PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

M E Heilman

Publications and source records attributed to M E Heilman.

7 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2001

Assuming preferential selection when the admissions policy is unknown: the effects of gender rarity.

One hundred thirty-five undergraduates indicated the degree to which they believed gender played a role in the selection of an applicant for a graduate degree program. Both the gender composition of the cohort and the selection policy (explicitly merit-based, explicitly affirmative action, or ambiguous) were varied. Results indicated that preferential selection on the basis of gender was assumed when women were solos and explicit information about the selection policy was not provided and that these assumptions were as strong as when an affirmative action policy was explicitly stated. This did not occur when the female selectee was not a solo or when a male selectee was a solo. Evaluations of qualifications and prediction of success paralleled the preferential selection assumptions.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

What I think you think of me: women's reactions to being viewed as beneficiaries of preferential selection.

Undergraduate women (N = 150) participated in 2 experimental studies designed to examine the effects of knowing that another believed they were beneficiaries of preferential selection. Results indicated that participants' awareness that the other viewed them as having been selected on the basis of gender rather than merit (a) prompted inferences that the other held negative expectations of their competence (Studies 1 and 2); (b) produced timid, performance-limiting task decisions as well as negative self-regard when they were uncertain about their task ability level (Studies 1 and 2): and (c) produced ambitious, performance-maximizing task decisions when they knew themselves to be high in task ability and also were motivated to make a good impression (Study 2). In addition, in both studies negative affect resulted from the participants' knowledge that the other viewed them as having been preferentially selected.

Adult↗
PubMed1998

Type of affirmative action policy: a determinant of reactions to sex-based preferential selection?

In 3 studies, 150 undergraduates and 75 MBA students, men and women, were exposed to selection policies differing in the degree to which merit and group membership were weighted in selection decisions involving women. Results indicated that in self-views and self-assessments of beneficiaries (Study 1), competence perceptions on the part of others (Study 2), and work-related reactions of nonbeneficiaries (Study 3), many, but not all, negative reactions to sex-based preferential selection were alleviated when the policy made clear that merit considerations were central to the decision-making process. In the absence of information about policy type, participants acted as if merit had not been a factor in preferential selection decisions.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1996

The other side of affirmative action: reactions of nonbeneficiaries to sex-based preferential selection.

Researchers studied 162 male undergraduates in an experiment designed to investigate how the experience of unfair treatment affects the reactions of nonbeneficiaries of sex-based preferential selection in terms of responses to the work task, characterizations of the woman beneficiary, and prosocial orientation to the work setting. The basis of selection (merit or preference), the comparative ability of the participant and the selectee (superior, inferior, equal, or unknown) and the presence or absence of one type of explanatory justification for the selection decision (an ideological account) were systematically varied. Results indicated that preferential selection can produce negative reactions on the part of nonbeneficiaries. However, reactions to preferential selection were not always uniform, and procedural and distributive aspects of unfairness concerns were found to have consequences for different types of nonbeneficiary reactions. In addition, the mitigating effects of the ideological account were found to be limited to situations in which the beneficiary and nonbeneficiary were believed to be equally qualified.

Decision Making, Organizational↗
PubMed1993

When similarity is a liability: effects of sex-based preferential selection on reactions to like-sex and different-sex others.

In 2 laboratory studies, 145 male and female undergraduates were selected for the role of manager either on the basis of merit or preferentially on the basis of their sex. Results of the first study indicated that when female subjects had been selected preferentially as compared with on a merit basis, they reacted more negatively to female (but not to male) applicants for an entry-level position in terms of personnel evaluations and competence ratings and they recommended female applicants for hire less frequently and less enthusiastically. No differences in personnel evaluations were found as a result of preferential selection when subjects were male (Study 1) or when subjects were provided with favorable information about their ability (Study 2). Implications for implementation of affirmative action programs are discussed.

Adolescent↗