Men and Women at Work: Sex Segregation and Statistical Discrimination
Abstract
This article develops and tests hypotheses about the determinants of sex segregation in occupations employing both men and women, analyzing data on a diverse sample of California establishments. In the few instances in which men and women perform similar work roles, the jobs are typically done in distinct organizational settings, and when an enterprise employs both sexes in the same occupation, men and women are usually assigned different job titles. The findings are consistent with the theory of statistical discrimination, wich posits that employers reserve some jobs for men and others for women. However, little evidence is found that employers' practices reflect efficient and rational responses to sex differences in skills and turnover costs. Alternative explanations for gender segregation within and among organizations are suggested and the research necessary to develop a more accurate account of the sexual division of labor in the workplace is outlined.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Statistical discrimination theory posits that employers make hiring decisions based on their prior knowledge about average productivity levels across different groups.
“Economists have introduced the idea of statistical discrimination, which posits that employers make hiring decisions based on their prior knowledge about average productivity levels across different groups (e.g., women and other identifiable classes of job applicants) (Bielby and Baron 1986;McPherson, Smith-Lovin, and Cook 2001).”
From Getting a Foot in the Door: A Meta-Analysis of U.S. Audit Studies of Gender Bias in Hiring (2025) · cites this paper as Bielby and Baron 1986
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415 · Cited by 18,567 · see citing works
8 Social Hierarchy: The Self‐Reinforcing Nature of Power and Status
Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2008) · Academy of Management Annals · doi:10.5465/19416520802211628 · Cited by 2,385 · see citing works
The Gender System and Interaction
Ridgeway, C. L., & Smith-Lovin, L. (1999) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.25.1.191 · Cited by 796 · see citing works
Gender bias in scholarly peer review
Helmer, M., Schottdorf, M., Neef, A., & Battaglia, D. (2017) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.21718 · Cited by 380 · see citing works
Why Should Women Get Less? Evidence on the Gender Pay Gap from Multifactorial Survey Experiments
Auspurg, K., Hinz, T., & Sauer, C. (2017) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/0003122416683393 · Cited by 269 · see citing works
Engendering Change: Organizational Dynamics and Workplace Gender Desegregation, 1975–2005
Huffman, M. L., Cohen, P. N., & Pearlman, J. (2010) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2189/asqu.2010.55.2.255 · Cited by 210 · see citing works
Bayesian bigot? Statistical discrimination, stereotypes, and employer decision making
Pager, D., & Karafin, D. (2009) · The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science · doi:10.1177/0002716208324628 · Cited by 207 · see citing works
Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments
Quillian, L., & Midtbøen, A. H. (2021) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-090420-035144 · Cited by 180 · see citing works
Network diversity, contact diversity, and status attainment
Son, J., & Lin, N. (2012) · Social Networks · doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2012.06.006 · Cited by 143 · see citing works
Minority job concentration and wages
Kmec, J. A. (2003) · Social Problems · doi:10.1525/sp.2003.50.1.38 · Cited by 112 · see citing works
Correlation of gender-related values of independence and relationship and leadership orientation
Butz, C. E., & Lewis, P. V. (1996) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/bf00412813 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Gender and Occupational Segregation
Wong, Y. L. A., & Charles, M. (2020) · Companion to Women's and Gender Studies · doi:10.1002/9781119315063.ch16 · Cited by 18 · see citing works
Getting a Foot in the Door: A Meta-Analysis of U.S. Audit Studies of Gender Bias in Hiring
Park, S. Y., & Oh, E. (2025) · Sociological Science · doi:10.15195/v12.a2 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
- Authors
- Bielby, W. T., & Baron, J. N.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Santa Barbara (US)
- Venue
- American Journal of Sociology
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 1986-01
- Volume
- 91
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 759-799
- ISSN
- 0002-9602 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5390
- OpenAlex
- W2117089419
- Cited by
- 907
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 82 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 34 · 2017: 32 · 2016: 29 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 40 · 2012: 31
- FWCI
- 47.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Journal of Sociology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Labour Market and Migration
- Social Sciences › Safety Research › Employment, Labor, and Gender Studies
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Labor market dynamics and wage inequality
- Keywords
- sex segregation, statistical discrimination, occupational gender segregation, job titles, gender division of labor, organizational practices, turnover costs
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
