Next Article in Journal
Toward a Critical Sociology of Campus Sexual Assault: Victim Advocacy as the Lifeworld Resisting the System
Previous Article in Journal
The Gendered Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Employment in Argentina: The Mediating Role of the Public vs. Private Sectors
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Social Sciences
Volume 13
Issue 3
10.3390/socsci13030124
socsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Job Attribute Preferences of Sexual Minority People: The Role of Past Discrimination and Safe Havens

by
Lisa de Vries
Faculty of Sociology, Bielefeld University, 33615 Bielefeld, Germany
Soc. Sci. 2024, 13(3), 124; https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13030124
Submission received: 6 December 2023 / Revised: 8 February 2024 / Accepted: 13 February 2024 / Published: 20 February 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Work, Employment and the Labor Market)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Building on research on discrimination, occupational segregation, and labor market inequalities that are rooted in sexual orientation, this study examines how previous negative experiences of discrimination and positive experiences of “safe havens”—workplaces that protect employees from discrimination—are associated with job attribute preferences of sexual minority people. Based on data from a German online convenience sample (N = 1197 sexual minority respondents), this study focuses on five job attribute preferences: high income, good promotion prospects, opportunities for further training, interesting work, and LGB-friendly work climate. The results suggest the high importance of an LGB-friendly work climate for sexual minority people. Furthermore, the results show that discriminatory experiences are positively associated with the importance of an LGB-friendly work climate for sexual minority people in an early career stage. However, safe havens are positively associated with the importance of an LGB-friendly work climate for sexual minority people. Finally, results suggest little evidence for an association between discrimination, safe havens, and general job attribute preferences. Differences between career stages highlight the importance of this variable in further research on the career trajectories of sexual minority people.

1. Introduction

The employment situation of minority groups is an important and widely discussed topic within labor market and inequality research. Numerous studies have documented how social inequality and discrimination related to race, gender, and sexual orientation can affect income, professional position, and access to job opportunities (Cabrita et al. 2020; Neumark 2018; Valfort 2017; Weichselbaumer and Winter-Ebmer 2005). Although there has been extensive research on discrimination based on binary gender and race, labor market inequalities related to sexual orientation have yet to be fully explored (Badgett et al. 2021; Valfort 2017). Existing research shows that lesbian, gay, and bisexual people differ from heterosexual people in terms of labor market outcomes (e.g., Aksoy et al. 2018; Badgett 1995; Black et al. 2003; Badgett et al. 2021; Verbakel 2013), and experimental research suggests that these groups face considerable discrimination in the labor market (e.g., Ahmed et al. 2011; Patacchini et al. 2015; Weichselbaumer 2003; Neumark 2018). However, these two areas of research are not well connected, and the processes by which experiences of discrimination result in specific labor market outcomes are not fully understood. This study aims to help fill this research gap by focusing on the job attribute preferences of sexual minority people as a presumed mediator between discriminatory experiences and occupational trajectories. To explore this association the present study focuses on the following question: What role do past discrimination and safe havens play in the job attribute preferences of sexual minority people? The main argument of this study is that past discrimination and the search for workplaces that protect employees from discrimination (safe havens) influence the occupational behavior and preferences of individuals who try to avoid future discrimination at the expense of career opportunities. Moreover, this study accounts for different career stages to examine how past discrimination and safe havens affect job preferences at a very early career stage and for people who are already integrated into the labor market. The database used is a German online convenience survey (N = 1197 sexual minority respondents) that focused on respondents’ sexual orientation and gender.

