| Abstrakt: |
Purpose: There is a dearth of human resource management (HRM) literature examining the generalizability of research employing undergraduate student participants. The purpose of this study is to conduct an experiment to compare the job applicant evaluations and hiring decisions of undergraduate student participants with those of working adults with hiring experience. Design/methodology/approach: This study employed a between-person 2 × 2 × 4 experimental design: participant group (undergraduate students or working adults with hiring experience) × job gender-type (male typed or female typed) × job applicant (heterosexual female, lesbian female, heterosexual male or gay male). Participants read descriptions of a job and a job applicant and then evaluated the applicant. Findings: The results supported a moderated mediation model where participant group moderated the interaction of applicant gender and job gender-type in predicting perceptions of competence, which in turn predicted perceptions of person-job fit, likeability and respect-worthiness, which then predicted hiring decisions. Undergraduate student participants, but not working adults with hiring experience, evaluated female applicants applying for a male-typed job in a manner consistent with gender stereotypes and were less likely to hire the female applicant than the male applicant. Originality/value: To inform HRM practice, research must reflect real-world decision-making. The literature on the roles of gender stereotypes and bias in hiring, and other important HRM decisions, relies heavily on undergraduate student participants. Findings of this study suggest a need to further examine whether those studies can be generalized to working adults actually making those decisions. |
