Sexual orientation stereotypes and job candidate screening: why gay is (mostly) OK

S e kens, Philippe e al.
A icle — Published Ve sion
Sexual o ien a ion s e eo ypes and job candida e
sc eening: why gay is (mos ly) OK
Jou nal o Popula ion Economics
P o ided in Coope a ion wi h:
Sp inge Na u e
Sugges ed Ci a ion: S e kens, Philippe e al. (2025) : Sexual o ien a ion s e eo ypes and job candida e
sc eening: why gay is (mos ly) OK, Jou nal o Popula ion Economics, ISSN 1432-1475, Sp inge ,
Be lin, Heidelbe g, Vol. 38, Iss. 1,
h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s00148-025-01071-w
This Ve sion is a ailable a :
h ps://hdl.handle.ne /10419/318426
S anda d-Nu zungsbedingungen:
Die Dokumen e au EconS o dü en zu eigenen wissenscha lichen
Zwecken und zum P i a geb auch gespeiche und kopie we den.
Sie dü en die Dokumen e nich ü ö en liche ode komme zielle
Zwecke e iel äl igen, ö en lich auss ellen, ö en lich zugänglich
machen, e eiben ode ande wei ig nu zen.
So e n die Ve asse die Dokumen e un e Open-Con en -Lizenzen
(insbesonde e CC-Lizenzen) zu Ve ügung ges ell haben soll en,
gel en abweichend on diesen Nu zungsbedingungen die in de do
genann en Lizenz gewäh en Nu zungs ech e.
Te ms o use:
Documen s in EconS o may be sa ed and copied o you pe sonal
and schola ly pu poses.
You a e no o copy documen s o public o comme cial pu poses, o
exhibi he documen s publicly, o make hem publicly a ailable on he
in e ne , o o dis ibu e o o he wise use he documen s in public.
I he documen s ha e been made a ailable unde an Open Con en
Licence (especially C ea i e Commons Licences), you may exe cise
u he usage igh s as speci ied in he indica ed licence.
h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/
Vol.:(0123456789)
Jou nal o Popula ion Economics (2025) 38:16
h ps://doi.o g/10.1007/s00148-025-01071-w
ORIGINAL PAPER
Sexual o ien a ion s e eo ypes andjob candida e
sc eening: why gay is(mos ly) OK
PhilippeS e kens1 · AxanaDalle1 · JoeyWuy s1 · InesPauwels1·
HellenDu inck1· S ijnBae 1,2,3,4,5
Recei ed: 4 May 2023 / Accep ed: 2 Janua y 2025
© The Au ho (s) 2025
Abs ac
To explain he con lic ing indings on hi ing disc imina ion agains applican s in a
same-sex ma iage, we explo e he pe cep ual d i e s behind employe s’ e alua-
ions. The e o e, we conduc a igne e expe imen among ec ui e s, o which we
es sys ema ically selec ed s e eo ypes om ea lie s udies. We ind causal e idence
o dis inc e ec s o same-sex ma iage on candida e pe cep ions and in e iew
p obabili ies. In pa icula , in e iew p obabili ies a e posi i ely (nega i ely) asso-
cia ed wi h he s e eo ype o women (men) ma ied o a same-sex pa ne as being
mo e (less) pleasan o wo k wi h compa ed o candida es in a di e en -sex ma -
iage. In addi ion, in e iew chances a e nega i ely associa ed wi h he s e eo ype o
candida es in a same-sex ma iage as being mo e ou spoken. Fu he mo e, ou da a
align well wi h he idea o a concen a ed disc imina ion accoun , whe eby a mino -
i y o employe s who hold nega i e a i udes owa ds indi iduals in same-sex ma -
iages a e esponsible o mos ins ances o hi ing disc imina ion.
Keywo ds Sexual o ien a ion· Signalling heo y· S a is ical disc imina ion· Tas e-
based disc imina ion· Hi ing expe imen
JEL Classi ica ion C38 Classi ica ion Me hods, Clus e analysis, P incipal
componen s and ac o models· J12 Ma iage, Ma i al dissolu ion, Family s uc u e
and domes ic abuse· J71 Disc imina ion
1 In oduc ion
Since he i s empi ical in es iga ion o sexual o ien a ion–based disc imina ion in
economics (Badge 1995), he socioeconomic ou comes o same-sex couples ha e,
in gene al, imp o ed globally (Badge e al.2021; D ydakis 2021; OECD 2020).
Responsible edi o : Al onso Flo es-Lagunes
Ex ended au ho in o ma ion a ailable on he las page o he a icle
P.S e kens e al.
16 Page 2 o 40
The scien i ic in es iga ion o he labou ma ke success o non-he e osexual indi-
iduals has b anched in o bo h a supply-side (Bu n and Ma ell 2020) and a demand-
side esea ch adi ion (Bu n 2018, 2020). Gi en ha di e ences in labou ma ke
ou comes be ween sexual majo i y and mino i y indi iduals appea nowadays o be
mainly d i en by he demand side o he labou ma ke (F ic 2017), i is necessa y o
u he in es iga e labou ma ke disc imina ion.
As e idenced in ea lie esea ch, p edominan ly cen ed a ound gay men and les-
bian women, sexual mino i ies a e suscep ible o hi ing disc imina ion al eady in he
ea lies s ages o he ec ui men p ocess. Indeed, bo h ield (Hebl e al.2002; D y-
dakis 2009, 2015; Tilcsik 2011; Hamma s ed e al.2015; Jepsen and Jepsen 2015;
Lau en and Mihoubi 2017; Pa acchini e al. 2015) and labo a o y s udies (Ho a h
and Ryan 2003; Single a y and Hebl 2009; E e ly e al 2016) ha e ound e idence
o such disc imina o y ea men in he applica ion p ocess. Fo example, he i s
la ge-scale co espondence expe imen on disc imina ion agains openly gay men
ac oss he Uni ed S a es indica ed ha gay men we e 40% less likely o be o e ed a
job in e iew compa ed o hei he e osexual coun e pa (Tilcsik 2011). A labo a-
o y s udy among 236 p edomina ely Whi e pa icipan s in he Uni ed S a es demon-
s a ed a mo e nuanced image as gay men and lesbian women we e e alua ed mo e
nega i ely han he e osexual men, bu mo e posi i ely han he e osexual women
(Ho a h and Ryan 2003). Howe e , a subs an ial numbe o s udies, again in bo h
ield (Bailey e  al. 2013; Bae 2014; Pa acchini e  al. 2015; Acquis i and Fong
2020) and lab se ings (Nadle and Ku ahl 2014; Niedlich and S e ens 2015; Bae
2018a; Niedlich e al.2022), ha e ound no such e idence. In gene al, wo me a-
analysis on his mixed e idence om ield expe imen s in OECD coun ies conclude
ha gay and lesbian job candida es ecei e on a e age 35 o 40 pe cen ewe posi-
i e eac ions han he e osexual candida es (Flage 2020; Lippens e al.2023). How-
e e , i mus be no ed ha his unequal ea men a ies be ween mul iple con ex ual
ac o s such as he occupa ional equi emen s, he gende o he applican , and he
coun y o employmen . Mo e conc e ely, he le el o disc imina ion seems o be
highe o gay men compa ed o lesbian women, in low-skilled ( e sus high-skilled)
occupa ions, and in Eu opean coun ies compa ed o he Uni ed S a es. In he s udy
o sexual mino i ies, bisexual indi iduals a e cu en ly unde ep esen ed because
i is unclea whe he hey a e consis en ly pe cei ed o ‘ ead’ as sexual mino i-
ies in he labou ma ke , especially when hey ha e di e en -sex pa ne s (Badge
e al.2024). Ne e heless, a igne e expe imen by A ena and colleagues (2017)
shows ha employe s a ou gay and lesbian indi iduals o e bisexual ones. Simi-
la ly, Pa nell and colleagues (2012) ind ha bisexual wo ke s sys ema ically epo
mo e ca ee ba ie s han hei gay and lesbian coun e pa s.
To ackle po en ial hi ing disc imina ion, i is c ucial o de elop insigh s in o he
s e eo ypes abou candida es in same-sex ela ionships ha d i e po en ial di e -
ences in hei hi ing p obabili ies compa ed o he e osexual candida es (F ic 2017).
The empi ical in es iga ion o hese d i ing s e eo ypes is challenging and neces-
si a es an in-dep h analysis o h ee easons. Fi s , ou own e iew o he mul idis-
ciplina y pee - e iewed li e a u e (Appendix Table1) yielded no less han 70 cha -
ac e is ics associa ed wi h homosexuali y—a sexual o ien a ion ea u ing same-sex
pa ne s ha has been s udied ho oughly. The shee numbe o such cha ac e is ics
Sexual o ien a ion s e eo ypes andjob candida e sc eening:… Page 3 o 40 16
is as onishing and aises ques ions ega ding (1) he a ibu ed ele ance o each
cha ac e is ic in con empo a y hi ing p ocesses and (2) he complex de ailed image
(some) employe s migh ha e o candida es in same-sex ma iages. Second, hus a
we ha e mos ly discussed indi iduals in same-sex ma iages as one homogenous
g oup. Howe e , ea ing di e se g oups o sexual mino i ies as one homogenous
g oup could lead o inco ec conclusions abou hei labou ma ke ou comes (Mize
2016). Fo ins ance, esea che s ha e ound he e ogenei y in bo h he hi ing chances
and a ibu es associa ed wi h gay men and lesbian women. Di e en pa e ns o
pe cep ions could be in play when explaining di e ences in he hi ing p obabili ies
o indi iduals in same-sex ma iages and, consequen ly, a ‘one size i s all o ma ’
o policy-making migh be undesi able when suppo ing sexual mino i ies. Thi d,
in addi ion o he la ge numbe o pe cep ions and he po en ial di e ences be ween
men and women in same-sex ela ionships, he pe cep ion puzzle is u he com-
plica ed by he mixed alence o pe cep ions. In ac , bo h posi i e and nega i e
ai s ha e been associa ed wi h homosexuali y (see Appendix Table1). The la e
may sugges ha candida es’ hi ing p obabili ies migh be he esul o an in e play
be ween bo h posi i e and nega i e candida e pe cep ions associa ed wi h sexual
o ien a ions.
Gi en he cu en s a e o he li e a u e, ins ead o simply p o iding ye ano he
da a poin on he ins ances o hi ing disc imina ion agains sexual mino i ies,
esea ch calls o a deepe unde s anding o he phenomenon—and i s mixed ind-
ings (Neuma k 2018). Th ough a igne e expe imen among eal-li e ec ui e s,
equally dis ibu ed be ween he Uni ed Kingdom and he Uni ed S a es, we con ib-
u e o he de elopmen o such an unde s anding by answe ing ou esea ch ques-
ions. Fi s , we eply o he ques ion ‘Wha a e he a e age ea men e ec s o same-
sex ma iage o (1) men and (2) women on hei hi ing p obabili y?’ Second and
mos impo an ly, we ques ion ‘Wha a e he a e age ea men e ec s o a same-
sex ma iages o (1) men and (2) women on candida e pe cep ions?’ and ‘Wha
a e he indi ec associa ions be ween same-sex ela ions and hi ing p obabili y ia
candida e pe cep ions?’ o gain insigh s in he d i ing s e eo ypes. Fou h and inal,
we answe he ques ion ‘Fo which (i) candida e, (ii) job, and (iii) ec ui e a e he
e ec s o a same-sex ma iages on hi ing p obabili y he e ogeneous?’.
By doing his, we con ibu e o he li e a u e in h ee ways. Fi s and o emos ,
we conduc an empi ical and causal es on he s e eo yping o men and women in
same-sex ma iages wi hin one amewo k. Mo eo e , as a p e equisi e o accom-
plishing his, we addi ionally con ibu e o he li e a u e by e iewing and s uc u -
ing he li e a u e on po en ial s e eo ypes. As a second b oade con ibu ion, we go
beyond a adi ional in es iga ion o mode a o s, i.e. a iables ha a ec he s eng h
o he di ec ion o he ela ionship be ween an independen a iable and a dependen
a iable (Hayes 2017). In addi ion o es ing he candida e, job, and ec ui e -side
a iables ha s eng hen o a enua e disc imina ion, we explo e he idea o a con-
cen a ed disc imina ion accoun , whe eby a mino i y o employe s, who p i a ely
hold nega i e a i udes owa ds sexual mino i ies, a e esponsible o mos ins ances
o hi ing disc imina ion. A hi d and inal con ibu ion lies in he da a collec ion ha
ook place in wo simila ye di e en Anglo-Saxon coun ies (i.e. he Uni ed King-
dom and he Uni ed S a es) which allows us o explo e possible cul u ally sensi i e
P.S e kens e al.
