Page 54 - Discrimination at Work The Psychological and Organizational Bases

2. INDIVIDUAL-LEVEL DISCRIMINATION
25
and diversity training that specifically included gay and lesbian issues).
Gay and lesbian employees who worked in these organizations, compared
to those employed by organizations that did not have such policies, were
much more likely to be "out," reported less job discrimination, experienced
more favorable coworker reactions, and indicated more positive treatment
from their supervisors. Similarly, Ragins and Corn well (2001) found that
gay and lesbian employees were less likely to report discrimination on
the job when they worked in organizations with supportive policies or in
locations with legislation against discrimination toward gay and lesbian
individuals. Analogously, the degree to which an organizational authority
condones discrimination relates to the extent to which people will discrim­
inate in personnel selection decisions (Brief, Buttram, Elliott, Reizenstein,
& McCline, 1995).

Indirect Consequences for Employment-Related Decisions

Although changes in laws and norms may be effective at limiting overt
forms of personal discrimination, negative stereotypes and attitudes can
still operate indirectly, for example, by biasing perceptions of attributes or
credentials, by influencing decisions in situations in which discrimination
would not be obvious, or by producing "backlash" to members of protected
groups. For instance, Polinko and Popovich (2001) found that obese job
applicants were rated as having more negative work-related attributes,
and Hebl and Mannix (2003) showed that men who were in proximity to
obese women were rated as less "professional" when they were in close
physical proximity to an obese woman (regardless of their relationship)
than when they were alone.
The consequences of biased perceptions and attributions can be signifi­
cantly moderated by the "fit" between a candidate and a position (Heilman,
1983). For instance, women are discriminated against more for positions
requiring male sex-typed behaviors (e.g., leadership, authority) than those
requiring female sex-typed behaviors (e.g., nurturant, sensitive; Rudman
& Glick, 2001). Heilman (2001) proposed that the scarcity of women in the
upper level of organizations is a consequence of stereotypes of women
that "result in devaluation of their performance, denial of credit to them
for their successes, or their penalization for being competent" (p. 657).
Prejudice, as well as stereotypes, can operate indirectly to produce dis­
parities. Even for people who appear nonprejudiced in their public re­
sponses, bias against members of stigmatized groups may be manifested
when situations are complex, when the appropriateness of an applicant's
qualifications are not entirely clear, or when decisions involve the as­
sessment of multiple dimensions (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1998; Gaertner