Abstract:PURPOSE: To systematically review experimental evidence for interventions mitigating gender bias in employment. Unconscious endorsement of gender stereotypes can undermine academic medicine's commitment to gender equity.METHOD: The authors performed electronic and hand searches for randomized controlled studies since 1973 of interventions that affect gender differences in evaluation of job applicants. Twenty-seven studies met all inclusion criteria. Interventions fell into three categories: application information, applicant features, and rating conditions.RESULTS: The studies identified gender bias as the difference in ratings or perceptions of men and women with identical qualifications. Studies reaffirmed negative bias against women being evaluated for positions traditionally or predominantly held by men (male sex-typed jobs). The assessments of male and female raters rarely differed. Interventions that provided raters with clear evidence of job-relevant competencies were effective. However, clearly competent women were rated lower than equivalent men for male sex-typed jobs unless evidence of communal qualities was also provided. A commitment to the value of credentials before review of applicants and women's presence at above 25% of the applicant pool eliminated bias against women. Two studies found unconscious resistance to "antibias" training, which could be overcome with distraction or an intervening task. Explicit employment equity policies and an attractive appearance benefited men more than women, whereas repeated employment gaps were more detrimental to men. Masculine-scented perfume favored the hiring of both sexes. Negative bias occurred against women who expressed anger or who were perceived as self-promoting.CONCLUSIONS: High-level evidence exists for strategies to mitigate gender bias in hiring.

What You See Is What You Get? The Impact of Representation Criteria on Human Bias in Hiring

A meta-analysis of gender stereotypes and bias in experimental simulations of employment decision making.

Does biasedness starts with HR? - Analysis and outcomes and suggestions for transparent practices

Modeling Epistemological Principles for Bias Mitigation in AI Systems: An Illustration in Hiring Decisions

Bias in Bios: A Case Study of Semantic Representation Bias in a High-Stakes Setting

Biased Humans, (Un)Biased Algorithms?

Gender equity in hiring: examining the effectiveness of a personality-based algorithm

Gender and cultural bias in student evaluations: Why representation matters

Don't let Ricci v. DeStefano Hold You Back: A Bias-Aware Legal Solution to the Hiring Paradox

Gender Bias in AI Recruitment Systems: A Sociological-and Data Science-based Case Study

Uncovering Latent Biases in Text: Method and Application to Peer Review

Michael is better than Mehmet: exploring the perils of algorithmic biases and selective adherence to advice from automated decision support systems in hiring

Interventions That Affect Gender Bias in Hiring: A Systematic Review

Does Fair Ranking Improve Minority Outcomes? Understanding the Interplay of Human and Algorithmic Biases in Online Hiring

Uncovering the Source of Machine Bias

Mitigating Bias in Algorithmic Hiring: Evaluating Claims and Practices

Using Machine Bias To Measure Human Bias

Optimal data-driven hiring with equity for underrepresented groups

Algorithmic Bias? An Empirical Study of Apparent Gender-Based Discrimination in the Display of STEM Career Ads

BiasEye: A Bias-Aware Real-time Interactive Material Screening System for Impartial Candidate Assessment

Measuring Gender and Racial Biases in Large Language Models