An Estimate of Housing Discrimination Against Same-Sex Couples

Abstract

of the Equal Rights Center, who also made contributions to the design of the project.A panel of expert advisers made valuable contributions to the understanding of the housing issues faced by the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender community and of the e-mail testing approach. We express special thanks to Gregory M. Herek, Jim McCarthy, Robert Schwemm, and Gregory D. Squires; as well as Lee Badgett, Roger Doughty, Kate Kendall, Jerry Malitz, Justin Nelson, Terry Stone, and Laura Young.We also thank Jennifer A. Stoloff, the project's Government Technical Representative from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, for providing significant guidance and support at all stages.We offer special thanks to Louisa Elfman of M. Davis and Company, Inc., for managing the packaging of the report.The contents of this report are the views of the contractor and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development or the U.S. government. List of Tables List of Figures Executive SummaryThis is the first large-scale, paired-testing study to assess housing discrimination against same-sex couples in metropolitan rental markets via advertisements on the Internet. The research is based on 6,833 e-mail correspondence tests conducted in 50 metropolitan markets across the United States from June through October 2011. For each correspondence test, two e-mails were sent to the housing provider, each inquiring about the availability of the unit advertised on the Internet. The only difference between the two e-mails was the sexual orientation of the couple making the inquiry. Two sets of correspondence tests were conducted, one assessing the treatment of gay male couples relative to heterosexual couples and one assessing the treatment of lesbian couples relative to heterosexual couples. This methodology provides the first direct evidence of discriminatory treatment of same-sex couples compared with the treatment of heterosexual couples when searching for rental housing advertised on the Internet in the United States.The study finds that same-sex couples experience less favorable treatment than heterosexual couples in the online rental housing market. The primary form of adverse treatment is that same-sex couples receive significantly fewer responses to e-mail inquiries about advertised units than heterosexual couples. Study results in jurisdictions with state-level protections against housing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation unexpectedly show slightly more adverse treatment of same-sex couples than results in jurisdictions without such protections. This study provides an important initial observation of discrimination based on sexual orientation at the threshold stage of the rental transaction and is a point of departure for future research on housing discrimination against same-sex couples. BackgroundFederal fair housing laws, seeking to ensure equal access to housing, prohibit housing discrimination based on race...

Intersections between Sexual Identity, Sexual Attraction, and Sexual Behavior among a Nationally Representative Sample of American Men and Women

“…For example, Table 1 shows that 11.6% of self-identified straight women age 15-45 report some level of same-sex attraction, as do about 3.7% of self-identified straight men age 15 -45. The fact that there are some Americans who feel same-sex attraction but do not identify as gay or bisexual is not surprising, as perhaps they do not feel strongly enough about it to identify as anything other than straight, or are dissuaded from doing so due to the potential for experiencing stigma or discrimination (Friedman et al 2013;Herek 2009;Mishel 2016;Tilcsik 2011). Table 1 also shows that about 43% of self-identified gay women report some level of other-sex attraction, as do about 33% of self-identified gay men.…”

“…The finding that more men and women report same-sex sexual experience or same-sex attraction than report gay or bisexual identity is consistent with past research (e.g., Compton et al 2015;Gates 2011;Korchmaros et al 2013), and there may be many reasons for this. One possible reason is fear of discrimination, as much research provides causal evidence of discrimination against out LGB individuals when they seek employment (Mishel 2016;Tilcsik 2011) and apply for housing (Friedman et al 2013). Another reason could be negative stereotypes and social stigma often associated with identifying as gay or bisexual.…”

Gender and sex inequalities: Implications and resistance

“…LGBTQ Gender inequalites in employment, education, health/survival and political empowerment aren't the only ways in which our society's inability to transcend patriarchal ideologies impacts society. There continues to be persistent and pervasive discrimination against LGBTQ people, including housing discrimination (Friedman, et al, 2013;Johnson, Jackson, Arnette, & Koffman, 2005;Lauster & Easterbrook, 2011), workplace discrimination (Anastas, 2001;Fidas & Cooper, 2015;Kattari, Whitfield, Walls, Langenderfer-Magruder, & Ramos, 2016;Pizer, Sears, Mallory & Hunter, 2012), victimization (Katz-Wise & Hyde, 2012;Meyer, 2012), and the curtailment of basic human rights such as marriage and family adoption. This discrimination often results in mental and physical health concerns (Pascoe & Richman, 2009;Mayer et al, 2008) and estrangement from family members (Beeler & DiProva, 1999;Potoczniak, Crosbie-Burnett, & Saltzburg, 2009), Research has shown that family acceptance of the LGBTQ individual is related to greater self-esteem and social support, better health, and is important for the prevention of depression, suicide and other self-harm behaviors (Ryan, Russell, Huebner, Diaz, & Sanchez, 2010).…”

Marriage Equality: On the Books and on the Ground? An Experimental Audit Study of Beliefs and Behavior towards Same‐Sex and Interracial Couples in the Wedding Industry

“…Why go to the trouble of conducting an audit study? Despite dwindling endorsement of prejudiced attitudes on self-report measures (e.g., Bobo, 2001), audit studies have shown that discriminatory behavior against stigmatized groups persists (e.g., Friedman, Reynolds, Scovill, Brassier, Campbell, & Ballou, 2013;Milkman, Akinola, & Chugh, 2015; Moss-Racusin, Dovidio, Brescoll, Graham, & Handelsman, 2012). When people suspect that researchers are studying sensitive topics, like prejudice and discrimination, they tend to report beliefs and practices that make them appear (to themselves and others) more socially desirable (Krumpal, 2013).…”

“…Consequently, behavioral scientists have a long history of conducting audit studies to observe whether people discriminate against stigmatized groups. Audit studies have been instrumental in revealing the extent and form of discrimination against LGBT individuals (Friedman, et al, 2013;Hebl, Foster, Mannix, & Dovidio, 2002), racial and ethnic minorities (Bertrand & Mullainathan, 2004;Gaertner and Bickman, 1971;Milkman et al, 2015;Yinger, 1986), women (Moss-Racusin, et al, 2012), overweight people (Agerström & Rooth, 2011), and the elderly (Lahey, 2008). Following this tradition, the audit study paradigm allowed us to unobtrusively examine discrimination in the novel context of the American wedding industry.…”