Publications Database
Welcome to the new Schulich Peer-Reviewed Publication Database!
The database is currently in beta-testing and will be updated with more features as time goes on. In the meantime, stakeholders are free to explore our faculty’s numerous works. The left-hand panel affords the ability to search by the following:
- Faculty Member’s Name;
- Area of Expertise;
- Whether the Publication is Open-Access (free for public download);
- Journal Name; and
- Date Range.
At present, the database covers publications from 2012 to 2020, but will extend further back in the future. In addition to listing publications, the database includes two types of impact metrics: Altmetrics and Plum. The database will be updated annually with most recent publications from our faculty.
If you have any questions or input, please don’t hesitate to get in touch.
Search Results
Auster, E.R. and Prasad, A. (2016). "Why Do Women Still Not Make It to the Top? Dominant Organizational Ideologies and Biases by Promotion Committees Limit Opportunities to Destination Positions", Sex Roles, 75(5), 177-196.
Abstract
Prior studies have made important strides in understanding the drivers of gender bias facing women at the top. Yet, relatively little is known about the intra-organizational power dynamics of how and why these patterns still persist despite a plethora of initiatives to redress the phenomenon over the last several decades. This paper develops an intra-organizational power perspective on the dynamics of promotion bias to destination positions. We propose that social dominance emerges as social categorization based on a candidate’s visible and invisible markers leads to distorted perceptions and stereotyping which, when combined with group favoritism and conformity pressures within committee practices, engender the perceived degree of ideological asymmetry between the candidate and the organization. It is the magnitude of the perceived degree of ideological asymmetry that drives promotion bias. This bias has potent effects on the institutionalization of power over time. Our perspective ultimately offers new insights into the role of dominant organizational ideology and dynamics of biases that continue to limit promotion opportunities of women to destination positions.Zhu, L., Aquino, K., and Vadera, A.K. (2015). "What Makes Professor Appear Credible: The Effect of Demographic Characteristics and Ideological Beliefs", Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 862-880.
Abstract
Five studies are conducted to examine how ideology and perceptions regarding gender, race, caste, and affiliation status affect how individuals judge researchers’ credibility. Support is found for predictions that individuals judge researcher credibility according to their egalitarian or elitist ideologies and according to status cues including race, gender, caste, and university affiliation. Egalitarians evaluate low-status researchers as more credible than high-status researchers. Elitists show the opposite pattern. Credibility judgments affect whether individuals will interpret subsequent ambiguous events in accordance with the researcher’s findings. Effects of diffuse status cues and ideological beliefs may be mitigated when specific status cues are presented to override stereotypes.Leong, T.L., Lyons, B. and Wu, I.H.C. (2015). "How Racial/ethnic Bullying Affects Rejection Sensitivity: The Role of Social Dominance Orientation", Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 21, 156-161.