16 Page 4 o 40
di e ences in he hi eabili y o non-he e osexual candida es. Fo example, Adam-
cyzk and Pi (2009) disco e ed c oss-na ional a ia ion in he public opinion abou
homosexuali y which could explain s onge penal ies in some coun ies.
2 Theo y
As desc ibed in he p e ious sec ion, mixed esul s we e ound in he li e a u e
ega ding he hi ing chances o non-he e osexual candida es. Howe e , as wo me a-
analyses indica e an o e all nega i e impac o none-he e osexual o ien a ions on
he candida e’s hi ing p obabili y (Flage 2020; Lippens e al.2023), we hypo hesise
ha o bo h men and women, same-sex ma iages will nega i ely a ec he candi-
da e’s hi ing chances.
H1: Same-sex ma iages ha e a nega i e e ec on hi ing p obabili ies o bo h
men and women.
Nex , om a heo e ical pe spec i e, he wo seminal (economic) heo ies o
as e-based (Becke 1957) and le els-based s a is ical disc imina ion (Phelps 1972;
A ow 1973) can explain hi ing disc imina ion agains indi iduals in a non-he e -
osexual ma iage.1 Fi s , acco ding o he heo y o as e-based disc imina ion,
employe s may be p ejudiced agains sexual mino i ies and migh , he e o e, expec
disu ili y in collabo a ion wi h such candida es hemsel es o om colleagues and
clien s (Bod a sson and Pa idge 2001). Consequen ly, p ejudiced employe s a e,
o some deg ee, willing o make sac i ices o a oid collabo a ion wi h employees.
Speci ically, hey would a he hi e a less compe en he e osexual candida e han a
skilled candida e in a same-sex ma iage. Based on he heo y o as e-based dis-
c imina ion, we hypo hesise ha sexual o ien a ions and hi ing p obabili ies a e neg-
a i ely and indi ec ly associa ed ia employe s’ p ejudices ega ding collabo a ions
be ween sexual mino i y candida es and hemsel es, colleagues, and/o clien s. By
doing so, we es candida e pe cep ions as po en ial media o s (Hayes 2017): a i-
ables ha explain he mechanism h ough which independen a iables (i.e. same-
sex ma iage) in luences a dependen a iable (i.e. hi ing p obabili ies).
H2A: Same-sex ma iages ha e a nega i e e ec on he employe ’s p ejudices
ega ding collabo a ions.
1 No e ha mul iple biases om o he academic disciplines align o some ex end wi h as e-based o
s a is ical disc imina ion. On he one hand, biases such as he in-g oup and ou -g oup bias ely on he
pe sonal p e e ences o ce ain g oups (Be and and Du lo 2017) which is also he s a ing poin o
as e-based disc imina ion. On he o he hand, some biases ha e mo e commonali ies wi h s a is ical
based disc imina ion such as he halo-e ec o example as his bias occu s when one wan s o a oid
unce ain y based on (in)accu a e belie s (Bello 2004). Ne e heless, ou s udy ocuses on he wo heo-
ies o hi ing disc imina ion ha a e oo ed in he economic amewo k: as e based and s a is ical based
disc imina ion (Neuma k 2018).

Sexual o ien a ion s e eo ypes andjob candida e sc eening:… Page 5 o 40 16
H2B: Same-sex ma iages a e nega i ely and indi ec ly associa ed wi h hi ing
p obabili ies h ough p ejudices ega ding collabo a ions.
Second, he heo y o le els-based s a is ical disc imina ion p o ides a mo e
a ional explana ion o disc imina ion agains candida es in same-sex ma iages.
The s a ing poin o his heo y is ha employmen decisions a e made unde unce -
ain y. A e all, employe s do no possess pe ec in o ma ion on indi idual candi-
da es. To aid decision-making unde unce ain y, employe s apply hei gene al p o-
duc i i y belie s o candida es in same-sex ela ionships as a g oup o he indi idual
candida e. Nega i e p oduc i i y belie s conce ning mino i y g oups hen c ea e
ad an ages o he e osexual candida es and his, he e o e, esul s in di e en hi -
ing p obabili ies o indi idual candida es om bo h g oups. Mo eo e , hese belie s
need no necessa ily ma ch eali y o lead o unequal ea men acco ding o he
heo y o inaccu a e s a is ical disc imina ion (Boh en e al.2019). Following he
heo y o le els-based s a is ical disc imina ion, we hypo hesise ha same-sex ma -
iages and hi ing p obabili ies a e nega i ely and indi ec ly associa ed ia employ-
e s’ p oduc i i y belie s abou candida es.2
H3A: Same-sex ma iages ha e a nega i e e ec on he employe ’s p oduc i i y
belie s abou candida es.
H3B: Same-sex ma iages a e nega i ely and indi ec ly associa ed wi h hi ing
p obabili ies h ough p oduc i i y belie s.
Bo h he heo ies o as e-based and le els-based s a is ical disc imina ion, o
some ex en , ely on explaining hi ing disc imina ion h ough he s e eo ypes which
employe s ela e o he candida e’s ela ionship s a us. Speci ically, s e eo ypes
ega d a socially sha ed se o (un)conscious and (in)accu a e belie s abou cha -
ac e is ics o membe s o a social g oup such as sexual mino i ies (Judd and Pa k
1993; Banaji 2002). Employe s could use such s e eo ypes as cogni i e sho cu s in
selec ion decisions since hey simpli y and jus i y social eali y (Fiske 1998). Taken
oge he , disc imina ion, p ejudice, and s e eo ypes should be in e p e ed as ela ed
bu dis inc concep s (Fiske 1998). Mo e conc e ely s e eo ypes ep esen belie s
abou ce ain cha ac e is ics o g oup membe s (i.e. he cogni i e componen ), p ej-
udice e lec s he emo ional eac ion o hose s e eo ypes (i.e. he a ec i e compo-
nen ), and disc imina ion e e s o ac ions based on hose s e eo ypes (i.e. he beha -
iou al componen ). Indeed, many expe imen s indica e ha s e eo yping may a ec
hi ing decisions, and subsequen ly, esul in hi ing disc imina ion agains membe s
o di e en social g oups (Van Belle e al.2018; S e kens e al.2021; Van Bo m
e al.2021).
2 As ema ked by one o he e iewe s, s e eo ypes, and he e o e s a is ical disc imina ion, could a y
a he in e sec ion o gende and sexual o ien a ion. This could also explain he disad an age o gay men
compa ed o lesbian women (Flage 2020).
P.S e kens e al.
16 Page 6 o 40
3 Da a
To make hese con ibu ions, we conduc ed a su ey as a p e-s udy which was
employed o se up a igne e expe imen a a la e s age. Vigne e s udies a e con-
olled expe imen s ha in eg a e expe imen al manipula ions in a su ey se -up.
They a e commonly employed o analyse human decision-making in he con ex o
hi ing decisions (Van Belle e al.2018; S e kens e al.2021; Van Bo m e al.2021).
In such expe imen s, pa icipan s e alua e ic i ious candida e p o iles ( igne es)
ha a y ac oss se e al cha ac e is ics ( igne e dimensions, o ins ance ‘job- ele-
an expe ience’) on a p ede e mined numbe o le els ( igne e le els, o ins ance,
‘yes, no’).
Vigne e expe imen s could be a ou ed o e adminis a i e da a when s udy-
ing hi ing disc imina ion because hey enable a causal in e p e a ion o candida e
manipula ions—whe eas adminis a i e wo ke da a could a y by con ounding
cha ac e is ics. Mo eo e , compa ed o co espondence expe imen s— he golden
s anda d o measu ing hi ing disc imina ion (Neuma k 2018)— igne es acili a e
he su eying o pa icipan s’ hough p ocesses behind decisions. Hence, igne es
a e mo e sui able o es ing explana ions o hi ing disc imina ion.
In con as o p io con olled expe imen s on hi ing disc imina ion agains
sexual mino i y candida es, which p ima ily ea u ed s uden popula ions (Pichle
e al.2010; Binde and Wa d 2016; Bae 2018a), ou s udy complemen s a small
body o con olled expe imen s among genuine HR p o essionals. Compa ed o he
wo igne e expe imen s ea u ing HR p o essionals (Van Hoye and Lie ens 2003;
Ba on 2009), ou expe imen is inno a i e because we no only measu e hi eabili y
bu also gauge he candida e pe cep ions ela ed o candida es in a same-sex ma -
iage. Al hough con olled expe imen s allow esea che s o isola e a iables and
elabo a ely su ey hei pa icipan s, hey a e pa icula ly suscep ible o social desi -
abili y bias. Th oughou Sec ion3, we discuss measu es aken o limi such bias
such as mul iple manipula ions (SubSec ion3.2) and he adminis a ion o a social
desi abili y scale (SubSec ion3.4). Finally, we discuss his limi a ion in Sec ion5.
3.1 P e‑s udy
To in es iga e he s e eo yping unc ion o same-sex ma iages and he explana-
o y po en ial o s e eo ypes o hi ing p obabili ies, we e iewed he li e a u e o
po en ial s e eo ypes emi ed by gay job candida es.3 Mo e conc e ely, we sea ched
he Web o Science in e na ional da abase o ele an s udies published in eco-
nomic, social, psychological, o in e disciplina y jou nals be ween 1965 and 2021.
The keywo ds used included a ious synonyms and al e na i e combina ions o he
3 The p e-s udy examines pe cep ions ega ding gay men and lesbian women since he igne e expe i-
men was ini ially a ge ed a gay and he e osexual candida es. Howe e , a e iewe o he ini ial e sion
o he manusc ip co ec ly no ed ha ou igne e expe imen deals a he wi h same-sex couples (and,
hus, by ex ension also o he sexual mino i ies) by which he cong uence be ween he p e-s udy and he
igne e expe imen is no pe ec .
Sexual o ien a ion s e eo ypes andjob candida e sc eening:… Page 7 o 40 16
ollowing sea ch e m: gay lesbian s igma (e.g. signals homosexuali y). Based on
he e e ences in and o he s udies ound, addi ional s udies we e selec ed. In o al,
we iden i ied 70 cha ac e is ics (see Appendix Table1). Howe e , p esen ing each
o hese candida e pe cep ions as i ems o ec ui e s would ha e pu un easonable
cogni i e demands on pa icipan s. As Be hlehem and Bi ignandi (2012) explain,
esea ch equi ing excessi e cogni i e e o jeopa dises bo h he esponse a e
and da a quali y due o esponden s’ sa is icing endencies (i.e. he ‘less a en i e
answe ing o i ems’).
Consequen ly, we conduc ed a p e-s udy in which we applied i em educ ion ech-
niques o il e ou he s e eo ypes ha i h ee c i e ia: applicabili y, ele ance o
he wo k con ex , and limi ed o e lap. Fi s , when e iewing he li e a u e, we aced
back s udies as ea ly as 1965 bu limi ed ou sel es o he in es iga ion o hose s e-
eo ypes applicable o homosexuali y as pe cei ed by con empo a y ec ui e s. Sec-
ond, al hough he iden i ied s e eo ypes span a b oad ange o cha ac e is ics, no all
o hese cha ac e is ics a e necessa ily ele an o he wo k con ex . Fo example,
pa icipa ing ec ui e s indica ed ha non-con o mism and he need o secu i y a e
ai ly i ele an . Thi d, we e ained hose s e eo ypes ha showed a limi ed o e lap
wi h one ano he because esea ch on social cogni ion has e idenced ha he e a e
dimensions unde lying s e eo ypes o homosexuali y (Fiske e al.2007). The e o e,
we excluded passi eness as a s e eo ype as we al eady ook he opposi e s e eo ype,
namely asse i eness, in o accoun .
