ABSTRACT
Equal employment opportunities for women are a legal requirement in many legal environments, including the United States (US) and European Union (EU) legislations. In this context, indirect discrimination in the access to jobs is an illegal practice. For this reason, personnel selection procedures must be fair for protected-by-law groups. Specifically, gender discrimination is the focus of research on employment interviews. This article presents a meta-analysis of gender differences in the scores in structured behavioral interviews (SBI). A database was created consisting of studies conducted with real candidates and employees. Psychometric meta-analysis methods were applied. The results showed that the SBI is fair for women and men and does not show evidence of adverse impact and indirect discrimination. Implications for the practice of personnel selection are discussed and future research is suggested (AU)
La igualdad de oportunidades laborales para la mujer es un requisito legal en muchos marcos legales, como la legislación de Estados Unidos o de la Unión Europea. En este contexto, la discriminación indirecta en el acceso al trabajo es una práctica ilegal. Este es el motivo por el que los procedimientos de selección de personal deben ser justos para los grupos protegidos por ley. En concreto, la discriminación de género es el centro de investigación en las entrevistas de empleo. Este artículo presenta un metaanálisis de las diferencias de género en las puntuaciones de las entrevistas conductuales estructuradas (ECE). Se elaboró una base de datos compuesta de estudios realizados con aspirantes y empleados reales, aplicándose métodos metaanalíticos psicométricos. Los resultados indican que la ECE es justa para mujeres y hombres, no habiendo señales de efectos negativos ni de discriminación indirecta. Se comentan las consecuencias para la práctica en selección de personal, a la vez que se recomienda la necesidad de investigación futura (AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Female , Behavior Rating Scale/standards , Personnel Selection/legislation & jurisprudence , Personnel Selection/methods , Interview, Psychological/methods , Social Discrimination/legislation & jurisprudence , Social Discrimination/psychology , Psychometrics/instrumentation , Psychometrics/methods , Behavioral Research/methods , Behavior Observation Techniques/legislation & jurisprudence , Psychometrics/legislation & jurisprudence , Psychometrics/standards , Psychology, Industrial/instrumentation , Psychology, Industrial/legislation & jurisprudence , Psychology, Industrial/methodsABSTRACT
El modelo estructural del merecimiento () establece dos factores que afectan a las percepciones de legitimidad: el derecho (merecer algo por cumplir las normas establecidas para ello) y el merecimiento (merecerlo por las acciones pasadas realizadas). A pesar de la relevancia de ambos factores, trabajos previos muestran conclusiones diferentes respecto a qué factor es un mejor predictor de la legitimidad. El objetivo de este artículo es explorar la influencia de estos factores al juzgar la legitimidad y las consecuencias positivas asociadas a la elección de un aspirante para un puesto de poder. Los resultados mostraron que mientras que un candidato con derecho para ocupar el puesto se percibe más legítimo, un candidato que merece ese puesto predice unas consecuencias más positivas como resultado de dicha elección. Además, los resultados sugieren que el grado de implicación de los individuos con la elección interactúa con el derecho y el merecimiento (AU)
The structural model of deservingness () posits that entitlement and deservingness are two different predictors of perceptions of legitimacy. Specifically, entitlement refers to the accomplishment of established social rules, whereas deservingness relates to the outcomes that individuals earn as products of their actions. Although both factors are good predictors of perceived legitimacy, previous works show different conclusions about their relevance. The aim of this paper is to further examine the influence of entitlement and deservingness on legitimacy perceptions and on the consequences expected for a candidate who has been elected for a power position. Results showed that whereas a high-entitlement candidate is perceived as more legitimate, a high-deservingness candidate is expected to perform better. Besides, results hint that the level of personal implication with the candidate election plays also a relevant role in combination with entitlement and deservingness, when individuals evaluate the expected consequences of the decision (AU)
Subject(s)
