Stereotype Content Model, Causal Models, and Allegations of Age Discrimination

Should the Law Change?

Katlyn S. Farnum, Richard L Wiener

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

In 2009, the Supreme Court decided, in Gross v. FBL, that the law governing age discrimination should be interpreted in a stricter manner than before. After Gross, age discrimination claims are tried under but for causality in which the plaintiff's age must be the direct cause of the adverse action, as opposed to mixed motive causality allowable under Title VII, in which age would only have to be a motivating factor. Previous research has shown that but for instructions lead to more pro-defendant verdicts, regardless of case strength, as compared to mixed motive instructions. This study reports on a simulated jury experiment that sought to uncover the influence of stereotypes concerning older workers on juror verdicts in an age discrimination case. Older worker stereotypes were assessed using the Stereotype Content Model's warmth and competence dimensions. In line with previous research, participants were more likely to find for the defendant under but for instructions, as compared to mixed motive. Further, mock jurors’ stereotypes predicted their verdicts, but only under the but for instructions, suggesting that jurors rely on stereotypes when they are limited in the case facts they can consider. Implications for policy changes and future research directions are discussed.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)100-124
Number of pages25
JournalAnalyses of Social Issues and Public Policy
Volume16
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2016

Fingerprint

ageism
stereotype
discrimination
Law
instruction
causality
worker
Supreme Court
experiment
cause

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Sciences(all)
  • Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law

Cite this

Stereotype Content Model, Causal Models, and Allegations of Age Discrimination : Should the Law Change? / Farnum, Katlyn S.; Wiener, Richard L.

In: Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, Vol. 16, No. 1, 01.12.2016, p. 100-124.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{4e8d26624497444d8d9ca13c69e4a797,
title = "Stereotype Content Model, Causal Models, and Allegations of Age Discrimination: Should the Law Change?",
abstract = "In 2009, the Supreme Court decided, in Gross v. FBL, that the law governing age discrimination should be interpreted in a stricter manner than before. After Gross, age discrimination claims are tried under but for causality in which the plaintiff's age must be the direct cause of the adverse action, as opposed to mixed motive causality allowable under Title VII, in which age would only have to be a motivating factor. Previous research has shown that but for instructions lead to more pro-defendant verdicts, regardless of case strength, as compared to mixed motive instructions. This study reports on a simulated jury experiment that sought to uncover the influence of stereotypes concerning older workers on juror verdicts in an age discrimination case. Older worker stereotypes were assessed using the Stereotype Content Model's warmth and competence dimensions. In line with previous research, participants were more likely to find for the defendant under but for instructions, as compared to mixed motive. Further, mock jurors’ stereotypes predicted their verdicts, but only under the but for instructions, suggesting that jurors rely on stereotypes when they are limited in the case facts they can consider. Implications for policy changes and future research directions are discussed.",
author = "Farnum, {Katlyn S.} and Wiener, {Richard L}",
year = "2016",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/asap.12112",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "16",
pages = "100--124",
journal = "Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy",
issn = "1529-7489",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Stereotype Content Model, Causal Models, and Allegations of Age Discrimination

T2 - Should the Law Change?

AU - Farnum, Katlyn S.

AU - Wiener, Richard L

PY - 2016/12/1

Y1 - 2016/12/1

N2 - In 2009, the Supreme Court decided, in Gross v. FBL, that the law governing age discrimination should be interpreted in a stricter manner than before. After Gross, age discrimination claims are tried under but for causality in which the plaintiff's age must be the direct cause of the adverse action, as opposed to mixed motive causality allowable under Title VII, in which age would only have to be a motivating factor. Previous research has shown that but for instructions lead to more pro-defendant verdicts, regardless of case strength, as compared to mixed motive instructions. This study reports on a simulated jury experiment that sought to uncover the influence of stereotypes concerning older workers on juror verdicts in an age discrimination case. Older worker stereotypes were assessed using the Stereotype Content Model's warmth and competence dimensions. In line with previous research, participants were more likely to find for the defendant under but for instructions, as compared to mixed motive. Further, mock jurors’ stereotypes predicted their verdicts, but only under the but for instructions, suggesting that jurors rely on stereotypes when they are limited in the case facts they can consider. Implications for policy changes and future research directions are discussed.

AB - In 2009, the Supreme Court decided, in Gross v. FBL, that the law governing age discrimination should be interpreted in a stricter manner than before. After Gross, age discrimination claims are tried under but for causality in which the plaintiff's age must be the direct cause of the adverse action, as opposed to mixed motive causality allowable under Title VII, in which age would only have to be a motivating factor. Previous research has shown that but for instructions lead to more pro-defendant verdicts, regardless of case strength, as compared to mixed motive instructions. This study reports on a simulated jury experiment that sought to uncover the influence of stereotypes concerning older workers on juror verdicts in an age discrimination case. Older worker stereotypes were assessed using the Stereotype Content Model's warmth and competence dimensions. In line with previous research, participants were more likely to find for the defendant under but for instructions, as compared to mixed motive. Further, mock jurors’ stereotypes predicted their verdicts, but only under the but for instructions, suggesting that jurors rely on stereotypes when they are limited in the case facts they can consider. Implications for policy changes and future research directions are discussed.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85007190302&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85007190302&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/asap.12112

DO - 10.1111/asap.12112

M3 - Article

VL - 16

SP - 100

EP - 124

JO - Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy

JF - Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy

SN - 1529-7489

IS - 1

ER -