2. Previous Research

2.1. Labor Market Discrimination against Sexual Minority People and Occupational Segregation

A high number of studies have been conducted examining the earnings of heterosexual people compared with those of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people. The main finding has been that gay and bisexual men earn significantly less than heterosexual men (Drydakis 2021; for Germany see Kroh et al. 2017). The results for women have been less uniform. In some studies, lesbian and bisexual women have been found to earn more than heterosexual women (Black et al. 2003; Berg and Lien 2002; Carpenter 2008b), whereas other studies found no significant differences between these groups (Badgett 2001; Kroh et al. 2017) or found that heterosexual women earn more (Carpenter 2008a). Other studies have found an association between sexual orientation and management positions, which also depends on gender (Aksoy et al. 2018; Frank 2006; Ueno et al. 2013a; de Vries and Steinmetz 2023). In addition, experimental studies have found evidence of hiring discrimination against lesbian, gay, and bisexual people (Neumark 2018), and recent research shows widespread evidence of self-reported discrimination experienced by sexual minority people (de Vries et al. 2020; FRA European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights 2020).
Another line of research has found that sexual minority people work in different occupations and industry sectors than heterosexual people (Antecol et al. 2008; Finnigan 2020; Ueno et al. 2013b; de Vries et al. 2020; Badgett et al. 2021). Plug et al. (2014) found that lesbian, gay, and bisexual people shy away from prejudiced occupations and prefer workplaces that allow them to disclose their sexual orientation. Other studies have found that lesbian, gay, and bisexual people avoid same-gender-concentrated occupations or prefer occupations with a high percentage of the opposite gender (Finnigan 2020; Tilcsik et al. 2015). Based on a sample of North American college students, Ellis et al. (2012) found that lesbian, gay, and bisexual people tend to be interested in occupations that are considered to be typical of the opposite binary gender (“contra-sex” occupational interests), and other scholars have reported similar findings (Chung and Harmon 1994; Lippa 2002). Ng et al. (2012) showed that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people have different work values to heterosexual people and have a higher preference for working in the non-profit sector. Additionally, recent research about the Science Technology Engineering Mathematics (STEM) degree gap found differences in the representation and experiences in STEM fields by sexual orientation and gender (Sansone and Carpenter 2020; Hughes 2018; Cech and Pham 2017) and a recent study by Boertien et al. (2023) found higher upward educational mobility for lesbian women and gay men (compared to heterosexual people) and discuss this effect as a strategy to avoid actual and anticipated discrimination.
Furthermore, a number of studies and theoretical approaches have sought to determine how (anticipated) discrimination affects the vocational behavior of sexual (and gender) minority people. For example, in an empirical study with 119 lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender students, Schneider and Dimito (2010) found that respondents who experienced discrimination reported more often that their sexual orientation influenced their career and academic choices. Schmidt et al. (2011) found that discrimination perceived by lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender college students contributed to vocational indecision and difficulties in adjusting to college. Additionally, Burn and Martell (2020) found that the college major choices of sexual minority people are consistent with efforts to avoid future discrimination. Whereas most research on vocational behavior has focused on young lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, Ragins (2004) hypothesized that discrimination influences vocational behavior over an individual’s entire career trajectory. Her “safe-haven hypothesis” holds that the vocational behavior of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people is influenced by their search for occupations and workplaces that will protect them from discrimination (Ragins 2004, p. 97), and other studies focus also on workplaces in the context of safe havens or safe spaces (e.g., Barnad et al. 2023).
Because the present study is based on German data, it is necessary to briefly describe the situation for sexual minority people in Germany. Over recent decades, the social acceptance of sexual minority people has been increasing in Germany (Flores 2019). Laws criminalizing homosexuality were abolished in 1994, and the passage of the General Equal Treatment Act (AGG) in 2006 increased legal protections against discrimination in the labor market. Further, same-sex marriage was legalized in 2017, strengthening the rights of same-sex couples. Nevertheless, sexual minority people still report discrimination in many areas of life including the labor market (de Vries et al. 2020; Beigang et al. 2017; FRA European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights 2020).
Table 1 and Table 2 provide an overview of occupational segregation by sexual orientation and gender in Germany. The findings are based on my own analysis of data from the Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP) and a German online convenience survey (LGBielefeld 2019). The SOEP is a representative household panel in Germany with approximately 29,000 respondents in the year 2019 (Goebel et al. 2019; The SOEP group 2020). In the year 2019, a boost sample of nearly 500 households including sexual and gender minority people (SOEP-Q) was added to the SOEP (Fischer et al. 2022; de Vries et al. 2021). I compared the industry sector of heterosexual employees (SOEP) with that of sexual minority employees (SOEP and LGBielefeld 2019).
Table 1 shows differences in the industry sector by sexual orientation and sample for men. Heterosexual men in the SOEP were more frequently employed in the manufacturing industry and primary sector, at 41.0%, than sexual minority men in the SOEP, at 21.2%, and sexual minority men in LGBielefeld, at 11.9%. Sexual minority men in both samples, however, were more frequently employed in healthcare and social services than heterosexual men. These results are in line with current international research, which suggests that sexual minority people are more frequently employed in industry sectors that are atypical for their own gender (Antecol et al. 2008; Finnigan 2020; Ueno et al. 2013b).
Table 2 shows lower and less clear occupational segregation for women. Sexual minority women in both samples worked in the areas of financial insurance services, real estate/housing, and economic services and education less often than heterosexual women did. Further, both tables show differences between sexual minority people in the SOEP and LGBielefeld 2019. These differences are presumably caused by differences in age and educational attainment between both studies (Kühne and Zindel 2020).
The descriptive overview for Germany suggests that sexual minority people tend to choose different industry sectors than heterosexual people of their own gender would choose. These differences were stronger for men than for women and in line with the findings reported in international research on occupational segregation (Antecol et al. 2008; Ueno et al. 2013b) and on contra-sex occupational interests (Chung and Harmon 1994; Ellis et al. 2012; Lippa 2002).

