A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z  

  Subjects -> SOCIOLOGY (Total: 553 journals)
The end of the list has been reached or no journals were found for your choice.
Similar Journals
Journal Cover
Work, Aging and Retirement
Number of Followers: 4  

  This is an Open Access Journal Open Access journal
ISSN (Print) 2054-4642 - ISSN (Online) 2054-4650
Published by Oxford University Press Homepage  [425 journals]
  • Age Stereotyping in Resume Screening: Don't Throw the Baby Out With the

    • Pages: 331 - 334
      Abstract: Theory and empirical evidence examining whether age stereotypes predict personnel decisions has recently been evaluated (Murphy & DeNisi, 2021), casting doubt on the validity and value of laboratory research conducted in this area. In this commentary we address three criticisms in respect of human decision-makers and resume screening. First, based on impression formation theory, we argue that resume screening is almost certainly a condition under which decision-makers are likely to rely on stereotypes, due to a lack of individuating information. Second, we address the criticism of inconsistent negative effects, which are likely linked to the complexity of stereotypes. Third, we contend that generalizability limitations are less applicable to resume screening studies compared with other personnel decisions discussed (Murphy & DeNisi, 2021). We end with suggesting that the wide variety of research methods employed across the resume literature is ideal for triangulation, which will provide a clearer understanding of resume screening stereotyping effects on age bias, the relevant moderators, and underlying psychological processes.
      PubDate: Wed, 04 May 2022 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/workar/waac007
      Issue No: Vol. 8, No. 4 (2022)
  • Older Age Discrimination at Work: Not So Weak and Feeble

    • Pages: 335 - 338
      Abstract: In their focal article, Murphy and DeNisi (Murphy, K. R., & DeNisi, A. S. [2021]. Do age stereotypes predict per­sonnel decision' The state of the evidence. Work, Aging, & Retire­ment. https://doi.org/10.1093/workar/waab019) contend that older age stereotypes do not appear to meaningfully shape organizational decisions in ways that disadvantage older workers. My commentary centers on several issues: (1) a critical assessment of effect sizes, including their labels (e.g., small, medium, large), practical significance, and compounding impact, and (2) consideration of targets’ perspectives of ageism, including Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) reports and self-report surveys, which provide important insight into the frequency and manifestation of workplace age discrimination. These issues challenge the notion that age stereotypes have minimal effects on the treatment of older workers. Three calls for future research are provided to guide readers in advancing scholarship on age stereotypes and discrimination.
      PubDate: Mon, 30 May 2022 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/workar/waac014
      Issue No: Vol. 8, No. 4 (2022)
  • Age Stereotypes Do Matter: Looking Through the Lens of the
           Attraction–Selection–Attrition Model

    • Pages: 339 - 342
      Abstract: Murphy and DeNisi (2021) suggest that the real-world effects of age stereotypes on personnel decisions are weak, null, or inconsistent. However, we know that both conscious and unconscious age stereotypes exist (Fiske, 2017; Posthuma & Campion, 2009), and both seem to affect people’s hiring decisions (Zaniboni et al., 2019). For instance, a field experiment in Sweden in which 6,000 fictitious resumes were sent to open positions found that applicants over 40 received fewer callbacks and that callbacks decreased with applicant age (Carlsson & Eriksson, 2019). Moreover, the implementation of age discrimination laws worldwide suggests that age discrimination is generally recognized as an issue for workers and job applicants.
      PubDate: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/workar/waac009
      Issue No: Vol. 8, No. 4 (2022)
  • Different Shades of Discriminatory Effects of Age Stereotypes in the
           Workplace: A Multilevel and Dynamic Perspective on Organizational

