‘Coming out’ across cultures: Examining the experiences of Ecuadorian and Spanish LGB employees

Depósito de Investigación de la Universidad de Sevilla https://idus.us.es/ This version of the article has been accepted for publication, after peer review and is subject to Springer Nature’s AM terms of use, but is not the Version of Record and does not reflect post-acceptance improvements, or any corrections. The Version of Record is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-01900463-y Corlett, S., Di Marco, D. & Arenas, A. (2021). ‘Coming out’ across cultures: Examining the experiences of Ecuadorian and Spanish LGB employees. Current Psychology, 40, 5391–5401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00463-y 1 'Coming out' Across Cultures: Examining the Experiences of Ecuadorian and Spanish LGB 1 Employees 2 Corlett, S., Di Marco, D., & Arenas, A. 3 4 Lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) employees use the invisible character of their sexual identity to 5 adopt strategies that reveal or hide their sexual orientation at work and the culture in which they are 6 embedded plays a role in this process. This study analyzes the disclosure process of 15 Spanish and 15 7 Ecuadorian LGB individuals through in-depth semi-structured interviews. The results suggest that 8 some cultural elements in each country, such as religion and gender role norms, make the experiences 9 of the participants different. The consequences of adopting different disclosure strategies have been 10 found for both the individual (e.g., relationship with colleagues, well-being) and organizations (e.g., 11 performance). This study highlights the need for research for measures to effectively include LGB 12 people in organizations. 13 Keywords: culture; discrimination; gender roles; disclosure; diversity; workplace 14 15 Introduction 16 Interpersonal relationships are inevitable in the workplace. When interacting, employees categorize 17 others into ‘social identities’ to foresee their behavior (Goffman, 1963), generating, thus, expectations 18 about what other employees are like and how they behave. Some social identities are built on visible 19 characteristics (e.g., race, gender, age), but also on characteristics that are invisible. Sexual orientation 20 is considered an example of an invisible character of identity. 21 Under the assumption of heterosexuality as the prescriptive sexual orientation (i.e., 22 heteronormativity) (Ward & Wistanley, 2005), a sexual orientation other than heterosexuality can 23 serve as a basis for social stigma. When holding a stigmatized invisible identity, individuals may 24 struggle in their decision to disclose or not and how to do it to avoid social rejection (Clair, Beatty, & 25 MacLean, 2005). In addition, stigmas are context-dependent, which means stigmatizing characteristics 26 can be assessed in different ways depending on the culture the person is embedded in (Goffman, 27 1963). Cultural values may shape the experiences of lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) individuals, 28 2 whose experiences may differ depending on the country they are from. To explore these differences, 1 this paper intends to analyze the cultural factors of two countries, Spain and Ecuador, that impact the 2 experiences of LGB employees. 3 Religion and gender roles are cultural factors that previous research have pointed out to 4 impact LGB individuals’ experiences (Di Marco, Arenas, Hoel, & Munduate, in press). Religious 5 beliefs such as Christianity, and concretely Catholicism, reinforce traditional families with a man and 6 a woman in the center and do not tolerate diverse family structures (e.g., same-sex parents) (Young, 7 2000). Further, Spanish colonization in Latin America bolstered the ideals of machismo and 8 marianismo, which respectively promote the cult of virility in men and the emulation of the caring and 9 submissive figure of the Virgin Mary in women (Stevens & Pescatello, 1973). The ideals of 10 marianismo and machismo may coincide with the established gender role norms in both countries. 11 Given these conditions, Spanish and Ecuadorian societies may perceive LGB individuals’ propensity 12 to feel less compelled to stick to gender role norms as a threat to their prevalent categorization of 13 individuals (Rheineck, Wise, & Williams, 2016). Those who transgress gender norms on top of 14 holding an LGB sexual identity may elevate their chances of becoming targets of discrimination. 15 Discrimination against sexual minorities occurs both in Spain and Ecuador. The latest data 16 about the experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual and intersexual (LGBTI) individuals in 17 Ecuador (Gómez et al., 2013) revealed that these experience discrimination (43.8%), exclusion 18 (27.6%) and violence (22%) at work. Regarding Spain, the latest Eurobarometer (European 19 Commission, 2015) reveals that the Spanish population perceives discrimination is widespread, with 20 LGBT people being one of the most affected groups (56%). Both countries show, thus, high 21 discrimination rates, even though they have a recent legislative framework in favor of LGBT 22 individuals. This threat of discrimination may be a factor that affects LGB individuals’ decision to 23 disclose their sexual identity at work. 24 The present study aims to explore the factors that play a part in the process of disclosure LGB 25 employees and that may differ between Spain and Ecuador. For this purpose, the disclosure strategies 26 that LGB employees adopt at work, the consequences of adopting one or another strategy, and the 27 cultural factors Spanish and Ecuadorian LGB employees perceive to impact their disclosure process 28 3 are under study. 