While most research explaining the persistence of gender inequality has focused on how decision makers’ own biases perpetuate inequities, a growing body of work points to mechanisms of bias that may arise when a decision maker is concerned with satisfying a third party or audience. Using data from 2007 to 2013 on 2,310 members of a popular networking organization for entrepreneurs, I examine the extent to which the presence of third parties leads to gender inequality in resource exchange, or connections to potential clients. I show that decision makers are most apt to favor male network contacts in exchanges involving a third party when considering whether to connect a contact in a male-typed occupation. Decision makers do not display this gender bias in exchanges that do not involve a third party or when sharing connections to potential clients with contacts in gender-neutral or female-typed occupations. This setting offers a unique opportunity to compare gender inequality in exchanges involving a third party with cases that do not involve a third party, providing direct evidence of the effects of audiences or third parties for gender inequality.
AbeleA. E.2003“The dynamics of masculine-agentic and feminine-communal traits: Findings from a prospective study.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85: 768–776.
2.
AckerJ.1990“Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations.”Gender and Society, 4: 139–158.
3.
AdutA.2005“A theory of scandal: Victorians, homosexuality, and the fall of Oscar Wilde.”American Journal of Sociology, 111: 213–248.
4.
AldrichH.ElamA.ReeseP.1997“Strong ties, weak ties, and strangers: Do women business owners differ from men in their use of networking to obtain assistance?” In BirleyS.MacmillanI. (eds.), Entrepreneurship in a Global Context: 1–25. London: Routledge.
5.
BabcockL.LascheverS.2003Women Don’t Ask: Negotiation and the Gender Divide. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
6.
BailynL.2006Breaking the Mold: Redesigning Work for Productive and Satisfying Lives, 2d ed. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.
7.
BeckerG. S.1971The Economics of Discrimination, 2d ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
8.
BeckmanC. M.PhillipsD. J.2005“Interorganizational determinants of promotion: Client leadership and the attainment of women attorneys.”American Sociological Review, 70: 678–701.
9.
BergerJ.FisekH. F.NormanR. Z.ZelditchM.1977Status Characteristics and Social Interaction: An Expectation-states Approach. New York: Elsevier.
10.
BernardH. R.KilworthP. D.SailerL.1981“Summary of research on informant accuracy in network data and the reverse small world problem.”Connections, 4: 11–25.
11.
BertrandM.GoldinC.KatzL. F.2010“Dynamics of the gender gap for young professionals in the financial and corporate sectors.”American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 2: 228–255.
12.
BotelhoT. L.AbrahamM.2017“Pursuing quality: How search costs and uncertainty magnify gender-based double standards in a multistage evaluation process.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 62: 698–730.
13.
CastillaE. J.BenardS.2010“The paradox of meritocracy in organizations.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 55: 543–576.
14.
CejkaM.EaglyA.1999“Gender-stereotypic images of occupations correspond to the sex segregation of employment.”Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25: 413–423.
15.
CorrellS. J.RidgewayC.2003“Expectation states theory.” In DeLamaterJ. (ed.), Handbook of Social Psychology: 29–51. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
16.
CorrellS. J.RidgewayC. L.ZuckermanE. W.JankS.Jordan-BlochS.NakagawaS.2017“It’s the conventional thought that counts: How third-order inference produces status advantage.”American Sociological Review, 82: 297–327.
17.
CurhanJ. R.ElfenbeinH. A.XuH.2006“What do people value when they negotiate? Mapping the domain of subjective value in negotiation.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91: 493–512.
18.
DavisonH. K.BurkeM. J.2000“Sex discrimination in simulated employment contexts: A meta-analytic investigation.”Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56: 225–248.
19.
EaglyA. H.KarauS. J.2002“Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders.”Psychological Review, 109: 573–598.
20.
EnglandP.HerbertM. S.KilbourneB. S.ReidL. L.MegdalL. M.1994“The gendered valuation of occupations and skills: Earnings in 1980 census occupations.”Social Forces, 73: 65–100.
21.
EspelandW. N.SauderM.2007“Rankings and reactivity: How public measures recreate social worlds.”American Journal of Sociology, 113: 1–40.
22.
FernandezR. M.CastillaE. J.MooreP.2000“Social capital at work: Networks and employment at a phone center.”American Journal of Sociology, 105: 1288–1356.
23.
FernandezR. M.SosaM. L.2005“Gendering the job: Networks and recruitment at a call center.”American Journal of Sociology, 111: 859–904.
24.
Fernandez-MateoI.2007“Who pays the price of brokerage? Transferring constraint through price setting in the staffing sector.”American Sociological Review, 72: 291–317.
25.
Fernandez-MateoI.2009“Cumulative gender disadvantage in contract employment.”American Journal of Sociology, 114: 871–923.
26.
Fernandez-MateoI.KingZ.2011“Anticipatory sorting and gender segregation in temporary employment.”Management Science, 57: 989–1008.
27.
FiskeS.1998“Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination.” In GilbertD. T.FiskeS. T.LindzeyG. (eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology, 1: 357–411. New York: McGraw-Hill.
28.
FiskeS.StevensL. E.1993“What’s so special about sex? Gender stereotyping and discrimination.” In OskampS.CostanzoM. (eds.), Gender Issues in Contemporary Society: Claremont Symposium on Applied Social Psychology, 6: 173–196. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
29.
FoschiM.1989“Status characteristics, standards, and attribution.” In BergerJ.ZelditchM.AndersonB. (eds.), Sociological Theories in Progress: New Formulations: 58–72. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30.
FoschiM.2000“Double standards for competence: Theory and research.”Annual Review of Sociology, 26: 21–42.
31.