    • Pages: 343 - 347
      Abstract: Age-related stereotypes in the workplace are assumed to hamper the employment of older workers (Bytheway, 2005; Oude Mulders, 2020; Perry & Finkelstein, 1999), yet Murphy and DeNisi (2021) challenged this view mainly due to scarce and inconsistent findings. In this commentary, we argue that a lack of evidence for the relationship between age stereotypes and personnel decisions does not imply a nondiscriminatory work environment. When limiting the interest to the narrow category of “personnel decisions,” we ignore other areas where age discrimination occurs and restrict our ability to understand the underlying mechanisms.
      PubDate: Fri, 01 Jul 2022 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/workar/waac019
      Issue No: Vol. 8, No. 4 (2022)
  • The Nuanced Relationship Between Age Stereotypes and Personnel Decisions:
           Contextual Considerations

    • Pages: 348 - 351
      Abstract: National Natural Science Foundation of China10.13039/501100001809#31871121
      PubDate: Mon, 18 Jul 2022 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/workar/waac022
      Issue No: Vol. 8, No. 4 (2022)
  • The Confluence of Culture and Ageism at Work

    • Pages: 352 - 354
      Abstract: Murphy and DeNisi (2021) recommend that the moderating effects of culture on associations between age stereotypes and age-related work outcomes should be accounted for. This assessment has merit but lacks sufficient nuance. Culture broadly writ, as a characteristic of countries or societies, has not been evidenced to affect age stereotypes. An analysis of 1500+ Turkish fairy tales and 22,000+ Turkish proverbs and sayings (Marcus & Sabuncu, 2016) found that age stereotypes of older adults in pre-Industrial Ottoman Turkey parallel those found in contemporary Western samples. A field study on workplace ageism by Marcus et al. (2019) evidenced that objective age (how old one is) and subjective age (how old one feels or how old one is relative to organizational others) interact to affect how older and younger raters stereotype older workers as being more or less competent and warm. These effects generalized across three societal cultures including the United States (Anglo), Turkey (Latin Europe), and Malaysia (Southeast Asia; see House et al., 2004; Kabasakal et al., 2012, for societal cultural clusters). A field study on the age stereotypes of 160 jobs by Reeves et al. (2021) found almost no cross-national differences on whether jobs are perceived as being more or less suitable for younger or older workers by raters from these same countries. Indeed, the average effect of societal culture on any given job-related belief, attitude, or behavior is only ≈1% (Field et al., 2021), and scholars have suggested that the process of aging at work is similar across societies (Rudolph et al., 2018).
      PubDate: Sun, 20 Mar 2022 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/workar/waab041
      Issue No: Vol. 8, No. 4 (2022)
  • Multifaceted, Nuanced Personnel Decisions Necessitate Multifaceted,
           Nuanced Age Research Approaches

    • Pages: 355 - 357
      Abstract: Age stereotypes are beliefs and expectations about individuals based on their age group membership (Posthuma & Campion, 2009). In their focal commentary, Murphy and DeNisi (2021) make a strong case encouraging greater research on the nature and impact of age stereotypes in the workplace. We concur with this general view: a stronger research emphasis on age stereotypes and age bias will advance understanding of how age stereotypes affect older individuals’ experiences and outcomes in the workplace, and hopefully provide answers to many unsettled questions.
      PubDate: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/workar/waab034
      Issue No: Vol. 8, No. 4 (2022)
  • The Essential Role of Intersectionality in the Science of Work and Aging

    • Pages: 358 - 360
      Abstract: Pointing to weak and inconsistent associations between age stereotyping and personnel outcomes, Murphy and DeNisi (2021) argue that the evidenced effects of age stereotypes on such outcomes are a result of biases introduced through an over-reliance on experimental designs. These authors argue that effects found in the field often are null or counterintuitive, favoring older over younger workers. Missing from their discussion, however, was an essential perspective that may explain said findings—intersectionality. None of us are merely old or young, man or woman, white or colored; we are, all of us, intersections of multiple, conjoint, and simultaneously occurring facets of our demography (e.g., younger Indian-Malaysian man; older Anglo-American woman). To the extent that the lived experiences, and associated age stereotypes, of different types of workers on the age spectrum are vastly different (Marcus, 2022; Marcus & Fritzsche, 2015), crude “young-old” comparisons such as reviewed by Murphy and DeNisi are unlikely to yield consistent conclusions. Recent studies in the science of work and aging support this contention.
      PubDate: Mon, 03 Jan 2022 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/workar/waab036
      Issue No: Vol. 8, No. 4 (2022)
  • Searching for the Effect of Age-Based Stereotypes on Personnel Decisions'
           Try Looking Through an Intersectional Lens

