Journal of Management http://jom.sagepub.

com/

Employment Discrimination in Organizations: Antecedents and Consequences

Barry M. Goldman, Barbara A. Gutek, Jordan H. Stein and Kyle Lewis
Journal of Management 2006 32: 786
DOI: 10.1177/0149206306293544

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jom.sagepub.com/content/32/6/786

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Southern Management Association

Additional services and information for Journal of Management can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jom.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jom.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://jom.sagepub.com/content/32/6/786.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Nov 6, 2006

What is This?

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 14, 2014
 Employment Discrimination in Organizations:
Antecedents and Consequences†
Barry M. Goldman*
Barbara A. Gutek
Jordan H. Stein
Department of Management & Organizations,
Eller College of Management, University of Arizona,
McClelland Hall, 405 Tucson, AZ 85721
Kyle Lewis
Department of Management, University of Texas at Austin,
1 University Station B6300, Austin, TX 78712-0210

This article reviews the research on employment discrimination in organizations. It focuses on

discrimination perceptions, charges, and lawsuits and discusses the consequences of discrimi-
nation. Among the conclusions are the following: (a) The proportion of claimants filing under
different antidiscrimination statutes differs by race; (b) the area needs theories that can explain
wide variance in perceptions of events; (c) the consequences of discrimination are best viewed
from individual, group, and organizational levels; and (d) if the results of instruments are used
in legal settings, social scientists should pay careful attention to reliability and validity, as well
as standards of legally admissible evidence.

Keywords: discrimination; sexual harassment; racism; sexism

The past 30 years have witnessed dramatic shifts in our understanding of the psycholog-
ical factors affecting employment discrimination in organizations. Thirty years ago, we knew
very little about this area. However, since that time, our understanding of various aspects of

† We are grateful for the valuable assistance of Ron Edwards, social science research specialist at the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission.

*Corresponding author. Tel.: 520 621-9313; Fax: 520 621-4171.

E-mail address: [email protected]

Journal of Management, Vol. 32 No. 6, December 2006 786-830
DOI: 10.1177/0149206306293544
© 2006 Southern Management Association. All rights reserved.

786

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 14, 2014
 Goldman et al. / Employment Discrimination 787

this field has blossomed. A recent search of PsycInfo alone yielded 510 articles over the past
15 years under the single term employment discrimination. When the reader considers other
search terms under that database or other relevant databases (e.g., law, economics), the enor-
mity of the research area, and the necessity for a review article, becomes obvious.
Passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (CRA91) greatly increased the opportunities for
employees to file discrimination charges against their employers and authorized compen-
satory and punitive damage for discriminatory treatment. The vigorous employee response
to this statute led to a virtual “litigation explosion” (Goldman, 2001). The magnitude of the
problem becomes more dramatic when it is considered that for every discrimination case
resulting in litigation, there are multiples for which formal, written charges (that fall short of
actual litigation) were filed (Groth, Goldman, Gilliland, & Bies, 2002; see also the section
entitled “Legal Background and Descriptive Statistics” within this article). As a conse-
quence, the importance of research on employment discrimination has increased for indi-
viduals, organizations, and society. However, even though management researchers have
recently begun to investigate the causes and consequences of discrimination charges, much
of the work remains scattered among different disciplines.
The purpose of this review is to integrate and evaluate the disparate research relating to the
antecedents and consequences of employment discrimination in organizations. We focus on
discrimination charges, complaints, and lawsuits, as well as research on perceived discrimi-
nation. In doing so, we are able to contrast the methods, samples, and findings of similar-
appearing yet very different constructs. We summarize significant findings in the literature,
emphasizing research from 1991—the advent of major antidiscrimination legislation—as
well as earlier research that has implications for the 1991 legislation. The article also
addresses relevant theory in management and psychology and, to a lesser degree, in the
related legal areas. Finally, we provide directions for future research.
Although we intend to cover all areas addressed by the 1991 legislation, the research
tends to focus on certain areas more than others. As we cannot review research if it has not
been done, our review will necessarily focus on sex, race, and age discrimination, especially
sex discrimination, which has been studied extensively by many researchers in several fields.
Research on disability discrimination is newer, and there are fewer studies than in some other
areas. Other new areas of study continue to emerge. For example, recent events have drawn
attention to differential treatment of people who are from the Middle East or who are
Muslims, and we can anticipate research on these social categories beginning to appear.
Indeed, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has appeared eager to pro-
tect the rights of these workers (EEOC, 2005). There are also some issues we cannot discuss,
simply because of space limitations. Most notably, we will not discuss issues relating to affir-
mative action. The issues related to affirmative action are complex and nuanced and not well
served by abbreviated treatment (see Konrad & Linnehan, 1999, for a review of this issue).
We organize this article around five sections. In the first section, we provide the legal
background that provides an actionable remedy for employees and defines the range of permis-
sible conduct for organizations. In that section, we also report detailed descriptive statistics
on the number and type of employment complaints made to the EEOC. These descriptive
statistics were provided for this study with the cooperation of the EEOC. In the second

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 14, 2014
788 Journal of Management / December 2006

section, we emphasize the theoretical bases for the causes of discrimination as they differ in
the legal and management/psychological areas. In the third section, we discuss consequences
of discrimination for individuals, groups, and organizations. In the fourth section, we inves-
tigate the concepts, measures, and methodologies used to study perceived or actual discrim-
ination. Finally, the last section provides suggestions for researchers that emerge from our
review and connect the study of discrimination to a broader spectrum of management
research.

Legal Background and Descriptive Statistics

When CRA91 was signed into law, it fundamentally changed the remedial nature of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). The new law authorized jury awards and compensatory
and punitive damages in all Title VII cases involving intentional discrimination (disparate
treatment). (Prior to the CRA91, claiming parties were entitled only to remedies that would
put them in the position they would have been if the alleged discrimination did not occur,
so-called make-whole relief.) Monetary benefits awarded under Title VII increased 589%
since 1992, amounting to $101.3 million in 2005 (EEOC, 2006a).
CRA91 protects workers who believe that an employer has discriminated against them
because of their membership in a “protected group.” Protected groups are based on race, sex,
color, national origin, and religion. Separate but similar discrimination laws were also passed
to protect those over age 40 (Age Discrimination in Employment Act) and those with dis-
abilities (Americans With Disabilities Act). A distinct and conceptually different protection
applies for sexual harassment and those who are retaliated against by organizations for fil-
ing or, in some cases, supporting those who file discrimination claims. EEOC guidelines on
sexual harassment issued first in 1980 eventually resulted in litigation charging sexual
harassment as a form of sex discrimination, which was made illegal under Title VII of the
1964 Civil Rights Act. (For a discussion of the procedure a claimant uses to pursue his or her
rights, please see the appendix.)

Statistical Summary of Employment Discrimination Claims

There are four statutes that comprise the primary federal antidiscrimination laws: Title
VII, the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), and the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Collectively, these four statutes resulted
in 88,481 charges filed by individual claimants during 2005 with the EEOC (EEOC, 2006b).
Moreover, an additional 57,545 charges were filed with state fair employment practices
agencies during this same period. Detailed information about charges filed under the federal
statutes is summarized below and in Tables 1 and 2. This information was provided to us for
purposes of this article through the courtesy of the EEOC. Table 1 summarizes the number
of charges filed with the EEOC in 2005 (the most recent year available), by issue under
which the charge was filed, and by the basis for the charge.

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 14, 2014
 Table 1
Total Number and Percentage of EEOC Charges Filed in 2005, by Statute, by Issue, and by Basis
Terms, Promotion, Sexual
Issue Conditions Discharge Wages Demotion Harassment Harassment Other Issue

Title VII: 94,457 13,310 (14%) 28,112 (30%) 4,203 (4%) 6,593 (7%) 10,761 (11%) 7,759 (8%) 23,719 (25%)
ADA: 22,388 2,004 (9%) 8,159 (36%) 308 (1%) 706 (3%) 1,752 (8%) 0 (0%) 9,459 (42%)
EPA: 1,039 0 (0%) 41 (4%) 923 (89%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 75 (7%)
ADEA: 22,899 2,731 (12%) 8,322 (36%) 731 (3%) 1,927 (8%) 1,871 (8%) 3 (< 1%) 7,314 (32%)

Basis Race Sex National Religion Color Retaliation Other Basis

Origin
Title VII: 82,419 26,871 (33%) 23,569 (29%) 8,122 (10%) 2,349 (3%) 1,086 (1%) 19,885 (24%) 537 (< 1%)

Regarded as disabled Orthopedic impairments Psychiatric Retaliation Other basis

ADA: 18,991 2,592 (14%) 2,405 (13%) 2,172 (11%) 1,868 (10%) 9,944 (52%)

Equal pay female Equal pay male Retaliation Other basis

EPA: 1,044 833 (80%) 103 (10%) 92 (9%) 16 (2%)

Age Retaliation Other basis

ADEA: 18,132 16,246 (90%) 1,761 (10%) 125 (< 1%)

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 14, 2014
Note: Total charges shown in Table 1 are greater than actual number of charges filed because individuals often file charges claiming multiple types of discrimina-
tion. Actual number of charges filed in 2005 under Title VII, ADA, EPA, and ADEA were 55,992, 14,911, 978, and 16,600, respectively. EEOC = Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission; ADA = Americans With Disabilities Act; ADEA = Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

789
790 Journal of Management / December 2006

Issues Alleged in 2005 Discrimination Filings

The EEOC refers to “issues” generally when they are designating unlawful or harmful
employment practices alleged by the claiming party. Of the total discrimination charges filed
pursuant to Title VII during 2005, discharge accounted for nearly one third (30% of 94,547).1
The next largest issue involved other “terms and conditions” of the workplace, which
accounted for 14% of charges. In general, this means other important features of the work-
place not specifically mentioned in the statute. Those specifically mentioned include hiring
and firing, compensation, promotion or transfer related, advertisement, recruitment, use of
company facilities, testing related, training related, and benefits. The third largest issue was
related to general harassment in the workplace (11%), not limited to sexual harassment
(which involved an additional 8%).
Discharge was also the predominant issue charged under the ADA (36% of 22,388
claims) and the ADEA (36% of 22,899 claims). Under the EPA, a small proportion of the
claims was filed for discharge (4% of 1,039 claims), whereas the large majority was filed for
wage discrimination (89%).

Basis for Discrimination Charges Filed in 2005

The EEOC uses the term basis to refer to protected-group categories, including sub-
groups. Race was the basis for 33% of the charges of discrimination under Title VII (out of
a total 82,419 filings specifying a basis for discrimination). Sex (29%) and retaliation (24%)
accounted for the next largest proportions of the total charges. A noteworthy proportion of
the charges under the ADA (10% of 18,991), the EPA (9% of 1,044), and the ADEA (10%
of 18,132) also alleged retaliation as a basis for the claim. The retaliation category is one that
is generally less familiar to people than the other bases for discrimination. It is defined as
protecting an employee against employers who act to oppose the filing of discrimination
claims by firing, demoting, harassing, or otherwise “retaliating” against an individual for
filing a charge of discrimination or participating in a discrimination proceeding.
Not surprisingly, the most common basis for claims filed under the EPA was for equal pay
(female) (80% of 1,044), and the most common basis for a claim filed under the ADEA was
age (90% of 18,132). With respect to the ADA, relatively large proportions of charges were
based on orthopedic impairments (including back impairments) (13% of 18,991), psychiatric
disorders (11%), and claims alleging that the charging party was “regarded as disabled” (but not
necessarily actually disabled) and discriminated against on that basis (14%). The law defines
this category as one where a person is regarded by others as having a physical or mental dis-
ability that substantially limits one or more major life activities. An example of this may be a
disfiguring scar that others may perceive as limiting a major life activity such as caring for one-
self, learning, or working. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, under this category,

it is necessary that a covered entity entertain misperceptions about the individual—it must
believe either that one has a substantially limiting impairment that one does not have or that one
has a substantially limiting impairment when, in fact, the impairment is not so limiting. (Sutton
v. United Air Lines, 1999: 488-489)

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 14, 2014
 Goldman et al. / Employment Discrimination 791

A word about hiring-related charges is in order here. Traditionally, hiring has been the basis
of relatively few discrimination-related charges for primarily two reasons: (a) Prospective
employees are less likely to have strong evidence for establishing hiring-related discrimination
because, not being part of the organization, they are less familiar than existing workers with
established standards of hiring, and it is more difficult to get access to this evidence; and (b)
they are often less financially and emotionally invested with an organization than if they were
already working for that organization. As a result, the relatively low proportion of hiring
claims (4%) across all four antidiscrimination statutes likely underreports the actual degree of
perceived discrimination because of hiring.

Discrimination Charges by Race

Race-based charges accounted for a relatively large proportion (36%) of charges filed
with the EEOC in 2005 (EEOC, 2006b). Consequently, we requested additional information
from the EEOC with respect to the racial composition of claimants. A summary of that infor-
mation appears in Table 2 (EEOC, 2006c).
Of all Title VII charges, Blacks filed 48% of them, and Whites filed 25% of them (the bal-
ance were filed by other races or by those who did not specify their race). However, when
we look at the other three antidiscrimination statutes, we get a slightly different picture.
Blacks filed approximately one fifth of the claims under the ADA (20%), EPA (22%), and
ADEA (20%), whereas Whites filed approximately one half of the claims under each of
these statutes (ADA, 54%; EPA, 52%; and ADEA, 50%). These data suggest that the pro-
portion of claimants filing under different statutes differs by race. Given that racial tensions
may lie beneath the surface of many workplace issues (especially those issues surrounding
affirmative action and diversity movements), the fact that separate statutes are being used
primarily by one racial group versus another poses certain potential problems in the work-
place and for legislative bodies. For example, public debates around certain seemingly neu-
tral pieces of legislation (e.g., Title VII or the ADEA) could be interpreted as having racial
undertones.
In terms of formal charges of race discrimination, there is clearly a difference in utiliza-
tion of this remedy: Seventy-eight percent of all race discrimination charges were filed by
Blacks, compared with 9% (out of 26,871) filed by Whites. However, it is noteworthy that
Blacks and Whites had roughly the same chance of having their claims dismissed by the
EEOC as having no reasonable cause: Blacks had their charges dismissed 68.8% of the time,
whereas Whites had them dismissed 68.9% of the time.

The Nature of Research on Discrimination Pre- and Post-CRA91

Partly in response to passage of the CRA91, some researchers began to focus attention on
what could be called definitional issues relating to discrimination, that is, to whom these laws
do apply or, in some cases, to whom they should apply. For example, research asked these
questions as to the following groups of individuals: homosexuals (e.g., Portwood, 1995), bira-
cial children (e.g., Brandell, 1988), transsexuals (e.g., Green, 1994), those with accents

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 14, 2014
 792
Table 2
Total Number and Percentage of Total EEOC Charges Filed in 2005, by Race
Asian or American Indian or Other Race or
Black White Pacific Islander Alaskan Native Unspecified

Title VII: 61,997 30,054 (48%) 15,558 (25%) 2,101 (3%) 444 (1%) 13,840 (22%)
Color: 1,086 694 (64%) 78 (7%) 62 (6%) 10 (1%) 242 (22%)
National origin: 8,122 1,196 (15%) 2,258 (28%) 765 (9%) 47 (< 1%) 3,856 (47%)
Race: 26,871 20,987 (78%) 2,512 (9%) 746 (3%) 226 (1%) 2,400 (9%)
Religion: 2,349 736 (31%) 776 (33%) 103 (4%) 20 (1%) 714 (30%)
Sex: 23,569 6,441 (27%) 9,934 (42%) 425 (2%) 141 (1%) 6,628 (28%)
ADA: 15,936 3,216 (20%) 8,568 (54%) 196 (1%) 103 (< 1%) 3,854 (24%)
EPA: 936 202 (22%) 482 (52%) 18 (2%) 14 (1%) 219 (23%)
ADEA: 16,246 3,290 (20%) 8,193 (50%) 398 (2%) 85 (< 1%) 4,280 (26%)

Note: Total charges by statute/basis are equal to total charges in Table 1 (basis), less retaliation claims and other-basis claims. EEOC = Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission; ADA = Americans With Disabilities Act; ADEA = Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 14, 2014
 Goldman et al. / Employment Discrimination 793

(e.g., Lippi-Green, 1994), those with learning disabilities (e.g., Anderson, Kazmierski, &
Cronin, 1995), and cancer victims (e.g., Conti, 1995). Quite a bit of this research focused on
specific types of discrimination and, in this regard, perhaps no type of discrimination received
more attention than that relating to sexual harassment. This research tended to define and
understand the problem but, most important, to understand its prevalence (e.g., Gutek, 1985,
1993; see also United States Merit Systems Protection Board [UMSPB], 1981, 1988).
Moreover, following CRA91, scholars provided guidance to organizations and, in partic-
ular, their human resource and legal departments, to (a) prevent unintended discrimination
claims through seemingly innocent office procedures such as applicant testing (e.g., Manese,
1986) and performance appraisals, (b) establish policies and provide training to demonstrate
the organization’s interest in avoiding discriminatory treatment (e.g., Gutek, 1993; Wagner,
1982), and (c) prevail in court if they were not successful in preventing the claim. These arti-
cles addressed issues such as the best way to use expert witnesses (e.g., Landy, 2005) and,
in particular, the appropriate use of statistical methods in discrimination cases (e.g., Kehoe
& Olson, 2005; Paetzold, 1992; Siskin & Trippi, 2005).
Overall, this research had in common primarily practical concerns: For employees, much
of it focused on the definition and assertion of rights; for organizations, much of it was on
the prevention of discrimination charges being filed against them or, if filed, how to prevail
in court; and for policy makers, it focused on issues related to the balancing of rights
between individual workers and the organizations that employ them. What was largely miss-
ing was an emphasis on psychological theories.
Fortunately, a sizable body of relevant research from social science already existed. The
majority of the research, however, focused less specifically on the law (indeed, much of it
paid no attention to the law) but rather was concerned with differential treatment more
broadly defined. For example, some of it was aimed at understanding the differences and
similarities in the experiences of ethnic groups and other social categories, especially men
versus women, in their career opportunities and experiences at work.
We suspect that the research that was done after the passage of CRA91 may have been
indirectly influenced by it. By increasing the opportunity for economic gain from judgments
of employment discrimination, law firms representing clients may have more vigorously
sought expert witnesses with expertise in research on employment discrimination whose
expert testimony might bolster their clients’ claims. In turn, the experience of being an expert
witness has generated publications about the quality of the research used as well as the expe-
riences of researchers in their role as expert witnesses (Borgida & Fiske, in press; Gutek,
Murphy, & Douma, 2004; Landy, 2005).

