Advertisement

Sex Roles

, Volume 80, Issue 9–10, pp 548–564 | Cite as

Do Positive and Negative Stereotypes of Gay and Heterosexual Men Affect Job-Related Impressions?

  • Melanie C. SteffensEmail author
  • Claudia Niedlich
  • Rosa Beschorner
  • Maren C. Köhler
Original Article
  • 341 Downloads

Abstract

Traditional gender stereotypes encompass (typically masculine) agency, comprising task-related competence, and (typically feminine) communion or warmth. Both agency and communion are important for successful performance in many jobs. Stereotypes of gay men include the perception that they are less gender-typed than their heterosexual counterparts are (i.e., more gay-stereotypical and less masculine). Using a German sample, Experiment 1 (n = 273) tested whether gay men at the same time appear higher in communion, but lower in agency than heterosexual men and whether a trade-off in hireability impressions results between both groups if jobs require both agency and communion. We measured participants’ willingness to work together with applicants, in addition to hireability, as dependent variables, and we assessed as mediators perceived masculinity, how gay-stereotypical male targets were judged, as well as perceived communion and agency. Findings showed that gay men appeared more gay-stereotypical, less masculine, and more communal than heterosexual men, but no difference in agency was observed. The direct effects of sexual orientation on willingness to engage in work-related contact and on hireability were not significant. Instead, both positive and negative indirect effects of sexual orientation on hireability/contact were found. Experiment 2 (n = 32) replicated the findings pertaining to agency, communion, and masculinity and demonstrated that a gay applicant appeared better suited for traditionally feminine jobs, whereas a heterosexual applicant appeared better suited for traditionally masculine jobs. We discuss who is discriminated under which conditions, based on gender-related stereotypes, when men’s sexual orientation is revealed in work contexts.

Keywords

Attitudes toward homosexuality Personnel selection Stereotyped attitudes Agency Communion Employer attitudes Job application interview Discrimination 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The current research was funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG, STE 938/11–1). We thank Felix Göttert, Inga Bette, Katharina Köhler, and Lisa Marie Wagner for help with data collection and Rebecca Aust for valuable comments on a previous version of this paper.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research Involving Human Participants and/or Animals

The present research was approved by the Board of Ethics of the Faculty of Psychology, University of Koblenz-Landau. Participants were treated following APA standards and the Declaration of Helsinki. Data were collected anonymously, participants were fully debriefed immediately after data collection and then decided whether they allow us to analyze their data or not.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained at the beginning of data collection. The respective German language form is available from the first author.

Supplementary material

11199_2018_963_MOESM1_ESM.docx (22 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 22 kb)

