BUS 670 Final Paper Already Started, with outline and sources provided
equestrian14
gays_and_lesbians_discriminated_in_hiring.pdf
Southern Economic Journal 2013, 79(3), 565-585 DOI: 10.4284/0038-4038-2011.317
Are Gay Men and Lesbians Discriminated against in the Hiring Process?
Ali M. Ahmed,* Lina Andersson.f and Mats HammarstedtJ
This article presents the first field experiment on sexual orientation discritnination in the hiring process in the Swedish labor market. Job applications were sent to about 4000 employers in 10 different occupations in Sweden. Gender and sexual orientation were randomly assigned to applications. The results show that sexual orientation discrimination exists in the Swedish labor market. The discrimination against the gay male applicant and the lesbian applicant varied across different occupations and appears to be concentrated in the private sector. The results also show that the gay male applicant was discriminated against in typical male-dominated occupations, whereas the lesbian applicant was discriminated against in typical female- dominated occupations. Theoretical implications are discussed.
JEL Classification: C93, J15, J71
1. Introduction
The economics of sexual orientation is a relatively new field of research that is undergoing
considerable growth. Economics research has characterized sexual orientation as an
independent variable and linked it to a range of economic and social outcomes. Labor
economists have, for example, examined the influence of sexual orientation on labor supply,
occupational choice and ranking, household earnings, and individual earnings and wages.' This
* Swedish Collegium for Advanced Study, Thunbergsvägen 2, 752 38 Uppsala, Sweden; and Department of Management and Engineering, Linkoping University, 581 83 Linköping, Sweden; E-mail [email protected]; corresponding author.
t Centre for Labour Market and Discrimination Studies, Linnaeus University, 351 95 Växjö, Sweden; E-mail [email protected].
% Centre for Labour Market and Discrimination Studies, Linnaeus University, 351 95 Växjö, Sweden; E-mail [email protected].
The Institute for Evaluation of Labour Market and Education Policy (IFAU) funded the research documented in this artiele. Riksbankens Jubileumsfond funded Ali Ahmed. We express gratitude to Anna Pedersen and Adam Wrede, who provided assistance with the data colleetion. We are much obliged to Magnus Carlsson, Erik Grönqvist, Johanna Palmberg, Olof Âslund, Editor David Ribar, and two reviewers for useful suggestions. We also thank seminar participants at Linnaeus University, The Swedish Collegium for Advaneed Study, The Ratio Institute, The Institute for Evaluation of Labour Market and Education Policy, The 5th Annual International Conference on Sociology held in Athens 2011, The European Economic Association Annual Congress held in Oslo 2011, and The European Association of Labour Economists Annual Conferenee held in Pafos 2011 for valuable discussions.
Reeeived Oetober 2011; accepted July 2012. ' For studies on labor supply, see Tebaldi and Elmslie (2006), Antecol and Steinberger (2011), and Oreffice (2011); on
oecupational choice and ranking, see Frank (2006), Antecol, Jong, and Steinberger (2008), and Ahmed, Andersson, and Hammarstedt (201 la); on household earnings, see Klawitter and Flatt (1998), Blaek, Sanders, and Taylor (2007), Ahmed, Andersson, and Hammarstedt (2011b); and on individual earnings and wages, see Badgett (1995, 2001), Allegretto and Arthur (2001), Clain and Leppel (2001), Berg and Lien (2002), Blaek et al. (2003), Blandford (2003), Arabsheibani, Marin, and Wadsworth (2004, 2005), Carpenter (2004, 2005, 2007, 200S), Plug and Berkhout (2004), Elmslie and Tebaldi (2007), Jepsen (2007), and Ahmed and Hammarstedt (2010).
® Southern Economic Association, 2013 565
566 Ahmed, Andersson, and Hammarstedt
body of research has shown that there are notable effects of sexual orientation on labor market outcomes. Most studies, for instance, have focused on earnings differences between gay men, lesbians, and heterosexuals. These studies show that gay men earn less than heterosexual men do, whereas lesbians earn about the same, or sometimes even more, than heterosexual women do. This pattern of differences seems to be robust across different countries and data.
A number of competing hypotheses have been put forward in the literature to explain differences in the labor market outcomes among gay men, lesbians, and heterosexuals. One is that the differences are a result of specialization within households (Becker 1981). Since gay male and lesbian couples consist of two individuals of the same sex, they divide their time between market work and household work in a different way than heterosexual couples do, which results in differences in labor market outcomes (Black, Sanders, and Taylor 2007). Another explanation is occupational sorting, which assumes that gay men are more likely than heterosexual men to sort into female-dominated occupations that tend to pay below average wages, and lesbians are more likely than heterosexual women to sort into male-dominated occupations that tend to pay above average wages (Antecol, Jong, and Steinberger 2008). Labor market attachment and labor supply may also explain some of the differences in the labor market outcomes (Tebaldi and Elmslie 2006). One reason to suspect that labor market attachment may play a role is that same-sex couples have children at lower rates than heterosexual couples do (Black, Sanders, and Taylor 2007). Beliefs in discrimination may also affect gay men and lesbians' choices of occupation and other labor market decisions (Plug, Webbink, and Martin 2011). An additional set of possible explanations can be found in Berg and Lien (2002), Badgett (2006), and Black, Sanders, and Taylor (2007).
One hypothesis that explains the differences in labor market outcomes is, of course, that gay men and lesbians face discrimination in the labor market (Badgett 1995). In the present study, we test this hypothesis. To conclude that discrimination is the exclusive cause of observed labor market differences between gay men, lesbians, and heterosexuals is well known to be an inadequate conclusion when it is based only on econometric analysis on register or survey data. Moreover, attitudinal and survey based studies do not provide sufficient and direct evidence of discrimination, even though they can give useful information about the difficulties gay men and lesbians face in the labor market. An effective way to assemble evidence of discrimination is to use field experiments. Controlled field experiments have been used extensively to study discrimination in various markets and have proven to be powerful in providing evidence of racial discrimination (Riach and Rich 2002; Bertrand and Mullainathan 2004). Therefore, the present study utilizes a field experiment to examine whether gay men and lesbians are discriminated against in the hiring process in the Swedish labor market.
We constructed written applications consisting of an application letter that described a fictitious applicant and a résumé suited for applying to 10 different occupations. The applications were then sent to all employers that were announcing an open vacancy during a five-month period in 2010. The applicant's gender and sexual orientation were randomly assigned to the application for each employer we approached. We used distinctive male and female names to signal the gender of the applicant. The sexual orientation of the applicant was signaled by revealing the gender of the applicant's spouse and by adding information about voluntary work in a gay-lesbian organization or a neutral aid organization, respectively. We investigated the incidence of discrimination by observing the choice by employers to invite applicants for a job interview or offer a job.
There are a few previously documented field experiments that have investigated discrimination against gay men and lesbians in the hiring process (Adam 1981; Hebl et al.
Sexual Orientation Discrimination 567
2002; Weichselbaumer 2003; Drydakis 2009, 2011). We will review these in the next section. Compared to these studies we make several important contributions. First, this is the first field experimental study of sexual orientation discrimination in the Swedish labor market. Sweden happens to be a suitable testing outlet for a field experiment on sexual orientation discrimination in the labor market. Public opinion of gay men and lesbians in Sweden is among the most liberal and tolerant in the world (Gerhards 2010), but interview-based studies from Sweden have consistently documented that gay men and lesbians often suffer from problematic situations in the labor market that heterosexuals do not (Forsberg, Jakobsen, and Smirthwaite 2003). Second, this is the first nationwide field experiment regarding sexual orientation and labor market discrimination. Gay men and lesbians have been found to be disproportionately located in larger cities. This has been explained by the fact that residents in larger cities have more liberal attitudes toward gay men and lesbians (Black, Sanders, and Taylor 2007). This makes it important to conduct a study that includes both larger and smaller cities in order to investigate whether or not discrimination against gay men and lesbians is more severe in smaller than in larger cities. Third, we applied to jobs in 10 different types of occupations. We believe it is important to include a larger number of occupations because discrimination might vary across different occupations and depend on whether occupations are typical female-dominated or male-dominated. Therefore, in our sample, we include jobs that are male-dominated, jobs that are female-dominated, and jobs that are gender-neutral. Finally, this is the first field experiment that investigates discrimination against both gay men and lesbians in a labor market. This is important because the experiences of gay men and lesbians in the labor market may differ. This has not least been shown in the literature on earnings differentials between gay men, lesbians, and heterosexuals. Hence, compared to previous studies we make numerous efforts in order to examine several important heterogeneities related to discrimination against gay men and lesbians.
