Laboratory studies have shown that stereotypes and in-group favoritism influence people's perceptions and evaluations of others, but empirical research has not yet linked these processes to gender disparities in real workplace outcomes. This study proposes that the gender stereotypicality of selection criteria and decision makers' same-gender preferences operate to intensify gender inequality in hiring. These arguments are tested with data on large U.S. law firms in the mid-1990s. The findings show that when selection criteria include a greater number of stereotypically masculine characteristics, women constitute a smaller proportion of new hires, and that, conversely, when criteria include more stereotypically feminine traits, women are better represented among new hires. Female decision makers also fill more vacancies with women than do male decision makers, but among entry-level hires, this effect diminishes as women's share of high-ranking positions increases toward gender balance.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BemSandra1974. “The Measurement of Psychological Androgyny.”Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology42: 155–62.
2.
BrewerMarilynn B.BrownRupert J.1998. “Intergroup Relations.” Pp. 554–94 in Handbook of Social Psychology, edited by GilbertDaniel T.FiskeSusan T.LindzeyGardner. Boston: McGraw-Hill; New York: Distributed exclusively by Oxford University Press.
3.
BrovermanInge K.VogelSusan R.BrovermanDonald M.ClarksonFrank E.RosenkrantzPaul S.1972. “Sex-Role Stereotypes: A Current Appraisal.”Journal of Social Issues28: 59–78.
4.
ChamblissElizabethUggenChristopher2000. “Men and Women of Elite Law Firms: Reevaluating Kanter's Legacy.”Law and Social Inquiry25: 41–68.
5.
CohenLisa E.BroschakJoseph P.HavemanHeather A.1998. “And Then There Were More? The Effect of Organizational Sex Composition on the Hiring and Promotion of Managers.”American Sociological Review63: 711–27.
6.
CurranM. M.1988. “Gender and Recruitment: People and Places in the Labor Market.”Work, Employment, and Society2: 335–51.
7.
DiMaggioPaul J.1997. “Culture and Cognition.”Annual Review of Sociology23: 263–87.
8.
DiMaggioPaul J.PowellWalter1991. “Introduction.” Pp. 1–40 in The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, edited by PowellW. W.DiMaggioP. J.. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
9.
DodgeKatherineGilroyFaithMickey FenzelL.1995. “Requisite Management Characteristics Revisited: Two Decades Later.”Journal of Social Behavior and Personality10: 253–64.
10.
EliasophNinaLichtermanPaul2003. “Culture in Interaction.”American Journal of Sociology108: 735–94.
11.
FineGary Alan1995. “Public Narration and Group Culture: Discerning Discourse in Social Movements.” Pp. 127–43 in Social Movements and Culture, edited by JohnstonHankKlandermansBert. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
12.
FiskeSusan T.1998. “Stereotyping, Prejudice, and Discrimination.” Pp. 357–411 in Handbook of Social Psychology, edited by GilbertDaniel T.FiskeSusan T.LindzeyGardner. Boston: McGraw-Hill; New York: Distributed exclusively by Oxford University Press.
13.
GoldhaberMichael D.2000. “In Macho Territory.”The National Law Journal February 7: A1.
14.
GormanElizabeth1999. “Moving Away from “Up or Out”: Determinants of Permanent Employment in Law Firms.”Law and Society Review33: 637–66.
15.
HaganJohn1990. “The Gender Stratification of Income Inequality among Lawyers.”Social Forces68: 835–55.
16.
HeilmanMadeline E.1983. “Sex Bias in Work Settings: The Lack of Fit Model.” Pp. 269–98 in Research in Organizational Behavior, vol. 5, edited by StawBarry M.CummingLarry L.. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
17.
HeilmanMadeline E.BlockCaryn J.MartellRichard F.SimonMichael C.1989. “Has Anything Changed? Current Characterizations of Men, Women, and Managers.”Journal of Applied Psychology74: 935–42.
18.
HeinzJohn P.LaumannEdward O.1982. Chicago Lawyers: The Social Structure of the Bar.Chicago, IL: Russell Sage Foundation and American Bar Foundation.
19.
HeinzJohn P.NelsonRobert L.LaumannEdward O.MichelsonEthan1998. “The Changing Character of Lawyers'Work: Chicago in 1975 and 1995.”Law and Society Review32: 751–76.
20.
IbarraHerminia1992. “Homophily and Differential Returns: Sex Differences in Network Structure and Access in an Advertising Firm.”Administrative Science Quarterly37: 422–47.
21.
IgnatowGabriel2004. “Speaking Together, Thinking Together? Exploring Metaphor and Cognition in a Shipyard Union Dispute.”Sociological Forum19: 405–33.
22.
JackallRobert1988. Moral Mazes: The World of Corporate Managers.New York: Oxford University Press.
23.
JacobsJerry1989. Revolving Doors: Sex Segregation and Women's Careers.Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
24.
JohnstonHank1995. “A Methodology for Frame Analysis: From Discourse to Cognitive Schemata.” Pp. 217–46 in Social Movements and Culture, edited by JohnstonH.KlandermansB.. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press
25.
KallebergArneReskinBarbara F.1995. “Gender Differences in Promotion in the United States and Norway.”Research in Social Stratification and Mobility14: 237–64.
26.
KanterRosabeth Moss1977. Men and Women of the Corporation.New York: Basic Books.
27.
