The Disciplining Effect of Status: Evaluator Status Awards and Observed Gender Bias in Evaluations

We theorize that status awards will have a disciplining effect on evaluators, changing how they evaluate. Specifically, status awards will lead evaluators to place less weight on unreliable indicators of candidate quality, such as gender. We test this theory using data from restaurant evaluations on Yelp, focusing on the relationship between an evaluator’s restaurant rating and their reporting of being served by a man or a woman in their review text. We use Yelp’s evaluator status award (“Elite”) to analyze whether observed gender bias in the star ratings given to restaurants decreases after an evaluator receives this status award. We find that evaluators rate restaurants more similarly after receiving the award, regardless of whether they report being served by a man or a woman. Status awards in our context close the gender gap in restaurant ratings by 56.5% (a 0.07 stars improvement out of an initial rating gap of −0.13 stars). This reduction in gender bias is mostly due to a decrease in the number of extremely low (1 star) ratings in reviews that reference female servers. Research on status and evaluations has mostly focused on how evaluators react to increases in candidate status. We demonstrate the importance of evaluator status as a mechanism for decreasing observed gender differences in evaluations. This paper was accepted by Isabel Fernandez-Mateo, organizations.

Follow the Money: Gender, Incumbency, and Campaign Funding in Chile

We examine women’s access to campaign resources using data from all 960 candidates competing in Chile’s 2017 legislative elections. Even when controlling for district characteristics, women candidates receive less money in party transfers, bank loans, and donations; place fewer personal funds in their campaigns; and have fewer resources overall. However, previous experience and incumbency narrow the gap. When women are newcomers, gender serves as an important cue about candidate quality and funders default to favoring men. Our results lend credence to practitioners’ claims that money disadvantages women candidates in democracies, but focuses attention on the disadvantage faced by women newcomers. Moreover, this gender gap in campaign funding exists despite a gendered electoral financing scheme designed to make political actors more likely to invest in women’s campaigns. While increasingly popular among development experts, our research suggests such schemes might be insufficient for equalizing campaign funding between men and women.

Who Has Room for Error? An Exploration of Voter Accountability and Non-Traditional Candidates

It is well established that voters often hold politicians accountable for misbehavior. But are non-traditional (Black, gay, and/or female) candidates held to higher standards? Using a vignette experiment (N=~$4,000), we test this question of differential treatment. While we find evidence of outright discrimination, particularly against gay candidates, no evidence of greater penalties for norm violation (corruption or extramarital affairs) emerges. In what we term the “Room for Error Hypothesis,” our findings suggest that—though barrier-breaking candidates do not necessarily face stiffer electoral sanctions—they are less able to withstand even diminished penalties given lower baseline support. Further, we hypothesize that gay candidates received lessened penalties from Republicans when charged with norm violation due to “counter-stereotypic” effects: since norm violations send a signal of candidate conservatism to Republicans, this traditionally “negative” candidate quality works to counteract the perception of non-traditional candidates as liberal.

Evaluation of the Master of curriculum and science instruction in Taibah University in the light of (CAEP) Standards: تقويم برنامج ماجستير مناهج وطرق تدريس العلوم بجامعة طيبة في ضوء معايير (CAEP)

This study aimed to evaluate the master program of curriculum and science instruction in Taibah University in the light of the standards of council for the accreditation of educator preparation (CAEP). To achieve that, the study applied a questionnaire on the research population that consisted of all the faculty members (7) in the curriculum and science instruction specialty. And all the students (7) in the curriculum and science instruction specialty. The questioner consisted of (32) items distributed on the (CAEP) five standards: Content and Pedagogical Knowledge, Clinical Partnerships and Practice, Candidate Quality and Selectivity, Program Impact, Provider Quality Assurance and Continuous Improvement. The results showed that (CAEP) standards are highly available in the program with an average of (3.46) where: Content and Pedagogical Knowledge comes first with an average of (3.67) then Candidate Quality and Selectivity (3.51), Program Impact (3.45), Clinical Partnerships and Practice (3.41), and they all were highly available. And in the last place Provider Quality Assurance and Continuous Improvement (3.08) with a medium availability in the program. And the results showed that There were no significant differences at the level of significance(α≤0.05) between the faculty members and students responds of (CAEP) standards availability in the program. The study recommended prepare the curriculum and science instruction specialty to import (CAEP) standards. and perform more studies about (CAEP) standards.