1 2 The process of self-disclosure 3 Self-disclosure is the ‘act of revealing personal information to others’ (Clair, Beatty, & MacLean, 4 2005). As sexual orientation is an invisible characteristic, we may assume LGB people have, a priori, 5 control over the disclosure of their sexual identity (Goffman, 1963). However, the process of 6 disclosure involves not only LGB individuals’ willingness to disclose but an ongoing process by 7 which LGB individuals are continuously negotiating information with others (Wax, Coletti, & Ogaz, 8 2017). 9 Researchers have posited several models to explain the process of disclosure at work (Griffin, 10 1992; Ragins, 2008). This paper focuses on the model proposed by Clair et al. (2005) that identifies 11 six strategies people use to manage the information of their invisible identity to others: normalization, 12 differentiation, signaling, fabrication, concealment, and discretion. LGB individuals who disclose 13 their sexual identity may use the normalizing strategy by talking about their sexual orientation as just 14 one more feature of themselves; differentiation by making their sexual orientation something that 15 differentiates them from others; or signaling by sending ambiguous messages related to their sexual 16 orientation. To pass (i.e., hide one’s sexual orientation), they may use the strategy of fabrication by 17 pretending to be heterosexual; concealment by actively hiding information regarding their sexual 18 orientation; or discretion by avoiding conversations in which personal matters are discussed. These 19 same authors proposed people choose among strategies according to previous experiences, contextual 20 factors (e.g., inclusive policies in the organization), and individual factors (e.g., the propensity to take 21 risks). Other antecedents of disclosure are the perceived consequences of passing and disclosing (Clair 22 et al., 2005). Passing may protect LGB individuals from discrimination but may likewise lead them to 23 negative consequences at work, such as isolation, stress, and anxiety (Clair et al., 2005). Disclosing, 24 on the other hand, enables LGB individuals to preserve their personal integrity, to build better 25 relationships with coworkers, and to educate others about sexual minorities (Ward & Winstanley, 26 2005) but can lead them to discrimination. 27 4 Most studies have focused on those elements of the organizational context that affect the 1 disclosure process (Clair et al., 2005; Griffith, 2002; Ward & Winstanley, 2005). However, others 2 have further taken into consideration the role of the sociocultural context in which individuals are 3 embedded (Di Marco et al., in press). Organizations are environments in which people interact and 4 bring with them all the attitudes and values that have been internalized in interaction with the 5 sociocultural context in which they are immersed. Following this argument, the next section presents 6 those factors of the Spanish and Ecuadorian cultures that may apply to this study. 7 8 The sociocultural context of Spain and Ecuador 9 Spain has undergone deep changes in recent decades and the transition to democracy was a great step 10 forward for sexual minorities. During Franco’s regime, the morality of the Catholic religion deeply 11 defined the Spanish society and, under the social control of the Church, LGB people remained 12 unnoticed to avoid persecution and punishment for their sexual identity (Galeano, 2016). Although 13 social advances after the transition to democracy have gone through recognizing rights for LGB 14 people (e.g., same-sex marriage, right of a joint adoption) (Law n. 13, 2005; Law n. 15, 2005), the 15 ideological legacy described above and heteronormativity continue to affect Spanish LGB people in 16 their daily lives (Borraz, 2018). Ecuador has likewise seen advances in recent years, and the 17 reformation of the Constitution in 2008 that includes legalizing the homosexual common-law union is 18 an illustration of it. However, 70% of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersexual (LGBTI) 19 people are targets of discrimination in Ecuador (Gómez et al., 2013), which shows the present legal 20 framework is not effective in its goal of protecting sexual minorities. 