1Running head: VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
A Leader Doesn’t Sound Lesbian! The Impact of Sexual Orientation Vocal Cues on
Heterosexual Persons’ First Impression and Hiring Decision
Fabio Fasoli and Peter Hegarty
University of Surrey
Author Note
Fabio Fasoli, School of Psychology, University of Surrey; Peter Hegarty, School of
Psychology, University of Surrey.
This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and
innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement 700844. Project title
‘Beyond “Straight Talking”: The Consequences of Vocal Cues to Sexual Identity for Modern
Prejudice’ (Acronym: TheGayVoice).
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Fabio Fasoli, School of
Psychology, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7XH. Email: [email protected]
2VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
Abstract
In three studies (N = 340), we tested whether vocal cues to a person’s sexual orientation
prompted sexual orientation discrimination in heterosexual individuals when hiring leaders. Our
results inform how gender and sexual orientation intersect to produce discriminatory effects in
the hiring context. Heterosexual participants listened to short clips of voices that sounded like
job candidate was a lesbian or heterosexual woman, or a gay or heterosexual man, and rated all
for job suitability and employability. Candidates applied for jobs as leaders (Study 1), as leaders
or assistants (Study 2), and for leadership roles that varied in both gender role and status (Study
3). Sexual orientation discrimination occurred in all three studies and was greater among women
job candidates. Refuting role congruity theory, several findings disconfirmed the prediction that
lesbian-sounding women would be advantaged when stereotyped as masculine and when
applying for leadership roles. Rather, in line with status-beliefs theory, lesbian-sounding women
and gay-sounding men were rated and ranked poorly to the extent that they were perceived as
less competent than heterosexual candidates. Findings suggest that hiring discrimination occurs
in subtle ways, such as when individuals sound gay/lesbian. This has implications for
recruitment as well as sexual-orientation discrimination court cases.
Keywords: gaydar, leadership, stereotyping, discrimination, intersectionality
3VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
A Leader Doesn’t Sound Lesbian! The Impact of Sexual Orientation Vocal Cues on
Heterosexual Persons’ First Impression and Hiring Decision
Lesbian and gay (LG) leaders exist. Since 2013, the OUTstanding list (Financial Times,
2018) celebrates successful LG leaders, making them visible worldwide and promoting them as
role models. In 2018, this list included 123 gay men but only 38 lesbian women, suggesting that
lesbian leaders are less visible than gay men and may face more difficulties in reaching top
positions.
Although LG individuals reach top jobs, they continue to navigate discrimination (Ahmed,
Andersson, & Hammarstedt, 2013; Patacchini, Ragusa, & Zenou, 2015) and career obstacles to
get there (Parnell, Lease, & Green, 2012). When LG individuals “come out,” they can become
targets of discrimination during the hiring process (Ahmed et al., 2013; Helb, Foster, Mannix, &
Dovidio, 2002; Horvath & Ryan, 2003). LG applicants can be perceived as inadequate and
unsuitable leaders and are less likely to be called to interview than similarly competent
heterosexual individuals (Fassinger, Shullman, & Stevenson, 2010; Liberman & Golom, 2015;
Steffens, Niedlich, & Ehrke, 2016; Tilcsik, 2011; Weichselbaumer, 2003). Here, we examine
employment discrimination triggered by vocal cues to sexual orientation. In so doing, we also
analyze whether lesbian women are discriminated against more than gay men when applying for
leadership positions.
In Western societies, such as the United Kingdom (UK), discrimination against LG
workers goes against equality laws (ILGA Europe, 2018), making sexual orientation
discrimination punishable. Moreover, in most of these societies, expressions of anti-gay attitudes
are condemned (Moneith, Deneen, & Tooman, 1996; see also Crandall, Eshleman, & O’Brien,
2002). Consequently, sexual prejudice can be seen as a thing of the past (Morrison & Morrison,
2003) but still manifests in subtle forms especially in ambiguous situations where discriminatory
behaviors cannot be labelled as such. Identifying discrimination can be difficult, in part, because
sexual orientation is an ambiguous social category (Tskhay & Rule, 2013) that can be kept
4VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
private (Beatty & Kirby, 2006). People use minimal cues to categorize others’ sexual orientation
(Fasoli, Maass, & Sulpizio, 2016; Rule, 2017). Gaydar is usually defined as the ability to
correctly guess who is gay and who is heterosexual from such minimal clues (Rule, 2017). As a
consequence of gaydar, discrimination can occur when sexual orientation is inferred from a
person’s behavior during the hiring process (Helb et al., 2002). Such discrimination may not be
attributed to sexual orientation as its cause is ambiguous (see Sue, 2010).
Our studies respond to a recent call to study such subtle cues to sexual orientation that
affect leaders’ career paths (Barrantes & Eaton, 2018). We draw on research showing that voice
can lead to discrimination on the basis of inferred sexual orientation (Fasoli & Maass, 2018) to
hypothesize that auditory cues of sexual orientation can prompt unconscious bias in hiring for
leadership positions. In real life, sexual orientation discrimination is often triggered by the
perception that someone is LG, rather than knowing for sure that the person is LG (see UK
Government Equalities Office, 2018 for UK data). Such discrimination also affects LG
individuals’ intentions to report instances of discrimination (see Herek, Cogan, & Gills, 2002).
Both leadership and gaydar are gendered phenomena. Leadership is stereotypically
perceived as a male-dominated role that requires characteristics typically associated with men
such as masculinity, competence and agency; thus, men are usually rated as more adequate
leaders than women (for a review see Koenig, Eagly, Mitchell, & Ristikari, 2011). Perceptions of
sexual orientation go hand in hand with gender stereotypes: individuals are usually categorized
as heterosexual by default and only re-categorized as lesbian or gay if cues to gender atypicality
are available (Lick & Johnson, 2016). Regarding vocal cues, people are often assumed to be
heterosexual, but individuals who sound gender atypical (i.e., masculine-sounding women and
feminine-sounding men) are more often re-categorized as LG (Gaudio, 1994; Munson, 2007).
According to Fassinger et al. (2010), being perceived as gender atypical can represent an
obstacle for LG individuals to reach top jobs and leadership roles, but research has not examined
if this occurs to the same extent for gay men and lesbian women.
5VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
The 2018 OUTstanding list illustrates that women are underrepresented among LG leaders.
At first glance, auditory gaydar seems like an unlikely explanation of any such gender difference
in leadership. Regardless of sexual orientation, men believe their voices work as sexual
orientation cues more than women do (Fasoli, Hegarty, Maass, & Antonio, 2018). Hence, gay
men, but not lesbian women, would seem to be more likely targets of discrimination when voices
function as a subtle sexual orientation cue. However, research on gender and leadership leads us
to consider several competing predictions about how gender and sexuality might intersect to
produce discriminatory effects in the hiring context. Before describing those predictions, we first
consider the basic evidence that auditory gaydar prompts social discrimination.
Auditory Gaydar and Discrimination
Individuals can sometimes accurately guess others’ sexual orientation based on the sound
of their voices (Fasoli et al., 2016; Rule, 2017). Researchers have aimed to identify the acoustic
differences that may exist in LG and heterosexual speech and has pointed to differences in vowel
production (Munson, McDonald, DeBoe, & White, 2006; Pierrehumbert, Bent, Munson,
Bradlow, & Bailey, 2004) and duration (Sulpizio et al., 2015; for consonants see Linville, 1998),
but not in fundamental frequencies (Kachel, Simpson, & Steffens, 2018). Voice-based
categorization of sexual orientation is not always accurate (see Miller, 2018; Sulpizio et al.,
2015), but often guided by stereotypes. The most common stereotype is that heterosexual people
have “gender typical” voices, whilst lesbian and gay people have “gender atypical” voices and
this affects how speakers are categorized (Kachel, Simpson, & Steffens, 2017, 2018; Munson,
2007). Another common stereotype refers to frontal lisping; men with sibilant /s/ are likely to be
perceived as gay (Crist, 1997; Mack & Muson, 2012; Van Borsel & Van de Putte, 2014).
Women with lower pitched voices are more often perceived as lesbian (Waksler, 2001), even
though no differences in pitch between lesbian and heterosexual women have been found
(Kachel et al., 2017). A monotone speech pattern also seems to trigger a perception of female
voices as lesbian-sounding (Moonwoman-Baird, 1997). Hence, although variations among LG
6VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
speakers’ voices exist, men who have nasalized voices and speech that included sibilant /s/,
higher fundamental frequencies and vowel space, and women whose voices have lower pitch and
lower vowel space dispersion are likely to sound like gay men and lesbian women respectively in
the ears of heterosexual listeners (see Kachel, Radtke, Skuk, Zäske, Simpson, & Steffens, 2018).
This along with the general impression of LG-sounding speakers as also sounding less gender
typical (more feminine for gay-sounding men and more masculine for lesbian-sounding women;
see Zimman, 2010).
As a consequence, a speaker who sounds LG to others is more likely to be inferred to
have gender atypical interests (Fasoli, Maass, Paladino, & Sulpizio, 2017; see also Fasoli, Maass,
& Sulpizio, 2018), to be less competent (Campbell-Kibler, 2011; Tracy, 2016), and to be more
confident and outgoing (Tracy, 2016). Moreover, in two separate studies, Fasoli et al., (2017)
demonstrated that inferred sexual orientation affected employability of female and male CEOs.
Participants listened to short audio files or saw pictures of candidates whose voices or faces
conveyed different sexual orientations. LG-sounding voices presented patterns of acoustic cues
that have been illustrated above and led listeners to perceive the speakers as either LG or
heterosexual. Faces instead were consistently categorized as LG or heterosexual on the basis of
minimal features such as eyes, nose, mouth (see Rule, 2017). Research has shown that turned up
noses, smaller foreheads and masculine face shape lead individuals to perceive women as lesbian
while convex cheeks, short noses and faces are associated with perception of men as gay
(Skorska, Geniole, Vrysen, McCromick & Bogaert, 2015). Heterosexual-sounding candidates
were preferred and received higher salary allocations. This sexual orientation discrimination was
triggered more by vocal cues than by visual cues but was similar regardless of both target
speaker gender and the accuracy of participants’ sexual orientation categorization. Indeed, these
authors showed that “discrimination does not necessarily require correct recognition of speaker’s
sexual orientation” (Fasoli et al., 2017, p. 1272) and that everyone who sounds LG is at risk of
7VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
stigmatization. Hence, we predict that LG-sounding individuals would be discriminated against
in the hiring process.
Our work builds on Fasoli et al. (2017) and extends it in two crucial ways. First, Fasoli et
al. (2017) conducted their research in Italy, but we conducted ours in the UK. Attitudes toward
sexual minorities are more positive in the UK than in Italy (Eurobarometer, 2015), and lesbian,
gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people enjoy more legal protection from discrimination
in the UK than Italy (ILGA Europe, 2018). Consequently, the UK, more than Italy, is a country
where subtle rather than explicit forms of sexual orientation discrimination may occur. Second,
Fasoli et al. (2017) did not analyze the intersection of gender and sexual orientation
discrimination. The literature on stereotyping and employability demands that we conceptualize
predictions at this intersection.
Role Congruity and Status Beliefs
Gender and sexual orientation might intersect to create patterns of discrimination in the
hiring process for two broad reasons: role congruity and status. Leadership is usually perceived
as a masculine domain that requires typically masculine skills. The think manager-think male
effect (Schein & Davidson, 1993) describes how women are perceived as inadequate leaders
because they lack masculine skills and competencies usually attributed to men. This
phenomenon is in line with lack-of-fit (Heilman, 1983) and role congruity theories (Eagly &
Karau, 2002). The lack-of-fit theory (Heilman, 1983) suggests that a person who possess traits
that are inconsistent with the job role would be perceived as a lack of fit and as having low
likelihood to success in that role. Since women are seen through the lens of gender stereotypes,
they cannot be a fit with typically masculine/male-dominated jobs. The role congruity theory
(Eagly & Karau, 2002) developed this thinking by emphasizing the descriptive content of
stereotypes. This theory indicates that, because of the incongruity between the way women are
stereotypically perceived and the shared belief that leadership is prototypically masculine and
8VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
male-dominated, women are perceived as less adequate for leadership roles and are judged less
positively if they hold such roles.
