3.8 Article

Gender benders and job contenders: cosmetics in selection contexts for women and men

期刊

EQUALITY DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION
卷 42, 期 6, 页码 737-753

出版社

EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1108/EDI-03-2022-0080

关键词

Cosmetics; Field experiment; Discrimination; Selection; Gender

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aims to contribute to the workplace diversity literature by experimentally manipulating gender expression through makeup and examining its impact on interpersonal discrimination in a real-world job selection context.
PurposeThe aim of the present study was to contribute to the workplace diversity literature by experimentally manipulating gender expression through the use of makeup among women and men to determine makeup's impact on interpersonal discrimination in a real-world job selection context.Design/methodology/approachIn an experimental field study, we applied either real (i.e. tinted) or placebo (i.e. transparent) cosmetic products to women and men confederate applicants. The women and men engaged in job inquiry and pre-interview conversations with store personnel in 136 retail stores across 3 shopping malls that were randomly assigned to one of 4 conditions in a 2 (confederate gender: women versus men) by 2 (cosmetic usage: real versus placebo) experimental design. The confederate applicants were accompanied by confederate observers and recorded interactions were later analyzed by naive coders. The applicants, observers, and naive coders rated interpersonal discrimination from store personnel in each interaction.FindingsAs hypothesized, women who enhanced their femininity through the use of makeup experienced significantly less interpersonal discrimination than women who did not. In contrast, there was no significant difference in interpersonal discrimination for men as a function of visual gender expression.Originality/valueThese findings highlight the pervasive gender norm expectations for women at work by examining gender non-conformity of women and men.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据