Theoretical Bases for Understanding the Causes of Discrimination

As noted, early psychological and legal research into discrimination took a practical per-
spective, overall. More recently, the management and psychological literatures have adopted
existing theories to help explain individual factors. These sets of theories are outlined below.
Good theories are useful to help us understand why people do things, rather than merely pre-
dicting that these things occur (bad theories, it should be noted, are of no use at all).

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 14, 2014
794 Journal of Management / December 2006

Legal Theories

Title VII incorporates two essential theories of discrimination, disparate treatment and
disparate impact. The first, disparate treatment, is intended to discourage intentional dis-
crimination by employers (McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 1973). This theory requires
the plaintiff–worker to establish (a) that he or she belongs to a protected class; (b) that he or
she applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer sought applicants; (c) that,
despite his or her qualifications, he or she was rejected; and (d) that, after the rejection, the
position remained open. After the plaintiff–worker establishes these four elements, the
employer has a right to articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the worker’s
rejection. This was the only explicit type of discrimination that was initially targeted by the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 and was premised on the idea that organizations (operating through
individuals) would be motivated to change their behavior if they understood the conse-
quences of it, that is, if they knew what they were doing wrong (Paetzold, 2005). One of the
major problems with this theory is that it flies in the face of a significant amount of research
in social psychology that suggests that people may treat others differently without realizing
it; this involves stereotyping and prejudice, and will be discussed in more detail later.
As a result of problems proving intentional discrimination, the courts at first and later
Congress (upon passage of the CRA91) added a second legal theory to prove discrimination.
This is the theory of disparate impact. This theory allows a plaintiff to assert discrimination
without proving intent by establishing that some work criterion was fair in form but dis-
criminatory in practice. Many of these cases involve job selection cases. To aid in establish-
ing a case under disparate impact, the EEOC issued guidelines that establish the so-called
four-fifths rule, that is, that a “selection rate for any race, sex, or ethnic group which is less
than four-fifths (4/5) will generally be regarded by the Federal enforcement agencies as evi-
dence of [disparate] impact” (Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures
[UGESP], 1978). Central to this theory are questions of causation. In fact, Title VII itself
states that a plaintiff must demonstrate that an employer “uses a particular employment prac-
tice that causes [emphasis added] a disparate impact on the basis of race, color, religion, sex,
or national origin.” Because this language does not appear in other antidiscrimination
statutes (such as the ADA or the ADEA), its applicability to those statutes is unclear. This
theory is consistent with a number of psychological theories. For example, word-of-mouth
recruiting can lead to the exclusion of certain demographic types in the applicant pool. This
can be explained by “similar-to-me” biases (see, e.g., Rand & Wexley, 1975).
The disparate impact theory has led to the development of a cottage industry of experts
who attempt to establish disparate impact through statistical methods—no doubt frequently
confusing juries. Whether or not these experts help to establish “the truth” or “justice”
remains an open question.

Basis of Antidiscrimination Laws

The purposes of the antidiscrimination laws (most notably, Title VII) have been fre-
quently debated. The crux of the issue involves a sort of tug-of-war between equal treatment

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 14, 2014
 Goldman et al. / Employment Discrimination 795

and equal outcomes. That is, should the purpose of antidiscrimination laws be to provide
equal opportunity for all, or should it ensure some sort of equality of resources? Those who
argue that Title VII was intended to address equal treatment tend to focus on society’s deep
commitment to economic efficiency and individual fairness (Fiss, 1997). Those who believe
that employment discrimination law is intended to redress past wrongs or seek economic
equality for minorities are not content with equal treatment. Often, this group argues for
activist affirmative action policies (Freeman, 1997). As recent cases before the U.S. Supreme
Court attest, this debate is still fertile ground for disagreement. However, most economists
and legal scholars are able to agree that employment discrimination is inefficient because
otherwise qualified individuals are denied employment opportunities because of irrelevant
demographic characteristics (Donohue, 1992, 1997). But, for most of us, these issues are
beyond mere financial issues and rise to the level of morality.
Legal scholars (particularly those adopting an economic perspective) have also been
successful in investigating macro aspects of discrimination claiming, that is, societal-level
measures of actual discrimination claiming. In this regard, they have identified societal-level
factors that are related to discrimination claiming, such as the inflation and unemployment
rates (Donohue & Siegelman, 1991). However, they have been less helpful in explaining why
individual employees actually file such claims. For this, we turn to the research in manage-
ment and psychology.

Management/Psychological Theories

Social psychologists define discrimination as differential treatment based on membership

in a social grouping (e.g., race, sex, age; Fiske, 1998). Psychological research on race dis-
crimination started in the 1960s as Civil Rights became an important social issue. Early
research focused on Blacks and Whites; only later did researchers focus on other ethnic
groups such as Hispanics. Psychological research on sex discrimination gained momentum
in the 1970s with the spread of the women’s movement, whereas management research in
employment discrimination was less common until the passage of the CRA91.
With a few exceptions, it was not until recently that the literature in management or psy-
chology has begun to apply the broad range of theories available to them to this area. The
EEOC states that most claims brought are actually alleged to be of the intentional type (dis-
parate treatment). Therefore, the theories that are really needed are those that can explain the
discrepancies in perspective between claimants and organizations. As a result, there has been
recent interest in theories that account for wide variance in perceptions of events and people,
such as stereotyping, organizational justice, and others.

Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Discrimination

As behavioral scientists use the terms, stereotypes are beliefs about particular social
groups, and discrimination is defined as differential treatment based on social group (Fiske,
1998; see also Rudman, Glick, & Phelan, in press). Prejudice is defined as negative or biased

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 14, 2014
796 Journal of Management / December 2006

feelings toward particular social groups. In principle, one can be prejudiced without dis-
criminating, and one can discriminate without being prejudiced. Nevertheless, the two often
go together, with prejudice leading to discriminatory treatment and discriminatory treatment
leading to prejudicial attitudes. Similarly, in principle, one can hold stereotypes without nec-
essarily engaging in discriminatory behavior.
Although the study of prejudice has a long history (e.g., Allport, 1954), in the past 30 years
or so, researchers have focused on stereotypes much more than prejudice. In part, it is easier
to focus on beliefs than it is on biased feelings, particularly in organizational research that
relies heavily on self-report methodologies. It is socially unacceptable to admit to prejudices.
In contrast to research on prejudice, research on stereotyping has proliferated in the past
several decades. Starting about 5 years ago, researchers began differentiating prescriptive
from descriptive stereotypes (Burgess & Borgida, 1999). Prescriptive stereotypes specify
how men and women, for example, should behave, whereas descriptive stereotypes specify
how men and women, for example, do behave. Men and women (or other social categories)
may be punished if they do not behave as they are expected to behave. A stereotype about
how men and women do behave can color a person’s behavior toward men versus women. A
supervisor who believes that a woman will cry if she is told her performance is not accept-
able may fail to provide her with the feedback she needs to improve. The same supervisor
who does tell his male subordinates whose performance is unacceptable on the belief that
they will “take it like a man” provides the men but not the women the information they need
to improve their performance.
In general, stereotypes of social categories including women, older workers, and various
ethnic minorities are less likely to be consistent with the perceived requirements of high-
status professional and managerial jobs than are the stereotypes of Whites, men, and middle-
aged workers. The fact that high-status managerial and professional jobs are predominantly
held by Whites, men, and middle-aged—broadly defined—workers contributes to the prob-
lem because the type of people who are common in any particular job are viewed as the most
appropriate people to hold that job. Heilman (1983) first proposed this matching process as
it affects women, and Rudman et al. (in press) elaborated on it.
Other research suggests that men are viewed as more competent but less warm than
women (Eagly, 1987). On the basis of those views, women and men are therefore “matched”
to different jobs, jobs that are themselves stereotyped as requiring different kinds of traits
consistent with the views of the dominant group holding that job. Thus, the job of senior
manager, held predominantly by men, is viewed as requiring characteristics associated with
men. Research by Schein and colleagues (Brenner, Tomkiewicz, & Schein, 1989; Schein,
1973, 1975; Schein, Mueller, Lituchy, & Liu, 1996) showed that across at least a 20-year
period, the role of manager has been associated with male traits, not only in the United States
but in a number of other countries as well. White men who hold the position of manager are
a good match for the job; women of any ethnicity and ethnic minorities are a poor match and
are therefore seen as less appropriate for the job. Such matching discriminates against men
who apply for female-dominated jobs (e.g., social work, nursing, elementary school teach-
ing). Yet the fact remains that the highest paying jobs with the greatest opportunity for
advancement are held predominantly by White men. Therefore, men and Whites will be less
disadvantaged by these processes than White women or ethnic minorities.

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 14, 2014
 Goldman et al. / Employment Discrimination 797

As mentioned above, in principle, one might argue that stereotyping does not necessarily
imply discriminatory treatment, although the two often go together. Indeed, there is lively
discussion on the extent to which stereotyping is implicated in discriminatory treatment that
is driven, in part, by the use of this literature in employment discrimination litigation.
Stereotyping has been implicated in illegal discrimination in court (Fiske, Bersoff, Borgida,
& Deaux, 1991; Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc., 1991). This, and other expert tes-
timony on the role of stereotyping in differential treatment, has led to misinterpretations, dis-
tortions, and critiques of that literature, with defense experts implying that the research is
“junk science” (Copus, Ugelow, & Sohn, 2005). Robust rebuttals to those critiques have also
occurred (e.g., Borgida, Rudman, & Manteufel, 1985; Fiske et al., 1991; Rudman et al., in
press).

Structural Theories

In addition to management and psychological theories, a number of theories focusing on

the social structure at either the group or dyad level have also proved useful. A person’s posi-
tion relative to others or dissimilarity to others, such as being the only woman or minority or
person older than 60 in a work group, has an impact on that person. These theories greatly
aided our understanding of this area by helping organizations recognize common forms of
unintentional or subtle discrimination. The assumption of this line of research is that most
discrimination is of the unintentional form (i.e., disparate impact).

Token dynamics. Kanter (1977) proposed one such structural theory, a “theory of
numbers” such that being in the numerical minority has certain consequences. Although
her theory is sometimes incorporated into the broad concept of “relational demography”
(Riordan, Schaffer, & Stewart, 2005), it is sufficiently developed to stand on its own. Kanter
identified three “token dynamics”: visibility that leads to performance pressures, contrast
effects that lead to social isolation of the token, and role encapsulation or stereotyping of the
token. Because the token is different, and that difference is highly visible (e.g., as is sex,
race, age, physical disability), the token is noticeable and noticed. Because the token
is unusual in that position, attention is likely to be focused on whether or not the token can
perform as well as the people who have traditionally held that job. That means that a solo
woman engineer, for example, may find that her work is scrutinized in more detail than the
work of her male colleagues. The pressure to perform is exacerbated by the fact that the solo
may be expected to represent all members of her group. In short, each of the male engineers
can fail without his failure affecting others’ judgments of men’s ability to be engineers, but
if the solo woman fails, her failure is likely to affect others’ judgments of women’s ability to
be engineers.
A second token dynamic is contrast, that is, the majority tends to focus on differences
between themselves and the tokens, leading to increased solidarity among the majority group
members and to social isolation of the tokens. For example, they may start to identify them-
selves as men, instead of simply as engineers, once a token woman engineer shows up.
Moreover, they may notice characteristics they may have in common that the token lacks,

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 14, 2014
798 Journal of Management / December 2006

such as experience in the military or team sports. The third token dynamic is stereotyping, a
topic discussed in more detail above. In particular, Kanter (1977) identified four “familiar
roles” that token women may be expected to enact (depending on which seems most suit-
able): mother, pet, sex object, and for the woman who rejects those roles, militant or iron
maiden (or simply, bitch).
Token dynamics have been studied extensively, leading to both limitations and extensions
of Kanter’s (1977) original focus on managers. One conclusion of the body of research that
developed in the 1980s and 1990s is that token dynamics does not apply equally to all groups
(Zimmer, 1988). In particular, it seems to apply to tokens of low status more so than it does
for high-status tokens. Thus, it pertains to women who work mostly with men, such as
women police officers (Ott, 1989), coal miners (Hammond & Mahoney, 1983), construction
workers (Greed, 2000), or law students (Spangler, Gordon, & Pipkin, 1978). Moreover,
Kanter’s theory has held up well for women in research using actual performance ratings.
For example, Sackett, DuBois, and Noe (1991) found that women received relatively lower
performance ratings than men when the proportion of women in a work group was small.
Specifically, in an analysis of actual performance evaluation data, they found that, relative to
men, women were systematically rated as performing less well, even after controlling for
ability and experience, and, supporting Kanter’s theory of numbers, that the gender discrepancy
in evaluations was greater in male gender-typed jobs (Sackett et al., 1991). More generally,
among women who have advanced to the executive level, many report feeling uncomfortable in
areas that are dominated by men (Lyness & Thompson, 2000). However, there is no clear
evidence that token men (e.g., male nurses) experience social isolation or performance pres-
sures the way token women do (e.g., female investment bankers or construction workers).
Some research suggests that, for men, being a token may have no negative effects (Budig,
2002), or it may result in more positive outcomes (Fairhurst & Snavely, 1981; Williams,
1992; Yoder & Sinnett, 1985).

Relational and organizational demography. Relational demography is another structural

theory. Specifically, it focuses on the individual’s demographic similarities to, and differences
from, others in their organization or work group (Wagner, Pfeffer, & O’Reilly, 1984; Tsui &
Gutek, 1984; for reviews, see Riordan et al., 2005; Tsui & Gutek, 1999). Demographic char-
acteristics such as sex, race, and age are often considered to be both sources of information
and sources of identity about people. Relational demography, like Kanter’s (1977) theory,
takes into account whether one is similar to or different from others. Specifically, individuals
compare their own demographic characteristics to others and determine whether they are sim-
ilar or different (Tsui, Egan, & O’Reilly, 1992). Relational demography can be contrasted
with organizational demography or compositional demography, both of which refer to the dis-
tribution of basic attributes such as sex, age, ethnicity, education level, and the like (Tsui &
Gutek, 1999, chap. 2). In studies of relational demography, the unit of analysis is the dyad;
in organizational demography, the unit of analysis is the group or organization such as new
product teams, law firms, work groups, or grocery stores.
Relational and compositional demography focuses on a variety of worker characteristics
including, but not limited to, workers in protected categories. Sex and ethnicity are fre-
quently studied, but so are other characteristics. Chatman and Flynn (2001), for example,

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 14, 2014
 Goldman et al. / Employment Discrimination 799

studied newcomers and found that compared with people who had been in the group for a
longer period of time, newcomers perceived work group norms as less cooperative.
Relational and compositional demography focuses on a variety of outcomes, only some of
which have to do with employment discrimination. A review of the literature (Tsui & Gutek,
1999) found that the most common dependent variables were turnover, cohesion, and com-
munication. For example, Ancona and Caldwell (1992) found that team members communi-
cated outside the team’s boundary more often when there was greater functional diversity
among the product team. Yet a significant amount of the research on relational demography
does bear on employment discrimination. Being different from others is sometimes associated
with negative work-related attitudes and behaviors. For example, Tsui and O’Reilly (1989)
found differences in gender and job tenure between superior and subordinate to be related to
low performance ratings of the subordinate by the superior. Being different from one’s supe-
rior or others in a work group may lead to increases in turnover, one of the most studied
outcomes (Tsui & Gutek, 1999). The perception of discrimination toward people like them-
selves is one possible reason why workers may leave organizations.
Early studies found that age and tenure distributions were related to turnover in manage-
ment teams (Pfeffer & O’Reilly, 1987; Wagner et al., 1984) and work units (O’Reilly,
Caldwell, & Barnett, 1989). One of the hypothesized mediating conditions that affects
turnover is social integration. O’Reilly et al. (1989) measured social integration in the work
group and found that it was related to group-level tenure distribution. Konrad, Winter, and
Gutek (1992) found that sex composition was related to two measures of social integration,
isolation and dissatisfaction. Elvira and Cohen (2001) predicted that turnover would be
lower for women when there were relatively more women at their job level. Results from a
large financial firm supported that hypothesis. Findings that show cohesion is greater and
turnover is lower when people work with others who are similar to themselves point out
some of the difficulties organizations face when they attempt to increase their organizations’
diversity with respect to sex, age, ethnicity, and the like. Interestingly, Harrison, Price, and
Bell (1998) found that sex diversity was related to low group cohesion, but only for those
groups that had spent a relatively short amount of time together. This suggests that social
cohesion may be less of a problem if the numerical minorities are integrated into the work-
force, perhaps through concerted efforts to make them feel welcome. A number of years ago,
Pettigrew and Martin (1987) wrote that organizations need to make conscious efforts to inte-
grate the numerically rare into organizations to make them feel less alienated and perhaps
increase organizational cohesion.
Other studies focus on communication patterns. For example, Zenger and Lawrence
(1989) reported that project members similar in age to others on the project team tended to
communicate more on technical matters than those who were dissimilar in age to others on
the team. Members of groups who are out of the communication loop may feel that they are
being discriminated against.
In sum, relational and compositional demography is a general framework that can be use-
ful for researchers interested in discrimination in organizations (Riordan et al., 2005; Tsui &
Gutek, 1999). The research in relational demography shows that demographic diversity does
not always result in outcomes that are positive and presents some interesting questions and
challenges for those wanting to foster diversity. The fact that certain kinds of diversity in new

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 14, 2014
800 Journal of Management / December 2006

product teams are associated with positive outcomes, such as innovation and willingness to
adopt new strategies (Bantel & Jackson, 1989; Wiersema & Bantel, 1992), suggests the pos-
sibility that when properly used, demographic diversity with respect to race, age, or sex
could also be a source of innovation and adoption of new strategies.

