{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01907032181168057, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.11864406779661, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Political Ideology and Labor Arbitrators' Decision Making in Work–Family Conflict Cases

Labor arbitrators were asked to render decisions about grievances brought by employees who had been fired because of problems created by work conflicts with family responsibilities. The study examined the effects of experimentally manipulated grievant attributes (gender, type of work–family conflict) as well as arbitrator attributes (gender, political ideology) on decision making. When employees were depicted as having had child care problems, liberal arbitrators tended to favor female over male grievants, and political conservatism predicted more favorable judgments rendered toward male grievants. Overall, the data suggest that child care responsibilities cue different patterns of gender bias among liberal and conservative decision makers.