Gender Stereotypes, Same-Gender Preferences, and Organizational Variation in the Hiring of Women: Evidence from Law Firms
Abstract
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.
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?
Associations between race, gender and workplace performance can sustain inequality.
“Stereotyping is a natural cognitive mechanism, the thinking goes, but the associations we make between race, gender and workplace performance can have the effect of sustaining inequality (Gorman, 2005;Kanter, 1977;Lemm and Banaji, 1999).”
From Are Diversity Programs Merely Ceremonial? Evidence-Free Institutionalization (2017) · cites this paper as Gorman, 2005
Stereotyping is a natural cognitive mechanism.
“Stereotyping is a natural cognitive mechanism, the thinking goes, but the associations we make between race, gender and workplace performance can have the effect of sustaining inequality (Gorman, 2005;Kanter, 1977;Lemm and Banaji, 1999).”
From Are Diversity Programs Merely Ceremonial? Evidence-Free Institutionalization (2017) · cites this paper as Gorman, 2005
Cites
Moral mazes: The world of corporate managers
Jackall, R. (1988) · International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society · doi:10.1007/bf01390690 · Cited by 1,296 · see citing works
Interaction and the Conservation of Gender Inequality: Considering Employment
Ridgeway, C. L. (1997) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2657301 · Cited by 939 · see citing works
Second generation employment discrimination: a structural approach
Sturm, S. (2001) · Columbia Law Review · doi:10.2307/1123737 · Cited by 435 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/000312240607100404 · Cited by 2,052 · see citing works
Cultural Schemas: What They Are, How to Find Them, and What to Do Once You’ve Caught One
Boutyline, A., & Soter, L. K. (2021) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/00031224211024525 · Cited by 216 · see citing works
Are Diversity Programs Merely Ceremonial? Evidence-Free Institutionalization
Dobbin, F., & Kalev, A. (2017) · The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism · doi:10.4135/9781446280669.n32 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Lu, Y., & Zhang, J. (2025) · Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services · doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2024.104205 · Cited by 44 · 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
- Authors
- Gorman, E. H.
- Affiliations
- University of Virginia (US)
- Corresponding author
- Gorman, Elizabeth H.
- ORCID
- Gorman, Elizabeth H.
- Venue
- American Sociological Review
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2005-08
- Volume
- 70
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 702-728
- ISSN
- 0003-1224 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-8271
- OpenAlex
- W2006771264
- Cited by
- 534
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 18 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 34 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 51 · 2020: 55 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 31 · 2015: 33 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 14
- FWCI
- 23.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Sociological Review (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Diversity and Inequality
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Names, Identity, and Discrimination Research
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Media, Gender, and Advertising
- Keywords
- gender stereotypes, hiring of women, law firms, gender inequality in employment, selection criteria, in-group favoritism, gender balance, organizational variation
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