KayFiona M.HaganJohn1998. “Raising the Bar: The Gender Stratification of Law Firm Capital.”American Sociological Review63: 728–43.
28.
KriegerLinda Hamilton1995. “The Content of Our Categories: A Cognitive Bias Approach to Discrimination and Equal Employment Opportunity.”Stanford Law Review47: 1161–248.
29.
KundaGideon1992. Engineering Culture: Control and Commitment in a High-Tech Corporation.Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
30.
Law School Admissions Council.1995. The Official Guide to U.S. Law Schools.New York: Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc.
31.
LeidnerRobin1993. Fast Food, Fast Talk: Service Work and the Routinization of Everyday Life.Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
32.
Martindale-Hubbell, Inc.1995. The Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory.New York: Martindale-Hubbell, Inc.
33.
Martindale-Hubbell, Inc.1996. The Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory.New York: Martindale-Hubbell, Inc.
34.
MohrJohnDuquenneVincent1997. “The Duality of Culture and Practice: Poverty Relief in New York City, 1888-1917.”Theory and Society26: 305–56.
35.
MohrJohnLeeHelene2000. “From Affirmative Action to Outreach: Discourse Shifts at the University of California.”Poetics28: 47–71.
36.
National Association for Law Placement.1996. National Directory of Legal Employers, 1996–1997 ed.Chicago, IL: Harcourt Brace Legal and Professional Publications.
37.
NelsonRobert L.1988. Partners with Power: The Social Transformation of the Large Law Firm.Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
38.
PerryElissa L.1994. “A Prototype Matching Approach to Understanding the Role of Applicant Gender and Age in the Evaluation of Job Applicants.”Journal of Applied Social Psychology24: 1433–73.
39.
PerryElissa L.Davis-BlakeAllisonKulikCarol1994. “Explaining Gender-Based Selection Decisions: A Synthesis of Contextual and Cognitive Approaches.”Academy of Management Review19: 786–820.
40.
PetersenTrondSaportaIshakSeidelMarc-David2000. “Offering a Job: Meritocracy and Social Networks.”American Journal of Sociology106: 763–816.
41.
PierceJennifer L.1995. Gender Trials: Emotional Lives in Contemporary Law Firms.Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
42.
ReskinBarbara F.1988. “Bringing the Men Back In: Sex Differentiation and the Devaluation of Women's Work.”Gender and Society2: 58–81.
43.
ReskinBarbara F.2002. “Rethinking Employment Discrimination and Its Remedies.” Pp. 218–44 in The New Economic Sociology, edited by GuillénMauroCollinsRandallEnglandPaulaMeyerMarshall. New York: Russell Sage.
44.
ReskinBarbara F.2003. “Including Mechanisms in Our Models of Ascriptive Inequality.”American Sociological Review68: 1–21.
45.
ReskinBarbara F.McBrierDebra B.2000. “Why Not Ascription? Organizations'Employment of Male and Female Managers.”American Sociological Review65: 210–33.
46.
ReskinBarbara F.RoosPatricia1990. Job Queues, Gender Queues: Explaining Women's Inroads into Male Occupations.Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
47.
RidgewayCecilia1997. “Interaction and the Conservation of Gender Inequality: Considering Employment.”American Sociological Review62: 218–35.
48.
RothLouise2004. “The Social Psychology of Tokenism: Status and Homophily Processes on Wall Street.”Sociological Perspectives47: 189–214.
49.
ScheckJustin2004. “Expert Witness: Bill Bielby Helped Launch an Industry—Suing Employers for Unconscious Bias.”The Recorder (November 1): 1.
50.
ScheinVirginia E.1973. “The Relationship between Sex Role Stereotypes and Requisite Management Characteristics.”Journal of Applied Psychology57: 95–100.
51.
SpenceJanet T.HelmreichRobert1978. Masculinity and Femininity: Their Psychological Dimensions, Correlates, and Antecedents.Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
52.
SpenceJanet T.HelmreichRobertHolahanCarole K.1979. “Negative and Positive Components of Psychological Masculinity and Femininity and Their Relationships to Self-Reports of Neurotic and Acting Out Behavior.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology37: 1673–82.
53.
SturmSusan2001. “Second Generation Employment Discrimination: A Structural Approach.”Columbia Law Review101: 458–568.
54.
SwidlerAnn2001. Talk of Love: How Culture Matters.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
55.
SwimJanet K.1994. “Perceived versus Meta-Analytic Effect Sizes: An Assessment of the Accuracy of Gender Stereotypes.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology66: 21–36.
56.
TriceHarrison M.BeyerJanice M.1993. The Cultures of Work Organizations.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
57.
UrdangLawrence ed.1992. The Oxford Thesaurus, American Edition.New York: Oxford University Press.
58.
WilkinsDavidGulatiMitu1996. “Why Are There So Few Black Lawyers in Corporate Law Firms? An Institutional Analysis.”California Law Review84: 493–625.
59.
ZebrowitzL. A.TennenbaumD. R.GoldsteinL. H.1991. “The Impact of Job Applicants' Facial Maturity, Gender, and Academic Achievement on Hiring Recommendations.”Journal of Applied Social Psychology21: 525–48.
60.
ZuckermanEzra1999. “The Categorical Imperative: Securities Analysts and the Illegitimacy Discount.”American Journal of Sociology104: 1398–438.
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.