Lesbian women and gay men are subject to very different gender stereotypes than are
heterosexual women and men. The gender inversion stereotype leads gay men to be perceived as
more feminine and lesbian woman as more masculine (Kite & Deaux, 1987), and such
stereotyping persists in occupational contexts (Blashill & Powlishta, 2009). This stereotype has
been invoked to explain why gay men can be perceived as a suitable fit for typically feminine
jobs, and lesbian women for masculine types of jobs (see Barrantes & Eaton, 2018; Pichler,
Varma, & Bruce, 2010; Rule, Bjonsdottir, Tskhay, & Ambady, 2016). Gender inversion
stereotyping goes hand in hand with voice-based categorization of sexual orientation: Not only
women who sound masculine and men who sound feminine are likely to be perceived as LG
(Fasoli et al., 2016), but such inferences also activate gender inverted attributions with regards to
the speaker’s personality and interests (Fasoli et al., 2017). Consequently, activating the gender
inversion stereotype via vocal cues of sexual orientation and using it to fit candidates to jobs
could disadvantage gay men but advantage lesbians in the usual context where leadership is
perceived as something masculine that requires skills typically associated with men. Jointly, the
gender inversion stereotype and role congruity theories predict a pattern of discrimination such
that gay men bear the brunt of sexual orientation discrimination. As a matter of fact, Liberman
and Golom (2015) showed that there is little overlap between the characteristics associated with
gay managers and with successful managers, but more overlap between the stereotypes of lesbian
managers and of successful managers. Ahmed et al. (2013) found that discrimination against gay
men occurred specifically when masculine jobs were concerned while lesbian women faced
discrimination when applying for typically feminine but not for typically masculine jobs.
A different set of predictions about intersectional patterns of discrimination in the hiring
process follows from status beliefs, and the fact that sexual orientation is a status dimension.
Status refers to the advantages/disadvantages that individuals have as members of specific social
9VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
groups, and status defines power-based relationships and inequalities (see Ridgeway, 1991).
Status beliefs are cultural beliefs that attribute higher power, competence and skills to one social
group over others (Ridgeway, 2001). Gender stereotypes overlap with status beliefs, because
being competent, assertive, and masculine are associated with higher status, whilst being
communal and feminine are associated with lower status (Berger, Fisek, Norman, & Zelditch,
1997). These beliefs are shared and they explain subtle forms of occupational segregation
(Ridgeway, 2001). Even individuals who have egalitarian intentions still act on status beliefs and
favor men over women (see Rashotte & Webster, 2005).
Sexual orientation defines status too. Heterosexuals represent the default social category
and, because of that, gain advantages (see Prewitt-Freilino & Bosson, 2008), while LG
individuals represent a low-status group that continues to be accorded far fewer legal rights in
many of the Western countries (see ILGA Europe, 2018). Accordingly, auditory gaydar is an
inference about a status-related characteristic. Indeed, a recent study found that heterosexual men
wish that their voices communicate their sexual orientation more than all other social groups do
as this conveys their higher status (Fasoli, Hegarty, Maas, & Antonio, 2018). In the occupational
realm, both gay men and lesbian women are less likely to get promotions (Levine, 1979) or to
reach high-status positions (Frank, 2006) than same-gender heterosexuals. A recent analysis in
the UK found that LG individuals reached only low-level managerial positions whilst top high-
status positions were reserved for heterosexual individuals (Aksoy, Carpenter, Frank, &
Huffman, 2018). LG individuals’ difficulties in getting top positions may be due to status beliefs
that create expectations of low competence (Childers, 2000; Webster, Hysom, & Fullmer, 1998).
Among LG individuals, lesbian women represent a lower status group because they are a double
minority – women and lesbians (Garnets & Kimmel, 1991; Gedro, 2010; Woodruffle-Burton &
Bairstow, 2013; see also Fasoli, Cadinu, Carnaghi, Galdi, Guizzo, & Tassara, 2018). Their
gender and sexual identities are usually devaluated (see Hancock, 2007) making lesbian women
an invisible target (Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach, 2008). This being the case, status beliefs theory
10VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
suggests that lesbian women, not gay men, will bear the brunt of sexual orientation
discrimination in hiring.
Stereotyping
To further examine our main prediction based on role congruity and status beliefs,
stereotyping in relation to agency and communion need to be considered. Agency/competence is
stereotypically attributed to men and communality/warmth to women (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, &
Xu, 2002). Women are often discriminated against in leadership contexts because they are
stereotyped as lacking agency and competence (see Eagly & Chin, 2010; Eagly & Krau, 2002).
Studies have also suggested that agency and communion attributions are assigned to lesbian
women and gay men congruent with the gender inversion stereotype. Horvath and Ryan (2003)
found that lesbian and gay applicants were both perceived as less agentic than heterosexual men
but as more agentic than heterosexual women. Gay men have also been perceived as similarly
agentic to heterosexual men, but as more communal in other studies (Barrantes & Eaton, 2018;
Steffens, Niedlich, Beschorner, & Köhler, 2018). Also, communal men are likely to be perceived
as gay and gay men described as communal are perceived as more feminine, suggesting an
interplay between communality and femininity when sexual orientation is considered (Kranz,
Pröbstle, & Evidis, 2017). Niedlich and Steffens (2015) found that lesbian women were judged
as more agentic and communal than heterosexual women (see also Niedlich, Steffens, Krause,
Settke, & Ebert, 2015). Other studies found that lesbian women are perceived as equally
communal and agentic, but the subgroup of butch lesbian women is seen as more agentic than
communal (Brambilla, Carnaghi, & Ravenna, 2011). Moreover, a recent study has demonstrated
that gay men were judged less suitable for masculine jobs because they were stereotyped as
lacking agency and masculinity (Steffens et al., 2018).
Here, we examine both masculinity and femininity, and agency and communion as
mediators of discrimination effects. In particular, we test whether stereotyping a candidate along
these dimensions would explain biases on leadership suitability judgments. Support for role
11VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
congruity would occur if LG individuals are stereotyped as gender inverted and such attribution
would predict lower leadership suitability for gay men and higher suitability for lesbian women.
Support for status beliefs would emerge if candidates, and especially the lesbian women, would
be perceived as lacking competence and, in turn, seen as unsuitable for leadership roles.
The Present Studies
In three studies, heterosexual participants heard the voices of female and male job
applicants who sounded LG and heterosexual, formed a first impression, rated their suitability as
leaders, and ranked them for employability. We will use here sexual orientation terms to refer to
perceptions based on vocal cues, rather than accurate detection of speakers’ sexual orientation. In
particular, we examined whether voices that conveyed a LG (vs. heterosexual) sexual orientation
trigger discrimination. We included rating of a person’s job suitability and rankings of job
candidates for overall employability. The former measure refers to the perceived match between
the candidate and the role, while the latter measures discrimination directly. Suitability ratings
can also mask effects of stereotypes on discrimination more than rankings because judges may
compare candidates against different standards more easily on rating measures than on ranking
measures (Biernat & Kobrynowicz, 1997).
We hypothesized that LG-sounding applicants would be judged less suitable and less
employable than heterosexual-sounding applicants overall (the sexual orientation discrimination
hypothesis, Hypothesis 1). Our design allowed us to test competing predictions derived from
gender inversion theory and role congruity theory vs. status-beliefs theory. Gender inversion
theory holds that gay-sounding men bear the brunt of sexual orientation discrimination overall,
particularly when (1) gender stereotypes are applied to LG individuals, and (2) the jobs in
question clearly demand masculine skills. The role congruity hypothesis therefore predicts that
gay-sounding men are discriminated against more than lesbian-sounding women (Hypothesis
2a). In contrast, status beliefs theory holds that lesbian-sounding women bear the brunt of sexual
orientation discrimination, particularly when lesbian-sounding women are attributed lower
12VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
competence by virtue of their double minority status as members of lower status gender and
sexuality groups. Hence, the status hypothesis predicts that lesbian-sounding women are
discriminated against more than gay-sounding men (Hypothesis 2b).
Moreover, in Studies 2 and 3 we tested the additional prediction that LG individuals are
kept away from leadership positions because those jobs are perceived as higher status. In Study 2
we used a within-participants design and examined whether the LG applicants are preferentially
hired for a low-status (assistantship) rather than a high-status (leadership) position in the same
company. Study 3 had a between-participants design that manipulated both job status and job
gender role. Hence, Study 3 tested whether job suitability and employability vary depending on
the type of job that LG applicants apply for.
Study 1
In Study 1, we tested the hypothesis that sexual orientation discrimination is prompted by
vocal cues (Hypothesis 1). We further tested the role congruity hypothesis that gay male
applicants would be targets of sexual orientation discrimination because they are perceived as
lacking the masculinity required by leadership roles, while lesbian women would gain an
advantage from being perceived as masculine (Hypothesis 2a). Finally, the status belief
hypothesis predicts instead that lesbian applicants would be discriminated against more than gay
men (Hypothesis 2b).
Method
Participants
We performed a statistical power analysis for sample size estimation using GPower
3.1.9.2 software (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007). With an alpha = .05 and power = .80
projected a sample size needed to collect a medium effect size (ηp2 = 0.06) of 136 participants.
One hundred and fifty-six participants took part. We excluded those who failed the manipulation
check item as they did not remember correctly the job/company information (n = 19), did not
provide final consent to use their data (n = 2), and who self-identified as bisexual (n = 2). The
13VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
final sample consisted of 67 female and 68 male heterosexual participants (Mage = 36.77, SD =
11.36) who were all British, and English-native speakers. Most held a university degree or a
qualification below a degree (n = 100, 75.2%) and politically identified as left (M = 3.40, SD =
1.34; t-test against the midpoint: t[132] = -5.17, p < .001). Fifty-three participants (n = 54,
39.8%) reported experiences in hiring employees, for an average time of three years (M = 2.93,
SD = 6.61).
Procedure
Participants were recruited online through Prolific Academic, a crowdsourcing platform
tailored for research, to achieve high quality data (see Peer, Brandimarte, Samat, & Acquisti,
2017). All received £1.50 (approximately USA $2) in exchange for participation. Prolific
Academic allows pre-screening for specific demographics. The study was advertised only to
individuals who self-identified as British and heterosexual on the platform. After giving consent
to participate, participants read the job advertisement and company information. Next, they
listened to three female or three male candidates whose voices were presented in a randomized
order. Each participant listened to a heterosexual-sounding, a LG-sounding and a filler applicant
of the same gender. Participants were told they were listening to the initial part of applicants’
answers to the question of why they were interested in the job, and that only this part of the
recording was available for privacy reasons. Next, participants completed the measures presented
below and reported demographic information (age, gender, education, experiences and average
time in hiring, political affiliation measured on a scale from 1 = extreme left to 7 = extreme right,
and sexual orientation measured on a categorical variable with the following options:
heterosexual, gay/lesbian, bisexual, other). Finally, participants answered two manipulation
check items, assessing memory for the company name and its status. This variable was then used
to exclude participants who fail remembering correctly such information. They were thanked,
debriefed and asked to provide post-debriefing consent to analyze their data.
Materials.
14VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
Vocal stimuli. Individuals who self-identity as LG and heterosexual were recruited as part
of a larger study on voice-based categorization of sexual orientation. Speakers were informed
that voice recording would be subsequently used in studies on impression formation and
provided full consent for audio recordings used. Twelve male and 18 female speakers were
recorded in a sound-proof booth by using a voice recorder while reading out loud texts which
were scripted to mimic an applicant applying for a job. Audio files were edited using PRAAT
(Boersma & Weenink, 2007) and used in two separate pretests, on female and on male voices. In
these pretests, British heterosexual participants (N = 59 in each pretest) listened to 18 female or
12 male speakers and judged their sexual orientation on a scale from 1 (exclusively heterosexual)
to 7 (exclusively gay/lesbian) and on a dichotomous choice (heterosexual vs. gay/lesbian).
Listeners’ ratings were then examined to select two gay men, two lesbian women, two
heterosexual men and two heterosexual- women speakers whose voices was perceived as
conveying the sexual orientation they identified with. The two selected lesbian women speakers
were perceived as more lesbian-sounding that the two heterosexual women speakers (Mlesbian =
3.80, SD = 1.15 vs. Mheterosexual = 2.68, SD = 1.12, t(58) = 6.87, p < .001; for similar ratings see
Sulpizio et al., 2019). Their sexual orientation was also recognized in line with the self-reported
sexual orientation (correct responses were above 86.4% for heterosexual women speakers and
ranged between 57.6% and 66.1% for lesbian women speakers). Similarly, the selected gay men
speakers were perceived as more gay-sounding than the selected heterosexual men speakers
(Mgay = 3.97, SD = 1.20 vs. Mheterosexual = 2.68, SD = 1.10, t(58) = 6.31, p < .001; for similar ratings
see Sulpizio et al., 2015). Moreover, the sexual orientation of the selected men was categorized
most of the time according to the sexual orientation self-reported by the speakers (correct
responses were above 89.9% for the heterosexual men speakers and was equal to 57.6% for both
gay men speakers). Such categorization responses are in line with previous research showing that
heterosexuals speakers are correctly categorized as such most of the time because heterosexuality
15VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
is taken as the default (see Sulpizio et al., 2015). On the contrary, even when correct,
categorization of gay speakers is around 63% (see Rule, 2017) and thus far from being perfect.