References

  1. Abele, A. E., & Bruckmüller, S. (2011). The bigger one of the 'Big Two': Preferential processing of communal information. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 935–948.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.03.028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adam, B. D. (1981). Stigma and employability: Discrimination by sex and sexual orientation in the Ontario legal profession. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 18, 216–221.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-618X.1981.tb01234.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ahmed, A. M., Andersson, L., & Hammarstedt, M. (2013). Are gay men and lesbians discriminated against in the hiring process? Southern Economic Journal, 79, 565–585.  https://doi.org/10.4284/0038-4038-2011.317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aranda, B., & Glick, P. (2014). Signaling devotion to work over family undermines the motherhood penalty. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17, 91–99.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430213485996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Asbrock, F. (2010). Stereotypes of social groups in Germany in terms of warmth and competence. Social Psychology, 41, 76–81.  https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bailey, J., Wallace, M., & Wright, B. (2013). Are gay men and lesbians discriminated against when applying for jobs? A four-city, internet-based field experiment. Journal of Homosexuality, 60, 873–894.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2013.774860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barrantes, R. J., & Eaton, A. A. (2018). Sexual orientation and leadership suitability: How being a gay man affects perceptions of fit in gender-stereotyped positions. Sex Roles. Advance online publication.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0894-8.
  8. Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 155–162.  https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Choi, N., & Fuqua, D. R. (2003). The structure of the Bem Sex Role Inventory: A summary report of 23 validation studies. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63, 872–887.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164403258235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clarke, H. M., & Arnold, K. A. (2018). The influence of sexual orientation on the perceived fit of male applicants for both male- and female-typed jobs. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 656.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clausell, E., & Fiske, S. T. (2005). When do subgroup parts add up to the stereotypic whole? Mixed stereotype content for gay male subgroups explains overall ratings. Social Cognition, 23, 161–181.  https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.23.2.161.65626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (revised ed.). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Cotner, C., & Burkley, M. (2013). Queer eye for the straight guy: Sexual orientation and stereotype lift effects on performance in the fashion domain. Journal of Homosexuality, 60, 1336–1348.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2013.806183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2007). The BIAS map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 631–648.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.4.631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Davison, H. K., & Burke, M. J. (2000). Sex discrimination in simulated employment contexts: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 225–248.  https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1999.1711.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Deaux, K., & Lewis, L. L. (1984). Structure of gender stereotypes: Interrelationships among components and gender label. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 991–1004.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.5.991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Diekman, A. B., & Eagly, A. H. (2000). Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: Women and men of the past, present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1171–1188.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200262001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  19. Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ebert, I. D., Steffens, M. C., & Kroth, A. (2014). Warm, but maybe not so competent? – Contemporary implicit stereotypes of women and men in Germany. Sex Roles, 70, 359–375.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-014-0369-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Everly, B. A., Unzueta, M. M., & Shih, M. (2016). Can being gay provide a boost in the hiring process? Maybe if the boss is female. Journal of Business Psychology, 31, 293–306.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-015-9412-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fasoli, F., Maass, A., Paladino, M. P., & Sulpizio, S. (2017). Gay-and lesbian-sounding auditory cues elicit stereotyping and discrimination. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46, 1261–1277.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-017-0962-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, S. L. (1990). A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 1–74). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  25. Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Galinsky, A. D., Hall, E. V., & Cuddy, A. J. C. (2013). Gendered races: Implications for interracial marriage, leadership selection, and athletic participation. Psychological Science, 24, 498–506.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612457783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109–118.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.2.109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Glick, P., Lameiras, M., Fiske, S. T., Eckes, T., Masser, B., Volpato, C., ... Wells, R. (2004). Bad but bold: Ambivalent attitudes toward men predict gender inequality in 16 nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 713–728.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.5.713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464–1480.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hansen, K., Rakić, T., & Steffens, M. C. (2017). Foreign-looking native-accented people are evaluated more positively when seen rather than heard first. Social Psychological and Personality Science. Advance online publication.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617732389.
  31. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  32. Hebl, M. R., Foster, J. B., Mannix, L. M., & Dovidio, J. F. (2002). Formal and interpersonal discrimination: A field study of bias toward homosexual applicants. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 815–825.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202289010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Heilman, M. E. (1983). Sex bias in work settings: The lack of fit model. Research in Organizational Behavior, 5, 269–298.Google Scholar