2. Literature Review
There are five earlier studies of which we know that have used field experiments to investigate the existence of sexual orientation discrimination in the labor market.^ Adam (1981) conducted the first field experiment on sexual orientation discrimination. He created four résumés suitable for applying to apprentice positions at law firms. The résumés were identical in all aspects exeept for the applieants' gender and sexual orientation. Sexual orientation was signaled by adding the information that the applicant was active in the Gay People's Alliance. Job applications were sent to 163 law firms in Ontario, Canada. A random assignment procedure was used, meaning that one out of four possible résumés was randomly selected and sent to each law firm. This study showed that the gay male applicant received a response in 10% of the cases, whereas the heterosexual male applicant received a response in 17% of the cases. The lesbian and the heterosexual female applicant received a response in 7% and 15% of the cases, respectively. Adam (1981) concluded that discrimination against gay men and lesbians existed in his experiment. However, these results were not statistically significant.
^ Ahmed, Andersson, and Hammarstedt (2008), Ahmed and Hammarstedt (2009), and Lauster and Easterbrook (2011) have conducted field experiments in order to investigate discrimination against gay men and lesbians in the rental housing market.
568 Ahmed, Andersson, and Hammarstedt
Hebl et al. (2002) recruited eight male and eight female students, each of whom applied for jobs at six different stores in Texas. In contrast to Adam (1981), who used written applications (a correspondence test), they utilized a personal approach (a situation test). The applicants were randomly assigned to wear a hat with "Gay and Proud" or a hat with "Texas and Proud" printed in the front. When applicants asked employers whether there were any jobs available, gay male and lesbian applicants received an affirmative answer in 43% of the cases and heterosexual applicants received an affirmative answer in 56% of the cases. This was not a statistically significant difference. This study only reported overall results and did not provide information about gay men versus heterosexual men and lesbians versus heterosexual women.
Weichselbaumer (2003) investigated whether lesbians were discriminated against in Austria. In contrast to Adam (1981) and Hebl et al. (2002), she used a matched assignment procedure. She sent two written applications, one for a heterosexual female and one for a lesbian, to each employer. Sexual orientation of the lesbian applicant was signaled by adding information about former activity in the "Viennese Gay People's Alliance" in the application of the lesbian applicant. Weichselbaumer (2003) applied to 613 clerical jobs in the greater Vienna area. However, it was only in 341 cases that a matched pair of applicants with one lesbian and one heterosexual female was sent. On average, the lesbian and the heterosexual female applicant received a response from employers in 42% and 55% of the cases, respectively. This difference was statistically significant.
Drydakis (2009) studied the incidence of discrimination faced by gay men in Athens, Greece. Like Weichselbaumer (2003), he utilized a matched assignment procedure with written applications and signaled sexual orientation by adding that the applicant was a "member volunteer in the Athenian Homosexual Community" in the résumé of the gay male applicant. He sent two written applications, one for a heterosexual male and, one for a gay male, to each employer in his sample. He applied to 1,714 jobs in four different occupations: office jobs, industrial jobs, restaurant and café services, and shop sales. Drydakis (2009) presents clear evidence of discrimination against gay men in all four occupations. In total, the gay male applicant received an offer for an interview in 14% of the cases, whereas the heterosexual applicant received an offer for an interview in 40% of the cases. Recently Drydakis (2011) replicated his results for lesbians by applying to 1,057 jobs in the same occupations and with the same methodology as in his previous study for gay men. In this study he found that the lesbian applicant received an offer for an interview in 22% of the cases, whereas the heterosexual female applicant received an offer for an interview in 49% of the cases.
3. Theoretical Motivation
The concept oí sexual prejudice was introduced by Herek (2000) to specifically refer "to all negative attitudes based on sexual orientation." There is a large body of research, particularly in social psychology, that has provided evidence of sexual prejudice in a variety of different contexts (for reviews, see Bhugra 1987; Ahmad and Bhugra 2010). When sexual prejudices are put into action they result in sexual orientation discrimination, which refers to the prejudicial and unfair treatment of people based on their sexual orientation.
Becker (1957) introduced the concept of a taste for discrimination to explain labor market discrimination in particular. This terminology has become the standard for economists
Sexual Orientation Discrimination 569
translating the social concept of prejudice into the language of economics. Put as simply as possible, in the case of sexual orientation discrimination, the taste-based theory prediets that employers who have a sexual prejudiee may act on their bias against gay men and lesbians, resulting in disadvantages for gay men and lesbians in the labor market.
The field experimental researeh on sexual orientation discrimination reviewed earlier was largely motivated by the notion of taste-based discrimination. Under the assumption that employers ean make a distinction between heterosexual and nonheterosexual applieants, it is hypothesized that sexual orientation discrimination is likely to occur. This hypothesis is tested in the present study. However, sexual orientation discrimination is complex and involves more than just a taste for diserimination against gay men and lesbians.
Previous studies limited to the taste-based model of discrimination were often narrow in scope, because using the taste-based model caused them to examine discrimination only in a small number of oeeupations. Taste-based discrimination is necessarily not oeeupation-specific: A "taste" against gay men and lesbians may exist in all oeeupations. In spite of the universal nature of this prejudice, there are reasons to believe that sexual orientation discrimination varies with the type of occupation. Specifically we hypothesize that the degree of sexual orientation discrimination depends on whether an occupation is female-dominated or male- dominated versus gender-neutral.
Researeh on beliefs, pereeptions, and stereotypes about typical male and typical female characteristies shows that men are eonsidered to be, inter alia, more independent, more assertive, and more task-oriented, whereas women are considered to be, inter alia, more generous, more affectionate, and more sensitive (Broverman et al. 1972; Deaux and Lewis 1984; Heilman 2001). As Heilman and Parks-Stamm (2007) have put it, men are seen as more "agentic" and women as more "communal." These types of personality traits also serve as the cornerstones of the popular definitions of masculinity and femininity (Bem 1974).
Studies have also doeumented that gay men and lesbians are perceived to have the stereotypical characteristics of the opposite sex (Haddoek, Zanna, and Esses 1993; Kite and Deaux 1987; Jaekson and Sullivan 1989). To elaborate, gay men are perceived as feminine and exhibiting eommunal characteristics, and lesbians are pereeived as maseuline and exhibiting agentic characteristics. For example, in an experimental study. Kite and Deaux (1987) found that partieipants assigned similar traits to gay men and heterosexual women and other similar traits to lesbians and heterosexual men.
Research has also shown that when men and women are described as having the eharaeteristics of the opposite sex they are presumed to be gay men or lesbians, respectively (Gurwitz and Marcus 1978; Taylor 1983; Deaux and Lewis 1984; Kite and Deaux 1987). Deaux and Lewis (1984), for example, found that the probability that men were pereeived as gay increased when they were portrayed as being more communal with stereotypically feminine traits. Similarly, when women were portrayed as being more agentic, with stereotypically masculine traits, they were perceived to be lesbians. This body of research shows that gay men and lesbians are presumed to violate traditional gender traits and that the deduction works both ways. Gay men are perceived to be feminine and men with feminine traits are assumed to be gay. Similarly, lesbians are considered to be masculine and people suppose that masculine women are lesbians.