The speakers read two texts that similarly referred to the candidate’s interest in the job and
to their personal skills. The first sentence of each text was used as an audio stimulus;
Text 1: I am [Anna/Andrew], I am interested in this job as I believe I have the skills and
knowledge that it demands.
Text 2: I am [Sophie/Simon] and I am interested in this job. I am a motivated person and I
have experience in this field.
As done in previous studies (see Haslam & Ryan, 2008), we included a filler applicant who
was a weak candidate in order to enhance realism and to avoid making the research aim obvious.
Thus, an additional woman and man speaker who sounded heterosexual (Mfiller_woman = 2.75, SD =
1.54; t-test against the midpoint: t(58) = -6.26, p < .001; Mfiller_man = 2.53, SD = 1.56; t-test against
the midpoint: t(58) = -7.27, p < .001) were selected from the voice samples used in the pretests.
To ensure this candidate was weaker than the other two, we played a sentence where this speaker
referred to his/her personality rather than their skills or job interest: “I am [Melanie/Mark]. I am
a friendly person and like talking and meeting new people.”
Company. We used Haslam and Ryan’s (2008; Study 3) materials. An opening for a
director in the financial sector within a manufacturer and office supplies distributor was
described in all conditions. The job description indicated that the job required leadership skills
(see Supplementary Materials). Company status was manipulated using a fake newspaper article
describing the company as either successful or failing in the last ten years. To make status
salient, the article included a graph depicting the company’s performance.1
Masculine and feminine traits. Participants rated each candidate on six masculine traits
(e.g., dominant, strong; LG: α = .75, heterosexual: α = .83) and six feminine traits (e.g., creative,
feminine; LG: α = .74, heterosexual α = .79) used by Fasoli et al. (2017) on a 7-point Likert scale
from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). High scores indicate higher trait attributions.
16VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
Job suitability. Participants indicated whether each candidate was suitable for the leader
position by answering 5 items (e.g., “the candidate would be a good leader”; LG: α = .94,
heterosexual: α = .96) on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree),
(see Haslam & Ryan, 2008). High scores indicated higher suitability.
Employability. Participants ranked the three candidates from 1 (the most appointable) to 3
(the least appointable). Ranks were reversed such that high scores indicated employability.
Sexual prejudice. Participants completed the 12-item Modern Homonegativity scale (e.g.,
“gay men and lesbians should stop complaining about the way they are treated in society, and
simply get on with their lives”; α = .88) on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly
agree, Morrison & Morrison, 2003). High scores indicated higher prejudice.
Results
Preliminary Analyses
Overall participants had low sexual prejudice (M = 3.48, SD = 1.06; t-test against the
midpoint of the scale: t(132) = -5.64, p < .001). As predicted, the filler applicant was perceived
as not suitable for the leadership position (M = 2.82, SD = 1.30; t-test against midpoint: t[132] =
-10.48, p < .001) and far less suitable than all the other candidates: all ts < - 9.66, ps < .001).
Only six participants selected this applicant as the most employable. Following Haslam and
Ryan (2008), we excluded ratings of this applicant from analyses.
In the main analyses, each dependent variable was submitted to a 2 (Candidate Sexual
Orientation: gay/lesbian vs. heterosexual) x 2 (Candidate Gender: male vs. female) repeated
measures ANOVA where the first factor was a within-participants and the other was between-
participants. Pairwise comparisons (Bonferroni correction) were performed to interpret
significant interactions. Since analyses including participants’ gender did not show any
significant interaction with applicant gender and sexual orientation (Fs < 2.59, p > .11), we
report the analyses collapsed across participant gender. Moreover, as suggested by Rosnow and
Rosenthal (1995), and more recently by Haans (2018; see also Howell & Lacroix, 2012), to test
17VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
our theory-driven role congruity and status beliefs hypotheses, planned contrasts were
performed.
Masculine and Feminine Traits
Analyses on attribution of masculine and feminine traits were performed separately, since
the two indexes were independent (rs < .159, ps > .068). Analysis of attribution of feminine traits
showed a main effect of candidate gender, F(1, 131) = 23.65, p < .001, ηp2 = .153, qualified by an
interaction with sexual orientation, F(1, 131) = 9.22, p = .003, ηp2 = .066. Feminine traits were
similarly attributed to the lesbian-sounding woman (M = 3.41, SD = .91) and the heterosexual-
sounding woman (M = 3.60, SD = .93; p = .070), but more to the gay-sounding man (M = 2.94,
SD = .88) than to the heterosexual-sounding man (M = 2.68, SD = .97; p = .015). The analyses
on masculine traits did not show any significant effect or interaction (Fs < 1.09, ps > .299).
Leadership Suitability
Supporting Hypothesis 1, a significant main effect of candidate sexual orientation, F(1,
131) = 4.53, p = .035, ηp2 = .033, indicated that participants discriminated in favor of the
heterosexual-sounding applicants (M = 4.25, SD = 1.17) relative to the LG-sounding applicants
(M = 3.98, SD = 1.12). The interaction between candidate sexual orientation and gender, F(1,
131) = 2.73, p = .101, ηp2 = .021, was not significant.
To test whether the gay- (Hypothesis 2a) or the lesbian-sounding applicants (Hypothesis
2b) bear the brunt of sexual orientation discrimination, planned contrasts were performed within
each applicant target gender group. The lesbian-sounding woman (M = 3.78, SD = .96) was rated
as less suitable than the heterosexual-sounding woman (M = 4.24, SD = 1.21; F(1, 131) = 7.09, p
= .009), whereas the gay-sounding man (M = 4.18, SD = 1.23) and the heterosexual-sounding
man (M = 4.24, SD = 1.21) were rated as similarly suitable (F(1, 131) = .11, p = .74). Hence, in
line with Hypothesis 2b, lesbian-sounding candidates bore the brunt of sexual orientation
discrimination here.
Employability
18VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
A significant main effect of candidate sexual orientation, F(1, 131) = 4.74, p = .031, ηp2
= .035, indicated that the heterosexual-sounding applicants (M = 2.50, SD = .68) were ranked as
more appointable than the LG-sounding candidates (M = 2.28, SD = .59), confirming Hypothesis
1. Also, a significant interaction between candidate sexual orientation and gender emerged, F(1,
131) = 4.12, p = .044, ηp2 = .039. Pairwise comparisons (Bonferroni correction) showed that the
lesbian-sounding woman (M = 2.20, SD = .59) was ranked significantly lower than the
heterosexual-sounding woman (M = 2.62, SD = .60; p = .004), whilst the gay-sounding man (M
= 2.35, SD = .59) and heterosexual-sounding man (M = 2.37, SD = .73) were ranked similarly (p
= .92), as confirmed by planned contrast. Hence, the lesbian-sounding woman experienced more
sex-specific discrimination than the gay-sounding man on this ranking measure (see Figure 2).
Mediation Analyses
The effects of candidate gender and sexual orientation on both leadership suitability and
employability favour status beliefs theory over gender inversion and role congruity theories both
measures showed that sexual orientation discrimination was greater among women than among
men. To investigate these theories further, we conducted two mediation analyses to test whether
this sexual orientation discrimination was mediated by perceived masculinity and femininity
ratings. Montoya and Hayes’ (2017) MEMORE macro for SPSS and bias-corrected intervals
(5000 bootstrap resamples), appropriate for a within-participants design and to test indirect
effects, was used. None of the indirect effects were significant. The gender inversion
stereotyping of candidates did not cause the sexual orientation discrimination observed.
Discussion
Study 1 evidenced discrimination on the basis of vocal cues of sexual orientation in a more
egalitarian culture than Italy (see Fasoli et al., 2017), supporting the sexual orientation
discrimination hypothesis. The pattern of results on job suitability and employability suggested
that discrimination was specific to women targets and independent of the gender inversion
stereotyping of candidates. These results favor the status beliefs over the role congruity
19VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
hypothesis. However, these findings are the first in the gaydar discrimination literature to
evidence stronger discrimination amongst women than men, and this pattern was not observed in
Fasoli et al.’s (2017) Italian studies. Accordingly, Study 2 tested role congruity and status beliefs
explanations again and examined a wider range of trait attributions. Study 1 aimed to replicate
previous findings and therefore relied on masculine and feminine traits used by Fasoli et al.
(2017). Study 2 moved a step forward and tested whether competency mediates discrimination
whilst gender role stereotyping does not, as predicted by status beliefs theory.
Study 2
Study 2 extended Study 1 in three ways. First, Study 1 did not allow for a direct test of
discrimination between gay-sounding vs lesbian-sounding candidates since participants only
listened to applicants of the same gender. In reality, gay and lesbian candidates may, of course,
compete for the same position. In Study 2, participants heard four applicants; representing the
intersection of gender and perceived sexuality. This allowed us to test the main sexual orientation
hypothesis (Hypothesis 1) along with the role congruity (Hypothesis 2a) and beliefs status
(Hypothesis 2b) predictions.
Second, the participants rated the candidates on a greater range of traits. Candidates were
rated on masculinity and femininity, and also on competence, sociability, and morality. Ratings
of masculinity and femininity have been found to predict sexual orientation discrimination
(Fasoli et al., 2017). Competence and sociability resemble agency and communion that predict
leadership suitability for typically masculine and feminine type of jobs, respectively (see
Barrantes & Eaton, 2018; Steffens et al., 2018). Morality is relevant to group status (Ellemers,
Pagliaro, Barreto, & Leach, 2008), is associated with sexuality (Herek & McLemore, 2013), and
predicts first impressions that inform hiring recommendations (Brambilla, Sacchi, Rusconi,
Cherubini, & Yzerbyt, 2012; Cunningham, Sartore, & McCullough, 2010). These attributions
allowed us to further test support for role congruity and status belief predictions and explore the
alternative that discrimination is mediated by attributions of morality.
20VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
Third, in Study 2, applicants were rated as suitable for a high-status leadership position
(manager), and for a lower-status position as that manager’s assistant. Assigning LG-sounding
candidates to the assistant position could resolve the dilemma between keeping LG-sounding
candidates out of leadership positions, whilst conforming to a new social norm to treat LG
people fairly (Merritt, Effron & Monin, 2010). We predicted that LG-sounding applicants would
be preferred for the low-status assistant position than heterosexual-sounding applicants
(Hypothesis 3).
Method
Participants
A statistical power analysis was performed for sample size estimation using GPower
3.1.9.2 software (Faul et al., 2007). With an alpha = .05 and power = .80 the projected sample
size needed to collect a medium effect size (ηp2 = 0.06) was 33 participants. Eighty-two
participants participated, but two did not provide consent for their data use. The final sample
included 80 heterosexual participants (37 women, 43 men, Mage = 37.75, SD = 13.22). All were
British. All but one were native English speakers. Most had a University degree or a
qualification below a degree (73.8%, n = 59), and politically identified as left (M = 3.55, SD =
1.25; t[79] = -2.98, p = .004). Also, 43.8% (n = 35) reported experiences in recruitment for an
average of 7 years (M = 7.06, SD = 8.37).
Procedure
Participants were recruited via Prolific Academic and received £1.50 (approx. USA$2) as
before. They were informed that a company was hiring a leader and listened to voices of a
lesbian-sounding woman, gay-sounding man, a heterosexual-sounding man and a heterosexual-
sounding woman in a randomized order. After listening to each applicant, participants rated them
for masculinity, femininity, competence, sociability, morality, leadership suitability, low-status
occupation suitability, and completed the employability rankings. Next, they reported beliefs in
21VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
leadership consequences and in beliefs about equality, and demographics. Finally, they were
thanked, debriefed and provided final consent to data use.
Materials
Job ad and vocal stimuli. Job ad was the same as in Study 1, except that participants were
only informed about the type of position the company was advertising. The speakers were the
same as in Study 1 except for the fact that the filler candidate was not included. Also,
participants heard shorter utterances here (i.e., “I am [name] and I am interested in this job”). As
part of the cover story, they were informed that for privacy reasons they were not allowed to hear
the full interview.
Masculinity and femininity. Participants rated candidates on two traits (i.e. masculine and
feminine) on scales ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). These two items were
negatively correlated for all targets (r ranging from -.31 to -.45) except for the heterosexual
woman (r = .03). As these correlations varied by target, we considered them separately. Higher
scores indicated higher masculinity and femininity attributions, respectively.