21 Catholicism, as the majority religion in Ecuador (80.4%), and Protestantism (11.3%) (INEC, 22 2012) have significant importance in the lives of Ecuadorians. In fact, Ecuadorians take part at least 23 once per month (67.7%) in religious practices (INEC, 2012). With such an interaction with religion, 24 Christian values and morals may become an ideological guide. In the case of Spain, although 25 participation in religious organizations has decreased (CIS, 2018), Catholicism is still rooted in the 26 culture of this country. For instance, when Spaniards make their income tax declaration, they are 27 offered by the Tax Agency to donate part of their money to the Catholic Church’s sustainment. On top 28 5 of this clear influence of the Catholic religion in Spanish institutions, 33.6% of Spaniards continue to 1 select the option of the Catholic Church in their declarations (Agencia Tributaria, 2018). The presence 2 of Catholicism is relevant to LGB individuals given the Church’s position regarding sexual minorities 3 (Young, 2000). Christianity assumes heteronormativity, among other reasons, for its contribution to 4 ‘God’s will’ of procreation (Herrel, 1996), and reinforces gender role divisions, with women devoted 5 to the household and the care of others and men contributing to the public economy (Hinze, 2016). 6 Social, economic and political dynamics shape the cultural appropriateness of feminine and 7 masculine behaviors (Cuddy et al., 2015). In Spain, women have historically held the role of a 8 housewife, remaining thus in the private sphere caring for their children (Galeano, 2016). Over the last 9 few years, some measures (e.g., paternity leave extension) have been taken in favor of gender equality 10 in Spain, yet gender role division has not disappeared. To illustrate, 91.9% of women do domestic 11 tasks compared to 74.7% of men (INE, 2017). In Ecuador, gender role norms are even more 12 pronounced (Mealy, Stephan, & Abalakina-Paap, 2006), with 95.76% of women compared to 4.24% 13 of men carrying out domestic tasks (INEC, 2018). 14 These data show differences in the role of each gender. Gender role norms are linked to 15 stereotypes of men (e.g., emotionally stable, sexually pragmatic, competitive) and women (e.g., 16 sensitive, modest, caring) (Ellemers, 2018), and they shape people’s expectations of how men and 17 women behave. When individuals deviate from these expectations, others usually associate the 18 transgression with a non-heterosexual orientation and the social status of the person is devalued (Sirin, 19 McCreary, & Mahalik, 2004). We suggest that the concealability of LGB individuals’ sexual identity 20 may rely on how rigid gender norms are for men and women in a specific context. Thereby, gender 21 norms in Spain and Ecuador play a role in LGB individuals’ process of disclosure. 22 This study explores the process of disclosure of gay, lesbian, and bisexual employees in 23 Ecuador and Spain. We aim to identify their disclosure strategies; to find the individual and 24 organizational consequences of adopting the different disclosure strategies; and to explore the role that 25 cultural factors have in the process of disclosure so as to know which are common in Spain and 26 Ecuador and which are particular of each country. 27 28 6 Method 1 Participants 2 Thirty semi-structured interviews were conducted to analyze the experiences of LGB employees. 3 Semi-structured interviews are a flexible data collection instrument that allows understanding the issue 4 studied by analyzing participants’ point of view (King, 2004a). Fifteen participants were Spanish and 5 15 were Ecuadorian. All interviewees were working or had been employed in the previous six months. 6 The average age of the Spanish employees was 37.2 years (SD = 7.19), while the average age of the 7 Ecuadorian employees was 26.6 years (SD = 4.03). Sociodemographic data are presented in Table 1. 8 9 Data collection 10 Participants were recruited using the ‘snowball’ sampling approach (Miles & Huberman, 1994), which 11 allowed us to reach enough participants by activating the networks of the first respondents. It was 12 possible to locate the first Spanish participants through the FELGTB (Spanish Federation of Lesbians, 13 Gays, Trans, and Bisexuals of Spain). For the recruitment of Ecuadorian participants, we contacted 14 one representative of the LGTB community in Loja (Ecuador). Once the first participants were 15 reached, we asked them to spread the study among their acquaintances, activating, thus, their existing 16 social networks and increasing the sample size. 17 The interviews lasted between 60 and 90 minutes and were always carried out in neutral 18 contexts of participants’ choice (e.g., coffee bars), avoiding work settings to protect their privacy. 19 Spanish and Ecuadorian interviews were carried out by the second author who has previous 20 experience in qualitative research. The interviewer is a young woman who was not raised in the same 21 context as the interviewees in both data collections. This aspect may have impacted the collection of 22 data positively, because interviewees might have felt free to talk openly about their experience at 23 work, recognizing the interviewer as a person not connected with their social network. Such a factor 24 was particularly important in smaller cities, where social networks are denser and sharing potential 25 connections with the interviewer could concern participants. However, not sharing the same 26 nationality and cultural heritage may have been a source of bias as, in their narratives, interviewees 27 may have taken for granted meanings related to specific cultural aspects. Conscious of this potential 28 7 source of bias, the interviewer had to stay attentive during interviews, asking for details when 1 participants shared information with meanings rooted in shared cultural baggage. 