This article presents the first large-scale audit study of discrimination against openly gay men in the United States. Pairs of fictitious
resumes were sent in response to 1,769 job postings in seven states.
One resume in each pair was randomly assigned experience in a gay
campus organization, and the other resume was assigned a control
organization. Two main findings have emerged. First, in some but
not all states, there was significant discrimination against the fictitious applicants who appeared to be gay. This geographic variation
in the level of discrimination appears to reflect regional differences
in attitudes and antidiscrimination laws. Second, employers who
emphasized the importance of stereotypically male heterosexual
traits were particularly likely to discriminate against openly gay
men. Beyond these particular findings, this study advances the audit
literature more generally by covering multiple regions and by highlighting how audit techniques may be used to identify stereotypes
that affect employment decisions in real labor markets.
In recent years, the rights and legal protections of lesbian, gay, bisexual,
and transgender (LGBT) people have been at the center of heated debates
in the United States. In the absence of a federal law specifically protecting
1
I thank the AJS reviewers for their constructive feedback; Frank Dobbin for invaluable guidance and unwavering encouragement throughout this research; Mary Brinton, Nicholas Christakis, Annemette Srensen, and members of the Dobbin research
group and seminar participants at Harvard and MIT for insightful suggestions; and
Darcie DeAngelo, Andrea Flores, and Maureen Sarna for helpful discussions and
excellent research assistance. Direct correspondence to Andras Tilcsik, Harvard University, 2680 Harvard Yard, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138. E-mail: tilcsik@fas
.harvard.edu
586
AN AUDIT APPROACH
594
METHODS
In what follows, I first consider the challenge of signaling sexual orientation on a resume and explain how I addressed that challenge. I then
describe the details of my audit experiment, the sample of jobs, and the
variables used in regression analyses.
597
The goal of the pilot study was to assess the feasibility of a full-scale audit experiment.
The pilot involved sending resume pairs in response to 86 job postings, following a similar
protocol as the main study (see the section entitled Resumes and Randomization). The
results (which are available upon request) indicate that employers in politically conservative
areas might discriminate against ostensibly heterosexual job applicants who participated
in a leftist student group in college (vis-a`-vis ostensibly heterosexual applicants who did
not signal participation in such a group.) Thus, if the control organization in the main study
sent no left-wing political signal, any observed difference in callback rates might be an
overdetermined outcome as it could be attributable to either antigay discrimination or
political discrimination.
598
A casual survey of college websites reveals that a progressive, socialist, or other similar
left-wing student group exists in numerous liberal arts college campuses. These groups are,
however, typically smaller and somewhat less common than Democratic (or Republican)
campus groups.
6
In addition, if the P&SA indicates more of an activist orientation than does the gay
organization, and if employers prefer not to hire activists, the estimates of antigay discrimination from this experiment should be, if anything, conservative (see Pager [2003, pp. 950
51] for analogous control strategies in another audit study). Furthermore, if the socialist/
progressive applicant is seen as more leftist than the gay applicant, he may be subject to
political discrimination in politically conservative areas. In that case, this study would
produce conservative estimates of sexual orientation discrimination in the South and the
Midwest. If there were such an effect, it would lend even more confidence to my findings
about regional variation (see the Findings section).
7
One concern about the use of recruitment websites was the possibility of a very low
response rate due to the large number of applications. I took several steps to overcome this
problem. First, I restricted the sample to job postings whose requirements matched the
profile of my fictitious applicants (graduating college student with little or no full-time work
experience). Second, based on the experience of pretests, I used cover letters to indicate the
applicants desire to relocate to the target location (see n. 10). Third, I responded to newly
posted ads as soon as possible. In addition, this audit was conducted in 2005, a year with
relatively high job growth (http://www.data.bls.gov), so individual employers may have
received somewhat fewer applications than in years with higher unemployment. An additional concern was the appearance of identical ads (i.e., by the same employer, in the
same location, for the same position) on more than one website. In such cases, only one
resume pair was sent in response.
599
This design ensured that the gay signal was sometimes attached to resume A and
sometimes to resume B. I used logistic regression analysis to check whether randomization
had indeed occurred and found no systematic relationship between treatment assignment
and a dummy variable indicating which of the two resumes (A or B) was used. In addition,
I found that resumes A and B did not differ significantly in the number of callbacks they
generated either in the overall sample or in the subsamples of gay and heterosexual applicants or in subsamples by state.