Competence, sociability, and morality. Participants rated each candidate on nine traits
representing three constructs; competence (competent, intelligent, skilled; α from .88 to .93 by
target), sociability (likable, warm, friendly; α from .87 to .93 by target) and morality (honest,
sincere, trustworthy; α from .83 to .92 by target; see Brambilla et al., 2012). Participants
answered the items on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much). High scores indicated higher
trait attributions.
Leadership suitability. Participants indicated candidates’ suitability for the leadership
position using the same five items and rating scale used in Study 1 (α ranging from .96 to .97 by
target).
Low-status occupation suitability. A single item asked whether the applicant would have
been better suited to a low-status position (i.e., “The candidate would only be suitable for a non-
leadership position [e.g., assistant]”) on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).
22VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
Leadership employability. Participants ranked the four candidates from 1 (the most
appointable) to 4 (the least appointable) as in Study 1. Ranks were reversed as before.
Beliefs in leadership consequences. A 16-item measure of beliefs in the good leadership
of two groups, women and LG people, was based on O’Brien and Vest (1988). Eight items
referred to each target group but were otherwise identical (e.g., “I believe employing a woman
[homosexual person] as a leader will bring diversity into the company”). Participants answered
on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Reliability for scores on the beliefs in
good leadership consequences was estimated at α = .73 for women and α = .76 for LG people
target, and an index was calculated by averaging the relevant eight items. Higher score indicated
positive beliefs about each group.
Beliefs about equality. Two 3-item scales, adapted from Horvath and Ryan (2003),
measured support for equality in hiring in regard to gender and to sexual orientation (e.g.,
“Refusing to hire someone because of his/her [gender/sexual orientation] is wrong”). Reliability
for scores on beliefs about equality was estimated at α = .96 for gender and α = .93 for sexual
orientation; items were averaged so that a higher score indicated higher support for equality.
Results
Preliminary Results
T-tests against the scale midpoint suggested that participants did not believe that good
consequences would occur in a company because of having women (M = 2.46, SD = .77; t(79) =
-17.80, p < .001) and LG leaders (M = 3.17, SD = .98; t(79) = -7.52, p < .001). However, they
strongly supported gender (M = 6.57, SD = .91; t(79) = 25.24, p < .001) and sexual orientation
equality (M = 6.59, SD = .90; t(79) = 25.71, p < .001).
In the main analyses, a 2 (Candidate Sexual Orientation: gay/lesbian vs. heterosexual) x 2
(Candidate Gender: male vs. female) repeated measures ANOVA was conducted on each of the
dependent variables. Pairwise comparisons (Bonferroni correction) were conducted when
interactions were significant. Analyses including participant gender as a factor did not show any
23VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
significant interaction with the candidate gender and/or sexual orientation on the dependent
variables (Fs < 1.17, p > .28). We therefore report the data collapsed across participant gender.
As in Study 1, planned contrasts were performed to test our theory-driven hypotheses (Haans,
2018; Howell & Lacroix, 2012). In this case, the design allowed us to conduct contrasts
examining whether the gay- (Hypothesis 2a) or the lesbian-sounding (Hypothesis 2b) candidate
were the most discriminated against among all the candidates.
Masculinity and Femininity
Results on masculinity showed a significant interaction between candidate gender and
sexual orientation, F(1, 79) = 4.12, p = .049, ήp2 = .050. The gay-sounding man (M = 5.38, SD =
1.49) and the heterosexual-sounding man (M = 5.35, SD = 1.46; p = .89) were perceived as
similarly masculine. In contrast, the lesbian-sounding woman (M = 2.31, SD = 1.63) was
perceived as more masculine than the heterosexual-sounding woman (M = 1.80, SD = 1.20; p
= .004).
The same analysis performed on femininity also yielded a significant interaction, F(1, 79)
= 14.44, p < .001, ήp2 = .155. Again, the gay-sounding (M = 1.95, SD = 1.34) and heterosexual-
sounding man (M = 1.96, SD = 1.50; p = .941) were perceived similarly, whereas the lesbian-
sounding woman (M = 5.11, SD = 1.61) was perceived as significantly less feminine than the
heterosexual-sounding woman (M = 6.06, SD = 1.25; p < .001). Thus, gender inverted attribution
emerged for the female candidates only in Study 2.
Competence
Analysis yielded a significant main effect of candidate sexual orientation, F(1, 79) = 21.69.
p < .001, ήp2 = .215. This was qualified by a significant interaction with candidate gender, F(1,
79) = 4.75, p = .032, ήp2 = .057. The gay-sounding man (M = 4.16, SD = 1.14) was perceived as
less competent that the heterosexual-sounding man (M = 4.47, SD = .99; p = .039). The lesbian-
sounding woman (M = 3.99, SD = 1.12) was perceived as less competent than the heterosexual-
sounding woman (M = 4.75, SD = .99; p < .001). The gay-sounding and the lesbian-sounding
24VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
applicant were perceived as similarly competent (p = .290), but the heterosexual-sounding
woman was rated as more competent than the heterosexual-sounding man (p = .024).
Sociability
A significant main effect of candidate sexual orientation, F(1, 79) = 43.94. p < .001, ήp2
= .357, was qualified by a significant interaction with candidate gender, F(1, 79) = 21.85, p
< .001, ήp2 = .217. The gay-sounding man (M = 4.34, SD = 1.26) was rated as similarly sociable
as the heterosexual-sounding man (M = 4.60, SD = 1.07; p = .089), but the lesbian-sounding
woman (M = 3.72, SD = 1.16) was rated as less sociable than the heterosexual-sounding woman
(M = 5.09, SD = 1.15; p < .001). The gay-sounding man was also rated as more sociable than the
lesbian-sounding woman (p = .001) and the heterosexual-sounding woman as more sociable than
the heterosexual-sounding man (p = .001).
Morality
A significant main effect of candidate sexual orientation, F(1, 79) = 28.69. p < .001, ήp2
= .27, was qualified by a significant interaction with gender, F(1, 79) = 9.60, p = .003, ήp2 = .108.
The gay-sounding man (M = 4.26, SD = 1.05) was perceived as significantly less moral than the
heterosexual-sounding man (M = 4.55, SD = 1.03; p = .046), and the lesbian-sounding woman
(M = 3.89, SD = 1.13) as less moral than the heterosexual-sounding woman (M = 4.79, SD =
1.04; p < .001). Also, the lesbian-sounding woman was perceived as less moral than the gay-
sounding man (p = .015), whilst the heterosexual-sounding woman was judged as more moral
than the heterosexual-sounding man (p = .039). Hence, sexual orientation affected morality
attributions for all candidates, but more so for women than for men.
Leadership Suitability
A significant main effect of candidate sexual orientation, F(1, 79) = 18.48, p < .001, ήp2
= .190, indicated that participants discriminated in favour of heterosexual-sounding (M = 4.49 ,
SE = .10) over LG-sounding applicants (M = 3.94, SE = .10), replicating Study 1 and supporting
Hypothesis 1. The interaction between candidate sexual orientation and gender fell short of
25VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
significance, F(1, 79) = 3.15, p = .080, ήp2 = .038 (Mlesbian = 3.78, SD = 1.19 vs. Mgay = 4.10, SD
= 1.12 vs. Mstraigth_woman = 4.54, SD = 1.04 vs. Mstright_man = 4.42, SD = 1.03). Planned contrast
testing the role congruity (coded as -1 = lesbian, 3 = gay, − 1 = heterosexual women, − 1 =
heterosexual men) and the status beliefs (coded as 3 = lesbian, − 1 = gay, − 1 = heterosexual
women, − 1 = heterosexual men) hypotheses were carried out. No significant difference occurred
between the gay-sounding man and the other candidates, F(1, 79) = 1.03, p = .31. On the
contrary, the lesbian-sounding woman was rated as the least suitable candidates compared to the
others, F(1, 79) = 14.87, p < .001) supporting the status beliefs hypothesis (Hypothesis 2b).
Leadership Employability
Only a main effect of candidate sexual orientation, F(1, 78) = 21.41, p < .001, ήp2 = .213,
was found. Confirming Hypothesis 1, LG-sounding applicants were ranked as less appointable
(M = 2.18, SD = .61) than heterosexual-sounding applicants (M = 2.82, SD = .62; see Figure 2).
No other significant effects were found (Fs < .41, ps > .525). Planned contrasts showed that the
lesbian-sounding applicants were the least preferred, F(1, 79) = 40.79, p < .001, followed by the
gay-sounding applicants, F(1, 79) = 4.69, p = .033.
Low-status Occupation Suitability
Confirming Hypothesis 3, we found a significant effect for sexual orientation
discrimination, F(1, 79) = 6.32, p = .014, ήp2 = .074. LG-sounding applicants (M = 3.86, SD =
1.09) were rated as better candidates for the low-status position than heterosexual-sounding
applicants (M = 3.54, SD = 1.09). No other significant effects were found (Fs < .54, ps > .46).
Mediation Analyses
As in Study 1 mediation analyses employed MEMORE macro. We investigated perceived
femininity, masculinity, competence, warmth, and morality as potential mediators of sexual
orientation discrimination separately for each gender. The analyses of discrimination among
women supported full mediation. The direct effect of perceived sexual orientation on job
suitability (b = -.75, SE = .18, t = -4.27, p < .001) became non-significant (b = -.15, SE = .14, t =
26VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
-1.04, p = .302). Confirming the mediated path, the indirect effects through competence (a∗b =
-.39, SE = .15, 95% CI [-0.75, -0.15] z = -2.92, p = .003) and morality (a∗b = -.56, SE = .18,
95% CI [-0.98, -0.28]) were statistically significant. The same analysis on male candidates
showed only a small indirect effect via competence (a∗b = -.18, SE = .09, 95% CI [-0.41, -
0.03]).
Mediation analyses on employability similarly showed that the perceived competence
completely mediated sexual orientation discrimination among men (a∗b = -.14, SE = .09, 95%
CI [-0.37, -0.006]) and among women (a∗b = -.40, SE = .22, 95% CI [-0.87,-0.001]). Across all
four models, competence was the single most consistent mediator of sexual orientation
discrimination. In addition, attributions of morality were relevant to the lower leadership
suitability ratings of lesbian-sounding women (see Figure 3 and 4).
Discussion
Study 2 replicated the finding of discrimination based on sexual orientation conveyed by
voice. Again, lesbian- and gay-sounding applicants were discriminated against heterosexual-
sounding participants. Whilst lesbian-sounding women were stereotyped as more masculine here,
in line with the gender inversion stereotype, heterosexual-sounding women were attributed
greater competence, and competence emerged as the key mediator of sexual orientation
discrimination, not masculinity. Like Study 1, Study 2 refutes the idea that gender inversion
stereotyping triggered by vocal cues of sexual orientation would create an advantage for lesbian-
sounding women via attributions of greater masculinity (see also Fasoli et al., 2017). Instead, the
lesbian-sounding applicants were perceived as less suitable for leadership than gay-sounding
applicants, supporting the status beliefs hypothesis.
In Study 2, participants rated suitability for the lower status job after considering
candidates for the higher status job. LG-sounding candidates were perceived as better suited to a
low-status assistantship position, suggesting a “compensatory” strategy. By giving LG-sounding
candidates the assistantship position, participants could avoid the self-perception that their
27VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
choices are prejudicial, whilst maintaining status hierarchies in candidate choices. This
interpretation is tentative, and it is possible that this compensatory strategy is applied only after
high-status jobs are assigned. Accordingly, Study 3 tested both our core hypotheses, and
experimentally manipulated job status and gender role in a between-participants design.
Study 3
Both Studies 1 and 2 favor status beliefs over role congruity explanations of sexual
orientation discrimination prompted by vocal cues of sexual orientation. Study 3 aimed to
replicate the sexual orientation discrimination (Hypothesis 1) and the status beliefs (Hypothesis
2b) effects that the lesbian-sounding woman would bear the brunt of discrimination.
Study 3 also explored whether the type of job role could affect participants’ judgments.
The results of Study 2 drove our decision to manipulate job status. We predicted that the LG-
sounding applicants would be perceived as less suitable and appointable for a high-status job but
not for a low-status job, to the extent that LG-sounding individuals are perceived as less
competent (Hypothesis 3). At the same type, we manipulated whether the job role was typically
masculine or feminine. Gay men have been preferentially hired for feminine leadership roles in
some studies (Barrantes & Eaton; 2018; but see Niedlich & Steffens, 2015), but none have used
voice as a cue for sexual orientation, and different cues to sexual orientation may impact the
form of discrimination that occurs (Hegarty & Massey, 2006). In line with role congruity theory,
we predict that gay-sounding men are preferred for feminine jobs and lesbian-sounding women
for masculine jobs, to the extent that gender inversion stereotypes are activated, and allow a role
fit with the relevant job (Hypothesis 4). Manipulation of job status was independent of job
gender role avoiding possible confounds between the status and perceived masculinity of
occupational roles (Hegewish, Liepmann, Hayes, & Hartmann, 2010).