“Social” Theories

The threshold requirement of protected-group membership requires that discrimination

claimants perceive two social elements prior to claiming: (a) group membership and
(b) treatment of their group relative to other groups. These social perceptions suggest that
discrimination claimants exist in a unique context from other terminated employees. As
such, they warrant separate investigation. That is, individuals’ perception of discrimination
is necessarily dependent on their perceptions of how others—particularly those in other
groups—are treated. This can be an important factor in explaining how “bad treatment” can
be perceived to be “different treatment.” In turn, this suggests a promising role for theories
that incorporate strong social elements, such as social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979)
that focuses on intergroup relations, especially in-group bias and social conflict. Tajfel
(1972) argued that people are motivated to evaluate themselves positively and, to the extent
that group membership becomes significant to their self-identification, they will be moti-
vated to evaluate that group positively. Numerous studies have supported these findings (see
Oakes, Haslam, & Turner, 1994, for a review). Self-categorization theory (e.g., J. C. Turner,
1985) focuses on the psychological group. It argues that so-called group-level phenomena
can be explained by understanding interpersonal attraction of individual group members and,
as a result, there are no properties of the group as a whole. As a consequence, this theory
argues that people see themselves less as differing individuals but as self-stereotyping rep-
resentatives of their in-group (J. C. Turner, 1984). This latter theory includes recognition of
the importance of social cognition, including investigation of social stereotyping and self-
concept (Oakes et al., 1994). The support for this theory is also quite extensive; in particu-
lar, there is strong evidence that salient social identity depersonalizes the perception of the
self and others (e.g., Oakes et al., 1994). Both of these theories have been widely used with
generally consistent results (see M. E. Turner, 2001). In particular, these theories are helpful
in understanding how group affiliation may influence perceptions of, and acting on, ambigu-
ous events that may negatively affect employees in the workplace. Evidence supports the
idea that we seek out the advice of others when faced with ambiguous and negative events
(see, e.g., Goldman & Thatcher, 2002), such as events that can lead to discrimination claim-
ing (e.g., termination).

Organizational Justice

At least three types of organizational justice have been identified: distributive justice
(which focuses on the perceived fairness of outcomes; Adams, 1965), procedural justice
(which focuses on the perceived fairness of the procedures used to determine outcomes; Lind

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 14, 2014
 Goldman et al. / Employment Discrimination 801

& Tyler, 1988), and interactional justice (which focuses on interpersonal treatment received
during enactment of a procedure; Bies & Moag, 1986). Distributive injustice leads workers
to attempt to restore a perceived inequity (Walster, Walster, & Berscheid, 1978). Sometimes,
this restoration occurs by means of so-called antisocial behaviors in organizations
(Giacalone & Greenberg, 1997), such as employee theft (Greenberg, 1990), sabotage
(Giacalone, Riordan, & Rosenfeld, 1997), and legal claiming (Lind, 1997). Procedural injus-
tice may also cause employees to engage in actions against those of the organization, but for
distinct reasons from distributive injustice. Among the most compelling are (a) that employ-
ees value procedural justice as a social norm, violation of which threatens important norma-
tive standards (Cropanzano, Goldman, & Folger, 2003); (b) the “voice effect,” which argues
that employees value the opportunity to have their opinions heard in the organization
(Shapiro, 1993); and (c) that it provides evidence of social standing, that is, fear of social
ostracism (Cropanzano, Rupp, Mohler, & Schminke, 2001). Interactional injustice has been
found to have independent effects (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001;
Masterson, Lewis, Goldman, & Taylor, 2000). It has been found to be particularly important
when a worker receives a bad outcome, such as being terminated. It may be that the damage
to dignity or self-worth that typically accompanies interactional injustice facilitates worker
actions against the organizations (such as the filing of a discrimination claim; e.g., Goldman,
2003; Lind, Greenberg, Scott, & Welchans, 2000).
Generally speaking, substantial research reports that organizational justice is related to
both perceptions of employment discrimination and reactions to it. In terms of perceptions
of employment discrimination, several studies have examined this issue. For example,
Harris, Lievens, and Van Hoye (2004) proposed a model to understand perceived discrimi-
nation in selection and promotion situations that included a prominent role for organizational
justice. Their model embraces fairness heuristic theory (FHT; Lind, Kulik, Ambrose, & de
Vera Park, 1993) to explain how workers form fairness-related judgments to explain uncer-
tainty or lack of trust in their organizations. Their model argues that aspects of organizational
justice (their article focuses on distributive and procedural justice, in particular) interact to
form fairness judgments is a function of the type of fairness information readily available
(e.g., if information on outcome fairness is not available, workers may use information on
procedural justice) and the order of information (e.g., workers often look at what type of fair-
ness is presented first to them, i.e., primacy effects). In this model, worker assessments of
perceived discrimination do not necessarily look at all, or even most, of the fairness-related
facts but those that are most easily accessible. For example, this may result in a worker con-
cluding unfairness because one’s performance appraisal is lower than a colleague’s, even
though a careful assessment may result in legitimate but complex reasons for why that was
the case. If accurate, this model suggests that worker perceptions of discrimination may
include lots of error. This may account for the large number of cases for which the EEOC
(2006d) finds “no reasonable cause.”
An expanding body of research supports the conclusion that organizational justice is an
important consideration when employees respond to actual employment discrimination in
the workplace. For example, Goldman (2001) surveyed 439 terminated workers who were in
the reception room of the EEOC waiting to file, or follow up on prior filings of, discrimina-
tion claims. He found that both distributive and procedural justice were significant and

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 14, 2014
802 Journal of Management / December 2006

important factors affecting worker filing of discrimination claims with the EEOC (that study
did not investigate interactional justice). This study is one of the few that provides a firm
linkage between organizational justice and discrimination-claiming behavior (not just claim-
ing attitudes; see Bies & Tyler, 1993).
Goldman (2003) also investigated the consequences of actual discrimination claims. Like
Harris et al. (2004), Goldman (2003) was also concerned with the interactions of various
types of organizational justice on discrimination claims. That study involved 583 terminated
workers who filed discrimination claims with the EEOC. However, that study relied on ref-
erent cognitions theory (RCT; Folger & Cropanzano, 2001). As in FHT, RCT considers the
roles of other types of organizational justice when workers receive a bad outcome. However,
the mechanism for how this works is different in the two theories: In FHT, availability of
information is paramount, so that people process information (procedural or interactional
justice) when directly relevant comparative justice (i.e., distributive justice) is not available;
in RCT, accountability is the important issue, especially because RCT assumes relevance
when outcomes are already bad (e.g., when there is a termination or other bad outcome). In
that study, Goldman (2003) reported that procedural, distributive, and interactional justice all
interacted to predict discrimination legal claiming (the study also reported partial mediation
and moderation for state and trait anger, respectively).
Foley, Kidder, and Powell (2002) tested their own model relating perceived ethnic dis-
crimination and distributive justice (among other variables). In their study, they report sup-
port for a model that includes perceived ethnic discrimination (in this case, discrimination
against Hispanics) as an antecedent to, among other things, distributive injustice. In some
sense, this runs counter to the model proposed by Harris et al. (2004) and the results of the
study reported in Goldman (2001). This discrepancy may be explained because the Foley
et al. study focused on Hispanics and, perhaps, Hispanics react differently in some way than
other groups. It is also noteworthy that, given the apparent correlations between the two con-
structs of interest in this study, and the causal limitations inherent in the analytic method
(structural equation modeling), it is possible that an alternative model that predicts that dis-
tributive injustice leads to perceived discrimination cannot be ruled out. In any event, future
researchers may want to test these differences.

Consequences of Discrimination

Whereas the impact of discrimination toward groups can pose a threat to individuals and
organizations alike, the motivation for discrimination is not always malicious (Dovidio &
Hebl, 2005). Nevertheless, whenever discrimination is present in the organizational commu-
nity, so are the negative individual- group- and organizational-level consequences of it.
Specifically, this section will examine the effects of discrimination from the standpoint of the
person who is the target and not the source of the discrimination.
When most people think of consequences of discrimination, negative psychological
effects on the individual come to mind. However, the effects of discrimination can be seen
at the group level and organizational level as well. For example, discrimination may result
in differences in pay, job status, and job type between discriminated groups and groups that

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 14, 2014
 Goldman et al. / Employment Discrimination 803

are not discriminated against (Gutek, 2001). At the organizational level, we may observe the
negative effects on an organization’s reputation (Rindova, Williamson, Petkova, & Sever,
2005) as well as increased discrimination-related litigation (Donohue & Siegelman, 1991;
Goldman, 2001), especially when employers introduce bias into the employee selection
process (Williamson, Campion, Malos, Roehling, & Campion, 1997). For this reason, we
structure the remainder of this section into three parts and examine the consequences of dis-
crimination as they affect each level: individual, group, and organization.

Effects of Perceived Discrimination at the Individual Level

Many theories suggest that perceiving discrimination or prejudice can negatively affect
the psychological and physical health of its targets (e.g., Allport, 1954; Clark, Anderson,
Clark, & Williams, 1999; Cooley, 1902; Erikson, 1956; Krieger, 1990; Mead, 1934). Past
research on physical health and discrimination report a negative effect of perceived discrim-
ination on blood pressure (Broman, 1996; James, Lovato, & Cropanzano, 1994; James,
Strogatz, Wing, & Ramsey, 1987; Krieger, 1990; Krieger & Sidney, 1996), heart disease
(Broman, 1996), and self-assessed state of health (Jackson, Brown, Williams, Sellers, &
Brown, 1996). More recently, Pavalko, Mossakowki, and Hamilton (2003) conducted a lon-
gitudinal study that found that perceptions of discrimination negatively affect perceiver
health, even when controlling for prior physical and emotional health, job characteristics,
and job discrimination. Specifically, women who perceived that they were subject to dis-
crimination between 1977 and 1982 had a 50% greater chance of having some type of phys-
ical limitation in 1989 than women who did not report experiencing discrimination.
In addition to physical ailments caused by perceived discrimination, some research has
found perceived ethnic prejudice to be positively correlated with high levels of psychologi-
cal distress (e.g., Brown, Sellers, Brown, & Jackson, 1999; Noh, Beiser, Kaspar, Hou, &
Rummens, 1999; Williams & Williams-Morris, 2000). However, other scholars have failed
to find such a relationship (e.g., Corning, 2002; Fischer & Shaw, 1999; Landrine, Klonoff,
Gibbs, & Manning, 1995; see also Crocker & Major, 1989, for a review). In-group versus
out-group comparison may help us understand this disparity in the research findings.

In-group versus out-group comparisons and self-esteem. For some time now, researchers
have understood that social comparisons are cognitive acts that all individuals engage in
(Festinger, 1954; James, 1890/1913; Rosenberg, 1979). Individuals can change their self-
appraisals, reports of self-esteem, and affective state when they are exposed to others who
have outperformed them in some way (see Gibbons & Gerrard, 1991; Major, Testa, &
Blysma, 1991; Wills, 1981, 1987, 1991; Wood, 1989, for reviews). For example, women may
compare their salary to that of the other women that they work with instead of other men
(Gutek, 2001). As a result, they may be more satisfied with their lower level of pay than if
they compared themselves to men who make more money.
By definition, members of stigmatized groups (women, ethnic minorities, or older work-
ers) experience more discrimination in and out of the workplace than nonstigmatized groups
and are inherently disadvantaged because of this fact (Crocker & Major, 1989). Specifically,

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 14, 2014
804 Journal of Management / December 2006

a stigmatized individual expresses a devalued personal and social identity within a certain
social context (Crocker & Major, 1989; Crocker, Major, & Steele, 1998). Given this fact, it
may be to a discriminated group’s advantage to make downward comparisons at work in
terms of pay, promotional opportunities, and interpersonal treatment, to name a few. Given
that upward comparisons with advantaged groups could be potentially painful, individuals
may find it less stressful to make downward comparisons with members of their stigmatized
group (Major, Sciacchitano, & Crocker, 1993). Specifically, when members of stigmatized
groups compare themselves with others in their in-group (e.g., Blacks or women), they may
not experience the decreased self-esteem, depressed affect, and lower ratings of ability that
have been witnessed in individuals who compare themselves to members of out-groups (e.g.,
Whites or men; Major et al., 1993).
However, these in-group comparisons may be detrimental to job performance.
Specifically, if employees compare themselves to others who are similarly disadvantaged in
terms of job-related outcomes, they may not put forth additional effort on the job and may
remain relatively stagnant in terms of job-related performance. In other words, stigmatized
individuals are caught between two different but negative outcomes. They can either deal
with the consequences of lower self-esteem by comparing themselves to the advantaged
group or they can bolster their self-esteem by comparing themselves to other disadvantaged
people. However, in this situation, they may retard their job-related performance.

Perceptions of victimization and coping. Research suggests that people who assert that
they have been discriminated against frequently experience social rejection and interpersonal
problems (Miller & Major, 2000). Consequently, these stigmatized individuals may develop
coping mechanisms that consist of denying that they are being discriminated against (e.g.,
Crosby, Pufall, Snyder, O’Connell, & Whalen, 1989; Major, 1987, 1994).
However, not all individuals cope with discrimination in the same manner. Individual
coping techniques may concentrate on alleviating the problems associated with the discrim-
ination or the emotions that are caused by the problem (Major, Quinton, & McCoy, 2002;
Miller & Myers, 1998; Swim, Cohen, & Hyers, 1998). Researchers have identified two dif-
ferent general methods for coping with perceived discrimination: emotion-focused coping
and problem-focused coping. In an emotion-focused coping effort, one might attribute being
passed over for a promotion as due to discrimination rather than individual specific short-
comings. Although this type of thought process has been found to protect self-esteem (Major
& Crocker, 1993), it may also inhibit the employee from scrutinizing his or her work ethic.
On the other hand, problem-focused coping efforts involve changing some aspect of the self
to prevent discrimination in the future; for example, a mentally ill person seeking therapy
in an effort to combat his or her mental illness or an obese person trying to lose weight
(e.g., Cole, Kemeny, & Taylor, 1997; Major & Gramzow, 1999). Moreover, racial and ethnic
minorities may sometimes try to “pass” as members of nonminority groups (Goffman,
1963). In addition, some individuals are able to maintain a high level of self-esteem (Black
women; see Hoelter, 1982; Porter & Washington, 1979; Rosenberg, 1979; Wylie, 1979, for
reviews of the literature), and others are not (obese individuals; Wadden, Foster, Brownell,
& Finley, 1984). Yet what remains consistent for all discriminated persons is that they are
required to cope in some way.

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 14, 2014
 Goldman et al. / Employment Discrimination 805

Positive outcomes but negative consequences. Although most of the time we hear about
the negative outcomes associated with membership in groups that are discriminated against,
it is certainly the case that they sometimes receive preferential treatment for their group
status. In certain situations, research has found that individuals will treat stigmatized (e.g.,
disabled or African Americans) groups more positively than nonstigmatized groups because
of sympathy felt for the disadvantaged (cf. Carver, Glass, Snyder, & Katz, 1977; Gaertner &
Dovidio, 1977). This is especially the case for individuals who have stigmas perceived to be
uncontrollable (e.g., blindness, paraplegia). These individuals tend to induce more pity and
helping behavior from others than people with stigmas that are perceived as controllable
(e.g., obesity; Dostoyevsky, 1864/1994; Weiner, Perry, & Magnusson, 1988). Similarly,
Whites have sometimes been found to respond more positively to Blacks who are in need
(Gaertner & Dovidio, 1977) and assess them more favorably than comparable White targets
(Linville & Jones, 1980).

