UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An examination of contextual and individual factors that bias evaluation of female service employees… Khan, Afsana Zerin 2014

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2015_february_Khan_Afsana.pdf [ 1.61MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0074392.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0074392-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0074392-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0074392-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0074392-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0074392-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0074392-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0074392-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0074392.ris

Full Text

AN EXAMINATION OF CONTEXTUAL AND INDIVIDUAL FACTORS THAT BIAS EVALUATION OF FEMALE SERVICE EMPLOYEES IN CANADA by  Afsana Zerin Khan   A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  MASTER OF ARTS in THE COLLEGE OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Interdisciplinary Studies)    THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA  (Okanagan) December 2014  © Afsana Zerin Khan, 2014  ii  Abstract The purpose of this study was to extend the research on gender bias in performance evaluation of female employees in service industry by investigating the role of situational factors that combine with individual differences to shape customer bias towards female employees in Canada. Specifically, the study focused on the contextual factor of time pressure and individual differences in social dominance and modern sexism that influence individuals’ evaluations of female service employees. Further, the study also explored financial incentives as a second situational factor that undermines or weakens biased evaluations under time-pressure. The perspectives of aversive prejudice, social dominance theory, and modern sexism enabled me to delve deeper into these contextual factors and individual differences that shape customer biases. I have conducted three experiments to test the hypothesis. The results of Study 1 and 2 didn’t confirm my arguments that time pressure biases evaluations towards female employees; however additional analysis suggests that time-pressure matters in the evaluation of services and the organizational context such that differences in mean satisfaction ratings (bias) of male and female service employees tended to be greater under time-pressure condition than in the unlimited time-pressure condition. Likewise, I did not find support for my hypothesis in study 3 but additional analysis of the data suggests that financial incentive has an effect on customer evaluations under time-pressure such that customers tended to be less biased when  provided with financial incentives. This analysis may encourage organizations to explore the potential use of financial incentive as a strategy to be considered to reduce biases in evaluations towards employees in particular when customers are under time-pressure to provide evaluations. The theoretical and practical implications for future research are discussed as well.  iii  Preface The University of British Columbia’s Behavioral Research Ethics Board granted ethics approval for this research. The ethics certificate for this research numbered H14-00056.    iv  Table of Contents Abstract .................................................................................................................................... ii Preface ..................................................................................................................................... iii Table of Contents ................................................................................................................... iv List of Tables ......................................................................................................................... vii List of Figures ....................................................................................................................... viii Acknowledgement .................................................................................................................. ix Dedication ................................................................................................................................ x Chapter  1: Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1  Overview ............................................................................................................................... 1  Problem Statement ................................................................................................................ 4 Chapter  2: Perspectives of Discrimination .......................................................................... 6  Psychological Perspective ..................................................................................................... 6  Sociological Perspective ....................................................................................................... 9  Economic Perspective ......................................................................................................... 14  Integrated Perspective ......................................................................................................... 16 Chapter  3: Theoretical Foundations and Hypotheses ...................................................... 18  Aversive Prejudice .............................................................................................................. 18  Social Dominance Theory ................................................................................................... 25 Chapter  4: Methodology ...................................................................................................... 36  Study 1 ................................................................................................................................ 36 4.1.1 Participants ..................................................................................................................... 37 4.1.2 Experimental condition ................................................................................................... 37 4.1.3 Design ............................................................................................................................. 38 4.1.4 Measures ......................................................................................................................... 38 4.1.5 Results ............................................................................................................................ 40 v   Study 2 ................................................................................................................................ 42 4.2.1 Participants ..................................................................................................................... 43 4.2.2 Experimental condition ................................................................................................... 43 4.2.3 Design ............................................................................................................................. 44 4.2.4 Measures ......................................................................................................................... 44 4.2.5 Results ............................................................................................................................ 45  Study 3 ................................................................................................................................ 48 4.3.1 Participants ..................................................................................................................... 49 4.3.2 Experimental condition ................................................................................................... 49 4.3.3 Design ............................................................................................................................. 50 4.3.4 Measure .......................................................................................................................... 50 4.3.5 Results ............................................................................................................................ 51 Chapter  5: Discussion .......................................................................................................... 53  Theoretical and Practical Implication ................................................................................. 53  Contribution ........................................................................................................................ 62  Limitation and recommendations of future research ........................................................... 63  Conclusion .......................................................................................................................... 65 Bibliography .......................................................................................................................... 88 Appendices ............................................................................................................................. 99 Appendix A: Questionnaires: Qualtrics Participants, Study 1 ........................................................ 99 Appendix B: Questionnaires: Social dominance Scale ................................................................. 102 Appendix C: Questionnaires: Modern Sexism Scale .................................................................... 103 Appendix D: Study 2 Questions: Qualtrics Participants ............................................................... 104 Appendix E: Study 3 Questions: SONA participants .................................................................... 107 Appendix F: Study on Customer Evaluation Rating, Female Employee ...................................... 108 vi  Appendix G: Study on Customer Evaluation Rating, Male Employee ......................................... 118 Appendix H: Email Service Encounter, Female Employee .......................................................... 119 Appendix I: Email Service Encounter, Male Employee ............................................................... 122          vii  List of Tables Table 2.1 Average earnings of full-time earners .................................................................... 66 Table 3.1 Variability in evaluation decision ........................................................................... 66 Table 3.2 Relationship between SDO and evaluations under time pressure .......................... 66 Table 3.3 Relationship between SDO and evaluations under no time pressure ..................... 67 Table 3.4 Relationship between Financial Incentives and evaluations under time pressure .. 67 Table 4.1 Summary of Results, Study 1 ................................................................................. 67 Table 4.2 Summary of Results, Study 2 ................................................................................. 68 Table 4.3 Summary of Results, Study 3 ................................................................................. 68 Table 4.4 Descriptive Statistics, and Correlations, Study 1 .................................................... 69 Table 4.5 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects ......................................................................... 70 Table 4.6 Social Dominance Orientation, Study 1 ................................................................. 71 Table 4.7 Modern Sexism, Study 1 ......................................................................................... 72 Table 4.8 Means and Standard Deviations of customer satisfaction for male and female female female employee by condition ............................................................................... 73 Table 4.9 Descriptive Statistics, and Correlations, Study 2 .................................................... 74 Table 4.10 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects ....................................................................... 75 Table 4.11 Social Dominance Orientation, Study 2 ............................................................... 77 Table 4.12 Modern Sexism, Study 2 ....................................................................................... 78 Table 4.13 Means and Standard Deviations of customer satisfaction for male and female female female employee by condition ............................................................................... 79 Table 4.14 Descriptive Statistics, and Correlations, Study 3 .................................................. 80 Table 4.15 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects ....................................................................... 81 Table 4.16 Means and Standard Deviations of customer satisfaction for male and female female female employee by condition ............................................................................... 82 viii  List of Figures Figure 3.1 Conceptual Model ................................................................................................. 83 Figure 3.2 An Overview of Social Dominance Theory .......................................................... 84 Figure 4.1 Mean satisfaction ratings of male and female employee, Study 1 ........................ 85 Figure 4.2 Mean satisfaction ratings of male and female employee, Study 2 ........................ 86 Figure 4.3 Mean satisfaction ratings of male and female employee, Study 3 ........................ 87       ix  Acknowledgement I would like to convey my special thanks to my supervisor Dr. Arjun Bhardwaj, for having faith and confidence in me throughout my master’s program. I am grateful to my committee members Dr. Annamma Joy and Dr. Eric Li for all their insightful feedback and suggestions. I would also like to specially thank Dr. Karl Aquino for allowing me to use in my research videos that he created.  I would like to extend my thanks to my parents Abdur Rahim Khan and Parveen Akhter, and my sister Aziza Zerin Khan for their endless love and support throughout this process. I cannot express in words how grateful I am to my parents for all their sacrifices they have made on my behalf. I am also grateful to my father-in-law Md. Badiuzzaman for his encouragement and love. Most of all, my deepest appreciation goes to my husband Md. Nafeez Zaman Mishu for supporting me during the hard times. Thank you for being so patient and loving me endlessly despite my flaws.  This dissertation would not have been possible without the financial support provided by Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) Insight Development Grant # 430-2011-0283 to my advisor Dr. Arjun Bhardwaj (Principal Investigator, PI) and Dr. Karl Aquino (Co-PI).  x  Dedication I would like to dedicate my Thesis To My Parents, My Sister, & My Husband. “My family means the World to me”   1  Chapter  1: Introduction  Overview  Satisfied customers are crucial for business survival in the long run. Customer satisfaction refers to the extent to which an organization fulfills the needs of customers with quality products and services. In the services sector, organizations put a lot of attention into constantly improving their service quality to ensure a high level of customer satisfaction. Organizations even put more attention to the physical environment of service delivery because it influences customers’ perceptions regarding overall service quality (Bitner, 1992). For example, neat and organized store layout helps customers to easily identify their products and save time. Customers along with employees are two important stakeholders of the organization; as well, they are closely related to each other because within service organizations many of them engage in frequent interactions with each other. Indeed customer perceptions about an organization may be strongly influenced by the employees they interact with. Customers think about frontline employees first when they are asked to describe their first thoughts about the company. Moreover, frequent interaction increases the closeness between customers and employees. According to Pugh, Dietz, Wiley, and Brooks (2002) “as the closeness between employees and customers increases, they exercise more influence on each other and share more information” (p. 279). Therefore, successful organizations manage employee-customer closeness as a useful technique to enhance customer satisfaction. Customers’ satisfaction is crucial to organizations and scholars have suggested that customers should be the key stakeholders that the organization should focus on. In a critique of the shareholder focused capitalism that he claims is putting capitalism into danger Martin (2011) 2  argues that the current capitalism crisis can be healed by shifting an organization’s objective from shareholder value maximization to maximizing value for customers.   Altogether, satisfaction of customers is a marketing tool and a key performance indicator for an organization. It may also be an indicator of the health of our capitalism. Customer satisfaction can be examined from two different angles. The first is from the view of an organization seeking to understand, how satisfied their customers are with their products and services. Specifically, this form is the traditional way to understand customer satisfaction levels only by providing quality products and services. The second angle uses direct feedback from customers about their experiences when dealing with organizations. This form refers to the extent to which organizations measure customers’ satisfaction levels by conducting surveys on customer feedback. For instance, organizations often measure customer satisfaction in the services sector by asking customers to fill out customer satisfaction surveys. These surveys are an important technique for evaluating both employee and organizational performance. Customer satisfaction surveys help pin down customers’ perceptions and expectations; as well, customer satisfaction surveys allow organizations to recognize areas for improvement (Hagan, Konopaske, Bernardin, & Tylor, 2006). Information obtained from customer satisfaction surveys may also help organizations to maximize customer retention. Customer satisfaction surveys provide crucial feedback to organizational managers on the performance of service employees.  Firms across multiple industries use customer satisfaction as an important tool. The hospitality industry uses such surveys to monitor service quality and measure customer satisfaction with the organization. Similarly, the health maintenance organizations in the United States routinely collect satisfaction ratings from the patients regarding the performance of their physicians 3  (Hekman, Owens, Aquino, Leavitt, Schilpz, & Mitchell, 2010). Such information is used by financial institutions including banks who routinely call clients to gauge their satisfaction. Even large country clubs across the United States regularly collect customer ratings along with objective indicators of performance (Hekman et al., 2010).  Given the crucial information that customer surveys provide, even public sector organizations in Canada are increasingly using customer satisfaction surveys. For example, in the health care industry, patient satisfaction is considered to be a crucial component of the quality of service.  The public sector organizations in Alberta routinely use client satisfaction surveys to measure the quality of service they deliver. Nearly half of the ministries (8 out of the 17) use client ratings in setting an internal performance goal and in expanding action plans to develop the level of performance (Auditor General Alberta, 1998). Therefore, it is not surprising that measuring the quality of service through customer satisfaction surveys is a focal concern for both private and public sector organizations. Given the importance of service quality and the importance of measuring service quality provided to customers, scholars have also developed comprehensive evaluative methods. A measure developed by Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1988) captures several dimensions of service quality and is often used by organizations. Many business leaders (Bracken, Church, & Timmreck, 2001) and researchers use this scale for research across multiple industries including hospitality (Bojanic & Rosen, 1994; Saleh & Ryan, 1991). The scale is a robust measure of service quality across a range of contexts.      4   Problem Statement While customer satisfaction surveys are used extensively, customer satisfaction surveys are not always a good measure for evaluating employees’ service performance because they are eventually subjective judgements (Hekman et al., 2010). More specifically, customers may generate discriminatory judgements on the basis of their pre-existing beliefs, education, and stereotypes about the gender of the employee being rated (Gilovich, Griffin, & Kahneman, 2002). Recent research in the United States first provided evidence of customers’ discriminatory judgements towards female service employees (Hekman et al., 2010) in both a lab and field setting. Hekman et al. (2010) found that customer biases influence not only the evaluations of the service provider but they shape customers’ perceptions and assessments of the organization as well. More specifically, while providing evaluations for employees, customers take into consideration the overall organization and the organizational context. Therefore, when customers provide negative ratings for female employees, they also make lower evaluations of the organization. As a result, these lower aggregate satisfaction ratings may cause customers to avoid repeated visits to the organization, which may affect the organizational, bottom-line. Thus, such evaluations may have both consequences for female employees as well as have a direct impact on a company’s profitability.  Consider a situation in which a customer experienced a bad moment with one particular employee. The employee is well trained in the organization and has excellent customer service skills. However, the interaction between the customer and the service employee was in this particular case not so pleasant because of some variables unrelated to the service employee such as overcooked food or an unavailable food item. This situation can influence customers to form an overall impression about the organization. More specifically, customers will 5  evaluate the whole organization negatively on the basis of that negative interaction. If the customer is biased against female employees then their organizational evaluations may be lower if the hypothetical employee was a female. In addition, customers will share this story with others and give stronger negative impressions about the organization. As a result, other people may be influenced in their evaluations of the organization. In addition to the negative consequences for the organization, female service employees may suffer serious long term career consequences. For example, when organizations make decisions regarding promotions on the basis of customers’ ratings, they miss out on effectively utilizing the talent of female employees if customers’ evaluations are biased. Female employees may also end up with lower salary increments. Biased evaluations may also limit fair access to opportunities for female employees who have the same skill levels as equivalent performing male service employees. Therefore, customers’ discriminatory judgements can adversely affect employees’ positions in the organization (Barry, Barbara, Jordan, & Kyle, 2006). For this reason, research is required to identify the conditions under which employees are affected by customers’ discriminatory judgements. In the following section, I will discuss several perspectives on discrimination that highlight the causes and conditions that lead to biases in customer evaluations of service quality. Each perspective offers insights towards the understanding of customer biases towards female service employees.     