Skip to Main Content
 

Global Search Box

 
 
 
 

Files

File List


osu1150217547.pdf (574.06 KB)

ETD Abstract Container

Abstract Header

Asymmetrical perceptions of group-based employment disparities: differences in subjective evaluations of advantage-based and disadvantage-based discrimination

Pierce, Kathleen P.
http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1150217547

Abstract Details

2006, Doctor of Philosophy, Ohio State University, Psychology.
Five studies examined the hypothesis that employment disparities framed as disproportionate advantages in workplace outcomes are judged less discriminatory than disparities framed as disproportionate disadvantages. Disadvantage-based disparities are defined by disproportionate losses suffered by a non-favored employee group while the favored employee group receives an expected level of losses. Advantage-based disparities are defined by disproportionate gains received by a favored employee group while the non-favored employee group receives an expected level of gains. Even though both types of disparities can be objectively the same size, prospect theory would predict that disproportionate gains are subjectively experienced as less severe than disproportionate losses. Studies 1-3 are preliminary tests of this hypothesis, using female employees as the non-favored group (Studies 1 and 2), African American employees as the non-favored group (Study 3), and using two separate employment contexts (Study 2). Chapter 3 introduces a two-step cognitive model to explain the results. According to the model, more attention and deliberation are necessary to recognize advantage-based discrimination, and any moderator that increases observers’ attention or sensitivity to advantage-based disparities will reduce or eliminate the framing effect found in Studies 1-3. Two such moderators, ingroup relevance and workplace outcome valence, are tested in Studies 4 and 5, respectively. Results indicate that while ingroup relevance does not moderate the framing effect, using negatively valenced outcomes (rather than positively valenced outcomes) significantly moderates the framing effect. Results are discussed in terms of their implications for the two-step model and applications to business and law.
Marilynn Brewer (Advisor)
Psychology, Social
employment discrimination; prospect theory; race-based discrimination; sex-based discrimination

Recommended Citations

Citations

  • Pierce, K. P. (2006). Asymmetrical perceptions of group-based employment disparities: differences in subjective evaluations of advantage-based and disadvantage-based discrimination [Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University]. OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1150217547

    APA Style (7th edition)

  • Pierce, Kathleen. Asymmetrical perceptions of group-based employment disparities: differences in subjective evaluations of advantage-based and disadvantage-based discrimination. 2006. Ohio State University, Doctoral dissertation. OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center, http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1150217547.

    MLA Style (8th edition)

  • Pierce, Kathleen. "Asymmetrical perceptions of group-based employment disparities: differences in subjective evaluations of advantage-based and disadvantage-based discrimination." Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 2006. http://rave.ohiolink.edu/etdc/view?acc_num=osu1150217547

    Chicago Manual of Style (17th edition)

osu1150217547
615
© 2006, all rights reserved.
This open access ETD is published by The Ohio State University and OhioLINK.