Effects of Perceived Discrimination at the Group Level

In addition to the individual-level consequences, there are also many negative group-level
consequences. Regardless of whether or not it is perceived, discrimination negatively affects
income and job opportunities for members of certain groups (England, 1992; Kilbourne,
England, Farkas, Beron, & Weir, 1994; Neumark & McLennan, 1995; Reskin & Padavic,
1994). Moreover, Insko et al. (2001) found that group- as opposed to individual-level, cate-
gorization, produces feelings of fear and mistrust in contacts with others. Stereotype threat
(Steele, 1997) and feelings of tokenism (Niemann & Dovidio, 1998; Sekaquaptewa &
Thompson, 2003) can hinder performance, which translates to lower levels of performance
at the organizational level. We discuss a few of these major groups below.

Age. At some point in time, most of us will be in the older worker group. And there has been
a wealth of research that demonstrates that age discrimination is prevalent and affects older
employees’ job security, deployment, retention, and promotion (Arrowsmith & McGoldrick,
1996; Itzin & Phillipson, 1993; McGoldrick & Arrowsmith, 1992; Taylor & Walker, 1994).
Scott, Berger, and Garen (1995) posited that health insurance costs are an important factor in a
company’s decision to employee older workers. Because physical ailments tend to increase with
age, employers may not want the additional financial burden of employing an older worker.
However, even if older workers are hired into an organization, it is not clear that they will stay.
Specifically, some older workers may be confronted by a hostile work environment or demoted
to less important positions because of their age (Johnson & Neumark, 1997). Hence, there may
be an abundance of discouraged older workers (Rhine, 1978) because of managerial preference
for younger workers (Rosen & Jerdee, 1978) and by studies indicating that older employees
experience discrimination with regard to layoffs and mobility (Hutchens, 1988; Parnes & King,
1977). These findings suggest that age discrimination plays an integral role in early retirements
and job separations of older workers (Johnson & Neumark, 1997). There are obvious implica-
tions for older workers, such as lower employment rates and decreased job satisfaction to name
a few. Moreover, organizations may suffer from the loss of employees who leave the workforce
early. Indeed, employees who report age-related discrimination are 59% more likely to leave

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 14, 2014
806 Journal of Management / December 2006

their current job than workers who do not report age discrimination (Johnson & Neumark,
1997). Even if older workers do choose to stay employed, they may be dealing with the
psychological consequences of discriminatory behavior that could potentially affect their ability
to perform on the job.

Disability. Age discrimination, however, is not the only type of discrimination that brings
about negative consequences at the group level. Similar types of consequences can be seen
when we examine the hiring of physically and mentally disabled individuals (Bachelder &
Braddock, 1994). At the group level, the ADA may decrease the amount of unfair restricting
of employment for disabled individuals. However, this will only be the case if employers
understand when to apply the terms of the ADA. Early research on disability discrimination
suggested this may be problematic (McKee, 1991). However, a number of years have passed
since this early research, and it is not clear to what extent this is currently a problem.
Nevertheless, it is certainly a problem in some areas. For example, the courts have frequently
been divided over whether morbidly obese individuals should be protected by the ADA.
Polinko and Popovich (2001) reported that obese job applicants were seen as having more
negative job-related qualities in comparison with normal-weight applicants. Individuals who
are overweight consistently receive negative responses from others (Allon, 1982). This group
is frequently pigeonholed as socially impaired as well as emotionally and morally unre-
strained (Allon, 1982; Crandall & Biernat, 1990). Roehling (1999) examined a wide range
of literatures (law, psychology, economics, sociology) in a comprehensive review of the psy-
chological and legal aspects of weight-based discrimination in employment that included an
extensive discussion of morbid obesity.
Although the terms overweight and obese are often used interchangeably (Friedman &
Brownell, 1995), the actual definitions differ. The more general term overweight can refer to
any amount of excess body fat and weight (Friedman & Brownell, 1995). One is only cate-
gorized as obese once they are 20% or more over their recommended body weight for their
height (Metropolitan Life, 1996). These definitions come into play when we consider the
legal protection (or lack thereof) for overweight persons (see Korn, 1997). A person’s obe-
sity is a disability only if that person is morbidly obese (100% over their ideal body weight)
or obese as a consequence of a psychological condition (Cook v. Rhode Island, 1993;
Francis v. City of Meriden, 1997; see also EEOC Amicus Brief, 1993). Although a substan-
tial portion of Americans are obese (31% of men and 35% of women), only 0.5% of the
obese are morbidly obese. Hence, 99.5% of obese Americans would be forced to prove that
their weight stems from psychological causes to receive protection under the disabilities law
(Roehling, 1999). As one might imagine, this is probably not easy to do. Although the con-
sequences for the victims of weight-based discrimination may be powerful and negative,
with uncertain legal redress, organizations are also faced with an equal amount of uncer-
tainty (Taussig, 1994). Therefore, employers should be cognizant of the consequences they
may face: legal, reputation, and otherwise for discriminating against individuals solely based
on their weight.

Race and ethnicity. In addition to weight, it appears that race affects the desirability of
applicants to an organization. In less structured interviews, Black and Hispanic applicants
were rated less favorably than White applicants (Huffcutt & Roth, 1998). Moreover, White

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 14, 2014
 Goldman et al. / Employment Discrimination 807

interviewers who score high on the modern-racism scale (McConahay, 1986) have been found
to discriminate against Black applicants during the interview process when they are able to
back their decision not to hire the minority with a business-related rationalization (Brief,
Dietz, Cohen, Pugh, & Vaslow, 2000). Because of this, racial and ethnic discrimination groups,
such as Hispanics, suffer from increased role ambiguity, role conflict, and work tension, as
well as decreased organizational commitment and job satisfaction (Sanchez & Brock, 1996).
Once members of the organization, stigmatized individuals may experience reduced sup-
port and lower quality mentorship, lessening their chances to advance within the organization
(Ragins, 1999). Women, who are often paid less than men in similar positions, generally are
not promoted within an organization as quickly as men, hold less prestigious jobs, and are
less likely to reap benefits from job transfers and work assignment changes (Brett & Stroh,
1997; Reskin & Ross, 1992; Valian, 1998). In addition, only some of the variance between
men and women in the aforementioned areas can be attributed to women choosing different
careers paths than men. The variance in careers does not fully explain the differences seen
in their pay and benefits (Gutek, 2001). In 2001, women employed on a full-time basis made
a median weekly salary of $511 in comparison to the $672 per week for men (U.S. Bureau
of the Census, 2000). Moreover, this wage gap exists for men and women in the same occu-
pation (Budig, 2002), even when controlling for requisite qualifications, experience, and
training (Ostroff & Atwater, 2003).

Effects of Perceived Discrimination at the Organizational Level

Up to this point, we have examined the consequences of discrimination for individuals

and groups. Organizations, too, are at risk of the negative consequences of discrimination. In
this section, we focus on the consequences for organizations in term of legal ramifications,
economics, and reputation.

Legal consequences of discrimination. As noted earlier, individual claimants filed more

than 146,000 federal and state discrimination charges in 2005 alone (see the section titled
“Legal Background and Descriptive Statistics” within this article). The organization may
also suffer monetary loses from discrimination occurring in the workplace, as it has been
linked to decreased job performance, lower morale, absenteeism, and job dissatisfaction
(Pryor, 1995).
However, it is interesting to note that once in a court of law, a judicial decision may be
biased because of the age of the plaintiff as well as the judge. Specifically, Manning, Carroll,
and Carp (2004) found that the youngest judges were the least sympathetic to plaintiffs who
contended that they had been the victims of age discrimination behavior; increased age
among judges was associated with increased pro-elderly decisions in age bias cases.

Economic consequences of discrimination. Legal battles can be very expensive for an

organization. Possible court-ordered remedies for discrimination may include hiring, pro-
motion, back pay, or reinstatement (Neumark, 2003). In a slightly different vein, organiza-
tions may also be losing money because of their inefficient utilization of stigmatized groups.
For example, individuals with disabilities have been underused because of discrimination by

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 14, 2014
808 Journal of Management / December 2006

employers (cf. Stone & Colella, 1996). However, there are some companies who have
explored this relatively untapped niche because they believe that employing disabled indi-
viduals will increase their disabled customers’ level of satisfaction (Cox, 1993). Research
should be conducted to determine whether this is true.

Organizational reputation. A positive corporate image can bring about many benefits for
an organization. Past research has linked a positive image to a more general positive reputa-
tion (Bronson, 1985; Gregory & Wiechmann, 1999; Markwick & Fill, 1997; Mason, 1993),
which can lead to an advantage over competitors (see Balmer & Gray, 1999; Fombrun, 1996;
Olson, Cooper, & Slater, 1998). As Alessandri and Alessandri (2004) pointed out, corporate
identity encompasses a firm’s ability to convey its critical capabilities to both internal and
external audiences. One way that organizations can work to keep their reputation positive is
to increase the extent to which outsiders view their selection systems as fair. Seeing as appli-
cants’ perceptions of selection systems may affect their commitment levels, changes to exist-
ing systems that create nondiscriminatory selection tools would affect both attraction and
retention rates in companies (Gilliland, 1993).
Moreover, maintaining a diverse workforce by not discriminating may improve access to
new markets and legitimize an employer’s reputation (Singh & Point, 2004). In addition, the
promotion of disabled workers, minorities, and women, as well as policies supporting these
groups, has been found to be linked to images of corporate and social responsibility (Singh
& Point, 2004). Indeed, Karpoff and Lott (1993) asserted that firms can incur reputational
costs when they discriminate. That is, a reputational cost causes the firms’ nonlegal expen-
ditures to increase or their sales to decrease. More important, a recent meta-analysis of 52
studies examining financial performance and corporate social responsibility found a positive
relationship between diversity management and corporate financial performance (Orlitzy,
Schmidt, & Rynes, 2003).

Final Thoughts on Consequences

From an individual- group- and organizational-level standpoint, discrimination has detri-

mental consequences. Although the self-esteem and psychological well-being of those dis-
criminated against may not suffer all the time, individuals are forced to engage in coping
mechanisms (Major, Quinton, & Schmader, 2003; Miller & Myers, 1998; Swim et al., 1998).
From an organizational standpoint, any activity that takes time away from being productive
should be thoroughly scrutinized. Moreover, discrimination does just that; it creates an unwel-
coming work environment that values superficial qualities instead of job-relevant outcomes.

Measurement Issues in Studying Discrimination

Discrimination

The concept of differential treatment is fairly easy to articulate, so even though many
studies do not use a legal definition of discrimination in their research, they capture the
essence of differential treatment without directly referring to the law. For example, Gutek,

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 14, 2014
 Goldman et al. / Employment Discrimination 809

Cohen, and Tsui (1996) used three-item measures to assess perceived discrimination
against women and against men. The items are the following: “Men (women) are pro-
moted faster than women (men) in my primary work organization.” “My primary work
organization prefers to hire men (women).” “Men (women) are more likely than women
(men) to receive tenure or its equivalent in my primary work organizations.” Cronbach’s
alpha for two samples for the men’s and women’s versions of these three-item measures
varied from .69 to .86. However, as noted later, departure from the legal definition some-
times results in problems for social scientists when this research is presented in legal pro-
ceedings.
Ensher, Grant-Vallone, and Donaldson (2001) took a different perspective from Gutek
et al. (1996) by measuring perceived race and sex discrimination together. However, they
differentiated between discrimination from coworkers (four items; coefficient alpha = .88),
discrimination from supervisors (four items; coefficient alpha = .90), and “organizational”
discrimination (three items; coefficient alpha = .65). An example of a perceived organiza-
tional discrimination item is “I feel that some of the policies and practices of this organiza-
tion are racist/sexist.” Unfortunately, as is the practice in some journals, the complete set of
items is not included in the article.
Sanchez and Brock (1996) devised a 10-item scale (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.87) designed to
measure perceived ethnic discrimination among Hispanic employees. The 10 items were
described as being adapted from a longer scale measuring “acculturative stressors” (Mena,
Padilla, & Maldonado, 1987). Foley, Hang-Yue, and Wong (2005) used four of the items of
Sanchez and Brock and adapted them for their study of perceived gender discrimination and
justice among a sample of Protestant clergy in Hong Kong. The four items had a coefficient
alpha of .87.
Another measure, the 15-item Workplace Prejudice/Discrimination Inventory (WPDI)
assesses both racial and gender bias (James et al., 1994). It is intended for use by organiza-
tional researchers interested in examining possible predictors and consequences of percep-
tions of bias on the job. Sixteen items were written to measure both global and specific per-
ceptions of prejudice and discrimination based on race/ethnicity. Items are 7-point Likert-
type scales measuring agreement or disagreement with the statement. The items (e.g.,
“Prejudice exists where I work”; “Where I work, promotions and rewards are not influenced
by racial or ethnic group membership”) are included in the article. The measure, along with
other measures used to assess the validity of the new measure, was first administered to 89
ethnic minority employees who were each paid $7.50 for their participation. After 1 item was
removed based on the results of a factor analysis, findings were generally supportive of the
new measure with validity measures showing small- to moderate-size relationships with the
new measure. Cronbach’s alpha for the summed score was .90. Consequently, a second study
was performed in which the WPDI was administered to 46 employees who all held the same
position in two units in a single organization; 55% responded. The majority of respondents
were White. A factor analysis yielded a single factor once again, and the same item (Item 12)
had a low factor loading and was subsequently dropped. Internal consistency of the 15-item
measure was .93.
Some studies, particularly experimental studies, simply ask respondents whether some
action could be attributed to their gender, was “due to gender discrimination” (Major,

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 14, 2014
810 Journal of Management / December 2006

Gramzow et al., 2002: 277), or use some other single-item such as “I experience discrimi-
nation because of my ethnicity” (Major, Gramzow, et al., 2002: 272).
Other measures were developed to assess attitudes that might affect discrimination, par-
ticularly sex and race discrimination. For example, Glick and Fiske (1996) developed the
Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI). Ambivalent sexism has two components: hostile sex-
ism and benevolent sexism. Six studies on more than 2,000 respondents established conver-
gent, discriminant, and predictive validity (see also Glick et al., 2000, for results across
cultures). In addition, there are measures of “modern sexism” and “modern racism”
(McConahay, 1986; Swim, Aikin, Hall, & Hunter, 1995). Various versions of these two mea-
sures have been used fairly extensively in research, including organizational research. For
example, Slaughter, Bulger, and Bachiochi (2005) used an adaptation of the modern-racism
measure to study Black applicants’ reactions to affirmative action.

Sexual Harassment

Researchers have also attempted to measure sexual harassment. Sexual harassment has
both a legal connotation and a broader “lay” meaning. In its lay definition, sexual harassment
can be considered treatment based on gender. It may constitute a form of stress for victims,
is an impediment to equal opportunity, and thus is a human resource management issue.
Legally, sexual harassment is considered a form of sex discrimination. It is broadly defined
as unwelcome verbal or physical sexual overtures that may be made a condition of employ-
ment or otherwise affect one’s job or career or create a hostile or intimidating work envi-
ronment. To be illegal, these unwelcome behaviors must be severe or pervasive enough to
meet a reasonable person’s and the complainant’s standard of a hostile work environment. In
other words, sexual harassment must meet a subjective criterion (i.e., the recipient must find
it to be severe or pervasive) and an objective criterion (i.e., a reasonable person would find
the behavior sufficiently severe or pervasive to meet a legal definition). This latter require-
ment is necessary, according to the law, to prevent frivolous lawsuits by hypersensitive plain-
tiffs who see sexual harassment in otherwise innocent or harmless behavior. It is this
“subjective” test of harassment that social scientists, typically through survey instruments,
frequently attempt to measure. The “objective” test is assessed by judge or jury (as the
decider of facts) in the legal system. Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court determined
sexual harassment is treated as a type of sex discrimination under the law in the United
States, whether the harasser is engaging in heterosexual or homosexual sexual harassment
(see Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 1998). However, in Oncale, the Court also
made clear that sexual harassment must be based on sex and cannot just involve harassment.
On the surface, sexual harassment appears to be easy to measure. Similarly to the way in
which respondents are asked if they have been discriminated against on the basis of their sex
or race, for example, why not simply ask people if they have been sexually harassed? This
“global item” approach (“Have you ever been sexually harassed?”) is rarely used, with a few
exceptions. The Navy Equal Opportunity/Sexual Harassment (NEOSH) Survey, first admin-
istered in 1989 (Rosenfeld & Culbertson, 1992), measures sexual harassment with these two
items: “During the past year, have you ever been sexually harassed while on duty?” and
“During the past year, have you ever been sexually harassed on base or ship while off duty?”

