外文文獻(xiàn)翻譯--求職面試過(guò)程中的判斷和決策偏見(jiàn)（節(jié)選）

1、<p>　　中文2000漢字,980單詞，5800英文字符</p><p>　　文獻(xiàn)出處：Purkiss S L S, Perrewé P L, Gillespie T L, et al. Implicit sources of bias in employment interview judgments and decisions [J]. Organizational Behavior a

2、nd Human Decision Processes, 2006, 101(2): 152-167.</p><p><b>　　原文</b></p><p>　　Implicit sources of bias in employment interview judgments and decisions</p><p>　　Sharon

3、L. Segrest Purkiss, Pamela L. Perrewé,, Treena L. Gillespie,</p><p>　　Bronston T. Mayes , Gerald R. Ferris</p><p>　　Introduction</p><p>　　The employment interview is an importa

4、nt source for information and remains, by far, the most frequently used employment selection and decision-making device in organizations. Unfortunately, this reality stands in stark contrast to the continued questions ab

5、out interview validity and the persistence of biases in the interview process, suggesting that more research in this area is needed. In particular, the effects of various interviewer and applicant characteristics on the

6、interview process and </p><p>　　In a review of the interview literature, Posthuma et al. (2002) suggested that researchers redirect attention from examining simple demographic effects and consider these as p

7、otential cues for other causal factors, particularly attitudes and values. The present study addresses this appeal, and it extends previous work on applicant characteristics by focusing on the effects of implicit or subt

8、le cues on interview outcomes within the framework of modern racism or modern ethnicity bias. Specificall</p><p>　　decisions in the employment interview process.</p><p>　　Employment interview<

9、;/p><p>　　As a traditional component of most organizations’ human resource management selection systems, research has been conducted on the employment interview for nearly a century. Interview scholars have bee

10、n interested in a broad range of topics over the years, including psychometric properties of the interview as a measurement device, interview format and type (e.g., structured, unstructured and situational), notions of f

11、it (e.g., person–job and person–organization), and interviewer cognition and dec</p><p>　　Research needs to probe beyond simple demographic category effects to investigate potential underlying reasons for wh

12、at are observed as judgment and decision biases. With increased interest in person–organization fit in the interview, there has come a realization that the homogenization effects from such assessments, which drive employ

13、ment decisions, potentially could account for discrimination effects. However, we still need to know much more about the perceptual cues associated with applicants</p><p>　　The psychological processes of pre

14、judice and stereotyping</p><p>　　Prejudicial attitudes, as well as other interviewer characteristics, such as race and personality, affect interviewer perceptions of applicants. Prejudice and ethnicity stere

15、otypes tend to be positively related to each other in both the historical and current views, and some researchers have agreed that the positive relationship is due to stereotypes being the cognitive component of racial a

16、ttitudes or prejudice. Stereotypes are particular types of knowledge structures or cognitive schema that l</p><p>　　Research has suggested that prejudice tends to evoke negative stereotypes. Participants wit

17、h high levels of prejudice are more likely to use cultural stereotypes, and high levels of prejudice correspond with more negative stereotypes (Kawakami, Dion, & Dovidio, 1998). These stereotypes could have been elic

18、ited through the use of a cue, and in the Kawakami et al. (1998) study, the category label, Black, was purported to activate the stereotype. This type of cue likely activates judgments of a spe</p><p>　　Ethn

19、ic speech accent and name</p><p>　　Subtle cues may play a role in triggering implicit discriminatory responses. One possible cue may be applicant accent. Whereas other fields, such as linguistics and communi

20、cation, have recognized the important role of accent in the perception of individual characteristics, organizational research has neglected this area. Accent can initiate perceptions regarding intelligence and kindness,

21、as well as status, solidarity, economic class, national origin, or ethnicity.</p><p>　　For example, in the U.S., French accents often are associated with sophistication, Asian accents tend to be linked with

22、high economic and educational attainment, and in England, the Liverpool accent is considered less cultured than accents associated with Oxford and Cambridge. Due to the verbal nature of the employment interview process,

23、and the potential for triggering biased judgments, accent may prove to be a particularly important factor affecting interview decisions.</p><p>　　Although it may be subtle, accent has been demonstrated to be

24、 easily perceptible. Research has demonstrated that even linguistically naive individuals can make basic distinctions among differing accents. However, this recognition of accent distinctiveness seems to apply only to a