2 All interviews were carried out in Spanish. The first part of the interview was aimed to break 3 the ice, asking questions about the workplace, job functions (e.g., What do you do at your job? Who do 4 you work with? How long have you been working there?). The second part focused on the experiences 5 of LGB people in the workplace regarding their sexual orientation (e.g., To what extent do you reveal 6 your sexual orientation at work? What are the consequences of this?) The third and final part explored 7 the role of cultural factors in the experience of LGB employees (e.g., What factors from 8 Spanish/Ecuadorian society have played a role in your experience as a homosexual/bisexual person at 9 work?) 10 Pseudonyms have been used to preserve the anonymity of participants. The Ethical Committee 11 of the University of Seville approved the interview protocol. 12 13 Data analysis 14 The collected interviews were literally transcribed and analyzed using the Template Analysis 15 technique (King, 2004b). This technique allows analyzing data starting from acquired knowledge from 16 previous scientific research and, at the same time, maintaining an open vision to identify new results 17 according to the specific context under study. 18 Template analysis identifies codes before and after the analysis of the first set of interviews. 19 The codes identified before the analysis resulted from a review of the literature. However, when 20 analyzing the interviews, we kept a broad vision to capture additional issues that emerged. This led to 21 the creation of new codes a posteriori and the modification of those that had been created before the 22 analysis. All authors took part and agreed in the development of the first template of codes (a priori). 23 Although only the first author was in charge to develop the a posteriori codes, the research group met 24 periodically to discuss the new identified codes and the adjustment of the prior template. This 25 teamwork allowed to reduce the bias that having a unique coder entails. 26 Once the coding was completed, the codes were grouped into themes (e.g., disclosure 27 strategies, individual consequences, etc.). The analysis was carried out with the assistance of the 28 14 because of the extra effort he made to control how he talked and moved so that others did not 1 speculate about him. Exerting efforts in hiding one’s sexual identity was a consequence of passing, 2 which we observed both in Spanish and Ecuadorian participants. 3 4 Organizational consequences 5 Regarding the organizational consequences, we found differences between Spanish and Ecuadorian 6 participants. Irene and Ian explained how hiding one’s sexual orientation can have a negative effect on 7 work performance: 8 9 It affects you because you cannot concentrate very well on your work. Thinking about 10 those things that make you say ‘I want to change it’ or ‘I don’t want to be like this 11 anymore’ makes you waste [time]. (Ian, 23 years old, Ecuador) 12 13 [Depending on] the context, it affects performance or not. [If] a group of people has to 14 have super fluid communication and it has to be very cohesive to be productive, (...) 15 performance is likely to be much better. If one has a reserved plot that is not expressed 16 (...) then that group is not producing the same. (Irene, 35 years old, Spain) 17 18 Ian expressed how devoting cognitive resources in managing information about his sexual 19 identity decreased his effectiveness at work. Irene mentioned this poor performance but with jobs that 20 need communication and group cohesion. These two quotes represent a phenomenon among the 21 interviewees from both countries: while Irene spoke of a hypothetical case, Ian commented on his own 22 experience. The fact that there were fewer Spanish participants in the closet may affect how 23 participants reported their performance experience. 24 Some participants reported trying to perform better than other coworkers. Perhaps success 25 becomes a need to achieve the image of a respectable person and, to achieve this, LGB employees put 26 more effort into performance. Ian explained that by leading a ‘double life’ he tried to be a good 27 professional so that homosexuality could take a back seat. This means he tried to keep high 28 15 productivity to ‘compensate' for the stigma of his sexual identity. Carla (20 years old) from Ecuador 1 experienced the same. As an LGB employee who was out of the closet, she tried to compensate for the 2 stigma with more sales for her boss: ‘I have shown it in sales, I was the one that sold the most. I tried 3 to prove [my worth] in another facet, so that [my boss] realized that not everything is as he thinks.’ 4 This was more explicitly expressed among Ecuadorian participants, although some Spaniards 5 mentioned being a good professional besides having a normative life as factors that contributed to 6 their respectability and to the compensation of their stigma. 