3.1.1 Da a collec ion
We conduc ed ou p e-s udy in he o m o an online su ey and ollowed an
app oach compa able o he Sexual P ejudice Scale (Chonody 2013). Employing he
se ices o he online panel se ice P oli ic, 50 B i ish and 50 Ame ican indi idu-
als expe ienced in making ec ui men decisions (he ea e e e ed o as ec ui -
e s) comple ed ou p e-s udy’s ou se s o ques ions.4 In he i s h ee sepa a ed
ba e ies, ec ui e s indica ed he deg ee o which hey ag eed wi h 70 s a emen s
conce ning he cha ac e is ics o (1) he a e age gay man, (2) he a e age lesbian
woman, and (3) he ele ance o each cha ac e is ic o a hi ing decision. Fo exam-
ple, app oachabili y, eccen ici y, g oup o ien a ion, hones y, in elligence, and social
compe ence we e assessed— he ull lis is p esen ed in Appendix Table1—employ-
ing a 6-poin esponse scale, anging om s ongly disag ee (sco e 1) o s ongly
ag ee (sco e 6).5 The ou h ba e y was used o egis e he pa icipan ’s socio-
demog aphics: gende (man, woman, non-bina y o hi d gende , p e e no o say);
age in yea s (numbe s); na ionali y (B i ish, Ame ican, o he ); le el o educa ion (no
4 By using P oli ic, we could each mo i a ed and sui able pa icipan s based on he cha ac e is ics hey
en e ed when egis e ing on his pla o m. In his case, we only in i ed pa icipan s wi h he Ame ican
o B i ish na ionali y who indica ed ha hey ha e expe ience wi h hi ing decisions (i.e. hey ha e been
esponsible o hi ing job candida es).
5 Ou 6-poin esponse scale did no con ain a neu al op ion, hus o cing esponden s o exp ess (dis)
ag eemen wi h s a emen s. This is common p ac ice o a oid social desi abili y bias when measu ing
socially-sensi i e a i udes (Chonody 2013).
P.S e kens e al.
16 Page 8 o 40
diploma, high school, bachelo , mas e s, PhD); and sexual o ien a ion (lesbian, gay,
bisexual, he e osexual, o he , p e e no o say).
3.1.2 S e eo ype elimina ion p ocedu e
The i em educ ion p ocess consis ed o ou subsequen phases— he esul s o
which a e p esen ed in he ou h column o Appendix Table1. In he i s phase,
we s ic ly il e ed ou s e eo ypes based on desc ip i es. Mo e conc e ely, i ems ha
we e, on a e age, pe cei ed by ec ui e s as i ele an o a hi ing decision o inap-
plicable o gay men o lesbian women (i.e. an a e age o below 3) we e d opped.6
Hence, we elimina ed 23 i ems. In his s ep, we d opped a u he ou i ems because
hey we e close app oxima ions o o e all hi eabili y and, he e o e, o he hi ing
decision o be made in he expe imen ( o example ‘e ec i e pe o mance o job-
ela ed asks’).
Nex , he second phase o he elimina ion p ocedu e in ol ed a e-examina ion
o he i em pool ollowing ac o analyses on he e alua ions o s e eo ypes o gay
men and lesbian women sepa a ely. He e, we d opped wo i ems because hey did
no i he ac o s uc u es eme ging o ei he gay men o lesbian women (i.e. ‘non-
con o mis ’ had a ac o loading lowe han he conse a i e h eshold o 0.35 which
is used o de e mine s a is ically meaning ul ac o s; Com ey & Lee 1992) o we e
empi ical opposi es o o he s e eo ypes (i.e. ‘passi e’ was d opped in exchange o
‘asse i e’).
In he hi d phase o he elimina ions, we discussed eme ging hemes wi hin
he s e eo ype ac o s om he p e ious s ep (‘ ac o in e p e a ion’) and based he
selec ion on i em in e p e a ions and hei unde lying co ela ions. Speci ically, 17
o iginal i ems we e summa ised in i e newly gene a ed i ems (‘empa hy’, ‘c ea i -
i y’, ‘lo ing and so ’, ‘sel -awa eness’, and ‘emo ionali y’) ha i he ac o s uc-
u es. Fu he mo e, a e a e-examina ion o he co ela ion ma ixes, we d opped
ano he ou i ems because hey showed a subs an ial o e lap wi h o he s e eo ypes
and had limi ed ele ance o he hi ing decision (a e age below 3.250).
In he ou h and inal phase, he ace alidi y o each indi idual i em was sc u i-
nised. Consequen ly, we excluded i e mo e i ems because, om expe iences in he
ield, hese candida e cha ac e is ics we e less likely o be gauged om he ea lie
phases o esume sc eening (e.g. how indi idualis ic a candida e is).
The emaining 20 i ems we e subjec ed o he e alua ion o labou ma ke
expe s. Based on hei inpu ega ding heal h s igma, we ag eed on a educ ion o
he 70 ini ial i ems o he ollowing 21 po en ial s e eo ypes o being a gay o lesbian
job candida e: social skills, asse i eness, ou spokenness, dominance, independence,
compe i i eness, leade ship abili ies, eam o ien a ion, empa hy, lo ing- and so -
ness o pe sonali y, emo ional sensi i i y, nea ness, in elligence, open-mindedness,
6 Ne e heless, we acknowledge ha some o hese i ems migh s ill be ele an in p ac ice. Pa icipa ing
ec ui e s may ag ee less s ongly wi h ce ain s a emen s in ou p e-s udy because hey a e awa e ha
his could indica e ec ui men disc imina ion which is p ohibi ed by law.
Sexual o ien a ion s e eo ypes andjob candida e sc eening:… Page 15 o 40 16
Thi d, and cen al o ou design, we e he 21 s a emen s measu ing candida e
pe cep ions. In his phase o he expe imen s, we implemen ed ou sys ema ically-
selec ed lis o i ems om he p e-s udy (SubSec ion3.1) o collec causal e idence
o he s e eo yping unc ion o candida es’ sexual o ien a ion du ing he hi ing p o-
cess. Based on he heo y o le els-based s a is ical disc imina ion, each o hese
po en ial s e eo ypes migh be (pa o ) he explana ion o hi ing disc imina ion
agains candida es in a same-sex couple.
3.5.4 Pos ‑expe imen al ques ionnai e
In a inal s ep, ec ui e s comple ed a pos -expe imen al ques ionnai e which
is epo ed a he o he Appendix. We used he da a collec ed ia hese i ems o
explo e ec ui e -side he e ogenei y o hi ing disc imina ion and he execu ion o
obus ness checks.
Socio-demog aphic a iables su eyed we e gende (man, woman, non-bina y/
hi d gende , p e e no o say); age in yea , educa ional deg ee (p ima y, lowe sec-
onda y, highe seconda y, bachelo s, mas e s, PhD), and sexual o ien a ion (he e o-
sexual, lesbian, gay, bisexual, o he , p e e no o say). Subsequen ly, we su eyed
ec ui e s’ p o essional expe iences, namely hi ing enu e (less han 1 yea , 1 o
5yea s, mo e han 5yea s) and equency (none, be ween 1 and 5 imes pe yea ,
mo e han 5 imes pe yea ).14
Nex , we inco po a ed wo measu es o he ec ui e s’ expe iences wi h sexual
mino i y candida es. As such, we adminis e ed he Wes and Hews one (2012) scale
o con ac wi h gay people. This scale con ained ou i ems (α = 0.888) sco ed on
a 7-poin Like scale om no con ac a all o e y equen con ac (unde non-
COVID ci cums ances). Each o hese i ems e e ed o di e en con ex s (a school/
wo k, daily supe icial social con ac , in ima e social si ua ions, all so s o social
si ua ions) in which pa icipan s encoun e ed gay indi iduals. Subsequen ly, we
a e aged pa icipan s’ sco es in o a single scale sco e, anging om one o se en.
Howe e , we no only measu ed he equency o con ac wi h gay people bu
also he ec ui e s’ p i a e a i udes, employing he Mode n Homonega i i y Scale
(MHS), de eloped by Mo ison and colleagues (1999). This alida ed scale meas-
u es he co e nega i e a i udes o pa icipan s owa ds gay indi iduals by s a e-
men s as ‘Gay indi iduals seem o ocus on he ways in which hey di e om
he e osexual indi iduals and igno e he ways in which hey a e he same’ o exam-
ple. As such, we asked pa icipan s o which deg ee hey ag eed wi h each o he
scale’s 12 i ems (α = 0.948) on a 5-poin Like scale. We me ged he indi idual i em
esponses in o an a e age scale sco e, whe eby a highe sco e indica ed a s onge
endo semen o mode n homonega i e a i udes (McCu cheon and Mo ison 2015).
Be ween hese i ems, we implemen ed an addi ional a en ion check, asking he pa -
icipan s o indica e he op ion ‘s ongly ag ee’ (SubSec ion3.4).
14 In hindsigh , i would also ha e made sense o su ey he poli ical a ilia ion and speci ic job o he
pa icipan as, acco ding o an anonymous e iewe , esponden s on P oli ic end o be mo e libe al-
minded and sel -employed which could skew he esul s.

P.S e kens e al.
16 Page 16 o 40
Ano he addi ion o ou pos -expe imen al ques ionnai e was Reynolds’ (1982)
sho ened Ma lowe–C owne Social Desi abili y Scale, which we used o measu e
he pa icipan ’s socially desi able esponse endencies. Fo each o he 13 i ems
(α = 0.790) exp essing beha iou ha is ei he cul u ally app o ed o sanc ioned
(e.g. ‘I some imes y o ge e en a he han o gi e’), we asked pa icipan s o
indica e whe he he s a emen s we e applicable o hem ( ue, alse). This scale
is implemen ed and alida ed ac oss di e en con ex s (Be e as e al.2002; Van
Bo m and Bae 2018). I s o al sco e is calcula ed as he (s anda dised) sum o all
s a emen s indica ed as ue.
The inal scale we adminis e ed o he ec ui e s measu ed hei le el o isk a e -
sion as migh ac as a d i e o labou ma ke disc imina ion agains sexual mino -
i y candida es. Fo example, he s udy o Bae (2018a) suppo s his as gay men
we e less likely o be hi ed when he employe s we e mo e isk-a e se. We imple-
men ed Bae ’s adap a ion o he Domain-Speci ic Risk-Taking Scale (Blais and
Webe 2006) which con ained six di e en i ems (α = 0.771), each desc ibing a p o-
essional isk (e.g. ‘s a ing a new ca ee in you mid- hi ies’). I ems we e a ed
o he likelihood hey would engage in his beha iou (1, ex emely unlikely; 7,
ex emely likely). The weigh ed a e age o all i em sco es esul ed in a global isk-
aking sco e.15
3.6 Da a desc ip ion
Because o he andom alloca ion o ou igne e decks and ic i ious acancies, we
expec ed low co ela ions be ween he ic i ious candida es’ sexual o ien a ion, job,
and ec ui e a iables. The s a is ically insigni ican - es s and chi-squa ed es s
p esen ed in Table2 below con i m he success o ou expe imen al se up. Mo eo-
e , he D-e iciency algo i hm’s success is also demons a ed by he low co ela ion
be ween candida e dimensions (maximum 0.093).
The ec ui e cha ac e is ics panel om Table 2 u he desc ibes he sample’s
composi ion. On a e age, ec ui e s we e 44 yea s old. They iden i ied hemsel es
as men (50.0%), women (49.0%), o o he gende iden i ies (1.0%). The majo i y o
he ec ui e s conside ed hemsel es he e osexual (88.9%). O he di e en le els o
educa ion, bachelo ’s deg ees (47.0%) we e he mos common. Pa icipan s possessed
conside able enu e in making hi ing decisions. In his s udy, 48.3% o he sample
epo ed ha ing mo e han 5yea s o expe ience. No ably, 49.5% o he ec ui e s did
no e alua e any candida es in he las yea — his subs an ial sha e migh be explained
by hi ing eezes ini ia ed because o he COVID-pandemic (Campello e al.2020).
Fu he mo e, ou desc ip i e s a is ics sugges ha he a e age pa icipan had—a
leas —occasional con ac wi h gay indi iduals (a e age 3.680, maximum 7) and ha -
bou ed non-nega i e a i udes owa ds hem (MHS a e age 2.204, maximum 5).
Ou sample was compa able o he 394,644 US and UK HR manage s who pa ic-
ipa ed espec i ely in he Ame ican Communi y Su ey (Census Bu eau 2022) and
15 No e ha we a e measu ing—ins ead o manipula ing— ec ui e cha ac e is ics. Consequen ly, in e -
ences based on he e ogenei y analyses wi h ec ui e cha ac e is ics a e non-causal.
