CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 269Labor market dynamics and wage inequalityNames, Identity, and Discrimination ResearchLabour Market and Migration

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 101 of the 103 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Why Should Women Get Less? Evidence on the Gender Pay Gap from Multifactorial Survey Experiments

Open access
Auspurg, Katrin, Hinz, Thomas, Sauer, Carsten·2017·American Sociological Review
DOI 10.1177/0003122416683393
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Gender pay gaps likely persist in Western societies because both men and women consider somewhat lower earnings for female employees than for otherwise similar male employees to be fair. Two different theoretical approaches explain “legitimate” wage gaps: same-gender referent theory and reward expectations theory. The first approach states that women compare their lower earnings primarily with that of other underpaid women; the second approach argues that both men and women value gender as a status variable that yields lower expectations about how much each gender should be paid for otherwise equal work. This article is the first to analyze hypotheses contrasting the two theories using an experimental factorial survey design. In 2009, approximately 1,600 German residents rated more than 26,000 descriptions of fictitious employees. The labor market characteristics of each employee and the amount of information given about them were experimentally varied across all descriptions. The results primarily support reward expectations theory. Both men and women produced gender pay gaps in their fairness ratings (with the mean ratio of just female-to-male wages being .92). Respondents framed the just pay ratios by the gender inequalities they experienced in their own occupations, and some evidence of gender-specific evaluation standards emerged.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0003122416683393

Cites

101 of 101 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 103 references

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Auspurg Katrin, 2009, Presented at the 104th Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association (ASA)
  2. 10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Mincer Jacob, 1974, Schooling, Experience, and Earnings, 2
  4. Wooldridge Jeffrey M., 2010, Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 269

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Auspurg, K., Hinz, T., & Sauer, C.
Affiliations
  • Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
  • University of Konstanz (DE)
  • Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
Corresponding author
Auspurg, Katrin
ORCID
Venue
American Sociological Review
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2017-01-17
Volume
82
Issue
1
Pages
179-210
ISSN
  • 0003-1224 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-8271
DOI
10.1177/0003122416683393
OpenAlex
W2576375577
Cited by
269
References
103
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 47 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 12
FWCI
40.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • American Sociological Review (publishedVersion)
  • Open access LMU (Ludwid Maxmilian's Universitat Munchen) (submittedVersion)
  • KOPS (University of Konstanz) (submittedVersion)
  • PUB – Publications at Bielefeld University (Bielefeld University) (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Labor market dynamics and wage inequality
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Names, Identity, and Discrimination Research
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Labour Market and Migration
Keywords
gender pay gap, perceived fairness, salary expectations, gender stereotypes, labor market information

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