Sexual orientation discrimination in the United Kingdom’s labour market: A field experiment

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. www.econstor.eu Deviations from heteronormativity affect labour market dynamics. Hierarchies of sexual orientation can result in job dismissals, wage discrimination, and the failure to promote gay and lesbian individuals to top ranks. In this paper, I report on a field experiment (144 jobseekers and their correspondence with 5,549 firms) that tested the extent to which sexual orientation affects the labour market outcomes of gay and lesbian job-seekers in the United Kingdom. Their minority sexual orientations, as indicated by job-seekers' participation in gay and lesbian university student unions, negatively affected their workplace prospects. The probability of gay (lesbian) applicants receiving an invitation for an interview was 5.0% (5.1%) lower than that for heterosexual male (female) applicants. In addition, gays (lesbians) received invitations for interviews by firms that paid salaries that were 1.9% (1.2%) lower than those paid by firms that invited heterosexual male (female) applicants for interviews. In addition, in male-(female-) dominated occupations, gay men (lesbians) received fewer invitations for interviews than their non-gay (non-lesbian) counterparts. Furthermore, gay men (lesbians) also received fewer invitations to interview for positions in which masculine (feminine) personality traits were highlighted in job applications and at firms that did not provide written equal opportunity standards, suggesting that the level of discrimination depends partly on the personality traits that employers seek and on organisation-level hiring policies. I conclude that heteronormative discourse continues to reproduce and negatively affect the labour market prospects of gay men and lesbians. Terms of use: Documents in D I S C U S S I O N P A P E R S E R I E SJEL Classification: C93, J7, J82

Access to the labour market for gays and lesbians: Research review

“…Acquisti and Fong (2015) submitted identical résumés to the employers but manipulated the information in candidates' online profiles on professional and social networks. Drydakis (2015) was the only study to send résumés of real job applicants.…”

“…Hireability ratings of gay applicants were not significantly related to evaluators' perception of legality of sexual orientation discrimination (Horvath & Ryan, 2003 * ) and, after controlling for background characteristics, nor to existence of state antidiscrimination laws (Barron, 2009 * ). In terms of call-back rates, Drydakis (2015) observed that gay applicants were more disadvantaged in companies without a written commitment to equal opportunity (p ࣘ .01) than in companies with such commitment. Also Tilcsik (2011) found that county-and state-level antidiscrimination laws reduce negative bias against gay men (p ࣘ .05), but this effect was not significant when controlling for state-level attitudes toward lesbians and gay men.…”

“…Societies usually assign a specific set of meaning to gender (Drydakis, 2015), where men are stereotypically seen as more agentic (independent, aggressive, competitive, self-confident, assertive, career-oriented, and task-oriented) while women are seen as communal (generous, warm, affectionate, family-oriented, and sensitive). Gay men and lesbians are perceived to have stereotypical characteristics of the opposite sex (lesbians are stereotyped as masculine and gay men as feminine [see Ahmed, Andersson, & Hammarstedt, 2013;Cunningham, Sartore, & McCullough, 2010;Drydakis, 2015). Individuals who violate traditional gender norms are often presumed to be gay.…”

How should we ‘care’ for LGBT+ students within higher education?

“…Drydakis' (2015) research identified that participation in gay and lesbian university students' unions negatively affected participants' workplace prospects, with the 17 probability of gay or lesbian applicants receiving an invitation to interview 5% lower than their heterosexual counterparts. Related to this, European research (Formby, 2014) suggests that some students may hide their LGBT-related activities or activism whilst at university, in order to (try) to gain employment: Issues about presentation of self or identity were specifically raised in relation to interview dress and performance:…”

Inclusive Recruitment? Hiring Discrimination Against Older Workers

“…factory/manual workers) are perceived as blue-collar jobs, while jobs in services (such as in restaurant/sales and offices) are perceived as pink-collar and white-collar jobs. Finally, by focusing on both sexes, we can account for how gender might affect access to vacancies (Drydakis 2015).…”