Sexual o ien a ion s e eo ypes andjob candida e sc eening:… Page 17 o 40 16
Table 2 Desc ip ion o he pa icipa ing ec ui e s by expe imen al condi ion
To es he independence be ween he pa icipan cha ac e is ic and he expe imen al condi ion, a chi-squa e (indica o a iable) o K uskal–Wallis (con inuous a iable)
es is conduc ed
P opo ion (indica o a iables) o mean (con inuous a iables) Independence
es (p- alue)
Full sample Expe imen al condi ion
Man in di e en -sex
ma iage
Woman in di e en -
sex ma iage
Man in same-sex
ma iage
Woman in same-sex
ma iage
Woman 49.0% 50.4% 47.2% 46.6% 52.6% 0.369
No he e osexual 11.1% 11.3% 11.7% 10.8% 10.0% 0.982
Age 44.156 44.261 44.108 44.063 44.148 1.000
No e ia y educa ion 25.5% 24.9% 23.9% 28.0% 27.4% 0.530
Bachelo ’s deg ee 47.0% 47.7% 47.5% 47.0% 44.8% 0.919
Mas e ’s deg ee 22.8% 23.4% 23.2% 20.5% 23.0% 0.920
B i ish 49.5% 49.0% 50.5% 51.1% 46.7% 0.697
Hi ed people in he pas yea 50.5% 49.8% 50.0% 48.5% 48.9% 0.974
Hi ing expe ience o mo e han 5yea s 48.3% 48.1% 48.8% 48.5% 47.4% 0.985
Con ac wi h gay people (s anda dised) 0.000 − 0.050 0.001 0.079 0.015 0.449
Homonega i i y (s anda dised) 0.000 0.011 0.004 0.004 − 0.034 0.852
Social desi abili y (s anda dised) 0.000 0.022 0.019 − 0.013 − 0.070 0.786
Risk a e sion (s anda dised) 0.000 0.006 − 0.023 0.046 − 0.009 0.647
P.S e kens e al.
16 Page 18 o 40
UK Census (O ice o Na ional S a is ics 2021) in 2021. Mo e conc e ely, hese HR
manage s we e ound o be p edominan ly women (US = 66.85%; UK = 61.05%) and
be ween 40 and 49yea s old (US = 25.85%; UK = 30.74%). Mo eo e , he majo i y
o he US HR manage s ha e a Bachelo deg ee (39.97%). In addi ion, ou sample
aligns wi h he gene al US and UK popula ions in e ms o sexual o ien a ion. Spe-
ci ically, Gallup da a es ima ed ha 7.6% o Ame icans iden i y as LGBTQ + (Jones
2024) and Census da a om 2022 ind 6.6% o he UK popula ion do no iden i y as
he e osexual (O ice o Na ional S a is ics 2023).
4 Resul s
In wha ollows, we examine he e ec o same-sex ma iages on hi ing p obabili ies
o bo h men and women using a mul i a ia e eg ession amewo k (SubSec ion4.1).
Nex , h ough mul iple media ion analyses, we in es iga e he s e eo yping unc ion o
sexual o ien a ion and i s ole in explaining di e ences in ec ui men decisions (Sub-
Sec ion4.2). Subsequen ly, we explo e he e ogenei y in he e ec s o sexual o ien a-
ion on in e iew p obabili ies and pe cep ions employing mode a ion analyses (Sub-
Sec ion4.3). Finally, in obus ness checks, we es whe he di e en subsamples hold
he same pe cep ions ega ding sexual mino i y candida es (SubSec ion4.4).
Fo all analyses we conduc ed, he s anda d e o s a e co ec ed o clus e ing
o he obse a ions a he ec ui e le el. In he subsec ions below, we only discuss
he esul s o he in e iew p obabili y as his is he mos p oximal ou come in ou
expe imen al se -up (S e kens e al.2021). Howe e , he analyses on hi ing p ob-
abili y yield simila esul s and a e a ailable in Tables4 and 5 in he Appendix.
4.1 S anda d eg ession analyses
To examine causal di e ences in in e iew p obabili y be ween he in es iga ed
sexual o ien a ions, we i a mul i a ia e linea eg ession model (see Eq.1) o in e -
iew p obabili ies (
Y)
on he candida e’s sexual o ien a ion
(SO)
and he o he can-
dida e (
CC)
, acancy
(VC)
, and ec ui e cha ac e is ics
(RC)
discussed in Sec ion3.
The model’s es ima es a e p esen ed in he i s column o Table3. The o he col-
umns a e u he discussed in SubSec ion4.3.
In gene al, we ind a s a is ically signi ican causal e ec o he candi-
da es’ sexual o ien a ions on he in e iew p obabili y. Tha is, candida es in a
emale same-sex ma iage ha e a 4.2 pe cen age poin (p = 0.012) highe in e -
iew p obabili y han he eg ession’s e e ence ca ego y o male candida es in a
di e en -sex ma iage.16 This equals an inc ease o 0.147 s anda d de ia ion in
(1)
Y=𝛼Y+𝛽YSO +𝛾YCC +𝛿YVC +𝜃YRC +𝜀Y
16 All be a coe icien s could be in e p e ed as di e ences exp essed in pe cen age poin s by mul iply-
ing hese coe icien s by 10. This in e p e a ion is adequa e because he e alua ion and pe cep ion scales
anged om 0 o 10.
Sexual o ien a ion s e eo ypes andjob candida e sc eening:… Page 19 o 40 16
Table 3 Main and mode a ion e ec s wi h in e iew p obabili y as he ou come
In e iew p obabili y
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
A. Candida e cha ac e is ics
 Sexual o ien a ion ( e . = man in di e en -sex ma iage)
  Woman in di e en -sex ma iage 0.224* (0.125) 0.206 (0.125) 0.223 (0.125) 0.228* (0.125) 0.208* (0.126)
  Man in same-sex ma iage 0.251 (0.167) 1.662 (1.656) 0.437 (0.377) 1.203* (0.653) 3.008 (1.823)
  Woman in same-sex ma iage 0.424** (0.168) 0.624 (2.400) 0.388 (0.350) 0.646 (0.638) 1.031 (2.475)
 Age (c.) − 0.001 (0.008) 0.004 (0.010) − 0.001 (0.008) − 0.000 (0.008) 0.003 (0.011)
 Expe ience ( e . = none)
  Two yea s 2.988*** (0.143) 3.074*** (0.186) 3.007*** (0.143) 2.973*** (0.145) 3.086*** (0.189)
  Fi e yea s 4.059*** (0.164) 4.521*** (0.195) 4.066*** (0.164) 4.047*** (0.165) 4.525*** (0.197)
 Fo eign language knowledge ( e . = none)
  F ench 0.089 (0.125) 0.029 (0.145) 0.087 (0.126) 0.059 (0.124) 0.035 (0.147)
  Spanish 0.164 (0.123) − 0.017 (0.155) 0.166 (0.123) 0.165 (0.124) − 0.020 (0.157)
 P o essional achie emen s ( e . = none)
  Di e si y ambassado 0.837*** (0.121) 1.285*** (0.159) 0.832*** (0.121) 0.864*** (0.122) 1.286*** (0.159)
  Employee o he mon h 0.760*** (0.116) 0.944*** (0.151) 0.762*** (0.115) 0.777*** (0.117) 0.949*** (0.151)
 Hobbies ( e . = none men ioned)
  W es ling 0.597*** (0.193) 0.700*** (0.227) 0.605*** (0.191) 0.582*** (0.189) 0.714*** (0.228)
  Gymnas ics 0.462** (0.201) 0.573** (0.255) 0.469** (0.199) 0.455** (0.202) 0.571** (0.256)
  Tennis 0.365* (0.193) 0.656*** (0.238) 0.372* (0.192) 0.390** (0.193) 0.660*** (0.240)
  Volun ee s o dis ibu e ood o local communi y 0.716*** (0.176) 1.025*** (0.213) 0.731*** (0.175) 0.698*** (0.176) 1.024*** (0.215)
  Volun ee s a LGBTQ igh s o ganisa ion 0.409** (0.189) 0.443* (0.229) 0.427** (0.187) 0.415** (0.192) 0.443* (0.231)
B. Vacancy cha ac e is ics
 Gende - ype ( e . = neu al job)
  Male-domina ed job 0.230 (0.192) 0.195 (0.190) 0.352* (0.208) 0.214 (0.192) 0.308 (0.208)
P.S e kens e al.
16 Page 20 o 40
Table 3 (con inued)
In e iew p obabili y
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
  Female-domina ed job 0.035 (0.193) − 0.000 (0.191) 0.038 (0.210) 0.045 (0.193) 0.038 (0.211)
 Cus ome con ac : high 0.168 (0.157) 0.169 (0.156) 0.203 (0.173) 0.202 (0.156) 0.236 (0.175)
 Di e si y s a emen : included 0.132 (0.154) 0.111 (0.153) 0.068 (0.168) 0.130 (0.153) 0.062 (0.169)
C. Pa icipan cha ac e is ics
 Gende ( e . = man)
  Woman − 0.048 (0.163) − 0.084 (0.160) − 0.044 (0.163) − 0.066 (0.174) − 0.066 (0.175)
 Sexual o ien a ion ( e . = he e osexual)
  No he e osexual − 0.549** (0.244) − 0.533** (0.239) − 0.565** (0.246) − 0.450* (0.254) − 0.440* (0.255)
 Age (con .) 0.000 (0.006) − 0.001 (0.007) − 0.000 (0.007) 0.004 (0.007) 0.004 (0.007)
 Educa ional deg ee ( e . = lowe han e ia y)
  Te ia y educa ion − 0.382** (0.182) − 0.396** (0.182) − 0.387** (0.182) − 0.293 (0.201) − 0.305 (0.204)
 Na ionali y ( e . = USA)
  UK − 0.039 (0.157) − 0.031 (0.158) − 0.039 (0.157) − 0.088 (0.172) − 0.065 (0.173)
 Hi ing expe ience ( e . = less han 5yea s)
  Mo e han 5yea s 0.081 (0.160) 0.083 (0.158) 0.081 (0.160) 0.027 (0.175) 0.014 (0.176)
 Con ac wi h gay people (s.) 0.187** (0.087) 0.185** (0.085) 0.180** (0.087) 0.174* (0.095) 0.181* (0.094)
 Homonega i i y (s.) − 0.454*** (0.093) − 0.442*** (0.092) − 0.455*** (0.093) − 0.314*** (0.093) − 0.313*** (0.093)
 Risk a e sion (s.) 0.168* (0.094) 0.149 (0.094) 0.174* (0.094) 0.144 (0.111) 0.135 (0.112)
D. In e ac ions wi h candida e cha ac e is ics
 Man in same-sex ma iage × age − 0.009 (0.035) − 0.003 (0.036)
 Man in same-sex ma iage × 2yea s − 0.048 (0.466) − 0.195 (0.487)
 Man in same-sex ma iage × 5yea s − 1.379** (0.564) − 1.533*** (0.573)
 Man in same-sex ma iage × F ench 0.349 (0.488) 0.283 (0.501)

Sexual o ien a ion s e eo ypes andjob candida e sc eening:… Page 21 o 40 16
Table 3 (con inued)
In e iew p obabili y
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
 Man in same-sex ma iage × Spanish 0.306 (0.459) 0.341 (0.449)
 Man in same-sex ma iage × di e si y ambassado − 0.447 (0.485) − 0.367 (0.487)
 Man in same-sex ma iage × employee o he mon h − 0.060 (0.410) − 0.014 (0.414)
 Man in same-sex ma iage × w es ling − 1.004 (0.629) − 0.978 (0.631)
 Man in same-sex ma iage × gymnas ics 0.050 (0.646) 0.143 (0.654)
 Man in same-sex ma iage × ennis − 1.044 (0.638) − 0.987 (0.652)
 Man in same-sex ma iage × olun ee s o dis ibu e ood o
local communi y
− 1.063 (0.648) − 1.149* (0.652)
 Man in same-sex ma iage × olun ee s a LGBTQ igh s
o ganisa ion
− 0.816 (0.733) − 0.688 (0.764)
 Woman in same-sex ma iage × age 0.021 (0.050) 0.022 (0.049)
 Woman in same-sex ma iage × 2yea s − 0.257 (0.555) − 0.211 (0.554)
 Woman in same-sex ma iage × 5yea s − 1.251** (0.500) − 1.272** (0.506)
 Woman in same-sex ma iage × F ench − 0.436 (0.512) − 0.607 (0.502)
 Woman in same-sex ma iage × Spanish 0.149 (0.485) 0.144 (0.496)
 Woman in same-sex ma iage × di e si y ambassado − 1.172* (0.678) − 1.230 (0.670)
 Woman in same-sex ma iage × employee o he mon h − 0.334 (0.481) − 0.252 (0.479)
 Woman in same-sex ma iage × w es ling 0.205 (0.679) 0.124 (0.704)
 Woman in same-sex ma iage × gymnas ics 0.758 (0.905) 0.966 (0.919)
 Woman in same-sex ma iage × ennis − 0.348 (0.655) − 0.252 (0.672)
 Woman in same-sex ma iage × olun ee s o dis ibu e ood
o local communi y
− 0.218 (0.601) − 0.166 (0.610)
 Woman in same-sex ma iage × olun ee s a LGBTQ igh s
o ganisa ion
− 0.044 (0.923) − 0.009 (0.959)
P.S e kens e al.