The link between stereotypes about traditional gender traits and sexual orientation is an important one and may play a significant role in relation to sexual orientation diserimination. The eonneetion is partieularly important in oeeupations that are traditionally considered to be maseuline or feminine. In labor eeonomies, an occupation is usually called feminine or
570 Ahmed, Andersson, and Hammarstedt
masculine when the majority of the employees in that occupation are women or men, respectively (Wootton 1997; Weichselbaumer 2004). Not surprisingly, most male-dominated occupations are masculine in the sense that they involve employee traits that are stereotypically associated with males, and most female-dominated occupations are feminine in the sense that they involve employee traits that are stereotypically associated with females.
Employers may look for a number of traits in a potential worker, depending on the particular job opening. Employers then compare job applicants' traits with the traits required for the job. Stereotypes of gay men being feminine and lesbians being masculine can create problems for gay men and lesbians because of a lack of congruence between their assumed traits, which do not conform to typical gender-role stereotypes, and the presumed requirements of the job. This could be a problem especially when gay men apply for jobs in male-dominated occupations and lesbians apply for jobs in female-dominated occupations. Qualities that are considered to be necessary by employers, for example, in traditionally male-dominated occupations are typically those consistent with stereotypes of men (Schein 1973, 1975; Heilman et al. 1989; Willemsen 2002; Dennis and Kunkel 2004).
No one can argue that stereotypes of traditional gender roles do not exist. Likewise, stereotypes about gay men being feminine and lesbians being masculine also exist. If employers have such stereotypes, it may affect their hiring decisions. This is particularly the case when employers value the qualities that gay men and lesbians are assumed to lack, as can happen in typically masculine or typically feminine occupations. Ifan employer faces two equally qualified job applicants who have different sexual orientations from one another, the employer may ascribe different traits to the job candidates based on their sexual orientation. It is then likely that gay male and lesbian applicants who are presumed to violate stereotypical gender roles are sorted away.
In line with taste-based discrimination theory and earlier field experiments, we predict a main effect resulting from sexual orientation, such that gay men and lesbians will have a lower probability than their heterosexual counterparts of being invited for a job interview or receiving a job offer. We further hypothesize that gay men will have a lower probability than heterosexual men in male-dominated occupations, and lesbians will have a lower probability than heterosexual women in female-dominated occupations of being invited for a job interview or receiving a job offer.
The implication of these hypotheses on the study design compared to prior studies is that we have to include a larger number of occupations and we need to include occupations that are both male-dominated and female-dominated. It is also important to underline that our predictions are based on the assumption that employers can identify the sexual orientation of potential workers. The fictitious applicants in our study must therefore in a reasonable way openly declare their sexual orientation.
Our conjecture closely resembles the notion of statistieal discrimination (Phelps 1972). Statistical discrimination theory says that when employers have incomplete information about potential employees' abilities and productivity, they have an incentive to use characteristics that are easily observable (for example, group affiliation) in order to predict a worker's productivity. Employers may use their perceived average productivity of potential employees' groups in order to decide whether or not to hire a given person.
An important assumption, however, in statistical discrimination theory is stereotype accurateness. In statistical discrimination, employers use actual group level differences to predict productivity on the individual level. The story told here involves statistically unsupported stereotypes rather than actual group level differences between heterosexual men
Sexual Orientation Discrimination 571
and gay men and heterosexual women and lesbians. Moreover, stereotypes regarding the traits of gay men and lesbians are as complex as they are unfounded, because they actually involve stereotypes on two levels. Stereotypes about gay men being feminine and lesbians being masculine are based on another set of stereotypes that define much of what is actually meant by femininity and masculinity.
4. Experimental Methodology
Randomized Correspondence Test
We utilized a correspondence test experiment, which does not require any real applicants. Fictitious applicants were created, and only written applications were sent out to employers. This is desirable from a methodological point of view, because it enables a rigorous control over the treatment and control conditions in the experiment. Correspondence tests are also desirable from a practical point of view, because they simplify the logistics of the experiment. We chose to use a randomized assignment procedure. One application was constructed, and only one application was sent to each employer. The type of applicant (gender and sexual orientation) was randomly assigned to each application. This allowed us to use completely identical letters of application, and we avoided the risk of being exposed by the employers.
Identities of Fictitious Applicants
We needed one distinctive male name, one distinctive female name, and one surname. We named our male applicants Erik and our female applicants Maria, and all four applicants had the surname Johansson.-' As a result, our experimental fictitious applicants were Erik Johansson, the heterosexual or the gay male applicant, and Maria Johansson, the heterosexual or the lesbian female applicant. We acquired a real postal address in central Stockholm to which employers could send their written correspondence. Four similar E-mail accounts were created, and four telephone numbers with voice mail were registered.''
At the time of the experiment our applicants were 32 years old (born May 18, 1978), married, and had no children. We chose this age because we wanted our fictitious applicants to be old enough to have some years of experience and to be married. At the same time, we wanted them to be young enough to not have any children. Also, disclosure of being gay male or lesbian is presumable more likely among younger people. Further, age itself may be related to discrimination in the labor market (Ahmed, Andersson, and Hammarstedt 2012). Therefore, we chose to hold age constant in this experiment.
The applicants had 15 years (or 11 years, if the job required higher education) of experience in a specific occupation. They liked being in nature and enjoyed jogging and walking. Further, they were interested in photography and liked doing voluntary jobs.
•* According to Statistics Sweden, Erik and Maria were the most common given Swedish names for males and females, respectively, and Johansson was the most common surname in Sweden, current as of December 31, 2009 (see http;// www.scb.se/Pages/ProductTables 30919.aspx).
" The real physical address was registered at the postal address provider Brevia Mail KB, the E-mail accounts were registered at gmail.com, and the four mobile telephone numbers were registered at Tele2 Sverige AB.
572 Ahmed, Andersson, and Hammarstedt
Accordingly, besides E-mail addresses and telephone numbers, all other information was purely identical for our four fictitious applicants. The variables that we randomly varied across employers were gender and sexual orientation.
Choice of Occupations
We selected occupations that were typically male-dominated, female-dominated, and neutral. Thus, we ended up selecting 10 broad occupations for our study. Five female-dominated occupations were used: shop sales assistant, preschool teacher, cleaner, restaurant worker, and nurse. Four male-dominated occupations were used: construction worker, motor vehicle driver, sales person, and mechanic worker. One gender-neutral occupation was used: high school teacher. The categorization into male-dominated and female-dominated occupation was based on the gender occupational structure in Sweden (Statistics Sweden 2010). The share of females in the female-dominated occupations ranged from 65% among shop sales assistants to 93% among preschool teachers and nurses. The share of males in male-dominated occupations ranged from 72% among sales persons to 99% among construction workers.
Gender and Sexual Orientation Labeling
The application consisted of three parts. First, there was a message in the E-mail sent to the employers. This was simply a statement of interest. The second part was an application letter, which was attached to the E-mail. This letter provided the name of the applicant, which revealed the gender. In one of the paragraphs in the application letter, we labeled our applicants as gay male, lesbian, or heterosexual. If the applicant was a heterosexual male (female), we wrote, "In my spare time, I enjoy spending time with my wife (husband)," and if the applicant was gay male (lesbian), we wrote, "In my spare time I enjoy spending time with my husband (wife)." Hence, we clearly signaled the sexual orientation of the applicant by revealing the gender of the applieant's spouse. Further, following the labeling technique in previous studies (Weichselbaumer 2003; Adam 1981; Drydakis 2009, 2011), we also included a sentence that stated an interest in voluntary work. For the gay male and lesbian applicants, we included that they were "engaged in the Swedish Federation for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Rights (RSFL)." For the heterosexual applicants, we wrote that they were "engaged in the Swedish Red Cross." Finally, for the gay male and lesbian applicants, we also added that they had been actively engaged in the organization of Stockholm Pride Festival. Hence, we signaled the sexual orientation of our applicants in three distinctive ways.