Method
Participants
28VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
We performed a statistical power analysis for sample size estimation using GPower
3.1.9.2 software (Faul et al., 2007). With an alpha = .05 and power = .80 the projected sample
size needed to collect a medium effect size (ηp2 = 0.06) was 116 participants. One hundred and
twenty-nine participants took part in the study. We excluded two bisexual participants, leaving
127 heterosexual participants (62 women, 65 men, Mage = 37.59, SD = 12.77). All were British
and native speakers, most held a university/college degree (53%, n = 68), most identified
politically as left (M = 3.60, SD = 1.24, t-test against the midpoint t[126] = -3.64, p < .001), and
had no hiring experience (65%, n = 83).
Procedure
Procedure and measures were the same as in Study 2, except for the job descriptions
illustrated below and the corresponding manipulation check items. Beliefs in leadership
consequence measure was dropped. As in Study 2, participants listened to the four candidates but
the type of job they applied for varied depending on the experimental condition.
Materials
Job advertisement and manipulation check. Participants read one of four job ads
manipulated to either describe a typically masculine or feminine job that was also either high or
low in status job. The job title, its permanence, and its London location were kept constant.
The masculine job was a “Competition Advisor”, the feminine job was a “Social Support
Advisor” (see Barrantes & Eaton, 2018). To emphasize gender typicality the jobs’ “required
skills” (as in Study 1 and 2) were either task-oriented (i.e., “Manager capable of setting
challenging targets and of developing practical actions to meet them”; “Manager capable of
planning activities and competition strategies.”) or relationship-oriented skills (i.e., “Manager
capable of understanding of what the team needs to improve teamwork”, “Manager with
excellent communication and interpersonal skills”). Gender Decoder for Job Ads (n.d.) showed
that both ads contained only gender-consistent words.
29VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
The high-status position was advertised as an “advisor” (as in Barrantes & Eaton, 2018),
with a salary of £50,000 (approximately $65,000), whilst the low status position was “Assistant
to the Advisor” with a salary of £25,000 (approximately $32,000). The average UK salary is
£27,271 (Office for National Statistics, 2017). The description of the low-status position stressed
its subordinate role (i.e., “The assistant will NOT make decisions but will perform tasks assigned
by the manager. The assistant will need to be available all the time, and have a flexible and
adaptable approach to work”). The required skills also referred to assisting and varied
appropriate to the gender role of the job (i.e., masculine: “Assistant facilitating the manager’s
activities in setting challenging targets”; “Assistant capable of organizing the manager’s
activities and appointments” and feminine: “Assistant facilitating the manager’s activities to
improve teamwork and employees’ needs”; “Assistant with excellent communication and
interpersonal people skills”).
Two manipulation check items referring to the job gender role (i.e., how much do you
think this job is masculine/feminine?”; from 1 [very feminine] to 7 [very masculine]), and job
status (i.e., “How much do you think this position is a low or high status job?”; from 1 [low
status] to 7 [high status] were included at the end of the study.
Results
Preliminary Analyses
As in Study 2, overall, participants reported high support for gender (M = 6.60, SD = .71, t-
test against the midpoint t[126] = 41.04, p < .001) and sexual orientation equality (M = 6.62, SD
= .71, t-test against the midpoint t[126] = 41.59, p < .001). Hence, the participants were
supportive of equality in the workplace.
We further examined how the job was perceived by considering ratings on the two
manipulation check items. A 2 (job status: low vs. high) x 2 (job role: masculine vs. feminine)
univariate ANOVA was first performed on ratings of perceived job masculinity. The masculine
job (M = 4.24, SD = .89) was rated as more masculine than the feminine job (M = 3.52, SD = .68,
30VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
F(1, 123) = 276.95, p < .001, ήp2 = .18). This effect was qualified by a significant interaction
with status, F(1, 123) = 9.05, p = .003, ήp2 = .07. The high-status masculine job (M = 4.56, SD
= .82) was perceived as more masculine than the low-status masculine job (M = 3.91, SD = .84;
p = .001). No difference between high- and low-status feminine jobs emerged; they were
perceived as similarly feminine (Mlow-stauts = 3.60, SD = .67 and Mhigh-status = 3.43, SD = .68; p
= .40).
The same analysis was performed on the perceived job status item. The assistant position
(M = 4.03, SD = 1.19) was rated as lower status than the leadership position (M = 5.05, SD =
1.04; F(1, 123) = 27.39, p < .001, ήp2 = .18). In addition, the masculine jobs (M = 4.82, SD =
1.28) were attributed higher status than feminine jobs (M = 4.23, SD = 1.09; F(1, 123) = 8.97, p
= .003, ήp2 = .07). No significant interaction emerged (F < 1). Hence, gender role and status were
manipulated successfully, whilst the high-status masculine position was perceived as particularly
masculine, and masculine jobs were perceived as particularly high status.
In the main analyses, a 2 (Candidate Sexual orientation: gay/lesbian vs. heterosexual) x 2
(Candidate Gender: male vs. female) x 2 (Type of job: masculine vs. feminine) x 2 (Job status:
high vs. low) ANOVA was performed on each dependent variable. The first two variables were
within-participants and the last two variables were between-participants factors. Pairwise
comparisons (Bonferroni correction) were performed in case of significant interactions. Analyses
performed including participant gender as a factor did not affect the main pattern of results2.
Planned contrasts tested our theory-driven status beliefs and role congruity hypotheses as in
Study 2.
Job Suitability
A main effect of candidate sexual orientation, F(1, 123) = 55.47, p < .001, ήp2 = .311,
indicated that LG-sounding applicants (M = 3.76, SD = .95) were rated as less suitable than
heterosexual-sounding applicants (M = 4.24, SD = 1.25), confirming Hypothesis 1, and
replicating Studies 1 and 2. Sexual orientation discrimination was qualified by an interaction
31VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
with gender, F(1, 123) = 21.18, p < .001, ήp2 = .147. As in both earlier studies, sexual orientation
discrimination was greater among women. The lesbian-sounding woman (M = 3.50, SD = 1.27)
was rated as less suitable than the heterosexual-sounding woman (M = 4.75, SD = 1.14; p
< .001), whereas the gay-sounding man (M = 4.02, SD = 1.24) and heterosexual-sounding man
(M = 4.24, SD = 1.25; p = .135) were deemed equally suitable. The lesbian-sounding woman was
rated as less suitable than the gay-sounding man (p = .001), while the heterosexual-sounding
woman was rated as more suitable than the heterosexual-sounding man (p < .001). Planned
contrast further confirmed that the lesbian-sounding woman, F(1, 126) = 7.19, p = .008, but not
the gay-sounding man, F(1, 126) = 1.76, p = .19, was perceived as the least suitable among all
the candidates for any of the jobs under consideration.
All the other effects or interactions were not significant (Fs < 2.36, ps > .127). This support
for Hypotheses 1 and 2 was robust across masculine and feminine jobs of high and low status,
disconfirming Hypotheses 3 and 4.
Employability
A main effect of candidate sexual orientation, F(1, 123) = 10.13, p = .002, ήp2 = .076,
showed that heterosexual-sounding applicants were ranked higher (M = 2.71, SD = .72) than the
LG-sounding applicants (M = 2.30, SD = .72), confirming Hypothesis 1. The interaction with
candidate gender, F(1, 123) = 3.78, p = .054, ήp2 = .030, fell short of significance (Mlesbian = 2.23,
SD = 1.16 vs. Mgay = 2.37, SD = 1.05 vs. Mstraigth_woman = 2.88, SD = 1.11 vs. Mstright_man = 2.53, SD
= 1.04). Planned contrast showed support for the status beliefs hypothesis (Hypothesis 2b) since
the lesbian-sounding woman, F(1, 126) = 7.19, p = .008) was significantly less appointable than
the other candidates while the gay-sounding man was not significantly less appointable than the
others, F(1, 126) = 2.05, p = .155 (see Figure 2). The ANOVA did not yield any other
significant main effects or interactions (Fs < 3.51, ps > .06).
Masculinity and Femininity
32VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
A significant interaction between candidate gender and sexual orientation, F(1, 126) =
19.91, p < .001, ήp2 = .136, on perceived masculinity showed that the gender inversion stereotype
was activated here. The gay-sounding man (M = 5.21, SD = 1.44) was perceived as less
masculine than the heterosexual-sounding man (M = 5.63, SD = 1.17; p = .002), and the lesbian-
sounding woman (M = 2.12, SD = 1.26) was perceived as more masculine than the heterosexual-
sounding woman (M = 1.64, SD = 1.07; p < .001). A similar interaction emerged on perceived
femininity, F(1, 126) = 35.90, p < .001, ήp2 = .222. The gay-sounding man (M = 1.93, SD = 1.25)
was perceived as more feminine than the heterosexual-sounding man (M = 1.69, SD = 1.00; p
= .056), whereas the lesbian-sounding woman (M = 5.28, SD = 1.41) was perceived as less
feminine than the heterosexual-sounding woman (M = 6.14, SD = 1.14; p < .001). In contrast to
Study 1 and 2, all ratings confirmed the gender inversion stereotype here.
Competence
A significant main effect of candidate sexual orientation, F(1, 123) = 49.26, p < .001, ήp2
= .286 was observed, replicating Study 2. This effect was qualified by a significant interaction
with candidate gender, F(1, 123) = 23.54, p < .001, ήp2 = .161. The gay-sounding man (M = 4.21,
SD = 1.02) was perceived as less competent than the heterosexual-sounding man (M = 4.40, SD
= 1.06; p = .078), and the lesbian-sounding (M = 3.83, SD = 1.05) was perceived as less
competent than the heterosexual-sounding woman (M = 4.79, SD = 1.04; p < .001). Moreover,
the lesbian-sounding applicant was perceived as less competent than the gay-sounding applicant
(p = .001), and the heterosexual-sounding woman as more competent than the heterosexual-
sounding man (p = .001). No other significant effects were found (Fs < 1.71, ps > .193), showing
that these effects were not particular to a job’s gender role or status. Once again lower
competence was attributed to gay- and especially lesbian-sounding applicants, contrary to gender
inversion theory predictions.
Sociability
33VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
A significant main effect of candidate sexual orientation, F(1, 123) = 84.37, p < .001, ήp2
= .407, was qualified by a significant interaction with candidate gender, F(1, 123) = 67.69, p
< .001, ήp2 = .355. Participants judged the gay- (M = 4.13, SD = 1.13) and heterosexual-sounding
man (M = 4.25, SD = 1.12) as similarly sociable (p = .319), and the lesbian-sounding woman (M
= 3.42, SD = 1.21) as less sociable than the heterosexual-sounding woman (M = 5.10, SD = 1.13;
p < .001). The lesbian-sounding applicant was also attributed to be less sociable than the gay-
sounding man (p < .001), and the heterosexual-sounding woman as more sociable than the
heterosexual-sounding man (p < .001). No other significant effects were found (Fs < 1.74, ps
> .190). Once again, stereotyping occurred on this dimension only for the female candidates.
Morality
A significant main effect of the candidate sexual orientation, F(1, 123) = 52.28, p < .001,
ήp2 = .298, was qualified by an interaction with candidate gender, F(1, 123) = 26.49, p < .001, ήp
2
= .177. The gay-sounding man (M = 4.19, SD = 1.04) was rated as equally moral as the
heterosexual-sounding man (M = 4.38, SD = 1.04; p = .096), whereas the lesbian-sounding
woman (M = 3.78, SD = 1.09) was rated as clearly less moral than the heterosexual-sounding
woman (M = 4.83, SD = 1.04; p < .001). The lesbian-sounding woman was rated as less moral
than the gay-sounding man (p = .001), and the heterosexual-sounding woman as more moral than
the heterosexual-sounding man (p < .001). No other significant effects were found (Fs < 2.21, ps
> .139).
Mediation Analyses
The mediation analyses in Study 2 were replicated here to test the impact of femininity,
masculinity, competence, sociability, and morality in mediating sexual orientation discrimination
on the job suitability and employability measures. A significant indirect effect of perceived
sexual orientation of female applicants via perceived competence was found on job suitability
(a∗b = -.74, SE = .16, 95% CI [-1.06, -0.43]) and employability (a∗b = -.18, SE = .08, 95% CI
34VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
[-.35, -0.05]), as predicted by status beliefs theory (see Figure 5). No direct or indirect effects
were found for job suitability and employability of male candidates.