16 Page 22 o 40
Table 3 (con inued)
In e iew p obabili y
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
E. In e ac ions wi h acancy cha ac e is ics
 Man in same-sex ma iage × male-domina ed job − 0.179 (0.392) − 0.294 (0.373)
 Man in same-sex ma iage × emale-domina ed job − 0.494 (0.351) − 0.518 (0.358)
 Man in same-sex ma iage × high cus ome con ac 0.052 (0.299) − 0.088 (0.305)
 Man in same-sex ma iage × di e si y s a emen included 0.020 (0.294) − 0.035 (0.292)
 Woman in same-sex ma iage × male-domina ed job 0.220 (0.375) 0.209 (0.380)
 Woman in same-sex ma iage × emale-domina ed job − 0.210 (0.391) − 0.336 (0.375)
 Woman in same-sex ma iage × high cus ome con ac − 0.276 (0.307) − 0.130 (0.310)
 Woman in same-sex ma iage × di e si y s a emen included 0.370 (0.310) 0.314 (0.306)
F. In e ac ions wi h ec ui e cha ac e is ics
 Man in same-sex ma iage × woman 0.350 (0.307) 0.270 (0.317)
 Man in same-sex ma iage × no he e osexual − 0.283 (0.458) − 0.406 (0.461)
 Man in same-sex ma iage × age (con .) − 0.018 (0.015) − 0.025 (0.016)
 Man in same-sex ma iage × e ia y educa ion − 0.520 (0.326) − 0.503 (0.340)
 Man in same-sex ma iage × UK 0.043 (0.315) 0.127 (0.316)
 Man in same-sex ma iage × mo e han 5yea s o hi ing
expe ience
0.158 (0.313) 0.263 (0.316)
 Man in same-sex ma iage × con ac wi h gay people (s.) − 0.154 (0.172) − 0.181 (0.183)
 Man in same-sex ma iage × homonega i i y (s.) − 0.414** (0.194) − 0.322 (0.204)
 Man in same-sex ma iage × isk  a e sion (s.) 0.081 (0.177) 0.046 (0.179)
 Woman in same-sex ma iage × woman − 0.322 (0.319) − 0.408 (0.321)
 Woman in same-sex ma iage × no he e osexual − 0.230 (0.480) − 0.212 (0.500)
 Woman in same-sex ma iage × age (con .) − 0.008 (0.013) − 0.010 (0.013)
Sexual o ien a ion s e eo ypes andjob candida e sc eening:… Page 23 o 40 16
Table 3 (con inued)
In e iew p obabili y
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
 Woman in same-sex ma iage × e ia y educa ion 0.161 (0.349) 0.098 (0.367)
 Woman in same-sex ma iage × UK 0.296 (0.326) 0.078 (0.336)
 Woman in same-sex ma iage × mo e han 5yea s o hi ing
expe ience
0.139 (0.310) 0.172 (0.316)
 Woman in same-sex ma iage × con ac wi h gay people (s.) 0.217 (0.183) 0.140 (0.184)
 Woman in same-sex ma iage × homonega i i y (s.) − 0.393** (0.184) − 0.443** (0.184)
 Woman in same-sex ma iage × isk a e sion (s.) 0.014 (0.179) 0.044 (0.181)
N1616
Abb e ia ions used: s. (scale consis ing o mul iple i ems) and e . ( e e ence ca ego y). The p esen ed s a is ics a e coe icien es ima es and hei s anda d e o s in
pa en heses o he media ion model ou lined in SubSec .4.2. S anda d e o s a e co ec ed o clus e ing o he obse a ions a he pa icipan le el. *p < 0.10; **p < 0.05;
***p < 0.01
P.S e kens e al.
16 Page 24 o 40
in e iew p obabili y. In e iew p obabili ies o o he g oups a e no (men in same-
sex ma iages: β = 0.251, p = 0.134) o ma ginally (women in di e en -sex ma -
iages: β = 0.224, p = 0.072) signi ican ly di e en om hose o men in di e en -sex
ma iages. Hence, we ind only pa ial e idence o Hypo hesis 1.
4.2 Mul iple media ion analyses
Using mul iple media ion analyses (Hayes 2017), we explo e explana ions o he
e ec o sexual o ien a ion on in e iew p obabili ies. Mo e speci ically, we s a is-
ically es pa hways h ough which independen a iables in luence a dependen
a iable. In ou design, schema ically ep esen ed in Fig.1, we e alua e whe he
he e ec o sexual o ien a ion on in e iew p obabili ies (‘c-pa h’ in Fig.1) can be
explained by indi ec pa hways ia candida e pe cep ions (‘ab-pa h’ in Fig.1; p o-
posed media ion). We explo e such indi ec e ec s by mul iplying he causal e ec
es ima es o sexual o ien a ion on he pe cep ion i ems (‘a-pa h’ in Fig.1) wi h he
associa ions be ween hose pe cep ion i ems and in e iew p obabili y (‘b-pa h’ in
Fig.1; Ba on and Kenny1986).17 Howe e , hese mul iplica ions should be in e -
p e ed as associa ions because ou expe imen al se up is limi ed o he causal in e -
p e a ion o ela ionships be ween sexual o ien a ion and pe cep ions (‘a-pa h’ in
Fig.1), and sexual o ien a ion and he in e iew p obabili y (‘c-pa h’ in Fig.1).18
Indeed, we we e unable o manipula e candida e pe cep ions (i.e. ou media o s)
sepa a ely, and he e could be addi ional unmeasu ed a iables con ounding he
model. As a hypo he ical example, i he hi ing penal ies o candida es in same-sex
ela ions a e d i en by unmeasu ed hypo he ical pe cep ions (e.g. ‘sexual mino i y
candida es a e o ending’), any indi ec ela ionship (‘ab-pa h’ in Fig.1) h ough
measu ed pe cep ions such as ‘ou spokenness’ could be biased.
Applied o he da a, he mul iple media ion amewo k consis s o 23 lin-
ea eg essions. Twen y- wo o hese eg ess he pe cep ion i ems
(
PI
i)
on he
Fig. 1 Schema ic ep esen a ion o media ion analyses
17 ‘‘Indi ec e ec ’’ is common e minology in he media ion li e a u e (Hayes 2017).
18 This limi a ion a ises because we can only exe ull expe imen al con ol o e he candida e cha ac-
e is ics ha a e manipula ed (e.g. sexual o ien a ion). Fo he o he independen a iables in ou models,
namely, he acancy and ec ui e cha ac e is ics, we canno exclude he possibili y o unmeasu ed con-
ounde s. We discuss his ma e u he in Sec ion5.
Sexual o ien a ion s e eo ypes andjob candida e sc eening:… Page 31 o 40 16
Th ee no able ends ega ding he in e ac ion be ween candida es ma ied o a
same-sex pa ne and ec ui e s’ homonega i e a i udes eme ge om he summa is-
ing esul s p esen ed in Table6. We ind ha , compa ed o he gene al sample, ha -
bou ing homonega i e a i udes is associa ed wi h (i) addi ional s e eo yping unc-
ions o same-sex ma iages and (ii) ela i ely less posi i e s e eo ypes bu also (iii)
ag eemen on sexual o ien a ion’s s e eo yping unc ion o a ious pe cep ions—
ega dless o a i ude.
Fi s , ec ui e s wi h homonega i e a i udes a e signi ican ly mo e likely o
in e p e same-sex ma iages as nega i e s e eo ypes o leade ship skills (men:
β = − 0.462; women: β = − 0.400), p o essionalism (men: β = − 0.580; women:
β = − 0.416), ca ee o ien a ions (men: β = − 0.300; women: β = − 0.350), and cu -
en heal h (men: β = − 0.474; women: β = − 0.371), whe eas, in he ull sample,
ec ui e s gene ally do no pe cei e same-sex ma iages as s e eo yping o hese
Table 6 Mode a ion analyses be ween candida es’ same-sex o ien a ions and pa icipan s’ homonega i e
a i udes, wi h pe cep ion i ems as ou comes and men in di e en -sex ma iages as he e e ence ca ego y
Abb e ia ion used: s. (scale consis ing o mul iple i ems). The eg ession model’s p edic o s a e iden ical
o hose in he inal column o Table3in he Appendix. S anda d e o s a e co ec ed o clus e ing o
he obse a ions a he pa icipan le el. *p < 0.10; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01
Media o s Man in same-sex ma -
iage × homonega i i y (s.)
Woman in same-sex ma -
iage × homonega i i y (s.)
β p β p
Pe cei ed collabo a ion (s.) − 0.157 0.462 − 0.289* 0.078
Pe cei ed social skills − 0.368*** 0.005 − 0.248** 0.049
Pe cei ed asse i eness − 0.274** 0.049 − 0.264* 0.077
Pe cei ed ou spokenness − 0.056 0.675 − 0.103 0.449
Pe cei ed dominance − 0.333** 0.010 − 0.185 0.201
Pe cei ed independence − 0.179 0.165 − 0.299** 0.028
Pe cei ed compe i i eness − 0.367*** 0.002 − 0.273* 0.066
Pe cei ed leade ship − 0.462*** 0.001 − 0.400*** 0.002
Pe cei ed eam o ien a ion − 0.335** 0.010 − 0.324** 0.011
Pe cei ed empa hy − 0.167 0.162 − 0.265* 0.069
Pe cei ed so ness o pe sonali y − 0.042 0.747 − 0.142 0.253
Pe cei ed emo ional sensi i i y 0.077 0.624 − 0.005 0.977
Pe cei ed nea ness 0.004 0.970 − 0.177 0.196
Pe cei ed in elligence − 0.408*** 0.001 − 0.483*** 0.001
Pe cei ed open-mindedness 0.050 0.730 0.108 0.448
Pe cei ed c ea i i y − 0.276** 0.043 − 0.020 0.863
Pe cei ed alka i eness − 0.131 0.327 0.001 0.996
Pe cei ed hones y − 0.458*** 0.001 − 0.312** 0.036
Pe cei ed p o essionalism − 0.580*** 0.001 − 0.416*** 0.005
Pe cei ed sel -awa eness − 0.424*** 0.003 − 0.095 0.533
Pe cei ed ca ee o ien a ion − 0.300** 0.016 − 0.350*** 0.005
Pe cei ed cu en heal h − 0.474*** 0.001 − 0.371** 0.010

P.S e kens e al.
16 Page 32 o 40
cha ac e is ics a all (Subsec ion4.3.1). The same end applies o he compe i i e-
ness o men (β = − 0.367) bu no o women in same-sex ma iages.
Second, whe eas ec ui e s gene ally de i e posi i e s e eo ypes om same-sex
ma iages, he ec ui e s exp essing mo e homonega i e a i udes de i e ela i ely
ewe posi i e s e eo ypes om such ma iages. Mo e conc e ely, he la e hink
mo e nega i ely abou he in elligence (men: β = − 0.408; women: β = − 0.483),
social skills (men: β = − 0.368; women: β = − 0.248), hones y (men: β = − 0.458;
women: β = − 0.312), and eam o ien a ion (men: β = − 0.335; women: β = − 0.324)
o candida es in same-sex ma iages. This is also he case o he pe cei ed domi-
nance (β = − 0.333), c ea i i y (β = − 0.276), and sel -awa eness (β = − 0.424)
o men ma ied o a same-sex pa ne , and o he pe cei ed independence (β =
− 0.229) o women ma ied o a same-sex pa ne .
Thi d, ec ui e s wi h homonega i e a i udes appea o ha e simila pe cep-
ions as o he ec ui e s conce ning candida es in a same-sex ma iage collabo a-
ion wi h o he s, empa hy, so pe sonali y, emo ional sensi i i y, nea ness, alka i e-
ness, open-mindedness, and ou spokenness. In conclusion, ou da a sugges ha he
associa ion be ween homonega i e a i udes and s e eo yping is o a a he complex
na u e as we es ablish se e al poin s o con e gence and di e gence be ween he
pe cep ions o ec ui e s which a y in e ms o homonega i e a i udes.
