Graphs

Likert Variables - VS and JF

People were more likely to see women as having higher job fit than men.

## 
##  Welch Two Sample t-test
## 
## data:  dei1_clean$man_jf and dei1_clean$woman_jf
## t = -5.2758, df = 354.68, p-value = 2.306e-07
## alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
##  -0.7986373 -0.3648986
## sample estimates:
## mean of x mean of y 
##  4.335359  4.917127

People were more likely to see women as being worthier of voice solicitation fit than men.

## 
##  Welch Two Sample t-test
## 
## data:  dei1_clean$man_vs and dei1_clean$woman_vs
## t = -4.368, df = 358.13, p-value = 1.644e-05
## alternative hypothesis: true difference in means is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
##  -0.6880583 -0.2608368
## sample estimates:
## mean of x mean of y 
##  4.946133  5.420580

Likert Variables - Considerations

Ordinal Variables

Correlations

Diversity Condition is coded as 1.
Strategy Condition is coded as 0.

Condition With Job Fit and Voice Solicitation

Condition With Considerations

Reliabilities

Voice Solicitation

Women’s Total

Kathleen Total

Jessica Total

Men’s Total

Bill Total

Thomas Total

Job Fit

Women’s Total

Kathleen

Jessica

Men’s Total

Bill

Thomas

Qualifications, Skills, Fit with Committee’s Needs

Factor Analysis

## Parallel analysis suggests that the number of factors =  3  and the number of components =  NA
## 
## Call:
## factanal(x = deipilot1_consideration_fa, factors = 3, rotation = "promax")
## 
## Uniquenesses:
## qualifications         skills fit_with_needs      diversity         gender 
##          0.158          0.436          0.324          0.128          0.299 
##      workloads       standing       interest 
##          0.286          0.472          0.495 
## 
## Loadings:
##                Factor1 Factor2 Factor3
## qualifications  0.919                 
## skills          0.746                 
## fit_with_needs  0.866  -0.106         
## diversity                       0.948 
## gender         -0.145           0.822 
## workloads      -0.138   0.920         
## standing                0.721         
## interest        0.248   0.496   0.155 
## 
##                Factor1 Factor2 Factor3
## SS loadings      2.258   1.626   1.614
## Proportion Var   0.282   0.203   0.202
## Cumulative Var   0.282   0.486   0.687
## 
## Factor Correlations:
##         Factor1 Factor2 Factor3
## Factor1  1.0000  0.0138   0.474
## Factor2  0.0138  1.0000   0.371
## Factor3  0.4735  0.3714   1.000
## 
## Test of the hypothesis that 3 factors are sufficient.
## The chi square statistic is 8.82 on 7 degrees of freedom.
## The p-value is 0.266

Moderation

I only included findings where job fit or standing moderated the relationship between the manipulation and the DV.

Variables I included as Moderators:
- Gender of the Participant - Participant’s Willingness To Solicit Men’s Voices.
- Participant’s Perceptions of Men’s Job Fit.
- Participant’s Willingness To Solicit Women’s Voices.
- Participant’s Perceptions of Women’s Job Fit.
- Participant’s considerations of Candidate’s Qualifications.
- Participant’s considerations of Candidate’s Skills.
- Participant’s considerations of Candidate’s Fit With Committee’s Needs.
- Participant’s considerations of Gender.
- Participant’s considerations of Workload.
- Participant’s considerations of Diversity.
- Participant’s considerations of Standing.
- Participant’s considerations of Candidate’s Interest in Committee.

Variables I included as Outcome Variables:
- Participant’s Selection of Woman - Participant’s Ranking of Candidate’s Qualifications.
- Participant’s Ranking of Gender.
- Participant’s Ranking of Candidate’s Passion.
- Participant’s Ranking of Candidate’s Knowledge.
- Participant’s Willingness To Solicit Men’s Voices.
- Participant’s Perceptions of Men’s Job Fit.
- Participant’s Willingness To Solicit Women’s Voices.
- Participant’s Perceptions of Women’s Job Fit.
- Participant’s considerations of Candidate’s Qualifications.
- Participant’s considerations of Candidate’s Skills.
- Participant’s considerations of Candidate’s Fit With Committee’s Needs.
- Participant’s considerations of Gender.
- Participant’s considerations of Workload.
- Participant’s considerations of Diversity.
- Participant’s considerations of Standing.
- Participant’s considerations of Candidate’s Interest in Committee.

Condition x Man’s Job Fit on Choosing a Woman (coded 1 = “Chose woman”, 0 = “Did not choose woman”)

The relationship between participant’s perceptions of men’s job fit and selecting a woman was negative in both conditions. But the slope was stronger in the Strategy (relative to the Diversity) condition.

For Reference: For the job fit items, I averaged responses across candidates of the same gender.

Job Fit Items.
1. [Male Candidate’s Name Here]’s abilities fit the demands of this task force.
2. [Male Candidate’s Name Here] has the right skills and abilities for participating in this task force.
3. There is a good match between the requirements of this task force and [Male Candidate’s Name Here]’s skills.
4. [Male Candidate’s Name Here]’s abilities and training are a good fit with the requirements of the task force.
5. [Male Candidate’s Name Here]’s personal abilities and education provide a good match with the demands that this task force would place on him.