7 In addition, some participants expressed that coming out promoted their satisfaction, as shown 8 in the individual consequences section. This satisfaction can enhance job performance, as Alvaro (34 9 years old) from Spain expressed: ‘[Expressing] how I feel makes me feel much more liberated, much 10 more at ease and therefore I work much better.’ As previously mentioned, this was more common in 11 Spain, seemingly for the negative experiences when coming out for the participants in Ecuador. 12 Some employees expressed that their process of disclosure did not affect their work. When 13 participants expressed this, they sometimes claimed that personal life and work were two separate 14 worlds for them. Enrique (34 years old), from Spain, said: ‘It does not affect [my performance] (…) 15 because I consider it as a personal issue. If I want to tell [someone], I do, if I don’t, I don’t. But 16 nothing [affects my] performance level.’ When being in the closet, some interviewees may create a 17 cognitive barrier between work and life as a coping strategy to avoid conflict that the contact of these 18 two worlds may cause (Allen, 2013). Participants expressed this experience both in Spain and 19 Ecuador. 20 21 Discussion 22 Throughout this study, we have shown the experiences of LGB employees that derive from managing 23 their invisible and still stigmatized sexual identity. Our findings elucidate that several cultural aspects 24 play a role in the disclosure strategy participants choose and in the consequences of their disclosure or 25 concealment. 26 Participants who kept their sexual orientation hidden were more prone to use the strategy of 27 discretion and concealment both in Spain and Ecuador, yet some participants, who were mainly 28 16 Ecuadorians, sometimes used the strategy of fabrication. Ecuadorian participants may use fabrication 1 to ensure the concealment of their sexual orientation, as they manifested that negative consequences 2 were more explicit in their country. Explicit negative consequences for the individual may result from 3 a lack of a sanctioning pressure (either social or legal) to stop direct discrimination on grounds of 4 sexual orientation, as in the case of Ecuador. Indeed, when there are protective legislation and non5 discrimination policies in organizations that prohibit biased conduct, overt discrimination is 6 potentially prevented (Cortina, 2008) and the discriminatory behaviors that prevail in the workplace 7 may be more related to subtle uncivil conducts (i.e., covert discrimination), such as microaggressions 8 or incivilities. Regarding Spain, stereotypes and prejudices towards sexual minorities explicit in the 9 past may have been stored in the memory, becoming implicit or unconscious (Dovidio, 2001). Open 10 forms of discrimination are thus replaced by other behaviors with ambiguous intentions, such as those 11 of modern discrimination (Cortina, 2008). Although this form of discrimination may be perceived as 12 less injurious, it should not be underestimated. The ambiguous nature of modern discrimination boosts 13 the chances of attributing the fault of the negative experience to the target, causing added harm to their 14 well-being (Jones et al., 2016). 15 When participants disclosed their sexual identity, Spaniards normalized, whereas Ecuadorians 16 used the differentiation strategy. In Spain, the social pressure of political correctness along with the 17 pervasive ways in which discrimination takes place may create a ‘safe’ context that facilitates the 18 strategy of normalization over other strategies. Spanish respondents further reported feeling relieved 19 and more satisfied with their coworkers after coming out, whereas Ecuadorians did not express this 20 idea. This result sustains the notion that supportive social interactions with coworkers and supervisors 21 foster a positive work environment where LGB employees are safe to disclose and to be themselves 22 (Ragins, Singh, & Cornwell, 2007; Wax et al., 2017; Webster, Adams, Maranto, Sawyer, & 23 Thoroughgood, 2018). In Ecuador, a lack of social support and explicit discrimination experiences 24 may have impeded a positive evaluation of sexual identity disclosure. 25 Organizational consequences also stemmed from the disclosure and concealment of 26 participants’ sexual identity. When LGB employees had not faced explicit negative experiences when 27 revealing, they claimed to be more satisfied and that this satisfaction had a positive effect on their 28 17 performance. The latter is in line with consistent results of job satisfaction predicting job performance 1 (Judge, Thoresen, Bono, & Patton, 2001). Performance results differed when employees attempted to 2 ‘pass.’ While some employees expressed that passing weakened their performance, others expressed 3 that this choice had no effect on their effectiveness. When participants expressed that an effect on 4 performance was non-existent, many of them reported separating work and private life domains in the 5 workplace which may serve some LGB employees as a coping mechanism that prevents potential 6 work-life conflict (Allen, 2013). Being able to segment both domains may be related to the extent to 7 which LGB employees’ sexual identity is integrated into their self-concept. As Ragins (2008) 8 suggests, LGB employees who perceive that their sexual identity is central to their self-concept may 9 be prone to disclose in pursuit of coherence. However, those who perceive their sexual orientation as 10 unimportant to their self-concept could keep a reserved plot at work for this part of their lives causing 11 no harm to their authenticity (Ragins, 2008). Both Ecuadorian and Spanish participants mentioned this 12 coping strategy. 