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 14, 2014
 Goldman et al. / Employment Discrimination 811

Global items are, however, used infrequently because some researchers contend that these
measures would result in an underreporting of the phenomenon (see Cortina, Swan,
Fitzgerald, & Waldo, 1998; Fitzgerald, Swan, & Magley, 1997), as workers seem reluctant to
acknowledge that they have been sexually harassed (Barak, Fisher, & Houston, 1992; Chan,
Tang, & Chan, 1999; Jaschik & Fretz, 1991; Schneider, 1982; Stockdale & Vaux, 1993;
Stockdale, Vaux, & Cashin, 1995). In fact, Kidder, Lafleur, and Wells (1995) provide con-
vincing examples in which events initially not labeled sexual harassment came to be so
labeled at a later date. A single question asking the respondent if she has been sexually
harassed is sometimes used as an indicator of acknowledging or labeling sexual harassment,
rather than sexual harassment per se (e.g., Adams-Roy & Barling, 1998; Cortina et al., 1998;
Magley, Hulin, Fitzgerald, & DeNardo, 1999; Stockdale et al., 1995). More typically, and
starting with the earliest published studies on sexual harassment (Gutek, Nakamura, Gahart,
Handschumacher, & Russell, 1980), respondents were asked if they have experienced a list of
behaviors that might be considered sexual harassment (e.g., Adams, Kottke, & Padgitt, 1983;
Chan et al., 1999; Grauerholz, 1989; Gutek, 1985; USMSPB, 1981, 1988, 1995). These
measures are generally (but not always) designed to be suitable for both sexes.
In the late 1980s and 1990s, several attempts to develop multi-item measures of sexual
harassment were made. The Sexual Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ) (Fitzgerald, Gelfand,
& Drasgow, 1995; Fitzgerald, Shullman, Bailey, & Richards, 1988) is one of the best known.
However, a critique of the versions of the SEQ (Gutek et al., 2004) noted that it is not clear
what or whose definition of sexual harassment it measures. Although some researchers may
find the SEQ useful in their research, it is problematic in research used in legal proceedings.
In fact, evidence gained from the SEQ was dismissed in at least one unreported federal trial
court decision (EEOC v. Dial Corp., 2002 WL 31061088, N. D. Ill., Sept. 17, 2002). In that
case, expert testimony that relied on the SEQ was ruled inadmissible under federal rules of
evidence because the “survey instrument presents inherent reliability problems” and “the
SEQ portion of the survey lacks validity” (EEOC v. Dial Corporation, 2002: 9). Other instru-
ments that are used in litigation are likely to come under the same close scrutiny. Thus, if
they expect their instruments to be used in court, social scientists need to pay careful atten-
tion to issues of reliability and validity, as well as having a more general understanding of
what qualifies as admissible testimony (Wingate & Thornton, 2004).
Other multi-item measures that might be useful in studying some aspect of sexual harass-
ment are available. For example, Lott, Reilly, and Howard (1982; Reilly, Lott, & Gallogly,
1986) developed a 10-item measure, the Tolerance for Sexual Harassment Inventory (TSHI),
yielding three factors, labeled Flirtations Are Natural, Provocative Behavior, and Feminist
Beliefs. The TSHI measures the respondent’s beliefs about men and women (e.g., “An attrac-
tive woman has to expect sexual advances and should learn how to handle them”), not orga-
nizational norms. Developed as part of the Navy’s study (NEOSH Survey), Culbertson and
Rodgers’s (1997) article includes nine items measuring sexual harassment climate percep-
tions. Their scale measures the extent to which sexual harassment occurs, if it is a problem, if
anything is being done to stop it, and if respondents know what actions and words are con-
sidered sexual harassment. In addition, Gutek, Cohen, and Konrad (1990) used eight items to
measure the extent to which the work environment is sexualized, and Pryor (1987) developed
a Likelihood to Sexually Harass (LSH) Scale based on scenarios to which male respondents

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 14, 2014
812 Journal of Management / December 2006

rate the likelihood that they would engage in the potentially sexually harassing behavior
described in the scenarios “assuming you are unafraid of potential reprisals.”
None of these measures, however, captures important aspects of sexual harassment law,
namely, that the behavior in question must be severe or pervasive. Although severity can be
inferred from the individual items (e.g., looks or gestures of a sexual nature versus being
expected to engage in sexual behavior as part of one’s job; Gutek, 1985) or scenarios (Pryor,
1987), it is difficult to judge pervasiveness because most measures focus on the experience
of individual behaviors. Some studies measuring people’s responses to incidents of possible
sexual harassment do ask respondents to indicate the level of severity and pervasiveness
(e.g., O’Connor, Gutek, Stockdale, Geer, & Melançon, 2004; Wiener & Hurt, 2000).
Moreover, as can be seen from the above, two important considerations for researchers to
bear in mind as they consider issues relating to the measurement of discrimination are (a) the
distinction between attitudinal and behavioral measures of discrimination-related issues
(attitudinal measures of discrimination may or may not be related to behavioral measures;
Goldman, 2003) and (b) a focus on the purpose of the measures (e.g., measures developed
for research purposes may not necessarily be valid for legal purposes).

Other Methodological Issues in Studying Discrimination

In addition to issues relating to the measurement of discrimination, there are issues relat-
ing to the methods researchers use to study discrimination and sexual harassment. Past
reviews of that research have raised criticisms about the prevalence of cross-sectional designs
(Lengnick-Hall, 1995) and self-report measures (Arvey & Cavanaugh, 1995), the use of non-
probability samples for predicting incidence rates of sexual harassment (Gutek, 1995;
Lengnick-Hall, 1995), the use of scenarios in stimulus materials (Lengnick-Hall, 1995), and
the use of inappropriate or unreliable analytic techniques (Paetzold, 1992). We evaluated the
methods used in recent discrimination and sexual harassment research to determine if the
issues raised in the past are apparent in more recent research. We examined research pub-
lished in prominent management, human resources, and social-psychology journals during
the most recent decade (1997–2006),2 and for each article, we evaluated the study setting,
study design, sampling time frame, sampling technique, data-gathering approaches, rele-
vant stimulus materials, measurement or method bias risks and corrections, and analytic
approaches.
Of 298 articles surfaced by our search, we included for evaluation those empirical articles
where the main independent or dependent variable is discrimination or harassment. We
excluded articles in which the main constructs of interest are stereotypes, prejudice, or social
discrimination and articles that focus on topics outside the scope of this review (i.e., affirma-
tive action). The set of articles for evaluation numbered 84, of which 43 appear in manage-
ment or human resources journals and 37 appear in social-psychology journals. Thirty-seven
articles focus on sexual harassment, 20 focus on gender discrimination apart from sexual
harassment, and 10 focus on racial discrimination. The remaining articles examine discrim-
ination based on sexual orientation (5), weight (2), national origin (2), retaliation (1), and
disability (1), or multiple bases for discrimination (6).

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 14, 2014
 Goldman et al. / Employment Discrimination 813

Study Design and Causality: Limitations of Cross-Sectional Designs

Cross-sectional designs can demonstrate concurrent relationships between variables, but

such designs do not allow researchers to test the temporal order of predictor and criterion
variables or the pervasiveness of effects. Much of the research that we evaluated used cross-
sectional designs; only 3 of 48 field studies (Glomb, Munson, Hulin, Bergman, & Drasgow,
1999; Munson, Hulin, & Drasgow, 2000; Sims, Drasgow, & Fitzgerald, 2005) used a longi-
tudinal design. However, researchers attempted to address some of the limitations of cross-
sectional designs. Eleven field studies used path-analytic or structural equation modeling
(SEM) approaches to confirm the fit of the data to a set causal or temporal relationship.
Although SEM cannot prove causality, it is a more powerful tool for confirming (or discon-
firming) a set of relationships than are traditional correlational techniques, because SEM can
take into account measurement error and error covariances between predictor variables.
Nevertheless, given that discriminatory attitudes, behaviors, and victims’ reactions to them
are dynamic in nature, additional longitudinal studies are clearly needed.

Sample Bias: Issues Related to Sampling Methods

Nonprobability (or “convenience”) samples limit the generalizability of findings and are
prone to self-selection bias that can inflate reports of discrimination or sexual harassment.
Probability samples (data gathered from a random or stratified random sample of the popu-
lation under study, or from the entire population) are less prone to self-selection bias and can
therefore yield more accurate incidence information.
We found evidence of both types of samples in research conducted from 1997 to 2006. Of
the 48 field studies we evaluated, 15 used probability samples, 6 of which were taken from
private sector organizations (e.g., Ellis & Fox, 2001; Lim & Cortina, 2005). Seven studies
used an existing probability sample created for a Department of Defense study (Department
of Defense 1995 Sexual Harassment Survey, 1997) (e.g., Bergman, Langhout, Palmieri,
Cortina, & Fitzgerald, 2002; Langhout et al., 2005). The remaining field studies used non-
probability samples taken from academic work environments (9), public sector or government
organizations (15), and private sector organizations (20). A full understanding of discrimina-
tion and the factors related to discrimination depends on research conducted in a variety of
settings and organizational contexts, and under a range of conditions (Ilies, Hauserman,
Schwochau, & Stibal, 2003). For these reasons, we believe that field research conducted with
probability samples and research conducted with nonprobability samples are both critical for
advancing our understanding.

Realism and Generalizability: Limitations of “Paper People,”

Vignettes, and Student Samples

Vignettes and “paper people” are sometimes criticized as lacking external validity
because the responses they stimulate may differ from those stimulated by actual experience.

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 14, 2014
814 Journal of Management / December 2006

Contributing to this criticism is the fact that laboratory studies using such stimulus materi-
als are often conducted with student participants, who may respond differently than adult
workers. Vignettes and “paper people” stimulus materials are effective for eliciting informa-
tion about what can happen in organizations (i.e., how a victim might react to harass-
ing behavior), but they do not necessarily show what actually happens in organizations.
Respondents’ reactions to descriptive stimuli may be stronger than respondents’ reactions to
real incidents (Lengnick-Hall, 1995)—exaggerating, for example, the likelihood that a vic-
tim will file a claim of sexual harassment, when in reality, such a reaction is likely to be
influenced by a host of contextual factors specific to the employee’s work environment (Ilies
et al., 2003). Of the 84 articles evaluated, most of those conducted in the laboratory used
student samples exposed to vignettes or descriptions of people (26 of 36). Six field studies
of working adults used similar stimulus materials. It is noteworthy that 11 laboratory stud-
ies used video or computer-based vignettes. Compared to similar content presented in writ-
ten form, video or computer-based vignettes and “people” are bound to be more realistic and
may thus increase external validity of these methods.

Data Collection: Risks of Same-Source or Mono-Method Bias

Of the articles in our evaluation set, nearly 71% of those conducted in the field (34 of 48)
are at some risk for same-source or common-method bias. These biases result when the same
survey instrument is given to the same respondent to measure both independent and depen-
dent variables. The risk of misinterpreting the existence or strength of relationships is liable
to be especially high in studies using survey instruments with retrospective, perceptual, or
self-report measures. We found evidence from 12 studies that researchers attempted to
reduce the risk of such biases. Several studies (8) used covariance structure analysis to
account for measurement error (e.g., Foley et al., 2002; Raver & Gelfand, 2005), and others
lowered the risk of same-source bias by testing different hypothesized relationships in dif-
ferent parts of a large sample (e.g., Tougas, Brown, Beaton, & St.-Pierre, 1999). Although
risks of same-source and mono-method bias exist in much of the field research on discrimi-
nation and sexual harassment (Arvey & Cavanaugh, 1995), the sensitivity of the issues cov-
ered in such research often necessitates that the same individual respond anonymously to
questions whose answers cannot be provided or corroborated by others.

Analytical Techniques

As Paetzold (1992) and others have noted, the data gathered for discrimination and sexual
harassment research often violate both the independence and distributional assumptions for
ordinary least squares (OLS) regression. Violations in linearity and normality lead to biased
estimates that may over- or understate the influence of a predictor variable. Interpreting
regression results can also be unreliable when relevant variables are omitted from the regres-
sion model (Barrett & Sansonetti, 1988). In the set of articles published between 1997 and
2006 that we evaluated, OLS regression techniques were used in 19 of the 48 field studies.

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 14, 2014
 Goldman et al. / Employment Discrimination 815

Several field studies, however, used alternative regression techniques that correct for some
of the issues noted above. These include use of Poisson regression to correct for nonnormal
distributions in independent variables (Berdahl & Moore, 2006) and logistic regression,
which does not rely on meeting the assumptions of linearity and normality (e.g., Malamut &
Offermann, 2001). Multiple analytic techniques are evident in 9 of the 42 field studies using
survey instruments, including discriminant function analysis, cluster analysis, hierarchical
linear modeling, Cox regression, and structural equation modeling.

Trends in Discrimination and Sexual Harassment Research

In addition to the methodological evaluations described above, we examined trends in dis-

crimination and sexual harassment research conducted between 1997 and 2006. A relatively
large number of articles (9 to 12) appear both in 1997 and in the period between 1999 and
2002; in 2005, 17 articles were published. In that time frame, studies of race and gender dis-
crimination predominate. The number of articles focusing on sexual harassment generally
averages about 5 per year for the period up to 2005, with 7 articles focusing on sexual harass-
ment published in 2005. We note that very few articles focus on retaliation (two exceptions
are Bergman et al., 2002, and Lee, Heilman, & Near, 2004), even though retaliation claims
accounted for more than 20% of all claims filed under the federal statutes from 1997 to 2005
(EEOC, 2006e). We note that during this period, although the rate of gender and race claims
remained steady at around 31% and 35%, respectively, the rate of retaliation claims filed
increased from around 22% in 1997 to nearly 30% of all claims filed with the EEOC in 2005.
Clearly, the subject of retaliation is an area that is ripe for further research.
Eleven articles (four laboratory studies, and seven field studies) published during the
period of our review focus on non-U.S. samples (e.g., a multicultural exploration of sexual
harassment perceptions in Singapore by Li and Lee-Wong, 2005) or on a combination of
U.S. and non-U.S. samples (e.g., a study of sexual harassment coping in Anglo-American,
Hispanic American, and Turkish women by Wasti and Cortina, 2002). Such research cannot
only reveal universality in discrimination attitudes, behaviors, and outcomes but also high-
light key differences in organizational practices and legal remedies. As organizations become
more globally focused and their workforces become more diverse, cross-cultural research on
discrimination and sexual harassment will become increasingly important.

DISCUSSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH

We believe that the research just reviewed provides an excellent base for the future devel-
opment of the study of discrimination claiming, both in its origins and consequences for
individuals and organizations. An important emerging feature of research on discrimination
is the study of how parties define and create the discrimination sensemaking experience
(Weick, 1995). Game theory may also offer some insights into this problem. For example,
Brandenburger and Nalebuff (1996) argued that how competitors define the game may be
more important to subsequent actions than the moves they make within the game. At first

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 14, 2014
816 Journal of Management / December 2006

blush, this focus on the definition of discrimination may seem a throwback to the structural
focus of early discrimination research. However, this new focus would be on how the parties
define discrimination rather than on how it should be objectively defined. For example, how
many employees equate discrimination with unfairness?
At the very least, it is apparent that the law has a great influence on the actions individu-
als, groups, and organizations can take with regard to employment and discrimination.
Scholars should be aware of changing laws and incorporate this knowledge into their stud-
ies. Without an understanding of the laws surrounding discrimination, one cannot fully com-
prehend the consequences of discriminatory action.
The area may also benefit from more investigation of ethical or moral issues as they affect
discrimination. Recent events from the headlines (Enron, Worldcom, etc.) have brought
renewed vigor to the importance of ethics in organizations. Certainly, ethics help the parties
to understand what the standards of behavior are and should be in an organization, as well
as to understand the rules, boundaries, and permissible strategies. The law is rife with inter-
pretation (lawyers refer to it as “areas of grayness”). Ethical standards allow individuals to
better agree on ranges of permissible behavior (e.g., in hiring or promotions) (Donaldson &
Werhane, 1999). Interests, motivations, and incentives influence the interpretation of ethical
standards. Kronzon and Darley (1999) reported that individuals’ perceptions of how ethics
apply in a specific situation depend fundamentally on which rules favor themselves.
Furthermore, research by Brockner, Wiesenfeld, Stephan, and Hurley (1997) has helped
us to better understand the effect of layoffs on innocent bystanders in organizations.
Similarly, this research can be extended to the area of innocent bystanders witnessing dis-
crimination claims in their organizations. How might this affect them as individuals? (In this
regard, this work should be distinguished from the organizational-level effects of discrimi-
nation reviewed earlier.)
In terms of theory, one of the most promising areas is organizational justice. As noted,
research in this area has demonstrated encouraging relationships between various aspects of
organizational justice and both discrimination-related attitudes and behaviors (Goldman,
2003). For example, one problem that organizational justice may help us understand better is
to encourage organizations to participate in EEOC-sponsored mediation more than they cur-
rently do. Presently, organizations participate at much lower rates than claimants
(McDermott, Jose, & Obar, 2003). It is possible that organizations perceive the mediation
process to be less fair than claimants do. Moreover, from the employee’s perspective, organi-
zations sometimes apply a “one-size-fits-all” approach to resolving discrimination claims that
is not necessarily the best approach. Future research may attempt to investigate which reme-
dies are most appropriate in particular circumstances (Reb, Goldman, Kray, & Cropanzano,
2006).
CRA91 led to a fundamental change in discrimination law allowing for much higher
awards to plaintiffs (and their attorneys) that opened the floodgates to litigation. In short, the
financial incentives changed tremendously. An important question not answered in the
research is the extent to which financial considerations determine whether or not someone
takes his or her case to court. Unfortunately, the social-psychological research and most of
the management research fail to take into account financial considerations. Although the