## SIMPLE SLOPES ANALYSIS 
## 
## Slope of man_jf when condition = strategy: 
## 
##    Est.   S.E.   t val.      p
## ------- ------ -------- ------
##   -0.19   0.04    -4.50   0.00
## 
## Slope of man_jf when condition = diversity: 
## 
##    Est.   S.E.   t val.      p
## ------- ------ -------- ------
##   -0.07   0.04    -1.75   0.08

Condition x Standing on Diversity

The relationship between the extent to which participants considered the candidate’s standing and the extent to which they considered diversity in their decision-making was equivalent to 0 in the Diversity condition, but positive in the Strategy condition.

For Reference:
Standing and Diversity Items.

I asked participants to report how much “would the following considerations factored into your decision”. I presented them 8-items, including “Diversity”, and “The candidate’s standing”.

## SIMPLE SLOPES ANALYSIS 
## 
## Slope of standing when condition = strategy: 
## 
##   Est.   S.E.   t val.      p
## ------ ------ -------- ------
##   0.54   0.12     4.48   0.00
## 
## Slope of standing when condition = diversity: 
## 
##    Est.   S.E.   t val.      p
## ------- ------ -------- ------
##   -0.04   0.12    -0.29   0.77

Condition x Standing on Gender

The relationship between the extent to which participants considered the candidate’s standing and the extent to which they considered gender in their decision-making was equivalent to 0 in the Diversity condition, but positive in the Strategy condition.

For Reference:
Standing and Gender Items.

I asked participants to report how much “would the following considerations factored into your decision”. I presented them 8-items, including “Gender”, and “The candidate’s standing”.

## SIMPLE SLOPES ANALYSIS 
## 
## Slope of standing when condition = strategy: 
## 
##   Est.   S.E.   t val.      p
## ------ ------ -------- ------
##   0.42   0.12     3.40   0.00
## 
## Slope of standing when condition = diversity: 
## 
##    Est.   S.E.   t val.      p
## ------- ------ -------- ------
##   -0.03   0.12    -0.27   0.79

Condition x Standing on Qualifications

The relationship between the extent to which participants considered the candidate’s standing and the extent to which they considered the candidate’s qualifications in their decision-making was positive in both the Diversity and Strategy condition, but was stronger in the Diversity condition (and marginally positive in the Strategy condition).

For Reference:
Standing and Qualifications Items.

I asked participants to report how much “would the following considerations factored into your decision”. I presented them 8-items, including “The candidates’ qualifications”, and “The candidate’s standing”.

## SIMPLE SLOPES ANALYSIS 
## 
## Slope of standing when condition = strategy: 
## 
##   Est.   S.E.   t val.      p
## ------ ------ -------- ------
##   0.12   0.06     1.91   0.06
## 
## Slope of standing when condition = diversity: 
## 
##   Est.   S.E.   t val.      p
## ------ ------ -------- ------
##   0.36   0.06     5.68   0.00

Condition x Standing on Skills

The relationship between the extent to which participants considered the candidate’s standing and the extent to which they considered the candidate’s skills in their decision-making was equivalent to zero in the Strategy condition, but was positive in the Diversity condition.

For Reference:
Standing and Skills Items.

I asked participants to report how much “would the following considerations factored into your decision”. I presented them 8-items, including “The candidates’ skills”, and “The candidate’s standing”.

## SIMPLE SLOPES ANALYSIS 
## 
## Slope of standing when condition = strategy: 
## 
##   Est.   S.E.   t val.      p
## ------ ------ -------- ------
##   0.06   0.07     0.84   0.40
## 
## Slope of standing when condition = diversity: 
## 
##   Est.   S.E.   t val.      p
## ------ ------ -------- ------
##   0.30   0.07     4.46   0.00

Condition x Woman’s Job Fit on Soliciting Voice from a Man

The relationship between the extent to which participants saw the women as having higher job fit and the extent to which they were willing to solicit voice men’s voices in their decision-making was equivalent to zero in the Diversity condition, but was positive in the Diversity condition.

For Reference:
For both the job fit and voice solicitation items, I averaged responses across candidate’s of the same gender.

Job Fit Items.
1. [Female Candidate’s Name Here]’s abilities fit the demands of this task force.
2. [Female Candidate’s Name Here] has the right skills and abilities for participating in this task force.
3. There is a good match between the requirements of this task force and [Feale Candidate’s Name Here]’s skills.
4. [Female Candidate’s Name Here]’s abilities and training are a good fit with the requirements of the task force.
5. [Female Candidate’s Name Here]’s personal abilities and education provide a good match with the demands that this task force would place on him.

Voice Solicitation Items.
1. I would ask [Male Candidate’s Name Here] to tell me about things that he thinks would be helpful for this task force.
2. I would ask [Male Candidate’s Name Here] personally to tell me about what he has done in a similar task force.
3. I would seek out advice related to this task force from [Male Candidate’s Name Here].
4. I would ask [Male Candidate’s Name Here] personally what skills he has that I may not know about which could contribute to this task force.

## SIMPLE SLOPES ANALYSIS 
## 
## Slope of woman_jf when condition = strategy: 
## 
##   Est.   S.E.   t val.      p
## ------ ------ -------- ------
##   0.23   0.11     2.08   0.04
## 
## Slope of woman_jf when condition = diversity: 
## 
##    Est.   S.E.   t val.      p
## ------- ------ -------- ------
##   -0.11   0.12    -0.94   0.35