The final and third part of the application was a short résumé. The résumé gave full contact information, date of birth, information about work experience and previous employment, education, and language skills. Of course, all of this information was accommodated for the different targeted occupations but was identical across our apphcants. One example of an application letter and a résumé is provided in Appendix.
At this point we need also to discuss a possible limitation ofthis experiment that the reader should bear in mind when reading our results and conclusions. We did not directly indicate sexual orientation, but signaled it by revealing the spouse's gender and through involvement in gay-lesbian related voluntary work (RFSL and Pride Festival) for gay male and lesbian applicants and voluntary involvement in the Swedish Red Cross for the heterosexual
Sexual Orientation Discrimination 573 t
applicants. One objection to our signaling of sexual orientation could be that the gay male and lesbian applicants' voluntary engagement might make them appear as activists, whereas the heterosexual applicants' voluntary engagement might make them look like philanthropists. In other words, gay male and lesbian applicants may signal activism whereas heterosexual applicants may signal generosity. If this were the case, it is reasonable to argue that a signal of activism would have a negative impact whereas a signal of generosity would have a positive impact on employers' perceptions about the applicants. How would this affect the interpretation of our results?
We argue that if we assume that the two voluntary engagements signal different qualities and we find sizable discrimination against gay male and lesbian applicants, then the size of the discrimination should be interpreted with care because it runs the risk of being overestimated. We further argue that this caveat is especially important if we find discrimination against gay men and lesbians consistently across all different occupations and for both men and women. We conjecture that if there is a positive effect of signaling generosity and a negative effect of signaling activism, then these effects should be apparent in all or most types of occupations regardless of the gender of the applicant. As will appear in the results later on, however, the magnitude of discrimination and the inconsistency of discrimination across different occupations and between men and women in our data seem to suggest that the above mentioned effects of voluntary work are minor, if not absent.
Procedure and Protocol
Vacant jobs were found on the Web site of the Swedish Public Employment Service, which is the main channel for job searches in Sweden.' We applied to all available jobs in the selected occupations from August 16, 2010 to December 31, 2010. We applied only to jobs that welcomed applications through E-mail. It was not possible to apply for jobs via E-mail in approximately 10% of the job openings. For practical reasons they were excluded from this study.
We recorded the gender of the applicant, the sexual orientation of the applicant, and the type of the occupation. From the job announcements, we recorded mainly the following information: date of job opening, city, if the job was temporary, if the job was a full-time job, and if the employer Was a public sector employer (i.e., if the employer clearly was a public authority such as a municipality or a county council). The majority of the jobs applied for within each occupation were private sector jobs. The share of private jobs was over 98% in all occupations except for preschool teacher, high school teacher, and nurse. In these occupations the share of jobs with a public employer amounted to between 44% and 49%. Finally, we recorded the responses from the employers. Whenever employers invited the applicants for an interview or offered the applicants a job, it was recorded as a positive response. Immediate job offers were, however, very rare, and as a result most of the positive responses were invitations to job interviews. Positive responses from the employers were promptly and politely declined to minimize the inconvenience to the employers.
See the Web page of the Swedish Public Employment Service (Arbetsförmcdlingen) at http;//www.ams.se/. About one- third of all vacant jobs in Sweden are announced here.
574 Ahmed, Andersson, and Hammarstedt
5. Results
Percentage of Job Applications That Led to a Positive Response
Table 1 summarizes the results and shows that we, in total, applied to 3990 available jobs.* Table 1 presents the percentage of job applications that received a positive response (invitation to an interview or job offer) for all occupations as well as for different types of occupations and for jobs with different characteristics. With regard to the overall results (all occupations), we find that the gay male applicant received a positive response to about 26% of his job applieations, whereas the heterosexual male applieant reeeived a positive response to about 30% of his applications. Thus, the response rate for the heterosexual male applieant was 14% higher than for the gay male applicant. For the lesbian applicant, the percentage of applications that led to a positive response was about 26%, whereas the corresponding figure for the heterosexual female applicant was slightly less than 32%. This implies that the response rate for the heterosexual female applicant was about 22% higher than for the lesbian applieant.
A statistically significant difference in response rates due to sexual orientation is only found within a few occupations. The response rate was lower for the gay male applicant than for the heterosexual male applicant in the oeeupations shop sales assistant {p = 0.055) and mechanic worker (p = 0.062). The difference in positive response rates between the heterosexual male applicant and the gay male applicant in these occupations amounts to about 10 percentage points. However, it is worth noting that the heterosexual male applicant received about twice as many positive responses than the gay male applicant in these oeeupations. Furthermore, the response rate was lower for the lesbian applicant than for the female heterosexual applicant in the occupation cleaner (p = 0.023) and in thé occupation preschool teacher (p = 0.060). The difference in positive response rates between the heterosexual female applicant and the lesbian applieant amounts to about 10 percentage points for both occupations. However, the probability for a positive response is about twiee as large for the heterosexual female applicant than for the lesbian applicant in the occupation cleaner, whereas the response rate was about 20% higher for the heterosexual female applicant than for the lesbiah applieant in the presehool teacher occupation.
Turning to other job characteristics, we find that the response rate was lower for the gay male applicant than for the heterosexual male applieant in the private sector (p = 0.008). No statistically significant differenees in response rates were found between the gay male applieant and the heterosexual male applieant in the public sector. In fact, the gay male applieant reeeived more positive responses than the heterosexual applicant when applying for jobs in the publie seetor. In regard to females, the lesbian applicant had a statistieally significant lower response rate than the heterosexual female applieant in the private sector (p = 0.002), whereas no statistically significant differenee was found for jobs in the public sector. Furthermore, the lesbian applieant had a statistieally significant lower response rate than the female heterosexual applicant when the job was loeated in a metropolitan area (p = 0.012).'
^Actually, we applied to 4131 available jobs. In 96 cases, however, the E-mail addresses to the employers wtre misspelled in the job ads. Applications in these cases, therefore, never reached the employer and were instead automatically returned back to us. Another 45 observations were incomplete in their information. All these observations were excluded from the analysis, which resulted in a sample of 3990 observations.
' With metropolitan area we mean the three largest cities in Sweden: Stockholm, Gothenburg, and Malmö.
Sexual Orientation Diserimination 575
Bo b
o Cl,
â
ta
u B U
Ü u
-V ah
-a ata <D crt B O O.,
e R
es
. >
C/5
O eu ta o
•a
T h
a tL
B O
'^
O
"B. Ci,
X I o
1—î
Í4.-I O
as
xe n
u eu
H
se s
en th
e
ta Pu B
B >
O
te go
ry 1
U x : o
W B u.
tS X>
pl i
a.