2.2. Job Attribute Preferences

Job attribute preferences are the various qualities and outcomes that a prospective employee desires and would expect from doing paid work (Konrad et al. 2000a). Some examples of job attributes are high earnings, competitive benefits, and good co-workers. The importance of job attributes is relevant in vocational choice (e.g., the decision to reject or accept an offer of employment) (Turban et al. 1993; Beaty 1990). Empirical studies in various disciplines have shown and tried to explain differences in job attribute preferences in terms of binary gender or race (e.g., Konrad et al. 2000a, 2000b; Griffith and Combs 2015; Esser and Lindh 2018), with a focus on the effect of such preferences on gender pay gaps and the gender segregation of occupations (Konrad et al. 2000b). Theoretical perspectives on this topic vary and involve gender roles, stereotypes, and self-efficacy (Griffith and Combs 2015; Konrad et al. 2000b).
The importance of job attribute preferences for vocational behavior underscores their relevance to individual career trajectories. To explore the association between experienced discrimination, safe havens, and job attribute preferences for the group of sexual minority people, the present study focused on the following question: What role do past discrimination and safe havens play in the job attribute preferences of sexual minority people? This study focuses on five job attribute preferences: high income, good promotion prospects, opportunities for further training, interesting work, and LGB-friendly work climate. The first four job attribute preferences are comparable or similar to those measured in other studies (e.g., Konrad et al. 2000a, 2000b; Griffith and Combs 2015). The job attribute LGB-friendly work climate has not been addressed in previous studies. However, other studies have measured job attribute preferences related to employees’ relationships with co-workers or supervisors (Konrad et al. 2000a, 2000b).

