Gender bias and gender language marks in hiring decision settings: An effect of persistent gender discrimination at work

Considering the persistency of gender prejudices in our societies and the uncertainty of the expected positive effect of non sexist policies, it was posited that, in a non sexist setting, some individuals would apply discursive strategies both to conceal their sexist attitudes and devaluation of women at work. In order to validate this hypothesis, 108 males had to make a decision and to justify the recommendation of male or female applicants with a profile suited or not to the job's requirements. The results validated the expectations regarding several dimensions: male and female applicants with a high profile were more often recommended than low-profiled applicants, but the content analysis of the justification given highlighted the link between the gender category of the applicant and requirements usually demanded at work. Language marks of attractiveness, credibility and dynamism tended to be used more often in the corpus related to male than to female applicants. The results are discussed in terms of sexist routines, double standard in evaluating males and females, and strategies to conceal gender prejudice in the public place.