6  Chapter  2: Perspectives of Discrimination  Psychological Perspective The psychological approach defines sex discrimination as the distinguishing treatment of a person based on his or her perceptions, beliefs, and feelings. This approach considers attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions that are internal to an individual (Glick & Fiske, 2007). Individuals are part of the society; therefore, the psychological perspective also reveals how individuals’ social and organizational contexts shape their behaviors towards others. Perspectives on the nature of prejudice such as aversive prejudice, social dominance theory (SDT), and modern sexism perspective highlight the situational and individual differences that form what Becker (1957) terms as an individual’s taste for discrimination. The aversive prejudice perspective suggests that contemporary forms of prejudice are indirect and subtle while the traditional forms of prejudice are direct and explicit.    Studies of aversive prejudice emphasize the role of situational context in influencing discrimination.  Glick and Fiske suggest that, “discrimination is a situation-dependent phenomenon” (2007, p.157). Thus, situation is a crucial factor that strongly influences individual behaviour. The consequence of the situation is dependent on people’s observations of that particular situation. Also, discrimination possibly happens when the situation supports an individual’s inside prejudiced beliefs towards others or out-group members. Prejudiced beliefs motivate people to act in a discriminatory way when they are suppressed. According to Glick and Fiske “suppression can occur due to other beliefs the individual holds or due to situational forces” (2007, p. 157). For example, a desire to be egalitarian or social norms may suppress expressions of prejudiced belief. Thus, discrimination is likely to occur when the 7  situation does not suppress or strongly supports the biased attitude of an individual and the individual gets the sense that his discriminatory attitude is justified.  In addition to aversive prejudice theory that emphasized the role of situations, the SDT and modern sexism highlight the individual differences involved in shaping biased evaluations towards female employees.  Individual differences in the context of sex discrimination have been distinguished on the basis of conscious and unconscious processes. Implicit attitudes are unconscious forms of positive or negative feelings, beliefs, and perceptions towards social objects caused by past experiences. In contrast, explicit attitudes are conscious views of people towards social objects. Both implicit and explicit attitudes may provide insights into biased evaluations (Dovidio, Brigham, Johnson, & Gaertner, 1996). Allport (1954) suggests generally the target of prejudice is a social group and African American, Latinos, Japanese in the United State may be considered some examples of such social groups. Stereotypes about social groups might be widely shared in the society. For example, Devine (1989) notes that both highly and less (high and low) prejudiced people have equal knowledge regarding minority groups’ cultural stereotypes. These stereotypes are automatically triggered for both high and low prejudiced individuals. However, both high and low prejudiced individuals differ in their control when acting on the stereotypes. Specifically, low prejudiced individuals are more likely driven to control their automatic reactions and not show biased reactions.  As well, Allport (1954) highlighted the importance of ethnic and religious prejudice but in a stark omission did not address the issues of gender biases.  Sexism researchers have recognized the complexity of gender bias such that although women obtain predominantly positive reactions, they are also victims of prejudice. One possible line of reasoning suggests that gender biases are rooted in the mindset of society thinking of men 8  as the “ruler” and women as “mother”. Men and women are thought to differ both in terms of individual achievements, often labeled as “agentic,” and in terms of social and service achievements, often labeled as “communal” (Heliman, 2001).  Although Allport (1954) emphasized negative prejudice, some prejudices are marked by positive attitudes towards the in-group. For example, women are perceived as kind, helpful, emotional, and concerned about others (Stockdale & Nadler, 2012). But often these positive values may negatively affect women’s success in organizational life. It may also limit women from holding top positions in organizations. Working women may do better than women in general. For instance, Heilman, Block, and Martell (1995) find that women working as managers in the company are evaluated to be more competent, active, and potent than women in general. However, the authors argue that women managers are more deficient in these same attributes than male managers. Despite women exercising control over their emotions in workplace it is clear they are victims of discrimination and are likely to be considered less active, weaker, and more inept than men. Therefore, men’s greater power and agentic traits are two possible factors that may cause gender stereotypes. Specifically, these factors may make males appear to be superior and dominant which results in discriminatory behavior against women. Psychologists distinguish between descriptive and prescriptive stereotypes. A descriptive stereotype is likely to occur when perceivers expect traits from individuals that are associated with members of a group. More specifically, individuals’ abilities are observed to be representative of their groups’ abilities.  Conversely, a prescriptive stereotype describes the beliefs about what individuals should be like. For example, a stereotyping belief about women is that they are communal and caring which resembles a societal perception that they should be caring. Discrimination based 9  on descriptive stereotypes influences affective reactions to women as a result of pre-perceptions that women by nature are kind to others. Women may therefore become victims of non-conscious and automatic stereotyping. These stereotyping expectations shape individuals’ observations and encoding of information and may lead to engagement in discriminatory behaviors.  Also, the gender typing of occupational images may influence individuals’ reactions. More specifically, job criteria may negatively affect female employees in masculine-type occupations or vice versa. For example, an occupation of a male nurse is inconsistent with his gender because most nurses are female. Women with intentions of moving into higher positions become the victim of discrimination such as women currently in middle management positions because most leadership positions in Canada are held by men (Catalyst, 2013). Prejudice towards female leaders takes place when the perceptions of incongruity are high between the leadership role and feminine role. This occurs because leadership roles stereotypically require masculine traits. On the other hand, women who occupy traditional roles such as positions of assistants or receptionists may experience more appreciation. Overall, the psychological perspectives have provided deep insights into the mechanisms that drive discrimination towards women. In my thesis, I will draw on some of these important psychological perspectives to understand biases in evaluations towards female employees.    Sociological Perspective Another important perspective that may help this research to understand the underlying sources of gender discrimination is the sociological perspective. Sociological perspectives on gender discrimination focus on two questions (Ridgeway & England, 2007). First, sociologists seek to examine the gender disparities in employment, pay, and authority. Second, sociologists 10  focus on identifying the reasons for employment inequalities based on gender. Sociologists do not consider all inequalities to be evidence of discrimination. For example, sociologists consider the supply side or demand side of the labour market as the reason for employment inequality.  The supply side of the labour market refers to the characteristics of the labour force. According to the Ridgeway and England, “gender differences in, interests in, preparation for, and willingness to participate in various jobs are supply-side explanations of inequality” (2007, p.190). Alternatively, the demand side of the labour markets refers to the attitudes of the employers. The term discrimination used by sociologists means employer’s behaviour. Employment discrimination occurs when managers treat male and female employees differently because of their sex. Therefore, the term discrimination for sociologists refers to the direct actions of employers in the workplace and the indirect effects of institutionalized procedures and agreements in employment organization (Ridgeway & England, 2007).  Sociologists carefully disclose that some demand-side variables impact gender disparities, but not through discrimination (Ridgeway & England, 2007). For instance, the decline of manufacturing jobs is responsible for earning disparities for men compared to women because the working rate of men was higher in such jobs. Therefore, not all inequality is caused by discrimination; there might exist some other factors which cause disparities in employment, pay, and authority.  Data provides evidence of gender inequality in employment in Canada. In particular, we can find the evidence on the current status of women in the service sector. The service sector in Canada is diverse and large and employs about three quarters of all Canadians (Statistics Canada). Within the service sector, the retail sector is the largest employer and it employs 12% of Canadians (Statistics Canada, 2013).  11  The gender earning gap in Canada can be measured by comparing the total income of all men and women in Canada. The earnings of full time female workers in 2011 were 82.6% of men’s earnings based on average weekly wages. A Catalyst report also points to a 20% gap in earnings in 2009 between men and women.  It is noteworthy that the gender pay gap has not changed since 1998 (see table 2.1). Other, more specific classification provides more insights into the gender pay gap. For example, evidence shows that median earnings of full-time full year female employees who have university degrees are lower in every field of study as compared to men. This reflects an ongoing gender pay gap in Canada even for University graduates. Alternatively, women of color in Canada may suffer an enhanced penalty, as evidence shows that a Canadian-born visible minority woman earned 3 per cent less than her non-visible minority counterpart (Pendakur & Pendakur, 2011). Equal payment for equal value of work is still considered an unsolved issue in many workplaces across Canada. Women in Canada suffer greater wage disadvantages as compared to women in other member nations of the Organization for Economic Co-operation & Development (OECD). The 2013 Global Gender Gap Index (GGGI) report published by World Economic Forum provides a clear picture about gender disparities in Canada in a global context. The GGGI first introduced by the World Economic Forum in 2006 provides a framework for capturing the significance and extent of gender differences and tracking their progress as well. The Global Gender Gap Index examines the national gender gaps between men and women in four fundamental areas: economic, political, education and health criteria. As well, it provides country rankings that enable comparisons across countries and raise awareness among “a global audience of the 12  challenges posed by gender gaps and the opportunities created by reducing them” (World Economic Forum, 2013, p.3). According to The Global Gender Gap Index 2013, Canada barely makes it into the top 20 nations among the 136 countries. In spite of placing first in one of the sub-indexes i.e. educational attainment, the overall score on gender-based disparities is disappointing. Its ranking has also come down from 14 in 2006 to 20 in 2013. In addition, the rankings in health and political empowerment of women are disappointing. It reflects that Canada is doing poorly compared to other nations in the world.   These persistent gaps have motivated some private and public institutional actors in Canada to raise awareness about reducing gender gap between men and women.  For instance, The British Columbia Government and Service Employees' Union (BCGEU) is a trade union in Canada, which provides support and assistance to those employees and students who have issues in their workplaces. BCGEU empowers members to negotiate their wages and benefits with management, to make any harassment complaints and to address many other conditions. Similarly, New Brunswick Union of Public and Private Employees has recently paid a donation to Pay Equity Coalition (PEC), a body that promotes payment equality in the workplace. Since equal payment for equal value of work is still an unsolved issue in many workplaces across Canada, this initiative of PEC will continue the existing battle for ensuring employees receive equal payment for their equal contribution of work.  Furthermore, educational institutions have taken steps to reduce the wage gap between men and women. For example, the University of British Columbia has taken initiatives to reduce the gender pay gaps by promising all tenure-stream female faculty members a 2 percent pay hike by the end of the February 2013 (Bradshaw, 2013). This initiative is evidence that 13  organizations are taking steps to reduce income inequality; however, there is still potential bias that exists against women (Jarrell & Stanley, 2004). In this thesis, I will explore some potential mechanisms to explain biases towards women in the service sector. Sociologist Pierre Bourdieu discussed about one important aspect of the sociological perspectives which provide insights into the nature of the process that guide individuals’ actions.  Bourdieu (1984) perceives power as culturally constructed, and constantly re-legitimized through an interaction between agency and structure. In social science, structure is the repeated provision which influences or limits the opportunities while agency is individual’s ability to perform independently as well as make his or her own choices (Barker, 2005). Structures shape individual actions and individuals are capable of changing the social structures. The focal way this occurs is through habitus which refers to socially constructed values and dispositions that orient individuals’ actions. Habitus “is designed to capture the dynamic and mutually constitutive relation between the person and the social world, in which social relations become constituted within the self but also the self is constitutive of social relations” (Lawler, 2011). It is the construction of minds, which lead individuals’ to deal with the social world. Bourdieu (1984) saw habitus as socialized norms that guide behavior and beliefs. According to Wacquant (2005), habitus is “the way society becomes deposited in persons in the form of lasting dispositions, or trained capacities and structured propensities to think, feel and act in determinant ways, which then guide them” (p. 316). Therefore, the social world can be perceived and evaluated through the internalized schemes of habitus. Habitus is formed through a social process instead of individual process, which may be influenced by contexts. As habitus is not permanent, it can be shifted from one context to another due to unexpected condition over time (Navarro, 2006). Neither individual independence nor structures create 14  habitus, however the interaction between two dispositions that are shaped by past events and structures as well as current practice and structures form habitus (Bourdieu, 1984). In this sense habitus can be formed or reproduced unconsciously and individuals unconsciously navigate social environments through their habitus. Habitus has been described as a “practical sense” that lead to individuals to interpret the world through a set of internalized structures such as gender, class, age, ethnicity etc. which defines their perceptions, tastes, and attitudes.   Economic Perspective An important perspective on the economics of discrimination, developed by Becker (1957), guides this research to identify three important sources of discrimination. First, employers are sources of discrimination. Employers may engage in discrimination in hiring or salary settlement based on factors having no connection with the suitability of the applicant for the job. Employers with inborn taste for discrimination are deliberately involved in discrimination by sacrificing the profits and welfare of the business in order to fulfill their prejudicial tastes.  Second, an employee may have tastes for discrimination. Some employees in an organization may refuse to work with out-group members or demand a wage premium to work with these groups. Last, the customer is another source of discrimination. Customers may have their own preferences when dealing with a company’s products and services. This type of discrimination is particularly salient to the services sector where customers and employees have direct connection with each other. According to McIntosh (1987), “a profit-maximizing employer may tailor his work-force to accommodate the discriminatory preferences of his customers” (p.281). Likewise, employers provide business justifications for their discriminatory judgements. For instance, some owners of the consulting firms willingly discriminate within their workforce to satisfy their clients. Trentham and Larwood (1998) provide examples of 15  consulting firms where owners have reported that clients were less likely to accept women as consultants than men. The firms also reported that the types of problems women were assigned to were limited‚ and women had more difficulty making contacts with clients and establishing relationships. Furthermore, clients believed that male consultants can provide better advice and recommendations than women. This example shows that decision makers accept discrimination as they align their organizational positions with those of their customers. Becker (1957) was most concerned with customer discrimination. He noted that employers’ discrimination may not last long in the market economy. Specifically, he suggested that if an employer has an intention to discriminate, he or she may treat employees unequally. But, failure to recruit skilled employees or promote regular employees by showing nepotism instead of hiring or promoting skilled employees from stereotyped groups may result in the departure of skilled employees. As a result, the organization may not survive in the market in the long run as it is unable to hire or retain talent. However, customers’ discrimination might be more sustained and resilient because their discrimination is hard to identify and may often be supported by organizational actions as pointed out in the example cited earlier.  Becker (1957) further noted that the magnitude of a taste for discrimination varies from person to person. According to Becker, individuals’ discrimination against a specific group depends on the social and physical gap between them and on their socio-economic status. Customers’ tastes may also differ because of their individual values and preferences. As a result, customers may react differently for their evaluations based on their beliefs, values, educations, and stereotypes about the race and gender of the employees. Becker referred to both prejudice and ignorance as determinants of tastes for discrimination. The economic perspective highlights 16  the central role of customers in sustaining discrimination. In addition, it also points to the role of individual differences in shaping discrimination in organizations.   Integrated Perspective The perspectives from the above three social science disciplines provide insights into the phenomenon. The clear statistical evidence of persistent gender gaps in Canada and Canada’s falling ranking in the global context point to the urgency of this research. The economic perspective highlights the central role of customers in sustaining discrimination. In addition, it points to the role of individual differences in shaping discrimination in organizations. Building on individual differences, the psychological perspective provides theoretical insights towards understanding gender biases in the service industry in Canada. The individual acts are also shaped by situations. In particular, individuals may be more likely to engage in acts of discrimination in ambiguous situations. Situations of informational and normative ambiguity may be particularly amenable to expressions of negative beliefs towards members of out-groups (Dovidio & Gaertner, 2000). Therefore, psychological perspectives on discrimination provide valuable insights at the individual and situational level and enable me to examine the interplay of individual differences and situational contexts for their role in biases towards women. It will serve as the theoretical foundation of this research. The sociological perspective has deepened my understanding of the phenomenon and of the role of situational context and institutions and provided a stronger rationale for my research.  In the following section, I will discuss social psychological research that may help to more fully examine the psychological processes which potentially shape an individual’s taste for discrimination. In particular, I discuss aversive prejudice and social dominance theory (SDT) 17  to identify the role of explicit biases and situational factors on biases towards women in the services sector.   18  Chapter  3: Theoretical Foundations and Hypotheses As discussed earlier situation is an influential factor which can exert strong influence over expressions of individuals’ beliefs. Individuals’ behaviours are significant underlying sources of discrimination depending on the situation (Glick & Fiske, 2007). Individuals’ discriminatory behaviours are caused by their prejudiced beliefs or stereotypes about a social group which is inconsistent with general characteristics of that group. Not every discriminatory decision is conscious; unconscious attitudes often result in discriminatory behaviours. Studies within aversive prejudice framework will enable us to understand the situations that facilitate expressions of bias by individuals.    Aversive Prejudice Aversive prejudice is a modern form of prejudice that helps to understand the situations under which seemingly egalitarian people engage in acts of discrimination (Dovidio & Gaertner, 2000). According to Dovidio and Gaertner (2000) in what they term aversive racism theory, people considering themselves as egalitarian and non-prejudiced discriminate against minority groups in subtle ways. I use the term aversive prejudice instead of aversive racism theory to encompass additional forms of discrimination.  The theory characterizes the internalized attitudes of Whites who consciously and earnestly support egalitarian values, also unconsciously hide negative perceptions and emotions regarding minority groups and women (Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986). Aversive prejudice is different from the old-fashioned prejudice framework because its consequences may appear changeable and inconsistent whereas the actions of old-fashioned prejudiced individuals are direct and overt.  