Scaling Down Inequality Rating Scales, Gender Bias, and the Architecture of Evaluation

Quantitative performance ratings are ubiquitous in modern organizations—from businesses to universities—yet there is substantial evidence of bias against women in such ratings. This study examines how gender inequalities in evaluations depend on the design of the tools used to judge merit. Exploitin...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inAmerican sociological review Vol. 84; no. 2; pp. 248 - 274
Main Authors Rivera, Lauren A., Tilcsik, András
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Los Angeles, CA Sage Publications, Inc 01.04.2019
SAGE Publications
American Sociological Association
Subjects
Bias
Business
Classification
College faculty
Gender
Gender inequality
Gender stereotypes
Measures
Occupational segregation
Quantitative analysis
Rating Scales
Ratings & rankings
Rewards
Sex Stereotypes
Sexism
Sociology
Stereotypes
Teachers
Teaching
Work organization
Working women
Workplaces
classification systems
inequalities
employment
gender
work and occupations
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:Quantitative performance ratings are ubiquitous in modern organizations—from businesses to universities—yet there is substantial evidence of bias against women in such ratings. This study examines how gender inequalities in evaluations depend on the design of the tools used to judge merit. Exploiting a quasi-natural experiment at a large North American university, we found that the number of scale points used in faculty teaching evaluations—whether instructors were rated on a scale of 6 versus a scale of 10—significantly affected the size of the gender gap in evaluations in the most male-dominated fields. A survey experiment, which presented all participants with an identical lecture transcript but randomly varied instructor gender and the number of scale points, replicated this finding and suggested that the number of scale points affects the extent to which gender stereotypes of brilliance are expressed in quantitative ratings. These results highlight how seemingly minor technical aspects of performance ratings can have a major effect on the evaluation of men and women. Our findings thus contribute to a growing body of work on organizational practices that reduce workplace inequalities and the sociological literature on how rating systems—rather than being neutral instruments—shape the distribution of rewards in organizations.
ISSN:0003-1224
1939-8271
DOI:10.1177/0003122419833601