lo bs
1—)
'S
1 3
-^ -^ ON ^
o
öooodoöooö öööööödö
Ö Ö Ö Ö — ¡ o o d d d dödödööö
00 íx> r~- ^^ (N —I O fN O oo oo
ro ro f̂ (N f̂
o en
en a g
B Í2 O CO
.2 3 « -B ta 8 -1 g Cl. o S g 3 <" ^ -'S
B ° &S
ïi oo •rS oo PS
l s >. >%Os
Sa ¿ Ö 3 —, O CH cd
3 h 2-a
u
UPá¿o
o 2 ta x: o
X) o
Ü s.'S ^ S «
II B a .o
o o 3 I—I ^ ^ Cu
B B O O -5 §
o eo o o d- "̂
"t^ O . CL J_I • - •
3 cd 11) o PH eu eu eu
a
576 Ahmed, Andersson, and Hammarstedt
Linear Probability Estimates of the Probability of Receiving a Positive Response
Next, we estimate a linear probability model of the probability of receiving a positive response to a job application (invited to an interview or offered a job). As a sensitivity analysis, we have also estimated a probit model. The results of the probit regressions led to similar results as those discussed below and are available from the authors upon request. We estimate five specifications of our model for male and female applicants, respectively. Specification 1 controls for sexual orientation as well as for all types of occupations and job characteristics. Apart from job characteristics. Specification 2 controls for whether the employer is in the public sector or in the private sector. Because of the fact that the great majority of the jobs applied for in most occupations are in the private sector, it is not possible to control for occupation and sector within the same specification. Therefore, in Specification 2 the occupation variables are excluded. Specification 2 also includes an interaction term between public sector employer and sexual orientation. Specifications 3-5 add interactions of public sector and sexual orientation with metropolitan area, full-time position, and permanent position, respectively. We estimate Specifications 3-5 to further elucidate the differences between the private and public sector observed in Table 1 by exploring to what extent it can be attributed to differences in job characteristics. Finally, all specifications include controls for seasonality in the hiring process (dummy variable for the month of application) and for regional differences at the county level (dummy variable for county). It is worth noting that, with a few exceptions, none of the seasonal and regional variables in our regressions turned out statistically significant. The estimates for the seasonal and regional controls are therefore suppressed in the article, but are available upon request. Further, all results remained stable when the controls for seasonality and regional variation were omitted. These estimations are also available upon request.
The results from Specifications 1-5 for males are presented in Table 2. Our different models reveal that the gay male applicant has between a 4 and 5% lower probability of receiving a positive response to a job application than the heterosexual male applicant. Specification 2 reveals that the probability of receiving a positive response is higher in the public than in the private sector and that this effect is larger for the gay male applicant than for the heterosexual male applicant. This is in line with the finding that the gay male applicant was doing relatively better in the public sector than in the private sector in Table 1. In Specifications 3-5 we examine whether this effect may be due to differences in job characteristics between the public and private sectors. It emerges that the response rate of the gay male applicant is higher for public sector jobs located in metropolitan areas; the gay male applicant has a 24% higher probability of receiving a positive response to public sector jobs in metropolitan areas than the heterosexual male applicant.
Turning to the corresponding results for females in Table 3, we find that the lesbian applicant has about a 6% lower probability of receiving a positive response to a job application than the heterosexual female applicant. As for males, the probability of receiving a positive response is higher in the public than in the private sector, although there is no statistically significant difference by sexual orientation in this respect. However, Specifications 3-5 reveal, in contrast to the results for males, that the lesbian applicant has about a 19% lower probability of receiving a positive response to public sector jobs located in metropolitan areas than does a heterosexual female applicant. At the same time, the lesbian applicant is more likely to get a positive response in the public sector jobs that are full-time positions.
Sexual Orientation Discrimination 577
Table 2. Linear Probability Estimates for Men of the Probability of Receiving a Positive Response (Robust Standard Errors within Parentheses)
Gay
Occupation Shop sales assistant Construction worker
Preschool teacher
High-school teacher
Motor-vehicle driver
Cleaner
Restaurant worker
Sales person
Nurse
Mechanic worker
Job characteristic Metropolitan area
Permanent position
Full-time position
Public sector
Interaction Public sector X gay
Public sector X metropolitan area X gay
Public sector X full- time position X gay
Public sector X permanent position X gay
R^ No. of observations
Specification 1
-0.044** (0.019)
Reference 0.127**
(0.040) 0.424***
(0.036) 0.356***
(0.048) 0.024
(0.042) 0.001
(0.030) 0.101**
(0.033) 0.173***
(0.038) 0.266***
(0.056) 0.020
(0.040)
0.005 (0.025) 0.001
(0.023) 0.037
(0.023) —
—
—
—
—
0.138 1975
Specification 2
-0.053** (0.021)
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
-0.005 (0.026)
-0.054** (0.024) 0.071**
(0.022) 0.127**
(0.046)
0.117* (0.063)
—
—
—
0.050 1975
Specification 3
-0.053** (0.021)
—
—
—
—
—
—
.—
-0.011 (0.026)
-0.054** (0.024) 0.072**
(0.022) 0.124**
(0.046)
0.099 (0.064) 0.231*
(0.135)
—
—
0.051 1975
Specification 4
-0.053** (0.021)
— .
—
—
—
—
-0.011 (0.026)
-0.054** (0.024) 0.069**
(0.023) 0.124**
(0.046)
0.064 (0.095) 0.238*
(0.133)
0.046 (0.095)
—
0.052 1975
Specification 5
-0.053** (0.021)
—
—
—
—
—
-0.011 (0.026)
-0.052** (0.024) 0.068**
(0.023) 0.125**
. (0.047)
0.075 . (0.101) 0.240*
(0.130)
0.053 (0.097)
-0.030 (0.087)
0.052 1975
All models inclucie controls for seasonality in the hiring process (dummy variable for the month of application) and regional controls at the county level (dummy variable for county).
* Significant at the 10% level. ** Significant at the 5% level.
*** Significant at the 1% level.
578 Ahmed, Andersson, and Hammarstedt
Table 3. Linear Probability Estimates for Women of the Probability of Receiving a Positive Response (Robust Standard Errors within Parentheses)
Lesbian
Occupation Shop sales assistant Construction worker
Preschool teacher
High-school teacher
Motor-vehicle driver
Cleaner
Restaurant worker
Sales person
Nurse
Mechanic worker
Job characteristic Metropolitan area
Permanent position
Full-time position
Public sector
Interaction . Public sector X lesbian
Public sector X metropolitan area X lesbian
Public sector X full-time position X lesbian
Public sector X permanent position X lesbian
No. of observations
Specification 1
-0.063** (0.019)
Reference 0.178***
(0.040) 0.439***
(0.034) 0.349***
(0.047) 0.061
(0.042) 0.054*
(0.029) 0.231***
(0.034) 0.225***
(0.036) 0.359***
(0.053) 0.065*
(0.038)
-0.013 (0.024)
-0.056** (0.024) 0.026
(0.024) —
—
—
—
0.138 2015
Specification 2
-0.056** (0.020)
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
-0.014 (0.025)
-0.108*** (0.024) 0.063**
(0.022) 0.147***
(0.039)
0.011 (0.032)
—
—
—
0.049 2015
Specification 3
-0.063** (0.021)
—- —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
-0.013 (0.025) .
-0.107*** (0.024) 0.064**
(0.022) 0.120**
(0.047)
0.067 (0.065)
-0.093 (0.066)
—
—
0.050 2015
Specification 4
-0.061** (0.021)
— —
—
—
- —
—
—
—
-0.012 (0.025)
-0.109*** (0.024) 0.045*
(0.023) 0.124**
(0.047)
-0.117 (0.083)
-0.164** (0.070)
0.262** (0.083) —
0.054 2015
Specification 5
-0.061** (0.021)
—
—
—
—
-0.012 (0.025)
-0.114*** (0.025) 0.046**
(0.023) 0.123**
(0.047).
-0.134 (0.089)
-0.191** (0.078)
0.245** (0.085) 0.060
(0.088) 0.055 2015
All models include controls for seasonality in the hiring process (dummy variable for the month of application) and regional controls at the county level (dummy variable for county).
* Significant at the 10% level. ** Significant at the 5% level.