13 Interestingly, some employees reported having to perform at higher levels than others. To 14 achieve the status of a ‘respectable person,’ some employees, especially Ecuadorians, tried to 15 outperform to compensate for their stigma by adding information to their image that could be more 16 significant to others in the workplace. By holding an explicitly negative image, some Ecuadorians may 17 feel compelled to behave this way to gain others’ respect. 18 Participants reported that some cultural factors played a role in their process of disclosure. For 19 instance, some participants, and especially Ecuadorians, tried to adjust to the normative gender norms 20 as a strategy to pass as heterosexual, but also to avoid the activation of negative stereotypes that 21 deviating from gender norms entails (Sirin et al., 2004). For a lack of normalization in Ecuador and 22 likely higher misinformation on sexual minorities, the stereotypes associated with bisexual and 23 homosexual individuals were linked to deviating gender role norms (e.g., transvestism) and were 24 generally more negative (e.g., perversion and immorality). The higher presence of the Catholic and 25 Protestant religion in Ecuador, where most participants and coworkers were religious, may contribute 26 to the perpetuation of these negative stereotypes. Previous research exploring the experiences of gay 27 men living in Christian communities in the USA showed that, indeed, fundamentalist religious 28 18 institutions send messages about homosexuality linking it to disease and perversion (Barton, 2010). 1 Because religion was so significant for Ecuadorian participants, it may be reasonable to ‘pass’ with 2 religious coworkers to avoid stigmatization. In Spain, although participants expressed that religion still 3 had a role in the morals of Spanish society, institutional and legal protections of sexual minorities may 4 have given place to a greater social pressure that constrains the explicit expression of these negative 5 thoughts about LGB people. 6 7 Limitations and future directions 8 This research is not without its limitations. First, the Ecuadorian sample was fairly younger than the 9 Spanish one due to sampling reasons. We acknowledge that this difference may have impacted the 10 results of this study as the experiences of older LGB people may differ from those of young LGB 11 people. An additional limitation is that we consistently allude to LGBs’ experiences, yet only one of 12 our participants identified herself as bisexual. Previous research showed that the perceptions of 13 heterosexual people regarding homosexuals differ from those of bisexuals (Williams, Giuffre, & 14 Dellinger, 2009). Although this dissimilar perception could make bisexual individuals’ experiences 15 different, our bisexual participant did not express her experience as differing from those of LG 16 participants. 17 Another limitation was our restricted focus on the deviance of gender norms and its effect on 18 the process of self-disclosure, and religion as a guiding ideology that reinforces the stigmatization of 19 LGB individuals. Other factors that are part of the culture of each country (e.g., the role of the family) 20 and of the organizational context (e.g., coworkers’ sexual orientation, the sector of the organization, 21 coworkers mean age) were detected but not included in this paper. Future research could show what 22 these factors are and the role they play in the said process. 23 A final limitation lies in the conception of the process of disclosure as an individual choice. 24 We are aware this is a limited understanding, as coworkers and the organization have a crucial role in 25 LGB employees’ decisions (Di Marco, Hoel, Arenas, & Munduate, 2018; Wax et al., 2017). For 26 instance, although an LGB employee may wish to pass, some have reported that other coworkers 27 gossip about their sexual orientation. ‘Outing,’ (i.e., revealing others’ sexual orientation) LGB 28 19 employees is a practice that participants have described to be beyond their control. We encourage 1 future studies to examine sexual identity disclosure as a process in which third parties play a role in 2 LGB individuals’ a priori decision to pass or disclose. 