Reading Lists

Babcock, L. & Laschever, S. (2003). Women don’t ask: Negotiation and the gender divide. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Women Don't Ask shows women how to reframe their interactions and more accurately evaluate their opportunities. The book includes examining how to ask for a desired outcome in ways that feel comfortable and possible, taking into account the impact of asking on relationships. It also discusses how to recognize the ways in which our institutions, child-rearing practices, and unspoken assumptions perpetuate inequalities--inequalities that are not only fundamentally unfair but also inefficient and economically unsound. Bauer, C.C. & Baltes, B.B. (2002). Reducing the effects of gender stereotypes on performance evaluations. Sex Roles, 9/10, 465-476. This study is one of many showing (1) that people vary in the degree to which they hold certain stereotypes and schemas (2) that having those schemas influences their evaluations of other people; and (3) that it is possible to reduce the impact of commonly-held stereotypes or schemas by relatively simple means. In this study college students with particularly negative stereotypes about women as college professors were more likely to rate accounts of specific incidents of college classroom teaching behavior negatively, if they were described as performed by a female. In the second phase of the study students’ reliance on their stereotypes was successfully reduced by providing them with time and instructions to recall the specific teaching behaviors of the instructors in detail. Thus, focusing attention on specific evidence of an individual’s performance eliminated the previously-demonstrated effect of gender schemas on performance ratings. Bensimon, E.M., Ward, K., & Sanders, K. (2000). “Creating Mentoring Relationships and Fostering Collegiality.” 113-137. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing. This section describes the department chairs’ role in developing new faculty into teachers and scholars. Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan S. (2004). Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. The American Economic Review 94(4), 991-1013; "Employers' Replies to Racial Names." NBER Website. Thursday, August 31, 2006. . This is an empirical study demonstrating the impact of implicit discrimination by race, and not attributable to class. Bertrand, M., Chugh, D., & Mullainathan, D. (2005). Implicit discrimination. American Economic Review, 95(2), 94-98. This article is a reflective discussion of how and where implicit discrimination operates. Includes useful review of the literature, and fairly extended discussion of research needed. Academic Year 2007-2008 Biernat, M. & Kobrynowicz, D. (1997). Genderand race-based standards of competence: Lower minimum standards but higher ability standards for devalued groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72 (3), 544-557. Stereotypes may influence judgment via assimilation, such that individual group members are evaluated consistently with stereotypes, or via contrast, such that targets are displaced from the overall group expectation. T\vo models of judgment—the shifting standards model and status characteristics theory—provide some insight into predicting and interpreting these apparently contradictory effects. In 2 studies involving a simulated applicant-evaluation setting, we predicted and found that participants set lower minimum-competency standards, but higher ability standards, for female than for male and for Black than for White applicants. Thus, although it may be easier for lowthan high status group members to meet (low) standards, these same people must work harder to prove that their performance is ability based.