epubs.surrey.ac.ukepubs.surrey.ac.uk/853503/1/FASOLI AND HEGARTY PWQ final.docx · Web viewA Leader Doesn’t Sound Lesbian! The Impact of Sexual Orientation Vocal Cues on Heterosexual

1Running head: VOICE AND LEADERSHIP

A Leader Doesn’t Sound Lesbian! The Impact of Sexual Orientation Vocal Cues on

Heterosexual Persons’ First Impression and Hiring Decision

Fabio Fasoli and Peter Hegarty

University of Surrey

Author Note

Fabio Fasoli, School of Psychology, University of Surrey; Peter Hegarty, School of

Psychology, University of Surrey.

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and

innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement 700844. Project title

‘Beyond “Straight Talking”: The Consequences of Vocal Cues to Sexual Identity for Modern

Prejudice’ (Acronym: TheGayVoice).

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Fabio Fasoli, School of

Psychology, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7XH. Email: [email protected]

2VOICE AND LEADERSHIP

Abstract

In three studies (N = 340), we tested whether vocal cues to a person’s sexual orientation

prompted sexual orientation discrimination in heterosexual individuals when hiring leaders. Our

results inform how gender and sexual orientation intersect to produce discriminatory effects in

the hiring context. Heterosexual participants listened to short clips of voices that sounded like

job candidate was a lesbian or heterosexual woman, or a gay or heterosexual man, and rated all

for job suitability and employability. Candidates applied for jobs as leaders (Study 1), as leaders

or assistants (Study 2), and for leadership roles that varied in both gender role and status (Study

3). Sexual orientation discrimination occurred in all three studies and was greater among women

job candidates. Refuting role congruity theory, several findings disconfirmed the prediction that

lesbian-sounding women would be advantaged when stereotyped as masculine and when

applying for leadership roles. Rather, in line with status-beliefs theory, lesbian-sounding women

and gay-sounding men were rated and ranked poorly to the extent that they were perceived as

less competent than heterosexual candidates. Findings suggest that hiring discrimination occurs

in subtle ways, such as when individuals sound gay/lesbian. This has implications for

recruitment as well as sexual-orientation discrimination court cases.

Keywords: gaydar, leadership, stereotyping, discrimination, intersectionality


A Leader Doesn’t Sound Lesbian! The Impact of Sexual Orientation Vocal Cues on

Heterosexual Persons’ First Impression and Hiring Decision

Lesbian and gay (LG) leaders exist. Since 2013, the OUTstanding list (Financial Times,

2018) celebrates successful LG leaders, making them visible worldwide and promoting them as

role models. In 2018, this list included 123 gay men but only 38 lesbian women, suggesting that

lesbian leaders are less visible than gay men and may face more difficulties in reaching top

positions.

Although LG individuals reach top jobs, they continue to navigate discrimination (Ahmed,

Andersson, & Hammarstedt, 2013; Patacchini, Ragusa, & Zenou, 2015) and career obstacles to

get there (Parnell, Lease, & Green, 2012). When LG individuals “come out,” they can become

targets of discrimination during the hiring process (Ahmed et al., 2013; Helb, Foster, Mannix, &

Dovidio, 2002; Horvath & Ryan, 2003). LG applicants can be perceived as inadequate and

unsuitable leaders and are less likely to be called to interview than similarly competent

heterosexual individuals (Fassinger, Shullman, & Stevenson, 2010; Liberman & Golom, 2015;

Steffens, Niedlich, & Ehrke, 2016; Tilcsik, 2011; Weichselbaumer, 2003). Here, we examine

employment discrimination triggered by vocal cues to sexual orientation. In so doing, we also

analyze whether lesbian women are discriminated against more than gay men when applying for

leadership positions.

In Western societies, such as the United Kingdom (UK), discrimination against LG

workers goes against equality laws (ILGA Europe, 2018), making sexual orientation

discrimination punishable. Moreover, in most of these societies, expressions of anti-gay attitudes

are condemned (Moneith, Deneen, & Tooman, 1996; see also Crandall, Eshleman, & O’Brien,

2002). Consequently, sexual prejudice can be seen as a thing of the past (Morrison & Morrison,

2003) but still manifests in subtle forms especially in ambiguous situations where discriminatory

behaviors cannot be labelled as such. Identifying discrimination can be difficult, in part, because

sexual orientation is an ambiguous social category (Tskhay & Rule, 2013) that can be kept


private (Beatty & Kirby, 2006). People use minimal cues to categorize others’ sexual orientation

(Fasoli, Maass, & Sulpizio, 2016; Rule, 2017). Gaydar is usually defined as the ability to

correctly guess who is gay and who is heterosexual from such minimal clues (Rule, 2017). As a

consequence of gaydar, discrimination can occur when sexual orientation is inferred from a

person’s behavior during the hiring process (Helb et al., 2002). Such discrimination may not be

attributed to sexual orientation as its cause is ambiguous (see Sue, 2010).

Our studies respond to a recent call to study such subtle cues to sexual orientation that

affect leaders’ career paths (Barrantes & Eaton, 2018). We draw on research showing that voice

can lead to discrimination on the basis of inferred sexual orientation (Fasoli & Maass, 2018) to

hypothesize that auditory cues of sexual orientation can prompt unconscious bias in hiring for

leadership positions. In real life, sexual orientation discrimination is often triggered by the

perception that someone is LG, rather than knowing for sure that the person is LG (see UK

Government Equalities Office, 2018 for UK data). Such discrimination also affects LG

individuals’ intentions to report instances of discrimination (see Herek, Cogan, & Gills, 2002).

Both leadership and gaydar are gendered phenomena. Leadership is stereotypically

perceived as a male-dominated role that requires characteristics typically associated with men

such as masculinity, competence and agency; thus, men are usually rated as more adequate

leaders than women (for a review see Koenig, Eagly, Mitchell, & Ristikari, 2011). Perceptions of

sexual orientation go hand in hand with gender stereotypes: individuals are usually categorized

as heterosexual by default and only re-categorized as lesbian or gay if cues to gender atypicality

are available (Lick & Johnson, 2016). Regarding vocal cues, people are often assumed to be

heterosexual, but individuals who sound gender atypical (i.e., masculine-sounding women and

feminine-sounding men) are more often re-categorized as LG (Gaudio, 1994; Munson, 2007).

According to Fassinger et al. (2010), being perceived as gender atypical can represent an

obstacle for LG individuals to reach top jobs and leadership roles, but research has not examined

if this occurs to the same extent for gay men and lesbian women.


The 2018 OUTstanding list illustrates that women are underrepresented among LG leaders.

At first glance, auditory gaydar seems like an unlikely explanation of any such gender difference

in leadership. Regardless of sexual orientation, men believe their voices work as sexual

orientation cues more than women do (Fasoli, Hegarty, Maass, & Antonio, 2018). Hence, gay

men, but not lesbian women, would seem to be more likely targets of discrimination when voices

function as a subtle sexual orientation cue. However, research on gender and leadership leads us

to consider several competing predictions about how gender and sexuality might intersect to

produce discriminatory effects in the hiring context. Before describing those predictions, we first

consider the basic evidence that auditory gaydar prompts social discrimination.

Auditory Gaydar and Discrimination

Individuals can sometimes accurately guess others’ sexual orientation based on the sound

of their voices (Fasoli et al., 2016; Rule, 2017). Researchers have aimed to identify the acoustic

differences that may exist in LG and heterosexual speech and has pointed to differences in vowel

production (Munson, McDonald, DeBoe, & White, 2006; Pierrehumbert, Bent, Munson,

Bradlow, & Bailey, 2004) and duration (Sulpizio et al., 2015; for consonants see Linville, 1998),

but not in fundamental frequencies (Kachel, Simpson, & Steffens, 2018). Voice-based

categorization of sexual orientation is not always accurate (see Miller, 2018; Sulpizio et al.,

2015), but often guided by stereotypes. The most common stereotype is that heterosexual people

have “gender typical” voices, whilst lesbian and gay people have “gender atypical” voices and

this affects how speakers are categorized (Kachel, Simpson, & Steffens, 2017, 2018; Munson,

2007). Another common stereotype refers to frontal lisping; men with sibilant /s/ are likely to be

perceived as gay (Crist, 1997; Mack & Muson, 2012; Van Borsel & Van de Putte, 2014).

Women with lower pitched voices are more often perceived as lesbian (Waksler, 2001), even

though no differences in pitch between lesbian and heterosexual women have been found

(Kachel et al., 2017). A monotone speech pattern also seems to trigger a perception of female

voices as lesbian-sounding (Moonwoman-Baird, 1997). Hence, although variations among LG


speakers’ voices exist, men who have nasalized voices and speech that included sibilant /s/,

higher fundamental frequencies and vowel space, and women whose voices have lower pitch and

lower vowel space dispersion are likely to sound like gay men and lesbian women respectively in

the ears of heterosexual listeners (see Kachel, Radtke, Skuk, Zäske, Simpson, & Steffens, 2018).

This along with the general impression of LG-sounding speakers as also sounding less gender

typical (more feminine for gay-sounding men and more masculine for lesbian-sounding women;

see Zimman, 2010).

As a consequence, a speaker who sounds LG to others is more likely to be inferred to

have gender atypical interests (Fasoli, Maass, Paladino, & Sulpizio, 2017; see also Fasoli, Maass,

& Sulpizio, 2018), to be less competent (Campbell-Kibler, 2011; Tracy, 2016), and to be more

confident and outgoing (Tracy, 2016). Moreover, in two separate studies, Fasoli et al., (2017)

demonstrated that inferred sexual orientation affected employability of female and male CEOs.

Participants listened to short audio files or saw pictures of candidates whose voices or faces

conveyed different sexual orientations. LG-sounding voices presented patterns of acoustic cues

that have been illustrated above and led listeners to perceive the speakers as either LG or

heterosexual. Faces instead were consistently categorized as LG or heterosexual on the basis of

minimal features such as eyes, nose, mouth (see Rule, 2017). Research has shown that turned up

noses, smaller foreheads and masculine face shape lead individuals to perceive women as lesbian

while convex cheeks, short noses and faces are associated with perception of men as gay

(Skorska, Geniole, Vrysen, McCromick & Bogaert, 2015). Heterosexual-sounding candidates

were preferred and received higher salary allocations. This sexual orientation discrimination was

triggered more by vocal cues than by visual cues but was similar regardless of both target

speaker gender and the accuracy of participants’ sexual orientation categorization. Indeed, these

authors showed that “discrimination does not necessarily require correct recognition of speaker’s

sexual orientation” (Fasoli et al., 2017, p. 1272) and that everyone who sounds LG is at risk of


stigmatization. Hence, we predict that LG-sounding individuals would be discriminated against

in the hiring process.

Our work builds on Fasoli et al. (2017) and extends it in two crucial ways. First, Fasoli et

al. (2017) conducted their research in Italy, but we conducted ours in the UK. Attitudes toward

sexual minorities are more positive in the UK than in Italy (Eurobarometer, 2015), and lesbian,

gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people enjoy more legal protection from discrimination

in the UK than Italy (ILGA Europe, 2018). Consequently, the UK, more than Italy, is a country

where subtle rather than explicit forms of sexual orientation discrimination may occur. Second,

Fasoli et al. (2017) did not analyze the intersection of gender and sexual orientation

discrimination. The literature on stereotyping and employability demands that we conceptualize

predictions at this intersection.

Role Congruity and Status Beliefs

Gender and sexual orientation might intersect to create patterns of discrimination in the

hiring process for two broad reasons: role congruity and status. Leadership is usually perceived

as a masculine domain that requires typically masculine skills. The think manager-think male

effect (Schein & Davidson, 1993) describes how women are perceived as inadequate leaders

because they lack masculine skills and competencies usually attributed to men. This

phenomenon is in line with lack-of-fit (Heilman, 1983) and role congruity theories (Eagly &

Karau, 2002). The lack-of-fit theory (Heilman, 1983) suggests that a person who possess traits

that are inconsistent with the job role would be perceived as a lack of fit and as having low

likelihood to success in that role. Since women are seen through the lens of gender stereotypes,

they cannot be a fit with typically masculine/male-dominated jobs. The role congruity theory

(Eagly & Karau, 2002) developed this thinking by emphasizing the descriptive content of

stereotypes. This theory indicates that, because of the incongruity between the way women are

stereotypically perceived and the shared belief that leadership is prototypically masculine and


male-dominated, women are perceived as less adequate for leadership roles and are judged less

positively if they hold such roles.