GormanE. H.2005“Gender stereotypes, same-gender preferences, and organizational variation in the hiring of women: Evidence from law firms.”American Sociological Review, 70: 702–728.
32.
HallenB. L.2008“The causes and consequences of the initial network positions of new organizations: From whom do entrepreneurs receive investments?”Administrative Science Quarterly, 53: 685–718.
33.
HeilmanM. E.1983“Sex bias in work settings: The Lack of Fit model.” In CummingsL. L.StawB. M. (eds.), Research in Organizational Behavior, 5: 269–298. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
34.
HeilmanM. E.2001“Description and prescription: How gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder.”Journal of Social Issues, 57: 657–674.
35.
HindsP. J.CramtonC. D.2013“Situated coworker familiarity: How site visits transform relationships among distributed workers.”Organization Science, 25: 794–814.
36.
IbarraH.KilduffM.TsaiW.2005“Zooming in and out: Connecting individuals and collectivities at the frontiers of organizational network research.”Organization Science, 16: 359–371.
37.
KalevA.DobbinF.KellyE.2006“Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies.”American Sociological Review, 71: 589–617.
38.
KanterR. M.1977“Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to token women.”American Journal of Sociology, 82: 965–990.
39.
KellerJ. R.2018“Posting and slotting: How hiring processes shape the quality of hire and compensation in internal labor markets.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 63: 848–878.
40.
KleinbaumA. M.StuartT. E.TushmanM. L.2013“Discretion within constraint: Homophily and structure in a formal organization.”Organization Science, 24: 1316–1336.
41.
KmecJ. A.2008“The process of sex segregation in a gender-typed field: The case of male nurses.”Sociological Perspectives, 51: 259–279.
42.
KrechD.CrutchfieldR. S.1948Theory and Problems of Social Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
43.
LernerJ. S.TetlockP. E.1999“Accounting for the effects of accountability.”Psychological Bulletin, 125: 255–275.
44.
LinN.2001Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
45.
MarinA.2012“Don’t mention it: Why people don’t share job information, when they do, and why it matters.”Social Networks, 34: 181–192.
46.
NeumarkD.BankR. J.NortK. D. V.1996“Sex discrimination in restaurant hiring: An audit study.”Quarterly Journal of Economics, 111: 915–941.
47.
PerryE. L.Davis-BlakeA.KulikC. T.1994“Explaining gender-based selection decisions: A synthesis of contextual and cognitive approaches.”Academy of Management Review, 19: 786–820.
48.
PettigrewT. F.TroppL. R.2006“A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90: 751–783.
49.
PrenticeD. A.MillerD. T.1993“Pluralistic ignorance and alcohol use on campus: Some consequences of misperceiving the social norm.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64: 243–256.
50.
QuintaneE.KleinbaumA. M.2011“Matter over mind? E-mail data and the measurement of social networks.”Connections, 31: 20–41.
51.
RenzulliL. A.AldrichH.2005“Who can you turn to? Tie activation within core business discussion networks.”Social Forces, 84: 323–341.
RidgewayC. L.1997“Interaction and the conservation of gender inequality: Considering employment.”American Sociological Review, 62: 218–235.
54.
RidgewayC. L.2001“Gender, status, and leadership.”Journal of Social Issues, 57: 637–655.
55.
RosenfeldR. A.2002“What do we learn about difference from the scholarship on gender?”Social Forces, 81: 1–24.
56.
RubineauB.FernandezR. M.2014“How do labor market networks work?” In ScottR.KosslynS. (eds.), Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences: 1–15. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
57.
RuefM.AldrichH. E.CarterN. M.2003“The structure of founding teams: Homophily, strong ties, and isolation among U.S. entrepreneurs.”American Sociological Review, 68: 195–222.
58.
SechristG. B.StangorC.2001“Perceived consensus influences intergroup behavior and stereotype accessibility.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80: 645–654.
59.
SharkeyA. J.KovácsB.2017“The many gifts of status: How attending to audience reactions drives the use of status.”Management Science, 64: 4967–5460. DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.2017.2879.
60.
SmithS.2005“‘Don’t put my name on it’: Social capital activation and job-finding assistance among the black urban poor.”American Journal of Sociology, 111: 1–57.
61.
SrivastavaS. B.2015“Threat, opportunity, and network interaction in organizations.”Social Psychology Quarterly, 78: 246–262.
62.
StewartA.1990“The bigman metaphor for entrepreneurship: A ‘library tale’ with morals on alternatives for further research.”Organization Science, 1: 143–159.
63.
SwimJ. K.SannaL. J.1996“He’s skilled, she’s lucky: A meta-analysis of observers’ attributions for women’s and men’s successes and failures.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22: 507–519.
64.
TurcoC. J.2010“Cultural foundations of tokenism: Evidence from the leveraged buyout industry.”American Sociological Review, 75: 894–913.
UzziB.LancasterR.2004“Embeddedness and price formation in the corporate law market.”American Sociological Review, 69: 319–344.
67.
WagnerD. G.BergerJ.1997“Gender and interpersonal task behaviors: Status expectation accounts.”Sociological Perspectives, 40: 1–32.
68.
WilliamsC.1992“The glass escalator: Hidden advantages for men in the ‘female’ professions.”Social Problems, 39: 253–267.
69.
WilliamsJ.1999Unbending Gender: Why Family and Work Conflict and What to Do about It. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
70.
ZuckermanE. W.KimT.-Y.UkanwaK.von RittmannJames2003“Robust identities or nonentities? Typecasting in the feature-film labor market.”American Journal of Sociology, 108: 1018–1074.
71.
ZuckermanE. W.SgourevS. V.2006“Peer capitalism: Parallel relationships in the U.S. economy.”American Journal of Sociology, 111: 1327–1366.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