*** Significant at the 1% level.
Sexual Orientation Discrimination 579
Male-Dominated and Female-Dominated Occupations
The results from Table 1 showed that the gay male applicant has a lower response rate than the heterosexual male applicant in the male-dominated occupation mechanic worker, whereas the lesbian applicant has a lower response rate than the heterosexual female applieant in the female-dominated occupations cleaner and preschool teacher. This suggests that the gay male applicant may be discriminated against in male-dominated professions, whereas the lesbian applicant may be at a disadvantage in female-dominated professions. In order to further investigate this observation, we estimate the probability of receiving a positive response separately for male-dominated and female-dominated occupations and by applicants' sex. The male-dominated professions are construction worker, motor vehicle driver, sales person, and mechanic worker and the female-dominated professions are shop sales assistant, presehool teaeher, cleaner, restaurant worker, and nurse. High sehool teacher is a gender-neutral occupation and is therefore exeluded from the analysis. We estimate one speeifieation ineluding controls for sexual orientation, type of oeeupation, and job characteristics. The control for sector is not included in these estimations, beeause it is highly correlated with male-dominated and female-dominated occupations. The results are presented in Table 4.
The table shows that the gay male applieant has an about 9% lower probability of receiving a positive response than the heterosexual male applicant in male-dominated occupations. For females. Table 4 reveals no differential treatment of the lesbian applieant eompared to the heterosexual female applicant in male-dominated occupations. In regard to female-dominated occupations. Table 4 reveals no difference in the probability of reeeiving a positive response between the gay male applicant and the heterosexual male applicant. However, as indicated in the univariate analysis in Table 1, the lesbian applicant has about a 7% lower probability of receiving a positive response than the heterosexual female applicant in female-dominated occupations.
6. Discussion
This article has doeumented evidenee of diserimination against gay men and lesbians in the Swedish labor market. Compared to the results of field experiments from other countries that we reviewed earlier, the observed discrimination is rather small in magnitude. Against the background that Sweden is a country that is relatively tolerant of gay men and lesbians in comparison to other countries, this is not surprising (Gerhards 2010). The discrimination against the gay male and lesbian applieant in the present study is also smaller than the discrimination against ethnie minorities in Sweden, whieh is comparable to ethnic discrimination in other European eountries (Carlsson and Rooth 2007).
Equal opportunity plans and policies to prevent discrimination against different groups of people have been suggested to be more effectively implemented in the publie sector than in the private sector (Gregory and Borland 1999). Mueh empirieal work from different countries on labor market inequalities, between men and women, for example, seems to support the idea that discrimination is less prevalent in the public sector than in the private sector (see, for example, Zetterberg 1994; Zweimuller and Winter-Ebmer 1994; Lewis 1996). This could be one possible explanation to why diserimination in the present study appears to be concentrated to
580 Ahmed, Andersson, and Hammarstedt
Table 4. Linear Probability Estimates of the Probability of Receiving a Positive Response in Male- and Female-Dominated Occupations (Robust Standard Errors within Parentheses)
Gay/Lesbian
Occupation Construction worker Motor-vehicle driver
Sales person
Mechanic worker
Shop sales assistant Preschool teacher
Cleaner
Restaurant worker
Nurse
Job characteristic Metropolitan area
Permanent position
Full-time position
R^ No. of observations
Male-Dominated Occupations
Males
-0.090** (0.034)
Reference -0.105** (0.053) 0.028
(0.045) -0.094** (0.048)
— —
—
—
—
0.018 (0.042) 0.032
(0.044) 0.022
(0.070) 0.086 651
Females
-0.034 (0.033)
Reference -0.142** (0.049) 0.042
(0.046) -0.133** (0.047)
— —
—
—
—
-0.026 (0.041)
-0.035 (0.047)
-0.073 (0.096) 0.065 675
Female-Dominated
Males
-0.027 (0.024)
—
—
Reference 0.419*** (0.036) 0.004 (0.030) 0.101** (0.033) 0.260*** (0.056)
-0.020 (0.032)
-0.020 (0.029) 0.025 (0.026) 0.186
1181
Occupations
Females
-0.071** (0.024)
—
—
Reference 0.443***
(0.035) 0.054*
(0.029) 0.225***
(0.034) 0.352***
(0.054)
" 0.005 (0.031)
-0.070** (0.029) 0.044*
(0.026) 0.193
1194
All models include eontrols for seasonality in the hiring process (dummy variable for the month of application) and regional controls at the county level (dummy variable for county).
• Significant at the 10% level. *• Significant at the 5% level. >
*•* Significant at the 1% level.
occupations in the private sector. Sexual orientation discrimination is forbidden by law in Sweden. It could be that the awareness of and employment policies in line with the legislation are more widespread in the public sector than in the private sector.
In our theoretical discussion we hypothesized that the gay male applicant would have a lower probability than the heterosexual male applicant in male-dominated occupations and the lesbian applicant would have a lower probability than the heterosexual female applicant in female-dominated occupations in receiving a positive response from employers. Our data seem to support this hypothesis. We believe that stereotypes of gay men being feminine and lesbians being masculine may play an important role for several reasons.
First, gay men and lesbians may face the risk of being discriminated against just because of the presumption that they deviate from stereotypical gender roles (Laner and Laner 1979,
Sexual Orientation Discrimination 581
1980). The employer may have a "taste" for discrimination against people who violate traditional gender roles in the sense that they are expected to have traits of the opposite sex. Second, because gay men and lesbians are believed to have traits of the opposite sex, employers may see a gap between a potential worker's traits and the traits that are required by a job, especially in typical male-dominated and female-dominated occupations. Third, beliefs in traditional gender roles are strongly related to attitudes toward gay men and lesbians (Kite and Whitley 1996; Basow and Johnson 2000; Cotton-Huston and Waite 2000; Whitley and Aegisdottir 2000; Horvath and Ryan 2003). Horvath and Ryan (2003), for example, showed in an experimental study that strong beliefs in traditional gender traits were associated with more negative attitudes toward gay men and lesbians. If typical masculine and feminine traits are valued more in traditional male and female jobs, respectively, it seems reasonable to assume more hostile attitudes against gay men and lesbians in these occupations.
What may the implications be of the type of occupation-related discrimination we have found? One effect can be that gay men and lesbians are pushed away from applying to job openings in some occupations because they have a lower probability of getting these jobs. If gay men and lesbians become aware of this discrimination, then a following effect could be that they choose to work in occupations where they expect less discrimination. Both these effects would result in occupational sorting. Some studies have recently started to look at occupational sorting in relation to sexual orientation and have found support for such phenomena (Plug, Webbink, and Martin 2011).
There is also another likely problem that can follow an occupational sorting of this kind. If gay men and lesbians are discriminated against in some occupations, which possibly also make them shy away from these occupations, then this can result in even more negativity against gay men and lesbians in these occupations. The reason for this is that the less in contact people are with gay men and lesbians the more hostile attitudes they have toward gay men and lesbians. There is an empirically strong relationship between previous exposure to gay men and lesbians and attitudes toward gay men and lesbians (see, for example, Estrada and Weiss 1999; Basow and Johnson 2000; Cotton-Huston and Waite 2000; Levina, Waldo, and Fitzgerald 2000). So in the worst scenario, discrimination against gay men and lesbians in certain occupations may lead to occupational sorting, which in turn leads to a small population of and limited exposure to gay men and lesbians in those occupations. This may worsen attitudes against gay men and lesbians and increase the discrimination in those occupations.
In the literature on sexual orientation and labor market outcomes, lesbians are often said to have an advantage over heterosexual women. This is typically said with the reference to studies on wage and earnings differentials. However, the present study together with previous field experimental studies have documented that lesbians are discriminated against in the first stage of a hiring process in the labor market. This illustrates that it is important to examine the effects of sexual orientation on labor market outcomes from different perspectives and with different methodologies.
We have investigated the existence of discrimination in the first stage of the job search and hiring process. But discrimination can also occur at three more stages (at least) in the labor market: the interview stage, the wage bargaining stage, and the on-the-job stage. Future research on sexual orientation and discrimination should therefore aim at attaining insights into the explanations for the discrimination and the extent to which discrimination occurs at different stages in the hiring process and in the workplace.