Discussion
Study 3 re-confirmed that vocal cues to sexual orientation prompt discrimination,
particularly against women targets, in support of status beliefs theory rather than role congruity
theory. Discrimination among women was also mediated by attributions of lower competence, as
status beliefs theory would predict. In this study we did not find support for the role congruity
theory. Whilst gender inversion stereotypes were clearly applied to all applicants, when lesbian-
sounding women were stereotyped as masculine they were seen as less suitable and less
employable candidates for any job regardless of its specificity. Hence, gender inversion
stereotypes did not facilitate the fit with masculine or feminine jobs. Finally, in Study 3, we did
not find support for Hypothesis 3: LG-sounding applicants were not preferred for a low-status
position. This suggests that the preference to hire LG-sounding candidates in Study 2 only may
have been a compensatory strategy, specific to contexts in which low-status jobs are assigned
after high-status jobs have been assigned, as in Study 2, but not here.
General Discussion
In the UK, LGBT equality is increasingly the social norm (ILGA Europe, 2018), and our
heterosexual participants explicitly supported sexual orientation and gender equality at work.
Yet, vocal cues to sexual orientation still prompted discrimination in heterosexual individuals,
most particularly against lesbian-sounding applicants. Across Studies 1-3, lesbian-sounding
women were rated as less suitable for the jobs and ranked significantly lower than heterosexual-
sounding women and other job candidates in employability (see Figure 1).
This work responds to the call for gaydar research in the context of leadership (Barrantes
& Eaton, 2018) and extends research on gaydar’s social costs (Fasoli & Maass, 2018). So far,
research on categorization of sexual orientation (gaydar) mostly focused on the accuracy of such
gaydar judgments, and more studies examine gaydar in regard to male than female targets (Rule,
35VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
2017). Discrimination studies have found gender-neutral sexual orientation discrimination effects
(Fasoli et al., 2017), consistent beliefs about the gay but not about the lesbian voice (Barton,
2015), and that men, more than women, believe their voices communicate their sexual
orientation (Fasoli, Hegarty, Maass, & Antonio, 2018). This work adds to our understanding of
the intersection of gender and sexual orientation discrimination, by clearly supporting status
beliefs theory over role congruity theory. Most importantly, lesbian-sounding women
consistently bore the brunt of discrimination more than gay-sounding men. In addition,
attributions of stereotypical masculinity to lesbian-sounding women, which role theory suggests
will advantage lesbians, were shown in mediation models to be irrelevant to discrimination.
Status beliefs theory fared much better, because the consistent mediator of discrimination effects
across studies, groups, and measures was competency. When applicants sound gay – or
particularly, sound lesbian – they risk being considered incompetent and consequently
considered less suitable for higher-status leadership positions (see also Berger et al., 1997;
Ridgeway, 2001).
These findings also speak to modern prejudice in countries like the UK where sexual
orientation equality is increasingly a social norm. In such contexts, heterosexual judges must
navigate the dilemmas created between their beliefs that lesbian women and gay men may be ill-
suited to certain roles, and the demand to treat them fairly. UK employers are aware of law that
protects women and sexual minorities from discrimination, but discrimination prompted by
subtle cues such as vocal cues of sexual orientation may still easily escape their scrutiny. Indeed,
discrimination occurred when sexual orientation was inferred rather than explicitly disclosed.
Hence, everyone who sounds LG is at risk of discrimination in the hiring context, regardless of
how the person identifies (see Fasoli et al., 2017). Moreover, the discrimination observed here
would not only reflect beliefs about status hierarchies along sexual orientation lines, but the
outcomes of these hiring decisions would also enhance sexual orientation hierarchy in
intersection with gender hierarchies.
36VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
Some patterns in these results suggest self-licencing strategies for modern prejudice. Self-
licencing is described as the tendency to act in a way that appears fair and maintains individuals’
moral standards, but at the same time frees them up to be biased (Merritt et al., 2010). Such
strategies are common in ambiguous situations, as when sexual orientation is not explicitly
disclosed. We found preferential hiring of LG-sounding candidates to the low status assistantship
in Study 2 after a higher status leadership position had been assigned preferentially to
heterosexual-sounding candidates but not when job status was manipulated between participants
(Study 3). Hence, indicating that LG-sounding applicants were more suitable for a low-status
role may have allowed our participants to gain back some “moral credentials” such that they
were not discriminating but simply indicating a preference.
Across studies, lesbian-sounding women were consistently ranked below heterosexual-
sounding women and men candidates, but heterosexual-sounding women were ranked higher or
perceived as more suitable than lesbian-sounding women and men candidates across studies.
Interpretations of this preference for heterosexual-sounding women are post-hoc and tentative by
necessity. A positive bias toward heterosexual women could occur because target stimuli in
different combinations can suggest the implicit norms against which they are to be compared and
the salient similarities and differences between them (Tversky, 1977). For example, lower
implicit minimum standards may be in place for women than for men, due to group stereotypes,
ironically leading more positive ratings to emerge for women than men candidates when
individual women are compared against a lower standard than individual men are (see Biernat &
Kobrynowicz, 1997; Biernat & Manis, 1994). A heterosexual woman candidate lacking
masculine attributes can be perceived as brave and motivated to get a top job, leading to a
positive evaluation of her (see Heilman, Martell, & Simon, 1988). However, as we observed that
heterosexual-sounding women were also rated the best candidate on ranking measures where
such effects of “shifting standards” are not observed, a more plausible cognitive explanation is
that our designs made the higher status sexual orientation of heterosexual-sounding targets more
37VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
salient than is usual. Such “unmarked” higher status identities are rarely conceptualized
explicitly before lower status “marked” identities are first conceptualized (c.f., Hegarty, 2017).
On its own, such a cognitive process does not explain why heterosexual women might be
particularly advantaged. Yet, self-licensing could explain this unexpected result. Crow, Fok, and
Hartman (1998) analyzed hiring discrimination at the intersection between gender, sexual
orientation, and ethnicity. These authors found that, while the least preferred candidates were
Black LGs, the most preferred candidate was the White heterosexual woman. Individuals feel
accountable for their decisions (see Koch, D’Mello, & Sackett, 2015). Hence, having rated
candidates with several lower status identities poorly, participants may boost their rating of
heterosexual woman candidate with only one low status identity to “license” their discrimination
against LG targets as somewhat more moral and fair (see Monin & Miller, 2001). We
acknowledge that future research is needed to investigate the cognitive and motivational
processes described here.
It is telling that the vocal cues of sexual orientation prompted discriminatory judgments,
but not explicit attributions to sexual orientation discrimination. Jointly these studies help to
describe how a woman who sounds lesbian can become a lever for the exercise of power that can
maintain status hierarchies. Modern prejudiced beliefs encode the ideas that lesbian women and
gay men are advantaged by “special rights” and that they continue to complain about inequality
in ways that are out of synch with modern society (Morrison & Morrison, 2003. Here the
discrimination prompted by the same subtle vocal cues of sexual orientation demonstrates how
sexual orientation remains a hierarchical category, in which people are often assumed
heterosexual until explicit or implicit cues suggest otherwise (Lick & Johnson, 2016).
Discrimination may occur in the workplace both when LG individuals come out, and when they
are “outed” by cues of sexual orientation. In the latter situation, as we have shown here, women
who are perceived as lesbian are likely to be target of sexual orientation discrimination simply
because their voices signal a lesbian sexual orientation. However, they may fail to attribute such
38VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
discrimination to their sexual orientation since sexual orientation is only inferred and not
explicitly disclosed.. As such our results suggest that vocal cues of sexual orientation may create
patterns of intersectional invisibility for lesbian women in the UK (Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach,
2008). Lesbian women in the UK would experience intersectional invisibility if their voices cue
stereotypes of incompetence leading to discrimination. The concept of intersectional invisibility,
developed a propos of African-American women, provides a useful way to theorize the
disparities between the reality of intersectional discrimination, and the attributions that are made
about it (see Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach, 2008).
Practice Implications
These studies have practical implications for individuals, companies and legal systems that
would wish to attenuate the extent to which sexual orientation is a marker of status is societies
where equality is the norm. As a matter of fact, legal cases have already been adjudicated in
which “gay accent” has been taken into consideration to examine whether instances of
discrimination based on perceived sexual orientation exist (see Castle, 2012). The difficulties in
such cases are multiple. On the one hand, it is complicated to prove discrimination when
sexuality is not explicitly disclosed but rather cued by voice or other behaviors. On the other
hand, federal courts have difficulties in differentiating between gender and sexual orientation
discrimination when cues of sexuality and gender stereotypes are mixed. Castle (2012) argues for
the importance of research on what they called gay accent for legal procedures. The importance
of examining cues of sexual orientation it is also evidenced by research showing that gay
employees wage gap is explained by inferred sexual orientation rather than the actual, disclosed,
sexual orientation (see Laurent & Mihoubi, 2016). Hence, discrimination is different among gay
employees depending on cues of sexual orientation. We are slow to recommend to individuals
that they do or do not modify their voices in high-status employment contexts, mindful of both
the cognitive load that this may incur, and of how withdrawal from social situations and hiding
sexual orientation are mechanisms that allow minority stress to get “under the skin” of LGB
39VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
individuals (Hatzenbuehler, 2009, p. 707). Rather, these findings should be used to make explicit
in unconscious bias training that subtle cues to identity can prompt discrimination to a greater
extent than either job applicants or recruiters may detect, and to develop mechanisms for
managing such threats to equality. One possibility could be to develop artificial intelligence
platforms to tune the voice with the aim of making all voices sound gender and sexual
orientation neutral decreasing biases that may occur in the hiring process.
Limitations and Future Directions
Several limitations to the current studies suggest further directions for research. First, we
only examined vocal cues of sexual orientation here. Previous studies have found vocal cue
discrimination to be stronger than visual gaydar (see Fasoli et al., 2017) but visual cues are also
available as grounds for discrimination in the hiring process (Rule et al., 2016). Moreover,
individuals have been more accurate in judging sexual orientation of women than men when face
was concerned (Brewer & Lyons, 2016), hence it will be important to investigate whether
exposure to multiple cues lead to similar results. Also, we have not examined yet the interplay
between disclosure and “subtle” cues to sexual orientation, but findings suggest that incongruent
information can lead to stronger stigmatization (see Gowen & Britt, 2006). Second, Study 2
suggests the merit of teasing apart judgments of sociability and morality, because morality – but
not sociability – emerged as a predictor of discrimination judgments. In the United States, LG
individuals are perceived as falling short of moral values grounded in family values rather than
the Protestant work ethic (Biernat, Vescio, & Theno, 1996). Future studies may find that
morality plays a more robust role in mediating sexual orientation discrimination when hiring for
positions where those values were relevant (e.g., primary school teacher) than the high-status
leadership positions we focused on. Third, whilst we aimed to tease apart role congruity and
status beliefs theory, the theories are not orthogonal because both bear on competency ratings,
and experimentally manipulating status and gender role as orthogonal variables in Study 3 was
only partially possible. Research should also extend our findings to other gender stereotypical
40VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
jobs (see Tilcsik, Anteby, & Knight, 2015). Importantly, future research should consider not only
the intersectionality between gender and sexual orientation, but also race and ethnicity. Research
has shown that race is gendered and that this affects social categorization and stereotyping
(Johnson, Freeman, & Pauker, 2012). With regards to ethnicity, Black gay men are liked more
and are seen as better leaders than individuals presented as merely gay or Black (see Remedios,
Chasteen, Rule, & Plaks, 2011; Wilson, Remedios, & Rule, 2017; see also Petsko &
Bodenhausen, 2019 for effects of ethnicity and sexual orientation intersection on stereotyping).
Hence, when the intersection between race, ethnicity, gender and sexuality is considered,
different patterns of results could emerge. Finally, we have not considered whether participants
who belong to a minority group react differently to cues of sexual orientation. Future research
might examine whether sexual minorities and ethnic minorities show similar biases than their
majority counterparts.
41VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
References
Ahmed, A. M., Andersson, L., & Hammarstedt, M. (2013). Are gay men and lesbians
discriminated against in the hiring process?. Southern Economic Journal, 79, 565-585. doi:
10.4284/0038-4038-2011.317
Aksoy, C. G., Carpenter, C. S., Frank, J., & Huffman, M. (2018). Gay glass ceilings: Sexual
orientation and workplace authority in the UK. IZA Discussion Paper, Institure of Labor
Economics. Retrieved from https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/180592/1/dp11574.pdf
Barrantes, R. J., & Eaton, A. A. (2018). Sexual orientation and leadership suitability: How being
a gay man affects perceptions of fit in gender-stereotyped positions. Sex Roles, 79, 549-564.
doi:10.1007/s11199-018-0894-8
Barton, B. (2015). How like perceives like: Gay people on “gaydar”. Journal of
Homosexuality, 62, 1615-1637. doi:10.1080/00918369.2015.1091207
Beatty, J. E., & Kirby, S. L. (2006). Beyond the legal environment: How stigma influences
invisible identity groups in the workplace. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 18,
29-44. doi:10.1007/s10672-005-9003-6
Berger, J., Fisek, M. H., Norman, R., & Zelditch, M. (1997). Status characteristics and social
interaction. New York, NY: Elsevier.
Biernat, M., & Kobrynowicz, D. (1997). Gender-and race-based standards of competence: Lower
minimum standards but higher ability standards for devalued groups. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 72, 544-557. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.3.544
Biernat, M., & Manis, M. (1994). Shifting standards and stereotype-based judgments. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 5-20. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.66.1.5
Biernat, M., Vescio, T. K., & Theno, S. A. (1996). Violating American values: A “value
congruence” approach to understanding outgroup attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 32, 387-410. doi:10.1006/jesp.1996.0018
42VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
Blashill, A. J., & Powlishta, K. K. (2009). Gay stereotypes: The use of sexual orientation as a
cue for gender-related attributes. Sex Roles, 61, 783-793. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9684-7
Boersma P., & Weenink, D. (2007). PRAAT, a system for doing phonetics by computer (version
5.1.32) (computer program). http://www.praat.org
Brambilla, M., Carnaghi, A., & Ravenna, M. (2011). Status and cooperation shape lesbian
stereotypes: Testing predictions from the stereotype content model. Social Psychology, 42,
101-110. doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000054
Brambilla, M., Sacchi, S., Rusconi, P., Cherubini, P., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2012). You want to give
a good impression? Be honest! Moral traits dominate group impression formation. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 51, 149-166. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.2010.02011.x
Brewer, G., & Lyons, M. (2016). Discrimination of sexual orientation: Accuracy and
confidence. Personality and Individual Differences, 90, 260-264.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.11.019
Campbell-Kibler, K. (2011). Intersecting variables and perceived sexual orientation in men.
American Speech, 86, 52-68. doi:10.1215/00031283-1277510
Castle, R. (2012). The gay accent, gender, and title VII employment discrimination. Seattle
University Law Review, 36, 1943-1966. Retrieved from
https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2191&context=sulr
Childers, K. (2000). Status characteristics theory and sexual orientation: Explaining gender
differences in responses to sexual orientation. Current Research in Social Psychology, 5, 191-
206. Retrieved from https://uiowa.edu/crisp/sites/uiowa.edu.crisp/files/5.11.pdf
Crandall, C. S., Eshleman, A., & O'brien, L. (2002). Social norms and the expression and
suppression of prejudice: the struggle for internalization. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 82, 359-378. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.3.359
43VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
Crist, S. (1997). Duration of onset consonants in gay male stereotyped speech. University of
Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics, 4, 53-70. Retrieved from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7969/8cba2ef95178634ed4e2170f88a207be385a.pdf
Crow, S. M., Fok, L. Y., & Hartman, S. J. (1998). Who is at greatest risk of work-related
discrimination—Women, blacks, or homosexuals? Employee Responsibilities and Rights
Journal, 11, 15-26. doi:10.1023/A:1027319915725
Cunningham, G. B., Sartore, M. L., & McCullough, B. P. (2010). The influence of applicant
sexual orientation, applicant gender, and rater gender on ascribed attributions and hiring
recommendations of personal trainers. Journal of Sport Management, 24, 400-415.
doi:10.1123/jsm.24.4.400
Eagly, A. H., & Chin, J. L. (2010). Diversity and leadership in a changing world. American
Psychologist, 65, 216-224. doi:10.1037/a0018957
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female
leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573-598. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.109.3.573
Ellemers, N., Pagliaro, S., Barreto, M., & Leach, C. W. (2008). Is it better to be moral than
smart? The effects of morality and competence norms on the decision to work at group status
improvement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1397-1410.
doi:10.1037/a0012628
Eurobarometer (2015, October 2). Discrimination in the EU in 2015. Retrieved from
https://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinionmobile/index.cfm/Survey/
getSurveyDetail/surveyKy/2077
Fasoli, F., Cadinu, M., Carnaghi, A., Galdi, S., Guizzo, F., & Tassara, L. (2018). How do you
self-categorize? Gender and sexual orientation self-categorization in homosexual/heterosexual
men and women. Personality and Individual Differences, 123, 135-139.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2017.11.011
44VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
Fasoli, F., Hegarty, P., Maass, A., & Antonio, R. (2018). Who wants to sound straight? Sexual
majority and minority stereotypes, beliefs and desires about auditory gaydar. Personality and
Individual Differences, 130, 59-64. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2018.03.046
Fasoli, F., & Maass, A. (2018). Voice and prejudice: The social costs of auditory
gaydar. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 26, 98-110.
doi:10.1080/15456870.2018.1432617
Fasoli, F., Maass, A., Paladino, M. P., & Sulpizio, S. (2017). Gay-and lesbian-sounding auditory
cues elicit stereotyping and discrimination. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46, 1261-1277.
doi:10.1007/s10508-017-0962-0
Fasoli, F., Maass, A., & Sulpizio, S. (2016). Communication of the “invisible”: Disclosing and
inferring sexual orientation through visual and vocal cues. In H. Giles & A. Maass (Eds.),
Advances in intergroup communication (pp. 193–208). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Fasoli, F., Maass, A., & Sulpizio, S. (2018). Stereotypical disease inferences from gay/lesbian
versus heterosexual voices. Journal of Homosexuality, 65, 990-1014.
doi:10.1080/00918369.2017.1364945
Fassinger, R. E., Shullman, S. L., & Stevenson, M. R. (2010). Toward an affirmative lesbian,
gay, bisexual, and transgender leadership paradigm. American Psychologist, 65, 201-215.
doi:10.1037/a0018597
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* Power: statistical power analyses
for windows and mac (version 3.1. 9.2) [software].
Financial Times. The OUTstanding lists 2018: LGBT+ leaders and allies. (2018, December 14th)
Retrieved from https://www.ft.com/executive-diversity
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype
content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and
competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878-902.
doi:10.1037/pspa0000163
45VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
Frank, J. (2006). Gay glass ceilings. Economica, 73, 485-508. doi:10.1111/j.1468-
0335.2006.00516.x
Garnets, L., & Kimmel, D. (1991). Lesbian and gay male dimensions in the psychological study
of human diversity. In J. Goodchilds (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on human diversity in
America (pp. 143–192). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Gaudio, R. P. (1994). Sounding gay: Pitch properties in the speech of gay and straight
men. American Speech, 69, 30-57. doi:10.2307/455948
Gedro, J. (2010). Lesbian presentations and representations of leadership, and the implications
for HRD. Journal of European Industrial Training, 34, 552-564.
doi:10.1108/03090591011061220
Gender Decoder for Job Ads (n.d.). Retrieved from http://gender-decoder.katmatfield.com/
Gowen, C. W., & Britt, T. W. (2006). The interactive effects of homosexual speech and sexual
orientation on the stigmatization of men: Evidence for expectancy violation theory. Journal of
Language and Social Psychology, 25, 437-456. doi:10.1177/0261927X06292769
Haans, A. (2018). Contrast Analysis: A Tutorial. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation,
23(9), 1-21. Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=23&n=9
Hancock, A. M. (2007). Intersectionality as a normative and empirical paradigm. Politics &
Gender, 3, 248-254. doi:10.1017/S1743923X07000062
Haslam, S. A., & Ryan, M. K. (2008). The road to the glass cliff: Differences in the perceived
suitability of men and women for leadership positions in succeeding and failing
organizations. The Leadership Quarterly, 19, 530-546. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.07.011
Hatzenbuehler, M. L. (2009). How does sexual minority stigma “get under the skin”? A
psychological mediation framework. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 707-730.
doi:10.1037/a0016441
46VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
Hegarty, P. (2017). On the failure to notice that White people are White: Generating and testing
hypothesis with the celebrity guessing game. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,
146, 41-62. doi:10.1037/xge0000243
Hegarty, P., & Massey, S. (2006). Anti-homosexual prejudice… as opposed to what? Queer
theory and the social psychology of anti-homosexual attitudes. Journal of Homosexuality, 52,
47-71. doi:10.1300/J082v52n01_03
Hegewisch, A., Liepmann, H., Hayes, J., & Hartmann, H. (2010). Separate and not equal?
Gender segregation in the labor market and the gender wage gap. IWPR Briefing Paper, 377,
1-16. doi:10.1037/e686432011-001
Heilman, M. E. (1983). Sex bias in work settings: The lack of fit model. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 5, 269-298. https://www.journals.elsevier.com/research-in-
organizational-behavior
Heilman, M. E., Martell, R. F., & Simon, M. C. (1988). The vagaries of sex bias: Conditions
regulating the undervaluation, equivaluation, and overvaluation of female job
applicants. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41, 98-110.
doi:10.1016/0749-5978(88)90049-0
Helb, M. R., Foster, J. B., Mannix, L. M., & Dovidio, J. F. (2002). Formal and interpersonal
discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 815-25.
doi:10.1177/0146167202289010
Herek, G. M., Cogan, J. C., & Gillis, J. R. (2002). Victim experiences in hate crimes based on
sexual orientation. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 319-339. doi:10.1111/1540-4560.00263
Herek, G. M., & McLemore, K. A. (2013). Sexual prejudice. Annual Review of Psychology, 64,
309-333. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143826
Horvath, M., & Ryan, A. M. (2003). Antecedents and potential moderators of the relationship
between attitudes and hiring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Sex Roles, 48,
115-130. doi:10.1023/A:1022499121222
47VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
Howell, G. T., & Lacroix, G. L. (2012). Decomposing interactions using GLM in combination
with the COMPARE, LMATRIX, and MMATRIX subcommands in SPSS. Tutorials in
Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 8, 1-22. doi:10.20982/tqmp.08.1.p001
ILGA Europe. (2018, August 24). Rainbow Europe 208. Retrieved from https://www.ilga-
europe.org/resources/rainbow-europe/rainbow-europe-2018
Kachel, S., Simpson, A. P., & Steffens, M. C. (2017). Acoustic correlates of sexual orientation
and gender-role self-concept in women's speech. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America, 141, 4793-4809. doi:10.1121/1.4988684
Kachel, S., Simpson, A. P., & Steffens, M. C. (2018). “Do I sound straight?”: Acoustic correlates
of actual and perceived sexual orientation and masculinity/femininity in men's
speech. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 61, 1560-1578.
doi:10.1044/2018_JSLHR-S-17-0125
Kachel, S., Radtke, A., Skuk, V. G., Zäske, R., Simpson, A. P., & Steffens, M. C. (2018).
Investigating the common set of acoustic parameters in sexual orientation groups: A voice
averaging approach. PloS one, 13(12), e0208686. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0208686
Kite, M. E., & Deaux, K. (1987). Gender belief systems: Homosexuality and the implicit
inversion theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 83-096. doi:10.1111/j.1471-
6402.1987.tb00776.x
Koch, A. J., D'Mello, S. D., & Sackett, P. R. (2015). A meta-analysis of gender stereotypes and
bias in experimental simulations of employment decision making. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 100, 128-161. doi:10.1037/a0036734
Koenig, A. M., Eagly, A. H., Mitchell, A. A., & Ristikari, T. (2011). Are leader stereotypes
masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 616-
642. doi:10.1037/a0023557
48VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
Kranz, D., Pröbstle, K., & Evidis, A. (2017). Are all the nice guys gay? The impact of sociability
and competence on the social perception of male sexual orientation. Psychology of Men &
Masculinity, 18, 32-39. doi:10.1037/men0000034
Laurent, T., & Mihoubi, F. (2016). The role of apparent sexual orientation in explaining the
heterogeneity of wage penalties among gay employees. In Kollen, T. (Ed.) Sexual orientation
and transgender issues in organizations: Global perspectives on LGBT workforce
diversity (pp. 405-428). Heidelberg and New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-29623-
4_24
Levine, M. P. (1979). Employment discrimination against gay men. International Review of
Modern Sociology, 151-163. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41420698
Liberman, B. E., & Golom, F. D. (2015). Think manager, think male? Heterosexuals’ stereotypes
of gay and lesbian managers. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 34,
566-578. doi:10.1108/EDI-01-2015-0005
Lick, D. J., & Johnson, K. L. (2016). Straight until proven gay: A systematic bias toward straight
categorizations in sexual orientation judgments. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 110, 801-817. doi:10.1037/pspa0000052
Linville, S. E. (1998). Acoustic correlates of perceived versus actual sexual orientation in men’s
speech. Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica, 50, 35-48. doi:10.1159/000021447
Mack, S., & Munson, B. (2012). The influence of/s/quality on ratings of men's sexual
orientation: Explicit and implicit measures of the ‘gay lisp’ stereotype. Journal of
Phonetics, 40, 198-212. doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2011.10.002
Merritt, A. C., Effron, D. A., & Monin, B. (2010). Moral self‐licensing: When being good frees
us to be bad. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 344-357. doi:10.1111/j.1751-
9004.2010.00263.x
Miller, A. E. (2018). Searching for Gaydar: Blind spots in the study of sexual orientation
perception. Psychology & Sexuality, 9, 188-203. doi:10.1080/19419899.2018.1468353
49VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
Monin, B., & Miller, D. T. (2001). Moral credentials and the expression of prejudice. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 33-43. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.33
Monteith, M. J., Deneen, N. E., & Tooman, G. D. (1996). The effect of social norm activation on
the expression of opinions concerning gay men and Blacks. Basic and Applied Social
Psychology, 18, 267-288. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp1803_2
Montoya, A. K., & Hayes, A. F. (2017). Two-condition within-participant statistical mediation
analysis: A path-analytic framework. Psychological Methods, 22, 6-27.
doi:10.1037/met0000086
Moonwomon-Baird, B. (1997). Toward a study of lesbian speech. In A. Livia and K. Hall (Eds.)
