Richard D. Arvey

Unfair discrimination in the employment interview: Legal and psychological aspects.

The psychological and legal literature concerning evidence of bias or unfairness in the employment interview with regard to blacks, females, handicapped persons, and the elderly is reviewed. This review indicates that (a) the interview is highly vulnerable to legal attack and one can expect more future litigation in this area; (b) the mechanisms and processes that contribute to bias in the interview are not well specified by researchers; (c) findings based predominantly on resume research show that females tend to receive lower evaluations than males, but this varies as a function of job and other situational characteristics; (d) little evidence exists to confirm the notion that blacks are evaluated unfairly in interview contexts; (e) a relative dearth of research exists investigating interview bias against the elderly and handicapped individuals; and (f) evidence concerning the differential validity of the interview for these minority and nonminority groups is virtually nonexistent. A number of research needs and directions are specified. Despite research that indicates that the employment interview has limited reliability and validity (Mayfield, 1964; Ulrich & Trumbo, 1965; Wright, 1969), organizational use of the interview in helping to make selection and promotion decisions persists. The statement of Dunnette and Bass (1963) that the personnel interview is the most widely used method of selecting employees still holds true today, In fact, there is some speculation that the employment interview may be gaining in popularity because of increased court and legal pressures brought to bear on employers pencil-and-paper testing practices. In view of the increased likelihood of their employment tests being subjected to legal scrutiny, employers are dropping the use of tests and placing even more

Potential Sources of Bias in Job Analytic Processes1

Different versions of slide and narrative materials portraying the job of administrative assistant were sent to 71 job analysts. The job was portrayed as either interesting or less interesting, and...

Division of Household Labor in the Family

Factors identified from normative interaction, resource theory, and family development theory were related to female, shared, and male household task responsibilities of wives and husbands. The sample consisted of 68 couples in a Southeastern city. A questionnaire was used to obtain information from both wives and husbands. Findings tended to support all three frameworks. Liking of household tasks was significantly related to female, shared, and male task responsibility for wives and husbands. The husbands educational levels and atti tudes toward women were significantly related to responsibility of husbands for non- traditional tasks. Attitudes toward women and educational levels of each of the spouses were related to responsibility for non-traditional tasks of the other spouses. Employed wives tended to reduce their reponsibility for female household tasks with little or no change in the responsibility of the husband. Implications and recommendations are discussed.

Vocational interest and personality differences between development and research personnel: A field study

Abstract Employees classified into development and research groups were contrasted for differences in vocational interest and personality inventory responses. Discriminant and classification analyses indicated that these two groups could be distinguished. Development personnel exhibited greater interests in supervisory-related areas, but researchers showed a tendency toward high specialization and academic interests. With respect to personality characteristics, development personnel described themselves as more dominant, defensive, and achieving, yet less critical than research personnel.