Lesbian women and gay men are subject to very different gender stereotypes than are

heterosexual women and men. The gender inversion stereotype leads gay men to be perceived as

more feminine and lesbian woman as more masculine (Kite & Deaux, 1987), and such

stereotyping persists in occupational contexts (Blashill & Powlishta, 2009). This stereotype has

been invoked to explain why gay men can be perceived as a suitable fit for typically feminine

jobs, and lesbian women for masculine types of jobs (see Barrantes & Eaton, 2018; Pichler,

Varma, & Bruce, 2010; Rule, Bjonsdottir, Tskhay, & Ambady, 2016). Gender inversion

stereotyping goes hand in hand with voice-based categorization of sexual orientation: Not only

women who sound masculine and men who sound feminine are likely to be perceived as LG

(Fasoli et al., 2016), but such inferences also activate gender inverted attributions with regards to

the speaker’s personality and interests (Fasoli et al., 2017). Consequently, activating the gender

inversion stereotype via vocal cues of sexual orientation and using it to fit candidates to jobs

could disadvantage gay men but advantage lesbians in the usual context where leadership is

perceived as something masculine that requires skills typically associated with men. Jointly, the

gender inversion stereotype and role congruity theories predict a pattern of discrimination such

that gay men bear the brunt of sexual orientation discrimination. As a matter of fact, Liberman

and Golom (2015) showed that there is little overlap between the characteristics associated with

gay managers and with successful managers, but more overlap between the stereotypes of lesbian

managers and of successful managers. Ahmed et al. (2013) found that discrimination against gay

men occurred specifically when masculine jobs were concerned while lesbian women faced

discrimination when applying for typically feminine but not for typically masculine jobs.

A different set of predictions about intersectional patterns of discrimination in the hiring

process follows from status beliefs, and the fact that sexual orientation is a status dimension.

Status refers to the advantages/disadvantages that individuals have as members of specific social


groups, and status defines power-based relationships and inequalities (see Ridgeway, 1991).

Status beliefs are cultural beliefs that attribute higher power, competence and skills to one social

group over others (Ridgeway, 2001). Gender stereotypes overlap with status beliefs, because

being competent, assertive, and masculine are associated with higher status, whilst being

communal and feminine are associated with lower status (Berger, Fisek, Norman, & Zelditch,

1997). These beliefs are shared and they explain subtle forms of occupational segregation

(Ridgeway, 2001). Even individuals who have egalitarian intentions still act on status beliefs and

favor men over women (see Rashotte & Webster, 2005).

Sexual orientation defines status too. Heterosexuals represent the default social category

and, because of that, gain advantages (see Prewitt-Freilino & Bosson, 2008), while LG

individuals represent a low-status group that continues to be accorded far fewer legal rights in

many of the Western countries (see ILGA Europe, 2018). Accordingly, auditory gaydar is an

inference about a status-related characteristic. Indeed, a recent study found that heterosexual men

wish that their voices communicate their sexual orientation more than all other social groups do

as this conveys their higher status (Fasoli, Hegarty, Maas, & Antonio, 2018). In the occupational

realm, both gay men and lesbian women are less likely to get promotions (Levine, 1979) or to

reach high-status positions (Frank, 2006) than same-gender heterosexuals. A recent analysis in

the UK found that LG individuals reached only low-level managerial positions whilst top high-

status positions were reserved for heterosexual individuals (Aksoy, Carpenter, Frank, &

Huffman, 2018). LG individuals’ difficulties in getting top positions may be due to status beliefs

that create expectations of low competence (Childers, 2000; Webster, Hysom, & Fullmer, 1998).

Among LG individuals, lesbian women represent a lower status group because they are a double

minority – women and lesbians (Garnets & Kimmel, 1991; Gedro, 2010; Woodruffle-Burton &

Bairstow, 2013; see also Fasoli, Cadinu, Carnaghi, Galdi, Guizzo, & Tassara, 2018). Their

gender and sexual identities are usually devaluated (see Hancock, 2007) making lesbian women

an invisible target (Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach, 2008). This being the case, status beliefs theory


suggests that lesbian women, not gay men, will bear the brunt of sexual orientation

discrimination in hiring.

Stereotyping

To further examine our main prediction based on role congruity and status beliefs,

stereotyping in relation to agency and communion need to be considered. Agency/competence is

stereotypically attributed to men and communality/warmth to women (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, &

Xu, 2002). Women are often discriminated against in leadership contexts because they are

stereotyped as lacking agency and competence (see Eagly & Chin, 2010; Eagly & Krau, 2002).

Studies have also suggested that agency and communion attributions are assigned to lesbian

women and gay men congruent with the gender inversion stereotype. Horvath and Ryan (2003)

found that lesbian and gay applicants were both perceived as less agentic than heterosexual men

but as more agentic than heterosexual women. Gay men have also been perceived as similarly

agentic to heterosexual men, but as more communal in other studies (Barrantes & Eaton, 2018;

Steffens, Niedlich, Beschorner, & Köhler, 2018). Also, communal men are likely to be perceived

as gay and gay men described as communal are perceived as more feminine, suggesting an

interplay between communality and femininity when sexual orientation is considered (Kranz,

Pröbstle, & Evidis, 2017). Niedlich and Steffens (2015) found that lesbian women were judged

as more agentic and communal than heterosexual women (see also Niedlich, Steffens, Krause,

Settke, & Ebert, 2015). Other studies found that lesbian women are perceived as equally

communal and agentic, but the subgroup of butch lesbian women is seen as more agentic than

communal (Brambilla, Carnaghi, & Ravenna, 2011). Moreover, a recent study has demonstrated

that gay men were judged less suitable for masculine jobs because they were stereotyped as

lacking agency and masculinity (Steffens et al., 2018).

Here, we examine both masculinity and femininity, and agency and communion as

mediators of discrimination effects. In particular, we test whether stereotyping a candidate along

these dimensions would explain biases on leadership suitability judgments. Support for role


congruity would occur if LG individuals are stereotyped as gender inverted and such attribution

would predict lower leadership suitability for gay men and higher suitability for lesbian women.

Support for status beliefs would emerge if candidates, and especially the lesbian women, would

be perceived as lacking competence and, in turn, seen as unsuitable for leadership roles.

The Present Studies

In three studies, heterosexual participants heard the voices of female and male job

applicants who sounded LG and heterosexual, formed a first impression, rated their suitability as

leaders, and ranked them for employability. We will use here sexual orientation terms to refer to

perceptions based on vocal cues, rather than accurate detection of speakers’ sexual orientation. In

particular, we examined whether voices that conveyed a LG (vs. heterosexual) sexual orientation

trigger discrimination. We included rating of a person’s job suitability and rankings of job

candidates for overall employability. The former measure refers to the perceived match between

the candidate and the role, while the latter measures discrimination directly. Suitability ratings

can also mask effects of stereotypes on discrimination more than rankings because judges may

compare candidates against different standards more easily on rating measures than on ranking

measures (Biernat & Kobrynowicz, 1997).

We hypothesized that LG-sounding applicants would be judged less suitable and less

employable than heterosexual-sounding applicants overall (the sexual orientation discrimination

hypothesis, Hypothesis 1). Our design allowed us to test competing predictions derived from

gender inversion theory and role congruity theory vs. status-beliefs theory. Gender inversion

theory holds that gay-sounding men bear the brunt of sexual orientation discrimination overall,

particularly when (1) gender stereotypes are applied to LG individuals, and (2) the jobs in

question clearly demand masculine skills. The role congruity hypothesis therefore predicts that

gay-sounding men are discriminated against more than lesbian-sounding women (Hypothesis

2a). In contrast, status beliefs theory holds that lesbian-sounding women bear the brunt of sexual

orientation discrimination, particularly when lesbian-sounding women are attributed lower


competence by virtue of their double minority status as members of lower status gender and

sexuality groups. Hence, the status hypothesis predicts that lesbian-sounding women are

discriminated against more than gay-sounding men (Hypothesis 2b).

Moreover, in Studies 2 and 3 we tested the additional prediction that LG individuals are

kept away from leadership positions because those jobs are perceived as higher status. In Study 2

we used a within-participants design and examined whether the LG applicants are preferentially

hired for a low-status (assistantship) rather than a high-status (leadership) position in the same

company. Study 3 had a between-participants design that manipulated both job status and job

gender role. Hence, Study 3 tested whether job suitability and employability vary depending on

the type of job that LG applicants apply for.

Study 1

In Study 1, we tested the hypothesis that sexual orientation discrimination is prompted by

vocal cues (Hypothesis 1). We further tested the role congruity hypothesis that gay male

applicants would be targets of sexual orientation discrimination because they are perceived as

lacking the masculinity required by leadership roles, while lesbian women would gain an

advantage from being perceived as masculine (Hypothesis 2a). Finally, the status belief

hypothesis predicts instead that lesbian applicants would be discriminated against more than gay

men (Hypothesis 2b).

Method

Participants

We performed a statistical power analysis for sample size estimation using GPower

3.1.9.2 software (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007). With an alpha = .05 and power = .80

projected a sample size needed to collect a medium effect size (ηp2 = 0.06) of 136 participants.

One hundred and fifty-six participants took part. We excluded those who failed the manipulation

check item as they did not remember correctly the job/company information (n = 19), did not

provide final consent to use their data (n = 2), and who self-identified as bisexual (n = 2). The


final sample consisted of 67 female and 68 male heterosexual participants (Mage = 36.77, SD =

11.36) who were all British, and English-native speakers. Most held a university degree or a

qualification below a degree (n = 100, 75.2%) and politically identified as left (M = 3.40, SD =

1.34; t-test against the midpoint: t[132] = -5.17, p < .001). Fifty-three participants (n = 54,

39.8%) reported experiences in hiring employees, for an average time of three years (M = 2.93,

SD = 6.61).

Procedure

Participants were recruited online through Prolific Academic, a crowdsourcing platform

tailored for research, to achieve high quality data (see Peer, Brandimarte, Samat, & Acquisti,

2017). All received £1.50 (approximately USA $2) in exchange for participation. Prolific

Academic allows pre-screening for specific demographics. The study was advertised only to

individuals who self-identified as British and heterosexual on the platform. After giving consent

to participate, participants read the job advertisement and company information. Next, they

listened to three female or three male candidates whose voices were presented in a randomized

order. Each participant listened to a heterosexual-sounding, a LG-sounding and a filler applicant

of the same gender. Participants were told they were listening to the initial part of applicants’

answers to the question of why they were interested in the job, and that only this part of the

recording was available for privacy reasons. Next, participants completed the measures presented

below and reported demographic information (age, gender, education, experiences and average

time in hiring, political affiliation measured on a scale from 1 = extreme left to 7 = extreme right,

and sexual orientation measured on a categorical variable with the following options:

heterosexual, gay/lesbian, bisexual, other). Finally, participants answered two manipulation

check items, assessing memory for the company name and its status. This variable was then used

to exclude participants who fail remembering correctly such information. They were thanked,

debriefed and asked to provide post-debriefing consent to analyze their data.

Materials.


Vocal stimuli. Individuals who self-identity as LG and heterosexual were recruited as part

of a larger study on voice-based categorization of sexual orientation. Speakers were informed

that voice recording would be subsequently used in studies on impression formation and

provided full consent for audio recordings used. Twelve male and 18 female speakers were

recorded in a sound-proof booth by using a voice recorder while reading out loud texts which

were scripted to mimic an applicant applying for a job. Audio files were edited using PRAAT

(Boersma & Weenink, 2007) and used in two separate pretests, on female and on male voices. In

these pretests, British heterosexual participants (N = 59 in each pretest) listened to 18 female or

12 male speakers and judged their sexual orientation on a scale from 1 (exclusively heterosexual)

to 7 (exclusively gay/lesbian) and on a dichotomous choice (heterosexual vs. gay/lesbian).