9
For the sake of brevity, I refer to fictitious applicants who were assigned the control signal
as heterosexual. More precisely, these applicants would be described as fictitious job
seekers who did not give evidence of being gay (see Correll et al. 2007).
10
Since this study focused on sexual orientation discrimination, I held the race of the fictitious
applicants constant. Thus, the resumes did not mention any involvement in race- or ethnicity-related organizations (e.g., Black Students Association), and the fictitious applicants
names were made up of common first and last names that would not send a strong and
salient signal of being from a particular racial minority group (David Miller and Michael
Williams).
11
The cover letters corresponding to the two resumes were similar in style and content and
made no mention of the applicants involvement in either the gay or the progressive/socialist
group. Because of the random assignment of the gay signal to the resumes, there was no
systematic relationship between the quality of the cover letter and the sexual orientation
of the applicant. The cover letter explained that the motivation for moving to the target
city included family reasons and that the applicant was originally from the targeted area,
with many of his family members still living there. Pretests indicated that including such
a statement would be useful in increasing the overall response rate and simplifying the
experimental protocol. During early pretests that did not include a statement about relocation, the response rate was very low, and several employers responded by simply directing
the applicant to a branch that was geographically closer to the applicants college.
600
State
Examples of Cities/Counties
With Sexual Orientation
Discrimination Ban
California . . . . . .
Nevada . . . . . . . .
New York . . . . .
Pennsylvania . .
Ohio . . . . . . . . . . .
Florida . . . . . . . .
Texas . . . . . . . . . .
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Variables
The dependent variable (positive response) was a dummy indicating
whether the application elicited an invitation to an interview. The main
independent variable (gay) was a dummy indicating whether the resume
listed involvement in the gay campus organization. To examine variation
in the level of discrimination across states, I created dummy variables to
represent each state in the sample. To ascertain whether an employer was
subject to a relevant antidiscrimination law protecting gay employees, I
used a list of laws compiled by Lambda Legal (2005). The resulting
dummy variables were denoted city law, county law, and state law.
Unfortunately, there is no representative and reliable data about attitudes toward homosexuality at the city and county levels, and such data
is scarce even at the state level. To overcome these data limitations, Lax
and Phillips (2009) used national surveys and recent advances in multilevel modeling to estimate state-level public opinion about different gay
TABLE 2
Sampled Jobs by State and by Occupation
Analyst
Customer
Service
Representative
Manager
Sales
Representative
90
81
41
81
60
63
84
36
39
13
28
28
28
34
66
68
31
41
35
34
61
52
78
20
38
64
33
52
93
81
26
48
32
43
67
337
347
131
236
219
201
298
500
206
336
337
390
1,769
State
Administrative
Assistant
California . . . . . . . . . . .
Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . .
New York . . . . . . . . . .
Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pennsylvania . . . . . . .
Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Total in occupation
602
Total
in
State
12
The coding was performed manually with the help of a trained research assistant to
ensure that only phrases related to the description of the ideal job candidate were coded
(e.g., a phrase like a bright, ambitious graduate would be coded as ambitious but the
phrase an ambitious start-up firm would not be.)
603
TABLE 3
Control Variables
Variable
Industry wage
Employer size
Percentage of males
Teamwork
Urbanness
Education
Conservative voters
Unemployment rate
Mean
SD
Minimum
Maximum
.19
.20
.13
.07
.12
.11
.17
.39
.40
.34
.26
.33
.32
.37
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.24
.10
.40
65.4
.42
.30
.49
2.84
0
0
0
61
1
1
1
70
.07
.15
.09
.46
.25
.35
.28
.49
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
40.67
1.85
32.11
.11
30.46
93.9
5.04
10.11
11.77
22.64
.31
18.93
16.52
1.00
18.94
.003
8.7
0
2.16
0
3.1
58
289
61.4
1
83.02
100
15
FINDINGS
Descriptive Overview
The submission of resumes led to a total of 331 interview invitations, an
overall callback rate of 9.35%.13 Table 4 displays descriptive statistics.
Table 5 tabulates callback rates by sexual orientation. The first row in
table 5 presents the results for the full data set. While heterosexual applicants had an 11.5% chance of being invited for an interview, equally
qualified gay applicants only had a 7.2% chance of receiving a positive
response. This is a difference of 4.3 percentage points, or about 40%. This
gap is statistically significant (P ! .001) and implies that a heterosexual
13
This response rate is similar to that in recent correspondence studies (e.g., Bertrand and
Mullainathan 2004). Neither the overall response rate nor the response rate for gay vs.
heterosexual applicants varied significantly by the month when the application was submitted.