582 Ahmed, Andersson, and Hammarstedt
The present study was the first study, with sufficient sample sizes, that has examined discrimination against both gay men and lesbians. But we still excluded other sexual orientations in our design, namely bisexuality and transsexuality. The simple reason for this was to keep the experiment at a manageable scale. Future research should try to examine the labor market conditions of bisexual and transgender people. In field experiments, this will be a rather difficult task. Researehers in the field need to be inventive and find ways of disclosing or signaling bisexuality and transsexuality in experimental setups.
Future research should also examine how different ways of signaling sexual orientation and how different ways of signaling stereotypical traits of men and women affect experimental results. And finally, prospective studies must remember the importance of including several occupations rather than just one or a few in field experiments. If a single occupation is chosen for a study, the researcher might just pick an occupation where discrimination is large or where discrimination is absent.
Appendix
.\n English translation of the application letter and the resume used to apply as a gay male applicant to a job as a restaurant worker is presented below. Alternative formulations for lesbian and heterosexual male and female applicants are given in brackets. Letters used for other occupations and Swedish originals are available upon request.
Application Letter Erik [Maria] Johansson Address: Frejgatan 13, 114 79 Stockholm Phone number: 0720-16 42 49 [0720-16 96 59, 0720-17 49 50, 0720-17 50 67] E-mail: [email protected] [[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]]
Employment as a Waiter [ read in the ad that you are looking for a waiter. 1 am very interested in the position. With my nearly fifteen years of work experience in the restaurant, I think 1 will be able to do much good in your restaurant. [ am 32 years old and have almost 15 years work experience in the industry. 1 find it easy to collaborate with others. I am satisfied with my profession and hope to continue working in this occupation. I am married but have no children. In my free time I like to hang out with my husband [wife]. I also like being out in the nature. I do jogging, walking and photographing. I am also active in various organizations and associations. My interest in nature has led me to be involved in the Friluftsfrämjandet, but I'm also involved in RFSL and have held various assignments in connection with the arrangement of the Stockholm Pride Festival. [My interest in nature has led me to be involved in the Friluftsfrämjandet, but I am also involved in the Red Cross and have held various assignments in connection with various types of voluntary work.] I am sending an overview of my work and education. I have grades from all. My language skills are in Swedish and
. English in speech and writing. With the hope of meeting you in person, I send this application. Sincerely, Erik [Maria] Johansson
Résumé
Personal Information Erik [Maria] Johansson Date of birth: 1978-05-18 Address: Frejgatan 13, 114 79 Stockholm Phone number: 0720-16 42 49 E-mail: [email protected] [[email protected], [email protected], [email protected]]
Work Experience 2005-2010 Employed as a waiter at Quality Hotel Globe, Stockholm 1996-2005 Employed as a waiter at Scandic Hotel, Bromma
Sexual Orientation Discrimination 583
Education 1993-1996 Hotel- and Restaurant Education, Stockholm School of Hotel! and Restaurant
Languages Swedish (mother tongue), English
References
Adam, Barry D. 1981. Stigma and employability; Discrimination by sex and sexual orientation in the Ontario legal profession. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology 18;216-2I.
Ahmed, AH M., Lina Andersson, and Mats Hammarstedt. 2008. Are lesbians discriminated against in the rental housing market; A correspondence testing experiment. Journal of Housing Economics 17;234-8.
Ahmed, Ali M., Lina Andersson, and Mats Hammarstedt. 201 la. Sexual orientation and occupational rank. Econ.omics Bulletin 3\:2422-33.
Ahmed, Ali M., Lina Andersson, and Mats Hammarstedt. 2011b. Inter- and intra-household earnings differentials among homosexual and heterosexual couples. British Journal of Industrial Relations 49;s258-78.
Ahmed, Ali M., Lina Andersson, and Mats Hammarstedt. 2012. Does age matter for employability? A field experiment on ageism in the Swedish labor market. Applied Economics Letters l9;403-6.
Ahmed, AH M., and Mats Hammarstedt. 2009. Detecting discrimination against homosexuals; Evidence from a field experiment on the Internet. Económica 76;588-97.
Ahmed, Ali M., and Mats Hammarstedt. 2010. Sexual orientation and earnings; A register data-based approach to identify homosexuals. Journal of Population Economics 23;835-49.
Ahmad, Sheraz, and Dinesh Bhugra. 2010. Homophobia; An updated review of the literature. Sexual and Relationship Therapy 25;447-55.
Allegretto, Sylvia A., and Michelle M. Arthur. 2001. An empirical analysis of homosexual/heterosexual male earnings differentials; Unmarried or unequal? Industrial and Labor Relations Review 54;631-46.
Antecol, Heather, Anneke Jong, and Michael D. Steinberger. 2008. Sexual orientation wage gap; The role of occupational sorting and human capital. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 61;518-43.
Antecol, Heather, and Michael D. Steinberger. 2011. Labor supply differences between married heterosexual women and partnered lesbians; A semi-parametrie decomposition approach. Economic Inquiry. In press.
Arabsheibani, G. Reza, Alan Marin, and Jonathan Wadsworth. 2004. In. the pink; Homosexual-heterosexual wage differentials in the UK. International Journal of Manpower 25;343-54.
Arabsheibani, G. Reza, Alan Marin, and Jonathan Wadsworth. 2005. Gay pay in the UK. Económica 72;333-47. Badgett, M. V. Lee. 1995. The wage effects of sexual orientation discrimination. Industrial and Labor Relations Review
48;726-39. Badgett, M. V. Lee. 2001. Money, myths, and change: The economic lives of lesbians and gay men. Chicago; University of
Chicago Press. Badgett, M. V. Lee. 2006. Discrimination based on sexual orientation; A review of the literature in economics and
beyond. In Handbook on the economics of discrimination, edited by William M. Rogers III. Cheltenham; Edward Elgar, pp. 161-86.
Basow, Susan A., and Kelly Johnson. 2000. Predictors of homophobia in female college students. Sex Roles 42:391-404. Becker, Gary S. 1957. The economics of discrimination. Chicago; University of Chicago Press. Becker, Gary S. 1981. The treatise on the family. Cambridge, MA; Harvard University Press. Bem, Sandra L. 1974. The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
42; 155-62. Berg, Nathan, and Donald, D. Lien. 2002. Measuring the effect of sexual orientation on income; Evidence of
discrimination? Contemporary Economic Policy 20;394-440. Bertrand, Marieanne, and Sendhil Mullainathan. 2004. Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal?
A field experiment on labor market discrimination. American Economic Review 94;991-1013. Bhugra, Dinesh. 1987. Homophobia; An review of the literature. Sexual and Marital Therapy 2;169-77. Black, Dan A., Hoda R. Makar, Seth G. Sanders, and Lowell J. Taylor. 2003. The earnings effects of sexual orientation.
Industrial and Labor Relations Review 56;449-69. Black, Dan A., Seth G. Sanders, and Lowell J. Taylor. 2007. The economics of lesbian and gay families. Journal of
Economic Perspective 21;53-70. Blandford, John M. 2003. The nexus of sexual orientation and gender in the determination of earnings. Industrial and
Labor Relations Review 56;622-42.
584 Ahmed, Andersson, and Hammarstedt
Broverman, Inge K., Susan R. Vogel, Donald M. Broverman, Frank E. Clarkson, and Paul S. Rosenkrantz. 1972. Sex- role stereotypes: A current appraisal. Journal of Social Issues 28:59-78.
Carlsson, Magnus, and Dan-Olof Rooth. 2007. Evidence of ethnic discrimination in the Swedish labor market using experimental data. Labour Economics 14:716-29.
Carpenter, Christopher S. 2004. New evidence on gay and lesbian household income. Contemporary Economic Policy 22:78-94.