    • Pages: 361 - 364
      Abstract: The long-standing notion that personnel decisions are influenced by age-based stereotypes implies that performance-based stigmas associated with age create a social inequality for older workers. However, evidence for the “real world” effects of age-based stereotypes on personnel decisions is lacking—which to some suggests the absence of these otherwise intuitive age-based inequalities. In this commentary, I counter this point and propose that understanding the social inequalities experienced by older workers requires a perspective that acknowledges the intersectional identities held by individuals across their working lives. Within this commentary, I will first briefly define intersectionality including its history within legal literature. Second, I will highlight emerging organizational research that has applied an intersectional lens to questions of workplace stereotypes around race and gender. Third, I will present a theoretical leadership example that highlights how attending to age alone can mask potentially meaningful gender differences in how older women are uniquely stigmatized within leadership roles. Lastly, I will review the small but important body of work on intersectional age-based stereotypes and propose specific areas of future research that would benefit from taking an intersectional approach.
      PubDate: Wed, 09 Feb 2022 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/workar/waab040
      Issue No: Vol. 8, No. 4 (2022)
  • Looking for Ageism: Evidence in Past Studies and Methodological Steps

    • Pages: 365 - 367
      Abstract: stereotyping and discriminationcareersinequality
      PubDate: Mon, 18 Jul 2022 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/workar/waac016
      Issue No: Vol. 8, No. 4 (2022)
  • “Small” Effects, Big Problems

    • Pages: 368 - 370
      Abstract: Murphy and DeNisi (2021) call on researchers to “examine the cumulative effects of biases in the evaluations of and decisions regarding older workers,” acknowledging that “even if age differences at any one point in time (e.g., this year’s salary raise) are small, consistent differences in the treatment of older vs. younger workers could lead to large cumulative effects” (Murphy and DeNisi, 2021, p. 4). In this commentary, we aim to (a) probe what should constitute a small effect in the context of age stereotypes at work and (b) argue that there is evidence that cumulative effects of even small age-related biases impact the lives of older workers.
      PubDate: Mon, 30 May 2022 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/workar/waac012
      Issue No: Vol. 8, No. 4 (2022)
  • Precise Conclusions Regarding the Influence of Age Stereotypes Require
           Precise Operationalizations Thereof

    • Pages: 371 - 374
      Abstract: Murphy and DeNisi (2021) offer that there is scant evidence that age-based stereotypes affect personnel judgments and decisions. However, this conclusion is drawn from evidence that assumes that biased judgments follow from stereotypes, rather than from evidence suggesting that stereotypes precede biased judgments. In this reply to Murphy and DeNisi (2021), we point out the flaws in this argument and offer the counterpoint that we know very little about the influence that age-based stereotypes have for such judgments and decisions. Moreover, given this lack of evidence, we argue that any conclusions regarding the influence of age-based stereotypes in this regard are, at best, premature.
      PubDate: Tue, 22 Mar 2022 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/workar/waab035
      Issue No: Vol. 8, No. 4 (2022)
  • A Lay Theory Perspective on Age-Based Stereotyping