19  As aversive prejudiced individuals consciously endorse egalitarian values, they will not exhibit their discrimination in a situation where social norms are strong and discrimination would be apparent to others. More specifically, in a situation in which right and wrong is clearly specified, in which normative response is clear, aversive prejudiced people will not discriminate against out-group members and portray their prejudiced image. In these situations, aversive prejudiced individuals will try to avoid the behaviours which are associated with prejudiced intent. However, under conditions of ambiguity, discrimination will manifest in subtle, indirect and rationalized ways (Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986).  Dovidio and Gaertner identified three such situations of ambiguity that reveal biases towards minority groups and women. According to the authors, “discrimination will occur in situations in which normative structure is weak, when the guidelines for appropriate behaviour are vague or when the basis for social judgment is ambiguous” (Dovidio & Gaertner, 2004, p.8). In addition, discrimination will occur when aversive prejudiced individuals can justify their negative reactions on the basis of some factors other than race (Dovidio & Gaertner, 2004). Under these conditions, the actions of these individuals may potentially harm women while maintaining their non-prejudiced self-image. Thus aversive prejudice framework considers ambiguous situation as an explanatory factor for the occurrence of discrimination. The prior research finds evidence and empirical support for aversive prejudice across time, populations, and paradigms (Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986; Dovidio & Gaertner, 2004).  An early study of contemporary racism and interracial helping (Gaertner, 1973) examined individuals involved in interventions to help people in case of need. The study also revealed the influence of individual differences in a variety of different contexts. In the study, individuals from two important political parties (1) conservative (2) liberal in Brooklyn, New 20  York received wrong number telephone calls from a confederate to the researcher; trying to contact a mechanic to come help them by fixing their disabled car. Data on individual differences in political ideology was not directly collected from the participants but their membership registration with the Liberal and Conservative parties of New York State was used. According to the author (1973), “an examination of the legislative programs and campaign literature of these parties indicated the appropriateness of their labels” (Gaertner, p. 335).  The callers called from a pay phone and claimed that they were out of change to make another call. For this reason, the callers requested help from the participants by making a call to the garage. The dialect of the callers clearly indicated their race as being Black or White. When participants agreed to help and call the garage, a “helping response” was scored. A “non helping response” was scored when the participants refused to help and hung up the phone after knowing the caller was out of change. Also, a “premature hang-up” occurred when participants hung-up the phone before learning of the other person’s dependence on them. The study discovered that prejudice occurs not only in subtle forms but also in overt ways. More specifically, the findings of the study showed that conservatives portrayed a higher helping response towards in-group members than out-group members compared to liberals. However, liberals portrayed a premature response much more often towards out-group members in comparison with conservatives. From the perspective of the participants not helping response was a direct form of discrimination whereas premature helping behaviour was a more indirect form of discrimination. Therefore, the premature response indicates an unclear situation where individuals can rationalize their negative purpose that does not violates 21  the norms of social responsibility. Both liberals and conservatives actively involved in discrimination towards out-group members but in different ways. Another experiment on aversive prejudice demonstrates how “the operation of subtle biases in relatively dramatic, spontaneous, and life-threatening circumstances involving a failure to help, rather than an action intentionally aimed at doing harm” (Dovidio & Gaertner, 2004, p.11). This research identified the feelings of responsibility as a key factor that may influence individuals helping behaviours. The experiment created a staged emergency situation witnessed by participants involving in-group and out-group victims. The results illustrated that aversive prejudiced individuals helped both group’s victim when they were the only witness and the priority for helping the victim was clearly dependent on them. Conversely, the participants were much less helpful for the out-group victim than for the in-group victim when they learned about the presence of other witnesses and thus had a reasonable justification not to get involved.  The consequences of this research clearly demonstrate that though the subtle bias portrayed by the individuals may be well intentioned and unconscious, its outcomes may be severe.  This study provides the evidence that discrimination by in-group members against out-group members occurs when “norm for appropriate behaviour are weak or ambiguous (Frey & Garetner, 1986) and tend to be more pronounced when the interaction involves potential threats to the traditionally superior status of whites relative to blacks” (Dovidio & Gaertner, 2004, p.11).  Furthermore, another experiment on aversive prejudice illustrates how micro-level affirmative actions influence the behaviour of aversive prejudiced individuals. The affirmative action policies focused on two levels (1) micro-level (2) macro-level. Micro-level actions focused on 22  specific implementations, such as preferential treatment or reverse discrimination to address inequalities. Macro-level affirmative action policies were structured in terms of achieving cultural diversity or remedying historical injustice. Aversive prejudice motivates opposition to affirmative policies which benefit out-group members. Because such policies benefit out-group members, aversive individuals showed negative attitudes towards affirmative action policies. The experiment on affirmative policies showed that macro-level affirmative actions on increasing cultural diversity were more acceptable to aversive individuals. Conversely, the micro level actions that focus on specific implementation were negatively accepted by aversive individuals. Specifically, aversive prejudiced individuals exhibited negative responses towards out-group members when micro-level affirmative actions support out-group members.  Also, Dovidio and Gaertner (2000) demonstrated selection decision bias involving in-group and out-group applicants through aversive prejudice framework. The study found the evidence that participants did not discriminate against out-group applicants when their qualifications were clearly strong or weak. However, the participants actively involved in discriminatory decisions when there exists ambiguity in applicants’ qualifications. As well, Dovidio and Gaertner (1983) have provided empirical support for the notion that when the qualifications were clearly stated, participants weighed other criteria to rationalize their judgments as a function of race or gender. In addition to the influence of the ambiguous context in influencing discriminatory decisions, the study also explored the interplay of situations and individual differences in prejudice (Dovidio & Gaertner, 2000). Specifically, in the situation where the participants had different criteria of the applicants, higher prejudiced participants considered the criteria much more often in favour of their in-group members and gave those criteria greater 23  weight in their decisions. The findings of the study suggest when given latitudes for interpretation, higher prejudice individuals gave in-group applicants the “benefit of doubt” which they do not extend to out-group members (Dovidio & Gaertner, 2000). Consistent with the preceding research by Dovidio and Gaertner (2000), the study by Purkiss, Perrewe, Gillespie, Mayes, and Ferris, (2006) analyzed the indirect form of bias in employment interview judgements and decisions. The employment interview is a traditional form of human resource management selection process of most organizations. The study found that the combination of applicant’s ethnic name and accent influenced interviewers’ judgements and affected hiring decisions. The applicant with an ethnic name and accent was viewed as less competent by interviewers compared to a non-ethnic applicant who has accent or not.  All this evidence points to the influence of ambiguous situation on expressions of discrimination. In addition, this body of research also points to the role of individual differences such as political ideology and racial prejudice for its influence on an individual’s taste for discrimination. But, the theory of aversive prejudice primarily focuses on identifying the situational forces that influence people to negatively respond with out-group members. Building on the prior research with the aversive prejudice theory, I identify time pressure as another situational factor that may encourage expressions of prejudice. Specifically, time pressure may provide an ambiguous context for expressions of individual bias.  In particular, building on Hekman et al. (2010) findings of customer discrimination towards female service employees, I examine time pressure as a context of expressions of bias towards females. The context of time pressure influences on an individual’s evaluation for female/male employees has not been investigated in a scientific way. Hence, one purpose of the present research is to investigate the extent to which time pressure leads to discrimination towards female employees 24  in evaluation judgments and decisions. Individuals make frequent decisions from a set of alternative options. When an individual process information about these options, he or she may apply a variety of tactics or strategies in considering the information and establishing a decision. Payne (1982) identified three factors that influence strategy selection: (1) task characteristics i.e. task complexity (2) decision environment i.e. time pressure (3) person characteristics i.e. personality factors. The strategies an individual may apply in decision making vary under time pressure and time pressure in providing an ambiguous context may facilitate expressions of prejudice.  A number of studies show that time pressure influences the decision making process (Abualsamh, Carlin, & McDaniel, 1990; Ben Zur & Breznitz, 1981; Christensen-Szalanski, 1980; Maule & Mackie, 1990; Payne, Bettman & Johnson, 1988; Wright, 1974). Individuals may react in three ways in decision making under time pressure. First, individuals may accelerate processing while making a decision under time pressure (Ben Zur & Breznitz, 1981; Payne, Bettman & Johnson, 1988). Second, individuals may differentially weigh information under time pressure. Third, decision makers may adopt different strategies for processing information in response to time constraints (Payne et al., 1988, Smith et al., 1982, Zakay, 1985). For example, time pressure may result in people putting more emphasis on negative information, and cause them to be risk averse in making decisions (Ben Zur & Breznitz, 1981; Wright, 1974).   In this research I expect, when an individual is being asked to evaluate the performance of a female employee, the time pressure will not give him or her enough space to browse alternatives and thus individuals may follow heuristic techniques to accelerate the process of decision making based on experience or perceptions. As a result, individuals will put more 25  emphasis on the criteria or information under time-pressure which may favor in group members while devaluing out-group members. By this way time-pressure will capture the biased attitude of the participants towards female employees (see table 3.1). Consequently, I expect the following hypothesis:  Hypothesis 1. Individuals will discriminate in their evaluations of service provided by female employees under time pressure. In the preceding section, I argued that female employees will get lower evaluations from individuals under time pressure. In the study, I suggest that individual differences will also play a significant role in shaping evaluations of female employees. Therefore in the next section, I draw on another theory to develop my arguments and gain more insight into the psychological forces driving gender biases. I discuss the Social dominance theory (SDT) below.   Social Dominance Theory Social dominance theory (SDT) attempts to identify different mechanisms that create inequality among social groups (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Sidanius and Pratto (1999) have developed SDT as an important theoretical framework for understanding group-based social hierarchies. SDT is a multilevel theory that examines how societies classify themselves as group-based social hierarchies. Nearly all stable societies maintain group-based dominance hierarchies in which at least one social group holds greater social status and privileges than other groups. Therefore SDT was developed in an attempt to understand the formation and maintenance of the hierarchical nature of societies. According to Sidanius and Pratto (1999) SDT involves two key processes that help it to hold the social hierarchies: the tendency to favor in-group members and the tendency to undervalue out-group members.   26  Unlike other theories of stereotypes and discrimination, SDT indentifies “how processes at different levels of social organization, from cultural ideologies and institutional discrimination to gender roles and the psychology of prejudice, work together to produce stable group-based inequality” (Pratto & Stewart, 2012, p.1).  SDT identifies that “human group-based social hierarchies consist of distinctly different stratification systems” (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999, p.33) and according to SDT three basic forms of hierarchies are universal and common in all societies: (1) an age system, in which adults and middle age individuals have excessive social power over children and younger adults, (2) a gender system, in which males have enormous social power and prestige over females, and (3) an arbitrary-set system, which is based on distinctions such as- race, nation, ethnicity, social class, caste, religious sect, or any other socially relevant group distinction (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999).  These three systems can differ dramatically according to their hierarchical severity across different societies. For example, according to the culture and class, different societies determine what ages should be considered to be “childhood” and whether marriage, labour, and freedom should be prohibited from or expected of children. Moreover, there exists substantial gender inequality across different societies. For example, women in Saudi Arabia may not get permission to perform military service in parity with men but the same service is permissible for women in Canada. Although there exist similarities among the age, gender, and arbitrary-set systems of group based social hierarchy, SDT argues that “each system is qualitatively different, and hence one system cannot be regarded as merely a special case of another” (Pratto, Sidanius, & Levin, 2006, p. 274).  27  Social dominance theory states that group-based social hierarchy is created by the effects of discrimination across multiple levels, such as institutions, individuals, and collaborative intergroup processes (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Discrimination across these multiple levels is organized to support dominant groups over subordinate groups through legitimizing myths, or societal, consensually shared social ideologies (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Sidanius and Pratto define legitimising myths as “values, attitudes, beliefs, causal attributions, and ideologies that provide moral and intellectual justification for social practices that either increase, maintain, or decrease levels of social inequality among social groups” (1999, p.104). Legitimising myths are broadly recognized within society and are related to the basic cultural cosmology in ways that appear to be true. The term myth does not mean that these beliefs are epistemologically true or false; however they seem self-apparently true because enough individuals in the society act as if they are realistic.  Legitimising myths (LMs) change over historical time reproducing culture by framing different facets of the social structure. LMs will be potent to the extent that they are central to the basic cultural cosmology within the social system. According to the Sidanius and Pratto (1999), “the more firmly tied they are to the basic values of the society, the more difficult these LMs will be to change and the more powerfully they will drive social policy” (p. 105). SDT describes that an individual’s behaviours and decisions, new social practice forms and institutional operations are formed by legitimising myths. Like legitimizing myths, institutions also provide sustenance to group-based social hierarchy. SDT incorporates an analysis of institutional discrimination because institutions allocate desirable resources and play a core role in perpetuating or changing social structures (Pratto et al., 2006). Hierarchy-enhancing institutions disproportionately allocate resources, which 28  support inequality by favouring the dominant groups over the subordinate groups. Examples of hierarchy enhancing institutions include profit-maximising financial institutions, internal security organizations such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation in the United States, and the criminal justice systems (Pratto et al., 2006). Discrimination portrayed by hierarchy- enhancing institutions is an important source of group-based hierarchy for several reasons. First, institutions are able to mobilise and allocate desirable resources. Second, large institutions like multinational corporations have massive systematic impacts on local communities. Third, large institutions form their own internal norms, which provide positive benefits to the people who work within them. Fourth, individuals in some institutions, such as the military, are often free from personal culpability for the power and actions of their institutions because the institutions possess special legal status. Hence, it is clear that institutions have a significant impact on social hierarchies.  Sidanius and Pratto (2011) suggest that group-based dominance hierarchy is affected by seven processes at three levels of analysis: 1) Societal level 2) Intergroup level 3) Person level (see Figure 3.2 for details).   At the societal level two mutually antagonistic sets of forces affect the group-based social hierarchy: (1) hierarchy-enhancing legitimising myths (2) hierarchy-attenuating legitimising myths. Hierarchy-enhancing legitimising myths rationalize the intellectual justification and maintenance of group-based social inequality; for example, numerous forms of racism, sexism, stereotypes, nationalism etc. These disparate myths actively support inequality as fair, legitimate, and moral. Hierarchy-enhancing legitimising myths are not only sustained by the members of the dominant group at the individual, group, and institutional level, but also are often supported by members of the subordinate groups. Beliefs that counter the establishment 29  of group dominance are referred to as hierarchy-attenuating legitimising myths. Examples of attenuating myths include social democracy, socialism and communism, and feminism. Both hierarchy-enhancing and hierarchy-attenuating myths coexist simultaneously in societies. At the intergroup level, two forces play a crucial role in the maintenance of inequality. First, unequal intergroup contexts generate discriminatory behaviour. Second, behavioural asymmetry occurs when subordinate group members engage in acts that undermine their in-groups. Pratto et al. (2006) identified four varieties of behavioural asymmetry: (a) asymmetrical in-group bias (b) out-group favouritism (c) self-debilitation and (d) ideological asymmetry. Firstly, asymmetrical in-group bias always favours dominant groups. According to Pratto et al. “the more legitimate the social system is perceived to be, the greater the degree to which dominants will display in-group favouritism compared to subordinates” (2006, p. 279). In other words, not all groups in the society will portray in-group bias to the same degree. Dominant groups will tend to reflect more in-group bias than subordinate groups will. Secondly, out-group favouritism is a special case of asymmetrical in-group bias. It occurs when the subordinates favour the dominants over their own in-groups. Strong asymmetrical in-group favouritism causes these behaviours. Thirdly, self-debilitation occurs when subordinate groups show higher levels of self-destructive behaviours for their own group’s subordination. Lastly, ideological asymmetry is sustained through psychological and ideological forces of the dominant groups, which allows them to perform more effectively than subordinate groups. Altogether, within SDT these types of behavioural asymmetry are considered to be important because they reflect the supportive nature of intergroup domination and group-based social hierarchies. Therefore, the systems of group-based social hierarchy are maintained not only by 30  the dominating actions of the members of the dominant group but also by the coordinated and collaborative actions of members of both dominants and subordinate groups.  At the person or individual level, the roles and social beliefs that are responsible for producing discrimination are coordinated, often in the same way to generate aggregated individual acts of discrimination to maintain group-based hierarchy. Usually, an individual’s desire to support and maintain group-based inequality is referred to as social dominance orientation (SDO). More specifically, SDO expresses general support for the power of certain social groups over other social groups on the basis of distinctions that people are able to construct.  SDO captures the extent of individuals’ aspirations for group-based dominance and inequality. These aspirations for dominance are portrayed through individual actions and participation in inter-group and institutional processes that generate greater benefits for dominants than for subordinates. Individuals high in SDO rationalize their discriminatory actions by “supporting a wide variety of legitimising myths that have in common the notion that dominant and subordinate groups deserve their relative positions of superiority and inferiority in the social hierarchy” (Pratto et al., 2006, p. 281). More specifically, high SDO individuals are more supportive of hierarchy-enhancing legitimising myths and less supportive of hierarchy-attenuating legitimising myths compared to their low SDO counterparts. Hierarchical societies are expected to have larger mean differences in SDO between dominant and subordinate groups, and hierarchy-enhancing social policies are more powerful than hierarchy-attenuating social policies.  Also the higher the level of SDO, the greater the privilege for hierarchy-enhancing legitimising myths and social policies compared to hierarchy-attenuating legitimising myths. The relationship between SDO and in-group attachment is positive and strong at higher levels of 31  the status hierarchy. Conversely, this relationship is negative and weak at lower levels. As discussed earlier, arbitrary set system hierarchically arranges social categories; similarly social dominance researchers find consistent evidence in support of the higher SDO score of men as compared to women (Pratto et al., 1997; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999; Sidanius et al., 1994, 1995, 2000, 2006). Such gender disparities contribute to men attaining hierarchy-enhancing roles and to women attaining hierarchy-attenuating roles, due to both stereotyping and self-selection (Pratto et al., 1997). Despite significant differences in social and political behaviours of men and women, SDO emphasizes that individuals can systematically differ from within a given context.  