Queerly phrased. Language, gender and sexuality (pp. 202-213). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Morrison, M. A., & Morrison, T. G. (2003). Development and validation of a scale measuring
modern prejudice toward gay men and lesbian women. Journal of Homosexuality, 43, 15-37.
doi:10.1300/J082v43n02_02
Munson, B. (2007). The acoustic correlates of perceived masculinity, perceived femininity, and
perceived sexual orientation. Language and Speech, 50, 125-142.
doi:10.1177/00238309070500010601
Munson, B., McDonald, E. C., DeBoe, N. L., & White, A. R. (2006). The acoustic and
perceptual bases of judgments of women and men's sexual orientation from read
speech. Journal of Phonetics, 34, 202-240. doi:10.1016/j.wocn.2005.05.003
Niedlich, C., & Steffens, M. C. (2015). On the interplay of (positive) stereotypes and prejudice:
Impressions of lesbian and gay applicants for leadership positions. Sensoria: A Journal of
Mind, Brain & Culture, 11, 70-80. doi:10.7790/sa.v11i1.408
Niedlich, C., Steffens, M. C., Krause, J., Settke, E., & Ebert, I. D. (2015). Ironic effects of sexual
minority group membership: Are lesbians less susceptible to invoking negative female
50VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
stereotypes than heterosexual women? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 1439-1447.
doi:10.1007/s10508-014-0412-1
O'Brien, F. P., & Vest, M. J. (1988). A proposed scale to measure beliefs about the consequences
of employing homosexuals. Psychological Reports, 63, 547-551.
doi:10.2466/pr0.1988.63.2.547
Office for National Statistics (2017, October 26). Annual survey of hours and earnings: 2017
provisional and 2016 revised results. Retrieved from
https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghour
s/bulletins/annualsurveyofhoursandearnings/2017provisionaland2016revisedresults#average-
earnings
Parnell, M. K., Lease, S. H., & Green, M. L. (2012). Perceived career barriers for gay, lesbian,
and bisexual individuals. Journal of Career Development, 39, 248-268.
doi:10.1177/0894845310386730
Patacchini, E., Ragusa, G., & Zenou, Y. (2015). Unexplored dimensions of discrimination in
Europe: Homosexuality and physical appearance. Journal of Population Economics, 28,
1045-1073. doi:10.1007/s00148-014-0533-9
Peer, E., Brandimarte, L., Samat, S., & Acquisti, A. (2017). Beyond the Turk: Alternative
platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 70, 153-163. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2017.01.006
Petsko, C. D., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2019). Racial stereotyping of gay men: Can a minority
sexual orientation erase race?. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 83, 37-54.
doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2019.03.002
Pichler, S., Varma, A., & Bruce, T. (2010). Heterosexism in employment decisions: The role of
job misfit. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 2527-2555. doi:10.1111/j.1559-
1816.2010.00669.x
51VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
Pierrehumbert, J. B., Bent, T., Munson, B., Bradlow, A. R., & Bailey, J. M. (2004). The
influence of sexual orientation on vowel production (L). The Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America, 116, 1905-1908. doi:10.1121/1.1788729
Prewitt-Freilino, J. L., & Bosson, J. K. (2008). Defending the self against identity
misclassification. Self and Identity, 7, 168-183. doi:10.1080/17405620701330706
Purdie-Vaughns, V., & Eibach, R. P. (2008). Intersectional invisibility: The distinctive
advantages and disadvantages of multiple subordinate-group identities. Sex Roles, 59, 377-
391. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9424-4
Rashotte, L. S., & Webster Jr, M. (2005). Gender status beliefs. Social Science Research, 34,
618-633. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2004.05.004
Remedios, J. D., Chasteen, A. L., Rule, N. O., & Plaks, J. E. (2011). Impressions at the
intersection of ambiguous and obvious social categories: Does gay+ Black= likable? Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 1312-1315. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.05.015
Ridgeway, C. (1991). The social construction of status value: Gender and other nominal
characteristics. Social Forces, 70, 367-386. doi:10.1093/sf/70.2.367
Ridgeway, C. L. (2001). Gender, status, and leadership. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 637-655.
doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00233
Rosnow, R. L., & Rosenthal, R. (1995). “Some things you learn aren’t so”: Cohen’s paradox,
Asch’s paradigm, and the interpretation of interaction. Psychological Science, 6, 3-9.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1995.tb00297.x
Rule, N. O. (2017). Perceptions of sexual orientation from minimal cues. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 46, 129-139. doi:10.1007/s10508-016-0779-2
Rule, N. O., Bjornsdottir, R. T., Tskhay, K. O., & Ambady, N. (2016). Subtle perceptions of
male sexual orientation influence occupational opportunities. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 101, 1687-1704. doi:10.1037/apl0000148
52VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
Schein, V. E., & Davidson, M. J. (1993). Think manager, think male. Management Development
Review, 6, 24-28. doi:10.1108/EUM0000000000738
Skorska, M. N., Geniole, S. N., Vrysen, B. M., McCormick, C. M., & Bogaert, A. F. (2015).
Facial structure predicts sexual orientation in both men and women. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 44, 1377-1394. doi:10.1007/s10508-014-0454-4
Steffens, M. C., Niedlich, C., & Ehrke, F. (2016). Discrimination at work on the basis of sexual
orientation: Subjective experience, experimental evidence, and interventions. In T. Köllen
(Ed.), Sexual orientation and transgender issues in organizations: Global perspectives on
LGBT workforce diversity (pp. 367-388). New York, NY: Springer.
Steffens, M. C., Niedlich, C., Beschorner, R., & Köhler, M. C. (2018). Do positive and negative
stereotypes of gay and heterosexual men affect job-related impressions? Sex Roles, 1-17.
doi:10.1007/s11199-018-0963-z
Sue, D. W. (2010). Microaggressions in everyday life: Race, gender, and sexual orientation.
Hobken, New Jeresey: John Wiley & Sons.
Sulpizio, S., Fasoli, F., Antonio, R., Eyssel, F., Paladino, M. P., Diehl, C. (2019). Auditory
gaydar: Perception of sexual orientation based on female voice. Language and Speech.
Advanced online publication. doi:10.1177/0023830919828201
Sulpizio, S., Fasoli, F., Maass, A., Paladino, M. P., Vespignani, F., Eyssel, F., & Bentler, D.
(2015). The sound of voice: Voice-based categorization of speakers’ sexual orientation within
and across languages. PloS one, 10, e0128882. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0128882
Tilcsik, A. (2011). Pride and prejudice: Employment discrimination against openly gay men in
the United States. American Journal of Sociology, 117, 586-626. doi:10.1086/661653
Tilcsik, A., Anteby, M., & Knight, C. R. (2015). Concealable stigma and occupational
segregation: Toward a theory of gay and lesbian occupations. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 60, 446-481. doi:10.1177/0001839215576401
53VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
Tracy, E. C. (2016). Judgments of American English male talkers who are perceived to sound
gay or heterosexual: Certain personality traits are associated with each group of talkers. The
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 140, 3402-3402. doi:10.1121/1.4970918
Tskhay, K. O., & Rule, N. O. (2013). Accuracy in categorizing perceptually ambiguous groups:
A review and meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17, 72-86.
doi:10.1177/1088868312461308
Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327-336.
doi:10.1037/0033-295X.84.4.327
UK Government Equalities Office. (2018). National LGBT Survey Summary Report. Retrieved
from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/722314/GEO-LGBT-Survey-Report.pdf
Van Borsel, J., & Van de Putte, A. (2014). Lisping and male homosexuality. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 43, 1159-1163. doi:10.1007/s10508-014-0262-x
Waksler, R. (2001). Pitch range and women's sexual orientation. Word, 52, 69-77.
doi:10.1080/00437956.2001.11432508
Webster, M., Jr., Hysom, S. J., & Fullmer, E. M. (1998). Sexual orientation and occupation as
status. In J. Skvoretz & J. Szmatka (Eds.), Advances in Group Processes (Vol. 15, pp. 1-21).
New York, NY: JAI Press.
Weichselbaumer, D. (2003). Sexual orientation discrimination in hiring. Labour Economics, 10,
629-642. doi:10.1016/S0927-5371(03)00074-5
Wilson, J. P., Remedios, J. D., & Rule, N. O. (2017). Interactive effects of obvious and
ambiguous social categories on perceptions of leadership: When double-minority status may
be beneficial. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43, 888-900.
doi:10.1177/0146167217702373
54VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
Woodruffe-Burton, H., & Bairstow, S. (2013). Countering heteronormativity: Exploring the
negotiation of butch lesbian identity in the organisational setting. Gender in Management: An
International Journal, 28, 359-374. doi:10.1108/GM-01-2013-0015
Zimman, L. (2010). Female-to-male transsexuals and gay-sounding voices: A pilot study.
Colorado Research in Linguistics, 22, 1-21. Retrieved from
https://scholar.colorado.edu/cril/vol22/iss1/3
55VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
Footnotes
1 In line with glass cliff research (Haslam & Ryan, 2008), in Study 1 we also manipulated the
status of the company as either successful or failing. This aimed to examine whether LG-
sounding applicants would be perceived as more suitable and employable for a failing (vs.
successful) company as it happens for women. Analyses including this factor did not yield any
significant interaction and therefore this factor was not been considered further.
2 Only a significant interaction between participant gender, candidate sexual orientation, and type
of job occurred on employability ranking, F(1, 119) = 13.65, p < .001, ήp2 = .103. Pairwise
comparisons (Bonferroni correction) showed an unexpected pattern of results. Men participants
judged the LG-sounding applicants (M = 2.05, SE = .12) as less appointable for masculine type
of jobs than heterosexual-sounding applicants (M = 2.94, SE = .12; p < .001), while women rated
LG-sounding applicants (M = 2.09, SE = .12) as less appointable for feminine type of jobs than
heterosexual-sounding applicants (M = 2.92, SE = .12; p = .002). However, this effect emerged
regardless of applicants’ gender.
56VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
Figure 1. Job suitability across applicants’ gender and sexual orientation in the three studies.
57VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
Figure 2. Employability preference across applicants’ gender and sexual orientation in the three
studies.
58VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
Figure 3. Multiple mediation model depicting relations between speakers’ sexual orientation,
multiple mediators, and Suitability (Graphic A: female speakers and Graphic B: male speakers)
in Study 2. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported. The numbers in parentheses
represent the direct effect (i.e., total effect). *p < .01, **p < .001.
59VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
Figure 4. Multiple mediation model depicting relations between speakers’ sexual orientation,
multiple mediators, and Employability (Graphic A: female speakers and Graphic B: male
speakers) in Study 2. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported. The numbers in
parentheses represent the direct effect (i.e., total effect). *p < .01, **p < .001.
60VOICE AND LEADERSHIP
Figure 5. Multiple mediation model depicting relations between speakers’ sexual orientation,
multiple mediators, and Suitability (Graphic A) or Employability (Graphic B) for female
speakers in Study 3. Unstandardized regression coefficients are reported. The numbers in
parentheses represent the direct effect (i.e., total effect). *p < .01, **p < .001.
Top Related