Review your PVL

Using the PVL word document you generated with the “Writing a Position Description” tool,  copy all the text and paste it into the text box below.  Click the blue “Check” button to initiate an automated review of your PVL.  This review will look for gendered adjectives, superlatives and other language that may discourage qualified applicants from applying.  You can revise your PVL after the review is complete and resubmit as often as you choose.

Feedback on your PVL

The list above identifies superlatives, gendered adjectives, grindstone words (words indicating a need for dedication and hard work), and words related to intelligence that were found in your PVL.  This list allows you to see how many words in each of these four categories are included in your PVL. Please note, however, that multiple uses or forms of the same word are only listed once.  Thus, the results above may under-represent the prevalance of some words in your PVL.

How many words in any one category is too many?  There is no definitive answer to this question, and context matters, but in general if you have an imbalance of stereotypically masculine and feminine words and/or many superlatives, intelligence words, or grindstone words, please consider revising your PVL. See below for more information on the feedback generated by the PVL Review tool:

• Superlatives
• Gendered Adjectives
• Intelligence Words
• Grindstone Words
• Diversity/Inclusion — Where do words related to diversity and inclusion appear in your PVL?  If they appear only in institutional statements and not in principal duties or relevant work experiences, applicants might question the the depth of commitments to diversity and inclusion expressed in institutional statements.
• Criminal background check — Make sure that the statement on criminal background checks appears only in the required statements at the end of the PVL and is not repeated anywhere else.

SUPERLATIVES

If your PVL includes many superlative words such as “excellent,” “outstanding,” “world-class,” etc. to describe your position or the qualifications you seek in candidates, these may discourage members of groups underrepresented in your field from applying for your position – even if they are well qualified. For example, one research study showed that women only applied for positions if they met 100% of the qualifications, while men applied even if they met only 60% of the qualifications. Overuse of superlatives may cause women, more than men, to question whether they will be seriously considered for the position and consequently to not apply. (Mohr, 2014)

Research has not examined whether overuse of superlatives similarly discourages members of racial/ethnic groups underrepresented in a field from applying. We recommend that you consider substituting your use of superlatives with alternate words such as “accomplished”, “successful”, “committed”, “creative”, and “compelling” and note that the language you use in your job ads does not mean changing your evaluation criteria. If qualified candidates from underrepresented groups don’t apply for the position because of the language of your job announcement, you will not be able to assess their qualifications at all.

NOTE: If the superlative words you are using describe your department or UW-Madison, however, then your use of the superlatives might not evoke stereotyped assumptions because it is about an institution and not a person. Nevertheless, overuse of superlatives even in this context, may have a similar result.

GENDERED ADJECTIVES

If your PVL includes many words that are stereotypically associated with one gender or another, use of those words may prime stereotyped assumptions about who “fits” best into an occupational role. Words that evoke a male-gender stereotype include “aggressive,” “strong,” and “vigorous,” and words that evoke a female-gender stereotype include “supportive,” “collaborative,” and “understanding” (Bem, 1974. Eagly & Sczesny, 2009; Carli et al., 2016). Research indicates that job advertisements with more stereotypically masculine than feminine wording discouraged women from applying.  Independent of their skills and preparation, women rated positions described with stereotypically masculine terms as less appealing and anticipated not belonging in the position. Women were more interested in positions when the advertisements included stereotypically feminine words. The gendered wording of job advertisements had very little effect on men’s interests in a position. In order to attract a diverse group of male and female applicants we recommend replacing male-gendered wording with more neutral language, or at the very least, including both male- and female-gendered language. (Gaucher et al., 2011.)

INTELLIGENCE WORDS

If you are using many words such as “intelligent,” “brilliant,” “bright,” or “smart,” be aware that these words can easily prime stereotypes that favor some applicants over others. In the realm of intelligence and academic ability, positive stereotypes exist for men, Whites, and Asians, while negative stereotypes exist for women, African Americans, and Latinos/Latinas. These stereotypes, even if we disavow them, can influence our assessments. Consider replacing these words or reducing their number so as to avoid priming race or gender stereotypes. (Ghavami & Peplau, 2013; Leslie et al., 2015; Ho et al., 2009; Ross et al., 2017)

GRINDSTONE WORDS

If you find that you are using a large number of words that evoke excessive hard work to advance in a role, e.g., “hardworking,” “meticulous,” “thorough,” or “diligent” be aware that while these qualities are generally interpreted as positive, some research suggests that when associated with women, they can be interpreted negatively and convey a sense that such hard work and diligence is essential to overcome a lack of ability, knowledge, or intelligence. (Trix & Psenka, 2003; Valian, 1998). Though research has not yet demonstrated a similar shift in interpretation for different races and ethnicities, it is possible that grindstone words may have a similar negative connotation for races or ethnicities associated with negative stereotypes in the realm of intelligence and ability.