Pratto et al. stated that “by emphasizing how SDO functions in this way, social dominance theory highlights the role that individuals’ value orientations towards inequality play in both affecting and being affected by social hierarchy” (2006, p.282).  The present research focuses on whether individual differences in SDO or support for group based social hierarchy under certain conditions lead to differential evaluations of female employees. SDO is responsive to the situational forces that are liable to make some group differences more salient. According to Pratto et al. “when a particular group-based distinction is made salient by a situational prime, then SDO will relate especially strongly with that particular group prejudice as a way of attempting to legitimise the hierarchical relations that exist between these particular groups” (2006, p.292). However, limited empirical research has been conducted on the situational moderators to the relationship between SDO and out-group discrimination. In combination, aversive prejudice theory that emphasizes the role of situations and SDT which identifies a comprehensive theory backed individual difference variables enable us to explore the interplay of situational and individual differences variables on expressions of individual biases.  32  In the present research, I expect that individuals will systematically differ from one another on the basis of their social dominance orientation in evaluating a female employee under the time pressure condition. Moreover, I expect that the context of time-pressure may reveal individual differences in which evaluators with hierarchy supporting high SDOs are more likely to use stereotypes and put more weight on negative information about the female employee than hierarchy attenuating low SDOs evaluators who will not have any differences in their evaluations of male and female employees.  Consistent with the aversive prejudice theory, time pressure is one of the situational factors that will reveal the biases of aversive prejudiced individuals by providing them a plausible condition to express their biases in subtle, indirect and rationalized ways. Specifically, within a context of time pressure aversive prejudiced individuals may use their limited time to evaluate alternatives as a justification for expression of bias. The mechanism used by these individuals would be put more weight on the negative information for female service employees as compared to male service employees. In the present research, I expect that individuals high in SDO will evaluate female employees more negatively under time-pressure but not when there is no time pressure for evaluations; no such differences would be observed for hierarchy attenuating low SDOs (see table 3.2 & 3.3). Therefore, the purpose of the present study is to investigate the extent to which time pressure serve as a justification for expressions of biases towards female employees. Specifically, I propose the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 2a. Individuals’ Social Dominance Orientation will affect discrimination against female employees in the time pressure condition such that high SDO individuals will provide 33  more negative evaluations for female employees under time pressure but not when there is no time pressure.  Furthermore, organizational research in the United States by Hekman et al. (2010) shows that such biases in evaluations may extend beyond service employees to more negative evaluations of the organization context as well. The study showed the larger presence of low status employees led individuals to a less favourable evaluation of the organization (Hekman et al., 2010). Individuals’ biased evaluations of employees will extend to their biased evaluations of overall context of the organization in the time pressure condition and I expect the following:  Hypothesis 2b. High SDO individuals will provide more negative evaluations of the organization in the time pressure condition but not when there is no time pressure. SDO, backed by a comprehensive theoretical perspective, captures individual preferences for group-based social hierarchy. But SDO is not specifically related to gender hierarchy in societies. For example, the items of the scale refer to individual preferences for a generic group-based hierarchy rather than relating specifically to gender hierarchy (see Appendix B). Furthermore, social dominance researchers argue that “SDO is not a relatively stable, fixed individual difference variable but reflects specific forms of group-based inequality” (Turner & Raynolds, 2003, p. 202).  However, individual’s prejudiced beliefs about women can be assessed with greater specificity by measures of modern sexism. Modern sexism represents two forms of sexism amongst the three forms identified by Benokraitis and Feagin (1986). The three forms of sexism are (a) overt or blatant, (b) covert, and (c) subtle sexism. Overt sexism is characterized as “unequal and harmful treatment of women that is readily apparent, visible, and observable, and can be easily documented” (Benokraitis & Feagin, 1986, p.30). Covert sexism indicates unequal and 34  harmful treatment of men and women in a hidden manner. For instance, individuals may portray their fair treatment towards women, but engage in acts that purposely undermine women’s work. Subtle sexism is characterized by unidentified, unequal and harmful treatment of women because it is considered to be normal behaviour. Individuals who perpetrate such treatment may believe in egalitarianism but these same individuals may not notice their unequal treatment of women by themselves or others. For instance, Butler and Geis (1990) found evidence that both men and women equally supported male and female leaders; however, their non-verbal attitudes towards female leaders compared to male leaders were negative.   Modern sexism seeks to assess the covert and subtle sexism in an improved way. More specifically, modern sexism can help to identify subtle sexism and reveal individuals’ who are not aware of their prejudiced attitudes or who do not consider these behaviors to be harmful. Although modern sexism is subtle and indirect, it is expressed in both behaviors and beliefs. Modern sexism manifests itself in terms of non-detecting sexist language. Specifically, it captures individuals’ anonymous sexist beliefs when the workforce is separated along gender lines. Therefore, individuals’ prejudiced beliefs towards women will be captured with specificity by a measure of Modern Sexism that primarily measures (1) respondents’ denial of continuous discrimination against women (2) resent complaints about discrimination, and (3) resent special favour for women (Swim & Cohen, 1997). This measure assesses hidden thoughts and feelings regarding gender issues (see Appendix C).  35  In sum, Modern Sexism will help to uncover the biases specifically towards females among individuals who publicly endorse egalitarian values. Thus, the following hypotheses are proposed: Hypothesis 3a. Individuals’ Modern Sexist (MS) beliefs will affect discrimination against female employees such that high MS individuals will provide lower evaluations to female employees under time pressure but not when there is no time pressure. Hypothesis 3b. High MS individuals will provide more negative evaluations of the organization in the time pressure condition but not when there is no time pressure. In addition to the condition of time pressure, and with a view to exploring conditions under which biases may be reduced, I also propose that the presence or absence of financial incentives may represent conditions where biases under time-pressure towards female employees may be reduced. Specifically, when customers get incentives for providing employees’ performance evaluations, they will give greater care and attention to providing their evaluations. Therefore, the adverse effects of time-pressure in performance evaluations of female employees may be undermined by the presence of financial incentives. More specifically, I expect that services provided by female employees would be devalued less when customers get financial incentives for their evaluations (see table 3.4).  Since previous studies on gender bias have not examined the role of financial incentives that reduce biases under time-pressure and as this may provide organizations with a more objective way to assess services provided by female employees, I propose the following hypothesis:  Hypothesis 4: Individuals will devalue less to female employees under time-pressure when they get financial incentives for their evaluations but not when there is no financial incentive. 36  Chapter  4: Methodology I used experiments for testing the four hypotheses because experiments reveal causal relationships as controlled lab conditions enable me to control for alternative explanations. According to Shadish, Cook, and Campbell (2002), experiments reduce “the plausibility of other explanations for the effect” and to explore “the plausibility of those we cannot rule out” (p.6). Furthermore, experiments are also the preferred method in service research because testing a hypothesis on service in a real setting is difficult. This is because services are real and instant experiences as service encounters emerge as a result of constant interactions between service agents and customers and such enactments may be unique to each individual. In my study, I specifically manipulated the experimental conditions to observe their effects on the dependent variables. In particular, the experimental conditions that I manipulated were gender of the employee, time pressure and financial incentives to observe differences in individuals’ evaluations of service providers/organizations. In the following section, I outline the three experimental studies that I conducted:  Study 1 Study 1 was designed to test the following hypotheses: (1) Individuals will discriminate in their evaluations of service provided by female employees under time pressure, (2) Individuals’ social dominance orientation (SDO) will affect discrimination against female employees and the organization in the time pressure condition such that high SDO individuals will provide more negative evaluations for female employees and the organization under time pressure but not when there is no time pressure, and (3) Individuals’ modern sexist (MS) beliefs will affect discrimination against female employees and the organization such that high MS individuals 37  will provide lower evaluations to female employees and the organization under time pressure, but not when there is no time pressure.  4.1.1 Participants Participants or subjects were the 123 Canadian residents, who were recruited from a large panel of respondents available to Qualtrics, a company specializing in implementing online studies. 65 of the participants were males and 58 were females.102 Participants were white while 21 participants were of a different race/ethnic background. The mean age of the participants was 50.66. Participants of the study were asked to imagine assisting a company for making a personnel promotion decision.  4.1.2 Experimental condition The experimental task consisted of a promotion decision for a candidate based on his or her performance. Participants were randomly given the identical promotion dossier of either a male or female candidate. Candidate gender was manipulated with the candidate name (Either Karen or John). The promotion dossier contained the candidate’s resume, cover letter, and recent job-performance data. In addition, participants were provided confidential documents that include appreciation letters and adverse statements from clients. Specifically, participants were given 2 appreciation letters and 3 adverse statements written by the clients directly to the employee and the manger. These letters were provided to help participants understand the expertise and skills of the employee while dealing with the customers.  Glover (1997) conducted a pilot study to determine the time limit under which participants feel pressured for completing tasks. In the study Glover recognised 3 minutes as the deadline under which participants feel pressured to complete the tasks. Consistent with Glover (1997) I manipulated time pressure in the study by informing the participants in the treatment group 38  that they have a total of 3 minutes to complete the study and by not informing the control group subjects of any specific time limit to complete the study. The 3 minute limit was designed to induce time pressure while giving participants sufficient time to complete the study. Participants were assigned randomly to the two experimental conditions. After completing the evaluation exercise (promotion decision) participants responded to SDO and MS scale, manipulation check question and also provided their demographic information.  4.1.3 Design The study was a 2 (employee gender – male/female) X 2 (time pressure/no time pressure) between-subjects design with three dependent variables that are described in greater detail below. SDO and MS were quasi-experimental variables.  4.1.4 Measures Dependent Measure The first dependent variable of study 1 was participants’ promotion decision for the employee to a supervisory position within the organization. Participants were asked the following question: If you were the manager, would you recommend the employee for promotion? Participants’ evaluations of service quality and the organization context were the other dependent variables. Participants responded to 10 questions on a Likert type scale with 1 (strongly disagree) to 7(strongly agree) as the anchors designed to measure their evaluation of service quality, 5 questions about organization context, and 1 question about promotion decision (See Appendix A). Reliability of the multiple item satisfaction scales is assessed by Cronbach’s alpha measure. The cronbach’s alpha of candidate satisfaction was 0.95 and company satisfaction was 0.81.  39  SDO After the completion of the evaluations, participants responded to items on the SDO scale. SDO scale was used to measure “an individual’s degree of preference for inequality among social groups” (Pratto et al., 2006, p. 271). Individuals scored higher on 16 items of SDO scale would favor hierarchical ideologies, where exists clear differences between superior and inferior groups (Pratto et al., 2006). Sample items on the scales were: “Inferior groups should stay in their place”, and reversed scored item such as, “No group should dominate in society” (See Appendix B). The scale had reliability and the cronbach’s alpha was 0.94.  Modern Sexism The 8-item Modern Sexism Scale was used to assess both covert and subtle (modern) sexism. Participants were asked to provide their agreement with the 8 items on a seven point likert scale, with higher scores indicating modern sexist attitude. Sample item on the modern sexism scale included the item “Society has reached the point where women and men have equal opportunities for achievement” and reverse scored item “Discrimination against women is still a problem in Canada” (See Appendix C). In this study coefficient alpha for the modern sexism scale is 0.81.  Independent Measure The independent variables were the experimental condition that manipulated service employee’s gender (male/female). Time pressure was the second independent variable with two levels (time pressure versus no-time pressure). The interactive effects of gender/time pressure (H1) and SDO/MS, time pressure and gender (H2/H3) on promotion decision/evaluations of service quality and organizational context were used to test our hypotheses. 40  4.1.5 Results  Manipulation check The results of the t-test indicated differences across conditions in time-pressure, t (120) = 4.51, p. 001 and participant identification of employee gender t (120) = 13.32, p. 001.   Main Analyses Table 4.4 reports the descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients for the dependent, independent and control variables of the study. Consistent with prior research that females have lower SDO (Eagly & Steffen, 1984; Pratto & Sidanius, 1999; Forsyth, 2009), participant’s gender is correlated with SDO, r =. 19; p≤ .05. To test hypothesis 1, I used a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Hypothesis 1 was not supported by our data. Time-pressure did not influence customer evaluations towards the female employee significantly; for Candidate satisfaction F (1, 119) = 0.64, p= 0.42, Promotion Decision F (1, 119) = 1.51, p= 0.22, and Company satisfaction F (1, 119) = 0.08, p = 0.77 (See table 4.5). To test hypothesis 2a and 2b, I used hierarchical multiple regression analysis. Specifically, the hypothesis was a test of whether an individual’s SDO will affect discrimination against female employees and the organization in the time pressure condition but not when there is no time pressure. The following steps discuss the analysis in detail. In Step 1, I entered the participants’ demographics as control variables. In Step 2, employee gender condition and time condition, along (coded 0 and 1, respectively) with quasi-experimental variable SDO, were entered. To alleviate multicolinearity concerns (Aiken & West, 1999) the mean-centered SDO variable was entered in the regression. This removes the multicollinearity created by interaction and higher order terms while leaving the 41  interpretation of coefficients unchanged. Moreover, an examination of the variance inflation factor (VIF) revealed that it was below 5 and within acceptable limits. .  In Step 3, the two interaction terms of the independent and quasi variables were entered. Those terms were employee gender X mean-centered SDO, Time X mean-centered SDO, and employee gender X Time. In the final Step, the three-way interaction terms was entered. The raw regression weight for the Gender X Time X mean-centered SDO was not significant, B= 0.49, t (121) = 1.16, p = 0.25 (Candidate satisfaction), B= 0.63, t (121) = 1.43, p = 0.16 (Company satisfaction), and B= 0.83, t (121) = 1.90, p = 0.12 (Promotion decision). Thus, I did not find support for hypotheses 2a and 2b (See table 4.6).  I followed the same hierarchical multiple regression analysis for testing hypotheses 3a and 3b. In Step 1, I entered the control variables that included participants’ demographics. In Step 2, employee gender condition and time condition (dummy coded) with mean-centered MS, were entered. In Step 3, the two-way interaction terms for the 3 variables were entered in the regression. Specifically, the terms were employee gender X mean-centered MS, Time X mean-centered MS, and employee gender X Time. In the final Step, the three-way interaction terms employee gender X mean-centered MS X Time were entered. The three-way interaction variables produced non-significant results, B= 0.55, t (121) = 0.97, p = 0.33 (Candidate satisfaction), B= -0.34, t (121) = -0.59, p = 0.55 (Company satisfaction) and B= 0.59, t (121) = 1.03, p = 0.30 (Promotion decision). These results clearly indicate that hypotheses 3a and 3b were not supported by our data. Thus, none of the hypothesis is supported by the results (see table 4.1).  42  Post Hoc Analysis I conducted post hoc analysis to further unpack the data. Table 4.8, which reports the means and standard deviations of customer satisfaction for male and female employee by condition, did tend to suggest the role of time-pressure in influencing biases in customer evaluations of services. More specifically, in time-pressure condition the difference in the mean of customer evaluations between the male candidate (M= 4.25) and the female candidate (M= 3.96) in the limited time condition (Difference in Means = 0.29) tended to be higher than the difference in the mean evaluation for the male (M= 4.01) and the female candidate (M= 4.09) in the unlimited time condition (Difference in Means = 0.08). Figure 4.1 visualizes the result of differences in mean satisfaction ratings of male and female employee.   Study 2 In Study 2, I tested time-pressure influences in an email service encounter. While past research has tested bias in an actual service encounters (e.g., bookstore), the electronic service encounters provided a novel setting to test customer biases. Further, in contrast to Study 1 where the participants evaluated a promotion dossier, in Study 2 participants were only exposed a one specific service encounter. The study was designed Study 2 to test whether bias exists in a specific service interaction. Specifically, study 2 was designed to test the following hypotheses: (1) Individuals will discriminate in their evaluations of service provided by female employees under time pressure, (2) Individuals’ social dominance orientation will affect discrimination against female employees and the organization in the time pressure condition such that high SDO individuals will provide more negative evaluations for female employees and the organization under time pressure but not when there is no time pressure, and (3) Individuals’ modern sexist (MS) beliefs will affect discrimination against female employees 43  and the organization such that high MS individuals will provide lower evaluations to female employees and the organization under time pressure, but not when there is no time pressure. In contrast to Study 1, where participants made promotion decisions after reviewing a dossier, Study 2 participants provided evaluations reviewing a service encounter over email.  4.2.1 Participants Participants were the 119 Canadian residents who recruited from a large panel of respondents available to Qualtrics. 58 participants were male and 61 participants were female. Also, 95 participants were white and 24 participants were of different racial/ethnic background. The mean age of the participants was 54.08. Participants of the study were asked to review a service encounter over email.   4.2.2 Experimental condition The experimental task consisted of evaluations relating to a service encounter over email. Participants were provided with an email interaction between the customer and a service employee of a software company. Subsequently, participants were asked to evaluate the performance of the employee and the overall context of the organization. The email exchange involved an interaction with the employee helping a customer with the installation of a software package. Two email interactions with different employee gender were constructed to manipulate employee gender. The text of the emails was exactly the same except for the name of the service employee in the email. In addition, time pressure was manipulated, similar to Study 1, by informing the participants regarding the presence or absence of time pressure. Participants were assigned randomly to one of four experimental conditions (male/time pressure, female/time pressure, male/no time pressure, female/no time pressure). After 44  completing the evaluation exercise (promotion decision) participants responded to SDO and MS scale, manipulation check question and also provided their demographic information. 