Listeners’ ratings were then examined to select two gay men, two lesbian women, two

heterosexual men and two heterosexual- women speakers whose voices was perceived as

conveying the sexual orientation they identified with. The two selected lesbian women speakers

were perceived as more lesbian-sounding that the two heterosexual women speakers (Mlesbian =

3.80, SD = 1.15 vs. Mheterosexual = 2.68, SD = 1.12, t(58) = 6.87, p < .001; for similar ratings see

Sulpizio et al., 2019). Their sexual orientation was also recognized in line with the self-reported

sexual orientation (correct responses were above 86.4% for heterosexual women speakers and

ranged between 57.6% and 66.1% for lesbian women speakers). Similarly, the selected gay men

speakers were perceived as more gay-sounding than the selected heterosexual men speakers

(Mgay = 3.97, SD = 1.20 vs. Mheterosexual = 2.68, SD = 1.10, t(58) = 6.31, p < .001; for similar ratings

see Sulpizio et al., 2015). Moreover, the sexual orientation of the selected men was categorized

most of the time according to the sexual orientation self-reported by the speakers (correct

responses were above 89.9% for the heterosexual men speakers and was equal to 57.6% for both

gay men speakers). Such categorization responses are in line with previous research showing that

heterosexuals speakers are correctly categorized as such most of the time because heterosexuality


is taken as the default (see Sulpizio et al., 2015). On the contrary, even when correct,

categorization of gay speakers is around 63% (see Rule, 2017) and thus far from being perfect.

The speakers read two texts that similarly referred to the candidate’s interest in the job and

to their personal skills. The first sentence of each text was used as an audio stimulus;

Text 1: I am [Anna/Andrew], I am interested in this job as I believe I have the skills and

knowledge that it demands.

Text 2: I am [Sophie/Simon] and I am interested in this job. I am a motivated person and I

have experience in this field.

As done in previous studies (see Haslam & Ryan, 2008), we included a filler applicant who

was a weak candidate in order to enhance realism and to avoid making the research aim obvious.

Thus, an additional woman and man speaker who sounded heterosexual (Mfiller_woman = 2.75, SD =

1.54; t-test against the midpoint: t(58) = -6.26, p < .001; Mfiller_man = 2.53, SD = 1.56; t-test against

the midpoint: t(58) = -7.27, p < .001) were selected from the voice samples used in the pretests.

To ensure this candidate was weaker than the other two, we played a sentence where this speaker

referred to his/her personality rather than their skills or job interest: “I am [Melanie/Mark]. I am

a friendly person and like talking and meeting new people.”

Company. We used Haslam and Ryan’s (2008; Study 3) materials. An opening for a

director in the financial sector within a manufacturer and office supplies distributor was

described in all conditions. The job description indicated that the job required leadership skills

(see Supplementary Materials). Company status was manipulated using a fake newspaper article

describing the company as either successful or failing in the last ten years. To make status

salient, the article included a graph depicting the company’s performance.1

Masculine and feminine traits. Participants rated each candidate on six masculine traits

(e.g., dominant, strong; LG: α = .75, heterosexual: α = .83) and six feminine traits (e.g., creative,

feminine; LG: α = .74, heterosexual α = .79) used by Fasoli et al. (2017) on a 7-point Likert scale

from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). High scores indicate higher trait attributions.


Job suitability. Participants indicated whether each candidate was suitable for the leader

position by answering 5 items (e.g., “the candidate would be a good leader”; LG: α = .94,

heterosexual: α = .96) on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree),

(see Haslam & Ryan, 2008). High scores indicated higher suitability.

Employability. Participants ranked the three candidates from 1 (the most appointable) to 3

(the least appointable). Ranks were reversed such that high scores indicated employability.

Sexual prejudice. Participants completed the 12-item Modern Homonegativity scale (e.g.,

“gay men and lesbians should stop complaining about the way they are treated in society, and

simply get on with their lives”; α = .88) on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly

agree, Morrison & Morrison, 2003). High scores indicated higher prejudice.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

Overall participants had low sexual prejudice (M = 3.48, SD = 1.06; t-test against the

midpoint of the scale: t(132) = -5.64, p < .001). As predicted, the filler applicant was perceived

as not suitable for the leadership position (M = 2.82, SD = 1.30; t-test against midpoint: t[132] =

-10.48, p < .001) and far less suitable than all the other candidates: all ts < - 9.66, ps < .001).

Only six participants selected this applicant as the most employable. Following Haslam and

Ryan (2008), we excluded ratings of this applicant from analyses.

In the main analyses, each dependent variable was submitted to a 2 (Candidate Sexual

Orientation: gay/lesbian vs. heterosexual) x 2 (Candidate Gender: male vs. female) repeated

measures ANOVA where the first factor was a within-participants and the other was between-

participants. Pairwise comparisons (Bonferroni correction) were performed to interpret

significant interactions. Since analyses including participants’ gender did not show any

significant interaction with applicant gender and sexual orientation (Fs < 2.59, p > .11), we

report the analyses collapsed across participant gender. Moreover, as suggested by Rosnow and

Rosenthal (1995), and more recently by Haans (2018; see also Howell & Lacroix, 2012), to test


our theory-driven role congruity and status beliefs hypotheses, planned contrasts were

performed.

Masculine and Feminine Traits

Analyses on attribution of masculine and feminine traits were performed separately, since

the two indexes were independent (rs < .159, ps > .068). Analysis of attribution of feminine traits

showed a main effect of candidate gender, F(1, 131) = 23.65, p < .001, ηp2 = .153, qualified by an

interaction with sexual orientation, F(1, 131) = 9.22, p = .003, ηp2 = .066. Feminine traits were

similarly attributed to the lesbian-sounding woman (M = 3.41, SD = .91) and the heterosexual-

sounding woman (M = 3.60, SD = .93; p = .070), but more to the gay-sounding man (M = 2.94,

SD = .88) than to the heterosexual-sounding man (M = 2.68, SD = .97; p = .015). The analyses

on masculine traits did not show any significant effect or interaction (Fs < 1.09, ps > .299).

Leadership Suitability

Supporting Hypothesis 1, a significant main effect of candidate sexual orientation, F(1,

131) = 4.53, p = .035, ηp2 = .033, indicated that participants discriminated in favor of the

heterosexual-sounding applicants (M = 4.25, SD = 1.17) relative to the LG-sounding applicants

(M = 3.98, SD = 1.12). The interaction between candidate sexual orientation and gender, F(1,

131) = 2.73, p = .101, ηp2 = .021, was not significant.

To test whether the gay- (Hypothesis 2a) or the lesbian-sounding applicants (Hypothesis

2b) bear the brunt of sexual orientation discrimination, planned contrasts were performed within

each applicant target gender group. The lesbian-sounding woman (M = 3.78, SD = .96) was rated

as less suitable than the heterosexual-sounding woman (M = 4.24, SD = 1.21; F(1, 131) = 7.09, p

= .009), whereas the gay-sounding man (M = 4.18, SD = 1.23) and the heterosexual-sounding

man (M = 4.24, SD = 1.21) were rated as similarly suitable (F(1, 131) = .11, p = .74). Hence, in

line with Hypothesis 2b, lesbian-sounding candidates bore the brunt of sexual orientation

discrimination here.

Employability


A significant main effect of candidate sexual orientation, F(1, 131) = 4.74, p = .031, ηp2

= .035, indicated that the heterosexual-sounding applicants (M = 2.50, SD = .68) were ranked as

more appointable than the LG-sounding candidates (M = 2.28, SD = .59), confirming Hypothesis

1. Also, a significant interaction between candidate sexual orientation and gender emerged, F(1,

131) = 4.12, p = .044, ηp2 = .039. Pairwise comparisons (Bonferroni correction) showed that the

lesbian-sounding woman (M = 2.20, SD = .59) was ranked significantly lower than the

heterosexual-sounding woman (M = 2.62, SD = .60; p = .004), whilst the gay-sounding man (M

= 2.35, SD = .59) and heterosexual-sounding man (M = 2.37, SD = .73) were ranked similarly (p

= .92), as confirmed by planned contrast. Hence, the lesbian-sounding woman experienced more

sex-specific discrimination than the gay-sounding man on this ranking measure (see Figure 2).

Mediation Analyses

The effects of candidate gender and sexual orientation on both leadership suitability and

employability favour status beliefs theory over gender inversion and role congruity theories both

measures showed that sexual orientation discrimination was greater among women than among

men. To investigate these theories further, we conducted two mediation analyses to test whether

this sexual orientation discrimination was mediated by perceived masculinity and femininity

ratings. Montoya and Hayes’ (2017) MEMORE macro for SPSS and bias-corrected intervals

(5000 bootstrap resamples), appropriate for a within-participants design and to test indirect

effects, was used. None of the indirect effects were significant. The gender inversion

stereotyping of candidates did not cause the sexual orientation discrimination observed.

Discussion

Study 1 evidenced discrimination on the basis of vocal cues of sexual orientation in a more

egalitarian culture than Italy (see Fasoli et al., 2017), supporting the sexual orientation

discrimination hypothesis. The pattern of results on job suitability and employability suggested

that discrimination was specific to women targets and independent of the gender inversion

stereotyping of candidates. These results favor the status beliefs over the role congruity


hypothesis. However, these findings are the first in the gaydar discrimination literature to

evidence stronger discrimination amongst women than men, and this pattern was not observed in

Fasoli et al.’s (2017) Italian studies. Accordingly, Study 2 tested role congruity and status beliefs

explanations again and examined a wider range of trait attributions. Study 1 aimed to replicate

previous findings and therefore relied on masculine and feminine traits used by Fasoli et al.

(2017). Study 2 moved a step forward and tested whether competency mediates discrimination

whilst gender role stereotyping does not, as predicted by status beliefs theory.

Study 2

Study 2 extended Study 1 in three ways. First, Study 1 did not allow for a direct test of

discrimination between gay-sounding vs lesbian-sounding candidates since participants only

listened to applicants of the same gender. In reality, gay and lesbian candidates may, of course,

compete for the same position. In Study 2, participants heard four applicants; representing the

intersection of gender and perceived sexuality. This allowed us to test the main sexual orientation

hypothesis (Hypothesis 1) along with the role congruity (Hypothesis 2a) and beliefs status

(Hypothesis 2b) predictions.

Second, the participants rated the candidates on a greater range of traits. Candidates were

rated on masculinity and femininity, and also on competence, sociability, and morality. Ratings

of masculinity and femininity have been found to predict sexual orientation discrimination

(Fasoli et al., 2017). Competence and sociability resemble agency and communion that predict

leadership suitability for typically masculine and feminine type of jobs, respectively (see

Barrantes & Eaton, 2018; Steffens et al., 2018). Morality is relevant to group status (Ellemers,

Pagliaro, Barreto, & Leach, 2008), is associated with sexuality (Herek & McLemore, 2013), and

predicts first impressions that inform hiring recommendations (Brambilla, Sacchi, Rusconi,

Cherubini, & Yzerbyt, 2012; Cunningham, Sartore, & McCullough, 2010). These attributions

allowed us to further test support for role congruity and status belief predictions and explore the

alternative that discrimination is mediated by attributions of morality.


Third, in Study 2, applicants were rated as suitable for a high-status leadership position

(manager), and for a lower-status position as that manager’s assistant. Assigning LG-sounding

candidates to the assistant position could resolve the dilemma between keeping LG-sounding

candidates out of leadership positions, whilst conforming to a new social norm to treat LG

people fairly (Merritt, Effron & Monin, 2010). We predicted that LG-sounding applicants would

be preferred for the low-status assistant position than heterosexual-sounding applicants

(Hypothesis 3).

Method

Participants

A statistical power analysis was performed for sample size estimation using GPower

3.1.9.2 software (Faul et al., 2007). With an alpha = .05 and power = .80 the projected sample

size needed to collect a medium effect size (ηp2 = 0.06) was 33 participants. Eighty-two

participants participated, but two did not provide consent for their data use. The final sample

included 80 heterosexual participants (37 women, 43 men, Mage = 37.75, SD = 13.22). All were

British. All but one were native English speakers. Most had a University degree or a

qualification below a degree (73.8%, n = 59), and politically identified as left (M = 3.55, SD =

1.25; t[79] = -2.98, p = .004). Also, 43.8% (n = 35) reported experiences in recruitment for an

average of 7 years (M = 7.06, SD = 8.37).

Procedure

Participants were recruited via Prolific Academic and received £1.50 (approx. USA$2) as

before. They were informed that a company was hiring a leader and listened to voices of a

lesbian-sounding woman, gay-sounding man, a heterosexual-sounding man and a heterosexual-

sounding woman in a randomized order. After listening to each applicant, participants rated them

for masculinity, femininity, competence, sociability, morality, leadership suitability, low-status

occupation suitability, and completed the employability rankings. Next, they reported beliefs in


leadership consequences and in beliefs about equality, and demographics. Finally, they were

thanked, debriefed and provided final consent to data use.