4.4 Robus ness analyses
In esponse o igne e expe imen s’ known suscep ibili y o socially desi able
esponding, we ollow S eenkamp and colleagues’ (2010) guidelines in u he ana-
lysing he da a o po en ial social desi abili y bias. Fi s and o emos , sepa a e
mode a ion analyses sugges ha he in e iew and hi ing p obabili ies o men and
women ma ied o a same-sex pa ne a e un ela ed o he social desi abili y sco es
o ec ui e s.20 Second, we calcula e ha social desi abili y has a limi ed asso-
cia ion wi h ec ui e s’ esponses o he mode n homonega i i y scale (co ela ion
coe icien = 0.133).
Finally, we checked whe he pa icipan s om he Uni ed Kingdom and he
Uni ed S a es held he same pe cep ions ega ding candida es in a same-sex ma -
iage. A i s obus ness check indica ed ha he esul s o he Uni ed S a es sample
s ongly ma ched he esul s o he ull sample.21 A second obus ness check which
included wo-way in e ac ions be ween pa icipan s om he Uni ed Kingdom and
he sexual o ien a ions e ealed a limi ed numbe o small pe cep ion di e ences.
Mo e conc e ely, as shown Appendix Table10, UK pa icipan s pe cei ed male
candida es in a same-sex ma iage mo e nega i ely in e ms o open-mindedness
(β = − 0.659, p = 0.008), so ness o pe sonali y (β = − 0.503, p = 0.027), nea ness
(β = − 0.426, p = 0.047), and emo ional sensi i i y (β = − 0.425, p = 0.094) com-
pa ed o US pa icipan s. In con as , emale candida es in a same-sex ma iage
20 The comple e esul s o ou social desi abili y analyses a e depic ed in Table8 in he Appendix.
21 The ull esul s o he i s obus ness check wi h exclusi ely pa icipan s om he Uni ed S a es a e
p esen ed in Table9 in he Appendix.
Sexual o ien a ion s e eo ypes andjob candida e sc eening:… Page 33 o 40 16
ecei ed highe sco es in a eas o sel -awa eness (β = 0.579, p = 0.015), leade -
ship (β = 0.554, p = 0.018), dominance (β = 0.440, p = 0,062), and eam o ien a ion
(β = 0.423, p = 0.071) om UK pa icipan s han US pa icipan s. These esul s
indica e ha while he as body o pe cep ions is obus ac oss coun ies, u he
esea ch is wa an ed es ablishing c oss-cul u al nuances in s e eo yping.
5 Conclusion
To in es iga e he in e iew p obabili ies o candida es in same-sex ma iages
h ough s e eo yping, we conduc ed a igne e expe imen in which genuine ec ui -
e s e alua ed job candida es who disclosed hei ma i al s a us. The ec ui e s e alu-
a ed ou candida es o one ou o wel e job acancies and sha ed hei pe cep ions
h ough 24 sys ema ically selec ed i ems dis illed om he li e a u e and p e-s udied
among ec ui e s. In addi ion o p o iding causal e idence o a selec ion o s e eo-
ypes ec ui e s in e om gay men and lesbian women, we es ed hese s e eo ypes’
ole in explaining in e iew p obabili ies. Mo eo e , we ad anced ou unde s anding
o he li e a u e’s con adic o y indings ela ed o sexual mino i y candida es’ hi ing
p obabili ies by analysing mode a o s o hi ing disc imina ion.
We ind e idence ha same-sex ma iages gene ally emi posi i e and dis inc
s e eo ypes o men and women in a hi ing con ex . Speci ically, compa ed o men
in di e en -sex ma iages, ec ui e s pe cei e men in same-sex ma iages as being
mo e ou spoken, open-minded, sel -awa e, emo ionally sensi i e, nea , in elligen ,
c ea i e, alka i e, and hones , showing mo e empa hy in collabo a ions, and ha -
ing mo e ad anced social skills, mo e o a eam o ien a ion, and a mo e lo ing and
so pe sonali y—bu being less pleasan o collabo a e wi h. In con as , women in
same-sex ma iages a e seen as being mo e pleasan o collabo a e wi h han hei
coun e pa s in di e en -sex ma iages. Howe e , hey a e also pe cei ed as being
mo e ou spoken, open-minded, and sel -awa e han women in di e en -sex ma -
iages. In addi ion, women in same-sex ma iages a e iewed as being mo e asse -
i e, independen , and dominan compa ed o hei coun e pa s in di e en -sex ma -
iages, whe eas his is no he case o men. The a o emen ioned e ec s a e modes
gi en hei ange be ween 1.9 and 7.6 pe cen age poin s.
Al hough same-sex ma iages ac i a e many di e en s e eo ypes o men and
women, only wo a e signi ican ly associa ed wi h hei in e iew p obabili ies: ou -
spokenness and collabo a ions wi h employe s, o he employees, and cus ome s.
These pe cep ions migh s eng hen he in e iew p obabili ies o women in same-
sex ma iages, whe eas he opposi e could be ue o men. In addi ion, he s e eo-
ype ha candida es ma ied o a same-sex pa ne a e mo e ou spoken is nega i ely
associa ed wi h hei in e iew p obabili ies.
Ou mode a ion analyses p o ide addi ional insigh s ega ding he ci cums ances
unde which hi ing disc imina ion is mo e likely o occu . Mo e speci ically, we
ind endencies ha mo e expe ience yields a ela i ely lowe hi ing p emium o
candida es in same-sex ma iages and ha he e ec s o ex acu icula ac i i-
ies (e.g. olun ee ing) and p o essional achie emen s (e.g. di e si y ambassado -
ship) a e also dependen on a candida e’s sexual o ien a ion. The gene ally posi i e
P.S e kens e al.
16 Page 34 o 40
ecep ion o candida es in same-sex ma iages and a signi ican in e ac ion e ec
wi h ec ui e s’ homonega i e a i udes sugges ha ou da a align well wi h a con-
cen a ed disc imina ion accoun (Campbell and B aue 2021), whe eby a mino i y
o employe s a e esponsible o mos ins ances o hi ing disc imina ion. Indeed, he
gene ally posi i e pe cep ion pa e ns o candida es in same-sex ma iages we e e-
quen ly in e sed among ec ui e s who p i a ely held nega i e a i udes owa ds gay
indi iduals.
As sugges ed in F ic’s e iew (2017), equal oppo uni y policies could bene i
om de-s igma isa ion p og ammes. The cu en s udy’s indings complemen his
by calling o an e icien and a ge ed app oach o such p og ammes as hi ing dis-
c imina ion migh be cen ed a ound he nega i e a i udes o a limi ed p opo ion
o ec ui e s. In addi ion, he pe cep ual pa e ns we e idenced o bo h g oups o
same-sex ma iages could guide he de elopmen o a ge ed in e en ions. An
example o such a ge ed app oach could be o i s moni o hi ing disc imina ion
ia co espondence expe imen s and, subsequen ly, in e ene in uni s (e.g. sec o s)
whe e disc imina ion agains sexual mino i ies is p e alen . Policymake s could
hen enac legisla ion ha inc eases he ‘accoun abili y’ o indi idual ec ui e s. Fo
ins ance, hey could equi e (disc imina ing) o ganisa ions o adop panel ec ui -
men in which a eam ins ead o a single ec ui e sc eens esumes (De ous and
Ryan 2019). Being held accoun able o disc imina o y decision-making would dis-
cou age homonega i e indi iduals om ac ing on hei p ejudice. Mo eo e , simila
in e en ions ha s uc u e communica ion, p ocedu es, and in e ac ions ha e been
shown o e ec i ely add ess wo kplace bias and disc imina ion o sexual mino i ies
(T e e s e al.2024).
F om a candida e pe spec i e, in pa icula , men in same-sex ma iages could
an icipa e ec ui e s’ nega i e a i udes by implemen ing s igma-coun e ing s a e-
gies. Fo example, Single a y and Hebl (2009) ound ha candida es p esen ing
hemsel es as gay expe ienced ewe nega i e in e ac ions wi h po en ial employe s
when hey displayed mo e posi i i y. Applied o ou indings, men in same-sex ma -
iages would wan o coun e pe cep ions o ou spokenness and unpleasan collabo-
a ions in he hi ing p ocess. An impo an ca ea is ha in an icipa ion o disc imi-
na ion, men in same-sex ma iages in pa icula should ca e ully conside he iming
o hei o ien a ion’s disclosu e.
One equen ly e isi ed limi a ion in his pape is he isk o socially desi able
esponses. In acknowledgmen o his isk, we ook measu es o limi he impac o
such bias. On he one hand, we simul aneously a ied se e al candida e cha ac e is-
ics. In doing so, ou expe imen mimicked he ade-o s made in hi ing decisions.
On he o he hand, we in es iga ed he associa ions be ween ec ui e s’ e alua ions
and social desi able esponding (S eenkamp e al.2010).
Ou ope a ionalisa ion o he candida es’ sexual o ien a ion leads o wo
o he limi a ions o his s udy. Mo e speci ically, sexual o ien a ion was e ealed
h ough he candida e’s ma i al s a us, namely being ma ied o a same-sex pa -
ne . Fi s , al hough his is a s ong manipula ion o sexual o ien a ion, i could
also come wi h pe cep ions associa ed wi h being ma ied, such as he a ibu ed
heal h, eliabili y, and ambi ion. Mo eo e , ce ain s e eo ypes abou single o
unma ied candida es who a e a ac ed o he same sex may no apply o hose
Sexual o ien a ion s e eo ypes andjob candida e sc eening:… Page 35 o 40 16
who a e ma ied and ice e sa. Consequen ly, he gene alisabili y o ou esul s
is limi ed. Ne e heless, al e na i e manipula ions o sexual o ien a ion come
wi h simila h ea s in e ms o alidi y. Fo example, e ealing sexual o ien a ion
by s a ing a candida e joined a LGBTQ + o ganisa ions could be ambiguous and
gene a e s e eo ypes ela ed o ac i ism. Second, while we suspec ha employ-
e s pe cei e candida es om a same-sex ma iage as gay men o lesbian women,
hese candida es may equally belong o o he sexual mino i y g oups such as
bisexual, quee , o pansexual indi iduals. Fu u e esea ch could ocus on a mo e
speci ic disclosu e o sexual o ien a ion as a ea men .
A ou h limi a ion ela es o in e sec ionali y o disc imina ion based on sex-
ual o ien a ion wi h o he disc imina ion g ounds. Fo example, Pedulla (2014)
showed ha ace and sexual o ien a ion in e ac in a complex way o mode a e
disc imina ion in he Uni ed S a es. Howe e , ou s udy lacks hose insigh s as
no speci ic ace o e hnici y was men ioned by which esponden s may belie e
all candida es belong o he majo i y g oup (i.e. Whi e Eu opean o Ame ican
depending on he expe imen al con ex ). This omission u he limi s he ex e nal
alidi y o ou expe imen o e hnic mino i ies. The e o e, we ecommend o he
esea che s o explo e he pe cep ions o such in e sec ional disc imina ion. No
only he in e ac ion wi h ace o e hnici y can be examined, bu also hose wi h
o he dominan o ela ed disc imina ion g ounds such as age and eligion (Lip-
pens e al. 2023).
The pe cep ion measu es employed in his s udy con ain a i h limi a ion.
F om he li e a u e, nume ous pe cep ions appea ed o be ela ed o homosexual-
i y, which made i impossible o include all o hem in he expe imen . To esol e
his issue, a p elimina y s udy was conduc ed o educe he i ems o a limi ed
bu alida ed se o pe cep ions. Al hough he delinea ion o hese pe cep ions is
based on empi ical su ey da a, he e is a isk o esea che -ins illed subjec i i y
o i em selec ion. Mo eo e , cul u al di e ences can be explo ed, as ou esul s
sugges sligh pe cep ion di e ences be ween pa icipan s om he Uni ed King-
dom and he Uni ed S a es.
A inal limi a ion o he s udy’s design is i s inabili y o d aw unbiased and causal
in e ences om he conduc ed media ion analyses (see Ge be and G een (2012),
chap e  10 o a ho ough discussion o media ion analyses). The associa ions
be ween pe cep ions and candida e e alua ions could be con ounded as pe cep ions
and e alua ions we e no expe imen ally manipula ed. We canno exclude he pos-
sibili y ha addi ional, unobse ed pe cep ions we e in play.
Supplemen a y In o ma ion The online e sion con ains supplemen a y ma e ial a ailable a h ps:// doi.
o g/ 10. 1007/ s00148- 025- 01071-w.
