Banuelos, Sebastian2023-08-282023-08-282023https://hdl.handle.net/11299/256162A Plan B submitted to the faculty of University of Minnesota Duluth by Sebastian Banuelos in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts in Psychological Sciences, 2023. This item has been modified from the original to redact the signature present.Race, gender, and age biases are prevalent when decision-making processes in the workplace are subjective and lack job-relevant criteria. Decision-maker reactions can influence decision quality, willingness to support, confidence in, and preference to use selection tools. The anonymized review (AR) is a hiring process that minimizes bias in selection by redacting identifying information (e.g., name, age, gender) from applicant materials (e.g., applications, resumes, etc.). This study was a two-part investigation that examined decision-maker reactions toward ARs. Justification for using ARs was expected to positively influence decision-maker reactions toward ARs. Additionally, diversity attitudes were expected to have a moderating effect on the relationship between justification and decision-maker reactions. Results from Study 1 showed insignificant main effects for ARs and justification. Study 1 results also showed that individuals with low diversity attitudes will react negatively to ARs when justification is not provided. Lastly, qualitative responses from Study 2 revealed perceptions of accuracy and practicality toward ARs as significant themes. Practical implications of the study are discussed and recommendations provided.enSelectionDecision-makinganonymized reviewresumePlan Bs (project-based master's degrees)Master of ArtsMaster of Arts in Psychological ScienceIndustrial-Organizational trackDepartment of PsychologyCollege of Education and Human Service ProfessionsUniversity of Minnesota DuluthScholarly Text or Essay