Materials

Job ad and vocal stimuli. Job ad was the same as in Study 1, except that participants were

only informed about the type of position the company was advertising. The speakers were the

same as in Study 1 except for the fact that the filler candidate was not included. Also,

participants heard shorter utterances here (i.e., “I am [name] and I am interested in this job”). As

part of the cover story, they were informed that for privacy reasons they were not allowed to hear

the full interview.

Masculinity and femininity. Participants rated candidates on two traits (i.e. masculine and

feminine) on scales ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). These two items were

negatively correlated for all targets (r ranging from -.31 to -.45) except for the heterosexual

woman (r = .03). As these correlations varied by target, we considered them separately. Higher

scores indicated higher masculinity and femininity attributions, respectively.

Competence, sociability, and morality. Participants rated each candidate on nine traits

representing three constructs; competence (competent, intelligent, skilled; α from .88 to .93 by

target), sociability (likable, warm, friendly; α from .87 to .93 by target) and morality (honest,

sincere, trustworthy; α from .83 to .92 by target; see Brambilla et al., 2012). Participants

answered the items on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). High scores indicated higher

trait attributions.

Leadership suitability. Participants indicated candidates’ suitability for the leadership

position using the same five items and rating scale used in Study 1 (α ranging from .96 to .97 by

target).

Low-status occupation suitability. A single item asked whether the applicant would have

been better suited to a low-status position (i.e., “The candidate would only be suitable for a non-

leadership position [e.g., assistant]”) on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).


Leadership employability. Participants ranked the four candidates from 1 (the most

appointable) to 4 (the least appointable) as in Study 1. Ranks were reversed as before.

Beliefs in leadership consequences. A 16-item measure of beliefs in the good leadership

of two groups, women and LG people, was based on O’Brien and Vest (1988). Eight items

referred to each target group but were otherwise identical (e.g., “I believe employing a woman

[homosexual person] as a leader will bring diversity into the company”). Participants answered

on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Reliability for scores on the beliefs in

good leadership consequences was estimated at α = .73 for women and α = .76 for LG people

target, and an index was calculated by averaging the relevant eight items. Higher score indicated

positive beliefs about each group.

Beliefs about equality. Two 3-item scales, adapted from Horvath and Ryan (2003),

measured support for equality in hiring in regard to gender and to sexual orientation (e.g.,

“Refusing to hire someone because of his/her [gender/sexual orientation] is wrong”). Reliability

for scores on beliefs about equality was estimated at α = .96 for gender and α = .93 for sexual

orientation; items were averaged so that a higher score indicated higher support for equality.

Results

Preliminary Results

T-tests against the scale midpoint suggested that participants did not believe that good

consequences would occur in a company because of having women (M = 2.46, SD = .77; t(79) =

-17.80, p < .001) and LG leaders (M = 3.17, SD = .98; t(79) = -7.52, p < .001). However, they

strongly supported gender (M = 6.57, SD = .91; t(79) = 25.24, p < .001) and sexual orientation

equality (M = 6.59, SD = .90; t(79) = 25.71, p < .001).

In the main analyses, a 2 (Candidate Sexual Orientation: gay/lesbian vs. heterosexual) x 2

(Candidate Gender: male vs. female) repeated measures ANOVA was conducted on each of the

dependent variables. Pairwise comparisons (Bonferroni correction) were conducted when

interactions were significant. Analyses including participant gender as a factor did not show any


significant interaction with the candidate gender and/or sexual orientation on the dependent

variables (Fs < 1.17, p > .28). We therefore report the data collapsed across participant gender.

As in Study 1, planned contrasts were performed to test our theory-driven hypotheses (Haans,

2018; Howell & Lacroix, 2012). In this case, the design allowed us to conduct contrasts

examining whether the gay- (Hypothesis 2a) or the lesbian-sounding (Hypothesis 2b) candidate

were the most discriminated against among all the candidates.

Masculinity and Femininity

Results on masculinity showed a significant interaction between candidate gender and

sexual orientation, F(1, 79) = 4.12, p = .049, ήp2 = .050. The gay-sounding man (M = 5.38, SD =

1.49) and the heterosexual-sounding man (M = 5.35, SD = 1.46; p = .89) were perceived as

similarly masculine. In contrast, the lesbian-sounding woman (M = 2.31, SD = 1.63) was

perceived as more masculine than the heterosexual-sounding woman (M = 1.80, SD = 1.20; p

= .004).

The same analysis performed on femininity also yielded a significant interaction, F(1, 79)

= 14.44, p < .001, ήp2 = .155. Again, the gay-sounding (M = 1.95, SD = 1.34) and heterosexual-

sounding man (M = 1.96, SD = 1.50; p = .941) were perceived similarly, whereas the lesbian-

sounding woman (M = 5.11, SD = 1.61) was perceived as significantly less feminine than the

heterosexual-sounding woman (M = 6.06, SD = 1.25; p < .001). Thus, gender inverted attribution

emerged for the female candidates only in Study 2.

Competence

Analysis yielded a significant main effect of candidate sexual orientation, F(1, 79) = 21.69.

p < .001, ήp2 = .215. This was qualified by a significant interaction with candidate gender, F(1,

79) = 4.75, p = .032, ήp2 = .057. The gay-sounding man (M = 4.16, SD = 1.14) was perceived as

less competent that the heterosexual-sounding man (M = 4.47, SD = .99; p = .039). The lesbian-

sounding woman (M = 3.99, SD = 1.12) was perceived as less competent than the heterosexual-

sounding woman (M = 4.75, SD = .99; p < .001). The gay-sounding and the lesbian-sounding


applicant were perceived as similarly competent (p = .290), but the heterosexual-sounding

woman was rated as more competent than the heterosexual-sounding man (p = .024).

Sociability

A significant main effect of candidate sexual orientation, F(1, 79) = 43.94. p < .001, ήp2

= .357, was qualified by a significant interaction with candidate gender, F(1, 79) = 21.85, p

< .001, ήp2 = .217. The gay-sounding man (M = 4.34, SD = 1.26) was rated as similarly sociable

as the heterosexual-sounding man (M = 4.60, SD = 1.07; p = .089), but the lesbian-sounding

woman (M = 3.72, SD = 1.16) was rated as less sociable than the heterosexual-sounding woman

(M = 5.09, SD = 1.15; p < .001). The gay-sounding man was also rated as more sociable than the

lesbian-sounding woman (p = .001) and the heterosexual-sounding woman as more sociable than

the heterosexual-sounding man (p = .001).

Morality

A significant main effect of candidate sexual orientation, F(1, 79) = 28.69. p < .001, ήp2

= .27, was qualified by a significant interaction with gender, F(1, 79) = 9.60, p = .003, ήp2 = .108.

The gay-sounding man (M = 4.26, SD = 1.05) was perceived as significantly less moral than the

heterosexual-sounding man (M = 4.55, SD = 1.03; p = .046), and the lesbian-sounding woman

(M = 3.89, SD = 1.13) as less moral than the heterosexual-sounding woman (M = 4.79, SD =

1.04; p < .001). Also, the lesbian-sounding woman was perceived as less moral than the gay-

sounding man (p = .015), whilst the heterosexual-sounding woman was judged as more moral

than the heterosexual-sounding man (p = .039). Hence, sexual orientation affected morality

attributions for all candidates, but more so for women than for men.

Leadership Suitability

A significant main effect of candidate sexual orientation, F(1, 79) = 18.48, p < .001, ήp2

= .190, indicated that participants discriminated in favour of heterosexual-sounding (M = 4.49 ,

SE = .10) over LG-sounding applicants (M = 3.94, SE = .10), replicating Study 1 and supporting

Hypothesis 1. The interaction between candidate sexual orientation and gender fell short of


significance, F(1, 79) = 3.15, p = .080, ήp2 = .038 (Mlesbian = 3.78, SD = 1.19 vs. Mgay = 4.10, SD

= 1.12 vs. Mstraigth_woman = 4.54, SD = 1.04 vs. Mstright_man = 4.42, SD = 1.03). Planned contrast

testing the role congruity (coded as -1 = lesbian, 3 = gay, − 1 = heterosexual women, − 1 =

heterosexual men) and the status beliefs (coded as 3 = lesbian, − 1 = gay, − 1 = heterosexual

women, − 1 = heterosexual men) hypotheses were carried out. No significant difference occurred

between the gay-sounding man and the other candidates, F(1, 79) = 1.03, p = .31. On the

contrary, the lesbian-sounding woman was rated as the least suitable candidates compared to the

others, F(1, 79) = 14.87, p < .001) supporting the status beliefs hypothesis (Hypothesis 2b).

Leadership Employability

Only a main effect of candidate sexual orientation, F(1, 78) = 21.41, p < .001, ήp2 = .213,

was found. Confirming Hypothesis 1, LG-sounding applicants were ranked as less appointable

(M = 2.18, SD = .61) than heterosexual-sounding applicants (M = 2.82, SD = .62; see Figure 2).

No other significant effects were found (Fs < .41, ps > .525). Planned contrasts showed that the

lesbian-sounding applicants were the least preferred, F(1, 79) = 40.79, p < .001, followed by the

gay-sounding applicants, F(1, 79) = 4.69, p = .033.

Low-status Occupation Suitability

Confirming Hypothesis 3, we found a significant effect for sexual orientation

discrimination, F(1, 79) = 6.32, p = .014, ήp2 = .074. LG-sounding applicants (M = 3.86, SD =

1.09) were rated as better candidates for the low-status position than heterosexual-sounding

applicants (M = 3.54, SD = 1.09). No other significant effects were found (Fs < .54, ps > .46).

Mediation Analyses

As in Study 1 mediation analyses employed MEMORE macro. We investigated perceived

femininity, masculinity, competence, warmth, and morality as potential mediators of sexual

orientation discrimination separately for each gender. The analyses of discrimination among

women supported full mediation. The direct effect of perceived sexual orientation on job

suitability (b = -.75, SE = .18, t = -4.27, p < .001) became non-significant (b = -.15, SE = .14, t =


-1.04, p = .302). Confirming the mediated path, the indirect effects through competence (a∗b =

-.39, SE = .15, 95% CI [-0.75, -0.15] z = -2.92, p = .003) and morality (a∗b = -.56, SE = .18,

95% CI [-0.98, -0.28]) were statistically significant. The same analysis on male candidates

showed only a small indirect effect via competence (a∗b = -.18, SE = .09, 95% CI [-0.41, -

0.03]).

Mediation analyses on employability similarly showed that the perceived competence

completely mediated sexual orientation discrimination among men (a∗b = -.14, SE = .09, 95%

CI [-0.37, -0.006]) and among women (a∗b = -.40, SE = .22, 95% CI [-0.87,-0.001]). Across all

four models, competence was the single most consistent mediator of sexual orientation

discrimination. In addition, attributions of morality were relevant to the lower leadership

suitability ratings of lesbian-sounding women (see Figure 3 and 4).

Discussion

Study 2 replicated the finding of discrimination based on sexual orientation conveyed by

voice. Again, lesbian- and gay-sounding applicants were discriminated against heterosexual-

sounding participants. Whilst lesbian-sounding women were stereotyped as more masculine here,

in line with the gender inversion stereotype, heterosexual-sounding women were attributed

greater competence, and competence emerged as the key mediator of sexual orientation

discrimination, not masculinity. Like Study 1, Study 2 refutes the idea that gender inversion

stereotyping triggered by vocal cues of sexual orientation would create an advantage for lesbian-

sounding women via attributions of greater masculinity (see also Fasoli et al., 2017). Instead, the

lesbian-sounding applicants were perceived as less suitable for leadership than gay-sounding

applicants, supporting the status beliefs hypothesis.

In Study 2, participants rated suitability for the lower status job after considering

candidates for the higher status job. LG-sounding candidates were perceived as better suited to a

low-status assistantship position, suggesting a “compensatory” strategy. By giving LG-sounding

candidates the assistantship position, participants could avoid the self-perception that their


choices are prejudicial, whilst maintaining status hierarchies in candidate choices. This

interpretation is tentative, and it is possible that this compensatory strategy is applied only after

high-status jobs are assigned. Accordingly, Study 3 tested both our core hypotheses, and

experimentally manipulated job status and gender role in a between-participants design.

Study 3

Both Studies 1 and 2 favor status beliefs over role congruity explanations of sexual

orientation discrimination prompted by vocal cues of sexual orientation. Study 3 aimed to

replicate the sexual orientation discrimination (Hypothesis 1) and the status beliefs (Hypothesis

2b) effects that the lesbian-sounding woman would bear the brunt of discrimination.

Study 3 also explored whether the type of job role could affect participants’ judgments.

The results of Study 2 drove our decision to manipulate job status. We predicted that the LG-

sounding applicants would be perceived as less suitable and appointable for a high-status job but

not for a low-status job, to the extent that LG-sounding individuals are perceived as less

competent (Hypothesis 3). At the same type, we manipulated whether the job role was typically

masculine or feminine. Gay men have been preferentially hired for feminine leadership roles in

some studies (Barrantes & Eaton; 2018; but see Niedlich & Steffens, 2015), but none have used

voice as a cue for sexual orientation, and different cues to sexual orientation may impact the

form of discrimination that occurs (Hegarty & Massey, 2006). In line with role congruity theory,

we predict that gay-sounding men are preferred for feminine jobs and lesbian-sounding women

for masculine jobs, to the extent that gender inversion stereotypes are activated, and allow a role

fit with the relevant job (Hypothesis 4). Manipulation of job status was independent of job

gender role avoiding possible confounds between the status and perceived masculinity of

occupational roles (Hegewish, Liepmann, Hayes, & Hartmann, 2010).

Method

Participants


We performed a statistical power analysis for sample size estimation using GPower

3.1.9.2 software (Faul et al., 2007). With an alpha = .05 and power = .80 the projected sample

size needed to collect a medium effect size (ηp2 = 0.06) was 116 participants. One hundred and

twenty-nine participants took part in the study. We excluded two bisexual participants, leaving

127 heterosexual participants (62 women, 65 men, Mage = 37.59, SD = 12.77). All were British

and native speakers, most held a university/college degree (53%, n = 68), most identified

politically as left (M = 3.60, SD = 1.24, t-test against the midpoint t[126] = -3.64, p < .001), and

had no hiring experience (65%, n = 83).

Procedure

Procedure and measures were the same as in Study 2, except for the job descriptions

illustrated below and the corresponding manipulation check items. Beliefs in leadership

consequence measure was dropped. As in Study 2, participants listened to the four candidates but

the type of job they applied for varied depending on the experimental condition.

Materials

Job advertisement and manipulation check. Participants read one of four job ads

manipulated to either describe a typically masculine or feminine job that was also either high or

low in status job. The job title, its permanence, and its London location were kept constant.

The masculine job was a “Competition Advisor”, the feminine job was a “Social Support

Advisor” (see Barrantes & Eaton, 2018). To emphasize gender typicality the jobs’ “required

skills” (as in Study 1 and 2) were either task-oriented (i.e., “Manager capable of setting

challenging targets and of developing practical actions to meet them”; “Manager capable of

planning activities and competition strategies.”) or relationship-oriented skills (i.e., “Manager

capable of understanding of what the team needs to improve teamwork”, “Manager with

excellent communication and interpersonal skills”). Gender Decoder for Job Ads (n.d.) showed

that both ads contained only gender-consistent words.


The high-status position was advertised as an “advisor” (as in Barrantes & Eaton, 2018),

with a salary of £50,000 (approximately $65,000), whilst the low status position was “Assistant

to the Advisor” with a salary of £25,000 (approximately $32,000). The average UK salary is

£27,271 (Office for National Statistics, 2017). The description of the low-status position stressed

its subordinate role (i.e., “The assistant will NOT make decisions but will perform tasks assigned

by the manager. The assistant will need to be available all the time, and have a flexible and

adaptable approach to work”). The required skills also referred to assisting and varied

appropriate to the gender role of the job (i.e., masculine: “Assistant facilitating the manager’s

activities in setting challenging targets”; “Assistant capable of organizing the manager’s

activities and appointments” and feminine: “Assistant facilitating the manager’s activities to

improve teamwork and employees’ needs”; “Assistant with excellent communication and

interpersonal people skills”).

Two manipulation check items referring to the job gender role (i.e., how much do you

think this job is masculine/feminine?”; from 1 [very feminine] to 7 [very masculine]), and job

status (i.e., “How much do you think this position is a low or high status job?”; from 1 [low

status] to 7 [high status] were included at the end of the study.

Results

Preliminary Analyses

As in Study 2, overall, participants reported high support for gender (M = 6.60, SD = .71, t-

test against the midpoint t[126] = 41.04, p < .001) and sexual orientation equality (M = 6.62, SD

= .71, t-test against the midpoint t[126] = 41.59, p < .001). Hence, the participants were

supportive of equality in the workplace.

We further examined how the job was perceived by considering ratings on the two

manipulation check items. A 2 (job status: low vs. high) x 2 (job role: masculine vs. feminine)

univariate ANOVA was first performed on ratings of perceived job masculinity. The masculine

job (M = 4.24, SD = .89) was rated as more masculine than the feminine job (M = 3.52, SD = .68,


F(1, 123) = 276.95, p < .001, ήp2 = .18). This effect was qualified by a significant interaction

with status, F(1, 123) = 9.05, p = .003, ήp2 = .07. The high-status masculine job (M = 4.56, SD

= .82) was perceived as more masculine than the low-status masculine job (M = 3.91, SD = .84;

p = .001). No difference between high- and low-status feminine jobs emerged; they were

perceived as similarly feminine (Mlow-stauts = 3.60, SD = .67 and Mhigh-status = 3.43, SD = .68; p

= .40).

The same analysis was performed on the perceived job status item. The assistant position

(M = 4.03, SD = 1.19) was rated as lower status than the leadership position (M = 5.05, SD =

1.04; F(1, 123) = 27.39, p < .001, ήp2 = .18). In addition, the masculine jobs (M = 4.82, SD =

1.28) were attributed higher status than feminine jobs (M = 4.23, SD = 1.09; F(1, 123) = 8.97, p

= .003, ήp2 = .07). No significant interaction emerged (F < 1). Hence, gender role and status were

manipulated successfully, whilst the high-status masculine position was perceived as particularly

masculine, and masculine jobs were perceived as particularly high status.

In the main analyses, a 2 (Candidate Sexual orientation: gay/lesbian vs. heterosexual) x 2

(Candidate Gender: male vs. female) x 2 (Type of job: masculine vs. feminine) x 2 (Job status:

high vs. low) ANOVA was performed on each dependent variable. The first two variables were

within-participants and the last two variables were between-participants factors. Pairwise

comparisons (Bonferroni correction) were performed in case of significant interactions. Analyses

performed including participant gender as a factor did not affect the main pattern of results2.

Planned contrasts tested our theory-driven status beliefs and role congruity hypotheses as in

Study 2.

Job Suitability

A main effect of candidate sexual orientation, F(1, 123) = 55.47, p < .001, ήp2 = .311,

indicated that LG-sounding applicants (M = 3.76, SD = .95) were rated as less suitable than

heterosexual-sounding applicants (M = 4.24, SD = 1.25), confirming Hypothesis 1, and

replicating Studies 1 and 2. Sexual orientation discrimination was qualified by an interaction


with gender, F(1, 123) = 21.18, p < .001, ήp2 = .147. As in both earlier studies, sexual orientation

discrimination was greater among women. The lesbian-sounding woman (M = 3.50, SD = 1.27)

was rated as less suitable than the heterosexual-sounding woman (M = 4.75, SD = 1.14; p

< .001), whereas the gay-sounding man (M = 4.02, SD = 1.24) and heterosexual-sounding man

(M = 4.24, SD = 1.25; p = .135) were deemed equally suitable. The lesbian-sounding woman was

rated as less suitable than the gay-sounding man (p = .001), while the heterosexual-sounding

woman was rated as more suitable than the heterosexual-sounding man (p < .001). Planned

contrast further confirmed that the lesbian-sounding woman, F(1, 126) = 7.19, p = .008, but not

the gay-sounding man, F(1, 126) = 1.76, p = .19, was perceived as the least suitable among all

the candidates for any of the jobs under consideration.

All the other effects or interactions were not significant (Fs < 2.36, ps > .127). This support

for Hypotheses 1 and 2 was robust across masculine and feminine jobs of high and low status,

disconfirming Hypotheses 3 and 4.

Employability

A main effect of candidate sexual orientation, F(1, 123) = 10.13, p = .002, ήp2 = .076,

showed that heterosexual-sounding applicants were ranked higher (M = 2.71, SD = .72) than the

LG-sounding applicants (M = 2.30, SD = .72), confirming Hypothesis 1. The interaction with

candidate gender, F(1, 123) = 3.78, p = .054, ήp2 = .030, fell short of significance (Mlesbian = 2.23,

SD = 1.16 vs. Mgay = 2.37, SD = 1.05 vs. Mstraigth_woman = 2.88, SD = 1.11 vs. Mstright_man = 2.53, SD

= 1.04). Planned contrast showed support for the status beliefs hypothesis (Hypothesis 2b) since

the lesbian-sounding woman, F(1, 126) = 7.19, p = .008) was significantly less appointable than

the other candidates while the gay-sounding man was not significantly less appointable than the

others, F(1, 126) = 2.05, p = .155 (see Figure 2). The ANOVA did not yield any other

significant main effects or interactions (Fs < 3.51, ps > .06).

Masculinity and Femininity


A significant interaction between candidate gender and sexual orientation, F(1, 126) =

19.91, p < .001, ήp2 = .136, on perceived masculinity showed that the gender inversion stereotype

was activated here. The gay-sounding man (M = 5.21, SD = 1.44) was perceived as less

masculine than the heterosexual-sounding man (M = 5.63, SD = 1.17; p = .002), and the lesbian-

sounding woman (M = 2.12, SD = 1.26) was perceived as more masculine than the heterosexual-

sounding woman (M = 1.64, SD = 1.07; p < .001). A similar interaction emerged on perceived

femininity, F(1, 126) = 35.90, p < .001, ήp2 = .222. The gay-sounding man (M = 1.93, SD = 1.25)

was perceived as more feminine than the heterosexual-sounding man (M = 1.69, SD = 1.00; p

= .056), whereas the lesbian-sounding woman (M = 5.28, SD = 1.41) was perceived as less

feminine than the heterosexual-sounding woman (M = 6.14, SD = 1.14; p < .001). In contrast to

Study 1 and 2, all ratings confirmed the gender inversion stereotype here.

Competence


= .286 was observed, replicating Study 2. This effect was qualified by a significant interaction

with candidate gender, F(1, 123) = 23.54, p < .001, ήp2 = .161. The gay-sounding man (M = 4.21,

SD = 1.02) was perceived as less competent than the heterosexual-sounding man (M = 4.40, SD

= 1.06; p = .078), and the lesbian-sounding (M = 3.83, SD = 1.05) was perceived as less

competent than the heterosexual-sounding woman (M = 4.79, SD = 1.04; p < .001). Moreover,

the lesbian-sounding applicant was perceived as less competent than the gay-sounding applicant

(p = .001), and the heterosexual-sounding woman as more competent than the heterosexual-

sounding man (p = .001). No other significant effects were found (Fs < 1.71, ps > .193), showing

that these effects were not particular to a job’s gender role or status. Once again lower

competence was attributed to gay- and especially lesbian-sounding applicants, contrary to gender

inversion theory predictions.

Sociability



= .407, was qualified by a significant interaction with candidate gender, F(1, 123) = 67.69, p

< .001, ήp2 = .355. Participants judged the gay- (M = 4.13, SD = 1.13) and heterosexual-sounding

man (M = 4.25, SD = 1.12) as similarly sociable (p = .319), and the lesbian-sounding woman (M

= 3.42, SD = 1.21) as less sociable than the heterosexual-sounding woman (M = 5.10, SD = 1.13;

p < .001). The lesbian-sounding applicant was also attributed to be less sociable than the gay-

sounding man (p < .001), and the heterosexual-sounding woman as more sociable than the

heterosexual-sounding man (p < .001). No other significant effects were found (Fs < 1.74, ps

> .190). Once again, stereotyping occurred on this dimension only for the female candidates.

Morality

A significant main effect of the candidate sexual orientation, F(1, 123) = 52.28, p < .001,

ήp2 = .298, was qualified by an interaction with candidate gender, F(1, 123) = 26.49, p < .001, ήp

2

= .177. The gay-sounding man (M = 4.19, SD = 1.04) was rated as equally moral as the

heterosexual-sounding man (M = 4.38, SD = 1.04; p = .096), whereas the lesbian-sounding

woman (M = 3.78, SD = 1.09) was rated as clearly less moral than the heterosexual-sounding

woman (M = 4.83, SD = 1.04; p < .001). The lesbian-sounding woman was rated as less moral

than the gay-sounding man (p = .001), and the heterosexual-sounding woman as more moral than

the heterosexual-sounding man (p < .001). No other significant effects were found (Fs < 2.21, ps

> .139).

Mediation Analyses

The mediation analyses in Study 2 were replicated here to test the impact of femininity,

masculinity, competence, sociability, and morality in mediating sexual orientation discrimination

on the job suitability and employability measures. A significant indirect effect of perceived

sexual orientation of female applicants via perceived competence was found on job suitability

(a∗b = -.74, SE = .16, 95% CI [-1.06, -0.43]) and employability (a∗b = -.18, SE = .08, 95% CI


[-.35, -0.05]), as predicted by status beliefs theory (see Figure 5). No direct or indirect effects

were found for job suitability and employability of male candidates.

Discussion

Study 3 re-confirmed that vocal cues to sexual orientation prompt discrimination,

particularly against women targets, in support of status beliefs theory rather than role congruity

theory. Discrimination among women was also mediated by attributions of lower competence, as

status beliefs theory would predict. In this study we did not find support for the role congruity

theory. Whilst gender inversion stereotypes were clearly applied to all applicants, when lesbian-

sounding women were stereotyped as masculine they were seen as less suitable and less

employable candidates for any job regardless of its specificity. Hence, gender inversion

stereotypes did not facilitate the fit with masculine or feminine jobs. Finally, in Study 3, we did

not find support for Hypothesis 3: LG-sounding applicants were not preferred for a low-status

position. This suggests that the preference to hire LG-sounding candidates in Study 2 only may

have been a compensatory strategy, specific to contexts in which low-status jobs are assigned

after high-status jobs have been assigned, as in Study 2, but not here.

General Discussion

In the UK, LGBT equality is increasingly the social norm (ILGA Europe, 2018), and our

heterosexual participants explicitly supported sexual orientation and gender equality at work.

Yet, vocal cues to sexual orientation still prompted discrimination in heterosexual individuals,

most particularly against lesbian-sounding applicants. Across Studies 1-3, lesbian-sounding

women were rated as less suitable for the jobs and ranked significantly lower than heterosexual-

sounding women and other job candidates in employability (see Figure 1).

This work responds to the call for gaydar research in the context of leadership (Barrantes

& Eaton, 2018) and extends research on gaydar’s social costs (Fasoli & Maass, 2018). So far,

research on categorization of sexual orientation (gaydar) mostly focused on the accuracy of such

gaydar judgments, and more studies examine gaydar in regard to male than female targets (Rule,


2017). Discrimination studies have found gender-neutral sexual orientation discrimination effects

(Fasoli et al., 2017), consistent beliefs about the gay but not about the lesbian voice (Barton,

2015), and that men, more than women, believe their voices communicate their sexual

orientation (Fasoli, Hegarty, Maass, & Antonio, 2018). This work adds to our understanding of

the intersection of gender and sexual orientation discrimination, by clearly supporting status

beliefs theory over role congruity theory. Most importantly, lesbian-sounding women

consistently bore the brunt of discrimination more than gay-sounding men. In addition,

attributions of stereotypical masculinity to lesbian-sounding women, which role theory suggests

will advantage lesbians, were shown in mediation models to be irrelevant to discrimination.

Status beliefs theory fared much better, because the consistent mediator of discrimination effects

across studies, groups, and measures was competency. When applicants sound gay – or

particularly, sound lesbian – they risk being considered incompetent and consequently

considered less suitable for higher-status leadership positions (see also Berger et al., 1997;

Ridgeway, 2001).

These findings also speak to modern prejudice in countries like the UK where sexual

orientation equality is increasingly a social norm. In such contexts, heterosexual judges must

navigate the dilemmas created between their beliefs that lesbian women and gay men may be ill-

suited to certain roles, and the demand to treat them fairly. UK employers are aware of law that

protects women and sexual minorities from discrimination, but discrimination prompted by

subtle cues such as vocal cues of sexual orientation may still easily escape their scrutiny. Indeed,

discrimination occurred when sexual orientation was inferred rather than explicitly disclosed.

Hence, everyone who sounds LG is at risk of discrimination in the hiring context, regardless of

how the person identifies (see Fasoli et al., 2017). Moreover, the discrimination observed here

would not only reflect beliefs about status hierarchies along sexual orientation lines, but the

outcomes of these hiring decisions would also enhance sexual orientation hierarchy in

intersection with gender hierarchies.


Some patterns in these results suggest self-licencing strategies for modern prejudice. Self-

licencing is described as the tendency to act in a way that appears fair and maintains individuals’

moral standards, but at the same time frees them up to be biased (Merritt et al., 2010). Such

strategies are common in ambiguous situations, as when sexual orientation is not explicitly

disclosed. We found preferential hiring of LG-sounding candidates to the low status assistantship

in Study 2 after a higher status leadership position had been assigned preferentially to

heterosexual-sounding candidates but not when job status was manipulated between participants

(Study 3). Hence, indicating that LG-sounding applicants were more suitable for a low-status

role may have allowed our participants to gain back some “moral credentials” such that they

were not discriminating but simply indicating a preference.

Across studies, lesbian-sounding women were consistently ranked below heterosexual-

sounding women and men candidates, but heterosexual-sounding women were ranked higher or

perceived as more suitable than lesbian-sounding women and men candidates across studies.

Interpretations of this preference for heterosexual-sounding women are post-hoc and tentative by

necessity. A positive bias toward heterosexual women could occur because target stimuli in

different combinations can suggest the implicit norms against which they are to be compared and

the salient similarities and differences between them (Tversky, 1977). For example, lower

implicit minimum standards may be in place for women than for men, due to group stereotypes,

ironically leading more positive ratings to emerge for women than men candidates when

individual women are compared against a lower standard than individual men are (see Biernat &

Kobrynowicz, 1997; Biernat & Manis, 1994). A heterosexual woman candidate lacking

masculine attributes can be perceived as brave and motivated to get a top job, leading to a

positive evaluation of her (see Heilman, Martell, & Simon, 1988). However, as we observed that

heterosexual-sounding women were also rated the best candidate on ranking measures where

such effects of “shifting standards” are not observed, a more plausible cognitive explanation is

that our designs made the higher status sexual orientation of heterosexual-sounding targets more


salient than is usual. Such “unmarked” higher status identities are rarely conceptualized

explicitly before lower status “marked” identities are first conceptualized (c.f., Hegarty, 2017).

On its own, such a cognitive process does not explain why heterosexual women might be

particularly advantaged. Yet, self-licensing could explain this unexpected result. Crow, Fok, and

Hartman (1998) analyzed hiring discrimination at the intersection between gender, sexual

orientation, and ethnicity. These authors found that, while the least preferred candidates were

Black LGs, the most preferred candidate was the White heterosexual woman. Individuals feel

accountable for their decisions (see Koch, D’Mello, & Sackett, 2015). Hence, having rated

candidates with several lower status identities poorly, participants may boost their rating of

heterosexual woman candidate with only one low status identity to “license” their discrimination

against LG targets as somewhat more moral and fair (see Monin & Miller, 2001). We

acknowledge that future research is needed to investigate the cognitive and motivational

processes described here.

It is telling that the vocal cues of sexual orientation prompted discriminatory judgments,

but not explicit attributions to sexual orientation discrimination. Jointly these studies help to

describe how a woman who sounds lesbian can become a lever for the exercise of power that can

maintain status hierarchies. Modern prejudiced beliefs encode the ideas that lesbian women and

gay men are advantaged by “special rights” and that they continue to complain about inequality

in ways that are out of synch with modern society (Morrison & Morrison, 2003. Here the

discrimination prompted by the same subtle vocal cues of sexual orientation demonstrates how

sexual orientation remains a hierarchical category, in which people are often assumed

heterosexual until explicit or implicit cues suggest otherwise (Lick & Johnson, 2016).

Discrimination may occur in the workplace both when LG individuals come out, and when they

are “outed” by cues of sexual orientation. In the latter situation, as we have shown here, women

who are perceived as lesbian are likely to be target of sexual orientation discrimination simply

because their voices signal a lesbian sexual orientation. However, they may fail to attribute such


discrimination to their sexual orientation since sexual orientation is only inferred and not

explicitly disclosed.. As such our results suggest that vocal cues of sexual orientation may create

patterns of intersectional invisibility for lesbian women in the UK (Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach,

2008). Lesbian women in the UK would experience intersectional invisibility if their voices cue

stereotypes of incompetence leading to discrimination. The concept of intersectional invisibility,

developed a propos of African-American women, provides a useful way to theorize the

disparities between the reality of intersectional discrimination, and the attributions that are made

about it (see Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach, 2008).

Practice Implications

These studies have practical implications for individuals, companies and legal systems that

would wish to attenuate the extent to which sexual orientation is a marker of status is societies

where equality is the norm. As a matter of fact, legal cases have already been adjudicated in

which “gay accent” has been taken into consideration to examine whether instances of

discrimination based on perceived sexual orientation exist (see Castle, 2012). The difficulties in

such cases are multiple. On the one hand, it is complicated to prove discrimination when

sexuality is not explicitly disclosed but rather cued by voice or other behaviors. On the other

hand, federal courts have difficulties in differentiating between gender and sexual orientation

discrimination when cues of sexuality and gender stereotypes are mixed. Castle (2012) argues for

the importance of research on what they called gay accent for legal procedures. The importance

of examining cues of sexual orientation it is also evidenced by research showing that gay

employees wage gap is explained by inferred sexual orientation rather than the actual, disclosed,

sexual orientation (see Laurent & Mihoubi, 2016). Hence, discrimination is different among gay

employees depending on cues of sexual orientation. We are slow to recommend to individuals

that they do or do not modify their voices in high-status employment contexts, mindful of both

the cognitive load that this may incur, and of how withdrawal from social situations and hiding

sexual orientation are mechanisms that allow minority stress to get “under the skin” of LGB


individuals (Hatzenbuehler, 2009, p. 707). Rather, these findings should be used to make explicit

in unconscious bias training that subtle cues to identity can prompt discrimination to a greater

extent than either job applicants or recruiters may detect, and to develop mechanisms for

managing such threats to equality. One possibility could be to develop artificial intelligence

platforms to tune the voice with the aim of making all voices sound gender and sexual

orientation neutral decreasing biases that may occur in the hiring process.

Limitations and Future Directions

Several limitations to the current studies suggest further directions for research. First, we

only examined vocal cues of sexual orientation here. Previous studies have found vocal cue

discrimination to be stronger than visual gaydar (see Fasoli et al., 2017) but visual cues are also

available as grounds for discrimination in the hiring process (Rule et al., 2016). Moreover,

individuals have been more accurate in judging sexual orientation of women than men when face

was concerned (Brewer & Lyons, 2016), hence it will be important to investigate whether

exposure to multiple cues lead to similar results. Also, we have not examined yet the interplay

between disclosure and “subtle” cues to sexual orientation, but findings suggest that incongruent

information can lead to stronger stigmatization (see Gowen & Britt, 2006). Second, Study 2

suggests the merit of teasing apart judgments of sociability and morality, because morality – but

not sociability – emerged as a predictor of discrimination judgments. In the United States, LG

individuals are perceived as falling short of moral values grounded in family values rather than

the Protestant work ethic (Biernat, Vescio, & Theno, 1996). Future studies may find that

morality plays a more robust role in mediating sexual orientation discrimination when hiring for

positions where those values were relevant (e.g., primary school teacher) than the high-status

leadership positions we focused on. Third, whilst we aimed to tease apart role congruity and

status beliefs theory, the theories are not orthogonal because both bear on competency ratings,

and experimentally manipulating status and gender role as orthogonal variables in Study 3 was

only partially possible. Research should also extend our findings to other gender stereotypical


jobs (see Tilcsik, Anteby, & Knight, 2015). Importantly, future research should consider not only

the intersectionality between gender and sexual orientation, but also race and ethnicity. Research

has shown that race is gendered and that this affects social categorization and stereotyping

(Johnson, Freeman, & Pauker, 2012). With regards to ethnicity, Black gay men are liked more

and are seen as better leaders than individuals presented as merely gay or Black (see Remedios,

Chasteen, Rule, & Plaks, 2011; Wilson, Remedios, & Rule, 2017; see also Petsko &

Bodenhausen, 2019 for effects of ethnicity and sexual orientation intersection on stereotyping).

Hence, when the intersection between race, ethnicity, gender and sexuality is considered,

different patterns of results could emerge. Finally, we have not considered whether participants

who belong to a minority group react differently to cues of sexual orientation. Future research

might examine whether sexual minorities and ethnic minorities show similar biases than their

majority counterparts.


References

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. doi:

10.4284/0038-4038-2011.317

Aksoy, C. G., Carpenter, C. S., Frank, J., & Huffman, M. (2018). Gay glass ceilings: Sexual

orientation and workplace authority in the UK. IZA Discussion Paper, Institure of Labor

Economics. Retrieved from https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/180592/1/dp11574.pdf

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, 79, 549-564.

doi:10.1007/s11199-018-0894-8

Barton, B. (2015). How like perceives like: Gay people on “gaydar”. Journal of

Homosexuality, 62, 1615-1637. doi:10.1080/00918369.2015.1091207

Beatty, J. E., & Kirby, S. L. (2006). Beyond the legal environment: How stigma influences

invisible identity groups in the workplace. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 18,

29-44. doi:10.1007/s10672-005-9003-6

Berger, J., Fisek, M. H., Norman, R., & Zelditch, M. (1997). Status characteristics and social

interaction. New York, NY: Elsevier.

Biernat, M., & Kobrynowicz, D. (1997). Gender-and race-based standards of competence: Lower

minimum standards but higher ability standards for devalued groups. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 72, 544-557. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.3.544

Biernat, M., & Manis, M. (1994). Shifting standards and stereotype-based judgments. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 5-20. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.66.1.5

Biernat, M., Vescio, T. K., & Theno, S. A. (1996). Violating American values: A “value

congruence” approach to understanding outgroup attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology, 32, 387-410. doi:10.1006/jesp.1996.0018

https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/180592/1/dp11574.pdf


Blashill, A. J., & Powlishta, K. K. (2009). Gay stereotypes: The use of sexual orientation as a

cue for gender-related attributes. Sex Roles, 61, 783-793. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9684-7

Boersma P., & Weenink, D. (2007). PRAAT, a system for doing phonetics by computer (version

5.1.32) (computer program). http://www.praat.org

Brambilla, M., Carnaghi, A., & Ravenna, M. (2011). Status and cooperation shape lesbian

stereotypes: Testing predictions from the stereotype content model. Social Psychology, 42,

101-110. doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000054

Brambilla, M., Sacchi, S., Rusconi, P., Cherubini, P., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2012). You want to give

a good impression? Be honest! Moral traits dominate group impression formation. British

Journal of Social Psychology, 51, 149-166. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.2010.02011.x

Brewer, G., & Lyons, M. (2016). Discrimination of sexual orientation: Accuracy and

confidence. Personality and Individual Differences, 90, 260-264.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.11.019

Campbell-Kibler, K. (2011). Intersecting variables and perceived sexual orientation in men.

American Speech, 86, 52-68. doi:10.1215/00031283-1277510

Castle, R. (2012). The gay accent, gender, and title VII employment discrimination. Seattle

University Law Review, 36, 1943-1966. Retrieved from

https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2191&context=sulr

Childers, K. (2000). Status characteristics theory and sexual orientation: Explaining gender

differences in responses to sexual orientation. Current Research in Social Psychology, 5, 191-

206. Retrieved from https://uiowa.edu/crisp/sites/uiowa.edu.crisp/files/5.11.pdf

Crandall, C. S., Eshleman, A., & O'brien, L. (2002). Social norms and the expression and

suppression of prejudice: the struggle for internalization. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 82, 359-378. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.3.359

http://www.praat.org/


Crist, S. (1997). Duration of onset consonants in gay male stereotyped speech. University of

Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 4, 53-70. Retrieved from

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7969/8cba2ef95178634ed4e2170f88a207be385a.pdf

Crow, S. M., Fok, L. Y., & Hartman, S. J. (1998). Who is at greatest risk of work-related

discrimination—Women, blacks, or homosexuals? Employee Responsibilities and Rights

Journal, 11, 15-26. doi:10.1023/A:1027319915725

Cunningham, G. B., Sartore, M. L., & McCullough, B. P. (2010). The influence of applicant

sexual orientation, applicant gender, and rater gender on ascribed attributions and hiring

recommendations of personal trainers. Journal of Sport Management, 24, 400-415.

doi:10.1123/jsm.24.4.400

Eagly, A. H., & Chin, J. L. (2010). Diversity and leadership in a changing world. American

Psychologist, 65, 216-224. doi:10.1037/a0018957

Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female

leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573-598. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.109.3.573

Ellemers, N., Pagliaro, S., Barreto, M., & Leach, C. W. (2008). Is it better to be moral than

smart? The effects of morality and competence norms on the decision to work at group status

improvement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1397-1410.

doi:10.1037/a0012628

Eurobarometer (2015, October 2). Discrimination in the EU in 2015. Retrieved from

https://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinionmobile/index.cfm/Survey/

getSurveyDetail/surveyKy/2077

Fasoli, F., Cadinu, M., Carnaghi, A., Galdi, S., Guizzo, F., & Tassara, L. (2018). How do you

self-categorize? Gender and sexual orientation self-categorization in homosexual/heterosexual

men and women. Personality and Individual Differences, 123, 135-139.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2017.11.011


Fasoli, F., Hegarty, P., Maass, A., & Antonio, R. (2018). Who wants to sound straight? Sexual

majority and minority stereotypes, beliefs and desires about auditory gaydar. Personality and

Individual Differences, 130, 59-64. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2018.03.046

Fasoli, F., & Maass, A. (2018). Voice and prejudice: The social costs of auditory

gaydar. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 26, 98-110.

doi:10.1080/15456870.2018.1432617

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.

doi:10.1007/s10508-017-0962-0

Fasoli, F., Maass, A., & Sulpizio, S. (2016). Communication of the “invisible”: Disclosing and

inferring sexual orientation through visual and vocal cues. In H. Giles & A. Maass (Eds.),

Advances in intergroup communication (pp. 193–208). New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Fasoli, F., Maass, A., & Sulpizio, S. (2018). Stereotypical disease inferences from gay/lesbian

versus heterosexual voices. Journal of Homosexuality, 65, 990-1014.

doi:10.1080/00918369.2017.1364945

Fassinger, R. E., Shullman, S. L., & Stevenson, M. R. (2010). Toward an affirmative lesbian,

gay, bisexual, and transgender leadership paradigm. American Psychologist, 65, 201-215.

doi:10.1037/a0018597

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* Power: statistical power analyses

for windows and mac (version 3.1. 9.2) [software].

Financial Times. The OUTstanding lists 2018: LGBT+ leaders and allies. (2018, December 14th)

Retrieved from https://www.ft.com/executive-diversity

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.

doi:10.1037/pspa0000163


Frank, J. (2006). Gay glass ceilings. Economica, 73, 485-508. doi:10.1111/j.1468-

0335.2006.00516.x

Garnets, L., & Kimmel, D. (1991). Lesbian and gay male dimensions in the psychological study

of human diversity. In J. Goodchilds (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on human diversity in

America (pp. 143–192). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Gaudio, R. P. (1994). Sounding gay: Pitch properties in the speech of gay and straight

men. American Speech, 69, 30-57. doi:10.2307/455948

Gedro, J. (2010). Lesbian presentations and representations of leadership, and the implications

for HRD. Journal of European Industrial Training, 34, 552-564.

doi:10.1108/03090591011061220

Gender Decoder for Job Ads (n.d.). Retrieved from http://gender-decoder.katmatfield.com/

Gowen, C. W., & Britt, T. W. (2006). The interactive effects of homosexual speech and sexual

orientation on the stigmatization of men: Evidence for expectancy violation theory. Journal of

Language and Social Psychology, 25, 437-456. doi:10.1177/0261927X06292769

Haans, A. (2018). Contrast Analysis: A Tutorial. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation,

23(9), 1-21. Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=23&n=9

Hancock, A. M. (2007). Intersectionality as a normative and empirical paradigm. Politics &

Gender, 3, 248-254. doi:10.1017/S1743923X07000062

Haslam, S. A., & Ryan, M. K. (2008). The road to the glass cliff: Differences in the perceived

suitability of men and women for leadership positions in succeeding and failing

organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 530-546. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.07.011

Hatzenbuehler, M. L. (2009). How does sexual minority stigma “get under the skin”? A

psychological mediation framework. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 707-730.

doi:10.1037/a0016441

http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=23&n=9


Hegarty, P. (2017). On the failure to notice that White people are White: Generating and testing

hypothesis with the celebrity guessing game. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,

146, 41-62. doi:10.1037/xge0000243

Hegarty, P., & Massey, S. (2006). Anti-homosexual prejudice… as opposed to what? Queer

theory and the social psychology of anti-homosexual attitudes. Journal of Homosexuality, 52,

47-71. doi:10.1300/J082v52n01_03

Hegewisch, A., Liepmann, H., Hayes, J., & Hartmann, H. (2010). Separate and not equal?

Gender segregation in the labor market and the gender wage gap. IWPR Briefing Paper, 377,

1-16. doi:10.1037/e686432011-001

Heilman, M. E. (1983). Sex bias in work settings: The lack of fit model. Research in

Organizational Behavior, 5, 269-298. https://www.journals.elsevier.com/research-in-

organizational-behavior

Heilman, M. E., Martell, R. F., & Simon, M. C. (1988). The vagaries of sex bias: Conditions

regulating the undervaluation, equivaluation, and overvaluation of female job

applicants. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41, 98-110.

doi:10.1016/0749-5978(88)90049-0

Helb, M. R., Foster, J. B., Mannix, L. M., & Dovidio, J. F. (2002). Formal and interpersonal

discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 815-25.

doi:10.1177/0146167202289010

Herek, G. M., Cogan, J. C., & Gillis, J. R. (2002). Victim experiences in hate crimes based on

sexual orientation. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 319-339. doi:10.1111/1540-4560.00263

Herek, G. M., & McLemore, K. A. (2013). Sexual prejudice. Annual Review of Psychology, 64,

309-333. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143826

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. doi:10.1023/A:1022499121222


Howell, G. T., & Lacroix, G. L. (2012). Decomposing interactions using GLM in combination

with the COMPARE, LMATRIX, and MMATRIX subcommands in SPSS. Tutorials in

Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 8, 1-22. doi:10.20982/tqmp.08.1.p001

ILGA Europe. (2018, August 24). Rainbow Europe 208. Retrieved from https://www.ilga-

europe.org/resources/rainbow-europe/rainbow-europe-2018

Kachel, S., Simpson, A. P., & Steffens, M. C. (2017). Acoustic correlates of sexual orientation

and gender-role self-concept in women's speech. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of

America, 141, 4793-4809. doi:10.1121/1.4988684

Kachel, S., Simpson, A. P., & Steffens, M. C. (2018). “Do I sound straight?”: Acoustic correlates

of actual and perceived sexual orientation and masculinity/femininity in men's

speech. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 61, 1560-1578.

doi:10.1044/2018_JSLHR-S-17-0125

Kachel, S., Radtke, A., Skuk, V. G., Zäske, R., Simpson, A. P., & Steffens, M. C. (2018).