    • Pages: 375 - 378
      Abstract: In their insightful commentary, Murphy and DeNisi (2021) highlight that there is little consistent evidence for the proposition that age stereotypes negatively influence personnel decisions about older employees. Yet older workers increasingly report witnessing or experiencing age discrimination based on such stereotypes that impede them from securing and maintaining employment, as well as being given developmental opportunities and advancing at work. What, then, might explain this discrepancy between the scientific and anecdotal evidence' In response to Murphy and DeNisi’s (2021) call to consider potential moderators of stereotyping effects, we introduce lay theories that managers hold about older employees as a step toward understanding when and why age-stereotyping and ageist personnel management may be likely to emerge. We also discuss how older employees’ meta-lay theories could shape their reactions to Murphy and DeNisi’s (2021, p. 5) potentially dissonant message that research does not support the widely held assumption that “negative stereotypes of older workers play an important role in age discrimination in the workplace.” We suggest several avenues for research focused on understanding lay theory and age-stereotyping dynamics, as well as how this research could be leveraged for practical initiatives to ameliorate their potentially destructive impact.
      PubDate: Mon, 30 May 2022 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/workar/waac010
      Issue No: Vol. 8, No. 4 (2022)
  • Broadening the View of Workplace Ageism

    • Pages: 379 - 382
      Abstract: In their thought-provoking commentary, Murphy and DeNisi (2021) stated “the available evidence provides little support for the proposition that age stereotypes substantially affect high-stakes decisions made about individuals in organizations” (p. 1). Their narrow literature focus could leave the impression that age stereotypes are not complicit in actual personnel decisions. We respectfully disagree and contend there is ample evidence that a host of ageist beliefs operating at the societal, organizational, and individual levels are instrumental in actual workplace ageism (i.e., stereotyping, prejudice, or discrimination; Finkelstein et al., 2018), including personnel decisions. Moreover, the detrimental impact extends beyond the workplace.
      PubDate: Mon, 30 May 2022 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/workar/waac015
      Issue No: Vol. 8, No. 4 (2022)
  • Making Progress in Age Stereotype Research

    • Pages: 383 - 385
      Abstract: Murphy and DeNisi’s review suggested that the links between age and personnel decisions in organizations were generally weak and inconsistent and, on this basis, suggested that the effects of age stereotypes on these decisions might not be large. Fourteen papers commented on the evidence and arguments offered by Murphy and DeNisi. In our response, we comment on three broad themes running though this set of papers. First, several papers challenged the description of age effects as small and argued that age stereotypes can have negative effects and that older workers can be disadvantaged in the workplace. We fully agree but note that the size of the effects shown in our review and in the research cited by these commentaries effectively rules out the hypothesis that age stereotypes are consistently and strongly negative and that they have large effects in personnel decisions. Second, both context factors and intersectionality are suggested as potential moderators of age stereotype effects. We believe that progress in this area requires the development of specific models of these effects, and we offer examples. Third, many papers highlighted the challenges in studying age stereotype effects, in particular the failure of many studies to measure the stereotypes held by decision makers or to rule out factors unrelated to age stereotypes. We thus offer suggestions for improving age stereotype research.
      PubDate: Thu, 10 Nov 2022 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/workar/waac031
      Issue No: Vol. 8, No. 4 (2022)
  • Do Age Stereotypes Predict Personnel Decisions' The State of the

    • Pages: 323 - 330
      Abstract: It is widely believed that older workers are likely to fare badly in recruitment and hiring, promotion, pay, training opportunities, layoffs, and termination (Garstka et al., 2005; Kita, 2019), and that negative stereotypes of older workers contribute significantly to these outcomes (Finkelstein et al., 2012; Ng & Feldman, 2012; Posthuma & Campion, 2009; Posthuma et al., 2012; Toomey & Rudolph, 2015; von Hippel et al., 2019; Weiss & Perry, 2020). Similar arguments have been raised with regard to the role of stereotypes in discrimination on the basis of gender (Bielby, 2005; Chaxel, 2015; Fuegen, 2007; Heilman, 2012; Heilman & Eagly, 2008) and race and ethnicity (Bodenhausen, 1988; Leslie et al., 2008).
      PubDate: Mon, 23 Aug 2021 00:00:00 GMT
      DOI: 10.1093/workar/waab019
      Issue No: Vol. 8, No. 4 (2021)
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
Email: journaltocs@hw.ac.uk
Tel: +00 44 (0)131 4513762

Your IP address:
Home (Search)
About JournalTOCs
News (blog, publications)
JournalTOCs on Twitter   JournalTOCs on Facebook

JournalTOCs © 2009-