Search results

We explored whether (1) an informational intervention improves ratings of individuals on the autism spectrum (IotAS) in a job interview by curbing salience bias and whether expert-based influence amplifies this effect (Study 1); (2) the effect of disclosure of autism on ratings depends on a candidate’s presentation as IotAS or neurotypical (Studies 1 and 2) and (3) social desirability bias affects ratings of and emotional responses to disclosers (Study 2).

In two studies, participants, randomly assigned to experimental conditions, watched a mock job interview of a candidate presenting as an IotAS or neurotypical and reported their perception of his job suitability and selection decision. Study 2 additionally measured participants’ traits associated with social desirability bias, self-reported emotions and involuntary emotions gauged via face-reading software.

In Study 1, the informational intervention improved ratings of the IotAS-presenting candidate; delivery by an expert made no difference. Disclosure increased ratings of both the IotAS-presenting and neurotypical-presenting candidates, especially the former, and information mattered more in the absence of disclosure. In Study 2, disclosure improved ratings of the IotAS-presenting candidate only; no evidence of social desirability bias emerged.

We explain that an informational intervention works by attenuating salience bias, focusing raters on IotAS' qualifications rather than on their unexpected behavior. We also show that disclosure is less helpful for IotAS who behave more neuronormatively and social desirability bias affects neither ratings of nor emotional responses to IotAS-presenting job candidates.

To determine how different voluntary leaves of absence (parental vs. community service) affect individuals’ preferences for working with either male or female supervisors. Drawing on role congruity theory, the authors examined whether individuals would least prefer supervisors who took voluntary leave that violated role expectations.

In Study 1, participants (n = 372) evaluated supervisors who took different forms of leave (none vs. parental vs. community service). In Study 2 (n = 202), the authors tested an intervention to reduce negative bias toward males taking community service leave. In both studies the authors examined the sex of the supervisor (male vs. female) on perceptions of typicality and supervisor preference.

Males who took community service leave were perceived as most atypical and were least preferred as supervisors. However, providing relevant research-based information about typicality reduced this bias.

The results show that people respond negatively toward males who take community service leave. Managers can help reduce this bias by providing relevant research-based information regarding community service leave.

This work is among the first to explore the consequences of community service leave and how it interacts with supervisor sex. The authors also identify a simple way to reduce bias against males who take community service leave.