Adult , Female , Humans , Male , Role Playing , Work/psychology , Efficiency/physiology , Psychology, Industrial/legislation & jurisprudence , Psychology, Industrial/methods , Psychology, Industrial/trends , Task Performance and Analysis , Psychology, Industrial/organization & administration , Psychology, Industrial/standards , Students/psychology , Analysis of VarianceABSTRACT
In recent years, early retirement has attracted increasing attention in the literature. Using a larger Italian- Spanish sample, this study examines the push and pull factors related to early retirees mental health status, as well as the moderating effects of perceived self-efficacy on the relationships between reasons for early retirement and mental health. Analyses revealed that poor retirees mental health is positively correlated to the push factor Pressure from Employer and negatively related to the pull factor Pursue Own Interests. Thus, mental health status is better for Italian retirees than for their Spanish counterparts. The Italian sample shows that Pursue Own Interests was negatively related to poorer mental health particularly under the low self-efficacy condition. Findings suggest that mental health depends on both the motivating reasons that lead people to retire early and the personal resources available to them to manage this psychosocial transition (AU)
El interés por el estudio de la jubilación anticipada se ha incrementado en los últimos años. Utilizando una muestra ítalo-española este estudio examina los factores que empujan y atraen a la jubilación anticipada y sus relaciones con la salud mental, así como los efectos moderadores de la auto-eficacia en dichas relaciones. Los resultados muestran una relación positiva entre los peores niveles de salud mental y el factor de empuje Presión del Empleador y una relación negativa con el factor de atracción Perseguir Intereses Propios. Así, el estado de salud mental es mejor para los jubilados italianos que para sus homólogos españoles. En la muestra italiana Perseguir Intereses Propios se relaciona negativamente con los peores niveles de salud mental en la condición de baja auto-eficacia. Los resultados sugieren que la salud mental depende de las razones que motivan hacia la jubilación anticipada y los recursos personales para afrontar esta transición psicosocial (AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Adult , Pensions/classification , Pensions/statistics & numerical data , Retirement/legislation & jurisprudence , Retirement/psychology , Mental Health/statistics & numerical data , Mental Health/trends , Psychology, Industrial/methods , Psychology, Industrial/trends , Mental Health/standards , Mental Health Services/organization & administration , Mental Health Services/standards , Mental Health Services , Social Support , Psychology, Industrial/legislation & jurisprudence , Psychology, Industrial/organization & administration , Psychology, Industrial/standardsSubject(s)
Workplace/legislation & jurisprudence , Workplace/psychology , Accidents, Occupational/legislation & jurisprudence , Accidents, Occupational/psychology , Humans , Psychology, Industrial/legislation & jurisprudence , Sexual Harassment/legislation & jurisprudence , Sexual Harassment/psychology , United States , Violence/legislation & jurisprudenceABSTRACT
This research examined judicial perceptions of the field of industrial/organizational (I/O) psychology, explored how judges evaluate and weigh I/O psychology expert witness testimony, and scrutinized the use of the Daubert factors in judicial assessments (of social scientific evidentiary reliability. In a mail survey, federal judges were randomly presented with one of four prototypical descriptions of I/O psychology expert witness testimony in civil age discrimination in employment litigation. Judges were found to be relatively unfamiliar with the field of I/O psychology, and few had previously heard or read the testimony of an I/O psychologist. Sixty-six percent of the federal judges rated themselves at least moderately likely to admit the expert's testimony at trial, regardless of the testimony scenario presented. Judges rated the evidence overall as relevant, moderately reliable, moderately probative, and prejudicial. Both judicial familiarity with the field of I/O psychology and prior experience with I/O testimony were found to be positively related to likelihood of admitting the evidence. Manipulations of the scientific foundation for the expert testimony did not substantially affect admission decision. Judges ascribed the most importance to the general acceptance Daubert factor in their evaluation of evidentiary reliability. Implications for the science and practice of I/O psychology in the legal system are presented and discussed.