605
Difference
(P-value)
Not Gay
Gay
Ratio
11.5
11.0
12.2
10.2
12.9
14.1
9.5
12.0
7.2
9.2
6.1
11.4
9.4
5.5
5.5
3.7
1.59
1.20
2.00
.89
1.37
2.56
2.11
3.24
11.6
11.3
8.7
5.3
1.33
2.13
2.9 (.037)
6.0 (.000)
13.5
10.7
4.8
8.1
2.81
1.32
8.7 (.000)
2.5 (.0226)
4.3
1.8
6.1
1.2
3.5
8.6
4.0
8.3
(.000)
(.443)
(.087)
(.656)
(.268)
(.002)
(.044)
(.000)
job seeker had to apply to fewer than nine different jobs to receive a
positive response, while a gay applicant needed to reply to almost 14 ads
to achieve the same result. The magnitude of this difference is comparable
to the gap in callback rates between black and white job seekers in Boston
and Chicago (Bertrand and Mullainathan 2004).
The size of the callback gap, however, varied substantially across states.
On the one hand, in the southern and midwestern states in the sample
(Texas, Florida, and Ohio), there was a substantial difference in the callback rates of gay and heterosexual applicants. In Texas and Ohio, for
example, the size of the callback gap (8.3 and 8.6 percentage points,
respectively) was substantially larger than in the overall sample (4.1 percentage points). By contrast, there was no statistically significant callback
gap in any of the western and northeastern states (California, Nevada,
Pennsylvania, and New York). The size of the gap, however, showed some
intraregional variation as well. In California, for example, the difference
in callback rates was less than 2 percentage points and was clearly insignificant statistically. In neighboring Nevada, by contrast, the gap was
nearly significant at the standard level (P p .087).
Similarly, there was variation in the callback gap across legal environments. In the case of employers subject to a relevant antidiscrimination
law, either at the city-, county-, or state-level, the callback gap was less
606
14
The R2 is low in this model, as well as in the other models, because the purpose of this
experiment was not the identification of all the variables that predict a positive employer
response (in which case, I would have experimentally manipulated a different set of factors,
particularly the applicants qualifications and skills). Rather, the goal here was to examine
whether one randomly assigned variable (gay) had an effect on callbacks.
607
TABLE 6
Odds Ratios for the Logistic Regression
Predicting Employer Callback
Model 1
Odds Ratio
***
Gay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Assertive or aggressive . . . .
Decisive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ambitious . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Communication skills . . . . . .
Administrative assistant . . .
Sales representative . . . . . . . .
Analyst . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Manager . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Employer size . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Industry wage . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Teamwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Unemployment . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Urbanness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conservative voters . . . . . . . .
City law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
County law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
McFaddens pseudo R2 . . . .
Baseline oddsa . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.60
.80
1.20
.80
1.16
.71
1.35
.85
.87
1.37
1.06
.95
1.11
.60*
.61*
1.00
.99
1.42
.85
1.00
1.00
.99**
1.12
.871
.029
.130
SE
.07
.21
.29
.24
.24
.18
.32
.21
.15
.28
.13
.16
.20
.14
.13
.004
.006
.27
.07
.004
.003
.004
.17
.871
608
TABLE 7
Odds Ratios for the Logistic Regression Predicting Employer Callback
Model 2
Interaction terms:
States:
Gay # New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Gay # Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . .
Gay # California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Gay # Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Gay # Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Gay # Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Laws and attitudes:
Gay # city law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Gay # county law . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Gay # state law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Gay # state-level attitude . . . . . . .
Required traits and skills:
Gay # assertive or aggressive
Gay # decisive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Gay # ambitious . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Gay # communication skills . . . .
Main effects:
Gay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
City law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
County law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
State law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
State-level attitude . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Assertive or aggressive . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Decisive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ambitious . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Communication skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
McFaddens pseudo R2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Baseline oddsa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Model 3
Coeff.
SE
4.03**
2.50*
2.99**
1.48
1.67
2.01
1.84
1.15
1.29
.72
.95
.91
Coeff.
SE
1.02
2.45*
1.82*
.28
1.00
.45
Model 4
Coeff.