4.2.3 Design The study was a 2 (employee gender – male/female) X 2 (time pressure/no time pressure) between subjects design. Participants were asked to evaluate the electronic service performance of the employees on the SERVQUAL scale. SERVQUAL is a widely used scale for measuring an employee’s service performance as well as customers’ perceptions of service quality. The SERVQUAL scale was developed by the researchers in mid 1980s to (Parasuraman et al., 1988) and is extensively used for service quality research in multiple industries including banking, healthcare, financial services and education (Nyeck, Morales, Ladhari, & Pons, 2002). Nyeck et al. after reviewing 40 articles concluded that “SERVQUAL scale appears to remain the most complete attempt to conceptualize and measure service quality” (2002, p. 101). The scale captures several dimensions of the service quality employee’s empathy towards customers, reliability, responsiveness, and assurance (Parasuraman et al., 1988). Each item is measured using a seven point Likert scale (1= strongly disagree, 7= strongly agree). In addition to the four dimensions, participants were also asked to provide assessment of the overall quality of the service. Furthermore, participants’ were asked to provide their perceptions regarding the organization and organizational context.  4.2.4 Measures Dependent Measure The dependent variables in study 2 were the participants’ satisfaction items based on four aspects of service quality related to an employee’s (1) empathy, (2) reliability, (3) responsiveness, and (4) assurance as well as their assessment of the overall quality of service. 45  In addition, participants’ perceptions about the organization and organizational context were used as dependent variables. All multiple-item measures had acceptable reliability (> 0.70). SDO and Modern sexism Participants provided responses to the 16-item SDO and the 8-item MS scale. Cronbach’s alpha for the SDO and MS scale was 0.92 and. 0.85 respectively.  Independent Measure The independent variables were employee’s gender and the time pressure condition. The interactive effects of gender/time pressure (H1) and SDO/MS, time pressure and gender (H2/H3) on evaluations of service quality and organizational context were used to test our hypotheses.  4.2.5 Results   Manipulation check The results of the t test indicated differences across conditions in time-pressure, t (117) = 2.37, p. 001 and participant identification of employee gender t (117) = 8.63, p. 001. Main Analyses  To test the hypothesis that time-pressure has a significant impact on customer-biased evaluations towards female employees; I conducted a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). I did not find support for the hypothesis. However, as the results of table 4.10 show the results were counterintuitive and significant in some cases but in a direction that was contrary to my expectations. More specifically, the two-way interaction effect of time pressure and gender showed significant impact on the dependent variable; for example, Overall service quality, F (1, 119) = 4.67, p = 0.03, partial 2 = 0.04; Service encounter satisfaction, F (1, 119) = 2.78, p = 0.09, partial 2 = 0.02; and Empathy, F (1, 119) = 4.51, p = 0.03, partial 2 = 0.03 (See 46  table 4.10). Specifically, the results indicated that in contrast to my expectations the individuals evaluated female employee to be higher as compared to the male employee under the time-pressure condition.  Furthermore, I used hierarchical multiple regression analysis to test hypotheses 2a that an individual’s SDO will affect discrimination against female employees in the time pressure condition. The following steps discuss the analysis in detail. In Step 1, I entered the participants’ demographics as control variables. In Step 2, employee gender condition and time condition (dummy coded) and mean-centered SDO, were entered. In Step 3, all the two-way interaction terms for the three variables SDO, time pressure and employee gender were entered in the regression analyses. Specifically, the terms were Employee Gender X mean-centered SDO, Time X mean-centered SDO, and Employee Gender X Time. In the final Step, the three-way interaction terms were entered. The raw regression weight for the Gender X Time X mean-centered SDO was not significant, B = -0.78, t (119) = -1.46, p = 0.15 (Overall service quality), B = -0.75, t (119) = -1.43, p = 0.16 (Service encounter), and B = -0.87, t (119) = -1.64, p = 0.28 (Assurance). Hence this hypothesis was not supported by the results. To test the hypothesis 2b I again conducted hierarchical multiple regression analysis using participants perception about the organizational context as the dependent variable. In this study, we found a direct effect of time-pressure on high SDO individuals’ perceptions about the organization. The raw regression weight for the Gender X Time X mean centered SDO was significant, B = -1.14, t (119) = -2.18, p = 0.03. Further analysis (discussed later), however, revealed that the results were not in the expected direction. 47  I followed the same steps to test for hypotheses 3a and 3b. Specifically, in Step 1, the dependent variables were regressed based on participants’ demographics as the control variables. In Step 2, employee gender condition and time condition (dummy coded) with mean centered MS, were entered.  In Step 3, the two-way interaction terms of the employee gender, time pressure and modern sexism were entered. Specifically, the two-way interaction terms were Employee Gender X mean centered MS, Time X mean centered MS, and Employee Gender X Time. In the final Step, the three-way interaction terms Employee Gender X mean centered MS X Time were entered. The three-way interaction variables produced non-significant results, B= .77, t (119) = 1.25, p = 0.21 (Overall service quality), B = 0.00, t (119) = 0.00, p = 0.99 (Service encounter), and B = -0.07, t (119) = -0.11, p = 0.59 (Assurance). These results clearly indicate that hypotheses 3a and 3b were not supported by our data. Thus, none of the hypothesis is supported by the results (see table 4.2). Post Hoc Although hypothesis 2b shows the significant interaction effect of time-pressure and individuals perception about organization, I conducted additional analysis to gain more insight into this effect as well as verify if the results were in the expected direction. Specifically, I did a median split of the sample categorized the two groups as “Low” and “High” SDOs. Afterwards, I examined the means of the evaluations for the dependent variable (perception about the organization) for each of the low and the high SDO group. My expectation was that high SDO individuals would provide more negative evaluations of environment context when the employee gender is female. However, the results of the satisfaction mean ratings suggested that high SDO individuals did not report lower perceptions of the organization under time-48  pressure condition for female employees. In fact the pattern of results were in the opposite direction. For instance, High SDO individuals evaluated the organization higher when the service provider was female (M = 6.17) and as compared to the condition when the service provider was a male employee (M = 5.58). This additional analysis clearly showed that the significant interaction for Hypothesis 2b was not in the expected direction. Therefore, I did not find support for hypothesis 2b.  I also conducted post hoc analysis to verify whether there exists any pattern, which portrays the influence of time-pressure. Table 4.13, which reports the means and standard deviations of customer satisfaction for male and female employee by condition, supported our prediction that time-pressure, matters in the evaluation of services. The results showed that individuals service evaluations did not differ much for either male (M = 5.76) or for female (M = 5.67) employee under the unlimited time condition (Difference in Means = 0.09). However, these evaluations showed a greater gap between male and female employee under time-pressure condition. For example in time-pressure condition the difference in mean satisfaction is wided between the male (M = 5.29) and female (M = 5.93) employee (Difference in Means = 0.64). This pattern of finding is also consistent with what I found in study 1. Specifically, time pressure condition tends to accentuate biases in evaluation while unlimited time attenuates these differences. Figure 4.2 visualizes the result of differences in mean satisfaction ratings of male and female employee.  Study 3 Further building on Study 1 and Study 2, Study 3 was designed to test the hypothesis 4 that individuals would be less negatively biased towards female employees under time-pressure in particular when they receive financial incentives for their evaluations. In the condition where 49  participants do not receive any financial incentive, we expected participants to be more biased towards the female service employee. Thus, I designed my third study to test whether financial incentives reduce individuals’ biased evaluations towards employee under time-pressure. In contrast to Study 2, where participants evaluated an email service encounter, participants of the study observed a video of an employee-customer interaction. The videotaped service encounter also offered an opportunity to replicate the service context used in prior research that has reported gender biases (e.g., Hekman et al., 2010). 4.3.1 Participants Hundred undergraduate students from University of British Columbia (Okanagan campus) participated in this study. 58 participants were males and 42 were females. 48 Participants were white and 52 participants were of different racial/ethnic background. The mean age of the participants was 19.50. 4.3.2 Experimental condition In this study, student raters observed a video recording of an employee-customer interaction at a university bookstore. After watching the video, the participants were asked to evaluate the employee’s behaviour, and to provide their satisfaction with the interaction and the bookstore. Two videos had been enacted by paid actors using exactly the same script but differentiated by the gender of the bookstore employee (Hekman et al., p.249). The videos (male service employee, female service employee) were randomly assigned to the participants. Each participant observed one video and provided his or her satisfaction ratings for the employee and the context of the store environment.  Participants were assigned randomly to the four experimental conditions 2 (employee gender – male/female) X 2 (financial incentive/no financial incentive). All the participants were put 50  under time pressure (informed of the time limits of 3 minutes to complete the exercise). Since the purpose was to test the effects of time pressure in the financial incentive condition a balanced design was not considered necessary (i.e. no time pressure condition). As well, experiment group were informed that they were given $5 to complete the exercise whereas control group were not informed of the incentive (participants from both groups were given $ 5 at the end of the study). 4.3.3 Design The study was a 2 (employee gender male/female) X 2 (financial incentive/no financial incentive) between subjects design. Participants were asked to evaluate the service performance of the employee on five dimensions of service quality using the SERVQUAL scale.  4.3.4 Measure Dependent Measure Participants were provided their satisfaction ratings on five dimensions of service quality: employee’s empathy, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and tangibles. Tangibles referred the evaluation of context of the bookstore such as (1) physical facilities, (2) materials are visually appealing, (3) up-to-date equipped bookstore, (4) appearance of the bookstore matches with the service (See Appendix E). All dimensions of service quality had high reliability. Independent measure The independent variable was service providers’ gender (male/female). A financial incentive condition was the second independent variable. The interaction terms of employee gender X financial incentives were used to test our hypotheses. The appendices provide the specific details for the three studies. 51  4.3.5 Results Manipulation check The results of the t test indicated differences in the participant identification of employee gender t (99) = 9.12, p. 001. Main Analyses Table 4.14 reports the means, standard deviation, correlation coefficients for the dependent, independent and control variables in the video study. Interestingly, participants’ ethnicity is related to the evaluations of company expectations r = 0.21, p≤ .05. Specifically, non-white participants provided less negative evaluations towards company compared to white participants.  The results of Study 3 did not provide support for our hypothesis that individuals will be less biased towards female employees when they receive financial incentives prior to their evaluations. More specifically, providing financial incentives to the participants did not significantly impact the evaluations towards female employee; for instance, Satisfaction Service Encounter F (1, 112) = .522, p = 0.47, partial 2 = 0.01 and Perceptions F (1, 112) = 1.99, p = 0.16, partial 2 = 0.02 (See table 4.15). Thus, none of the hypothesis is supported by the results (see table 4.3). Post Hoc Analysis I conducted additional analysis to further unpack the data. Table 4.16, which reports the means and standard deviations of customer satisfaction for male and female employee by condition (financial incentive/no financial incentive), did tend to suggest the role of financial incentive in influencing biases in customer evaluations of services. Specifically, the differences in participants’ satisfaction rating for male and female employees when participants were given 52  $5 tended to be lower (Difference in Means = 0.05) with the mean ratings for the female employee (M = 2.24) and male employee (M = 2.19). In contrast, the evaluations in the no financial incentives condition the mean evaluations for the female employee (M = 2.75) and male employee (M = 1.69) showed a bigger difference (Difference in Means = 1.06). The results tend to suggest the role of financial incentive in lowering biases in customer evaluations of services. Figure 4.3 visualizes the result of differences in mean satisfaction ratings of male and female employee under the two financial incentive conditions.   53  Chapter  5: Discussion   Theoretical and Practical Implication Pioneering research by Hekman et al (2010) regarding racial and gender biases in customer evaluations laid the foundation for my research. Because discrimination is still a continuing problem in the United States, Hekman et al. (2010) found the existence of customer discriminatory judgments for female service employees in United States. In my study, I sought to extend the findings of customer biases to Canada. Specifically, I carried out experimental studies to identify the role of explicit attitudes and situational moderators on the influence of evaluations of service agents as well as the promotion decision of service agents. I did not find support for my findings. However, some patterns from additional analysis of the data do suggest the potential role of the contextual factors of time pressure and financial incentives as factors that may influence biases and need further investigation in future research.  In my research, I sought to test for evidence of customer biases, but my research differed conceptually and was not an exact replication of the Heckman et al. (2010) and so future research replicating my experiments in the United States would only provide a precise comparison of differences in customer biases in the United States and Canada. While women continue to face challenges to breaking into the upper echelons of the business world in Canada, the reasons for not finding support for my results I speculate may in part be due to the different contexts for women in the United States and Canada as well as variations across industries in how customer biases are revealed.  The contextual differences between the United States and Canada, for example, suggest that, the gender gap is comparatively lower in Canada as compared to the United States (World 54  Economic Forum, 2013). For instance, Canada ranks 22 in labor force participation sub-index. In contrast, United States has a much lower ranking of 40 in the same sub-index (World Economic Forum, 2013). Furthermore, in the United States women are more concentrated on lower income industries and companies as well as are under-represented in managerial and executive positions that involve decision-making (Bell, McLaughlin, & Sequeira, 2002). According to Bell et al. “though comprising almost 50% of the U.S. workforce, women occupy only about 30% of all salaried manager positions, 20% of middle manager positions, and about 5% of executive level positions” (2002, p. 65). In contrast, women in Canada although far from being proportionately represented comprise a higher 13.5% of executive level positions and 58.3% of management, professional and related positions in 2012 (Catalyst, 2014). The comparable number for female representation in the management professional and related positions in the United States is 51.5% (Catalyst, 2014). Also, with respect to values and public provisions of health and education, Canada tends to be more community oriented with universal health care and higher public spending and thus lower education costs; while U.S. tends to be more individualistic with more limited spending on health and education (Hofstede, 2001).  These contextual differences may reflect different contexts for women in the workplace and may have been a partial reason that the gender bias results from the United States did not replicate in my study.  In addition, the differences in findings between Hekman et al. (2010) and my research could be potentially due to the industry in which I tested the findings. Two of the three studies in Hekman et al. (2010) were field studies based in the health and sports tourism (golf) industries. Both studies took place in natural settings where customers directly dealt with physicians or service employees. As a result, customers practically experience the treatment provided by the 55  employee. This provides a more natural setting for testing the customer biases although such studies suffer from other potential limitations including the possibility of other alternative explanations that were not controlled for in the study. In contrast, the lab setting of my research provides a controlled environment to test the effects but the service encounter is artificially constructed for the lab experiment. The Hekman et al. (2010) paper, however, did conduct one lab experiment where they found support for the influence of implicit attitudes in influencing biases. The goal of my research was to examine the influence of explicit attitudes (i.e. social dominance orientation and modern prejudice) and I did not find support for my hypotheses.  Findings coming out of the additional analysis that I carried out tend to suggest that time-pressure may have a role in individuals’ evaluation of services. Although I did not find support for my hypotheses the trend in the data suggests an interesting story. Specifically, the results of the promotion study showed that time pressure influences customer’s satisfaction rating such that biases as reflected in differences in mean ratings in the evaluation of the male candidate and the female candidate tended to be higher under time-pressure condition. However, in the unlimited time-pressure condition, customer evaluation as reflected in differences in mean ratings tended to be lower between the male and female candidate. These results reflect the influence of time in the evaluation of service provided by untrained raters. The results of Study 1 are consistent with the literature on aversive prejudice that helps to understand the situations under which seemingly egalitarian people engage in acts of discrimination. Despite aversive prejudice individuals’ conscious endorsement of egalitarian values, time-pressure potentially provides them with a plausible reason for expression of bias that may have led to the tendencies of greater bias in the time-pressure condition as compared to the unlimited time condition.  56  Past research has revealed that individuals tended to evaluate women lower than equally performing men. Dipboye, Fromkin, and Wiback (1975) found the evidence of bias in managerial position. The authors (1975) showed that 72 percent participants rated male applicant higher for a hypothetical managerial position in a furniture store despite the identical characteristics of the hypothetical male and female applicants. The research (1975) also suggests that men were more likely to be promoted than women.   These findings suggest that in the evaluation of employee for promotion, the existence of pro-male evaluation bias favors men compared to women, which is consistent with my promotion study. For instance, in Study 1, aversive prejudiced individuals may not have got enough time to think and rationalize their judgments during evaluations. As a result, the participants’ evaluation of the employee may have been biased in favor of the male employee and against the female employee in the time pressure condition. The theory of habitus, which I discussed earlier, might provide insight into the outcome of Study 1. Habitus allows individuals to successfully navigate social environments (Bourdieu, 1984). According to Bourdieu, individuals’ behaviors, beliefs, tastes are shaped by cultural capital and acquired through social class. Moreover, Bourdieu identifies cultural capital as the major source of social inequality because “certain forms of cultural capital are valued over others and can help or hinder one’s social mobility just as much as income or wealth” (Bourdieu). Bourdieu defines habitus as a ‘socially constituted system of cognitive and motivating structures’. So it seems that habitus is a specific form of perception, which enables the construction of one’s action. Habitus does not fix individual character, however the social environment produces and legitimizes structures in the society which influence individual morality. Although individuals hold unique experiences, however they tend to behave similarly with out-group members because of the 57  social norms and structures. Habitus orients individuals’ actions instead of determining actions in order to align themselves according to the social surroundings. In our society discrimination against women still exists. Therefore, people may actively participate in discrimination against women; such as occupational segregation, which creates distinguishing treatment between men and women based on gender. However people don’t always observe the differential treatment as harmful because it resonates with their habitus. By this way habitus normalizes inequalities towards women. Thus, Bourdieu’s concept of habitus is a useful tool for explaining the practical sense of social inequality that causes the unfavorable treatment of women. In contrast to Study 1, where I found individuals evaluation differences in crucial promotion decision under time-pressure, Study 2 tested whether the influences of time-pressure extend to regular online service encounter. Although the results were not in expected direction, the trend of the data suggests that evaluation may change under time-pressure for the employee by the untrained raters. Specifically, the results indicated that under the time-pressure condition the female employee was evaluated higher compared to the male employee. In contrast to the studies reflecting evaluation bias favoring males, some studies have shown that people positively evaluated women compared to men who performed equally. For instance, Jacobson and Effertz (1974) found that “followers tended to rate the performance of male leaders as being worse than that of female leaders, even though the actual performance of both sexes was equal” (p. 269). Particular conditions may possibly have played a role in shaping the direction of bias in favor of females in these few studies.  