Outside the Inclusive Box
How psychological barriers constrain men’s interest in gender-atypical jobs and facilitate occupational segregation
Eileen Suh, Evan Apfelbaum & Michael Norton
Organization Science, forthcoming
Abstract:
Scholarship regarding occupational gender segregation has almost exclusively focused on women’s experiences (e.g., as targets of discrimination in masculine domains), yet understanding factors that perpetuate men’s underrepresentation in traditionally feminine occupations is equally important. We examine a consequential dynamic early in the job search process in which individuals come to learn that an occupation that fits them is perceived as feminine versus masculine. Our research develops and tests the prediction that the femininity or masculinity of occupations will exert a stronger impact on men’s (versus women’s) interest in them, such that men will be less interested in gender-atypical occupations than women. Across five studies (N = 4,479), we consistently observed robust evidence for this prediction among diverse samples, including high school students (Study 1), unemployed job seekers (Study 2), US adults (Study 3), and undergraduates (Study 4), and using experimental and archival methods. We observed this asymmetry after controlling for alternative accounts related to economic factors (e.g., expected salary), suggesting that they alone cannot fully explain men’s lack of interest in feminine occupations, as previously discussed in the literature. Further, we consistently observed that men, compared to women, show heightened sensitivity to gender-based occupational status, and this greater sensitivity explains men’s (versus women’s) reduced interest in gender-atypical occupations. Though past scholarship suggests that increasing pay is key to stoking men’s interest in feminine occupations, our research suggests that targeting men’s underlying psychological concerns -- sensitivity to gender-based occupational status -- may be an underappreciated pathway to reducing gender segregation.
Gender Gap in Apologies
Lily Liu & Marshall Mo
Stanford Working Paper, September 2024
Abstract:
We use an online experiment to study a novel behavioral gap that helps explain gender disparities in the labor market: the gender gap in apologies. We hypothesize that women are more likely to apologize than men, conditional on having the same ability. Apologies could be seen as a signal of incompetence, which might hold women back in the labor market. We first provide evidence for the gender apology gap and explore confidence as a reason behind it. We find that while the gender confidence gap plays a role, it cannot fully explain the apology gap. Regarding the labor market consequences of the gender apology gap, we show that employers infer lower ability from workers’ apologies and do not take gender differences into account when making ability inferences. As a result, employers tend to judge female workers’ abilities more negatively.
LinkedOut? A Field Experiment on Discrimination in Job Network Formation
Yulia Evsyukova, Felix Rusche & Wladislaw Mill
Quarterly Journal of Economics, forthcoming
Abstract:
We assess the impact of discrimination on Black individuals’ job networks across the U.S. using a two-stage field experiment with 400+ fictitious LinkedIn profiles. In the first stage, we vary race via AI-generated images only and find that Black profiles’ connection requests are 13 percent less likely to be accepted. Based on users’ CVs, we find widespread discrimination across social groups. In the second stage, we exogenously endow Black and White profiles with the same networks and ask connected users for career advice. We find no evidence of direct discrimination in information provision. However, when taking into account differences in the composition and size of networks, Black profiles receive substantially fewer replies. Our findings suggest that gatekeeping is a key driver of Black-White disparities.
Economic freedom and legal gender disparity
Claudia Williamson Kramer
Contemporary Economic Policy, forthcoming
Abstract:
Using a panel dataset from 1970 to 2019, this paper theorizes and empirically demonstrates that countries with higher levels of economic freedom have fewer legal differences between men's and women's economics rights. Specifically, economic freedom promotes equal legal treatment of women to work, get paid, and be entrepreneurs. This finding is robust to controlling for income, political institutional quality, and country and period fixed effects. Furthermore, economic freedom's impact is amplified in democratic countries. The results challenge the prevailing notion that capitalism is detrimental to women, instead providing evidence that economically free countries favor less legal discrimination against women.