  34. Heilman, M. E. (2012). Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Research in Organizational Behavior, 32, 113–135.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Riob.2012.11.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Heilman, M. E., & Okimoto, T. G. (2008). Motherhood: A potential source of bias in employment decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 189–198.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Horvath, M., & Ryan, A. M. (2003). Antecedents and potential moderators of the relationship between attitudes and hiring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Sex Roles, 48, 115–130.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022499121222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hoyt, C. L., & Parry, M. (2018). Sociocultural and individual manifestations of sexual stigma: The role of political ideology and prejudice in discrimination against sexual minorities. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 6, 92–128.  https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v6i1.810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Imhoff, R., & Koch, A. (2017). How orthogonal are the big two of social perception? On the curvilinear relation between agency and communion. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12, 122–137.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616657334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kachel, S. M., Steffens, M. C., & Niedlich, C. (2016). Traditional masculinity and femininity: Validation of a new scale assessing gender roles. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 956.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kite, M. E., & Whitley Jr., B. E. (1996). Sex differences in attitudes toward homosexual persons, behaviors, and civil rights: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 336–353.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167296224002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Koch, A., Imhoff, R., Dotsch, R., Unkelbach, C., & Alves, H. (2016). The ABC of stereotypes about groups: Agency/socioeconomic success, conservative–progressive beliefs, and communion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110, 675–709.  https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kranz, D., Pröbstle, K., & Evidis, A. (2017). Are all the nice guys gay? The impact of sociability and competence on the social perception of male sexual orientation. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 18, 32–39.  https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kuyper, L., Iedema, J., & Keuzenkamp, S. (2013). Towards tolerance: Exploring changes and explaining differences in attitudes towards homosexuality in Europe. The Hague: The Netherlands Institute for Social Research.Google Scholar
  44. Mazziotta, A., Zerr, M., & Rohmann, A. (2015). The effects of multiple stigmas on discrimination in the German housing market. Social Psychology, 46, 325–334.  https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Morrison, T. G., & Bearden, A. G. (2007). The construction and validation of the Homopositivity scale: An instrument measuring endorsement of positive stereotypes about gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 52, 63–89.  https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v52n03_04.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Niedlich, C., & Steffens, M. C. (2015). On the interplay of (positive) stereotypes and prejudice: Impressions of lesbian and gay applicants for leadership positions [Special issue]. Sensoria – a Journal of Mind, Brain & Culture, 11, 70–80.  https://doi.org/10.7790/sa.v11i1.408.Google Scholar
  47. Niedlich, C., Steffens, M. C., Krause, J., Settke, E., & Ebert, I. D. (2015). Ironic effects of sexual minority group membership: Are lesbians less susceptible to invoking negative female stereotypes than heterosexual women? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 1439–1447.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-014-0412-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Peplau, L. A., & Fingerhut, A. (2004). The paradox of the lesbian worker. Journal of Social Issues, 60, 719–735.  https://doi.org/10.1111/J.0022-4537.2004.00382.X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pichler, S., Varma, A., & Bruce, T. (2010). Heterosexism in employment decisions: The role of job misfit. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 2527–2555.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00669.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (1999). Feminized management and backlash toward agentic women: The hidden costs to women of a kinder, gentler image of middle managers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1004–1010.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.5.1004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 743–762.  https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rudman, L. A., Moss-Racusin, C. A., Phelan, J. E., & Nauts, S. (2012). Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 165–179.  https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Jesp.2011.10.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rudolph, U., Böhm, R., & Lummer, M. (2007). Ein Vorname sagt mehr als 1000 Worte: Zur sozialen Wahrnehmung von Vornamen (A first name says more than 1000 words: On the social perception of first names). Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 38, 17–31.  https://doi.org/10.1024/0044-3514.38.1.17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Smith, T. W. (2011). Cross-national differences in attitudes towards homosexuality. Chicago: NORC/University of Chicago GSS Cross-national Report, No. 31.Google Scholar
  57. Steffens, M. C., & Jonas, K. J. (2010). Attitudes towards adoptive parents, child age, and child gender: The role of applicants’ sexual orientation. Zeitschrift für Familienforschung, Sonderheft, 7, 205–219.Google Scholar
  58. Steffens, M. C., & Mehl, B. (2003). Erscheinen “Karrierefrauen” weniger sozial kompetent als “Karrieremänner”? – Geschlechterstereotype und Kompetenzzuschreibung (Do “career women” appear less socially competent than “career men”? Gender stereotypes and competence ascription). Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 34, 173–185.  https://doi.org/10.1024//0044-3514.34.3.173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Steffens, M. C., & Viladot, M. A. (2015). Gender at work: A social psychological perspective. New York: Peter Lang.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Steffens, M. C., & Wagner, C. (2004). Attitudes towards lesbians, gay men, bisexual women, and bisexual men in Germany. Journal of Sex Research, 41, 137–149.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490409552222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Steffens, M. C., Schult, J. C., & Ebert, I. D. (2009). Feminization of management leads to backlash against agentic applicants: Lack of social skills, not gender, determines low hireability judgments in student samples. Psychology Science Quarterly, 51, 16–46.Google Scholar
  62. Steffens, M. C., Niedlich, C., & Ehrke, F. (2016). Discrimination at work on the basis of sexual orientation: Subjective experience, experimental evidence, and interventions. In T. Köllen (Ed.), Sexual orientation and transgender issues in organizations. Global perspectives on LGBT workforce diversity (pp. 367–388). Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tilcsik, A. (2011). Pride and prejudice: Employment discrimination against openly gay men in the United States. American Journal of Sociology, 117, 586–626.  https://doi.org/10.1086/661653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Valian, V. (2007). Women at the top in science – And elsewhere. In S. J. Ceci & W. M. Williams (Eds.), Why aren't more women in science? Top researchers debate the evidence (pp. 27–37). Washington, DC: APA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Van Hoye, G., & Lievens, F. (2003). The effects of sexual orientation on hirability ratings: An experimental study. Journal of Business and Psychology, 18, 15–30.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025078819951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Weichselbaumer, D. (2015). Testing for discrimination against lesbians of different marital status: A field experiment. Industrial Relations, 54, 131–161.  https://doi.org/10.1111/irel.12079.Google Scholar
  67. Wilde, A., & Diekman, A. B. (2005). Cross-cultural similarities and differences in dynamic stereotypes: A comparison between Germany and the United States. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 188–196.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00181.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wilson, J. P., Remedios, J. D., & Rule, N. O. (2017). When double-minority status may be beneficial. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43, 888–900.  https://doi.org/10.11770/0146167217702373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Yang, A. S. (1997). The polls—Trends: Attitudes toward homosexuality. Public Opinion Quarterly, 61, 477–507.  https://doi.org/10.1086/297810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social, Environmental, and Economic Psychology, Faculty of Psychology, FB 8-PsychologyUniversity of Koblenz-LandauLandau/PfalzGermany

Personalised recommendations