My findings for Study 2 revealed that the female employee received positive evaluations than the male employee by the raters. One possibility for these favorable evaluations for female employee in study 2 may have been the industry where I tested my customer interaction. 58  Specifically, I have used the software industry to determine if customer biases are influenced by time-pressure. Women are much less likely than men to pursue working in software and technical roles (Bacon, 2013). Specifically, women are vastly underrepresented in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) jobs are constitute a relative minority in the workplace and according to the National Household Survey (NHS), only “accounted for 39% of university graduates aged 25 to 34 with a STEM degree in 2011, compared with 66% of university graduates in non-STEM programs” (Statistics Canada, 2013). In addition, “Men aged 25 to 34 with STEM degrees, who are more concentrated in engineering, had lower unemployment rates, higher wages and a lower rate of job mismatch than their non-STEM counterparts” (Statistics Canada, 2013). This clearly reflects the underrepresentation of women and the advantages that men get out of STEM degrees and hence are much more likely to pursue working in STEM jobs compared to women. Given the underrepresentation of women in such jobs it seems possible that the participants of Study 2 may have been influenced in their evaluations when they found the female employee addressing technical software issues. The relative rarity of the female employee in such technical positions may have generated among the raters relatively favorable reactions towards them as compared to the male service employee. Future research can explore this possibility by testing for biases across different industries.  Besides, the results of experiment 2 also provide support of my prior theorizing within the psychological perspective that women get appreciation for occupying traditional roles rather than leadership roles. Specifically, in contrast to Study 1 which examined individuals’ evaluation on supervisor position, study 2 involved evaluation of employee holding a position that can be considered a typical position for a female employee. Apart from reasons outlined 59  above, another possible reason for favorable evaluations of female employee in Study 2 could be that the position was a traditional support position. Specifically, participants may have been influenced and showed their appreciation to female employee when they found them one such traditional roles i.e. support position. Thus it seems that job positions may have an impact on individuals’ perceptions. Future research can explore the influence of job levels or positions on gender biases. Another possible reason for positive reactions of the high SDO individuals towards female employee in study 2 may be due to the level issue. Specifically most of the leadership and top level positions are occupied by men in Canada (Catalyst, 2014). As previously noted that individuals high in SDO rationalize their discriminatory actions by supporting the myths that dominant and subordinate groups deserve their relative positions of superiority and inferiority in the social hierarchy. And thus when high SDO individuals found female employee in lower level they showed appreciation in support of inferiority and maintenance of group-based social inequality. Future research can explore the reactions of high SDO individuals across levels to examine bias. The pattern of the results of both Study 1 and 2 showed that in Canada both in regular email service encounter as well as crucial promotion decision, time-pressure does tend to matter in the evaluation. Time-pressure may indeed influence individuals’ other kinds of evaluations as well. For instance, student ratings for teaching effectiveness may be one such context. Specifically, student ratings are widely used in academic institutions for measuring teaching effectiveness of faculty members. Research has showed that student ratings are influenced by the teachers’ looks, gender, and personalities (Birnbaum, 1999). It is possible that students differentially weigh information while providing their ratings. Further, under time pressure 60  situation, students may put more emphasis on the criteria that is aligned with their biases. The consequences may seriously harm faculty careers if institutional administrators relied solely on these ratings to influence promotion decisions. Therefore, evaluations under time-pressure may potentially harm individuals professionally and individually in many other contexts as well. Furthermore, consistent with psychological perspective that identifies discrimination as a situation dependent occurrence, the situation of heavy work load or excessive pressure may bias student evaluations of faculty. For instance, students are usually asked to provide their evaluations at the end of the term just before starting the final exams. In this time period excessive work load may lead to unfair evaluation of teachers. Future research may explore if such stressful situations may adversely impact individuals’ evaluations. In the past, customer biases were tied to the lack of evaluation standards and training for the raters. In light of the current research depicting time-pressure as one of the possible factors of influence, organizations should consider not carrying out customer evaluations during time-pressure situations, as they tend to lead to biased evaluations. Such biases in evaluations may have negative consequences for firms and employees and may hurt service employees as well as have financial consequences for organizations. The trend of the data in our financial study shows that an individual’s evaluation bias seems to diminish when financial incentive is provided under time pressure although the results did not achieve conventional levels of significance. Specifically, individuals’ evaluation differences in mean for male and female employees tended to be lower under the financial incentive condition as compared to the non-financial incentive condition. Therefore, Study 3 suggests that financial incentive may matters in shaping biases in evaluation of services under time-61  pressure situations. My research suggests financial incentive as a possible strategy to be explored because it might reduce biased evaluations towards employees under time-pressure.  However, despite not finding support for my hypotheses of customer biases towards women, women in Canada do continue to face considerable barriers in organizational life in Canada (Catalyst, 2013) and future research should continue to investigate the biases that inhibit the success of women in the Canadian workplace. This research provides a note of caution that all research findings from the United States may not be readily generalizable to the Canadian context and research specific to Canada should typically form the basis of public policy interventions in the country. As discussed earlier in the introduction not only service organizations but also government ministries used client ratings to assess the level of their performance. Therefore, government can play an important role to create awareness programs and possible interventions for reducing biases in client ratings. For example, government can introduce educational or training programs to enhance the knowledge about the rating process and the adverse effects of biased ratings on individuals and organizations. These training programs may also help government to improve their evaluation of public policy interventions. Government may implement gender sensitive approach in policy implementation and work towards improving gender-impact evaluation. Moreover, government can consider fixing realistic targets for women in top management positions to maintain better gender balance. Such initiatives may also positively impact the private sector and encourage them to develop programs that facilitate the employment of more women in senior or top management positions.   62   Contribution  The purpose of the present study is to extend the research on customers’ discriminatory judgment in the evaluations of female service employees and to test customer biases in the Canadian context. An important contribution of this research is the exploration of the time-pressure condition under which individual customers may react differently in their service evaluations for employees in different service industries such as health, sports and tourism, financial institutions etc. I conducted two different studies where I experimentally manipulated the time pressure along with the gender of the service employee to enable my hypothesis testing. If these results are generalizable, organizations will be able to recognize time pressure issues as a potential source of misunderstanding between employees and customers. Another strength of this research is the practical insights for managers in service‐related industries. Specifically, the results may help managers to consider time-pressure as a potential factor for customers biased evaluations of employees and also consider only taking evaluations from customers after ensuring that they have sufficient time for providing such customer evaluations. For example, customers rushing to catch a flight or in a hurry to leave the restaurant or any other time pressure may potentially provide more biased evaluations as compared to customers who are not under such time pressure. Organizations could also ask few questions during the service encounter to customers about their time availability so that customers may become aware earlier about their potential role and decide if they may be willing to provide customer feedback.  In Study 3, analysis revealed that biases in individuals’ service evaluation between the male and female employee show tendencies to be lower when customers are provided financial incentives. Therefore organizations can consider introducing financial incentives to the 63  customers who are being requested to provide service evaluations, in order for them to feel motivated to judge responsibly and, thereby, ensure fair evaluation.  Limitation and recommendations of future research This research has its share of limitations. In both study 1 and 2, participants evaluated “paper” service providers. Therefore, the external validity of the study may be a concern as the study relies on hypothetical experience/performance of the service providers. This may be tied to the general limitation of the experimental method, which provides strong internal validity, but has limitations of external validity.  Further, my study explored the existence of biases in the field of support services in the software industry. Although the software industry is similar to other service industries in several ways, the generalizability of the findings will need to be tested in other industries and in future field research. In this study, I used social dominance orientation and modern sexist attitudes to capture each individual’s level of explicit biases. On the other hand, Hekman et al. (2010) used implicit measures of prejudice. Thus, there is a need for research employing both implicit and explicit measures of prejudice simultaneously to capture the influence of each individual’s level of conscious and unconscious bias against women.   In my study, participants provided their ratings just after observing a video or an employee’s hypothetical service performance. In the real world situation, “customers typically do not complete service quality ratings immediately after observing an employee, but only after having engaged in other activities (e.g., dinner, shopping) that can take their attention away from their encounter with the employee” (Hekman et al., 2010, p. 250). Future research should 64  focus on the inclusion of a distraction task to more realistically capture the experience of customer with the employee before they start evaluating the service and context. Another potential issue that may be responsible for my not finding support for the hypothesis could be the possibility of an alternative explanation in Study 3. Specifically, while in study 1 and study 2 the service encounter was exactly the same except for the manipulation of the gender by changing the name of the employee, Study 3 used a video recording of a service encounter. Although the videos used exactly the same script for the dialogue, the same physical setting and efforts were made that the conditions were as similar as possible for the two videos but it may be not possible to completely rule out the influence of a specific physical attribute (other than gender) of the employee for its influence in shaping differential service delivery perceptions. Another potential reason for the lack of support of my hypothesis may be participants’ conscious self-status as participants in a study. Specifically, participants are aware of their status as subjects in a lab or online study; therefore they behave in a different manner than they would in real and natural settings although replication of lab experiments in the field in many studies in the literature mitigates some of these concerns. An interesting relationship not hypothesized in my study but revealed in the analysis is that participant ethnicity is related to their evaluation of company expectation. It suggests that individuals who belong to low status (non-white) ethnic group assessed the company differently than members of the high status group. I could not carry out a separate analysis of this relationship because of the small number of ethnic participants in Study 3. Examination of such ethnicity based differential evaluations of service may be an interesting area for future research.   65   Conclusion The present study represents an extension of previous work of Hekman et al. (2000) focusing on customer negative evaluations towards female employees. The results of Hekman study found disturbing evidence of customer discriminatory judgments towards female service employee in the United States. The current research extends the work of Hekman et al. (2010) by adding and investigating the role of situational factors that shape bias towards female employees and testing for these gender biases in Canada.  The results from the three experiments did not support my hypothesis. Despite the lack of support for my hypothesis, the analysis revealed an interesting pattern of results and suggests that time pressure does seem to matter in customers’ evaluations of employees and customer biases were accentuated under the time pressure condition. This points to the need for organizations to consider avoiding taking customer feedback from customers who are under time pressure. Furthermore, while I did not find support for my findings in Study 3, customer biases tended to be lower when customers were provided a financial incentive as compared to the no financial incentive condition. While more research is required in the area, the finding offers one possible strategy to consider for ensuring fair treatment of employees in the workplace.     66  Table 2.1 Average earnings of full-time earners Year Males Females Ratio 1988 53800 35100 0.63 1998 56300 40500 0.72 2008 62600 44700 0.71 Source: Average earnings of full-time earners, “Distribution of earnings, by sex, 2008 constant dollars, annual” (Cool, 2010).  Table 3.1 Variability in evaluation decision Evaluations of service providers Time Pressure No Time Pressure Evaluations of Male Service Providers  No evaluation differences No evaluation differences Evaluations of Female Service Providers  Lower evaluation/Bias No evaluation differences  Table 3.2 Relationship between SDO and evaluations under time pressure SDO/ Evaluations of service providers Evaluations of Male service providers Evaluations of Female service providers High SDO No evaluation differences Lower evaluation/Bias Low SDO No evaluation differences  No evaluation differences         67  Table 3.3 Relationship between SDO and evaluations under no time pressure SDO/ Evaluations of service providers Evaluations of Male service providers Evaluations of Female service providers High SDO No evaluation differences  No evaluation differences  Low SDO No evaluation differences  No evaluation differences   Table 3.4 Relationship between Financial Incentives and evaluations under time pressure Financial Incentive/ Evaluations of service providers Evaluations of male service providers under time-pressure Evaluations of female service providers under time-pressure Financial Incentive No evaluation differences  No evaluation differences  No Financial Incentive No evaluation differences Lower evaluation/Bias  Table 4.1 Summary of Results, Study 1 Hypothesis Relationship Conclusion H1: Time-Pressure → Evaluations of Female service provider Not supported H2a: Time-Pressure* High SDO → Evaluations of Female service provider Not supported H2b: Time-Pressure* High SDO → Evaluations of Organization Not supported H3a: Time-Pressure* High MS → Evaluations of Female service provider Not supported H3b: Time-Pressure* High MS → Evaluations of Organization Not supported    68  Table 4.2 Summary of Results, Study 2 Hypothesis Relationship Conclusion H2a: Time-Pressure* High SDO → Evaluations of Female service provider Not supported H2b: Time-Pressure* High SDO → Evaluations of Organization Not supported H3a: Time-Pressure* High MS → Evaluations of Female service provider Not supported H3b: Time-Pressure* High MS → Evaluations of Organization Not supported  Table 4.3 Summary of Results, Study 3 Hypothesis Relationship Conclusion H4: Financial Incentives * Time-Pressure → Evaluations of Female service provider Not supported 69  Table 4.4 Descriptive Statistics, and Correlations, Study 1     M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1.Candidate Satisfaction 4.09 1.10 1          2.Company Satisfaction 4.59 .85 .59 ** 1         3.Promotion decision 3.70 1.44 .79 ** .44 ** 1        4.Participant Gender .53 .50 .03 -.07 .01 1       5.Participant Age 50.66 26.34 -.29 ** -.25 ** -.15 -.04 1      6.Participant Ethnicity .17 .38 .15 .07 .17 -.05 .19 ** 1     7.Employee Gender  .50 .50 .05 -.00 .03 .08 -.08 -.06 1    8. Time  .49 .50 .03 .05 .07 -.03 .05 -.09 -.03 1   9. SD 2.67 1.12 .22 * .09 .19 * .19 * -.14 .10 .14 .17 1  10.  MS 3.52 .96 .12 .07 .04 .42 ** -.17 .03 .02 -.02 .34 ** 1  All intercorrelations are based on listwise deletion and are significant at the p<.01 and p<.05 level.  **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).   *.   Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).  For 1=3-Minute time condition, 0= “Unlimited time condition”; n=119. For the Gender email condition, 1= “Male”; 0= “Female”. For Participant Ethnicity, 0= “White”; 1= “Non-white”. For Participant gender, 0= “Male”; 1= “Female”. 70  Table 4.5 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Promotion decision Variable df F Sig. Partial 2 Participant Gender 1 0.01 0.93 0.00 Participant Ethnicity 1 3.30 0.07 0.02 Participant Age  1 1.44 0.23 0.01 Employee Gender 1 0.13 0.71 0.00 Time  1 1.02 0.31 0.01 Employee Gender X Time 1 1.51 0.22 0.01  Mean Satisfaction Candidate  Variable df F Sig. Partial 2 Participant Gender 1 0.00 0.99 0.00 Participant Ethnicity 1 2.08 0.15 0.01 Participant Age 1 5.39 0.02 0.04 Employee Gender 1 0.20 0.65 0.00 Time 1 0.31 0.57 0.00 Employee Gender X Time 1 0.64 0.42 0.01  Mean Satisfaction Company  Variable df F Sig. Partial 2 Participant Gender 1 1.11 0.29 0.01 Participant Ethnicity 1 0.11 0.74 0.00 Participant Age 1 7.53 0.01 0.06 Employee Gender 1 0.01 0.90 0.00 Time  1 0.40 0.52 0.00 Employee Gender X Time 1 0.08 0.77 0.00  71  Table 4.6 Social Dominance Orientation, Study 1    Candidate Satisfaction Company Satisfaction Promotion Decision Model Variables B t (sig) B t (sig) B t (sig) 1 Participant Gender .00 0.04 -0.09 -1.09 -.00 -0.04 Participant Age -0.22 -2.43 -0.25 -2.78 -0.11 -1.29 Participant Ethnicity 0.12 1.37 0.02 -0.28 0.15 1.70 2 Employee Gender 0.01 0.09 0-.027 -0.29 .00 0.04 Time 0.01 0.06 0.03 0.38 0.05 0.58 SDO 0.22 2.40 0.11 1.18 0.18 1.97 3 Employee Gender X SDO -0.39 -1.49 0.11 0.41 -0.14 -0.53 Time X SDO -0.6 -2.25 -0.21 -0.78 -0.44 -1.63 Employee Gender X Time 0.25 1.67 0.07 0.45 0.27 1.78 4 Employee Gender X Time  X SDO 0.49 1.16 0.63 1.43 0.83 1.90 **Social Dominance Orientation (SDO)   72  Table 4.7 Modern Sexism, Study 1  Candidate Satisfaction Company Satisfaction Promotion Decision Model Variables B t (sig) B t (sig) B t (sig) 1 Participant Gender .00 0.04 -0.09 -1.09 -.00 -0.04 Participant Age -0.22 -2.43 -0.25 -2.78 -0.11 -1.28 Participant Ethnicity 0.12 1.37 0.02 0.28 0.15 1.69 2 Employee Gender 0.04 0.44 -0.01 -0.10 0.02 0.31 Time 0.04 0.55 0.05 0.63 0.09 0.98 MS 0.08 0.86 0.07 0.75 0.01 0.16 3 Employee Gender X MS -0.58 -1.6 -0.04 -0.12 -0.65 -1.76 Time X MS -0.47 -1.33 -0.33 -0.91 -0.42 -1.18 Employee Gender X Time 0.14 0.94 0.07 0.46 0.18 1.20 4 Employee Gender X Time X MS 0.55 0.97 -0.34 -0.59 0.59 1.03  **Modern Sexism (MS)  73  Table 4.8 Means and Standard Deviations of customer satisfaction for male and female employee by condition  Condition 3-Minute time limit Unlimited Time Gender Mean SD N Mean SD N  Candidate Satisfaction  Male 4.25 1.03 28 4.01 1.01 32 Female 3.96 1.07 31 4.09 1.22 31  Company Satisfaction Male 4.64 0.82 28 4.51 0.82 32 Female 4.58 0.78 31 4.57 0.90 31  Promotion Decision  Male 4.00 1.33 28 3.47 1.41 32 Female 3.58 1.36 31 3.71 1.60 31     74  Table 4.9 Descriptive Statistics, and Correlations, Study 2                M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1. Empathy 5.89 .99 1              2. Assurance 6.08 .87 .79 ** 1             3.Responsiveness 6.05 .92 .73 ** .89 ** 1            4. Reliability 6.08 .93 .72 ** .87 ** .89 ** 1           5. Satisfaction_ Service encounter 5.66 1.29 .69 ** .79 ** .87 ** .83 ** 1          6.  Company    Perceptions 5.89 1.16 .70 ** .79 ** .84 ** .85 ** .88 ** 1         7. Overall Quality of Service 6.10 1.06 .66 ** .75 ** .82 ** .84 ** .84 ** .84 ** 1        8. Participant Gender .49 .50 -.02 -.09 -.10 -.04 -.04 -.09 -.03 1       9.Participant Age 54.08 27.51 .06 .01 -.03 -.01 -.16 -.10 -.08 .10 1      10. Participant Ethnicity .80 .40 .01 -.12 -.10 -.13 -.10 -.14 -.09 .07 .20 * 1     11. Employee Gender .50 .50 -.01 -.07 -.11 -.05 -.11 -.09 -.05 .03 -.03 -.12 1    12. Time .50 .50 .09 -.03 -.03 .00 -.04 -.02 -.02 .06 .09 .00 .03 1   13. SD 2.69 1.02 .08 -.04 -.11 -.04 -.01 -.04 -.02 .31 ** -.09 -.14 .11 -.05 1  14.  MS 3.62 1.08 .14 .14 .01 .10 .07 .11 .09 .17 -.14 -.07 .08 .00 .44 ** 1 **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).   *.   Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).  For 1=3-Minute time condition, 0= “Unlimited time condition”; n=119. For the Gender email condition, 1= “Male”; 0= “Female”. For Participant Ethnicity, 0= “White”; 1= “Non-white”. For Participant gender, 0= “Male”; 1= “Female”. 