Gender Differences in Vocational Interests Across 57 Countries: A Test of the Interest–Gender-Equality Paradox
Yan Yi Lance Du, Serena Wee & James Rounds
Social Psychological and Personality Science, forthcoming
Abstract:
Postmaterialist theory suggests that gender differences in vocational interests should be larger in more egalitarian countries, reflecting a counter-intuitive pattern called the “Gender-Equality Paradox.” By contrast, social role theory implies that gender differences in vocational interests should be smaller in more egalitarian countries as gender roles converge. Using multilevel analyses on data from 57 countries (N = 109,460), we investigate the relationship of country-level gender equality (measured by the Global Gender Gap Index) to gender differences in RIASEC (Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, and Conventional) vocational interests. Results reveal patterns that differ by interest dimensions. In more egalitarian countries, gender differences in Realistic, Investigative, and Social interests are larger, revealing an “Interest–Gender-Equality Paradox.” Conversely, gender differences in Artistic, Enterprising, and Conventional interests are smaller in these countries. These relationships remain largely robust after controlling for country-level economic development (Gross Domestic Product). We discuss possible explanations and implications of our findings.
Can fertility decline help explain gender pay convergence?
Alexandra Killewald & Nino José Cricco
Social Forces, forthcoming
Abstract:
Prior scholarship demonstrates that motherhood wage penalties and fatherhood wage premiums contribute to the gender pay gap. These analyses typically take a cross-sectional perspective, asking to what extent gender inequalities in the association between parenthood and wages can explain gender pay inequality for a given cohort or at a given moment in time. By contrast, explorations of gender pay convergence over time have tended to start at the firm’s door, testing the explanatory power of changes in men’s and women’s human capital and job characteristics and neglecting the contributions of fertility change. We bring these two strands of research together, asking to what extent declines 1980–2018 in US employees’ number of children can explain gender pay convergence over the same period. Using a descriptive decomposition and data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, we show that, in gross terms, fertility decline can explain almost one-quarter of gender pay convergence from 1980 to 2018. Even net of a host of controls for human capital and job characteristics, fertility decline explains 8 percent of the attenuation of the US gender pay gap 1980–2018 -- about half as much as changes in education and about a quarter as much as changes in full-time work experience and job tenure combined. Finally, we show that employees’ fertility decline was fastest in the 1980s and subsequently slowed; this, in conjunction with persistent gender differences in parenthood–wage associations, helps explain stalled progress toward gender pay parity.
Penalizing Nonconformity: Gender Nonconformity at the Intersection of Gender and Sexual Identity in the Labor Market
Jaime Hsu
Social Problems, forthcoming
Abstract:
Previous research has identified wage penalties for women and sexual minority workers. However, these analyses did not consider how gender nonconformity may influence our current understanding of these penalties. Therefore, this study aims to explore the wage penalty associated with gender nonconformity at the intersection of gender and sexual identity. It theorizes how gender nonconformity contributes to labor market inequality by distinguishing the impacts of gender nonconformity, gender identity, and sexual identity on wages. Using a novel measurement in the fifth wave of the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health, the results indicate that heterosexual men and women experience wage penalties for being gender nonconforming compared to their conforming counterparts. Interestingly, gender nonconformity is not linked to wage penalties for gay, lesbian, and bisexual workers. These wage penalties persist even after adjusting for marital and parental statuses among nonconforming heterosexual men and women. Furthermore, nonconforming straight men earn significantly less than both conforming and nonconforming gay/bisexual men. These findings offer insights for future research to explore the labor market consequences of gender nonconformity for straight individuals, as well as gender and sexual minority workers.
Internal Versus Institutional Barriers to Gender Equality: Evidence from British Politics
Noor Kumar et al.
University of British Columbia Working Paper, August 2024
Abstract:
Weekly lotteries determine which politicians ask the UK Prime Minister a question in front of a male-dominated, packed, and noisy chamber. Women are 12% less likely to submit questions than same-cohort men, and this gap does not close with lottery-induced experience asking a question, or with years of service. However, the gender gap almost fully closes after a switch to a format in which questions are asked to a smaller, quieter, audience. The switch differentially draws in women with quieter voices. Our findings support institutional change, rather than adaptation through experience, as a response to gender gaps in adversarial settings.