25、certain degree. Specifically, when presented with four varieties of Spanish-accented English (i.e., Cuban, Costa Rican, Argentinean, and Puerto Rican), and four varieties of Asian-accented English, most American listene&

26、lt;/p><p>　　Accents associated with countries of lower socio-economic status and darker skin colors frequently are denigrated. However, some regional accents are looked upon less favorably, even when skin color

27、 is not an issue. For example, in the U.S., “Appalachian English” is downgraded. In general, the accent of the dominant or majority group in a society is evaluated most positively. Interestingly, the dominant accent ofte

28、n is judged more positively not only by the dominant group, which is Anglo America</p><p><b>　　譯文</b></p><p>　　求職面試過(guò)程中的判斷和決策偏見(jiàn)</p><p>　　莎倫, 帕梅拉, 吉萊斯皮, 梅斯, 杰拉爾德</p>

29、<p><b>　　引言</b></p><p>　　到目前為止，求職面試仍然是組織中用來(lái)招聘員工的一個(gè)重要的來(lái)源和方式,被廣泛地應(yīng)用于企業(yè)中。不幸的是，與這一現(xiàn)實(shí)形成鮮明對(duì)比的是目前對(duì)面試中有效性和持久性的質(zhì)疑，以及面試中存在的偏見(jiàn)問(wèn)題，這表明，在這一領(lǐng)域需要進(jìn)行更多的研究。特別是，面試官和應(yīng)聘者的各種個(gè)人背景特征對(duì)面試過(guò)程和結(jié)果產(chǎn)生的影響，這些都值得額外的探索。雖然有一些研

30、究已經(jīng)解決了這些問(wèn)題，但是大多數(shù)對(duì)求職者的偏見(jiàn)和刻板印象的研究都還不夠深入。</p><p>　　在波斯楚馬關(guān)于面試的一份研究文獻(xiàn)中，他認(rèn)為，研究人員應(yīng)該把注意力從研究影響面試中偏見(jiàn)的一些普遍性因素方面轉(zhuǎn)移到更細(xì)致的隱性的因素上。特別是態(tài)度和價(jià)值觀。本文的研究回應(yīng)了這一訴求，擴(kuò)展了以前的研究范圍，將研究重點(diǎn)聚焦在面試官在面試過(guò)程中，產(chǎn)生偏見(jiàn)態(tài)度和決策的隱式或微妙的因素方面，本研究是基于現(xiàn)代種族主義或現(xiàn)代種族偏見(jiàn)的

31、背景下進(jìn)行研究的。具體來(lái)說(shuō)，本研究的目的是探討求職面試者的民族化姓名和其地方口音對(duì)求職面試過(guò)程中面試官判斷和決策的影響。</p><p><b>　　求職面試</b></p><p>　　作為組織中選拔和招聘員工的一個(gè)傳統(tǒng)的組成部分，就業(yè)面試也是大多數(shù)組織人力資源管理系統(tǒng)的一個(gè)組件，本文選擇了近一個(gè)世紀(jì)以來(lái)的就業(yè)面試進(jìn)行了研究。多年來(lái)，這方面研究的專(zhuān)家學(xué)者們感興趣的話

32、題包括：面試的心理屬性、面試形式和類(lèi)型(如：結(jié)構(gòu)化面試、非結(jié)構(gòu)化面試)、個(gè)人觀念、以及面試官的認(rèn)知和決策過(guò)程。然而，我們需要對(duì)求職面試進(jìn)行更多的研究，要考察求職者的個(gè)人背景特征，包括其姓名和說(shuō)話的口音等等，這些因素對(duì)面試官的判斷和決策的影響。</p><p>　　本研究需要探討除了導(dǎo)致面試中，面試官產(chǎn)生偏見(jiàn)的一些普遍性因素，還要調(diào)查影響面試官判斷和決策偏差潛在的根本原因。在研究中，還會(huì)增加對(duì)人與組織匹配性方面的研

33、究，通過(guò)本文的研究，推動(dòng)面試決策過(guò)程的改善。然而，我們?nèi)匀恍枰嗟牧私馀c求職者有關(guān)的個(gè)人背景特征，本研究即實(shí)證研究了求職面試過(guò)程中，面試官的判斷和決策的隱性偏見(jiàn)。我們研究了可能導(dǎo)致偏見(jiàn)的兩個(gè)因素，求職者的口音和姓名，他們可能會(huì)引發(fā)面試官在面試過(guò)程中產(chǎn)生偏見(jiàn)。因?yàn)檫@些特征可能會(huì)影響面試官對(duì)面試結(jié)果的判斷和雇傭決策。</p><p>　　產(chǎn)生偏見(jiàn)和刻板印象的心理過(guò)程</p><p>　　面試

