The author examines bias and behavioral norms based on sex and sexual orientation in the labor market. Using an online laboratory setting, participants were asked to evaluate résumés that were manipulated on sex, perceived LGBT status, and use of traditionally masculine or feminine adjectives. Findings show that male participants penalized résumés that included an LGBT activity, and the penalty was slightly stronger for male résumés. Additionally, men evaluated non-LGBT women who used feminine adjectives more positively than when they used masculine adjectives. Résumés of women with the LGBT activity and men were both immune to this effect. This outcome suggests that perceived-heterosexual women are discouraged from masculine behavior that would be rewarded in the labor market, whereas perceived-LGBT women are not. Men who had the strongest reaction to perceived-heterosexual women using masculine adjectives also had the strongest negative reaction to résumés with an LGBT activity. This pattern suggests that male decision makers are biased in ways that harm LGBT men, LGBT women, and heterosexual women in the labor market.
AhmedAli M.AnderssonLinaHammarstedtMats. 2013. Are gay men and lesbians discriminated against in the hiring process?Southern Economic Journal79(3): 565–85.
2.
AmanatullahEmily T.MorrisMichael W.2010. Negotiating gender roles: Gender differences in assertive negotiating are mediated by women’s fear of backlash and attenuated when negotiating on behalf of others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology98(2): 256–67.
3.
AntecolHeatherJongAnnekeSteinbergerMichael D.2008. Sexual orientation wage gap: The role of occupational sorting and human capital. Industrial and Labor Relations Review61(4): 518–43.
4.
BadgettLee. 1995. The wage effects of sexual orientation. Industrial and Labor Relations Review48(4): 726–39.
5.
BergNathanLienDaniel. 2002. Measuring the effect of sexual orientation on income: Evidence of discrimination?Contemporary Economic Policy20(4): 394–414.
6.
BerinskyAdamHuberGregoryLenzGabriel. 2012. Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis20(3): 351–68.
7.
BertrandMariannaMullainathanSendhil. 2004. Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. American Economic Review94(4): 991–1013.
8.
BlackDanGatesGarySandersSethTaylorLowell J.2000. Demographics of the gay and lesbian population in the United States: Evidence from available systematic data sources. Demography37(2): 139–54.
9.
BlackDanMakarHoda R.SandersSeth G.TaylorLowell J.2003. The earnings effect of sexual orientation. Industrial and Labor Relations Review56(3): 449–69.
10.
BlandfordJohn. 2003. The nexus of sexual orientation and gender in the determination of earnings. Industrial and Labor Relations Review56(4): 622–42.
11.
BlauFrancine D.KahnLawrence M.2017. The gender wage gap: Extent, trends, and explanations. Journal of Economic Literature55(3): 789–865.
12.
BowlesHannahBabcockLindaLaiLei. 2007. Social incentives for gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations: Sometimes it does hurt to ask. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes103(1): 84–103.
13.
BrovermanInge K.VogelSusan RaymondBrovermanDonald M.ClarksonFrank E.RosenkrantzPaul S.1972. Sex-role stereotypes: A current appraisal. Journal of Social Issues28(2): 59–78.
14.
BuhrmesterMichaelKwangTracyGoslingSamuel D.2011. Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?Perspectives on Psychological Science6(1): 3–5.
15.
CarpenterChristopher S.2005. Self-reported sexual orientation and earnings: Evidence from California. Industrial and Labor Relations Review58(2): 258–73.
16.
CarpenterChristopher S.2007. Revisiting the income penalty for behaviorally gay men: Evidence from NHANES III. Labour Economics14(1): 25–34.
17.
CarpenterChristopher S.2008. Sexual orientation, income, and non-pecuniary economic outcomes: New evidence from young lesbians in Australia. Review of Economics of the Household6(4): 391–408.
18.
CarringtonChristopher. 1999. No Place Like Home: Relationships and Family Life among Lesbians and Gay Men. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
CorrellShelley J.BenardStephenPaikIn. 2007. Getting a job? Is there a motherhood penalty?American Journal of Sociology112(5): 1297–1339.
21.
Cushing-DanielsBrendanYeungTsz-Ying. 2009. Wage penalties and sexual orientation: An update using the General Social Survey. Contemporary Economic Policy27(2): 164–75.
22.
DeauxKayLewisLaurie L.1984. The structure of gender stereotypes: Interrelationships among components and gender label. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology46(5): 991–1004.
23.
EaglyAlice. 2009. The his and hers of prosocial behavior: An examination of the social psychology of gender. American Psychologist64(8): 644–58.
24.
EaglyAliceCrowleyMaureen. 1986. Gender and helping behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psychology literature. Psychology Bulletin100(3): 283–308.
25.