Public Agents Discretion in Welfare Administration: Evidence on Discrimination from an Experiment
Lanjun Peng
Indiana University Working Paper, August 2024
Abstract:
Granting flexibility to welfare administrators has the potential to promote a greater degree of inclusive fairness by allowing bureaucrats discretion in assessing the needs of applicants. However, high levels of discretion open the door for administrators' own biases to influence decision making, which can have disparate effects on marginalized groups. This study focuses on the unintended consequences of bureaucratic discretion in local government welfare programs, an area that has been relatively understudied. I use an email correspondence study to examine the potential for discriminatory effects of bureaucratic discretion in the administration of Indiana's Township Assistance program. Program administrators receive emails from residents requesting information about how to access the program. I find that Black females with grammar and spelling errors in their emails were more likely to receive a response and received higher quality responses compared to White males with no grammar and spelling errors. In addition, township trustee's political party, sex, and race do not significantly affect the discretion they exercise.
Diverse Disconnectedness: Homophily, Social Capital Inequality, and Student Experiences in Law School
Anthony Paik et al.
Law & Social Inquiry, forthcoming
Abstract:
Law school students are encouraged frequently to “network.” However, depending on demographic categories, they may have access to differently resourced social networks in law school. In this article, we draw from our mixed-methods research to explore this diversity of experience, its limitations of access, and the possible network inequalities that may limit the value of legal education to diverse students across different institutional contexts. Using survey and network data (N = 744), collected during the fall of 2019 from three law schools, as well as supplementary interview data (N = 55), we examined students’ social networks, the structures of these relationships, and their associations with law school satisfaction. We find that, while students tended to cluster based on shared characteristics (that is, race, gender, sexual identity, political orientation, religion, and age) and contexts (that is, type of program, section assignments), these emergent clusters produced disparities in satisfaction across racial categories. Homophilous networks were tied to satisfaction for Black and White students, but the same embeddedness was associated with lower satisfaction with law school for Asian and Latinx students. These results provide grounds for rethinking how diversity matters in law school and its implications for marginalized students’ experience and success.
Do Investors Value Workforce Gender Diversity?
David Daniels et al.
Organization Science, forthcoming
Abstract:
We examine whether investors value workforce gender diversity. Consistent with the view that investors believe workforce gender diversity can be valuable in major firms, we use event studies to demonstrate that U.S. technology firms and financial firms experience more positive stock price reactions when it is revealed that they have relatively higher (versus lower) workforce gender diversity numbers. For instance, we find that Google’s revelation of relatively low workforce gender diversity numbers triggered a negative stock price reaction, whereas eBay’s revelation of relatively high workforce gender diversity numbers triggered a positive stock price reaction. These stock price reactions are both economically and statistically significant; for example, we estimate that if a technology firm had revealed gender diversity numbers that were one standard deviation higher, its market valuation would have increased by $1.11 billion. Corroborating this plausibly causal field evidence, we also find positive investor reactions to workforce gender diversity in randomized experiments using Prolific participants with investing experience; these reactions seem to be underpinned by investors’ beliefs about potential upsides of diversity for the firm (e.g., reduced legal risks; increased creativity) but not by investors’ beliefs about potential downsides of diversity for the firm (e.g., increased conflict). Our findings highlight the importance of understanding investors’ intuitions or beliefs about major organizational phenomena such as workforce gender diversity. Our results also point toward a new type of business case for diversity, driven by investors: if major firms had more workforce gender diversity, investors may “reward” them with substantially higher valuations.
When all you have is a hammer: How social justice distorts what we know about racial disparities
John Iceland & Eric Silver
Theory and Society, October 2024, Pages 1073–1092
Abstract:
The sociological literature on race operates under the progressive ideological assumption that systemic racism is the predominant cause of racial disparities. This assumption has become “paradigmatic,” shaping the selection of research questions and the interpretation of research results. Consequently, the literature offers a rather narrow “Overton window” concerning what we, as sociologists, know about: (1) the causes of racial disparities, (2) the accuracy and motivation behind the public’s views on race-related issues, and (3) race-related policy preferences. A paradigm shift is needed to improve our understanding of racial disparities and devise more effective ways to address them. To achieve this end, sociologists should broaden their perspectives beyond attributing all racial disparities to systemic racism and consider additional hypotheses. From a policy perspective, to reduce racial disparities we should reconsider addressing social class and related factors early in life.