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 14, 2014
 Goldman et al. / Employment Discrimination 817

research demonstrates that people are reluctant to file formal complaints for a variety of rea-
sons (e.g., others will evaluate them negatively if they even attribute their experience to dis-
crimination; Kaiser & Miller, 2001; Schmitt, Branscombe, Kobrynowicz, & Owen, 2002), it
is not clear how much the possibility of significant financial gain mitigates those reasons.
Ultimately, the laws dealing with employment discrimination can be helpful or destruc-
tive to organizations, or a little of both. Organizational research can contribute findings that
inform the court in a manner that promotes effective practices and policies perceived to be
just and fair. In short, research can inform the law and vice versa. In this spirit, law profes-
sor Terri Beiner (2005) has recently written a book in which she argues that the court should
use social science research on sexual harassment to reformulate the law to make it more real-
istic and fair. She cites research that does and does not support the current legal require-
ments. For example, the fact that the law expects employees who have been sexually
harassed to make a formal complaint is unrealistic, given what researchers have learned
about how people respond when they think they are sexually harassed and the circumstances
under which they are not likely to complain.
A worthwhile goal for management researchers is to publish research that informs the law
on issues that affect an organization’s productivity and its human resources. An example that
fits that goal in the area of sexual harassment is a study by Offermann and Malamut (2002)
showing that leaders who are perceived as making honest efforts to stop sexual harassment
make it easier for people to come forward when they think they have been harassed and can
affect staff satisfaction with the complaint process too. We encourage more such research
covering all of the areas of employment discrimination.
Finally, researchers should bear in mind that the issue of discrimination should not be lim-
ited to the United States. Research is under way now in many countries. Often, it seems,
many other countries in some way mimic the antidiscrimination laws in the United States
and, as a result, researchers in those countries often view similar issues but in ways unique
to those countries. For example, Malinowska (1995) explored the problem of sex discrimi-
nation in Poland and concluded that democracy helped perpetuate sex discrimination there.
She suggests that under socialism, the government perpetuated what she refers to as the
“illusion of egalitarianism.” However, democracy, with its emphasis on the individual, she
argues, allows old stereotypes to resurface. In Poland, those stereotypes are sexist, make
their way into workplace behavior, and discriminate against women. But, not all countries
have adopted the approach of the United States. For example, in Malaysia, preferences for
the majority Malays were made a permanent part of that country’s constitution. Studies raise
doubts as to the efficacy of this model, although the effects seem to differ in the private ver-
sus the government sectors (Sowell, 1990).
Other cross-cultural research takes a comparative approach. For example, Chiu, Chan,
Snape, and Redman (2001) compared attitudes toward older workers in both the East and
West. They studied survey responses among 567 respondents from the United Kingdom and
Hong Kong. They reported that U.K. respondents saw older workers as more effective at
work than Hong Kong respondents. Thus, they concluded that “Hong Kong employees are
more prone to age discrimination than are their UK counterparts” (Chiu et al., 2001: 655).
Thus, future researchers literally have an entire world in which to investigate these issues.

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 14, 2014
818 Journal of Management / December 2006

Notes

1. The total number of charges for which an issue or basis of discrimination is alleged is greater than the number
of individuals claiming discrimination under the federal statutes. This is because individuals often file charges
claiming multiple types of discrimination.
2. We searched for articles using Web of Science (ISI Web of Knowledge) and the search terms discrimination
or sexual harassment. Our search was limited to prominent journals in which research on discrimination or sexual
harassment has traditionally appeared. We searched the following management and human resources management
journals: Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Management, Personnel Psychology, Human Relations,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Journal of Applied Psychology, and the following social-psychology journals:
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, and Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin.

APPENDIX

Any individual who believes that his or her employment rights have been violated may file a charge
of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). In addition, an indi-
vidual, organization, or agency may file a charge on behalf of another person in order to protect the
aggrieved person’s identity. A charge may be filed by mail or in person at the nearest EEOC office. All
laws enforced by the EEOC, except the Equal Pay Act (EPA), require filing a charge with the EEOC
before a private lawsuit may be filed in court. To proceed with a lawsuit, charging parties need a
so-called right-to-sue letter from the EEOC. However, it is not difficult to get these. There are strict
time limits within which charges must be filed: To protect the charging party’s rights, a charge must be
filed with the EEOC within 180 days from the date of the alleged violation. This 180-day filing dead-
line is extended to 300 days if the charge also is covered by a state or local antidiscrimination law. For
age discrimination charges, only state laws extend the filing limit to 300 days.
These time limits do not apply to claims under the EPA because under that act, persons do not have
to first file a charge with the EEOC to have the right to go to court. However, because many EPA claims
also raise Title VII sex discrimination issues, many claimants file charges under both laws within the
time limits indicated.
Many states and localities have antidiscrimination laws and agencies responsible for enforcing
those laws. The EEOC refers to these agencies as “Fair Employment Practices Agencies (FEPAs).”
Through the use of work-sharing agreements, the EEOC and the FEPAs attempt to avoid duplication
of effort while at the same time ensuring that a charging party’s rights are protected under both federal
and state law. If a charge is filed with an FEPA and is also covered by federal law, the FEPA “dual files”
the charge with the EEOC to protect federal rights. The charge usually will be retained by the FEPA
for handling. If a charge is filed with EEOC and also is covered by state or local law, EEOC “dual files”
the charge with the state or local FEPA but ordinarily retains the charge for handling (retrieved April
3, 2006, from http://www.eeoc.gov/charge/overview_charge_filing.html).
In many cases, the parties to a discrimination charge will be offered the option to mediate the
charges with a trained mediator. For the most part, the mediators are EEOC employees. Claiming par-
ties seek mediation at higher rates than the organizations against whom claims are filed. Generally
speaking, organizations that choose not to mediate provide as their reason the lack of merit of the
charging party’s case (McDermott, Jose, & Obar, 2003). See “An Investigation of the Reasons for the
Lack of Employer Participation in the EEOC Mediation Program” (EEOC Private Report, Retrieved
April 3, 2006, from http://www.eeoc.gov/mediate/study3/index.html).

Source: Based on data from www.eeoc.gov.

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 14, 2014
 Goldman et al. / Employment Discrimination 819

References

Adams, J. S. 1965. Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology:
267-299. New York: Academic Press.
Adams, J. W., Kottke, J. L., & Padgitt, J. S. 1983. Sexual harassment of university students. Journal of College
Student Personnel, 24(6): 484-490.
Adams-Roy, J., & Barling, J. 1998. Predicting the decision to confront or report sexual harassment. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 19(4): 329-336.
Alessandri, S. W., & Alessandri, T. 2004. Promoting and protecting corporate identity: The importance of organi-
zational and industry context. Corporate Reputation Review, 7(3): 252-268.
Allon, N. 1982. The stigma of overweight in everyday life. In B. Wolman (Ed.), Psychological aspects of obesity:
A handbook: 130-174. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Allport, G. 1954. The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. 1992. Demography and design: Predictors of new product team performance.
Organizational Science, 3: 321-341.
Anderson, P. L., Kazmierski, S., & Cronin, M. E. 1995. Learning disabilities, employment discrimination, and the
ADA. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28(4): 196-204.
Arrowsmith, J., & McGoldrick, A. 1996. Breaking barriers: A survey of managers’ attitudes to age and employ-
ment. Institute of Management.
Arvey, R. D., & Cavanaugh, M. A. 1995. Using surveys to assess the prevalence of sexual harassment: Some
methodological problems. Journal of Social Issues, 51(1): 39-52.
Bachelder, L., & Braddock, D. 1994. Socialization practices and staff turnover in community homes for people with
developmental disabilities. Chicago: University of Illinois, Institute on Disability and Human Development,
College of Associated Health Professions.
Balmer, J. M., & Gray, E. 1999. Corporate identity and corporate communications: Creating a competitive advan-
tage. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 4(4): 171-176.
Bantel, K. A., & Jackson, S. E. 1989. Top management innovations in banking: Does the composition of the top
team make a difference? Strategic Management Journal, 10: 107-124.
Barak, A., Fisher, W. A., & Houston, S. 1992. Individual difference correlates of the experience of sexual harass-
ment among female university students. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(1): 17-37.
Barrett, G. V., & Sansonetti, D. M. 1988. Issues concerning the use of regression analysis in salary discrimination
cases. Personnel Psychology, 41(3): 503-516.
Beiner, T. M. 2005. Gender myths v. working realities: Using social science to reformulate sexual harassment law.
New York: New York University Press.
Berdahl, J. L., & Moore, C. 2006. Workplace harassment: Double jeopardy for minority women. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91(2): 426-436.
Bergman, M. E., Langhout, R. D., Palmieri, P. A., Cortina, L. M., & Fitzgerald, L. F. 2002. The (un)reasonableness
of reporting: Antecedents and consequences of reporting sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology,
87(2): 230-242.
Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. S. 1986. Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H.
Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations: 43-55. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Bies, R. J., & Tyler, T. R. 1993. The “litigation mentality” in organizations: A test of alternative psychological expla-
nations. Organization Science, 4(3): 352-366.
Borgida, E., & Fiske, S. T. (Eds.). In press. Psychological science in court: Beyond common knowledge. Boston:
Blackwell.
Borgida, E., Rudman, L. A., & Manteufel, L. L. 1985. On the courtroom use and misuse of gender stereotyping
research. Journal of Social Issues, 51(1): 181-193.
Brandell, J. R. 1988. Treatment of the biracial child: Theoretical and clinical issues. Journal of Multicultural
Counseling and Development, 16(4): 176-187.
Brandenburger, A. M., & Nalebuff, B. J. 1996. Co-opetition. New York: Currency/Doubleday.
Brenner, O. C., Tomkiewicz, J., & Schein, V. E. 1989. The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite
management characteristics revisited. Academy of Management Journal, 32(3): 662-669.

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 14, 2014
820 Journal of Management / December 2006

Brett, J. M., & Stroh, L. K. 1997. Jumping ship: Who benefits from an external labor market career strategy?
Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3): 331-341.
Brief, A. P., Dietz, J., Cohen, R. R., Pugh, S. D., & Vaslow, J. B. 2000. Just doing business: Modern racism and obe-
dience to authority as explanations for employment discrimination. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 81(1): 72-97.
Brockner, J., Wiesenfeld, B., Stephan, J., & Hurley, R. 1997. The effects on layoff survivors of their fellow sur-
vivors’ reactions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(10): 835-863.
Broman, C. L. 1996. Coping with personal problems. In H. W. Neighbors & J. S. Jackson (Eds.), Mental health in
Black America: 117-129. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bronson, G. 1985. As companies gamble on creating new images. U.S. News and World Report, No. 76.
Brown, T. N., Sellers, S. L., Brown, K. T., & Jackson, J. S. 1999. Race, ethnicity, and culture in the sociology of
mental health. In C. S. Aneshensel & J. C. Phelan (Eds.), Handbook of the sociology of mental health: 167-182.
New York: Kluwer.
Budig, M. J. 2002. Male advantage and the gender composition of jobs: Who rides the glass elevator? Social
Problems, 49(2): 258-277.
Burgess, D., & Borgida, E. 1999. Who women are, who women should be: Descriptive and prescriptive gender
stereotyping in sex discrimination. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5(3): 665-692.
Carver, C. S., Glass, D. C., Snyder, M. L., & Katz, I. 1977. Favorable evaluations of stigmatized others. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3: 232-235.
Chan, D. K., Tang, C. S., & Chan, W. 1999. Sexual harassment: A preliminary analysis of its effects on Hong Kong
Chinese women in the workplace and academia. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23(4): 661-672.
Chatman, J. A., & Flynn, F. J. 2001. The influence of demographic heterogeneity on the emergence and conse-
quences of cooperative norms in work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 956-974.
Chiu, W. C. K., Chan, A. W., Snape, E., & Redman, T. 2001. Age stereotypes and discriminatory attitudes towards
older workers: An East-West comparison. Human Relations, 54(5): 629-661.
Clark, R., Anderson, N. B., Clark, V. R., & Williams, D. R. 1999. Racism as a stressor for African Americans: A
biopsychosocial model. American Psychologist, 54(10): 805-816.
Cole, S. W., Kemeny, M. E., & Taylor, S. E. 1997. Social identity and physical health: Accelerated HIV progres-
sion in rejection-sensitive gay men. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(2): 320-335.
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. 2001. Justice at the millennium: A
meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3): 425-
445.
Conti, J. V. 1995. Job discrimination against people with a cancer history. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation
Counseling, 26(2): 12-16.
Cook v. Rhode Island Department of Mental Health, 10 F.2d 17, 2 AD 1476 (1st Cir. 1993).
Cooley, C. H. 1902. Human nature and the social order. New York: Scribner.
Copus, D., Ugelow, R. S., & Sohn, J. 2005. A lawyer’s view. In F. J. Landy (Ed.), Employment discrimination liti-
gation: Behavioral, quantitative, and legal perspectives: 450-502. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Corning, A. F. 2002. Self-esteem as a moderator between perceived discrimination and psychological distress
among women. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49(1): 117-126.
Cortina, L. M., Swan, S., Fitzgerald, L. F., & Waldo, C. 1998. Sexual harassment and assault: Chilling the climate
for women in academia. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22(3): 419-441.
Cox, T. 1993. Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Crandall, C. S., & Biernat, M. 1990. The ideology of anti-fat attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20(3):
227-243.
Crocker, J., & Major, B. 1989. Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma.
Psychological Review, 96(4): 608-630.
Crocker, J., Major, B., & Steele, C. 1998. Social stigma. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The
handbook of social psychology, Vol. 2, 4th ed.: 504-553. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Cropanzano, R., Goldman, B., & Folger, R. 2003. Deontic justice: The role of moral principles in workplace fair-
ness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(8): 1019-1024.
Cropanzano, R., Rupp, D., Mohler, C., & Schminke, M. (2001). Three roads to organizational justice. Research in
Personnel and Human Resources Management, 20: 1-113.

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 14, 2014
 Goldman et al. / Employment Discrimination 821

Crosby, F. J., Pufall, A., Snyder, R. C., O’Connell, M., & Whalen, P. 1989. The denial of personal disadvantage
among you, me, and other ostriches. In M. Crawford & M. Gentry (Eds.), Gender and thought: Psychological
perspectives: 79-99. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Culbertson, A., & Rodgers, W. 1997. Improving managerial effectiveness in the workplace: The case of sexual
harassment of navy women. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27(22): 1953-1971.
Department of Defense 1995 Sexual Harassment Survey [CD-ROM]. 1997. Arlington, VA: Defense Manpower
Data Center [Producer and Distributor].
Donaldson, T., & Werhane, P. H. (Eds.). 1999. Ethical issues in business: A philosophical approach. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Donohue, J. J. 1992. Advocacy versus analysis in assessing employment discrimination law. Stanford Law Review,
44, 1583-1614.
Donohue, J. J. 1997. Foundations of employment discrimination law. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Donohue, J. J., & Siegelman, P. 1991. The changing nature of employment discrimination litigation. Stanford Law
Review, 43: 983-1033.
Dostoyevsky, F. 1994. Notes from the underground. New York: Vintage Books. (Original work published 1864)
Dovidio, J. F., & Hebl, M. R. 2005. Discrimination at the level of the individual: Cognitive and affective factors. In
R. L. Dipboye & A. Colella (Eds.), Discrimination at work: The psychological and organizational bases: 11-35.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Eagly, A. H. 1987. Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
EEOC Amicus Brief. 10 F.2d 17 (1st Cir. 1993), reprinted in the Americans With Disabilities Act Manual (BNA)
No. 23, 100:7057 (Dec. 1993).
EEOC v. Dial Corp., 2002 WL 31061088, N. D. Ill., Sept. 17, 2002.
EEOC. 2005. Retrieved from http://www.eeoc.gove/press/6-8-05.html
EEOC. 2006a. Retrieved from http://www.eeoc.gov/stats/litigation.html
EEOC. 2006b. Report provided by the Office of Information Technology, EEOC, February 21.
EEOC. 2006c. Report provided by the Office of Information Technology, EEOC, March 8.
EEOC. 2006d. All statutes. Retrieved from http://eeoc.gov/stats/all.html
EEOC. 2006e. Charge statistics. Retrieved from http://www.eeoc.gov/stats/charges.html
Ellis, J., & Fox, P. 2001. The effect of self-identified sexual orientation on helping behavior in a British sample: Are
lesbians and gay men treated differently? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(6): 1238-1247.
Elvira, M. M., & Cohen, L. E. 2001. Location matters: A cross-level analysis of the effects of organizational sex
composition on turnover. Academy of Management Journal, 44(3): 591-605.
England, P. 1992. Comparable worth: Theories and evidence. New York: Aldine.
Ensher, E. A., Grant-Vallone, E. J., & Donaldson, S. I. 2001. Effects of perceived discrimination on job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, organizational citizenship behavior, and grievances. Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 12(1): 53-72.
Erikson, E. H. 1956. The problem of ego identity. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 4: 56-121.
Fairhurst, G. T., & Snavely, B. K. 1981. An examination of the communication between high status tokens and their
dominant colleagues: Kanter’s theory reexamined. Academy of Management Journal, 26: 353-361.
Festinger, L. 1954. A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7: 117-140.
Fischer, A. R., & Shaw, C. M. 1999. African Americans’ mental health and perceptions of racist discrimination: The
moderating effects of racial socialization experiences and self-esteem. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46(3):
395-407.
Fiske, S. T. 1998. Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.),
The handbook of social psychology, Vol. 2, 4th ed.: 357-411. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fiske, S. T., Bersoff, D. N., Borgida, E., & Deaux, K. 1991. Social science research on trial: Use of sex stereotyp-
ing research in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. American Psychologist, 46(10): 1049-1060.
Fiss, O. M. 1997. A theory of fair employment laws. In J. J. Donohue III (Ed.), Foundations of employment
discrimination law: 35-43. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fitzgerald, L. F., Gelfand, M. J., & Drasgow, F. 1995. Measuring sexual harassment: Theoretical and psychometric
advances. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17(4): 425-445.