Carpenter, Christopher S. 2005. Self-reported sexual orientation and earnings: Evidence from California. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 58:258-73.
Carpenter, Christopher S. 2007. Revisiting the income penalty for behaviourally gay men: Evidenee from NHANES III. Labour Economics 14:25-34.
Carpenter, Christopher S. 2008. Sexual orientation, work, and income in Canada. Canadian Journal of Economics 41:1239-61.
Clain, Suzanne H., and Karen Leppel. 2001. An investigation into sexual orientation discrimination as an explanation for wage differences. Applied Economics 33:37-47.
Cotton-Huston, Annie L., and Bradley M. Waite. 2000. Anti-homosexual attitudes in college students: Predictors and class-room interventions. Journal of Homosexuality 38:117-33.
Deaux, Kay, and Laurie L. Lewis. 1984. Structure of gender stereotypes: Interrelationships among components and gender label. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46:991-1004.
Dennis, Michael R., and Adrianne D. Kunkel. 2004. Perceptions of men, women, and CEOs: The effects of gender identity. Social Behavior and Personality 32:155-72.
Drydakis, Nick. 2009. Sexual orientation discrimination in the labour market. Labour Economics 16:364-72. Drydakis, Nick. 2011. Women's sexual orientation and labor market outcomes in Greece. Eeminist Economics 17:89-
117. Elmslie, Bruce, and Edinaldo Tebaldi. 2007. Sexual orientation and labor market discrimination. Journal of Labor
Research 28:436-53. . • Estrada, Armando X., and David J. Weiss. 1999. Attitudes of military personnel toward homosexuals. Journal of
Homosexuality 37:83-97. Forsberg, Gunnel, Liselotte Jakobsen, and Goldina Smirthwaite. 2003. Homosexuellas villkor i arbetslivet. Angered:
Erianders Graphic Systems. Frank, Jeff. 2006. Gay glass ceilings. Económica 73:485-508. Gerhards, Jürgen. 2010. Non-discrimination towards homosexuality. International Sociology 25:5-28. Gregory, Robert G., and Jeff Borland. 1999. Recent developments in public sector labor markets. In Handbook of labor
economics, edited by Orley Ashenfelter and David Card. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, pp. 3573-630. Gurwitz, Sharon B., and Melinda Marcus. 1978. Effects of anticipated interaction, sex, and homosexual stereotypes on
first impressions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 8:47-56. Haddock, Geoffrey, Mark P. Zanna, and Victoria M. Esses. 1993. Assessing the structure of prejudicial attitudes: The
case of attitudes toward homosexuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65:1105-18. Hebl, Michelle R., Jessica B. Foster, Laura M. Mannix, and John F. Dovidio. 2002. Formal and interpersonal
discrimination: A field study of bias toward homosexual applicants. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28:815-25.
Heilman, Madeline E. 2001. Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women's acsent up the organizational ladder. Journal of Social Issues 57:657-74.
Heilman, Madeline E., Caryn J. Block, Richard F. Martell, and Michael C. Simon. 1989. Has anything changed? Current characterizations of men, women, and managers. Journal of Applied Psychology 74:935-42.
Heilman, Madeline E., and Elizabeth J. Parks-Stamm. 2007. Gender stereotypes in the workplace: Obstacles to women's career progress. Social Psychology of Gender lAAl-ll. ' ••
Herek, Gregory M. 2000. The psychology of sexual prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological Science 9:19-22. Horvath, Michael, and Ann M. Ryan. 2003. Antecedents and potential moderators of the relationship between attitudes
and hiring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Sex Roles 48:115-30. Jackson, Linda A., and Linda A. Sullivan. 1989. Cognition and affect in evaluations of stereotyped group members.
Journal of Social Psychology 129:659-72. Jepsen, Lisa K. 2007. Comparing the earnings of cohabiting lesbians, cohabiting heterosexual women, and married
women: Evidence from the 2000 Census. Industrial Relations 46:699-727. Kite, Mary E., and Kay Deaux. 1987. Gender belief systems: Homosexuality and the implicit inversion theory.
Psychology of Women Quarterly 11:83-96. Kite, Mary E., and Bernard E. Whitley. 1996. Sex differences in attitudes toward homosexual persons, behaviors, and
civil rights: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 22:336-53. Klawitter, Marieka M., and Victor Flatt. 1998. The effects of state and local antidiscrimination policies for gays and
lesbians. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 17:658-86.
Sexual Orientation Diserimination 585
Laner, Mary R., and Roy H. Laner. 1979. Personal style or sexual preference: Why gay men are disliked. International . Review of Modern Sociology 9:215-28.
Laner, Mary R., and Roy H. Laner. 1980. Sexual preference or personal style? Why lesbians are disliked. Journal Homosexuality 5:339-56.
Lauster, Nathanael, and Adam Easterbrook. 2011. No room for new families? A field experiment measuring rental discrimination against same-sex couples and single parents. Social Problems 58:389-409.
Levina, Marina, Craig R. Waldo, and Louise F. Fitzgerald. 2000. We're here, we're queer, we're on TV: The effects of visual media on heterosexuals' attitudes toward gay men and lesbians. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 30:738-58.
Lewis, Gregory B. 1996. Gender integration of occupations in the federal civil serviee: Extent and effects on male-female earnings. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 49:472-83.
Oreffice, Sonia. 2011. Sexual orientation and household decision making. Same-sex couples' balance of power and labor supply choices. Labour Economics 18:145-58.
Phelps, Edmund S. 1972. The statistieal theory of racism and sexism. American Economic Review 62:659-61. Plug, Erik, and Peter Berkhout. 2004. Effects of sexual preferences on earnings in the Netherlands. Journal of Population
Economics 17:117-31. Plug, Erik, Dinand Webbink, and Nick Martin. 2011. Sexual orientation, prejudice and segregation. IZA Discussion
Paper Series 5772. Riach, Peter A., and Judith Rich. 2002. Field experiments of discrimination in the market place. Economic Journal
112:F480-18. Schein, Virginia E. 1973. The relationship between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics. Journal
of Applied Psychology 51.95-\m. Schein, Virginia E. 1975. Relationships between sex role stereotypes and requisite management characteristics among
female managers. Journal of Applied Psychology 60:340-4. Statisties Sweden. 2010. Women and men in Sweden 2010. Örebro: SCB-Tryck. Taylor, Alan. 1983. Conceptions of masculinity and femininity as a basis for stereotypes of male and female
homosexuals. Journal of Homosexuality 9:37-53. Tebaldi, Edinaldo, and Bruce Elmslie. 2006. Sexual orientation and labour supply. Applied Economics 38:549-62. Weichselbaumer, Doris. 2003. Sexual orientation discrimination and hiring. Labour Economics 10:629-42. Weichselbaumer, Doris. 2004. Is it sex or personality? The impact of sex stereotypes on discrimination in applicant
selection. Eastern Economic Journal 30:159-86. Whitley, Bernard E., and Stefania Aegisdottir. 2000. The gender belief system, authoritarianism, social dominance
orientation, and heterosexuals' attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. Sex Roles 42:947-67. Willemsen, Tineke M. 2002. Gender typing of the successful manager: A stereotype reconsidered. Sex Äo/e.s 46:385-91. Wootton, Barbara H. 1997. Gender differenees in occupational employment. Monthly Labor Review 120:15-24. Zetterberg, Johnny. 1994. Effects of changed wage setting conditions on male-female wage differentials in the Swedish
public sector. Public Administration Quarterly 18:342-58. ZweimuUer, Josef, and Rudolf Winter-Ebmer. 1994. Gender wage differentials in private and public sector jobs. Journal
of Population Economics 1:21\-Z5.
Copyright of Southern Economic Journal is the property of Southern Economic Association and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