Acknowledgemen s The au ho s would like o hank he anonymous e e ees o help ul commen s and
sugges ions. We hank he edi o , Al onso Flo es-Lagunes, as well as he wo anonymous e iewe s o
hei aluable and cons uc i e eedback.
Da a a ailabili y The da ase gene a ed and analysed du ing he cu en s udy a e a ailable om he co -
esponding au ho on easonable eques .
P.S e kens e al.
16 Page 36 o 40
Decla a ions
Con lic o in e es The au ho s decla e no compe ing in e es s.
Gene al da a p o ec ion Da a p ocessing is o ganised in line wi h Ghen Uni e si y’s code o conduc and
he e o e adhe es o he Gene al Da a P o ec ion Regula ion (GDPR) s anda ds.
Open Access This a icle is licensed unde a C ea i e Commons A ibu ion 4.0 In e na ional License,
which pe mi s use, sha ing, adap a ion, dis ibu ion and ep oduc ion in any medium o o ma , as long
as you gi e app op ia e c edi o he o iginal au ho (s) and he sou ce, p o ide a link o he C ea i e
Commons licence, and indica e i changes we e made. The images o o he hi d pa y ma e ial in his
a icle a e included in he a icle’s C ea i e Commons licence, unless indica ed o he wise in a c edi line
o he ma e ial. I ma e ial is no included in he a icle’s C ea i e Commons licence and you in ended
use is no pe mi ed by s a u o y egula ion o exceeds he pe mi ed use, you will need o ob ain pe mis-
sion di ec ly om he copy igh holde . To iew a copy o his licence, isi h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/
licenses/by/4.0/.
Re e ences
Acquis i A, Fong C (2020) An expe imen in hi ing disc imina ion ia online social ne wo ks. Manage
Sci 66(3):1005–1024. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1287/ mnsc. 2018. 3269
Adamczyk A, Pi C (2009) Shaping a i udes abou homosexuali y: he ole o eligion and cul u al con-
ex . Soc Sci Res 38(2):338–351. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1016/j. ss es ea ch. 2009. 01. 002
Ahmed AM, Ande sson L, Hamma s ed M (2013) A e gay men and lesbians disc imina ed agains in he
hi ing p ocess? Sou h Econ J 79(3):565–585. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 4284/ 0038- 4038- 2011. 317
A ena DF, Jones KP (2017) To “B” o no o “B”: assessing he disclosu e o dilemma o bisexual indi-
iduals a wo k. J Voca Beha 103(A):86–98. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1016/j. j b. 2017. 08. 009
A ow KJ (1973) The heo y o disc imina ion. P ince on Uni e si y, P ince on
Auspu g K, Hinz T (2014) Fac o ial su ey expe imen s. SAGE Publica ions L d., New Yo k
Badge MV (1995) The wage e ec s o sexual o ien a ion disc imina ion. ILR Re 48(4):726–739.
h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1177/ 00197 93995 04800 408
Badge MV, Ca pen e CS, Sansone D (2021) LGBTQ economics. J Econ Pe spec 35(2):141–170.
h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1257/ jep. 35.2. 141
Badge ML, Ca pen e CS, Lee MJ, Sansone D (2024) A e iew o he economics o sexual o ien a ion
and gende iden i y. J Econ Li 62(3):948–994
Bae S (2014) Ca ee lesbians. Ge ing hi ed o no ha ing kids? Ind Rela J 45(6):543–561. h ps:// doi.
o g/ 10. 1111/ i j. 12078
Bae S (2018a) Hi ing a gay man, aking a isk? A lab expe imen on employmen disc imina ion and
isk a e sion. J Homosex 65(8):1015–1031. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1080/ 00918 369. 2017. 13649 50
Bae S (2018b) Facebook p o ile pic u e appea ance a ec s ec ui e s’ i s hi ing decisions. New Media
Soc 20(3):1220–1239. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1177/ 14614 44816 687294
Bae S, De Pauw AS (2014) Is e hnic disc imina ion due o dis as e o s a is ics? Econ Le 125(2):270–
273. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1016/j. econl e . 2014. 09. 020
Bailey J, Wallace M, W igh B (2013) A e gay men and lesbians disc imina ed agains when applying o
jobs? A ou -ci y, in e ne -based ield expe imen . J Homosex 60(6):873–894. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10.
1080/ 00918 369. 2013. 774860
Banaji M (2002) The social psychology o s e eo ypes. In: Smelse N, Bal es P (eds) In e na ional Ency-
clopedia o he Social and Beha io al Sciences. Pe gamon, New Yo k, pp 15100–15104
Ba on RM, Kenny DA (1986) The mode a o -media o a iable dis inc ion in social psychological
esea ch: concep ual, s a egic, and s a is ical conside a ions. J Pe s Soc Psychol 51(6):1173–1182.
h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1037/ 0022- 3514. 51.6. 117n

Sexual o ien a ion s e eo ypes andjob candida e sc eening:… Page 37 o 40 16
Ba on LG (2009) Sexual o ien a ion employmen an i-disc imina ion legisla ion and hi ing dis-
c imina ion and p ejudice. Acad Manag P oc 1:1–6. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 5465/ ambpp. 2009. 44243
452Accessed 15 No embe 2020
Ba on LG, Hebl M (2013) The o ce o law: he e ec s o sexual o ien a ion an idisc imina ion legisla-
ion on in e pe sonal disc imina ion in employmen . Psychol Public Policy Law 19(2):191–205.
h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1037/ a0028 350
Baumle AK, Comp on DL, Pos on DL J (2009) Same-sex pa ne s: he social demog aphy o sexual
o ien a ion. Suny P ess, Albany
Becke GS (1957) The economics o disc imina ion. The Uni e si y o Chicago P ess, Chicago
Bello JD (2004) A ac i eness as hi ing c i e ia: sa y business p ac ice o acial disc imina ion. J Gend
Race Jus ice 8:483–496
Be e as SN, Meye s JL, Lei e WL (2002) A eliabili y gene aliza ion s udy o he Ma lowe C owne
social desi abili y scale. Educ Psychol Measu 62(4):570–589. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1177/ 00131 64402
06200 4003
Be ge RM, Kelly JJ (1981) Do social wo k agencies disc imina e agains homosexual job applican s?
Soc Wo k 26(3):193–198. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1093/ sw/ 26.3. 193
Be and M, Du lo E (2017) Field expe imen s on disc imina ion. Handb Econ Field Exp 1:309–393.
h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1016/ bs. he e. 2016. 08. 004
Be hlehem J, Bi ignandi S (2012) Handbook o web su eys. Wiley & Sons, Hoboken
Binde K, Wa d LM (2016) Can he e osexis music cause hi ing disc imina ion agains sexual mino i y
men? Tes ing he e ec s o p ejudicial media messages. J Sex Res 53(6):666–677. h ps:// doi. o g/
10. 1080/ 00224 499. 2015. 10136 02
Blais AR, Webe EU (2006) A domain-speci ic isk- aking (DOSPERT) scale o adul popula ions.
Judgm Decis Mak 1(1):33–47. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1037/ 13084- 000
Bod a sson ÖB, Pa idge MD (2001) A supply and demand model o co-wo ke , employe and cus-
ome disc imina ion. Labou Econ 8(3):389–416. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1016/ S0927- 5371(00) 00029-
4Accessed 15 No embe 2020
Boh en JA, Haggag K, Imas A, Pope DG (2019) Inaccu a e s a is ical disc imina ion: an iden i ica ion
p oblem. NBER Wo king pape s w25935.
Bu n I (2018) No all laws a e c ea ed equal: legal di e ences in s a e non-disc imina ion laws and he
impac o LGBT employmen p o ec ions. J Lab Res 39(4):462–497. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1007/
s12122- 018- 9272-0
Bu n I (2020) The ela ionship be ween p ejudice and wage penal ies o gay men in he Uni ed S a es.
ILR Re 73(3):650–675. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1177/ 00197 93919 864891
Bu n I, Ma ell M (2020) The ole o wo k alues and cha ac e is ics in he human capi al in es men
by gays and lesbians. Educ Econ 28(4):351–369. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1080/ 09645 292. 2020. 17580 39
Campbell MR, B aue M (2021) Is disc imina ion widesp ead? Tes ing assump ions abou bias on a uni-
e si y campus. J Exp Psychol Gen 150(4):756–777. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1037/ xge00 00983Accessed
16 No embe 2020
Campello M, Kankanhalli G, Mu huk ishnan P (2020) Co po a e hi ing unde COVID-19: labo ma ke
concen a ion, downskilling, and income inequali y. NBER Wo king pape s w27208. h ps:// doi.
o g/ 10. 3386/ w27208
Census Bu eau (2022) F equen ly occu ing su names om he Census 2000. h ps:// www. census. go /
opics/ popul a ion/ genea logy/ da a/ 2000_ su na mes. h ml. Accessed 10 Aug 2023
Chonody JM (2013) Measu ing sexual p ejudice agains gay men and lesbian women: de elopmen o he
Sexual P ejudice Scale (SPS). J Homosex 60(6):895–926. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1080/ 00918 369. 2013.
774863
Com ey AL, Lee HB (1992) A i s cou se in ac o analysis, 2nd edn. Law ence E lbaum, Hillsdale, NJ
C andall CS, Eshleman A (2003) A jus i ica ion-supp ession model o he exp ession and expe ience o
p ejudice. Psychol Bull 129(3):414–446. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1037/ 0033- 2909. 129.3. 414
De ous E, Ryan AM (2019) When you esume is (no ) u ning you down: modelling e hnic bias in
esume sc eening. Hum Resou Manag J 29(2):113–130. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1111/ 1748- 8583. 12217
Di S asio V (2014) Educa ion as a signal o ainabili y: esul s om a igne e s udy wi h I alian employ-
e s. Eu Sociol Re 30(6):796–809. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1093/ es / jcu074
Dokko G, Wilk SL, Ro hba d NP (2009) Unpacking p io expe ience: how ca ee his o y a ec s job pe -
o mance. O gan Sci 20(1):51–68. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1287/ o sc. 1080. 0357
D ydakis N (2009) Sexual o ien a ion disc imina ion in he labou ma ke . Labou Econ 16(4):364–372.
h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1016/j. labeco. 2008. 12. 003
P.S e kens e al.
16 Page 38 o 40
D ydakis N (2015) Sexual o ien a ion disc imina ion in he Uni ed Kingdom’s labou ma ke : a ield
expe imen . Human Rela ions 68(11):1769–1796. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1177/ 00187 26715 569855
D ydakis N (2021) Sexual o ien a ion and ea nings: a me a-analysis 2012–2020. J Popul Econ 35(2):409–
440. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1007/ s00148- 021- 00862-1
E augh C, Mals om J (1981) The e ec o ma i al s a us on pe son pe cep ion. J Ma iage Fam
43(4):801–805. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 2307/ 351337
E e ly BA, Unzue a MM, Shih MJ (2016) Can being gay p o ide a boos in he hi ing p ocess? Maybe i
he boss is emale. J Bus Psychol 31(2):293–306. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1007/ s10869- 015- 9412-y
Fiske ST (1998) S e eo yping, p ejudice, and disc imina ion. In: Gilbe DT, Fiske ST, Lindzey G (eds)
The handbook o social psychology. McG aw-Hill, Bos on, pp 357–414
Fiske ST, Cuddy AJ, Glick P (2007) Uni e sal dimensions o social cogni ion: wa m h and compe ence.
T ends Cogn Sci 11(2):77–83. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1016/j. ics. 2006. 11. 005
Flage A (2020) Disc imina ion agains gays and lesbians in hi ing decisions: a me a-analysis. In J Man-
powe 41(6):671–691. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1108/ IJM- 08- 2018- 0239
F ic K (2017) Access o he labou ma ke o gays and lesbians: esea ch e iew. J Gay Lesbian Soc Se
29(4):319–361. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1080/ 10538 720. 2017. 13656 71
Ge be AS, G een DP (2012) Field expe imen s: design, analysis, and in e p e a ion. WW No on, New Yo k
Hamma s ed M, Ahmed A, Ande sson L (2015) Sexual p ejudice and labo ma ke ou comes o gays
and lesbians: e idence om Sweden. Fem Econ 21(1):90–109. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1080/ 13545 701.
