Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effects of Applicant Pregnancy on Hiring Decisions and Interview Ratings

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Sex Roles Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The effects of pregnancy on hiring decisions during employment interviews are examined in a United States sample of 210 undergraduate business school students at a Midwestern university. A pregnant applicant was compared to a non-pregnant applicant with identical credentials and interview performance to explore any differences in interviewer ratings of qualifications and hiring by having participants view videotaped interviews. Results show that in spite of being viewed as equally qualified and well-suited for the job, the pregnant applicant received significantly lower hiring recommendation ratings. The pregnant applicant was also rated as more likely to need time off, miss work and quit compared to the non-pregnant applicant, indicating a concern about absenteeism regarding the pregnant applicant.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Armour, S. (February, 2005). Pregnant workers report growing discrimination. USA Today. Retrieved April 10, 2006, from http://www.usatoday.com/money/workplace/2005-02-16-pregnancy-bias-usat_x.htm.

  • Cleveland, J. N., Stockdale, M., & Murphy, K. R. (2000). Women and Men in Organizations: Sex and Gender Issues at Work. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corse, S. J. (1990). Pregnant managers and their subordinates: The effects of gender expectations on hierarchical relationships. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 26, 24–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeNicolis Bragger, J., Kutcher, E., Morgan, J., & Firth, P. (2002). The effects of the structured interview on reducing biases against pregnant job applicants. Sex Roles, 46, 215–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dipboye, R. L. (1992). Selection Interviews: Process Perspectives. Cincinnati: South-Western Publishing Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Faul, F., & Erdfedler, E. (1992). GPOWER: A priori, post-hoc, and compromise power analyses for MS-DOS (computer programme). Bonn, FRG: Bonn University, Dep. of Psychology. (http:// www. Psychologie.uni-trier.de:8000/projects/gpower.html).

  • Franco, K., Evans, C. L., Best, A. P., Zrull, J. P., & Pizza, G. A. (1983). Conflicts associated with physicians’ pregnancies. American Journal of Psychiatry, 140, 902–904.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gueutal, H. G., & Taylor, E. M. (1991). Employee pregnancy: The impact on organizations, pregnant employees and co-workers. Journal of Business and Psychology, 5, 459–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halpert, J. A., & Hickman Burg, J. (1997). Mixed messages: Co-worker responses to the pregnant employee. Journal of Business and Psychology, 12, 241–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halpert, J. A., Wilson, M. L., & Hickman, J. L. (1993). Pregnancy as a source of bias in performance appraisals. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 649–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, K. R. (1996). Human Judgment and Social Policy: Irreducible Uncertainty, Inevitable Error, Unavoidable Injustice. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hebl, M. R., & Kleck, R. E. (2002). Acknowledging one’s stigma in the interview setting: Effective strategy or liability? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 223–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hebl, M. R., & Skorinko, J. L. (2005). Acknowledging one’s physical disability in the interview: Does “when” make a difference? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heilman, M. E. (1983). Sex bias in work settings: The lack of fit model. Research in Organizational Behavior, 5, 269–298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hitt, E. R., & Barr, S. H. (1989). Managerical selection decision models: Examination of configural cue processing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 53–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huvelle, N. F., Budoff, M., & Arnholz, D. (1984). To tell or not to tell: Disability disclosure and the job interview. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 78, 241–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kacmar, K. M., Wayne, S. J., & Ratcliff, S. H. (1994). An examination of automatic versus controlled information processing in the employment interview: The case of minority applicants. Sex Roles, 30, 809–828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kazama, S. M., & Hebl, M. R. (2003, April). Assessing pregnancy in hiring situations: The role of formal and interpersonal discrimination. Paper presented at 18th annual SIOP conference, Orlando, Fl.

  • Klerman, J. A., & Leibowitz, A. (1999). Job continuity among new mothers. Demography, 36, 145–155.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Macan, T. H., Detjen, J. B., & Dickey, K. L. (1994). Measures of job perceptions: Gender and age of current incumbents, suitability, and job attributes. Sex Roles, 30, 55–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macan, T. H., & Dipboye, R. L. (1990). The relationship of interviewers’ preinterview impressions to selection and recruitment outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 43, 745–768.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connel, M. (December, 2001). New census bureau analysis indicates women making longer-term commitments to workplace. U.S. Census Bureau News. Retrieved April 3, 2006, from http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/fertility/000319.html.

  • Pregnancy discrimination. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Retrieved April 10, 2006, from http://www.eeoc.gov/types/pregnancy.html.

  • Schmitt, N. (1976). Social and situational determinants of interview decisions: Implications for the employment interview. Personnel Psychology, 29, 79–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slonaker, W. M., & Wendt, A. C. (1991). Pregnancy discrimination: An empirical analysis of a continuing problem. Labor Law Journal, 343–350 (June).

  • The Pregnancy Discrimination Act 25 years later: Pregnancy discrimination persists. National Partnership for Women & Families. Retrieved April 10, 2006, from http://www.nationalpartnership.org/portals/p3/library/workplaceDiscrimination/Pregnancy25thAnnivFacts.pdf.

  • Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 85, 1124–1131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Valian, V. (1998). Why so slow: The advancement of women. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Women at work: Look behind the numbers 40 years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (July, 2004). National Partnership for Women & Families, 1–20.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Missouri-St. Louis, One University Blvd., St. Louis, MO, 63121-4499, USA

    Jennifer Cunningham & Therese Macan

Authors
  1. Jennifer Cunningham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Therese Macan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Therese Macan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cunningham, J., Macan, T. Effects of Applicant Pregnancy on Hiring Decisions and Interview Ratings. Sex Roles 57, 497–508 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9279-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9279-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation