Jump to content

Gender pay gap in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 128.220.160.6 (talk) at 06:02, 26 April 2011 (→Occupational segregation: fixed odd spacing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Main article: Income gender gap
2005 Census Statistics show males 25 and older had a higher yearly income than females 25 and older among all races.[1]

Male–female income disparity, also referred to as the "gender gap in earnings" in the United States, and as the "gender wage gap", the "gender earnings gap" and the "gender pay gap", refers usually to the ratio of female to male median yearly earnings among full-time, year-round (FTYR) workers. The statistic is used by government agencies and economists, and is gathered by the U.S. Census Bureau, as part of the Current Population Survey.

In 2004 the median income of FTYR workers was $40,798 for males, compared to $31,223 for females (DeNavas-Walt et al., 2005), giving a gender earnings gap in 2004 of 0.235 [2]. This is often expressed as a percentage: "in 2004, women's wages were 76.5% of men's wages," or "in 2004, women earned 23.5% less than men." The statistic does not take into account differences in experience, skill, occupation, education or hours worked as long as it qualifies as Full-time work. However, Alice Eagly and Linda Carli review several studies and state that after controlling for all factors known to affect earnings a considerable portion of the gender wage gap remains unexplained.[3]

Women's yearly wages relative to men's rose rapidly from 1980 to 1990 (from 60.2% to 71.6%), and less rapidly from 1990 to 2000 (from 71.6% to 73.7%) and from 2000 to 2008 (from 73.7% to 77.1%).[4]

Most recently, the Wall Street Journal reported in an article dated September 1, 2010 entitled Young Single Women's Pay Surpasses Male Peers that the earning power of young single women has surpassed that of their male peers in metropolitan areas around the US, a shift driven by the growing ranks of women who attend colleges and move on to high-earning jobs. According to an analysis of Census Bureau data released by Reach Advisors in 2008, single childless women between ages 22 and 30 were earning more than their male counterparts in most United States cities, with incomes that were 8% greater than males on average.[5]

According to Andrew Beveridge, a Professor of Sociology at Queens College, between 2000 and 2005, women in their twenties earned more than their male counterparts in some large urban centers, including Dallas (120%), New York (117%), Chicago, Boston, and Minneapolis. A major reason for this is that women have been graduating from college in larger numbers than men, and that many of those women seem to be gravitating toward major urban areas. In 2005, 53% of women in their 20s working in New York were college graduates, compared with only 38% of men of that age. Nationwide, the wages of that group of women averaged 89% of the average full-time pay for men between 2000 and 2005.[6]

According to a 2008 study by University of Illinois sociologist John Dencker, women can make inroads into male-dominated management ranks as companies scale-back workforces via downsizing. The study shows that firms apparently make an effort to balance gender inequities during staff shakeups. Women entered management ranks at rates up to 25% higher than men in some grade levels after downsizing, which created supervisory openings as older male managers took company-offered buyouts. Overall, women accounted for nearly 36% of the company’s managers after restructuring, compared with an average of about 24% during the period from 1967 to 1993, according to the study. However, women's sharp gains during downsizing are short-lived and the gap closed within a year or two as management jobs became scarcer in the aftermath of restructuring. Furthermore, Dencker found that women made less headway into top levels of management and that a host of factors slowed the climb up the corporate ladder for women, who make up half of the nation's management workforce but hold only 15% of top leadership positions. "There remains this sort of glass-ceiling effect," he said. "Women have more rungs to climb, so their rates of promotion relative to men slow as they move up the corporate ladder." [7]

A study at Cornell University concluded in 2005 found that women with children were less likely to be hired and if hired would be paid a lower salary than male applicants.[8] Conversely, male applicants with children were likely to be offered higher pay than women with children or people without children. Harvard University professor Hannah Riley Bowles and Carnegie Mellon Professor of Economics Linda Babcock also conducted a study, published in 2007, that found that women are penalized when they try to negotiate starting salaries. Male evaluators tended to rule against women who negotiated but were less likely to penalize men; female evaluators tended to penalize both men and women who negotiated, and preferred applicants who did not ask for more. The study also showed that women who applied for jobs were not as likely to be hired by male managers if they tried to ask for more money, while men who asked for a higher salary were not negatively affected.[9][10]

In 2005, wives earned more than their husbands in 25.5% of dual-income families, and 33% of all families where wives, but not necessarily husbands, received income.[11] According to the Shriver Report by the Center for American Progress and Maria Shriver, in 2008, mothers were the major breadwinners in 40% of families.[12]

In a 2009 report titled Women's Earnings in 2008, the U.S. Labor Department reported women's median wages to be 79.9% of men's.[13] Moreover, the report found that women who have never married earn 94.2% of their unmarried male counterparts' earnings despite the fact that, "women, still..are more likely to choose jobs in education and healthcare, where earnings will tend to be lower."[14] The earnings difference between women and men varies with age, with younger women more closely approaching pay equity than older women.[15] Since women without children tend to be younger (in 2006, more than 85% of American women had their first child before the age of 35[16]), the wage gap is smallest for them. In 2008, the average wage gap for all age groups was 77.1%.[4]

Christine Alksnis, Serge Desmarais and James Curtis (2008) examined gender segregation and its implications for the salaries assigned to male- and female-typed jobs. They investigated whether participants would assign different pay to 3 types of jobs wherein the actual responsibilities and duties carried out by men and women were the same, but the job was situated in either a traditionally masculine or traditionally feminine domain. The researchers found statistically significant pay differentials between jobs defined as "male" and "female," which suggest that gender-based discrimination, arising from occupational stereotyping and the devaluation of the work typically done by women, influences salary allocation. The results fit with contemporary theorizing about gender-based discrimination.[17][18]

Men's and fathers' rights activist Warren Farrell stated there were at least 39 jobs where women earned at least 5% more than men. He stated the higher pay for women over men ranged from a high of 43% higher pay for female sales engineers over their male counterparts, to an 5% higher pay for female advertising and promotions managers over their male counterparts.[19] In 2008, women earned the same or more than men in only 5 of the more than 500 occupational categories for which sufficient data were provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.[20][21]

In 2009, it was reported that sixteen women heading companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index averaged earnings of $14.2 million in their latest fiscal years, 43 percent more than the male average, according to data compiled by Bloomberg News from proxy filings. The women who were also CEOs in 2008 got a 19 percent raise in 2009—while the men took a 5 percent cut. Bloomberg's Deirdre Bolton reports.[22]

Explaining the gender pay gap

Any given raw wage gap can be decomposed into an explained part due to differences in characteristics such as education, hours worked, work experience, and occupation, and an unexplained part which is typically attributed to discrimination (e.g., Eagly and Carli, 2007[23]). The U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee shows that “as explained inequities decrease, the unexplained pay gap remains unchanged.[24] Cornell University economists Francine Blau and Lawrence Kahn (2000) stated that while the overall size of the wage gap has decreased somewhat over time, the proportion of the gap that is unexplained by human capital variables is increasing.[25]

Using Current Population Survey (CPS) data for 1979 and 1995 and controlling for education, experience, personal characteristics, parental status, city and region, occupation, industry, government employment, and part-time status, Yale University economics professor Joseph G. Altonji and the Under Secretary of Commerce for Economic Affairs Rebecca M. Blank (1999) found that only about 27% of the gender wage gap in each year is explained by differences in such characteristics.[26]

By looking at a very specific and detailed sample of workers – graduates of the Michigan Law School – economists Robert Wood, Mary Corcoran and Paul Courant were able to examine the wage gap while matching men and women for many other possible explanatory factors - not only occupation, age, experience, education, and time in the workforce, but also childcare, average hours worked, grades while in college, and other factors. Even after accounting for all that, women still are paid only 81.5% of what men “with similar demographic characteristics, family situations, work hours, and work experience” are paid.[27]

Similarly, a comprehensive study by the staff of the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that the gender wage gap can only be partially explained by human capital factors and “work patterns.” The GAO study, released in 2003, was based on data from 1983 through 2000 from a representative sample of Americans between the ages of 25 and 65. The researchers controlled for "work patterns,” including years of work experience, education, and hours of work per year, as well as differences in industry, occupation, race, marital status, and job tenure. With controls for these variables in place, the data showed that women earned, on average, 20% less than men during the entire period 1983 to 2000. In a subsequent study, GAO found that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department of Labor “should better monitor their performance in enforcing anti-discrimination laws.”[28][29][30]

Using CPS data, U.S. Bureau of Labor economist Stephanie Boraas and College of William and Mary economics professor William R. Rodgers III (2003) report that only 39% of the gender pay gap is explained in 1999, controlling for percent female, schooling, experience, region, SMSA size, minority status, part-time employment, marital status, union, government employment, and industry.[31]

Using data from longitudinal studies conducted by the U.S. Department of Education, researchers Judy Goldberg Dey and Catherine Hill analyzed some 9,000 college graduates from 1992–93 and more than 10,000 from 1999-2000. The researchers controlled for workplace flexibility, ability to telecommute, as well as other several variables including occupation, industry, hours worked per week, whether employee worked multiple jobs, months at employer, and several education-related and "demographic and personal" factors, such as "marital status," "has children," and "volunteered in past year.” The study found that wage inequities start early and worsen over time. "The portion of the pay gap that remains unexplained after all other factors are taken into account is 5 percent one year after graduation and 12 percent 10 years after graduation. These unexplained gaps are evidence of discrimination, which remains a serious problem for women in the work force.”[32][33][34]

Economists Francine Blau and Lawrence Kahn took a set of human capital variables such as education, labor market experience, and race into account and additionally controlled for occupation, industry, and unionism. While the gender wage gap was considerably smaller when all variables were taken into account, a substantial portion of the pay gap (12%) remained unexplained.[35]

A study by John McDowell, Larry Singell and James Ziliak (1999) investigated faculty promotion on the economics profession and found that, controlling for quality of Ph.D. training, publishing productivity, major field of specialization, current placement in a distinguished department, age and post-Ph.D. experience, female economists were still significantly less likely to be promoted from assistant to associate and from associate to full professor—although there was also some evidence that women’s promotion opportunities from associate to full professor improved in the 1980s.[36]

Economist June O'Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, found an unexplained pay gap of 8% after controlling for experience, education, and number of years on the job. Furthermore, O'Neil found that among young people who have never had a child, women's earnings approach 98 percent of men's.[37]

A 2010 study by Catalyst, a nonprofit that works to expand opportunities for women in business, of male and female MBA graduates found that after controlling for career aspirations, parental status, years of experience, industry, and other variables, male graduates are more likely to be assigned jobs of higher rank and responsibility and earn, on average, $4,600 more than women in their first post-MBA jobs.[38][39][40][41][42]

Causes of the gender gap

Hours worked

In the book Biology at Work: Rethinking Sexual Equality, Browne writes: "Because of the sex differences in hours worked, the hourly earnings gap [...] is a better indicator of the sexual disparity in earnings than the annual figure. Even the hourly earnings ratio does not completely capture the effects of sex differences in hours, however, because employees who work more hours also tend to earn more per hour."[43]

However, numerous studies indicate that variables such as hours worked account for only part of the gender pay gap and that the pay gap shrinks but does not disappear after controlling for all human capital variable which are known to affect pay.[26][27][29][32][35] Moreover, Gary S. Becker argues that the traditional division of labor in the family disadvantages women in the labor market as women devote substantially more time and effort to housework and have less time and effort available for performing market work.[44] The OECD (2002) found that women work fewer hours because in the present circumstances the "responsibilities for child-rearing and other unpaid household work are still unequally shared among partners."[45]

Occupational choice

A 2009 New York Times article reported that Anne York, an economics professor at Meredith College in North Carolina, had conducted a study of high school valedictorians in the U.S. According to the study, female valedictorians were planning to have careers that had a median salary of $74,608, whereas male valedictorians were planning to have careers with a median salary of $97,734. As to why the females were less likely than the males to choose high paying careers such as surgeon and engineer, the article quoted York as saying, "The typical reason is that they are worried about combining family and career one day in the future." [46]

However, Jerry A. Jacobs and Ronnie Steinberg as well as Jennifer Glass separately found that male-dominated jobs - compared with female-dominated jobs - actually have more flexibility and autonomy, thus allowing a person, for example, to more easily leave work to tend to a sick child.[47][48]

Moreover, research suggests that gender stereotypes may be responsible for men and women’s educational and career decisions. Studies by Michael Conway et al. (1996), David Wagner and Joseph Berger (1997), John Williams and Deborah Best (1990), and Susan Fiske et al. (2002) found widely shared cultural beliefs that men are more socially valued and more competent than women at most things, as well as specific assumptions that men are better at some particular tasks (e.g., math, mechanical tasks) while women are better at others (e.g., nurturing tasks).[49][50][51][52] Shelley Correll (2001, 2004), Michael Lovaglia (1998), Margaret Shih et al. (1999), and Claude Steele (1997) show that these gender status beliefs affect the assessments people make of their own competence at career-relevant tasks.[53][54][55] Correll (2001, 2004) found that specific stereotypes (e.g., women have lower mathematical ability) affect women’s and men’s perceptions of their abilities (e.g., in math and science) such that men assess their own task ability higher than women performing at the same level. These “biased self-assessments” shape men and women’s educational and career decisions.[56][57] Similarly, the OECD (2002) states that women's labour market behaviour "is influenced by learned cultural and social values that may be thought to discriminate against women (and sometimes against men) by stereotyping certain work and life styles as “male” or “female”." Further, the OECD argues that women's educational choices "may be dictated, at least in part, by their expectations that [certain] types of employment opportunities are not available to them, as well as by gender stereotypes that are prevalent in society."[45]

Numerous studies indicate that the pay gap shrinks but does not disappear after controlling for occupation and a host of other human capital variables.[26][27][29][32][35]

Economist David Neumark (1996) argues that discrimination by employers tends to steer women into lower-paying occupations and men into higher-paying occupations.[58]

Bias favoring men

The concept of bias favoring men is debatable. In 2009, it was reported that sixteen women heading companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index averaged earnings of $14.2 million in their latest fiscal years, 43 percent more than the male average, according to data compiled by Bloomberg News from proxy filings. The women who were also CEOs in 2008 got a 19 percent raise in 2009—while the men took a 5 percent cut. Bloomberg's Deirdre Bolton reports.[22]

Dated evidence indicates that members of groups (i.e. women, racial minorities) are subject to negative stereotypes and attributes concerning their work-related competences (Fernandez 1981[59]; O’Leary and Ickovics 1992[60]). In contrast, members of high-status groups (i.e., men, whites) are more likely to receive favorable evaluations about their competence, normality, and legitimacy (e.g. Aquino and Bommer 2003[61]; Giannopoulos, Conway, and Mendelson 2005[62]; Sidanius & Pratto 1999[63]).

For instance, David R. Hekman and colleagues (2009) found that men receive significantly higher customer satisfaction scores than equally well-performing women. Hekman et al. (2009) found that customers who viewed videos featuring a female and a male actor playing the role of an employee helping a customer were 19% more satisfied with the male employee's performance and also were more satisfied with the store's cleanliness and appearance. This despite that the actors performed identically, read the same script, and were in exactly the same location with identical camera angles and lighting. Moreover, 38% of the customers were women, indicating that even women and minority raters are susceptible to systematic gender biases. In a second study, they found that male doctors were rated as more approachable and competent than equally-well performing female doctors. They interpret their findings to suggest that customer ratings tend to be inconsistent with objective indicators of performance and should not be uncritically used to determine pay and promotion opportunities. They contend that in addition to addressing factors that cause bias in customer ratings, organizations should take steps to minimize the potential adverse impact of customer biases on female employees’ careers.[64][65][66][67][68][69]

Similarly, a study (2000) conducted by economic experts Claudia Goldin from Harvard University and Cecilia Rouse from Princeton University shows that when evaluators of applicants could see the applicant’s gender they were more likely to select men. When the applicants gender could not be observed, the number of women hired significantly increased.[70][71] David Neumark, a Professor of Economics at the University of California, Irvine, and colleagues (1996) found statistically significant evidence of sex discrimination against women in hiring. In an audit study, matched pairs of male and female pseudo-job seekers were given identical résumés and sent to apply for jobs as waiters and waitresses at the same set of restaurants. In high priced restaurants, a female applicant’s probability of getting an interview was 40 percentage points lower than a male’s and her probability of getting an offer was 50 percentage points lower. Additional evidence suggests that customer biases in favor of men partly underlie the hiring discrimination. According to Neumark, these hiring patterns appear to have implications for sex differences in earnings, as informal survey evidence indicates that earnings are higher in high-price restaurants.[72]

Maternity leave

The economic risk and resulting costs of a woman possibly leaving jobs for a period of time or indefinitely to nurse a baby is cited by many to be a reason why women are less common in the higher paying occupations such as CEO positions and upper management[citation needed]. It is much easier for a man to be hired in these higher prestige jobs than to risk losing a female job holder.[citation needed] Thomas Sowell argued in his 1984 book Civil Rights that most of pay gap is based on marital status, not a “glass ceiling” discrimination. Earnings for men and women of the same basic description (education, jobs, hours worked, marital status) were essentially equal. That result would not be predicted under explanatory theories of “sexism”.[73] However, it can be seen as a symptom of the unequal contributions made by each partner to child raising. Cathy Young cites men's and fathers' rights activists who contend that women do not allow men to take on paternal and domestic responsibilities.[74] Many Western countries have some form of paternity leave to attempt to level the playing field in this regard. However, even in relatively gender-equal countries like Sweden, where parents are given 16 months of paid parental leave irrespective of gender, fathers take on average only 20% of the 16 months of paid parental and choose to transfer their days to their partner.[75][76] In addition to maternity leave, Walter Block and Walter E. Williams have argued that marriage in and of itself, not maternity leave, in general will leave females with more household labor than the males.[citation needed]

Barriers in science

In 2006, the United States National Academy of Sciences found that women in science and engineering are hindered by bias and "outmoded institutional structures" in academia. The report Beyond Bias and Barriers says that extensive previous research showed a pattern of unconscious but pervasive bias, "arbitrary and subjective" evaluation processes and a work environment in which "anyone lacking the work and family support traditionally provided by a ‘wife’ is at a serious disadvantage."[77] Similarly, a 1999 report on faculty at MIT finds evidence of differential treatment of senior women and points out that it may encompass not simply differences in salary but also in space, awards, resources and responses to outside offers, "with women receiving less despite professional accomplishments equal to those of their male colleagues."[78]

Research finds that work by men is often subjectively seen as higher-quality than objectively equal or better work by women compared to how an actual scientific review panel measured scientific competence when deciding on research grants. The results showed that female scientists needed to be at least twice as accomplished as their male counterparts to receive equal credit (Wenneras and Wold 1997[79]) and that among grant applicants men have statistically significant greater odds of receiving grants than equally qualified women (Bornman, Mutz, Daniel 2007[80])

Anti-female bias and perceived role incongruency

Research on competence judgments has shown a pervasive tendency to devalue women's work and, in particular, prejudice against women in male-dominated roles which are presumably incongruent for women (Eagly, Makhijani, & Klonsky 1992). Organizational research that investigates biases in perceptions of equivalent male and female competence has confirmed that women who enter high-status, male-dominated work settings often are evaluated more harshly and met with more hostility than equally qualified men (Collinson, Knights, Collinson 1990; Fitzgerald 1993; Bowen, Swim, & Jacobs 2000; Heilman 2001[81]). The "think manager - think male" phenomenon (Schein 2001[82]) reflects gender stereotypes and status beliefs that associate greater status worthiness and competence with men than women (Ridgeway 2001[83]). Gender status beliefs shape men's and women's assertiveness, the attention and evaluation their performances receive, ability attributed to them on the basis of performance (Ridgeway 2001) and "evoke a gender-differentiated double standard for attributing performance to ability, which differentially biases the way men and women assess their own competence at tasks that are career relevant, controlling for actual ability" (Carroll 2004[84]).

Alice H. Eagly and Steven J. Karau (2002) argue that "perceived incongruity between the female gender role and leadership roles leads to two forms of prejudice: (a) perceiving women less favorably than men as potential occupants of leadership roles and (b) evaluating behavior that fulfills the prescriptions of a leader role less favorably when it is enacted by a woman. One consequence is that attitudes are less positive toward female than male leaders and potential leaders. Other consequences are that it is more difficult for women to become leaders and to achieve success in leadership roles." Moreover, research suggests that when women are acknowledged to have been successful, they are less liked and more personally derogated than equivalently successful men (Heilman, Wallen, Fuchs, Tamkins, 2004). Assertive women who display masculine, agentic traits are viewed as violating prescriptions of feminine niceness and are penalized for violating the status order (Rudman & Glick 2001[85])

Motherhood penalty and men's marriage premium

Several studies found a significant motherhood penalty on wages and evaluations of workplace performance and competence even after statistically controlling for education, work experience, race, whether an individual works full- or part-time, and a broad range of other human capital and occupational variables.[86][87][88]. The OECD (2002) confirmed the existing literature, in which "a significant impact of children on women’s pay is generally found in the United Kingdom and the United States (see Korenman and Neumark, 1992, and Waldfogel, 1995, 1998)."[45] However, other studies have found a motherhood premium.[89]

Stanford University professor Shelley Correll and colleagues (2007)[90][91][92][93][94] sent out more than 1,200 fictitious résumés to employers in a large Northeastern city, and found that female applicants with children were significantly less likely to get hired and if hired would be paid a lower salary than male applicants with children. This despite the fact that the qualification, workplace performances and other relevant characteristics of the fictitious job applicants were held constant and only their parental status varied. Mothers were penalized on a host of measures, including perceived competence and recommended starting salary. Men were not penalized for, and sometimes benefited from, being a parent. In a subsequent audit study, Correll at el. found that actual employers discriminate against mothers when making evaluations that affect hiring, promotion, and salary decisions, but not against fathers. The researchers review results from other studies and argue that the motherhood role exists in tension with the cultural understandings of the “ideal worker” role and this leads evaluators to expect mothers to be less competent and less committed to their job.[95][96] Fathers do not experience these types of workplace disadvantages as understandings of what it means to be a good father are not seen as incompatible with understandings of what it means to be a good worker.[97]

Similarly, Fuegen et al. (2004) found that when evaluators rated fictitious applicants for an attorney position, female applicants with children were held to a higher standard than female applicants without children. Fathers were actually held to a significantly lower standard than male non-parents.[98][99] Cuddy, Fiske, and Glick (2004) show that describing a consultant as a mother leads evaluators to rate her as less competent than when she is described as not having children.[100]

Research has also shown there to be a “marriage premium” for men with labor economists frequently reporting that married men earn higher wages than unmarried men, and speculating that this may be attributable to one or more of the following causes: (1) more productive men marry at greater rates (attributing the marriage premium to selection bias), (2) men become more productive following marriage (due to labor market specialization by men and domestic specialization by women), or (3) employers favor married men. Lincoln (2008) found no support for the specialization hypothesis among full-time employed workers.[101] Some studies have suggested this premium is greater for men with children while others have shown fatherhood to have no effect on wages one way or the other.[102][103][104][105][105][102][106][107]

Gender differences in perceived pay entitlement

According to Serge Desmarais and James Curtis, the "gender gap in pay [...] is related to gender differences in perceptions of pay entitlement."[108] Similarly, Major et al. argue that gender differences in pay expectations play a role in perpetuating non-performance related pay differences between women and men.[109]

Perceptions of wage entitlement differ between women and men such that men are more likely to feel worthy of higher pay (Pelham and Hetts 2001[110]; Kaman and Hartel 1994[111]; Callahan-Levy and Messé 1979[112]; Jackson 1989[113]; Jackson, Gardner, & Sullivan 1992[114]; Jost 1997[115]; Moore 1994[116]) while women's sense of wage entitlement is depressed (Major 1994[117]; Major, McFarlin, and Gagnon 1984[118]). Women's beliefs about their relatively lower worth and their depressed wage entitlement reflects their lower social status such that when women's status is raised, their wage entitlement raises as well (Major 1994[119],Hogue and Yoder 2003[120]). However, gender-related status manipulation has no impact on men's elevated wage entitlement. Even when men's status is lowered on a specific task (e.g., by telling them that women typically outperform men on this task), men do not reduce their self-pay and respond with elevated projections of their own competence (Hogue, Yoder and Singleton 2007[121]). The usual pattern whereby men assign themselves more pay than women for comparable work might explain why men tend to initiate negotiations more than women (Barron 2003[122]).

In a study by psychologist Melissa Williams et al., published in 2010, study participants were given pairs of male and female first names, and asked to estimate their salaries. Men and to a lesser degree women estimated significantly higher salaries for men than women, replicating previous findings (Biernat et al., 1991[123][124]; Diekman & Eagly, 2000[125]; Morrison et al., 1994[126]). In a subsequent study, participants were placed in the role of employer and were asked to judge what newly hired men and women deserve to earn. The researchers found that men and to a lesser extent women assign higher salaries to men than women based on automatic stereotypic associations. The researchers argue that observations of men as higher earners than women has led to a stereotype that associates men (more than women) with wealth, and that this stereotype itself may serve to perpetuate the wage gap at both conscious and nonconscious levels. For example, a male-wealth stereotype may influence an employer’s initial salary offer to a male job candidate, or a female college graduate’s intuitive sense about what salary she can appropriately ask for at her first job.[127]

Negotiating salaries

A study of the job negotiations of graduating professional school students found that male students were eight times more likely to negotiate starting salaries and pay than female students.[128][129] In surveys, more than twice as many women than men said they felt "a great deal of apprehension" about negotiating.[130]

Hannah Riley Bowles, Linda Babcock and Lei Lai (2007) conducted four experiments which "show that gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations may be explained by differential treatment of men and women when they attempt to negotiate." In Experiments 1 and 2, participants evaluated written accounts of candidates who did or did not initiate negotiations for higher compensation. Evaluators penalized female candidates more than male candidates for initiating negotiations. In Experiment 3, participants evaluated videotapes of candidates who accepted compensation offers or initiated negotiations. Male evaluators penalized female candidates more than male candidates for initiating negotiations; female evaluators penalized all candidates for initiating negotiations. Perceptions of niceness and demandingness explained resistance to female negotiators. In Experiment 4, participants adopted the candidate’s perspective and assessed whether to initiate negotiations in same scenario used in Experiment 3. With male evaluators, women were less inclined than men to negotiate, and nervousness explained this effect. There was no gender difference when evaluator was female.[10][131][132][133]

Barry Gerhart and Sara Rymes (1991) investigated the salary negotiating behaviors and starting salary outcomes of graduating MBA students and found that women did not negotiate less than men. However, women did obtain lower monetary returns from negotiation. Over the course of a career, the accumulation of such differences may be substantial, according to the researchers.[134]

Danger wage premium

Author and activist Warren Farrell has argued that a significant cause of the gender earnings gap is men's greater willingness to take on physically dangerous jobs (New York Times 2008).

The Bureau of Labor Statistics investigated job traits that are associated with wage premiums, and stated: "The duties most highly valued by the marketplace are generally cognitive or supervisory in nature. Job attributes relating to interpersonal relationships do not seem to affect wages, nor do the attributes of physically demanding or dangerous jobs."[135] Economists Peter Dorman and Paul Hagstrom (1998) state that "The theoretical case for wage compensation for risk is plausible but hardly certain. If workers have utility functions in which the expected likelihood and cost of occupational hazards enter as arguments, if they are fully informed of risks, if firms possess sufficient information on worker expectations and preferences (directly or through revealed preferences), if safety is costly to provide and not a public good, and if risk is fully transacted in anonymous, perfectly competitive labor markets, then workers will receive wage premia that exactly offset the disutility of assuming greater risk of injury or death. Of course, none of these assumptions applies in full and if one or more of them is sufficiently at variance with the real world, actual compensation may be less than utility-offsetting, nonexistent, or even negative - a combination of low pay and poor working conditions."[136]

Occupational segregation

Occupational segregation refers to the way that some jobs (such as truck driver) are dominated by men, and other jobs (such as child care worker) are dominated by women. Because jobs dominated by women are, on average, lower-paying than jobs dominated by men, occupational choice is an important cause of the gender gap.[citation needed]

David Neumark, a Professor of Economics at the University of California, Irvine, and colleagues (1996) argue that discrimination by employers tends to steer women into lower-paying occupations and men into higher-paying occupations.[58]

Warren Farrell has stated that the pay gap can no longer be attributed to large-scale discrimination against women.[137] He has also stated that men earn more because they enter higher-paying fields.[138] Farrell's data was critiqued by economist Barbara Bergmann.[139]

Vanneman et al. state that if 1990[when?][full citation needed] patterns held, and if every labor market in the U.S. had men and women equally distributed across occupations, there would be no gender gap in earnings.

Blau and Kahn (1997)[35][140] and Wood et al. (1993)[141] separately argue that "free choice" factors, while significant, have been shown in studies to leave large portions of the gender earnings gap unexplained.

Blau & Kahn (2000) continued: "Over the past 25 years, the gender pay gap has narrowed dramatically and women have increasingly entered traditionally male occupations." They went on to state that "considerable research suggests that predominantly female occupations pay less, even controlling for measured personal characteristics of workers and a variety of characteristics of occupations, although the interpretation of such results remains in some dispute."[142] Moreover, Blau and Kahn stated that women's pay compared to men's had improved because of a decrease in occupational segregation. The authors argue that the gender wage difference will decline modestly. They state that the extent of discrimination against women in the labor market seems to be decreasing.[143]

Lower pay in "women's jobs"

Different economists have calculated it different ways. The sociologist Paula England looked at data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (a U.S. government study that measures changes in people's lives over time), and found that if a white woman in an all-male workplace moved to an all-female workplace, she would lose 7% of her wages. If a black woman did the same thing, she would lose 19% of her wages (England et al., 1996). The economists Deborah Figart and June Lapidus (1996) calculated that if female-dominated jobs did not pay lower wages, women's median hourly pay nationwide would go up 13.2% (men's pay would go up 1.1%, due to raises for men working in "women's jobs").

See also

References

  1. ^ "US Census Bureau, Personal income forum, Age 25+, 2005". Retrieved 2007-01-20.
  2. ^ $31,223 divided by $40,798 is 0.765, and 1 minus 0.765 is .235
  3. ^ Eagly, Alice Hendrickson and Linda Lorene Carli. Through the Labyrinth: The Truth About how Women Become Leaders. 2007: Harvard Business School Press.
  4. ^ a b http://www.iwpr.org/pdf/C350.pdf
  5. ^ Dougherty, Conor (2010-09-01). "Young Women's Pay Exceeds Male Peers'". The Wall Street Journal.
  6. ^ Roberts, Sam (2007-08-03). "For Young Earners in Big City, a Gap in Women's Favor". www.nytimes.com. Retrieved 2010-06-10.
  7. ^ Newswise: Women Make Management Strides When Firms Downsize, Restructure Retrieved on June 12, 2008.
  8. ^ "Mothers face disadvantages in getting hired". News.cornell.edu. 2005-08-04. Retrieved 2010-06-01.
  9. ^ Vedantam, Shankar. "Salary, Gender and the Social Cost of Haggling". The Washington Post. Retrieved May 12, 2010.
  10. ^ a b http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/cfawis/bowles.pdf
  11. ^ Raghavan, Anita (2008-04-01). "Men Receiving Alimony Want A Little Respect". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 2009-02-03.
  12. ^ Lipman, Joanne (2009-10-24). "The Mismeasure of Woman". The New York Times.
  13. ^ Highlights of Women’s Earnings in 2008, US Labor Department (PDF)
  14. ^ Young Women Closing in on Gender Wage Parity by Liz Wolgemuth
  15. ^ http://www.catalyst.org/publication/217/womens-earnings-and-income
  16. ^ http://205.207.175.93/VitalStats/TableViewer/tableView.aspx?ReportId=15095
  17. ^ Alksnis, C., Desmarais, S., & Curtis, J. (2008). Workforce segregation and the gender wage gap: Is "women’s" work valued as highly as "men’s"? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 1416–1441.
  18. ^ http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-hidden-brain/201002/the-wage-gap-unconscious-bias-in-judging-the-value-predominantly-female
  19. ^ 39 jobs where women make more than men, CNN, February 28, 2006
  20. ^ http://www.iwpr.org/pdf/C350a_release.pdf
  21. ^ http://www.iwpr.org/pdf/C350a.pdf
  22. ^ a b "Women CEOs Earn More Than Men, Get Pay Raise in 2009". Retrieved 2010-09-07.
  23. ^ Eagly, A.H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). ‘’Through the labyrinth: The truth about how women become leaders.’’ Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
  24. ^ http://jec.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Earnings&ContentRecord_id=db19df76-9299-4b46-a98c-ef33c21dab3d&ContentType_id=2206321f-9e59-4f98-b972-d78c64abf642&Group_id=51e071bd-07e9-46f2-bb70-cfc28baec8be
  25. ^ Blau, F. D., & Kahn, J. (2007). “The gender pay gap.” ‘’The Economists’ Voice’’, 4(4), 1–6.
  26. ^ a b c Altonji, Joseph G. and Rebecca M. Blank, “Race and Gender in the Labor Market,” in Orley Ashenfelter and David Card eds, ‘’Handbook of Labor Economics’’, vol. 3, Elsevier Science B.V., 1999.
  27. ^ a b c Wood, Robert G., Mary E. Corcoran, and Paul Courant. 1993. "Pay Differences Among the Highly Paid: the Male-Female Earnings Gap in Lawyers’ Salaries." ‘’Journal of Labor Economics’’. 11:3, pp. 417-41.
  28. ^ http://www.gao.gov/products/A83444
  29. ^ a b c http://usgovinfo.about.com/cs/censusstatistic/a/womenspay.htm
  30. ^ Folbre, Nancy (2009-04-28). "Happy Equal Pay Day". The New York Times.
  31. ^ Boraas, S., & Rodgers, W. M., III. (2003). “How does gender play a role in the earnings gap? An update.” ‘’Monthly Labor Review’’, 126 (3), 9-15.
  32. ^ a b c Carman, Diane (2007-04-24). "Why do men earn more? Just because". Denver Post.
  33. ^ http://www.businessweek.com/careers/workingparents/blog/archives/2007/04/working_women_a.html
  34. ^ http://www.amanet.org/training/articles/Bridging-the-Gender-Pay-Gap.aspx
  35. ^ a b c d http://aysps.gsu.edu/isp/files/ISP_SUMMER_SCHOOL_2008_CURRIE_Swimming_Upstream.pdf
  36. ^ http://www.rau.ro/intranet/Aer/1999/8902/89020392.pdf
  37. ^ "What Do Wage Differentials Tell Us about Labor Market Discrimination?" (PDF).
  38. ^ http://abcnews.go.com/Business/myth-pipeline-inequality-plagues-working-women-study-finds/story?id=9868961&page=2
  39. ^ http://money.usnews.com/money/careers/articles/2010/05/14/why-some-women-skirt-the-wage-gap.html?PageNr=2
  40. ^ http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125998232
  41. ^ http://www.businessweek.com/bschools/blogs/mba_admissions/archives/2010/03/tktktk_1.html
  42. ^ http://www.catalyst.org/file/340/pipeline%27s_broken_promise_final_021710.pdf
  43. ^ Browne, Kingsley R. (2002). Biology at Work: Rethinking Sexual Equality. Rutgers University Press. pp. 73–74. ISBN 0813530539, 9780813530536. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)
  44. ^ http://faculty.smu.edu/millimet/classes/eco7321/papers/becker01.pdf
  45. ^ a b c http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/28/58/18960381.pdf
  46. ^ Do the Ambitions of High School Valedictorians Differ by Gender?, New York Times, June 1, 2009
  47. ^ Glass, Jennifer. 1990. "The Impact of Occupational Segregation on Working Conditions." ‘’Social Forces’’ 68:779-96.
  48. ^ Jacobs, J. A., & Steinberg, R. (1990). “Compensating differentials and the male-female wage gap: Evidence from the New York state comparable worth study.” ‘’Social Forces’’, 69, 439-468.
  49. ^ Conway, Michael, M. Teresa Pizzamiglio and Lauren Mount. 1996. “Status, Communality and Agency: Implications for Stereotypes of Gender and Other Groups.” ‘’Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ‘’71 : 25-38.
  50. ^ Wagner, David G. and Joseph Berger. 1997. "Gender and Interpersonal Task Behaviors: Status Expectation Accounts." ‘’Sociological Perspectives’’ 40: 1-32.
  51. ^ Williams, John E. and Deborah L. Best. 1990. ‘’Measuring Sex Stereotypes: A Multinational Study.’’ Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  52. ^ http://www.nd.edu/~wcarbona/Fiske-et-al-2002.pdf
  53. ^ Lovaglia, Michael J., Jeffrey W. Lucas, Jeffrey A. Houser, Shane R. Thye, and Barry Markovsky. 1998. "Status Processes and Mental Ability Test Scores." ‘’American Journal of Sociology’’ 104: 195-228.
  54. ^ Shih, Margaret, Todd L. Pittinsky and Nalini Ambady. 1999. "Stereotype Susceptibility: Identity, Salience and Shifts in Quantitative Performance." ‘’Psychological Science’’ 10: 80-3.
  55. ^ Steele, Claude M. 1997. "A Threat Is in the Air: How Stereotypes Shape Intellectual Identity and Performance." American Psychologist 52: 613-29.
  56. ^ http://www.chaire-crsng-inal.fsg.ulaval.ca/fileadmin/docs/documents/Article/Gender_and_career_choice_process_2001.pdf
  57. ^ http://people.uncw.edu/maumem/soc500/Correll2004.pdf
  58. ^ a b Neumark, David (with Bank, Roy and Van Nort, Kyle D.). "Sex discrimination in restaurant hiring: An audit study." Quarterly Journal of Economics, August 1996, 111(3), pp. 915-941.
  59. ^ Fernandez, J. P. (1981). Racism and sexism in corporate life. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
  60. ^ O’Leary, V. E., & Ickovics, J. R. (1992). Cracking the glass ceiling: overcoming isolation and alienation. In U. Sekaran, & F. T. L. Leong (Eds.), Womanpower: Managing in times of demographic turbulence (pp. 7–30). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
  61. ^ Aquino, K., & Bommer, W. H. 2003. Preferential mistreatment: How victim status moderates the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and workplace victimization. Organization Science, 14: 374–385.
  62. ^ Giannopoulos, C., Conway, M. & Mendelson, M. (2005). The gender of status: The laypersons' perception of status groups is gender-typed. Sex Roles, 53 (11-12), pp. 795-806.
  63. ^ Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  64. ^ Bakalar, Nicholas (2009) “A Customer Bias in Favor of White Men.” New York Times. June 23, 2009, page D6. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/23/health/research/23perc.html?ref=science
  65. ^ Vedantam, Shankar (2009) “Caveat for Employers.” Washington Post, June 1, 2009, page A8 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/31/AR2009053102081.html
  66. ^ Jackson, Derrick (2009) “Subtle, and stubborn, race bias.” Boston Globe, July 6, 2009, page A10 http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2009/07/06/subtle_and_stubborn_race_bias/
  67. ^ National Public Radio, Lake Effect, http://www.wuwm.com/programs/lake_effect/view_le.php?articleid=754
  68. ^ http://khufu.openlib.org/~tchecndg/archive/2007/att-0755/DiscriminationHekman.pdf
  69. ^ Hekman, David R.; Aquino, Karl; Owens, Brad P.; Mitchell, Terence R.; Schilpzand, Pauline; Leavitt, Keith. (2009) An Examination of Whether and How Racial and Gender Biases Influence Customer Satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal. http://journals.aomonline.org/inpress/main.asp?action=preview&art_id=610&p_id=1&p_short=AMJ
  70. ^ http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/12/07/no-its-not-your-imagination-were-biased-against-women/
  71. ^ Goldin, Claudia, and Cecilia Rouse, “Orchestrating Impartiality: the Impact of Blind Auditions on Female Musicians,” American Economic Review, LXXXX (2000), 715–742.
  72. ^ Neumark, David (with Bank, Roy and Van Nort, Kyle D.). "Sex discrimination in restaurant hiring: An audit study." Quarterly Journal of Economics, August 1996, 111(3), pp. 915-941.
  73. ^ "Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality", Thomas Sowell, 1984. "Markets and Minorities, Thomas Sowell, 1981
  74. ^ The mama lion at the gate - Salon.com
  75. ^ http://www.thelocal.se/10420/20080312/
  76. ^ http://www.framtidsstudier.se/filebank/files/20051201$134956$fil$U8YIJLRAaC7u4FV7gUmy.pdf
  77. ^ Dean, Cornelia (2006-09-19). "Bias Is Hurting Women in Science, Panel Reports". The New York Times.
  78. ^ http://web.mit.edu/fnl/women/women.html
  79. ^ Wenneras, Christine and Agnes Wold (1997). "Nepotism and Sexism in Peer-Review." Nature volume 387, May 22, 1997, pages 341-343.
  80. ^ Lutz Bornmann; Ruediger Mutz; Hans-Dieter Daniel (2007). "Gender bias in grant peer review". arXiv:math/0701537. {{cite arXiv}}: |class= ignored (help)
  81. ^ http://www.tamu.edu/classes/psyc/payne/ID/ID%20articles/Heilman%202001.pdf
  82. ^ http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=2-FvSJ8sdaIC&oi=fnd&pg=PA675&dq=Schein+2001+think+manager+think+male&ots=iQSquLq-Qj&sig=rZ8s9viyKnDck6pCOglXoDogda8#v=onepage&q&f=false
  83. ^ Journal of Social Issues, Gender ... - Google Books. Books.google.com. 2002-01-02. ISBN 9781405100847. Retrieved 2010-06-01.
  84. ^ http://www.soc.washington.edu/users/brines/correll.pdf
  85. ^ Journal of Social Issues, Gender ... - Google Books. Books.google.com. 2002-01-02. ISBN 9781405100847. Retrieved 2010-06-01.
  86. ^ http://courses.washington.edu/pbafadv/TheWagePenaltyforMotherhood.pdf
  87. ^ http://econ2.econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ321/rosburg/Anderson%20et%20al%20-%20The%20motherhood%20wage%20penalty%20revisted.pdf
  88. ^ Avellar, Sarah, and Smock, Pamely J. 2003. “Has the price of motherhood declined over time? A cross-cohort comparison of the motherhood wage penalty .”Journal of Marriage and the Family 65:597-607.
  89. ^ Lincoln, Anne E. 2008. "Gender, Productivity, and the Marital Wage Premium." Journal of Marriage and Family 70:806-814.
  90. ^ Folbre, Nancy (2009-03-26). "The Anti-Mommy Bias". The New York Times.
  91. ^ Goodman, Ellen (2007-05-11). "A third gender in the workplace". The Boston Globe.
  92. ^ Cahn, Naomi; Carbone, June (2010-05-30). "Five myths about working mothers". The Washington Post.
  93. ^ http://www.businessweek.com/careers/workingparents/blog/archives/2009/06/the_motherhood.html
  94. ^ http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/511799
  95. ^ http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=JkXlQBWTNygC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=Blair-Loy+2003+competing+devotions&ots=PJq60JkxL-&sig=U8L8qzquU164wN0_NnwvLgdI6JY#v=onepage&q=Blair-Loy%202003%20competing%20devotions&f=false
  96. ^ http://atgstg01.pineforge.com/ballantine2study/articles/Chapter%209/Ridgeway.pdf
  97. ^ http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Fl-GEzEvHVkC&oi=fnd&pg=PP11&dq=Townsend+2002&ots=3y9iwuck2j&sig=ZAv1RV-pH9mQFMLTM380lAb9kqY#v=onepage&q=Townsend%202002&f=false
  98. ^ Fuegen, Kathleen, Monica Biernat, Elizabeth Haines, and Kay Deaux. 2004. “Mothers and Fathers in the Workplace: How Gender and Parental Status Influence Judgments of Job-Related Competence.” Journal of Social Issues 60:737–54.
  99. ^ http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/genster.htm
  100. ^ http://www3.uakron.edu/psychology/faculty/yoder-research-11-27-06.pdf
  101. ^ Lincoln, Anne E. 2008. "Gender, Productivity, and the Marital Wage Premium." Journal of Marriage and Family 70:806-814.
  102. ^ a b http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/papers/pdf/298.pdf
  103. ^ Loh, Eng Seng. 1996. “Productivity and the Marriage Premium for White Males.” Journal of Human Resources 31:566–89.
  104. ^ Korenman, Sanders, and David Neumark. 1991. “Does Marriage Really Make Men More Productive?” Journal of Human Resources 26:282–307.
  105. ^ a b Hill, Martha. 1979. “The Wage Effects of Marital Status and Children.” Journal of Human Resources 14:579–94.
  106. ^ Orloff, Ann. 1996. “Gender and the Welfare State.” Annual Review of Sociology 22:51–78.
  107. ^ Lincoln, Anne E. 2008. "Gender, Productivity, and the Marital Wage Premium." Journal of Marriage and Family 70:806-814.
  108. ^ Desmarais, S., & Curtis, J. (1997b). Gender differences in pay histories and views on pay entitlement among university students. Sex Roles, 37, 623–642.
  109. ^ Major, B., V. Vanderslice, and D. B. McFarlin. 1984. Effects of pay expected on pay received: The confirmatory nature of initial expectations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 14(5): 399–412.
  110. ^ Pelham, B. W., & Hetts, J. J. (2001). Underworked and overpaid: Elevated entitlement in men’s self-pay. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 93–103.
  111. ^ Kaman, V. S., & Hartel, C. E. J. (1994). Gender differences in anticipated pay negotiation strategies and outcomes. Journal of Business and Psychology, 9, 183-197.
  112. ^ Callahan-Levy, C. M., & Messé, L. A. (1979). Sex differences in the allocation of pay. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 433–446.
  113. ^ Jackson, L. A. (1989). Relative deprivation and the gender wage gap. Journal of Social Issues, 45, 117–133.
  114. ^ Jackson, L. A., Gardner, P. D., & Sullivan, L. A. (1992). Explaining gender differences in self-pay expectations: Social comparison standards and perceptions of fair pay. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 651–663.
  115. ^ Jost, J. T. (1997). An experimental replication of the depressed entitlement effect among women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 387–393.
  116. ^ Moore, D. (1994). Entitlement as an epistemic problem: Do women think like men? Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 9, 665–684.
  117. ^ Major, B. (1994). From social inequality to personal entitlement: The role of social comparisons, legitimacy appraisals, and group membership. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 26, pp. 293–348). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
  118. ^ Major, B., McFarlin, D. B., & Gagnon, D. (1984). Overworked and underpaid: On the nature of gender differences in personal entitlement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1399–1412.
  119. ^ http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=D4VcItxHGTMC&oi=fnd&pg=PA293&dq=wage+entitlement+negotiating+salaries&ots=F5ubG1crxy&sig=tv4gDZz31inUjgpwn67VTIYYMMo#v=onepage&q&f=false
  120. ^ Hogue,M. and J.D. Yoder (2003). “The Role of Status in Producing Depressed Entitlement in Women’s and Men’s Pay Allocations.” Psychology of Women Quarterly (27)4: 330-337.
  121. ^ Hogue,M., J.D. Yoder, et al. (2007). “The Gender Wage Gap: An Explanation of Men’s Elevated Wage Entitlement.” Sex Roles 56(9-10): 581-590.
  122. ^ Barron, L. (2003). Ask and you shall receive? Gender differences in beliefs about requests for a higher salary. Human Relations, 56, 635–663.
  123. ^ Biernat, M., Manis, M., & Nelson, T. E. (1991). Stereotypes and standards of judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 485–499.
  124. ^ http://www.faculty.diversity.ucla.edu/search/searchtoolkit/docs/articles/StereotypesNStandards_Biernat_etal91.pdf
  125. ^ Diekman, A. B., & Eagly, A. H. (2000). Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: Women and men of the past, present, and future.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1171–1188.
  126. ^ Morrison, T. G., Bell, E. M., Morrison, M. A., & Murray, C. A. (1994). An examination of adolescents’ salary expectations and gender-based occupational stereotyping. Youth & Society, 26, 178–193.
  127. ^ http://www.betsylevypaluck.com/pwqu_1537.pdf
  128. ^ "Women Don't Ask: Negotiation and Gender Divide" by Linda Babcock and Sarah Laschever, Princeton University Press, 2003 ISBN 069108940XISBN 978-0691089409
  129. ^ "Women Don't Ask: Negotiation and the Gender Divide". Womendontask.com. Retrieved 2010-06-01.
  130. ^ "Women Don't Ask: Negotiation and the Gender Divide". press.princeton.edu. Retrieved 2010-06-09.
  131. ^ Vedantam, Shankar (2007-07-30). "Salary, Gender and the Social Cost of Haggling". The Washington Post.
  132. ^ http://chronicle.com/blogPost/Damned-if-They-Do/181
  133. ^ http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/2007/07/30/negotiation_gap
  134. ^ Gerhart, B., & Rynes, S. (1991). Determinants and consequences of salary negotiations by male and female MBA graduates. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 256–262.
  135. ^ "Knowledge gets the biggest pay premium".
  136. ^ Dorman P, Hagstrom P. 1998. Wage Compensation for Dangerous Work Revisited. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 52: 116-135.
  137. ^ http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Bi-h6Ro-L-cC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=%5B%5BWarren+Farrell%5D%5D+discrimination+women+pay+gap+men+choose+work+hours&ots=x5FlilcWmt&sig=ux8viesMZmS6dbFD4gFD6Z9Rt-g
  138. ^ http://baywood.metapress.com/index/873370W735766823.pdf
  139. ^ http://heinonlinebackup.com/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/worts27&section=7
  140. ^ Blau, Francine D., and Lawrence M. Kahn, "Swimming Upstream: Trends in the Gender Wage Differential in the 1980s," Journal of Labor Economics, XV (1997), 1–42.
  141. ^ Wood, Robert G., Mary E. Corcoran and Paul Courant. 1993. "Pay Differences Among the Highly Paid: The Male-Female Earnings Gap in Lawyers’ Salaries." Journal of Labor Economics. 11:3, pp. 417–41. (1993)
  142. ^ http://radicalmath.org/docs/GenderWageGap.pdf
  143. ^ http://books.google.com/books?id=Liu8A8KjDR0C&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=%22Women+continue+to+confront+discrimination+in+the+labor+market,+although+its+extent+seems+to+be+decreasing.%22&source=bl&ots=pftLuOSSqJ&sig=05Q3YHWW7oPaQNjg3gU2YjvUrwE&hl=en&ei=cjFYTJehCMSZOLGP6doI&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22Women%20continue%20to%20confront%20discrimination%20in%20the%20labor%20market%2C%20although%20its%20extent%20seems%20to%20be%20decreasing.%22&f=false
  • Blau, Francine and Lawrence Kahn (1997). "Swimming Upstream: Trends in the Gender Wage Differential in the 1980s." Journal of Labor Economics, volume 15 (1), part 1, January 1997, pages 1–42.
  • DeNavas-Walt, Carmen, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Cheryl Hill Lee (2005), U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, P60-229, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2004, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Available online at http://www.census.gov/prod/2005pubs/p60-229.pdf .
  • England, Paula, Lori L. Reid and Barbara S. Kilbourne (1996). "The Effect of the Sex Composition of Jobs on Starting Wages in an Organization: Findings from the NLSY." Demography, volume 33 (4), November 1996, pages 511-521.
  • Farrell, Warren, "Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap - and What Women Can Do about It" ISBN 0-8144-7210-9
  • Figart, Deborah and June Lapidus (1996). "The Impact of Comparable Worth on Earnings Inequality." Work and Occupations volume 23 (3) pages 297-318.
  • Goldin and Rouse (1997), "Orchestrating Impartiality: The Impact of 'Blind' Auditions on Female Musicians," NBER working paper No W5903.
  • Institute For Women's Policy Research (2005), "The Gender Wage Ratio," available online at http://www.iwpr.org/pdf/C350.pdf .
  • Johnson, Dan (1997). "Getting Noticed in Economics: the determinants of academic citations." The American Economist, volume 41 (1), Spring 1997, pages 43–52.
  • "Knowledge Gets The Biggest Pay Premium" (1999). In Monthly Labor Review. October 5, 1999. Available online at http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/1999/Oct/wk1/art02.htm .
  • Mishel, Lawrence, Jared Bernstein and John Schmitt (1999), The State of Working America 1998-1999, Economic Policy Institute.
  • Neumark, David (1996). "Sex Discrimination in Restaurant Hiring: An Audit Study." Quarterly Journal of Economics, August 1996, pages 915-941.
  • Nielsen, Arrah (2005). "Gender Wage Gap Is Feminist Fiction." Available online at http://www.iwf.org/campus/show/18948.html. This is not a scholarly, refereed article. It is a publication of a capitalist think tank, AWF, supporting male activist Warren Farrell.
  • Rones, Phillip, Randy Ilg and Jennifer Gardner (1997). "Trends in Hours of Work Since the Mid-1970s." Monthly Labor Review, April 1997, pages 3–14.
  • Wenneras, Christine and Agnes Wold (1997). "Nepotism and Sexism in Peer-Review." Nature volume 387, May 22, 1997, pages 341-343.
  • Wood, Robert, Mary Corcoran, and Paul Courant (1993). "Pay Differences Among the Highly Paid: the male-female earnings gap in lawyers' salaries." Journal of Labor Economics, volume 11 (3), pages 417-441.
  • O'Neill, June and O'Neill, Dave M., What Do Wage Differentials Tell Us About Labor Market Discrimination? (April 2005). NBER Working Paper Series, Vol. w11240, pp. -, 2005. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=697165
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gender_pay_gap_in_the_United_States&oldid=425963203"