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.

Using the stereotype content model (SCM) as a framework, the authors examine how the negative relationship between peoples’ unethical behavior and perceptions of their competence only holds when the unethical act is simple.

In two studies, participants (n = 401) evaluated the competence of an employee who behaved unethically. In one condition, the unethical behavior was complex (e.g. computer hacking), while in the other it was simple (e.g. stealing items from a closet).

Our findings are built on prior work by showing that employees are considered significantly more competent when their unethical behavior is complex as opposed to simple (“evil genius” effect).

Employees may not be discouraged from engaging in complex unethical behavior if they recognize that it might not affect their reputation as a competent employee. Given the negative impact of unethical behavior, this is a consequence that organizations would likely seek to avoid.

The authors expand on the SCM by making a clear distinction between how certain behaviors (unethical and complex) influence trait perceptions (warmth and competence). In doing so, the authors identify a moderator – act complexity – that weakens the negative relationship between individuals’ unethical behavior and perceptions of their competence.

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.

The authors used signaling theory to explain negative perceptions of individuals on the autism spectrum (IotAS) in the job interview and explored whether parasocial contact could improve perceptions.

Participants were randomly assigned across six experimental conditions. Some received information that IotAS' social and communication differences prevent them from attaining jobs they could perform (information), some received this information and watched a video showing IotAS working competently (parasocial contact) and others were exposed to neither information nor video (control). Participants then watched a mock interview of a job candidate presenting as an IotAS or neurotypical and gave their first impressions of him, perceptions of his job suitability and selection decision.

Participants had less favorable first impressions of the IotAS-presenting candidate and perceived him as having lower job suitability and were therefore less likely to select him. Parasocial contact had no effect. However, participants who had received information that IotAS' differences keep them from being hired for jobs they could do perceived the IotAS-presenting candidate as more suitable for the job and had greater intentions to interact with and select him.

The authors enhance understanding of autism in the workplace by explaining how IotAS' signaling behavior during a job interview impedes their selection. The authors also provide evidence that a brief message that IotAS' social and communication differences keep them from securing jobs they could perform can promote IotAS' selection by focusing decision-makers on their job-relevant qualifications.

The authors propose that angry individuals are much more likely to consider the emotional state of their partner than are neutral individuals. They then apply a lay theory dictating that anger decreases cooperation and react accordingly by lowering their own level of cooperation.

The authors report four experiments involving different samples, manipulations, payment schemes and interfaces. The methodological approach was to capitalize on the positives of experimental research (e.g. establishing causality) while also trying to conceptually replicate the findings in different settings.

The authors found evidence for a lay theory (i.e. expectation) that anger decreases cooperation, but that actual cooperation was lowest when angry individuals were paired with other angry individuals, supporting the hypotheses.

Anger can spill over from unrelated contexts to affect cooperation, and incidental anger by itself is not enough to decrease cooperation. However, the findings are limited to anger and cannot necessarily be used to understand the effects of other emotions.

Before entering into a context that requires cooperation, such as a negotiation, be wary of the emotional state of both yourself and of your partner. This paper suggests that only if both parties are angry, then the likelihood of cooperation is low.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, they are the first researchers to address the question of how incidental anger affects single-round cooperation. By going back to the basics, the authors believe that the findings fill a gap in existing research and offer a building block for future research on anger and cooperation.