Matthew Grawitch

This study explores how situational cues, attitudes (i.e., neosexism), and context (i.e., banking vs. daycare) influence perceptions of sexism, interaction favorability, and subsequent decision making in ambiguous interactions. Results indicate sex composition significantly affects sexism perceptions, especially in male-to-female interactions within a traditionally-male context (i.e., banking). Neosexism introduced a bias toward higher sexism ratings and showed more pronounced effects in the opposite-sex banking scenario but not the daycare scenario. This study extends our understanding of individual and situational factors that affect sexism attributions in ambiguous situations and offers implications for decision making.

This paper examines Evidence-Based Decision Making (EBDM) within the context of ecological rationality. It contrasts classical rationality, which prioritizes comprehensive and logical evidence utilization, with ecological rationality, which emphasizes practical decision making (DM) under real-world constraints. Our examination underscores the importance of adaptive heuristics, professional judgment, and the integration of experience and expertise in forming intuitive responses. It also examines the limitations of framing intuitive versus analytical thinking as a strict dichotomy and advocates for a balanced approach that considers context and practical constraints. Finally, the paper addresses the potential impacts of motivated reasoning and bias in decision-making. Concluding with practical recommendations, it guides practitioners in applying EBDM in an ecologically rational way, stressing the need to balance an emphasis on classical rationality with professional judgment, expertise, and the specificities of each decision context.

Building on error management theory and heuristic decision making, we conducted three studies manipulating the sex of the sender and receiver of messages and asked observers to rate the sender’s sexism (Studies 1-3), pleasantness, and professionalism (Studies 2-3). We also examined concern for political correctness (CPC) and social justice attitudes (Study 1), ambivalence toward men (Study 2), and neosexism (Study 3) as moderators of respondent ratings. Across all studies, we found that when the receiver was female, the sender was rated as significantly more sexist, especially when the sender was male. Although CPC, social justice, and ambivalence toward men failed to interact with scenario conditions, neosexism levels resulted in stronger sexism ratings in the male sender-female receiver condition.

Drawing on the existing integrative evidence (e.g., reviews, meta-analyses, theory papers) since 2016, the current review synthesizes the remote work literature and identifies conclusions that can be drawn based on the current evidence. The review spans three remote work clusters: telecommuting, computer-mediated work, and virtual teams. Four major conclusions were identified: (1) remote work tends to be cost-effective for the organization, but the cost-effectiveness can vary based on context; (2) remote work comes with trade-offs for most employees, and not all employees will thrive in remote work settings; (3) degree of virtuality is likely an important moderator, regardless of the outcomes of interest; and (4) there is a lot we do not know about what leads to effective remote work or how to ensure a sufficient likelihood of effectiveness. Sources of current unknowns in the literature are reviewed (e.g., understudied constructs, the absolute importance of key factors), and recommendations for future research and practice are provided.