3 All in all, the disclosure process is complex and affects the experience of LGB people at work. 4 While the laws promoted by institutions that recognize the rights of sexual minorities are fundamental, 5 organizations have the responsibility to take an active role in including these vulnerable groups. Just 6 as in school, where the education in values is decisive, organizations should offer a learning 7 environment where it is also possible and convenient to promote a culture of tolerance and inclusion 8 of diversity. Fostering a pro-diversity work climate is important for organizations to prevent 9 discrimination, but also to improve performance (Boehm et al., 2014). A recent meta-analysis of LGB 10 individuals' experiences at work showed that rather than the individuals' will, the organizational 11 climate has the strongest influence on the decision to pass or disclose (Wax et al., 2017). Promoting 12 pro-diversity beliefs among employees could contribute to diminished discrimination (Boehm et al., 13 2014), a lower fear of revealing one's sexual orientation (Ragins et al., 2007), higher satisfaction of 14 LGB employees (Prati & Pietrantoni, 2014), which is linked to better performance (Judge et al., 2001), 15 and greater visibility and normalization. 16 This study presents a unique contribution to research. Under a cultural perspective, we could 17 infer from participants’ narratives how Spanish and Ecuadorian LGB employees are differently 18 perceived in each country and also the role that the sociocultural context plays by shaping the 19 appropriateness of responses towards stigmatized sexual identities. This study, thus, shows that LGB 20 individuals indeed perceive that there were cultural factors playing a role in their experiences at work. 21 We strongly suggest future research to integrate their studies under this cultural angle that provides a 22 broader and contextualized understanding of how individuals live and interpret their experiences at 23 work. 24 This paper calls for research in this line to find effective measures in favor of inclusion at work and 25 against discrimination in any of its forms. 26 27 Conflict of interest 28 20 On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest. 1 2 References 3 Agencia Tributaria. (2018). La asignación a la Iglesia Católica en los informes de recaudación 4 [The assignment to the Catholic Church in the income reports]. Retrieved from 5 https://www.agenciatributaria.es/static_files/AEAT/Estudios/Estadisticas/Informes_Estadis 6 ticos/Informes_Anuales_de_Recaudacion_Tributaria/Ejercicio_2018/Nota1.pdf 7 Allen, T. D. (2013). The Work–Family Role Interface: A Synthesis of the Research from 8 Industrial and Organizational Psychology. In Irving B. Weiner, Neal W. Schmitt, Scott 9 Highhouse (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology, Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 10 (pp. 698-718). doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/2.1.3183.8086 11 Barton, B. (2010). “Abomination”-Life as a Bible Belt gay. Journal of Homosexuality, 57(4), 12 465–484. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00918361003608558 13 Boehm, S. A., Dwertmann, D. J., Kunze, F., Michaelis, B., Parks, K. M., & McDonald, D. P. 14 (2014). Expanding insights on the diversity climate–performance link: The role of 15 workgroup discrimination and group size. Human Resource Management, 53(3), 379-402. 16 doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21589 17 Borraz, M. (2018). Tu novia es "tu amiga especial" o la confusión del recepcionista: la homofobia 18 sutil que la Ley no combate [Your girlfriend is your ‘special friend’ or the receptionists’ 19 confusion: subtle homophobia that the Law does not tackle]. Eldiario.es. Retrieved from 20 https://www.eldiario.es/sociedad/novia-especial-reservar-matrimonio21 homofobia_0_738076520.html 22 Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas (2018). Barómetro de febrero 2018 [February 2018 23 Barometer]. Retrieved from http://datos.cis.es/pdf/Es3205mar_A.pdf 24 Clair, J. A., Beatty, J. E., & MacLean, T. L. (2005). Out of sight but not out of mind: Managing 25 invisible social identities in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 78-95. 26 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/20159096 27 21 Cortina, L. M. (2008). Unseen Injustice: Incivility as Modern Discrimination in Organizations. 1 The Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 55–75. doi: 2 https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2008.27745097 3 Cuddy, A. J. C., Wolf, E. B., Glick, P., Crotty, S., Chong, J., & Norton, M. I. (2015). Men as 4 cultural ideals: Cultural values moderate gender stereotype content. Journal of Personality 5 and Social Psychology, 109(4), 622–635. doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000027 6 Di Marco, D., Hoel, H., Arenas, A., & Munduate, L. (2018). Workplace incivility as modern 7 sexual prejudice. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33(12), 1978-2004. doi: 8 https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515621083 9 Di Marco, D., Arenas, A., Hoel, H., & Munduate, L. (in press). Living a double life and 10 experiencing modern sexual prejudice: the effect on Ecuadorian lesbian, gay and bisexual 11 workers’ well-being. In N. Nakamura & C. Loggie (Eds.), LGBT mental health: global 12 perspectives and experiences. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 13 Dovidio, J. F. (2001). On the nature of contemporary prejudice: The third wave. Journal of Social 14 Issues, 57(4), 829-849.doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00244 15 Ellemers, N. (2018). Gender Stereotypes. Annual Review of Psychology, 69(1), 275–298. doi: 16 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011719 17 European Commission. (2015). Discrimination in the EU in 2015. Special Eurobarometer 437. 