Sex Discrimination: Effect of Sex-Role Incongruence, Evaluator Sex, and Stereotypes Essay Example

overstated as they shed light on what the study seeks to uncover.

Both Eugenia Proctor Gerdes and Jane Hutson Kelman were able to establish a clearer and more definitive path through the literature review. The comprehensive list of references and the multitude of cited names indicate how meticulously the researchers read through the reviews to develop strong and valid hypotheses. While adhering to the research rule of using current material and publications is recommended, it is still possible to utilize outdated materials, provided that the data remains applicable or there are no further resources or information available about the subject at hand. From the article's citations, one can ascertain that the literature and the information examined in the study are still relevant today.

Despite being outdated, the importance of the information provided can still be assumed. The article did not formally state the research design, but based on the study's nature and data collection methods, it can be concluded that it was an experimental study. The tests and manipulations used to achieve the desired results are also evident.

Bucknell University students who voluntarily participated in a subject pool were the subjects of the study. 106 students were initially given surveys on attitudes. After reviewing and selecting responses, 80 participants were chosen and divided into four groups. These groups were responsible for evaluating either a male or female candidate, and their responses were compared to create matched groups.

By selecting participants from the subject pool and creating matched groups, bias was avoided in Eugenia Proctor Gerdes and Jane Hutson Kelman’s research method. The use of a discrimination measure also contributed to objectivity. Although the number of

respondents can be considered sufficient, increasing it would further enhance the reliability of the study.

Despite presenting clear results, the article lacks in-depth discussion regarding the reliability and validity of the instruments used. The obtained reliability coefficients indicate that the total feminine and masculine job scores are acceptable representations of their respective categories. Although the procedures and instruments are thoroughly explained, the operational definitions of variables are not as thoroughly covered. Replication of the study is possible using the same procedures and tools but with a focus on providing clearer operational definitions.

In future research endeavors, it may be beneficial for researchers to customize and narrow down the terminology utilized to better align with their specific studies. The careful planning and execution of Eugenia Proctor Gerdes and Jane Hutson Kelman's sex discrimination study is evident. They thoughtfully selected tools and statistical tests, including the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), to analyze disparities among respondent answers and determine the significance of these differences concerning the study's hypotheses. The ANOVA was repeatedly employed to compare the variances between various factors under investigation. Implementing the ANOVA was relevant and useful in comprehending the discrepancies in respondent answers and their effects on the factors being studied.

The study's reliability was calculated and enhanced its credibility. Statistical data was collected and analyzed using a statistical approach to draw conclusions and provide recommendations. The results are significant and offer valuable insights to both genders. However, the discussion may be difficult for non-experts to comprehend. The study's implications can already be inferred.

The presentation of the study's implications could have been more easily understood by the general public. Despite accurately and clearly presenting the findings, the

discussion had an "academic" quality that may only be comprehensible to those in learning institutions with a background in statistics and psychology. To increase practical application, it would be best for the researchers to present the findings in a less "academic" manner, highlighting its importance in fields such as human resources, personnel management, and job evaluations and satisfaction. Nonetheless, the conclusions presented are backed by the data provided. The hypotheses are answered, supported by related literature cited, and analyzed using statistical tools to measure respondents' answers. The authors succeed in remaining unbiased and objective throughout the study while considering existing stereotypes that could be used as a further focus of research. These efforts may lead to a more detailed and credible tool that could eventually measure the severity of factors that cause sexual discrimination towards both men and women.