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 14, 2014
822 Journal of Management / December 2006

Fitzgerald, L. F., Shullman, S. L., Bailey, N., & Richards, M. 1988. The incidence and dimensions of sexual harass-
ment in academia and the workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32(2): 152-175.
Fitzgerald, L. F., Swan, S., & Magley, V. J. 1997. But was it really sexual harassment? Legal, behavioral, and psy-
chological definitions of the workplace victimization of women. In W. O’Donohue (Ed.), Sexual harassment:
Theory, research, and treatment: 5-28. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Foley, S., Hang-Yue, N., & Wong, A. 2005. Perceptions of discrimination and justice: Are there gender differences
in outcomes? Group & Organization Management, 30(4): 421-450.
Foley, S., Kidder, D. L., & Powell, G. N. 2002. The perceived glass ceiling and justice perceptions: An investiga-
tion of Hispanic law associates. Journal of Management, 28(4): 471-496.
Folger, R., & Cropanzano, R. 2001. Fairness theory: Justice as accountability. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano
(Eds.), Advances in organization justice: 1-55. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Fombrun, C. J. 1996. Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image. Boston: Harvard Business School
Press.
Francis v. City of Meriden. 1997. Docket No. 96-9610, United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 129
F.3d 281.
Freeman, A. 1997. Racism, rights, and the quest for equality of opportunity: A critical legal essay. In J. J. Donohue
(Ed.), Foundations of employment discrimination law: 43-47. New York: Oxford University Press.
Friedman, M. A., & Brownell, K. D. 1995. Psychological correlates of obesity: Moving to the next generation of
research. Psychological Bulletin, 117: 3-20.
Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. 1977. The subtlety of White racism, arousal, and helping behavior. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 35(10): 691-707.
Giacalone, R. A., & Greenberg, J. 1997. Antisocial behavior in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Giacalone, R. A., Riordan, C. A., & Rosenfeld, P. 1997. Employee sabotage: Toward a practitioner-scholar under-
standing. In R. A. Giacalone & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in organizations: 109-129. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Gibbons, F. X., & Gerrard, M. 1991. Downward comparison and coping with threat. In J. Suls & T. A. Wills (Eds.),
Social comparison: Contemporary theory and research: 317-345. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gilliland, S. W. 1993. The perceived fairness of selection systems: An organizational justice perspective. Academy
of Management Review, 18(4): 694-734.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. 1996. The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3): 491-512.
Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J. L., Abrams, D., Masser, B., et al. 2000. Beyond prejudice as simple
antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5):
763-775.
Glomb, T. M., Munson, L. J., Hulin, C. L., Bergman, M. E., & Drasgow, F. 1999. Structural equation models of
sexual harassment: Longitudinal explorations and cross-sectional generalizations. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 84(1): 14-28.
Goffman, E. 1963. Stigma: Notes on management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Goldman, B. M. 2001. Toward an understanding of employment discrimination claiming: An integration of organi-
zational justice and social information processing. Personnel Psychology, 54(2): 361-387.
Goldman, B. M. 2003. The application of referent cognitions theory to legal-claiming by terminated workers: The
role of organizational justice and anger. Journal of Management, 29(5): 705-728.
Goldman, B. M., & Thatcher, S. 2002. A social information processing view of organizational justice. In D. Steiner,
D. Skarlicki, & S. Gilliland (Eds.), Research in social issues in management: 103-130. Greenwich, CT:
Information Age.
Grauerholz, E. 1989. Sexual harassment of women professors by students: Exploring the dynamics of power,
authority, and gender in a university setting. Sex Roles, 21(11): 789-801.
Greed, C. 2000. Women in the construction professions: Achieving critical mass. Gender, Work & Organization,
7(3): 181-196.
Green, R. 1994. Transsexualism and the law. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry & the Law, 22(4):
511-517.
Greenberg, J. 1990. “Employee theft as a reaction to underpayment inequity: The hidden cost of pay cuts”:
Correction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(6): 667-667.

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 14, 2014
 Goldman et al. / Employment Discrimination 823

Gregory, J. R., & Wiechmann, J. W. 1999. Marketing corporate image: The company as your number one product.
Chicago: NTC Business Books.
Groth, M., Goldman, B. M., Gilliland, S. W., & Bies, R. J. 2002. Commitment to legal claiming: Influences of attri-
butions, social guidance and organizational tenure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(4): 781-788.
Gutek, B. A. 1985. Sex and the workplace: Impact of sexual behavior and harassment on women, men and organi-
zations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gutek, B. A. 1993. Sexual harassment: Rights and responsibilities. Employee Rights and Responsibilities Journal,
6(4): 325-340.
Gutek, B. A. 1995. How subjective is sexual harassment? An examination of rater effects. Basic and Applied Social
Psychology, 17(4): 447-467.
Gutek, B. A. 2001. Working environments. In J. Worell (Ed.), Encyclopedia of women and gender: 1191-1204. New
York: Academic Press.
Gutek, B. A., Cohen, A. G., & Konrad, A. M. 1990. Predicting social-sexual behavior at work: A contact hypothe-
sis. Academy of Management Journal, 33(3): 560-577.
Gutek, B. A., Cohen, A. G., & Tsui, A. 1996. Reactions to perceived sex discrimination. Human Relations, 49(6):
791-813.
Gutek, B. A., Murphy, R. O., & Douma, B. 2004. A review and critique of the sexual experiences questionnaire
(SEQ). Law and Human Behavior, 28(4): 457-482.
Gutek, B. A., Nakamura, C. Y., Gahart, M., Handschumacher, I., & Russell, D. 1980. Sexuality in the workplace.
Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 1, 255-265.
Hammond, J. A., & Mahoney, C. W. 1983. Reward-cost balancing among women coalminers. Sex Roles, 9(1):
17-29.
Harris, M. M., Lievens, F., & Van Hoye, G. 2004. “I think they discriminated against me”: Using prototype theory
and organizational justice theory for understanding perceived discrimination in selection and promotion situa-
tions. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 12(1): 54-65.
Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. 1998. Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface-
and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1): 96-107.
Heilman, M. E. 1983. Sex bias in work settings: The lack of fit model. Research in Organizational Behavior, 5:
269-298.
Hoelter, J. W. 1982. Race differences in selective credulity and self-esteem. Sociological Quarterly, 23(4): 527-537.
Huffcutt, A. I., & Roth, P. L. 1998. Racial group differences in employment interview evaluations. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 83(2): 179-189.
Hutchens, R. M. 1988. Do job opportunities decline with age? Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 42(1): 89-
99.
Ilies, R., Hauserman, N., Schwochau, S., & Stibal, J. 2003. Reported incidence rates of work-related sexual harass-
ment in the United States: Using meta-analysis to explain reported rate disparities. Personnel Psychology, 56(3):
607-631.
Inkso, C. A., Schopler, J., Gaertner, L., Wildschut, T., Kozar, R., Pinter, B., et al. 2001. Interindividual-intergroup
discontinuity reduction through the anticipation of future interaction. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 80: 95-111.
Itzin, C., & Phillipson, C. 1993. Age barriers at work. London: METRA.
Jackson, J. S., Brown, T. N., Williams, M. T., Sellers, S. L., & Brown, K. 1996. Racism and the physical and mental
health status of African Americans: A thirteen year national panel study. Ethnicity and Disease, 6: 132-147.
James, K., Lovato, C., & Cropanzano, R. 1994. Correlation and known-group comparison validation of a workplace
prejudice/discrimination inventory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24: 1573-1592.
James, S. A., Strogatz, D. S., Wing, S. B., & Ramsey, D. L. 1987. Socioeconomic status, John Henryism, and hyper-
tension in Blacks and Whites. American Journal of Epidemiology, 126: 664-673.
James, W. 1913. The principles of psychology (Vol. 1). New York: Henry Holt. (Original work published 1890)
Jaschik, M. L., & Fretz, B. R. 1991. Women’s perceptions and labeling of sexual harassment. Sex Roles, 25(1):
19-23.
Johnson, R. W., & Neumark, D. 1997. Age discrimination, job separations, and employment status of older work-
ers: Evidence from self-reports. Journal of Human Resources, 32(4): 779-811.
Kaiser, C. R., & Miller, C. T. 2001. Stop complaining! The social costs of making attributions to discrimination.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(2): 254-263.

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 14, 2014
824 Journal of Management / December 2006

Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.
Karpoff, J., & Lott, J. 1993. The reputational penalty firms bear from committing criminal fraud. Journal of Law
and Economics, 36: 757-802.
Kehoe, J. F., & Olson, A. 2005. Cut scores and employment discrimination litigation. In F. Landy (Ed.),
Employment discrimination litigation: Behavioral, quantitative, and legal perspectives: 410-449. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kidder, L. H., Lafleur, R. A., & Wells, C. V. 1995. Recalling harassment, reconstructing experience. Journal of
Social Issues, 51(1): 53-67.
Kilbourne, B., England, P., Farkas, G., Beron, K., & Weir, D. 1994. Returns to skill, compensating differentials, and
gender bias: Effects of occupational characteristics on the wages of white women and men. American Journal
of Sociology, 100: 689-719.
Konrad, A. M., & Linnehan, F. 1999. Affirmative action: History, effects and attitudes. In G. N. Powell (Ed.),
Handbook of gender and work: 429-452. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Konrad, A. M., Winter, S., & Gutek, B. A. 1992. Diversity in work group sex composition: Implications for major-
ity and minority members. In P. Tolbert & S. B. Bachrach (Eds.), Research in the sociology of organizations,
Vol. 10: 115-140. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Korn, J. B. 1997. Fat. Boston University Law Review, 77(1): 25-68.
Krieger, N. 1990. Racial and gender discrimination: Risk factors for high blood pressure? Social Science &
Medicine, 30(12): 1273-1281.
Krieger, N., & Sidney, S. 1996. Racial discrimination and blood pressure: The CARDIA study of young Black and
White adults. American Journal of Public Health, 86(10): 1370-1378.
Kronzon, S., & Darley, J. 1999. Is this tactic ethical? Biased judgments of ethics in negotiation. Basic and Applied
Social Psychology, 21(1): 49-60.
Landrine, H., Klonoff, E. A., Gibbs, J., & Manning, V. 1995. Physical and psychiatric correlates of gender dis-
crimination: An application of the schedule of sexist events. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 19(4): 473-492.
Landy, F. (Ed.). 2005. Employment discrimination litigation: Behavioral, quantitative, and legal perspectives.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Langhout, R. D., Bergman, M. E., Cortina, L. M., Fitzgerald, L. F., Drasgow, F., & Williams, J. H. 2005. Sexual
harassment severity: Assessing situational and personal determinants and outcomes. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 35(5): 975-1007.
Lee, J., Heilman, S. G., & Near, J. P. 2004. Blowing the whistle on sexual harassment: Test of a model of predic-
tors and outcomes. Human Relations, 57(3): 297-322.
Lengnick-Hall, M. L. 1995. Sexual harassment research: A methodological critique. Personnel Psychology, 48(4):
841-864.
Li, S., & Lee-Wong, S. M. 2005. A study on Singaporeans’ perceptions of sexual harassment from a cross-cultural
perspective. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(4): 699-717.
Lim, S., & Cortina, L. M. 2005. Interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace: The interface and impact of general
incivility and sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3): 483-496.
Lind, E. A. 1997. Litigation and claiming in organizations: Antisocial behavior or quest for justice? In R. A.
Giacalone & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in organizations: 150-171. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lind, E. A., Greenberg, J., Scott, K. S., & Welchans, T. D. 2000. The winding road from employee to complainant:
Situational and psychological determinants of wrongful-termination claims. Administrative Science Quarterly,
45(3): 557-590.
Lind, E. A., Kulik, C. T., Ambrose, M., & de Vera Park, M. V. 1993. Individual and corporate dispute resolution:
Using procedural fairness as a decision heuristic. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38(2): 224-251.
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. 1988. The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.
Linville, P. W., & Jones, E. E. 1980. Polarized appraisals of out-group members. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 38(5): 689-703.
Lippi-Green, R. 1994. Accent, standard language ideology, and discriminatory pretext in the courts. Language in
Society, 23(2): 163-198.
Lott, B., Reilly, M. E., & Howard, D. R. 1982. Sexual assault and harassment: A campus community case study.
Signs, 8(2): 296-319.
Lyness, K. S., & Thompson, D. E. 2000. Climbing the corporate ladder: Do female and male executives follow the
same route? Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1): 86-101.

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 14, 2014
 Goldman et al. / Employment Discrimination 825

Magley, V. J., Hulin, C. L., Fitzgerald, L. F., & DeNardo, M. 1999. Outcomes of self-labeling sexual harassment.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(3): 390-402.
Major, B. 1987. Women and entitlement. Women & Therapy, 6(3): 3-19.
Major, B. 1994. From social inequality to personal entitlement: The role of social comparisons, legitimacy
appraisals, and group membership. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 26:
293-355. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Major, B., & Crocker, J. 1993. Social stigma: The consequences of attributional ambiguity. In D. M. Mackie &
D. L. Hamilton (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and stereotyping: Interactive processes in group perception: 345-370.
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Major, B., & Gramzow, R. H. 1999. Abortion as stigma: Cognitive and emotional implications of concealment.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(4): 735-745.
Major, B., Gramzow, R. H., McCoy, S. K., Levin, S., Schmader, T., & Sidanius, J. 2002. Perceiving personal dis-
crimination: The role of group status and legitimizing ideology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
82(3): 269-282.
Major, B., Quinton, W. J., & McCoy, S. K. 2002. Antecedents and consequences of attributions to discrimination:
Theoretical and empirical advances. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 34:
251-330. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Major, B., Quinton, W. J., & Schmader, T. 2003. Attributions to discrimination and self-esteem: Impact of group
identification and situational ambiguity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(3): 220-231.
Major, B., Sciacchitano, A. M., & Crocker, J. 1993. In-group versus out-group comparisons and self-esteem.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19(6): 711-721.
Major, B., Testa, M., & Blysma, W. H. 1991. Responses to upward and downward social comparisons: The impact
of esteem-relevance and perceived control. In J. Suls & T. A. Wills (Eds.), Social comparison: Contemporary
theory and research: 237-260. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Malamut, A. B., & Offermann, L. R. 2001. Coping with sexual harassment: Personal, environmental, and cognitive
determinants. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6): 1152-1166.
Malinowska, E. 1995. Socio-political changes in Poland and the problem of sex discrimination. Women’s Studies
International Forum, 18(1): 35-43.
Manese, W. R. 1986. Fair and effective employment testing: Administrative, psychometric, and legal issues for the
human resources professional. New York: Quorum Books.
Manning, K. L., Carroll, B. A., & Carp, R. A. 2004. Does age matter? Judicial decision making in age discrimina-
tion cases. Social Science Quarterly, 85(1): 1-18.
Markwick, N., & Fill, C. 1997. Toward a framework for managing corporate identity. European Journal of
Marketing, 31(5/6): 396-409.
Mason, J. C. 1993. What image do you project? Management Review, 82(11): 10-15.
Masterson, S. S., Lewis, K., Goldman, B. M., & Taylor, M. S. 2000. Integrating justice and social exchange: The
differing effects of fair procedures and treatment on work relationships. Academy of Management Journal,
43(4): 738-748.
McConahay, J. B. 1986. Modern racism, ambivalence, and the modern racism scale. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L.
Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism: 91-125. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
McDermott, E. P., Jose, A., & Obar, J. 2003. An investigation of the reasons for the lack of employer
participation in the EEOC mediation program. Unpublished report. Retrieved from http://eeoc.gov/mediate/
study3/index.html
McDonnell Douglas Corporation v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802-804 (1973).
McGoldrick, A., & Arrowsmith, J. 1992. Age discrimination in recruitment: An analysis of age bias in advertise-
ments. Paper presented at the conference, “The Employment of Older Workers in the 1990s,” University of
Sheffield, UK.
McKee, B. 1991. Achieving access for the disabled: Americans With Disabilities Act may require businesses to
accommodate disabled job candidates. Nation’s Business, June.
Mead, G. H. 1934. Mind, self, and society from the standpoint of a social behaviorist. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Mena, F. J., Padilla, A. M., & Maldonado, M. 1987. Acculturative stress and specific coping strategies among immi-
grant and later generation college students. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 9(2): 207-225.

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 14, 2014
826 Journal of Management / December 2006

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. 1996. Weigh in! New York: Author.
Miller, C. T., & Major, B. 2000. Coping with stigma and prejudice. In T. F. Heatherton, R. E. Kleck, M. R. Hebl,
& J. G. Hull (Eds.), The social psychology of stigma: 243-272. New York: Guilford.
Miller, C. T., & Myers, A. M. 1998. Compensating for prejudice: How heavyweight people (and others) control out-
comes despite prejudice. In J. K. Swim & C. Stangor (Eds.), Prejudice: The target’s perspective: 191-218. San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Munson, L. J., Hulin, C., & Drasgow, F. 2000. Longitudinal analysis of dispositional influences and sexual harass-
ment: Effects on job and psychological outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 53(1): 21-46.
Neumark, D. 2003. Age discrimination legislations in the United States. Contemporary Economic Policy, 21:
297-317.
Neumark, D., & McLennan, M. 1995. Sex discrimination and women’s labor market outcomes. Journal of Human
Resources, 30: 713-740.
Niemann, Y. F., & Dovidio, J. F. 1998. Relationship of solo status, academic rank, and perceived distinctiveness to
job satisfaction of racial/ethnic minorities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(1): 55-71.
Noh, S., Beiser, M., Kaspar, V., Hou, F., & Rummens, J. 1999. Perceived racial discrimination, depression, and coping:
A study of Southeast Asian refugees in Canada. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 40(3): 193-207.
Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & Turner, J. C. 1994. Stereotyping and social reality. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
O’Connor, M., Gutek, B. A., Stockdale, M., Geer, T. M., & Melançon, R. 2004. Explaining sexual harassment judg-
ments: Looking beyond gender of the rater. Law and Human Behavior, 28(1): 69-95.
Offermann, L. R., & Malamut, A. B. 2002. When leaders harass: The impact of target perceptions of organizational
leadership and climate on harassment reporting and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87: 885-893.
Olson, E. M., Cooper, R., & Slater, S. F. 1998. Design strategy and competitive advantage. Business Horizons,
41(2): 55-61.
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc. 523 U. S. 75, 118 S. Ct. 998 (1998).
O’Reilly, C. A. III, Caldwell, D. F., & Barnett, W. P. 1989. Work group demography, social integration, and turnover.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 34: 21-37.
Orlitzy, F. L., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. 2003. Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-analysis.
Organizational Studies, 24(3): 403-441.
Ostroff, C., & Atwater, L. E. 2003. Does whom you work with matter? Effects of referent group gender and age
composition on managers’ compensation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(4): 725-740.
Ott, E. M. 1989. Effects of the male/female ratio at work: Policewomen and male nurses. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 13(1): 41-57.
Paetzold, R. 2005. Using the law and psychology to inform our knowledge of discrimination. In R. Dipboye &
A. Colella (Eds.), Discrimination at work: 329-351. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Paetzold, R. L. 1992. Multicollinearity and the use of regression analyses in discrimination litigation. Behavioral
Sciences & the Law, 10(2): 207-228.
Parnes, H. S., & King, R. 1977. Middle-aged job losers. Industrial Gerontology, 4: 77-96.
Pavalko, E. K., Mossakowski, K. N., & Hamilton, V. J. 2003. Does perceived discrimination affect health?
Longitudinal relationships between work discrimination and women’s physical and emotional health. Journal
of Health and Social Behavior, 43: 18-33.
Pettigrew, T., & Martin, J. 1987. Shaping the organizational context for Black American inclusion. Journal of Social
Issues, 43(1): 41-78.
Pfeffer, J., & O’Reilly, C. A., III. 1987. Hospital demography and turnover among nurses. Industrial Relations, 26:
158-173.
Polinko, N. K., & Popovich, P. M. 2001. Evil thoughts but angelic actions: Responses to overweight job applicants.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31: 905-924.
Porter, J. R., & Washington, R. E. 1979. Black identity and self-esteem: A review of studies of black self-concept,
1968-1978. Annual Review of Sociology, 5: 53-74.
Portwood, S. G. 1995. Employment discrimination in the public sector based on sexual orientation: Conflicts
between research evidence and the law. Law & Psychology Review, 19: 113-152.
Pryor, J. B. 1987. Sexual harassment proclivities in men. Sex Roles, 17(5): 269-290.
Pryor, J. B. 1995. The psychological impact of sexual harassment on women in the U.S. Military. Basic and Applied
Social Psychology, 17: 581-603.

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 14, 2014
 Goldman et al. / Employment Discrimination 827

Ragins, B. R. 1999. Gender and mentoring relationships: A review and research agenda for the next decade. In
G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender and work: 347-370. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rand, T. M., & Wexley, K. N. 1975. Demonstration of the effect, “similar to me,” in simulated employment inter-
views. Psychological Reports, 36(2): 535-544.
Raver, J. L., & Gelfand, M. J. 2005. Beyond the individual victim: Linking sexual harassment, team processes, and
team performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3): 387-400.
Reb, J., Goldman, B. M., Kray, L. J., & Cropanzano, R. 2006. Different wrongs, different remedies? Reactions to
organizational remedies after procedural and interactional injustice. Personnel Psychology, 59(1): 31-64.
Reilly, M. E., Lott, B., & Gallogly, S. M. 1986. Sexual harassment of university students. Sex Roles, 15(7): 333-
358.
Reskin, B. F., & Padavic, I. 1994. Women and men at work. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
Reskin, B. F., & Ross, C. E. 1992. Jobs, authority, and earnings among managers: The continuing significance of
sex. Work and Occupations, 19(4): 342-365.
Rhine, S. H. 1978. Older workers and retirement. New York: Conference Board.
Rindova, V. P., Williamson, I. O., Petkova, A. P., & Sever, J. M. 2005. Being good or being known: An empirical
examination of the dimensions, antecedents, and consequences of organizational reputation. Academy of
Management Journal, 48(6): 1033-1049.
Riordan, C. M., Schaffer, B. S., & Stewart, M. M. 2005. Relational demography within groups: Through the lens
of discrimination. In R. L. Dipboye & A. Colella (Eds.), Discrimination at work: The psychological and orga-
nizational bases: 37-62. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc. 760 F. Supp. 1486, 1535 (MD Fla. 1991).
Roehling, M. V. 1999. Weight-based discrimination in employment: Psychological and legal aspects. Personnel
Psychology, 52(4): 969-1016.
Rosen, B., & Jerdee, T. H. 1978. Perceived sex differences in managerially relevant characteristics. Sex Roles, 4(6):
837-843.
Rosenberg, M. 1979. Conceiving the self. New York: Basic Books.
Rosenfeld, P., & Culbertson, A. L. 1992. Hispanics in the military. In S. B. Knouse, P. Rosenfeld, & A. L.
Culbertson (Eds.), Hispanics in the workplace: 211-230. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Rudman, L. A., Glick, P., & Phelan, J. E. In press. From laboratory to the bench: Gender stereotyping research in
the courtroom. In E. Borgida & S. Fiske (Eds.), Psychological science in court: Beyond common knowledge.
Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
Sackett, P. R., DuBois, C. L., & Noe, A. W. 1991. Tokenism in performance evaluation: The effects of work group
representation on male/female and white-sub (lack differences in performance ratings). Journal of Applied
Psychology, 76(2): 263-267.
Sanchez, J. I., & Brock, P. 1996. Outcomes of perceived discrimination among Hispanic employees: Is diversity
management a luxury or a necessity? Academy of Management Journal, 39(3): 704-719.
Schein, V. E. 1973. The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 57(2): 95-100.
Schein, V. E. 1975. Relationships between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics among
female managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(3): 340-344.
Schein, V. E., Mueller, R., Lituchy, T., & Liu, J. 1996. Think manager—Think male: A global phenomenon? Journal
of Organizational Behavior, 17(1): 33-41.
Schmitt, M. T., Branscombe, N. R., Kobrynowicz, D., & Owen, S. 2002. Perceiving discrimination against one’s
gender group has different implications for well-being in women and men. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 28(2): 197-210.
Schneider, B. E. 1982. Consciousness about sexual harassment among heterosexual and lesbian women workers.
Journal of Social Issues, 38(4): 75-97.
Scott, F. A., Berger, M. C., & Garen, J. E. 1995. Do health insurance pension costs reduce the job opportunities of
older workers? Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48(4): 775-791.
Sekaquaptewa, D., & Thompson, M. 2003. Solo status, stereotype threat, and performance expectancies: Their
effects on women’s performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(1): 68-74.
Shapiro, D. L. 1993. Reconciling theoretical differences among procedural justice researchers by re-evaluating what it
means to have one’s views “considered”: Implications for third-party managers. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in
the workplace: Approaching fairness in human resource management: 51-78. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 14, 2014
828 Journal of Management / December 2006

Sims, C. S., Drasgow, F., & Fitzgerald, L. F. 2005. The effects of sexual harassment on turnover in the military:
Time-dependent modeling. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6): 1141-1152.
Singh, V., & Point, S. 2004. Strategic responses by European companies to the diversity challenge: An online com-
parison. Long Range Planning, 37: 295-318.
Siskin, B. R., & Trippi, J. 2005. Statistical issues in litigation. In F. Landy (Ed.), Employment discrimination liti-
gation: Behavioral, quantitative, and legal perspectives. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Slaughter, J. E., Bulger, C. A., & Bachiochi, P. D. 2005. Black applicants’ reactions to affirmative action plans:
Influence of perceived procedural fairness, anticipated stigmatization, and anticipated remediation of previous
injustice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(12): 2437-2476.
Sowell, T. 1990. Preferential policies: An international perspective. New York: Morrow.
Spangler, E., Gordon, M. A., & Pipkin, R. M. 1978. Token women: An empirical test of Kanter’s hypothesis.
American Journal of Sociology, 84(1): 160-169.
Steele, C. M. 1997. A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American
Psychologist, 52(6): 613-629.
Stockdale, M. S., & Vaux, A. 1993. What sexual harassment experiences lead respondents to acknowledge being
sexually harassed? A secondary analysis of a university survey. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 43(2): 221-234.
Stockdale, M. S., Vaux, A., & Cashin, J. 1995. Acknowledging sexual harassment: A test of alternative models.
Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17(4): 469-496.
Stone, D. L., & Colella, A. 1996. A model of factors affecting the treatment of disabled individuals in organizations.
Academy of Management Review, 21: 352-401.
Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471, 488-489 (1999).
Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A. 1995. Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned and modern preju-
dices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(2): 199-214.
Swim, J. K., Cohen, L. L., & Hyers, L. L. 1998. Experiencing everyday prejudice and discrimination. In J. K. Swim
& C. Stangor (Eds.), Prejudice: The target’s perspective: 37-60. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Tajfel, H. 1972. La categorization sociale [Social categorization]. In S. Moscovici (Ed.), Introduction a la psy-
chologie sociale: 272-302. Paris: Larouse.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. 1979. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.),
The social psychology of intergroup relations: 33-47. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Taussig, W. C. 1994. Note: Weighing in against discrimination: Cook v. Rhode Island, department of mental health,
retardation, and hospitals and the recognition of obesity as a disability under the rehabilitation act and the
Americans with disabilities act. Boston Law Review, 35: 927-963.
Taylor, P., & Walker, A. 1994. The ageing workforce: Employers’ attitudes towards older workers. Work
Employment and Society, 8: 569-591.
Tougas, F., Brown, R., Beaton, A. M., & St.-Pierre, L. 1999. Neosexism among women: The role of personality
experienced social mobility attempts. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25: 1487-1497.
Tsui, A. S., Egan, T. D., & O’Reilly, C. A. 1992. Being different: Relational demography and organizational attach-
ment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(4): 549-579.
Tsui, A. S., & Gutek, B. A. 1984. A role set analysis of gender differences in performance, affective relationships,
and career success of industrial middle managers. Academy of Management Journal, 27(3): 619-635.
Tsui, A. S., & Gutek, B. A. 1999. Demographic differences in organizations: Current research and future directions.
Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Tsui, A. S., & O’Reilly, C. A., III. 1989. Beyond simple demographic effects: The importance of relational demog-
raphy in supervisor-subordinate dyads. Academy of Management Journal, 32: 402-423.
Turner, J. C. 1984. Social identification and psychological group formation. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), The social dimen-
sion: European developments in social psychology, Vol. 2: 518-538. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press: Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme.
Turner, J. C. 1985. Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behavior. In E. J.
Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group processes, Vol. 2: 77-122. Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Turner, M. E. (Ed.). 2001. Groups at work: Theory and research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP). 1978. 29 C. F. R. section 1607.4D.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2000. Employment and earning (current population reports series, BLS bulletin 2340,
p. 60). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor.

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 14, 2014
 Goldman et al. / Employment Discrimination 829

United States Merit Systems Protection Board (USMSPB). 1981. Sexual harassment in the federal workplace: Is it
a problem? Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
United States Merit Systems Protection Board (USMSPB). 1988. Sexual harassment of federal workers: An update.
Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
United States Merit Systems Protection Board (USMSPB). 1995. Sexual harassment in the federal workplace:
Trends, progress, continuing challenges. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Valian, V. 1998. Why so slow? The advancement of women. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wadden, T. A., Foster, G. D., Brownell, K. D., & Finley, E. 1984. Self-concept in obese and normal-weight children.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 52(6): 1104-1105.
Wagner, E. J. 1982. Sexual harassment in the workplace: How to prevent, investigate, and resolve problems in your
organization. New York: American Management Association.
Wagner, W. C., Pfeffer, J., & O’Reilly, C. A., III. 1984. Organizational demography and turnover in top-
management groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29: 74-92.
Walster, E., Walster, G., & Berscheid, E. 1978. Equity: Theory and research. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Wasti, S. A., & Cortina, L. M. 2002. Coping in context: Sociocultural determinants of responses to sexual harass-
ment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83: 394-405.
Weick, K. 1995. Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Weiner, B., Perry, R. P., & Magnusson, J. 1988. An attributional analysis of reactions to stigmas. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 55(5): 738-748.
Wiener, R. L., & Hurt, L. E. 2000. How do people evaluate social sexual conduct at work? A psycholegal model.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1): 75-85.
Wiersema, M. F., & Bantel, K. A. 1992. Top management team demography and corporate strategic change.
Academy of Management Journal, 35: 91-121.
Williams, C. L. 1992. The glass escalator: Hidden advantages for men in the “female” professions. Social Problems,
39(3): 253-267.
Williams, D. R., & Williams-Morris, R. 2000. Racism and mental health: The African American experience.
Ethnicity and Health, 5(3/4): 243-268.
Williamson, L. G., Campion, J. E., Malos, S. B., Roehling, M. V., & Campion, M. A. 1997. Employment interview
on trial: Linking interview structure with litigation outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(6): 900-912.
Wills, T. A. 1981. Downward comparison principles in social psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 90(2): 245-271.
Wills, T. A. 1987. Downward comparison as a coping mechanism. In C. R. Snyder & C. E. Ford (Eds.), Coping with
negative life events: Clinical and social psychological perspective: 243-268. New York: Plenum.
Wills, T. A. 1991. Social comparison processes in coping and health. In C. R. Snyder & D. R. Forsyth (Eds.),
Handbook of social and clinical psychology: The health perspective: 376-394. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.
Wingate, P. H., & Thornton, G. C. I. 2004. Industrial/organizational psychology and the federal judiciary: Expert
witness testimony and the Daubert standards. Law and Human Behavior, 28(1): 97-114.
Wood, J. V. 1989. Theory and research concerning social comparisons of personal attributes. Psychological Bulletin,
106(2): 231-248.
Wylie, R. C. 1979. The self-concept. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Yoder, J. D., & Sinnett, L. M. 1985. Is it all in the numbers? A case study of tokenism. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 9(3): 413-418.
Zenger, T. R., & Lawrence, B. S. 1989. Organizational demography: The differential effects of age and tenure dis-
tributions on technical communication. Academy of Management Journal, 32: 353-376.
Zimmer, L. 1988. Tokenism and women in the workplace: The limits of gender-neutral theory. Social Problems, 35:
64-76.

Biographical Notes

Barry M. Goldman is an associate professor in the Department of Management and

Organizations at the University of Arizona. He received his PhD and law degree (JD) from
the University of Maryland. His research focuses primarily on two areas, employment dis-
crimination (or legal claiming by employees, generally) and organizational justice.

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 14, 2014
830 Journal of Management / December 2006

Barbara A. Gutek is the recipient of the Sage Scholarship Award, Gender and Diversity in
Organizations Division of the Academy of Management, the American Psychological
Association’s Division 35 Heritage Award for a “substantial and outstanding body of
research on women and gender,” and the Committee on Women in Psychology Award as a
“Distinguished Leader for Women in Psychology.”

Jordan H. Stein is a doctoral student in the Department of Management and Organizations

at the University of Arizona at Tucson. She received her master’s degree in human resources
and industrial relations from the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign. Her current
research focuses on organizational justice and conflict.

Kyle Lewis is an assistant professor of management at the University of Texas at Austin. She
received her PhD in organizational behavior from the University of Maryland at College Park.
Her current research focuses on social exchange and knowledge exchange in organizations.

Downloaded from jom.sagepub.com at The University of Melbourne Libraries on September 14, 2014