Job hunt gender trap: academic study of 60,000 mock interviews reveals why recruiters rated women 12pc lower than men
A new university study of 60,000 mock interviews has given a fascinating insight into the little things that count against women in job interviews.
Females are marked down in job interviews for the way they speak, apologise and hesitate, a new study has found.
Researchers analysed 60,000 mock interviews done by prospective computer programming job applicants and found women were rated 12 per cent lower than men.
Co-author Dr Ashley Craig from Australian National University found women were not treated differently when the interviewer knew they were female by their first name, or marked down because of their knowledge of computer coding.
Rather, they found the unconscious bias of interviewers came into play during more extended personal interactions during interviews. Interviews that were longer led to a widening of the gender gap.
More in-depth video analysis of 189 mock interviews publicly available on YouTube uncovered gender differences in verbal and non-verbal interactions between male and female candidates.
Female candidates were more likely to use apologetic language, which was marked down by interviewers.
In addition, women’s use of rising intonation – known as verbal upticks – were interpreted as a lack of confidence.
However, women’s propensity to ask clarifying questions and speak relatively less during the interview were not statistically significant. Hesitation, which was associated more with women, was viewed more negatively.
Making things worse, interviewers were more likely to be condescending, harsh, and impatient when the candidate is a woman. “They are also less likely to explain, to actively listen, and to build effective rapport,” Dr Craig said.
Recent studies have shown that face-to-face interactions are an important feature of workplaces, as physical proximity affects young workers’ ability to build skills, and social interactions impact networking for career advancement, which can contribute to the gender wage gap.
“Our results show that the gender gap only arises when the interviewer and interviewee interact live,” Dr Craig said.
“One explanation for this set of results is that bias is only triggered when gender differences in mannerisms and behaviour are noticed during live interaction,” he said.
“We also find that the gender gap in ratings widens with longer live interactions, consistent with unconscious bias as extended exchanges allow mannerisms to surface or may heighten evaluator fatigue.”
“Our analysis highlights important gender differences in behavioural cues exhibited by both candidates and interviewers. Women are more likely to apologise, which employers may interpret as signalling lower ability.”
Dr Craig said data showed women were generally less effective at self-promotion.
“Our back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that eliminating the gender gap because of the in-person nature of coding interviews could raise female employment in software engineering positions in top technology companies by 2.3 per cent,” Dr Craig said.
However, he cautioned that simply removing interviews entirely could “harm female candidates who have relatively strong social skills, which are becoming increasingly valued in the labour market. Instead, it might be better to separate evaluations of technical performance from any in-person interview stage.”
Have you noticed men and women being treated differently in job interviews or educational workplaces? Share your experiences in the comments or email education@news.com.au
More Coverage
Originally published as Job hunt gender trap: academic study of 60,000 mock interviews reveals why recruiters rated women 12pc lower than men