34、過(guò)程中的偏見(jiàn)態(tài)度，以及面試官的其他特點(diǎn)，如種族和個(gè)性，這些都會(huì)影響到面試官對(duì)應(yīng)聘者的看法。偏見(jiàn)和對(duì)種族的刻板印象，往往對(duì)面試的偏見(jiàn)性心理有一個(gè)積極的相互關(guān)系，一些研究人員認(rèn)為，正是由于來(lái)自對(duì)某一種族的刻板印象或偏見(jiàn)，影響了面試官在面試過(guò)程中的判斷和決策。刻板印象是特定類(lèi)型的知識(shí)結(jié)構(gòu)和認(rèn)知模式，它與人們的某些個(gè)性化背景特征是關(guān)聯(lián)在一起的，而且會(huì)影響到我們對(duì)別人行為的看法，對(duì)別人的印象等。</p><p>　　研究已

35、經(jīng)表明，偏見(jiàn)往往會(huì)引發(fā)面試官求職者的負(fù)面刻板印象。面試官如果有很大的偏見(jiàn)，那么也更有可能會(huì)對(duì)求職者產(chǎn)生刻板印象。這些刻板印象可能是與某些個(gè)人特征聯(lián)系在一起的。在卡瓦卡伊的研究中，黑色比較容易誘發(fā)人的刻板印象。這種類(lèi)型的特征可能會(huì)影響一個(gè)人對(duì)另一個(gè)人的判斷，這是一種隱性的種族主義，被稱(chēng)為現(xiàn)代種族主義。</p><p>　　民族語(yǔ)言口音和民族化的名字</p><p>　　這些微妙的特征可能會(huì)引

36、發(fā)隱性的歧視反應(yīng)。比如在面試中，影響面試官判斷和決策的一個(gè)可能的因素就是求職者的地方口音。而在其他領(lǐng)域中，比如語(yǔ)言學(xué)和溝通學(xué)中，已經(jīng)認(rèn)識(shí)到了口音對(duì)一個(gè)人的感知的重要作用，而關(guān)于組織的研究中，卻忽視了這一因素?？谝艨梢砸l(fā)人們對(duì)一個(gè)人的看法，包括：智慧和善良，地位、團(tuán)結(jié)、經(jīng)濟(jì)水平、國(guó)籍或種族。</p><p>　　例如，在美國(guó)，法國(guó)口音通常讓人聯(lián)想到法國(guó)人的高雅，而亞洲口音往往會(huì)讓人聯(lián)想到是其經(jīng)濟(jì)水平和受教育程度高

37、，在英國(guó)，利物浦口音的培養(yǎng)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)被認(rèn)為是低于牛津和劍橋口音的。由于求職面試的口頭交流性，因此，求職者的口音會(huì)觸發(fā)面試官的偏見(jiàn)性判斷，口音可能是影響面試決策的一個(gè)特別重要的因素。</p><p>　　雖然它可能是很微妙的，但口音已經(jīng)被證明是很容易察覺(jué)的一個(gè)特征，只要一說(shuō)話，就能讓人感知到。研究表明，即使語(yǔ)言能力較低的人也會(huì)有其獨(dú)特的口音。然而，這種說(shuō)法似乎只適用于某種程度上。具體地說(shuō),當(dāng)面對(duì)四種西班牙口音的英語(yǔ)(即：

38、古巴、哥斯達(dá)黎加、阿根廷和波多黎各)，和四種亞洲口音的英語(yǔ)，比如在英語(yǔ)演講中，大多數(shù)美國(guó)聽(tīng)眾無(wú)法區(qū)分出西班牙口音的英語(yǔ)和亞洲口音的英語(yǔ)。因此，兩種口音的英語(yǔ)對(duì)大多數(shù)聽(tīng)眾來(lái)說(shuō)，沒(méi)什么不同，就都當(dāng)成是西班牙口音的英語(yǔ)，對(duì)這兩種口音的英語(yǔ)，聽(tīng)眾的反應(yīng)是一樣的。</p><p>　　如果讓人聽(tīng)出了別人的口音，就會(huì)聯(lián)想到其國(guó)家的較低經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展水平，以及深色的皮膚，而這些人就會(huì)經(jīng)常受到詆毀。然而，在一些地區(qū)，其口音聽(tīng)起來(lái)并不親