Gender and Letters of Recommendation for Academia Agentic and Communal Differences

• Published in: Journal of applied psychology Vol. 94; no. 6; pp. 1591 - 1599
• Main Authors: Madera, Juan M, Hebl, Michelle R, Martin, Randi C
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Washington, DC American Psychological Association 01-11-2009
• Subjects: Academic Environment; Adult; Applied psychology; Biological and medical sciences; Correspondence as Topic; Faculty; Female; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; Gender; Gender differences; Higher education; Hiring; Human; Human Sex Differences; Humans; Job Applicant Interviews; Job Application; Male; Occupational psychology; Organizational Culture; Personnel Selection; Prejudice; Psychological factors; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry; Psychology. Psychophysiology; Sex differentiation; Sex Factors; Sex Role Attitudes; Social Identification; Social Identity; Social Influences; Social psychology; Social roles; Sociological research; Stereotypes; Stereotyping; Studies; United States; Universities - manpower; Universities - organization & administration; Work condition. Job performance. Stress; United States; gender stereotypes; academia; letters of recommendation; social role theory; Human; Job applicant; Theory; Sex; Social role; Stereotype
• ISSN: 0021-9010; 1939-1854
• DOI: 10.1037/a0016539

In 2 studies that draw from the social role theory of sex differences (
A. H. Eagly, W. Wood, & A. B. Diekman, 2000
), the authors investigated differences in agentic and communal characteristics in letters of recommendation for men and women for academic positions and whether such differences influenced selection decisions in academia. The results supported the hypotheses, indicating (a) that women were described as more communal and less agentic than men (Study 1) and (b) that communal characteristics have a negative relationship with hiring decisions in academia that are based on letters of recommendation (Study 2). Such results are particularly important because letters of recommendation continue to be heavily weighted and commonly used selection tools (
R. D. Arvey & T. E. Campion, 1982
;
R. M. Guion, 1998
), particularly in academia (
E. P. Sheehan, T. M. McDevitt, & H. C. Ross, 1998
).