75  Table 4.10 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Mean Empathy Variables df F Sig. Partial 2 Participant Gender 1 0.15 0.69 0.00 Participant Ethnicity 1 0.01 0.93 0.00 Participant Age 1 0.24 0.62 0.00 Employee Gender 1 0.02 0.88 0.00 Time 1 0.91 0.34 0.01 Employee Gender X Time 1 4.51 0.03 0.03  Mean Assurance Variables df F Sig. Partial 2 Participant Gender 1 0.04 0.84 0.00 Participant Ethnicity 1 0.86 0.35 0.01 Participant Age 1 0.59 0.44 0.01 Employee Gender 1 0.41 0.52 0.00 Time 1 0.00 0.95 0.00 Employee Gender X Time 1 *4.67 0.03 0.04  Mean Reliability Variables df F Sig. Partial 2 Participant Gender 1 0.15 0.69 0.00 Participant Ethnicity 1 2.26 0.13 0.02 Participant Age 1 0.01 0.91 0.00 Employee Gender 1 0.43 0.51 0.00 Time 1 0.01 0.94 0.00 Employee Gender X Time 1 2.36 0.13 0.02  Mean Responsiveness Variables df F Sig. Partial 2 Participant Gender 1 0.93 0.34 0.00 Participant Ethnicity 1 1.25 0.27 0.01 Participant Age 1 0.01 0.93 0.00 Employee Gender 1 1.67 0.20 0.02 Time 1 0.06 0.81 0.00 Employee Gender X Time 1 1.85 0.17 0.02    76  Table 4.10 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Mean Perceptions Variables df F Sig. Partial 2 Participant Gender 1 0.62 0.43 0.01 Participant Ethnicity 1 2.07 0.15 0.01 Participant Age 1 0.72 0.39 0.01 Employee Gender 1 1.41 0.23 0.01 Time 1 0.00 0.95 0.00 Employee Gender X Time 1 3.57 0.06 0.03  Satisfaction with the service encounter Variables df F Sig. Partial 2 Participant Gender 1 0.79 0.37 0.01 Participant Ethnicity 1 1.89 0.17 0.01 Participant Age 1 0.15 0.69 0.00 Employee Gender 1 0.66 0.41 0.01 Time 1 0.09 0.76 0.00 Employee Gender X Time 1 *2.78 0.09 0.02  Overall quality of service Variables df F Sig. Partial 2 Participant Gender 1 0.04 0.84 0.00 Participant Ethnicity 1 0.86 0.35 0.01 Participant Age 1 0.59 0.44 0.01 Employee Gender 1 0.41 0.52 0.00 Time 1 0.00 0.95 0.00 Employee Gender X Time 1 *4.67 0.03 0.04   77  Table 4.11 Social Dominance Orientation, Study 2   Empathy Assurance Perceptions Service Encounter Overall Quality Model Variables B t (sig) B t (sig) B t (sig) B t (sig) B t (sig) 1 Participant Gender -0.02 -0.30 -0.08 -0.90 -0.07 -0.79 -0.02 -.21 -0.01 -0.18 Participant Age 0.06 0.64 0.04 0.43 -0.07 -0.77 -0.14 -1.54 -0.06 -0.69 Participant Ethnicity -0.00 -0.03 -0.11 -1.24 -0.11 -1.25 -0.07 -.77 -0.07 -0.80 2 Employee Gender -0.02 -0.24 -0.07 -0.79 -0.10 -1.14 -0.12 -1.31 -0.05 -0.61 Time 0.09 0.98 -0.03 -0.33 -0.01 -0.09 -0.02 -.29 -0.01 -0.10 SDO 0.11 1.10 -0.02 -0.23 -0.03 -0.39 -0.02 -.20 -0.03 -0.30 3 Employee Gender X SDO -0.25 -0.83 -0.12 -0.38 -0.29 -0.97 -0.42 -1.38 -0.25 -0.81 Time X SDO -0.40 -1.39 0.15 0.53 -0.11 -0.38 0.07 .26 0.08 0.27 Employee Gender X Time -0.38 -2.36 -0.28 -1.69 -0.31 -1.87 -0.29 -1.78 -0.36 -2.19 4 Time X Employee Gender X SDO -0.15 -0.28 -0.87 -1.64 -1.14 -2.18 -0.75 -1.43 -0.78 -1.46              ** Social Dominance Orientation (SDO)      78  Table 4.12 Modern Sexism, Study 2   Empathy Assurance Perceptions Service Encounter Overall Quality Model Variables B t (sig) B t (sig) B t (sig) B t (sig) B t (sig) 1 Participant Gender -0.02 -0.30 -.08 -0.90 -0.07 -0.79 -0.02 -0.21 -0.01 -0.18 Participant Age 0.06 0.64 .04 0.43 -0.07 -0.77 -0.14 -1.54 -.06 -0.69 Participant Ethnicity -0.00 -0.03 -.11 -1.24 -0.11 -1.25 -0.07 -0.77 -0.07 -0.80 2 Employee Gender -0.02 -0.26 -.08 -0.93 -0.11 -1.26 -0.12 -1.37 -0.06 -0.70 Time 0.08 0.92 -.03 -0.32 -0.00 -0.07 -0.02 -0.28 -0.01 -0.08 MS 0.16 1.69 .16 1.72 0.12 1.27 0.05 .62 0.09 0.94 3 Employee Gender X Time -0.35 -2.16 -.27 -1.71 -0.30 -1.89 -0.29 -0.84 -0.36 -0.22 Time X MS -0.23 -0.66 -.18 -0.54 -0.26 -0.77 -0.26 -1.63 0.13 0.38 Employee Gender X MS 0.04 .12 -.14 -0.42 -0.20 -0.59 -0.42 -1.24 -0.17 -0.50 4 Time X Employee Gender X MS 0.19 0.32 -.07 -0.11 0.23 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.77 1.25          ** Modern Sexism (MS)79  Table 4.13 Means and Standard Deviations of customer satisfaction for male and female employee by condition  Condition 3-Minute time limit Unlimited Time Gender Mean SD N Mean SD N  Perceptions about Company Male 5.58 1.27 31 6.00 1.30 29 Female 6.17 0.91 29 5.83 1.11 30  Service Encounter Satisfaction Male 5.29 1.30 31 5.76 1.43 29 Female 5.93 1.13 29 5.67 1.24 30  Overall Quality of service Male 5.84 1.19 31 6.28 0.99 29 Female 6.34 0.76 29 5.97 1.19 30  Empathy Male 5.77 0.94 31 5.98 0.91 29 Female 6.19 0.80 29 5.63 1.19 30  Assurance Male 5.87 1.04 31 6.18 0.85 29 Female 6.24 0.83 29 6.03 0.73 30 80  Table 4.14 Descriptive Statistics, and Correlations, Study 3     M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1. Empathy 2.66 1.31 1              2. Assurance 2.40 1.31 .76 ** 1             3.Responsiveness 2.60 1.37 .87 ** .86 ** 1            4. Reliability 2.32 1.38 .82 ** .89 ** .89 ** 1           5. Tangibles 3.67 1.23 .41 ** .35 ** .39 ** .31 ** 1          6. Satisfaction Service encounter 1.83 1.24 .67 ** .71 ** .78 ** .74 ** .25 * 1         7.  Company Perceptions  2.28 1.23 .71 ** .75 ** .80 ** .80 ** .38 ** .77 ** 1        8. Company Expectation 2.65 1.27 .46 ** .42 ** .50 ** .48 ** .44 ** .50 ** .51 ** 1       9.  Company Recommendation 2.14 1.22 .68 ** .67 ** .74 ** .67 ** .49 ** .71 ** .70 ** .57 ** 1      10. Employee Gender .50 .50 -.34 ** -.28 ** -.31 ** -.27 ** -.22 ** -.28 ** -.27 ** -.13 -.27 ** 1     11. Financial Incentive .50 .50 -.02 .03 -.00 -.00 .06 .00 .03 -.01 .07 .05 1    12. Participant Gender .41 .49 .12 .11 .14 .11 .16 .02 .05 -.02 -.03 -.18 .04 1   13.  Participant Ethnicity .48 .50 .08 -.06 .06 -.06 .19 .03 .08 *.21 .13 .05 -.06 .05 1  14. Participant Age 19.50 1.29 .01 .02 .04 .06 .00 .01 .02 -.01 -.05 -.04 .02 .08 -.04 1 All intercorrelations are based on listwise deletion and are significant at the p<.01 (2-tailed) level and 0.05 level (2-tailed).  **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).  *.   Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).  For Financial Incentive condition, 1= “Money received $5”; 0= “No money $0”; n=112. For the Gender video condition, 1= “Male video”; 0= “Female video”. For Participant Ethnicity, 0= “White”; 1= “Non-white”. For Participant gender, 1= “Male”; 0= “Female”.  81  Table 4.15 Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Mean Tangibles Variables df F Sig. Partial 2 Participant Gender 1 1.10 0.29 0.01 Participant Age 1 0.01 0.91 0.00 Participant Ethnicity 1 2.78 0.09 0.03 Employee Gender 1 2.91 0.09 0.03 Financial Incentive 1 0.93 0.33 0.01 Employee Gender X Financial Incentive 1 0.01 0.92 0.00  Mean Perceptions Variables df F Sig. Partial 2 Participant Gender 1 .12 0.72 0.00 Participant Age 1 0.03 0.85 0.00 Participant Ethnicity 1 0.05 0.81 0.00 Employee Gender 1 8.59 0.00 0.08 Financial Incentive 1 0.14 0.70 0.00 Employee Gender X Financial Incentive 1 1.99 0.16 0.02  Satisfaction Service Encounter Variables df F Sig. Partial 2 Participant Gender 1 0.02 0.88 0.00 Participant Age 1 0.02 0.87 0.00 Participant Ethnicity 1 0.05 0.82 0.00 Employee Gender 1 8.65 0.00 0.08 Financial Incentive 1 0.01 0.90 0.00 Employee Gender X Financial Incentive 1 0.52 0.47 0.01    82  Table 4.16 Means and Standard Deviations of customer satisfaction for male and female employee by condition  Condition $5 $0 Gender Mean SD N Mean SD N  Empathy Male 2.22 0.90 27 2.29 1.20 25 Female 3.13 1.42 25 3.08 1.43 26  Assurance Male 2.59 1.08 27 2.36 1.25 25 Female 2.69 1.19 26 2.93 1.52 27  Tangibles Male 3.49 1.15 27 3.30 1.22 25 Female 4.02 1.27 25 3.84 1.20 27  Perceptions Male 2.19 0.87 27 1.69 0.72 26 Female 2.24 1.24 26 2.75 1.65 28  Satisfaction service encounter Male 1.56 0.89 27 1.40 0.71 25 Female 2.12 1.34 26 2.22 1.65 27  83   Figure 3.1 Conceptual Model         84   Figure 3.2 An Overview of Social Dominance Theory Adapted from Sidanius & Pratto (2011) 85     Figure 4.1 Mean satisfaction ratings of male and female employee, Study 1 86    Figure 4.2 Mean satisfaction ratings of male and female employee, Study 2 87     Figure 4.3 Mean satisfaction ratings of male and female employee, Study 3  88  Bibliography  Abualsamh, R. A., Carlin, B. & McDaniel, J. R. R. (1990). Problem structuring heuristics in strategic decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 45, 159-174. doi:10.1016/0749-5978 (90)90009-X  Aguinis, H., & Stone-Romero, E. F. (1997). Methodological artifacts in moderated multiple            regression and their effects on statistical power. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82,            192–206. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.1.192 Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting  interactions. Newbury Park: Sage.  Allport G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.  Argo, J. J., Dahl, D. W., & Morales, A. C. (2009). Positive consumer contamination:  Responses to attractive others in a retail context. Journal of Marketing Research, 45, 690–701. doi:10.1509/jmkr.45.6.690 Auditor General Alberta. (1998). Client satisfaction surveys. Retrieved from http://www.oag.ab.ca/webfiles/other/clientsatisfaction.pdf Babin, B. J. & Boles, J. S. (1998). Employee behaviour in a service environment: A model and test of potential differences between men and women. Journal of Marketing, 62(2), 77-91. doi:10.2307/1252162 Bacon, L. (2013). Women in tech and empathy work. Retrieved from http://www.laurenbacon.com/women-tech-empathy-work/ Barker, C. (2005). Cultural studies: Theory and practice. Thousands Oaks, CA: SAGE             Publications. Barry, M. G., Barbara, A. G., Jordan, H. S., & Kyle, L. (2006). Employment discrimination 89  in organizations: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Management, 32(6), 786-830. doi:10.1177/0149206306293544 Becker, G. S. (1957). The economics of discrimination. Chicago: Chicago University Press. Bell, M. P., McLaughlin, M. E., & Sequeira, J. M. (2002). Discrimination, harassment, and           the glass ceiling: Women executives as change agents. Journal of Business Ethics,             37, 65-76. Retrieved from   http://www.jstor.org/stable/25074733 Ben Zur, H., & Breznitz, S. J. (1981). The effects of time pressure on risky choice behavior. Ada Psychologica, 47, 89-104. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(81)90001-9 Benokraitis, V. N., & Feagin, R. J. (1986). Modern Sexism: Blatant, Subtle, and Covert Discrimination. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bitner, M. J. (1992). Services capes: The impact of physical surroundings on customers and   employees. Journal of Marketing, 56, 57-71. doi:10.2307/1252042 Birnbaum, M. H. (1999). A survey of faculty opinions concerning student evaluations of teaching. The Senate Forum, 14(1), 19–22. Retrieved from  http://psych.fullerton.edu/mbirnbaum/faculty3.htm Bojanic, D. & Rosen, D. (1994). Measuring service quality in restaurants: An  application of the SERVQUAL instrument. Hospitality Research Journal, 18(1), 3-14. doi:10.1177/109634809401800102  Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. London             Routledge. 90  Bracken, D. W., Church, A. H., & Timmreck, C. W. (2001). Handbook of multisource feedback: The comprehensive resource for designing and implementing MSF processes. New York: Jossey-Bass. Bradshaw, J. (2013, February 02). UBC gives all female tenure-stream faculty a 2 per cent raise. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/education/ubc-gives-all-female tenure-stream-faculty-a-2-per-cent-raise/article8150659 Butler, D., & Geis, F. L. (1990). Nonverbal affect responses to male and female leaders: Implications for leadership evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 48– 59. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.58.1.48 Catalyst Report. (2013). Women's earnings and income. Retrieved from: http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/womens-earnings-and-income Catalyst Report. (2014). Statistical overview of women in the workplace. Retrieved from http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/statistical-overview-women workplace#footnote8_tgin1ia Christensen-Szalanski, J. J. (1980). A further examination of the selection of problem  solving strategies: The effects of deadlines and analytic aptitudes. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25, 107-122. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(80)90028-8 Cool, J. (2010). Wage gap between women and men. Retrieved from:  http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/2010-30-e.htm#txt2 Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled           components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5– 18.            doi:10.1037/0022-3514.56.1.5 91  Dipboye, R. L., Fromkin, H. L., & Wiback, K. (1975). Relative importance of applicant sex,           attractiveness, and scholastic standing in evaluation of job applicant resumes. Journal           of Applied Psychology, 60 (1), 39-43. doi:10.1037/h0076352 Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (1983). The effects of sex, status, and ability on helping behaviour. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 13, 191-205. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1983.tb01734.x Dovidio, J. F., Brigham, J. C., Johnson, B. T., & Gaertner, S. L. (1996). Stereotyping,  prejudice, and discrimination: Another look. In N. Macrae, C. Stangor, & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Foundations of stereotypes and stereotyping (pp. 276–319). New York: Guilford. Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2000). Aversive racism and selection decisions: 1989 and 1999. Psychological Science, 11, 315-319.  doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00262 Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2004). Aversive racism. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in  experimental social psychology (pp. 1 – 52). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of             women and men into social roles. Journal of personality and social psychology, 46,             735-754. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.46.4.735 Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice female leaders.             Psychological Review, 109, 573-598. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573 Eagly, A. H., & Koenig, A. M. (2008). Gender prejudice: On the risks of occupying Incongruent roles. In E. Borgida & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Beyond common sense:           Psychological science in the courtroom (pp. 63–82). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Fiske, S. T. (1998). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, 92  & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 357-411).  New York: McGraw-Hill. Forsyth, D. R. (2009). Group dynamics. New York: Wadsworth. Frey, D. L., & Gaertner, S. L. (1986). Helping and the avoidance of inappropriate interracial behaviour: A Strategy that perpetuates a non-prejudiced self-image. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 1083-1090. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.6.1083 Gaertner, S. L. (1973). Helping behaviour and racial discrimination among liberals and conservatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 335-341. doi:10.1037/h0034221 Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1986). The aversive form of racism. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 61–89). Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., & Kahneman, D. (2002). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment. New York: Cambridge University Press.  Glick, P, & Fiske, S.T. (2007). Sex discrimination: The psychological approach. In Crosby, J. F., Stockdale, S. M., & Ropp, A. S. (Ed.), Sex discrimination in the workplace (pp. 154-187). UK: Blackwell. Glover, M. S. (1997). The Influence of time pressure and accountability on auditors' processing of nondiagnostic information. Journal of Accounting Research, 35(2), 213-226. doi:10.2307/2491361 Hagan, C. M., Konopaske, R., Bernardin, H. J., & Tyler, C. L. (2006). Predicting assessment  center performance with 360-degree, top-down, and customer-based competency       assessments. Human Resource Management, 45, 357-390. doi:10.1002/hrm.20117 93  Hekman, R. D., Owens, P. B., Aquino, K., Leavitt, K., Schilpz, P., & Mitchell, R. T. (2010). An examination of whether and how racial and gender biases influence customer satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 53, 238–264. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2010.49388763 Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., & Martell, R. (1995). Sex stereotypes: Do they influence  perceptions of managers. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10, 237-252. Retrieved from http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1996-35718-001 Heilman, M. E. (2001). Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent            women's ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 657-674.              doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00234 Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage Publications. Jacobson, M. & Effertz, J. (1974). Sex roles and leadership: Perceptions of the leaders and            the led. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 12, 383-396.            doi:10.1016/0030-5073(74)90059-2 Jarrell, S. B., & Stanley, T. D. (2004). Declining bias and gender wage discrimination?  A meta-regression analysis. Journal of Human Resources, 39, 828-838. doi:10.2307/3558999 Lawler, S. (2011). Habitus. Retrieved from           http://knowledge.sagepub.com/view/consumerculture/n258.xml MacIntosh, J. (1987). Employment discrimination: An economic perspective.  Ottawa Law Review, 19, 275-319. Retrieved from  http://C:/Users/62379110/Downloads/v19n2_J.G.%20MacIntosh.pdf 94  Major, B., Quinton, W. J., & McCoy, S.K. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of attributions to discrimination: theoretical and empirical advances. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, (pp. 251–330). San Diego, CA: Academic. Martin, R. L. (2011). Fixing the game: Bubbles, crashes, and what capitalism can learn from the NFL. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press. Maule, A. J., & Mackie, P. (1990). A componential investigation of the effects of deadlines on individual decision making. In K. Borcherding, O. I. Larichev, & D. M. Messick. (Eds.), Contemporary issues in decision making. Amsterdam: North-Holland. Mohr, L. A., & Henson, S. W. (1996). Impact of employee gender and job congruency of customer satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 5, 161-187. doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp0502_04    Navarro, Z. (2006). In Search of cultural interpretation of power: The contribution of Pierre Bourdieu, IDS Bulletin, 37, 11-22. doi:10.1111/j.1759-5436.2006.tb00319.x Nieva, V. & Gutek, B. (1980). Sex effects on evaluation. Academy of Management Review, 5, 267-276. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/257436 Nyeck, S., Morales, M., Ladhari, R., & Pons, F. (2002). 10 years of service quality  measurement: Reviewing the use of the SERVQUAL instrument. Cuadernos de Diffusion, 7, 101-107. Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=983cd44d-5e32-4c9f-ac29-1ebabd4125cf%40sessionmgr114&vid=9&hid=106 Oakley, J. G. (2000). Gender-based barriers to senior management positions: Understanding 95  the scarcity of female CEOs. Journal of Business Ethics, 27(4), 3213-3234. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25074386 Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A. & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64, 12-40. Retrieved from http://web.a.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=0bf3572a-0d8c-4b60-813b-6ae263fb4d45%40sessionmgr4005&vid=13&hid=4201 Payne, J. W. (1982). Contingent decision behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 382-402. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.92.2.382 Payne, J., Bettman, J., & Johnson, E. (1988). Adaptive strategy selection in decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 14, 534-552. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.14.3.534 Pendakur, K., & Pendakur, R. (2011). Colour by numbers: Minority earnings in Canada 1996 2006. RIIM Working Paper No. 11-15. Vancouver: Research on Immigration and Integration in the Metropolis. Pratto, F., Stallworth, L. M., & Sidanius, J. (1997). The gender gap: Differences in political attitudes and social dominance orientation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 49 – 68. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1997.tb01118.x Pratto, F., Sidanius, J. & Levin, S. (2006). Social dominance theory and the dynamics of intergroup relations: Taking stock and looking forward. European Review of Social Psychology, 17, 271–320. doi:10.1080/10463280601055772 Pratto, F., & Stewart, A. L. (2012). Group dominance and the half-blindness of privilege. Journal of Social Issues, 68, 28 – 45. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01734.x Pugh, S. D., Dietz, J., Wiley, J. W., & Brooks, S. M. (2002). Driving service effectiveness 96  through employee customer linkages. Academy of Management Executive, 16, 73-84. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4165904 Purkiss, S. K. S., Perrewe, P. K., Gillespie, T. L., Mayes, B. T. & Ferris, G. R. (2006). Implicit sources of bias in employment interview judgments and decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decisions Processes, 101, 152-67. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.06.005 Ridgeway, C. L., & England, P. (2007). Sociological approaches to sex discrimination in           employment. In Crosby, F. J., Stockdale, M. S., & Ropp, A. S. Oxford (Ed.), Sex discrimination in the workplace: Multidisciplinary perspectives. UK: Blackwell. Saleh, F., & Ryan, C. (1991). Analyzing service quality in the hospitality industry using the SERVQUAL model. Services Industries Journal, 11(3), 324-343. doi:10.1080/02642069100000049 Sczesny, S. (2003). A closer look beneath the surface: Various facets of the think-manager think male stereotype. Sex Roles, 49, 353-363. doi:10.1023/A:1025112204526 Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi  experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton  Mifflin. Shah, A. (2010). Women’s rights. Global Issues. Retrieved from http://www.globalissues.org/article/166/womens-rights Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., & Bobo, L. (1994). Social dominance orientation and the political  psychology of gender: A case of invariance? Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 67, 998 – 1011. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.998 97  Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., & Brief, D. (1995). Group dominance and the political psychology of gender: A cross-cultural comparison. Political Psychology, 16, 381 – 396. doi:10.2307/3791836 Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social Dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sidanius, J., & Veniegas, R. C. (2000). Gender and race discrimination: The interactive            nature of disadvantage. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination: The claremont symposium on applied social psychology (pp. 47 – 69).              Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Sidanius, J., Levin, S., van Laar. C., & Sears, D. (2006). The dynamics of social identity and intergroup relations on campus. New York: Russell Sage.  Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (2011). Social Dominance Theory. In P. A. Van Lange., A. W. Kruglanski., & E. T. Higgins. (Eds.), Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology (pp. 418-438).  Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage. Smith, J. F., Mitchell, T. R. & Beach, L. R. (1982). A cost-benefit mechanism for selecting problem solving strategies: Some extensions and empirical tests. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 29, 370-396. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(82)90251-3 Statistics Canada. (2010). Retrieved from            http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/21-006-x/2012001/finding-resultats-eng.htm Statistics Canada. (2013). Gender differences in science, technology, engineering, mathematics and computer science (STEM) programs at university. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/75-006-x/2013001/article/11874-eng.htm Stockdale, M. S. & Nadler, J. T. (2012).  Workplace gender bias: Not just between 98  strangers. North American Journal of Psychology, 14, 281-292. doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp0502_04 Swim, J. K., & Cohen, L. L. (1997). Overt, covert, and subtle sexism: A comparison between the attitudes toward women and Modern Sexism scales. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 103- 118. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00103.x Trentham, S. & Larwood, L. (1998). Gender Discrimination and the Workplace: An Examination of Rational Bias Theory. Sex Roles, 38‚ 1-28. doi:10.1023/A:1018782226876 Turner, J. C., & Reynolds, K. J. (2003). Why social dominance theory has been falsified.  Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 199 – 206. doi:10.1348/014466603322127184 World Economic Forum. (2013). The global gender gap report. Retrieved from: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_GenderGap_Report_2013.pdf Wacquant, L. (2005). Habitus. International Encyclopedia of Economic Sociology, 315-319. Retrieved from http://www.powercube.net/other-forms-of-power/bourdieu-and-habitus/ Wright, P. L. (1974). The harassed decision maker: Time pressures, distraction, and the use  evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 555-561. doi:10.1037/h0037186 Zakay, D. (1985). Post-decisional confidence and conflict experienced in a choice process.            Acta Psychologica, 58, 75-80. doi:10.1016/0001-6918(85)90035-6  -----------------------------   99  Appendices Appendix A: Questionnaires: Qualtrics Participants, Study 1 Part A     Response    Questions Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree 1. This is a very strong candidate for the position.       2. The candidate’s skills are appropriate for the new  position.       3. The candidate will manage the customers with care and patience.       4. The candidate has good communication skills and clearly communicates with customers.       5. The candidate will successfully perform his or her responsibilities as a supervisor.       6. This candidate will be a dedicated supervisor.       7. The candidate’s experience with Calling Care Inc. will be valuable for the new role.       8. The candidate had in-depth knowledge for addressing customer problems.       9. This candidate will be a good team player.       10. The candidate is suitable for promotion.         100  Part B         Response       Questions Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree 1. Adverse comments from customers should be an important factor for evaluating a candidate’s expertise.        Part C        Response       Questions Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree 1.  The promotion procedures used by the Calling Care Company are up-to-date and effective.       2. The promotion dossier helps to recognize the competence of the candidate for promotion.       3. The Calling Care Company does a good job of training staff.       4. The customer service of the company is great.       5. Calling Care Company meets customers’ expectations.          101  Part D         Response       Questions Definitely would not      Definitely would 1. If you were the manager, would you select the candidate for promotion?           102  Appendix B: Questionnaires: Social dominance Scale SDO Scale Questions Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree 1. Some groups of people are simply inferior to other groups.       2. In getting what you want, it is sometimes necessary to use force against other groups.       3. It’s OK if some groups have more of a chance in life than others.       4. To get ahead in life, it is sometimes necessary to step on other groups.       5. If certain groups stayed in their place, we would have fewer problems.       6. It’s probably a good thing that certain groups are at the top and other groups are at the bottom.       7. Inferior groups should stay in their place.       8. Sometimes other groups must be kept in their place.       9. It would be good if groups could be equal.       10. Group equality should be our ideal.       11. All groups should be given an equal chance in life.       12. We should do what we can to equalize conditions for different groups.       13. Increased social equality is beneficial to society.       14. We would have fewer problems if we treated people more equally.       15. We should strive to make incomes as equal as possible.       16. No group should dominate in society.       103  Appendix C: Questionnaires: Modern Sexism Scale Modern Sexism Scale         Response       Questions Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree 1. Discrimination against women is still a problem in Canada.       2. Women often miss out on good jobs due to sexual discrimination.       3. It is rare to see women treated in a sexist manner on television.       4. On average, people in our society treat husband and wives equally.       5. Society has reached the point where women and men have equal opportunities for achievement.       6. This candidate will be a dedicated supervisor.       7. It is easy to understand the anger of women's groups in Canada.       8. Over the past few years, the government and news media have been showing more concern about the treatment of women than is warranted by women’s actual experiences.          104  Appendix D: Study 2 Questions: Qualtrics Participants Empathy         Response       Questions Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree 1.  The service provider gave customers individual attention.       2. The service provider had his or her customer’s best interests at heart.       3. The service provider understood the specific needs of his or her customers.       4. The service provider was patient with the  customer        Assurance         Response       Questions Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree 1. The service provider had the knowledge to answer customer’s questions.       2. The service provider was consistently courteous with customer.       3. The behavior of the service provider instilled confidence in the customer.        105  Responsiveness of the service provider         Response       Questions Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree 1. The service provider gave the customer prompt    Service.       2. The service provider was willing to help the customer.       3. The service provider communicated to the customer clearly during the service encounter.       4. The service provider was responsive to customer’s issues         Reliability of the service provider         Response       Questions Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree 1. The service provider showed a sincere interest in solving customer problem.       2. The service provider was reliable.       3. The service provider had good knowledge about the      solution to the customer problem.         106  Satisfaction with the service encounter         Response       Questions Not at all Satisfied     Somewhat Extremely Satisfied   Satisfied 1. To what extent you would feel satisfied if you were the customer?        Overall quality of service         Response       Questions Extremely Poor     Neither good nor Poor   Extremely Good 1. How would you rate the overall quality of service provided by the service provider?        Perceptions about the Company         Response       Questions Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree 1. The company care about the customer service.       2. The company effectively trains its employees.          107  Appendix E: Study 3 Questions: SONA participants Tangibles         Response       Questions Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree 1. The bookstore has modern looking equipment.       2. This bookstore’s physical facilities are visually appealing.       3. Environment of the bookstore was conductive to learning.       4. The appearance of this bookstore is in keeping with the type of service provided.       5. The bookstore is neat appearing.         108  Appendix F: Study on Customer Evaluation Rating, Female Employee Promotion Study Organizations have different strategies for recruiting or promoting the right person for the right job to ensure longer tenure for the individual and greater effectiveness for the organization. An organization may have all of the modern technology and up-to-date equipment; however, without the right personnel it may fail to accomplish its required goals. For instance, if an engineer designs a module that fails and needs to be re-structured, the organization simultaneously loses time and money. Therefore, appointing the right person in the right place is extremely important for an organization as it enhances productivity and boosts morale. However, often managers or organizational experts who take recruitment or promotion decisions may be too-much of insiders and focus narrowly on a particular set of skills. For instance, such decision makers may prioritize technical skills of a candidate for promotion but might put less emphasis on the critical ability to work well in a team. Thus, in this study, I will examine how independent individuals review a candidate’s competence and proficiency for promotion. Specifically, whether there exists any difference between evaluations of organizational decision-makers and independent individuals in promotion decisions. As this phenomenon has not been examined in a scientific way, I am undertaking this study to develop my understanding of the reasons for disparities between organizational decision-makers and independent individuals in assessing candidates for promotion. The study will involve a promotion decision for a candidate based on his or her performance. One part of the study will involve the review of a candidate’s confidential promotion dossier. For the second part, you are being requested to provide your evaluation ratings of the candidate for promotion. Your co-operation is extremely important in terms of enhancing scientific 109  understanding of the reasons for differences in evaluations between independent observers and organizational insiders, and taking this exercise may advance your knowledge in this area. The exercise consists of several parts, each with its own set of instructions. In the first part, you will be given a promotion dossier containing candidate’s resume, cover-letter, and monthly performance ratings tally. In addition, you will be provided confidential documents regarding appreciation letters and adverse statements from clients. After you have analysed the promotion dossier of the candidate, in the next part you will be requested to provide your evaluation of the candidate.  Afterwards you will be asked few questions about yourself and demographics. Your careful attention for conducting the evaluation independently is appreciated. Please be as honest as possible in answering each of the questions asked. We are concerned to understand your true and honest feelings. Thank you very much for your co-operation. Please (1) read the instructions very carefully (2) complete the exercise independently.             110  Promotion Dossiers Now we start the exercise. Please carefully review the promotion dossier of Karen Thomason. The promotion dossier contains candidate’s:  I. Resume II. Cover-letter III. Recent performance ratings IV. Appreciation letters  V. Adverse statements from clients   111  Karen Thomason APT# 320, 101 Victoria Avenue British Columbia, Canada Karen@gmail.com (250) 4482935  EDUCATION:  Heritage Christian High School, Kelowna G.P.A 3.3, 2009 Bow Valley College, Calgary, Alberta Customer Service Certification 2010  EMPLOYMENT HISTORY:  January 2011-Present                 Customer Care Representative                    Calling Care, Inc.       ● Maintaining national and regional customer relationships in order to contribute a greater customer satisfaction ● Communicating with customers regarding price and product specifications ● Interfacing with vendors on pricing, product availability, damaged products, buy-backs, and special orders ● Working closely with operations on product awareness   ● Anticipating problems and needs of the customers ● Liaison between customers’ requirements and organizational goals ● Managing and solve technical problems ● Maintaining confidentiality of the company information  ● Good interpersonal skills  RELEVANT SKILLS AND QUALIFICATIONS:  CUSTOMER SERVICE ● Recognize the significance of putting the customer first and striving for customer satisfaction ● Experience handling difficult situations, tight deadlines, and unexpected customer requests ● Strong ability to multitask and prioritize to meet customer and organizational demands  ● Aptitude to handle multiple calls in stressful environment ● Provide assistance to customers and employees   TECHNICAL SKILLS  Solid abilities in Microsoft office tools and associated operating systems.   References Available Upon Request  112  Cover letter           Karen Thomason                                                                                           (250)- 4482935                                                                               APT# 320, 101 Victoria Avenue                                                                                             Dear Mr. Lahay, I am pleased to present my resume & application for the supervisory position in the customer service department. As you are aware, I have expertise and 3 years experience within the company. I believe this experience will make me a competitive candidate for this exciting supervisory position. The key strengths that I possess for being successful in this position include,   Provide exceptional customer service for all clients.  Good interpersonal skills  Strong communication skills  Analytical and assessment skills   I have many accomplishments within the customer care environment. I am committed to our customers and always ensure the highest level of service. My 3 years experiences with the company give me the ability and experience to handle a variety of customer contexts with confidence while meeting the organizational expectations of excellence.  I am confident about effectively performing in the supervisory role.   I appreciate your considering me for the position and I look forward to discussing this opportunity for promotion with you at your convenience.   Sincerely Yours,  Karen Thomason  This part of the study contains highly confidential information regarding the candidate.         113  Performance review of Karen Thomason Employee Name: Karen Thomason Employee ID: 12102 Organizational Level: Support Reviewer Name: David Lahay Date of Review: October 1, 2013  Quality of work:  Quantity of work: Work is performed accurately and carefully. Work is consistent, through, and complete. Comments □ Outstanding □ Exceeds Expectations □ Meets Expectations □ Improvement Needed □ Unacceptable □ Not Applicable   Meets Expectations. Amount of work performed on a daily basis is appropriate for the job function. Comments □ Outstanding □ Exceeds Expectations □ Meets Expectations □ Improvement Needed □ Unacceptable □ Not Applicable   Improvement Needed. 114  Job Knowledge:   Recent Feedback from Customers & Ratings:  Job Code Name Location Current grade Monthly Average Positive Feedback (clients) Monthly Average Adverse Feedback (clients) Last performance Rating Average last performance ratings of all  customer service representatives EC-0028 Karen Thomason Kelowna, BC 7/10 Four Five 3/5 3.2/5  Understands the job requirements and has specific content knowledge where appropriate Comments □ Outstanding □ Exceeds Expectations □ Meets Expectations □ Improvement Needed □ Unacceptable □ Not Applicable   Meets Expectations. 115   Appreciation letters from clients sent directly to the Representative  Calling Care Inc. 2891 Harvey Avenue Phone: (250) 604-1234 14th September, 2013  Dear Karen,  Please accept my thanks and gratitude for providing excellent service on 13th September, 2013. Your dedication for helping a client portrays a positive image for the organization and ensures customer loyalty. Wish your success in life.  Sincerely yours,  Mr. Alex Marten …………………………  Appreciation letters from clients sent to the Manager Calling Care Inc. 2891 Harvey Avenue Phone: (250) 604-1234 10th August, 2013  Dear Manager,  I called your company’s customer care line on 6th August, 2013. I was helped by one of your employee name Karen Thomason. She was fantastic and helped me to solve the problems and answered all my stupid questions regarding the issue. As well, she patiently tolerated my incensed comments. Because of Karen and her exceptional customer service, I'll definitely continue to use you services and recommend your company to my friends and family.   Thanks,  Mrs. Christina Peter  116   Adverse letters from clients sent to the Manager Calling Care Inc. 2891 Harvey Avenue Phone: (250) 604-1234 19th June, 2013  Dear Manager,  I am writing this letter to inform you of a frustrating and negative experience with one of your customer care representative name Karen Thomason on 17th June 2013.  First of all, I don’t blame you for my bad experience as you were not present on that day, but I am still upset about the situation. I am not tech-savvy so I called your company to help me with the software installation. . Despite informing the representative of my limited knowledge, the representative did not help me properly and actually hung-up the phone. I found this behavior to be extremely inappropriate. I was quite upset by the situation. I feel very disappointed and I expect that that management should review my complaint and take initiatives to train employees to ensure such inappropriate responses do not happen in the future.  Yours,  Margaret Hopkinson --------------------------  Adverse letters from clients sent to the Manager Manager                                                         Calling Care Inc. 2891 Harvey Avenue Phone: (250) 604-1234  Dear Manager,  I am writing today to complain of the poor service which I received from your employee on 21st September, 2013. I called your company to learn about a particular product but unfortunately the representative name Karen Thomason kept explaining about some other product. I repeatedly tried to ask Karen about the specific product I was interested in, but for some reason she just talked about products which I was not interested in. 117  I believe this is not the way that Calling Care Company should conduct business with interested customers. I have been with this company since it was founded and never had such an experience before. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter further. I would look forward to hearing from you soon.  Yours Faithfully, Jim Korkell 23rd September, 2013 Jim_korkell@yahoo.com ------------------------  Adverse letters from clients sent to the Manager Calling Care Inc. 2891 Harvey Avenue Phone: (250) 604-1234  30th July, 2013  Hello Manager,  On 28th July, I called your company to learn about LD software. I found the call center agent was not so responsive and disinterested in my questions. I remember her name is Karen Thomason. I am disappointed and I expect better service from the agent and your company.   Best,  Deepak Chopra  118  Appendix G: Study on Customer Evaluation Rating, Male Employee In our Study 1, we created two identical promotion dossier of the employee. The dossier was only be differentiated by candidate’s name and gender.  Participants were randomly assigned to assess either female employee Karen Thomason or male employee John Martin. Like Karen Thomason (Appendix F), the promotion dossier of John Martin also contained candidate’s resume, cover-letter, recent performance ratings, and appreciation letters / adverse statements from clients.   119     Appendix H: Email Service Encounter, Female Employee Now we start the exercise. You will examine an online service encounter between a customer and a service provider. Please carefully review the Email.   Service provided to a customer over Email by the service provider From: Matthew Wilson Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2013 9.15 AM To: support@softtech.com Subject: Software Installation Support  Hello,  My name is Matthew Wilson and I am a new client with Software Tech. Recently, I purchased your software and I am having some difficulty installing the software on my computer. Do you have any software installation manual/template?   I would appreciate an early response.  Cheers, Matthew Matthew Wilson, MD, PhD  Gastroenterologist Phone- (416) 2140306 Email: mwils@gmail.com  -----Original Message----- RE: Software Installation Support From: Karen@softtech.com Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2013 9.25 AM  Hello Dr. Matthew,  Good morning. My name is Karen Thomason and I will help you out with the software installation. There are three steps you need to go through to access the software installation manual. Below, I have provided a link to the first step:   www.softwaretech.com/software/installaation/manual.pdf  When you click on the link above you will be asked to provide a username and password. Please use the following username and password to log on our secure website- Username: softtech, Password: install. Then it will take you to a secure page where you will see a button 120  for software installation manual on the top left hand of the page. Please click on the button and then enter your personal username and password provided to you in the purchase invoice. This will take you to our software installation manual. If you have any further difficulties please do not hesitate to contact me.   Karen Karen Thomason  Support Analyst Soft-Tech Inc. Office: (604) 2923134  Email: Karen@softtech.com  -----Original Message----- RE: Software Installation Support From: mwils@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2013 9.45 AM  Hello Karen,  Thank you for providing me the details to access the installation manual. Just to let you know that I am not computer savvy. I followed your instruction but I am unable to access the software installation manual. I don’t see any button for the software installation guide on the website. This is getting little frustrating.  Matthew Matthew Wilson, MD, PhD  Gastroenterologist Phone- (416) 2140306 Email: mwils@gmail.com  -----Original Message----- RE: Software Installation Support From: Karen@softtech.com Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2013 10.45 AM  Hello Dr. Matthew,  I am sorry you are unable to access the software installation guide. I have created a step by step documentation with some screenshot to access the software installation manual. Please click on the attachment and just follow the steps. If you have any problems please feel free to email me. Hope it will work this time.  Good luck!   121  Karen Thomason  Support Analyst Soft-Tech Inc. Office: (604) 2923134  Email: Karen@softtech.com  -----Original Message----- RE: Software Installation Support From: mwils@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2013 12.00 PM  Hello Karen,  Thanks for sending me the document with the screenshots. That was quite helpful. I was able to install the software successfully. I am now trying to get familiar with the software. However, I am unable to find the “search” option. Does the software have a search option?   Cheers, Matthew Matthew Wilson, MD, PhD  Gastroenterologist Phone- (416) 2140306 Email: mwils@gmail.com  -----Original Message----- RE: Software Installation Support From: Karen@softtech.com Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2013 2.45 PM  Hello Dr. Matthew,  Thank you for the email. I am really happy to know that the software installation went well. The search box option is not a default option and has to be activated. Please read my previous email once again containing the screenshots, you will find the search option. Otherwise, you may go through the manual once again.    Karen Karen Thomason  Support Analyst Soft-Tech Inc. Office: (604) 2923134Email: Karen@softtech.com     122  Appendix I: Email Service Encounter, Male Employee In our Study 2, we created two identical email exchanges that involved an interaction with the employee helping a customer to install a software package. The email was only be differentiated by candidate’s name and gender.  Participants were randomly assigned to evaluate the email service encounter of either female employee Karen Thomason or male employee John Martin. Like Karen Thomason (Appendix H), the email exchange of John Martin also contained the same software installation problem and its solution.                  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0074392/manifest

Comment

Related Items