ElmslieBruceTebaldiEdinaldo. 2007. Sexual orientation and labor market discrimination. Journal of Labor Research28(3): 436–53.
GillMichael J.2004. When information does not deter stereotyping: Prescriptive stereotyping can foster bias under conditions that deter descriptive stereotyping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology40(5): 619–32.
29.
GoughBrendan. 2002. “I’ve always tolerated it but . . .”: Heterosexual masculinity and the discursive reproduction of homophobia. In CoyleAdrianKitzingerCelia (Eds.), Lesbian and Gay Psychology: New Perspectives, pp. 219–238. Oxford, UK: BPS Blackwell.
30.
HalberstamJack. 1998. Female masculinity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
31.
HeilmanMadeline E.1995. Sex stereotypes and their effects in the workplace: What we know and what we don’t know. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality10(6): 3–26.
32.
HeilmanMadeline E.2001. Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues57(4): 657–74.
33.
HeilmanMadeline E.ChenJulie J.2005. Same behavior, different consequences: Reactions to men’s and women’s altruistic citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology90(3): 431–41.
34.
HeilmanMadeline E.Parks-StammElizabeth J.2007. Gender stereotypes in the workplace: Obstacles to women’s career progress. Advances in Group Processes24: 47–77.
35.
HeilmanMadeline E.BlockCaryn J.MartellRichard F.1995. Sex stereotypes: Do they influence perceptions of managers?Journal of Social Behavior and Personality10(6): 237–52.
36.
HeilmanMadeline E.WallenAaron S.FuchsDaniellaTamkinsMelinda M.2004. Penalties for success: Reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology89(3): 416–27.
37.
HerekGregory M.2000. Sexual prejudice and gender: Do heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men differ?Journal of Social Issues56(2): 251–66.
38.
HerekGregory M.2002. Gender gaps in public opinion about lesbians and gay men. Public Opinion Quarterly66(1): 40–66.
39.
HortonJohn J.RandDavid G.ZeckhauserRichard J.2011. The online laboratory: Conducting experiments in a real labor market. Experimental Economics14(3): 399–425.
40.
JepsenLisa K.2007. Comparing the earnings of cohabiting lesbians, cohabiting heterosexual women, and married women: Evidence from the 2000 Census. Industrial Relations46(4): 699–727.
41.
KiteMary E.DeauxKay. 1987. Gender belief systems: Homosexuality and the implicit inversion theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly11(1): 83–96.
42.
KiteMary E.WhitleyBernard E.Jr., Jr. 1996. Sex differences in attitudes toward homosexual persons, behaviors, and civil rights: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin22(4): 336–53.
43.
KlawitterMarieka. 2011. Multilevel analysis of the effects of antidiscrimination policies on earnings by sexual orientation. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management30(2): 334–58.
44.
KlawitterMarieka. 2015. Meta-analysis of the effects of sexual orientation on earnings. Industrial Relations54(1): 4–32.
National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. 2013. Table 11. Women as a percentage of all bachelor’s recipients, by major field group: 1966–2010. Science and Engineering Degrees: 1966–2010. Alexandria, VA: NCSES, National Science Foundation.
50.
PedullaDavid S.2014. The positive consequences of negative stereotypes: Race, sexual orientation, and the job application process. Social Psychology Quarterly77(1): 75–94.
51.
ProschanFrank. 1997. Recognizing gay and lesbian speech. American Anthropologist99(1): 164–66.
52.
RajaSheelaStokesJoseph P.1998. Assessing attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: The modern homophobia scale. International Journal of Sexuality and Gender Studies3(2): 113–34.
53.
RudmanLaurie A.1998. Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology74(3): 629–45.
54.
RudmanLaurieGlickPeter. 1999. Feminized management and backlash toward agentic women: The hidden costs to women of a kinder, gentler image of middle managers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology77(5): 1004–10.
55.
RudmanLaurieGlickPeter. 2001. Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues57(4): 732–62.
56.
RudmanLauriePhelanJulie E.2008. Backlash effects for disconfirming gender stereotypes in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior28: 61–79.
57.
SabiaJoseph J.2014. Sexual orientation and wages in young adulthood: New evidence from Add Health. Industrial and Labor Relations Review67(1): 239–67.
58.
TilcsikAndrás. 2011. Pride and prejudice: Employment discrimination against openly gay men in the United States. American Journal of Sociology117(2): 586–626.
59.
WeichselbaumerDoris. 2003. Sexual orientation discrimination in hiring. Labour Economics10(6): 630–42
60.
WeichselbaumerDoris. 2004. Is it sex or personality? The impact of sex stereotypes on discrimination in applicant selection. Eastern Economic Journal30(2): 159–86.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