2014. 937727
Hayes AF (2017) In oduc ion o media ion, mode a ion, and condi ional p ocess analysis: a eg ession-
based app oach. Guil o d publica ions, New Yo k
Hebl MR, Fos e JB, Mannix LM, Do idio JF (2002) Fo mal and in e pe sonal disc imina ion: a ield
s udy o bias owa d homosexual applican s. Pe s Soc Psychol Bull 28(6):815–825. h ps:// doi. o g/
10. 1177/ 01461 67202 289010
Ho a h M, Ryan AM (2003) An eceden s and po en ial mode a o s o he ela ionship be ween a i udes
and hi ing disc imina ion on he basis o sexual o ien a ion. Sex Roles 48(3–4):115–130. h ps://
doi. o g/ 10. 1023/a: 10224 99121 222
Jepsen C, Jepsen LK (2015) Labo -ma ke specializa ion wi hin same-sex and di e ence sex couples. J
Econ Soc 54(1):109–130. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1111/ i el. 12078
Jones JM (2024) LGBTQ+ Iden i ica ion in U.S. Now a 7.6%. h ps:// news. gallup. com/ poll/ 611864/
lgb q- iden i ica ion. aspx. Accessed 1 June 2024
Judd CM, Pa k B (1993) De ini ion and assessmen o accu acy in social s e eo ypes. Psychol Re
100(1):109–128. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1037/ 0033- 295X. 100.1. 109
Ka sa o a I (2019) Gende equali y in spo : ge ing close e e y day. Eu Pa liam Res Se Rep, PE 635:560
Lau en T, Mihoubi F (2017) Sexual o ien a ion, unemploymen and pa icipa ion: a e gays less employ-
able han s aigh s? J Lab Res 38(1):1–44. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1007/ s12122- 016- 9237-0
Lippens L, Ve mei en S, Bae S (2023) The s a e o hi ing disc imina ion: a me a-analysis o (almos )
all ecen co espondence expe imen s. Eu Econ Re 151:104315. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1016/j. eu oe
co e . 2022. 104315
Liu H, Wilkinson L (2017) Ma i al s a us and pe cei ed disc imina ion among ansgende people. J Ma -
iage Fam 79(5):1295–1313. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1111/ jom . 12424
Looney D, Lusin N (2019) En ollmen s in languages o he han English in Uni ed S a es ins i u ions o
highe educa ion, Summe 2016 and Fall 2016: inal epo . Mode n Language Associa ion. h ps://
www. mla. o g/ con e n / downl oad/ 110154/ 24069 32/ 2016- En ol lmen s- Final- Repo . pd . Accessed
26 July 2021
McCu cheon J, Mo ison MA (2015) The e ec o pa en al gende oles on s ’den s’ a i udes owa d
lesbian, gay, and he e osexual adop i e couples. Adop Q 18(2):138–167. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1080/
10926 755. 2014. 945702
Mishel E (2020) Con ex ual p ejudice: how occupa ional con ex and s e eo ypes shape bias agains gay
and lesbian employees. Social Cu en s 7(4):371–391. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1177/ 23294 96520 919912
Mize TD (2016) Sexual o ien a ion in he labo ma ke . Am Sociol Re 81(6):1132–1160. h ps:// doi. o g/
10. 1177/ 23294 96518 761999
Mo ison TG, Pa iag AV, Mo ison MA (1999) The psychome ic p ope ies o he homonega i i y
scale. J Homosex 37(4):111–126. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1300/ j082 37n04_ 07
Nadle JT, Ku ahl KM (2014) Ma i al s a us, gende , and sexual o ien a ion: implica ions o employmen
hi ing decisions. Psychol Sex O ien a Gend Di e s 1(3):270–278. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1037/ sgd00
00050
Sexual o ien a ion s e eo ypes andjob candida e sc eening:… Page 39 o 40 16
Neuma k D (2018) Expe imen al esea ch on labo ma ke disc imina ion. J Econ Li 56(3):799–866.
h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1257/ jel. 20161 309
Niedlich C, S e ens MC (2015) On he in e play o (posi i e) s e eo ypes and p ejudice: imp essions
o lesbian and gay applican s o leade ship posi ions. Senso ia: J Mind, B ain Cul 11(1):70–80.
h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 7790/ sa. 11i1. 408
Niedlich C, Kachel S, S e ens MC (2022) Sexual o ien a ion in o ma ion and hi ing: can indi idualizing
in o ma ion lead o nega i e s e eo yping o sexual mino i y g oup membe s. J Appl Soc Psychol
52(5):287–304. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1111/ jasp. 12859
OECD (2020) O e he ainbow? The oad o LGBTI inclusion. h ps:// www. oecd. o g/ social/ o e - he-
ainb ow- he- oad- o- lgb i- inclu sion- 8d2 d 1a8- en. h m. Accessed 26 July 2021
O ice o Na ional S a is ics (2021) Occupa ions o hose in employmen , by age and sex, England and
Wales, Census 2021. h ps:// www. ons. go . uk/ emplo ymen andla bou m a ke / peopl einwo k/ emplo
ymen andem ploye e ypes/ da as e s/ occup a ion so h osein emplo ymen byage andse xengl andan dwale
scens us2021. Accessed 10 Aug 2023
O ice o Na ional S a is ics (2022) Baby names in England and Wales: om 1996. h ps:// www. ons. go .
uk/ peopl epopu la io nandc ommun i y/ bi h sdea hsand ma i ages/ li eb i hs/ da as e s/ babyn amesi nengl
andan dwale s om 1996. Accessed 10 Aug 2023
O ice o Na ional S a is ics (2023) Sexual o ien a ion, UK: 2021 and 2022. h ps:// www. ons. go .
uk/ peopl epopu la io nandc ommun i y/ cul u alid en i y/ sexua li y/ bulle ins/ sexua liden i yuk/ 2021a
nd2022. Accessed 1 June 2024
O eopoulos P (2011) Why do skilled immig an s s uggle in he labo ma ke ? A ield expe imen wi h
hi een housand esumes. Am Econ J Econ Pol 3(4):148–171. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1257/ pol.3. 4. 148
Pa nell MK, Lease SH, G een ML (2012) Pe cei ed ca ee ba ie s o gay, lesbian, and bisexual indi-
iduals. J Ca ee De 39(3):248–268. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1177/ 08948 45310 386730
Pa acchini E, Ragusa G, Zenou Y (2015) Unexplo ed dimensions o disc imina ion in Eu ope: homo-
sexuali y and physical appea ance. J Popul Econ 28(4):1045–1073. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1007/
s00148- 014- 0533-9
Pedulla DS (2014) The posi i e consequences o nega i e s e eo ypes: ace, sexual o ien a ion, and he
job applica ion p ocess. Soc Psychol Q 77(1):75–94. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1177/ 01902 72513 506229
Pelleg ini V, De C is o a o V, Giacoman onio M, Sal a i M (2020) Why a e gay leade s pe cei ed as
ine ec i e? The ole o he ype o o ganiza ion, sexual p ejudice and gende s e eo ypes. Pe sonal-
i y Indi id Di e 157:109817. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1016/j. paid. 2020. 109817
Pe acchi F, Rosse i C (2012) He e ogenei y in heal h esponses and ancho ing igne es. Empi Econ
42:513–538. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1007/ s00181- 011- 0530-8
Phelps ES (1972) The s a is ical heo y o acism and sexism. Am Econ Re 62(4):659–661. h ps:// www.
js o . o g/ s able/ 18061 07. Accessed 26 No embe 2020
Pichle S, Va ma A, B uce T (2010) He e osexism in employmen decisions: he ole o job mis i . J Appl
Soc Psychol 40(10):2527–2555. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1111/j. 1559- 1816. 2010. 00669.x
Reynolds WM (1982) De elopmen o eliable and alid sho o ms o he Ma lowe-C owne social
desi abili y scale. J Clin Psychol 38(1):119–125. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1002/ 1097- 4679(198201) 38: 1<
119:: aid- jclp2 27038 0118>3. 0. co;2-i
Row ho n R (2002) Ma iage as a signal. The law and economics o ma iage and di o ce 132–156.
h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1017/ CBO97 80511 495328. 008
Schul e-Hos edde AI, Eys MA, Emond M, Buzdon M (2012) Spo pa icipa ion in luences pe cep ions
o ma e cha ac e is ics. E ol Psychol 10(1):78–94. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1177/ 14747 04912 01000 109
Single a y SL, Hebl MR (2009) Compensa o y s a egies o educing in e pe sonal disc imina ion: he
e ec i eness o acknowledgmen s, inc eased posi i i y, and indi idua ing in o ma ion. J Appl Psy-
chol 94(3):797–805. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1037/ a0014 185
Social Secu i y Adminis a ion (2023) Popula i y o a name h ps:// www. ssa. go / oac / babyn ames/.
Accessed 10 Aug 2023
S eenkamp JBE, De Jong MG, Baumga ne H (2010) Socially desi able esponse endencies in su ey
esea ch. J Ma k Res 47(2):199–214. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1509/ jmk . 47.2. 199
S e kens P, Bae S, Rooman C, De ous E (2021) As i i we en’ ha d enough al eady: b eaking down
hi ing disc imina ion ollowing bu nou . Econ Hum Biol 43:101050. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1016/j. ehb.
2021. 101050
Tilcsik A (2011) P ide and p ejudice: employmen disc imina ion agains openly gay men in he Uni ed
S a es. Am J Sociol 117(2):586–626. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1086/ 661653
P.S e kens e al.
16 Page 40 o 40
Tilcsik A, An eby M, Knigh CR (2015) Concealable s igma and occupa ional seg ega ion: owa d a
heo y o gay and lesbian occupa ions. Adm Sci Q 60(3):446–481. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1177/ 00018
39215 576401
T e e s T, Ri e AC, Bo n N, Welpe I (2024) A sys ema ic e iew o expe imen al e idence on in e -
en ions agains bias and disc imina ion in o ganiza ions. Hum Resou Manag Re 34(3):101029.
h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1016/j. h m . 2024. 101029
Umph ess EE, Simmons AL, Boswell WR, T iana MDC (2008) Managing disc imina ion in selec ion:
he in luence o di ec i es om an au ho i y and social dominance o ien a ion. J Appl Psychol
93(5):982–993. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1037/ 0021- 9010. 93.5. 982
Uni ed S a es Depa men o Labo (2021) Labo o ce s a is ics om he cu en popula ion su ey.
h ps:// www. bls. go / cps/ cpsaa 11. h m. Accessed 26 July 2021
Van Bo m H, Bae S (2018) Wha d i es hi ing disc imina ion agains ansgende s? In J Manpow
39(4):581–599. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1108/ ijm- 09- 2017- 0233
Van Hoye G, Lie ens F (2003) The e ec s o sexual o ien a ion on hi abili y a ings: an expe imen al
s udy. J Bus Psychol 18(1):15–30. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1023/a: 10250 78819 951
Van Belle E, Di S asio V, Cae s R, De Couck M, Bae S (2018) Why a e employe s pu o by long spells
o unemploymen ? Eu Sociol Re 34(6):694–710. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1093/ es / jcy039
Van Bo m H, Bu n I, Bae S (2021) Wha does a job candida e’s age signal o employe s? Labou Econ
71:102003. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1016/j. labeco. 2021. 102003
Weichselbaume D (2015) Tes ing o disc imina ion agains s a us: a ield expe imen . Ind Rela
54(1):131–161. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1111/ i el. 12079
Wes K, Hews one M (2012) Cul u e and con ac in he p omo ion and educ ion o an i-gay p ejudice:
e idence om Jamaica and B i ain. J Homosex 59(1):44–66. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1080/ 00918 369.
2011. 614907
Publishe ’s No e Sp inge Na u e emains neu al wi h ega d o ju isdic ional claims in published maps
and ins i u ional a ilia ions.
Au ho s and A ilia ions
PhilippeS e kens1 · AxanaDalle1 · JoeyWuy s1 · InesPauwels1·
HellenDu inck1· S ijnBae 1,2,3,4,5
* Axana Dalle
[email p o ec ed]
Philippe S e kens
Philippe.S e k[email p o ec ed]
Joey Wuy s
Joey.W[email p o ec ed]
Ines Pauwels
Ines.Pauw[email p o ec ed]
Hellen Du inck
[email p o ec ed]
S ijn Bae
S ijn.Bae [email p o ec ed]
1 Ghen Uni e si y, Sin -Pie e splein 6, 9000Ghen , Belgium
2 Uni e si y o An we p, An we p, Belgium
3 Uni e si é Ca holique de Lou ain, Lou ain, Belgium
4 Ins i u e o Labo Economics, Bonn, Ge many
5 Global Labo O ice, Essen, Ge many