Submitted via IRC for Bytram
Class bias in hiring based on few seconds of speech
Candidates at job interviews expect to be evaluated on their experience, conduct, and ideas, but a new study by Yale researchers provides evidence that interviewees are judged based on their social status seconds after they start to speak.
The study, to be published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, demonstrates that people can accurately assess a stranger's socioeconomic position -- defined by their income, education, and occupation status -- based on brief speech patterns and shows that these snap perceptions influence hiring managers in ways that favor job applicants from higher social classes.
"Our study shows that even during the briefest interactions, a person's speech patterns shape the way people perceive them, including assessing their competence and fitness for a job," said Michael Kraus, assistant professor of organizational behavior at the Yale School of Management. "While most hiring managers would deny that a job candidate's social class matters, in reality, the socioeconomic position of an applicant or their parents is being assessed within the first seconds they speak -- a circumstance that limits economic mobility and perpetuates inequality."
[...] "We rarely talk explicitly about social class, and yet, people with hiring experience infer competence and fitness based on socioeconomic position estimated from a few second of an applicant's speech," Kraus said. "If we want to move to a more equitable society, then we must contend with these ingrained psychological processes that drive our early impressions of others. Despite what these hiring tendencies may suggest, talent is not found solely among those born to rich or well-educated families. Policies that actively recruit candidates from all levels of status in society are best positioned to match opportunities to the people best suited for them."
Journal Reference:
Michael W. Kraus et al. Evidence for the reproduction of social class in brief speech[$]. PNAS, 2019 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1900500116
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @09:02PM
An improvement would be getting all of our troops out of the middle east. Obama shuffled troops around as well.
As opposed to what, corporate death panels, tens of thousands of people dying every year from preventable medical issues, higher costs, more paperwork for doctors, more inefficiencies, lower quality care for the average person, and millions of outright uninsured people? That's what our current system gets us. And we still have waiting times comparable to other countries, thanks to private insurance companies. The statistics show that other first world countries which have universal healthcare systems outperform us in just about every way when it comes to the average person.
In an utterly disastrous way that is hurting farmers and many other people, yes. Vastly weakening our imaginary property laws would at least yield some improvement, but this trade war is a waste of time.
The rich paying a lower effective tax rate than many working people is disgusting. The people who need more money the least are the ones who disproportionately benefited from these tax cuts.
You're trying to change the topic. ISPs need to conform to net neutrality, or we'll end up with situations like Comcast throttling torrenting again, among other disastrous decisions.
Draining the swamp means getting rid of all corruption, including Goldman Sachs goons, regulatory capture, and so on. Instead, Trump is happily participating in the corruption. So much for being anti-establishment.
Cool, then we shouldn't be giving Saudi Arabia money. The bill that Trump vetoed would have ended that.
If people are having trouble saving up such meager amounts of money, maybe the economy isn't as great for ordinary people as the corporate media would have us believe.