Abstract
Remunerating jobs according to their comparable worth has been suggested as one way to reduce sex inequities in wages. To implement such a policy, it is necessary to obtain unbiased ratings of a job's worth. The present study investigated whether such ratings would be biased by the incumbent's sex, the sex composition of the occupation, or the job analyst's sex. A second purpose was to ascertain what job characteristics are viewed as worthy of financial compensation. Business school undergraduates viewed videotapes of a male enacting a low prestige, anchor job and either males or females enacting a moderate and a high prestige job. Ratings of the moderate and high prestige jobs relative to the anchor revealed that both male and female analysts perceived the jobs as higher in responsibility, in persuasive ability requirements, and in monetary worth when enacted by males than by females. The occupation's sex composition had no effect on any job ratings, a finding attributed to subjects' failure to recall the sex composition information provided. Regression analyses revealed that the only significant predictors of a job's monetary worth relative to the anchor were its perceived salary, its desirability, the training it required, and the gender of the incumbent. It was concluded that sex biases in comparable worth analyses may yield an underestimation of the wages that women's work is worth.