18 Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/justice/fundamental19 rights/files/factsheet_eurobarometer_fundamental_rights_2015.pdf 20 Hinze, C. F. (2016). Catholic Social Thought and Work Justice. Theological Studies, 77(1), 19721 214. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0040563915620785 22 Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos. (2012). Primeras estadísticas oficiales sobre filiación 23 religiosa en el Ecuador [First official statistical data on religious affiliation in Ecuador]. 24 Retrieved from http://www.ecuadorencifras.gob.ec//wp25 content/descargas/Boletines/Religion/presentacion_religion.pdf 26 22 Instituto Nacional de Estadística. (2017). Mujeres y hombres en España [Women and men in 1 Spain]. Retrieved from 2 http://www.ine.es/ss/Satellite?L=es_ES&c=INEPublicacion_C&cid=1259924822888&p 3 =1254735110672&pagename=ProductosYServicios%2FPYSLayout¶m1=PYSDetal 4 leGratuitas 5 Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos. (2018). Atlas de Género [Gender Atlas]. Retrieved 6 from http://www.ecuadorencifras.gob.ec/documentos/web7 inec/Bibliotecas/Libros/Atlas_de_Genero_Final.pdf 8 International Test Commission [ITC]. (2005). Guidelines for Translating and Adapting Tests. 9 Retrieved from: https://www.intestcom.org/files/guideline_test_adaptation_2ed.pdf 10 Galeano, J. F. (2016). Is He a “Social Danger”?: The Franco Regime’s Judicial Prosecution of 11 Homosexuality in Málaga under the Ley de Vagos y Maleantes. Journal of the History of 12 Sexuality 25(1), 1-31. doi: https://doi.org/10.7560/jhs25101 13 Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: notes on the management of spoiled identity. Simon & Schuster. 14 Gómez, M., Barmettler, D., Cadena, M. R., Puente, D., Padilla, S., Santamaría, L., ... & García, 15 K. (2013). Estudio de caso sobre condiciones de vida, inclusión social y cumplimiento de 16 derechos humanos de la población LGBTI en el Ecuador [Case study on living conditions, 17 social inclusion, and compliance with human rights of the LGBTI population in Ecuador]. 18 Quito, Ecuador: Instituto Nacional de Estadísticas y Censos. Retrieved from: 19 https://www.ecuadorencifras.gob.ec/documentos/web20 inec/Estadisticas_Sociales/LGBTI/Analisis_situacion_LGBTI.pdf 21 Griffith, K. H., & Hebl, M. R. (2002). The disclosure dilemma for gay men and lesbians: "coming 22 out" at work. Journal of applied psychology, 87(6), 1191-1199. doi: 23 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.6.1191 24 Griffin, P. (1992). From hiding out to coming out: Empowering lesbian and gay educators. 25 Journal of Homosexuality, 22(3-4), 167-196. New York: Harrington Park Press. doi: 26 http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J082v22n03_07 27 23 Hambleton, R. K., Merenda, P., and Spielberger, C. (eds). (2005). Adapting Educational and 1 Psychological Tests for Cross-Cultural Assessment. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum 2 Publishers. doi: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410611758 3 Herrell, R. K. (1996). Sin, sickness, crime: Queer desire and the American state. Identities: 4 Global Studies in Culture and Power, 2(3), 273-300. doi: 5 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1070289X.1996.9962538 6 Jones, K. P., Peddie, C. I., Gilrane, V. L., King, E. B., & Gray, A. L. (2016). Not so subtle: A 7 meta-analytic investigation of the correlates of subtle and overt discrimination. Journal of 8 Management, 42(6), 1588-1613. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0149206313506466 9 Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Bono, J. E., & Patton, G. K. (2001). The job satisfaction–job 10 performance relationship: A qualitative and quantitative review. Psychological 11 bulletin, 127(3), 376. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.3.376 12 King, N. (2004a). Using interviews in qualitative research. En C. Cassel & G. Symon (Eds.), 13 Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research (pp. 11–22). London, 14 England: SAGE. 15 King, N. (2004b). Using templates in thematic analysis of text. In C. Cassel & G. Symon (Eds.), 16 Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research, (pp. 256270). London, 17 England: SAGE. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781446280119 18 Law n. 13. Modificación del Código Civil en materia de derecho a contraer matrimonio. 19 [Modification of the Civil Code in terms of the right of marriage]. Madrid, Spain, 8th July 20 2005 21 Law n. 15. Modificación del Código Civil y la Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil en materia de 22 separación y divorcio. [Modification of the Civil Code and the Law of Civil Procedure in 23 terms of divorce]. Madrid, Spain, 1st July 2005. 24 Mealy, M., Stephan, W. G., & Abalakina-Paap, M. (2006). Reverence for mothers in Ecuadorian 25 and Euro-American culture. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37(4), 465-484. doi: 26 https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022106288481 27