When Do Observers Deprioritize Due Process for the Perpetrator and Prioritize Safety for the Victim in Response to Information-Poor Allegations of Harm?

We examined how observers assess information-poor allegations of harm (e.g., "my word against yours" cases), in which the outcomes of procedurally fair investigations may favor the alleged perpetrator because the evidentiary standards are unmet. Yet this lack of evidence does not mean no harm occurred, and some observers may be charged with deciding whether the allegation is actionable within a collective. On the basis of theories of moral typecasting, procedural justice, and uncertainty management, we hypothesized that observers would be more likely to prioritize the victim's safety (vs. to prioritize due process for the perpetrator) and view the allegation as actionable when the victim-alleged perpetrator dyad members exhibit features that align with stereotypes of victims and perpetrators. We supported our hypothesis with four studies using various contexts, sources of perceived prototypicality, due-process prioritization, and samples (students from New Zealand, Ns = 137 and 114; Mechanical Turk workers from the United States; Ns = 260 and 336).

Are there cracks in our foundation? An integrative review of diversity issues in job analysis.

Job analysis forms the foundation for accurate, fair, and legally appropriate human resource systems. However, the notion that personnel practices provide fair opportunities, if they are based on systematically collected job analysis data, relies on the assumption that job analysis accurately captures the essence of jobs as they exist for all individuals. This integrative conceptual review provides a framework that integrates the diversity and job analysis literatures, finding that: (a) employees from different demographic groups can have unique yet predictable work experiences and (b) issues and biases in gathering and reporting job analysis data may cloud the documentation of diverse work experiences and perspectives. The conclusions of this review pose implications for both research and practice as we consider the extent to which job analysis may fail to capture wide and inclusive conceptualizations of successful job performance. If job analyses can be approached in a way that facilitates the collection of diverse perspectives, the inclusiveness of HR systems built-off job analyses can be improved, and job analyses can be positioned as a tool for detecting if employees from different demographic groups are assigned objectively different tasks or subjected to different expectations. Our theoretical perspective offers a promising means to understand the experience of work across various groups of employees through job analysis and mitigate (likely unintentional) discrimination that can be facilitated by one of our field's most foundational tools. It also suggests a new and important area of research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).