.85
2.14
.87
1.17*
SE
.24
.89
.36
.09
.28*
.47*
.68
.87
.18
.17
.26
.20
.28*
.45*
.69
.89
.18
.16
.27
.22
.28*
.46*(.17)
.67
.88
.18
.17
.26
.20
.33**
.47*
.89
.83
1.15
.71
.57*
.12
.15
.25
.21
.32
.25
.16
.52**
.10
.00002**
.00007
1.20
1.14
1.57
1.10
.033
.154
.34
.23
.38
.17
1.11
.48*
.81
.22
.15
.14
1.20
1.20
1.53
1.09
.029
.129
.34
.24
.37
.17
1.18
.50*
.98
.96
1.20
1.19
1.55
1.10
.031
.119
.24
.16
.26
.04
.34
.24
.37
.18
Note.N p 3,538. All models included controls for employer size, percentage of males
in occupation, industry wage, teamwork, urbanness, education, unemployment, and conservative voters; the coefficients for these variables are omitted to conserve space. Robust
SEs (in parentheses) are corrected for clustering on job ad because the data contain two
records per ad. The Texas dummy is omitted.
a
Predicted odds of callback for nongay applicant in case of a hypothetical job that is in
each of the reference categories for dummy variables and is at the average of each continuous
variable. For example, in model 2, the baseline odds represent the predicted odds of a
nongay candidate applying for a Texas job that does not explicitly require any of the skills
and traits included in this model and is at average in all the continuous control variables
(e.g., industry wage and employer size).
* P ! .05.
** P ! .01.
609
Since these models include interaction terms, the low-order coefficients of variables included in interaction terms (such as the variable gay) cannot be interpreted as if they were
ordinary coefficients in a model with no interactions.
610
This result was consistent across regions; in models not reported here, I used interaction
terms (e.g., gay # decisive # Texas) to examine whether the extent to which the required
personality traits made discrimination more likely varied across states, but I found no
variation.
612
DISCUSSION
During the past decade, the labor market disadvantages of LGBT employees in the United States have been subject to intense political debates
and have received increasing attention from social scientists (Badgett et
al. 2007). To date, however, researchers have provided little direct evidence about the inequalities that LGBT Americans might face in obtaining a job. This is a significant lacuna because discrimination in hiring
is a crucial inequality-generating mechanism that regulates job seekers
access to the broader array of labor market opportunities (Pager 2007).
Indeed, hiring discrimination is a relatively understudied area in the wider
labor market literature (Petersen and Saporta 2004). To help address this
lacuna, this article has described the first large-scale audit study of discrimination against gay men in the United States. This study contributes
to the literature on employment discrimination in three ways: by providing
direct evidence about discrimination against gay men, by examining how
discrimination varies across regions, and by exploring the role of stereotypes in discrimination. I elaborate on each these contributions below.
621
REFERENCES
Adam, Barry. 1981. Stigma and Employability: Discrimination by Sex and Sexual
Orientation in the Ontario Legal Profession. Canadian Review of Sociology and
Anthropology 18:21621.
Allegretto, Sylvia, and Michelle Arthur. 2001. An Empirical Analysis of Homosexual/
Heterosexual Male Earnings Differentials: Unmarried and Unequal? Industrial and
Labor Relations Review 54:63146.
Antecol, Heather, Anneke Jong, and Michael Steinberger. 2008. The Sexual Orientation Wage Gap: The Role of Occupational Sorting and Human Capital. Industrial
and Labor Relations Review 61:51843.
Armour, Stephanie. 2003. More Job Seekers Try to Hide Their Ages. USA Today,
July 20. http://www.usatoday.com/money/workplace/2003-07-20hide_x.htm.
Arrow, Kenneth J. 1973. The Theory of Discrimination. Pp. 333 in Discrimination
in Labor Markets, edited by Orley Ashenfelter and Albert Rees. Princeton, N.J.:
Princeton University Press.
Badgett, M. V. Lee. 1995. The Wage Effects of Sexual Orientation Discrimination.
Industrial and Labor Relations Review 48:72639.
. 1997. Vulnerability in the Workplace: Evidence of Anti-Gay Discrimination.
Angles: The Policy Journal of the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic Studies
2:14.
. 2001. Money, Myths, and Change: The Economic Lives of Lesbians and Gay
Men. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
622
623
624
625
626
Copyright of American Journal of Sociology is the property of University of Chicago Press 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.