Are Evaluations of a Training Course Proposal Influenced by the Gender of the Instructor?

Autor

  • Anna Macko Kozminski University, Warsaw
  • Kamil Chmielewski Kozminski University, Warsaw

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15678/PJOEP.2017.12.02

Słowa kluczowe:

gender bias, evaluator age, evaluator gender, training evaluations

Abstrakt

The influences of instructor gender, participant gender, age and perceived importance of the certificate offered on evaluations of a training course proposal were examined. Participants evaluated an identically described training course proposal with either a male (n = 60) or female (n = 65) instructor. Results revealed that instructor gender, participant gender and age made a difference to evaluations of the proposed course. Evaluations of female participants were quite egalitarian while males, particularly those in the older group (greater than 27 years), revealed a strong gender bias in evaluating the training course proposal.

Bibliografia

Boring, A. (2017). Gender Biases in Student Evaluations of Teaching. Journal of Public Economics, 145, 27–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2016.11.006.

Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., Daniel, H. D. (2007). Gender Differences in Grant Peer Review: A Meta-analysis. Journal of Informetrics, 1, 226–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2007.03.001.

Budden, A., Tregenza, T., Aarssen, L., Koricheva, J., Leimu, R., Lortie, C. (2008). Double-blind Review Favours Increased Representation of Female Authors. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 23, 4–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2007.07.008.

Cornelis, I., van Hiel, A., Roets, A., Kossowska, M. (2009). Age Differences in Conservatism: Evidence on the Mediating Effects of Personality and Cognitive Style. Journal of Personality, 77(1): 51–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00538.xo.

Eagly, A. H. (1997). Sex Differences in Social Behavior: Comparing Social Role Theory and Evolutionary Psychology. American Psychologist, 50, 1380–1383 .https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1380.b.

Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J. (2002). Role Congruity Theory of Prejudice toward Female Leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573.

Hancock, G. R., Shannon, D. M., Trentham, L. L. (1993). Student and Teacher Gender in Ratings of University Faculty: Results from Five Colleges of Study. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 6(3), 235–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00125150.

Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression Based Approach. New York: Guilford Press.

Hayes, A. F. (2012). PROCESS: A Versatile Computational Tool for Observed Variable Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Modeling [White paper]. http://www.afhayes.com/public/process2012.pdf (date of access: 5.01.2017).

Heilman, M. E., Haynes, M. C. (2008). Subjectivity in the Appraisal Process: A Facilitator of Gender Bias in Work Settings. In: E. Borgida, S. T. Fiske (eds), Beyond Common Sense: Psychological Science in the Courtroom (pp. 127–155). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J, Martell, R. F. (1995). Sex Stereotypes: Do They Influence Perceptions of Managers? Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10, 237–252.

Hess, T. M. (2001). Aging-related Influences on Personal Need for Structure. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25: 482–490.

Kahneman, D. (2012). Pułapki myślenia. O myśleniu szybkim i wolnym. Media Rodzina.

Kossowska, M., Jasko, K., Bar-Tal, Y. (2012). Need for Closure and Structuring among Younger and Older Adults. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 43, 40–49. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10059-012-0005-6.

Levinson, D. J., Darrow, C. M., Klein, E. B., Levinson, M. H., McKee, B. (1976). Periods in the Adult Development of Men: Ages 18 to 45. The Counseling Psychologist, 6(1), 21–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/001100007600600105.

MacNell, L., Driscoll, A., Hunt, A. N. (2015). What’s in a Name: Exposing Gender Bias in Student Ratings of Teaching. Innovative Higher Education 40(4), 291–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-014-9313-4.

Merton, R. K. (1948). The Self Fulfilling Prophecy. Antioch Review, 8(2), 193–210.

Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., Handelsman, J. (2012). Science Faculty’s Subtle Gender Biases Favor Male Students. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109(41), 16474–16479. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211286109.

Rice, L., Barth, J. M. (2016). Hiring Decisions: The Effect of Evaluator Gender and Gender Stereotype Characteristics on the Evaluation of Job Applicants. Gender Issues, 33(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12147-015-9143.

Roberts, B. W., Mroczek, D. (2008). Personality Trait Change in Adulthood. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17, 31–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2008.00543.x.

Salthouse, T. (2012). Consequences of Age-related Cognitive Declines. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 201–226. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100328.

Stanovich, K. E., West, R. F. (2000). Individual Differences in Reasoning: Implications for the Rationality Debate?, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 645–665. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00003435.

Tannenbaum, S. I., Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., Mathieu, J. E. (1993). Factors that Influence Training Effectiveness: A Conceptual Model and Longitudinal Analysis (Technical Report 93-011). Orlando, FL: Naval Training Systems Center.

Trope, Y., Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level Theory of Psychological Distance. Psychological Review, 117(2), 440–463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018963.

Wennerås, C., Wold, A. (1997). Nepotism and Sexism in Peer Review. Nature, 387, 341–343. https://doi.org/10.1038/387341a0.

Wortley, D. B., Amatea, E. S. (1982). Mapping Adult Life Changes: A Conceptual Framework for Organizing Adult Development Theory. The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 60, 476–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2164-4918.1982.tb00700.x

Pobrania

Opublikowane

2018-09-26

Numer

Nr 12 (2017)

Dział

ARTYKUŁY

Licencja

Autorstwo

Autor (Autorzy) artykułu oświadcza, że przesłane opracowanie nie narusza praw autorskich osób trzecich. Wyraża zgodę na poddanie artykułu procedurze recenzji oraz dokonanie zmian redakcyjnych. Przenosi nieodpłatnie na Wydawcę autorskie prawa majątkowe do utworu na polach eksploatacji wymienionych w art. 50 Ustawy z dnia 4 lutego 1994 r. o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych – pod warunkiem, że praca została zaakceptowana do publikacji i opublikowana.

Zasady korzystania

Wydawca posiada autorskie prawa majątkowe do wszystkich treści czasopisma. Artykuły udostępniane są na niewyłącznej licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa-Użycie niekomercyjne-Na tych samych warunkach 3.0 Polska. Zamieszczenie tekstu artykuły w repozytorium, na stronie domowej autora lub na innej stronie jest dozwolone o ile nie wiąże się z pozyskiwaniem korzyści majątkowych, a tekst wyposażony będzie o informacje źródłowe (w tym również tytuł, rok, numer i adres internetowy czasopisma). Osoby zainteresowane komercyjnym wykorzystaniem zawartości czasopisma proszone są o kontakt z Redakcją.