Investigating the common set of acoustic parameters in sexual orientation groups: A voice

averaging approach. PloS one, 13(12), e0208686. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0208686

Kite, M. E., & Deaux, K. (1987). Gender belief systems: Homosexuality and the implicit

inversion theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 83-096. doi:10.1111/j.1471-

6402.1987.tb00776.x

Koch, A. J., D'Mello, S. D., & Sackett, P. R. (2015). A meta-analysis of gender stereotypes and

bias in experimental simulations of employment decision making. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 100, 128-161. doi:10.1037/a0036734

Koenig, A. M., Eagly, A. H., Mitchell, A. A., & Ristikari, T. (2011). Are leader stereotypes

masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 616-

642. doi:10.1037/a0023557

https://www.ilga-europe.org/resources/rainbow-europe/rainbow-europe-2018

https://www.ilga-europe.org/resources/rainbow-europe/rainbow-europe-2018


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. doi:10.1037/men0000034

Laurent, T., & Mihoubi, F. (2016). The role of apparent sexual orientation in explaining the

heterogeneity of wage penalties among gay employees. In Kollen, T. (Ed.) Sexual orientation

and transgender issues in organizations: Global perspectives on LGBT workforce

diversity (pp. 405-428). Heidelberg and New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-29623-

4_24

Levine, M. P. (1979). Employment discrimination against gay men. International Review of

Modern Sociology, 151-163. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41420698

Liberman, B. E., & Golom, F. D. (2015). Think manager, think male? Heterosexuals’ stereotypes

of gay and lesbian managers. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 34,

566-578. doi:10.1108/EDI-01-2015-0005

Lick, D. J., & Johnson, K. L. (2016). Straight until proven gay: A systematic bias toward straight

categorizations in sexual orientation judgments. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 110, 801-817. doi:10.1037/pspa0000052

Linville, S. E. (1998). Acoustic correlates of perceived versus actual sexual orientation in men’s

speech. Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica, 50, 35-48. doi:10.1159/000021447

Mack, S., & Munson, B. (2012). The influence of/s/quality on ratings of men's sexual

orientation: Explicit and implicit measures of the ‘gay lisp’ stereotype. Journal of

Phonetics, 40, 198-212. doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2011.10.002

Merritt, A. C., Effron, D. A., & Monin, B. (2010). Moral self‐licensing: When being good frees

us to be bad. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 344-357. doi:10.1111/j.1751-

9004.2010.00263.x

Miller, A. E. (2018). Searching for Gaydar: Blind spots in the study of sexual orientation

perception. Psychology & Sexuality, 9, 188-203. doi:10.1080/19419899.2018.1468353


Monin, B., & Miller, D. T. (2001). Moral credentials and the expression of prejudice. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 33-43. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.33

Monteith, M. J., Deneen, N. E., & Tooman, G. D. (1996). The effect of social norm activation on

the expression of opinions concerning gay men and Blacks. Basic and Applied Social

Psychology, 18, 267-288. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp1803_2

Montoya, A. K., & Hayes, A. F. (2017). Two-condition within-participant statistical mediation

analysis: A path-analytic framework. Psychological Methods, 22, 6-27.

doi:10.1037/met0000086

Moonwomon-Baird, B. (1997). Toward a study of lesbian speech. In A. Livia and K. Hall (Eds.)

Queerly phrased. Language, gender and sexuality (pp. 202-213). New York, NY: Oxford

University Press.

Morrison, M. A., & Morrison, T. G. (2003). Development and validation of a scale measuring

modern prejudice toward gay men and lesbian women. Journal of Homosexuality, 43, 15-37.

doi:10.1300/J082v43n02_02

Munson, B. (2007). The acoustic correlates of perceived masculinity, perceived femininity, and

perceived sexual orientation. Language and Speech, 50, 125-142.

doi:10.1177/00238309070500010601

Munson, B., McDonald, E. C., DeBoe, N. L., & White, A. R. (2006). The acoustic and

perceptual bases of judgments of women and men's sexual orientation from read

speech. Journal of Phonetics, 34, 202-240. doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2005.05.003

Niedlich, C., & Steffens, M. C. (2015). On the interplay of (positive) stereotypes and prejudice:

Impressions of lesbian and gay applicants for leadership positions. Sensoria: A Journal of

Mind, Brain & Culture, 11, 70-80. doi:10.7790/sa.v11i1.408

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.

doi:10.1007/s10508-014-0412-1

O'Brien, F. P., & Vest, M. J. (1988). A proposed scale to measure beliefs about the consequences

of employing homosexuals. Psychological Reports, 63, 547-551.

doi:10.2466/pr0.1988.63.2.547

Office for National Statistics (2017, October 26). Annual survey of hours and earnings: 2017

provisional and 2016 revised results. Retrieved from

https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghour

s/bulletins/annualsurveyofhoursandearnings/2017provisionaland2016revisedresults#average-

earnings

Parnell, M. K., Lease, S. H., & Green, M. L. (2012). Perceived career barriers for gay, lesbian,

and bisexual individuals. Journal of Career Development, 39, 248-268.

doi:10.1177/0894845310386730

Patacchini, E., Ragusa, G., & Zenou, Y. (2015). Unexplored dimensions of discrimination in

Europe: Homosexuality and physical appearance. Journal of Population Economics, 28,

1045-1073. doi:10.1007/s00148-014-0533-9

Peer, E., Brandimarte, L., Samat, S., & Acquisti, A. (2017). Beyond the Turk: Alternative

platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research. Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology, 70, 153-163. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2017.01.006

Petsko, C. D., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2019). Racial stereotyping of gay men: Can a minority

sexual orientation erase race?. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 83, 37-54.

doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2019.03.002

Pichler, S., Varma, A., & Bruce, T. (2010). Heterosexism in employment decisions: The role of

job misfit. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 2527-2555. doi:10.1111/j.1559-

1816.2010.00669.x

https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/bulletins/annualsurveyofhoursandearnings/2017provisionaland2016revisedresults#average-earnings




Pierrehumbert, J. B., Bent, T., Munson, B., Bradlow, A. R., & Bailey, J. M. (2004). The

influence of sexual orientation on vowel production (L). The Journal of the Acoustical

Society of America, 116, 1905-1908. doi:10.1121/1.1788729

Prewitt-Freilino, J. L., & Bosson, J. K. (2008). Defending the self against identity

misclassification. Self and Identity, 7, 168-183. doi:10.1080/17405620701330706

Purdie-Vaughns, V., & Eibach, R. P. (2008). Intersectional invisibility: The distinctive

advantages and disadvantages of multiple subordinate-group identities. Sex Roles, 59, 377-

391. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9424-4

Rashotte, L. S., & Webster Jr, M. (2005). Gender status beliefs. Social Science Research, 34,

618-633. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2004.05.004

Remedios, J. D., Chasteen, A. L., Rule, N. O., & Plaks, J. E. (2011). Impressions at the

intersection of ambiguous and obvious social categories: Does gay+ Black= likable? Journal

of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 1312-1315. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.05.015

Ridgeway, C. (1991). The social construction of status value: Gender and other nominal

characteristics. Social Forces, 70, 367-386. doi:10.1093/sf/70.2.367

Ridgeway, C. L. (2001). Gender, status, and leadership. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 637-655.

doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00233

Rosnow, R. L., & Rosenthal, R. (1995). “Some things you learn aren’t so”: Cohen’s paradox,

Asch’s paradigm, and the interpretation of interaction. Psychological Science, 6, 3-9.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1995.tb00297.x

Rule, N. O. (2017). Perceptions of sexual orientation from minimal cues. Archives of Sexual

Behavior, 46, 129-139. doi:10.1007/s10508-016-0779-2

Rule, N. O., Bjornsdottir, R. T., Tskhay, K. O., & Ambady, N. (2016). Subtle perceptions of

male sexual orientation influence occupational opportunities. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 101, 1687-1704. doi:10.1037/apl0000148


Schein, V. E., & Davidson, M. J. (1993). Think manager, think male. Management Development

Review, 6, 24-28. doi:10.1108/EUM0000000000738

Skorska, M. N., Geniole, S. N., Vrysen, B. M., McCormick, C. M., & Bogaert, A. F. (2015).

Facial structure predicts sexual orientation in both men and women. Archives of Sexual

Behavior, 44, 1377-1394. doi:10.1007/s10508-014-0454-4

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). New York, NY: Springer.

Steffens, M. C., Niedlich, C., Beschorner, R., & Köhler, M. C. (2018). Do positive and negative

stereotypes of gay and heterosexual men affect job-related impressions? Sex Roles, 1-17.

doi:10.1007/s11199-018-0963-z

Sue, D. W. (2010). Microaggressions in everyday life: Race, gender, and sexual orientation.

Hobken, New Jeresey: John Wiley & Sons.

Sulpizio, S., Fasoli, F., Antonio, R., Eyssel, F., Paladino, M. P., Diehl, C. (2019). Auditory

gaydar: Perception of sexual orientation based on female voice. Language and Speech.

Advanced online publication. doi:10.1177/0023830919828201

Sulpizio, S., Fasoli, F., Maass, A., Paladino, M. P., Vespignani, F., Eyssel, F., & Bentler, D.

(2015). The sound of voice: Voice-based categorization of speakers’ sexual orientation within

and across languages. PloS one, 10, e0128882. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0128882

Tilcsik, A. (2011). Pride and prejudice: Employment discrimination against openly gay men in

the United States. American Journal of Sociology, 117, 586-626. doi:10.1086/661653

Tilcsik, A., Anteby, M., & Knight, C. R. (2015). Concealable stigma and occupational

segregation: Toward a theory of gay and lesbian occupations. Administrative Science

Quarterly, 60, 446-481. doi:10.1177/0001839215576401


Tracy, E. C. (2016). Judgments of American English male talkers who are perceived to sound

gay or heterosexual: Certain personality traits are associated with each group of talkers. The

Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 140, 3402-3402. doi:10.1121/1.4970918

Tskhay, K. O., & Rule, N. O. (2013). Accuracy in categorizing perceptually ambiguous groups:

A review and meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17, 72-86.

doi:10.1177/1088868312461308

Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327-336.

doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.4.327

UK Government Equalities Office. (2018). National LGBT Survey Summary Report. Retrieved

from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/

attachment_data/file/722314/GEO-LGBT-Survey-Report.pdf

Van Borsel, J., & Van de Putte, A. (2014). Lisping and male homosexuality. Archives of Sexual

Behavior, 43, 1159-1163. doi:10.1007/s10508-014-0262-x

Waksler, R. (2001). Pitch range and women's sexual orientation. Word, 52, 69-77.

doi:10.1080/00437956.2001.11432508

Webster, M., Jr., Hysom, S. J., & Fullmer, E. M. (1998). Sexual orientation and occupation as

status. In J. Skvoretz & J. Szmatka (Eds.), Advances in Group Processes (Vol. 15, pp. 1-21).

New York, NY: JAI Press.

Weichselbaumer, D. (2003). Sexual orientation discrimination in hiring. Labour Economics, 10,

629-642. doi:10.1016/S0927-5371(03)00074-5

Wilson, J. P., Remedios, J. D., & Rule, N. O. (2017). Interactive effects of obvious and

ambiguous social categories on perceptions of leadership: When double-minority status may

be beneficial. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43, 888-900.

doi:10.1177/0146167217702373

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/722314/GEO-LGBT-Survey-Report.pdf

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/722314/GEO-LGBT-Survey-Report.pdf


Woodruffe-Burton, H., & Bairstow, S. (2013). Countering heteronormativity: Exploring the

negotiation of butch lesbian identity in the organisational setting. Gender in Management: An

International Journal, 28, 359-374. doi:10.1108/GM-01-2013-0015

Zimman, L. (2010). Female-to-male transsexuals and gay-sounding voices: A pilot study.

Colorado Research in Linguistics, 22, 1-21. Retrieved from

https://scholar.colorado.edu/cril/vol22/iss1/3


Footnotes

1 In line with glass cliff research (Haslam & Ryan, 2008), in Study 1 we also manipulated the

status of the company as either successful or failing. This aimed to examine whether LG-

sounding applicants would be perceived as more suitable and employable for a failing (vs.

successful) company as it happens for women. Analyses including this factor did not yield any

significant interaction and therefore this factor was not been considered further.

2 Only a significant interaction between participant gender, candidate sexual orientation, and type

of job occurred on employability ranking, F(1, 119) = 13.65, p < .001, ήp2 = .103. Pairwise

comparisons (Bonferroni correction) showed an unexpected pattern of results. Men participants

judged the LG-sounding applicants (M = 2.05, SE = .12) as less appointable for masculine type

of jobs than heterosexual-sounding applicants (M = 2.94, SE = .12; p < .001), while women rated

LG-sounding applicants (M = 2.09, SE = .12) as less appointable for feminine type of jobs than

heterosexual-sounding applicants (M = 2.92, SE = .12; p = .002). However, this effect emerged

regardless of applicants’ gender.


Figure 1. Job suitability across applicants’ gender and sexual orientation in the three studies.


Figure 2. Employability preference across applicants’ gender and sexual orientation in the three

studies.


Figure 3. Multiple mediation model depicting relations between speakers’ sexual orientation,

multiple mediators, and Suitability (Graphic A: female speakers and Graphic B: male speakers)

in Study 2. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported. The numbers in parentheses

represent the direct effect (i.e., total effect). *p < .01, **p < .001.



multiple mediators, and Employability (Graphic A: female speakers and Graphic B: male

speakers) in Study 2. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported. The numbers in

parentheses represent the direct effect (i.e., total effect). *p < .01, **p < .001.



multiple mediators, and Suitability (Graphic A) or Employability (Graphic B) for female

speakers in Study 3. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported. The numbers in

parentheses represent the direct effect (i.e., total effect). *p < .01, **p < .001.

Documents

epubs.surrey.ac.ukepubs.surrey.ac.uk/853503/1/FASOLI AND HEGARTY PWQ final.docx · Web viewA Leader Doesn’t Sound Lesbian! The Impact of Sexual Orientation Vocal Cues on Heterosexual