job suitability ratings and selection decisions. Consistent with the double-advantage additive effects model of race and gender, highly educated Black women were rated as more suitable for jobs and more likely to be selected for jobs requiring high levels of cognitive ability than were comparably educated White men, White women, or Black men. These results suggest that selection decisions might be jointly determined by race, gender, and the nature of a job. The implications of these findings for overcoming biases in employment-related decision making are discussed.

A sample of 173 undergraduate students rated 300 attributes to assess current gender stereotypes, and a second independent sample ( n = 57) evaluated the favorability of these attributes. Statistical results indicated that the college students ascribed different attributes to men and women. Although the content of gender stereotypes seems to have remained unchanged over the years, the value attached to stereotypic gender traits seems to be changing. More specifically, a greater number of unfavorable attributes were used to describe men than women, thereby creating a more negative masculine stereotype.

American undergraduates (N = 154) were presented with vignettes in which a downward influence situation was described, together with conditions of (a) the types of jobs of the agent and target of the influence situation, (b) the role identities of the actors, and (c) the goal of the actor attempting to influence the target. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to test the hypothesis that the preference order for influence tactics would be invariant across situations (cf. Rule, Bisanz, & Kohn, 1985). The likelihood and relative degree to which the influence tactics were predicted to be used were similar across situations, providing support for the schema-based notion of a “persuade package.”

Using a 2 (speaker accent: standard American, Asian) x 2 (speakers' sex: male, female) between-subjects design, the present study examined the effects of accent and sex on listeners' cognitive and affective reactions towards speakers with standard American English accents and Asian accents. 70 female and 27 male college students ( M = 21.8 yr., SD = 4.7) listened to the audio recording of a monologue by one of the speakers in the early 20s who differed in accent and sex. Standard American English was operationalized as nonaccented English, typical of the western part of the USA, and Vietnamese-accented English was used as an exemplar of Asian-accented English. Results showed that relative to standard American-accented English speakers, Asian-accented English speakers were perceived as poorer communicators who were less potent, less threatening, and more concerned about others. These cognitive reactions to Asian-accented English speakers include (a) the general stereotype associated with an accent, status and solidarity, as well as (b) the stereotype unique to Asians as an ethnic group, being concerned for others and poorer communicators. Analysis also showed that speakers with an Asian accent evoked more negative affect and required more attention from listeners than did speakers with a standard American English accent. Implications of the study are discussed.