3. Theoretical Background

3.1. Cognitive Dissonance, Coping and Safe Havens

Researchers from various disciplines have put forward theoretical accounts to explain vocational behavior. In contrast to economic and neoclassical approaches, some psychological theories offer explanations for vocational behavior that focus on individuals’ ways of dealing with discrimination. Integrating Festinger’s (Festinger [1957] 2001) theory of cognitive dissonance into the neoclassical view of labor supply, Goldsmith et al. (2004) theorized that individuals who face discrimination during the job search process fall into a state of psychological imbalance and make certain cognitive adjustments to restore a sense of equilibrium. Festinger’s (Festinger [1957] 2001) theory turns on the idea that individuals seek harmony between their cognitions or thoughts, and that disharmony makes people uncomfortable, motivating them to restore balance or harmony. Goldsmith et al. (2004) suggested two strategies that can be used to achieve this balance in the context of discrimination and job searching: First, individuals who are experiencing discrimination can adjust their values to match what they believe is possible in terms of job quality (Goldsmith et al. 2004). Rather than seeking what they would consider a “good job”, as people usually do, they may try to get the “best job available”. Second, to restore psychological balance, job seekers experiencing discrimination may decide that more work experience would improve their chances on the labor market and may therefore take a “poor job” simply to bolster their resume (Goldsmith et al. 2004). These theoretical considerations by Goldsmith et al. (2004) are in line with the assumption of this study that discrimination can affect the vocational behavior and preferences of individuals in the labor market.
A study by Pager and Pedulla (2015) compared job search strategies by race and gender to determine whether minorities self-select into special segments of the labor market to avoid discrimination. Although they found little evidence that people of color self-selected into particular segments, the results showed that, compared with white people, people of color responded to a wider range of job offers. The authors noted that discrimination is difficult to pinpoint and theorized that applying for a broad range of jobs can also be an effective strategy to avoid discrimination. In addition, theoretical and empirical research has focused on the relationship between discrimination and coping strategies. Chung (2001) looked at different coping strategies used by lesbian, gay, and bisexual employees to deal with potential and actual discrimination in the labor market. He referred to two coping strategies that are used to avoid these kinds of discrimination: vocational choice and work adjustment. Vocational choice addresses potential discrimination, whereas work adjustment addresses potential or actual discrimination. Examples of vocational choice include self-employment, job tracking, and risk taking (taking the risk to experience discrimination to avoid career disadvantages), and examples of work adjustment include discrimination management (how to deal with the experience of discrimination) and identity management (how open sexual minority people are with their sexual orientation). Self-employment and job tracking may be used as strategies for finding a safe workplace and avoiding discrimination, whereas risk taking may be used if people are unable to enter self-employment, if they find that job tracking limits their opportunities, or if they prioritize other factors (e.g., income, professional position) over their sexual orientation in choosing a vocation (Chung 2001). The work adjustment approach for identity management is linked to Fassinger’s assumption that lesbian, gay, and bisexual people constitute an “invisible minority” because their sexual orientation is not clearly evident (Fassinger 1991). As possible coping strategies in discrimination management, Chung (2001) named quitting, silence, social support, and confrontation. Whereas some coping strategies aim to avoid future discrimination (e.g., self-employment, job tracking), others aim to focus on career (e.g., risk taking). Using coping strategies to avoid discrimination is assumed to affect job attribute preferences with higher preferences for a non-discriminatory work environment.
In addition, researchers have theorized that sexual minority people may deal with discrimination by choosing a safe and accepting work environment that will protect them from discrimination (Ng et al. 2012). Based on theories about career development, Ragins (2004) presented an identity-based longitudinal theory regarding the careers of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people that considers the role of discrimination in the career trajectory. In this context, Ragins (2004, p. 102) highlighted the importance of “[…] occupations, organizations and work groups that provide protection against discrimination and support the development of a gay identity” (safe havens). Such safe havens are a “[…] refuge from discrimination […]” (Ragins 2004, p. 103) and allow sexual minority employees to disclose their sexual orientation. According to Ragins (2004), safe havens are important for sexual minority people’s occupational and organizational choices. If a sexual minority employee finds a safe haven, they may be hesitant to leave it, even for better career opportunities or higher compensation.

3.2. Summary and Hypotheses

In this study, I applied the theories of cognitive dissonance and coping to explain the association between past discrimination, safe havens, and job attribute preferences of sexual minority people based on a sample of 1197 respondents. Firstly, this study hypothesizes in a more general term that an LGB-friendly work climate is a crucial job attribute preference for sexual minority people. This is based on two assumptions from existing research. On the one hand, earnings and occupational segregation have been found to differ with respect to employees’ sexual orientation. On the other hand, sexual minority people are theorized to seek safe work environments that will protect them from discrimination. Based on this, the first hypothesis that I explore is as follows:
Hypothesis 1.
Among sexual minority people, an LGB-friendly work climate is more important than high income, good promotion prospects, opportunities for further training, and interesting work.
Secondly, according to the theory of cognitive dissonance and the extension by Goldsmith et al. (2004), discrimination leads to psychological imbalance and a change in the values of an individual who is trying to find a job to fits the qualities of a job that appears achievable. According to Chung (2001), vocational choice is an essential coping strategy to deal with current or future discrimination. Based on these theories, this study hypothesizes that an LGB-friendly work climate is particularly relevant for sexual minority people who have experienced discrimination:
Hypothesis 2a.
An LGB-friendly work climate is more important for sexual minority people who have experienced discrimination than it is for sexual minority people who have not experienced discrimination.
Moreover, I assume, in line with the safe-haven hypothesis of Ragins (2004), that sexual minority people are also willing to sacrifice other job preferences for an LGB-friendly work climate. Based on the idea of psychological imbalance and the impact of discrimination, this study hypothesizes that other job attribute preferences become less important for sexual minority people who have experienced discrimination. Discrimination is, in this study, measured by self-reported discrimination by asking the respondents whether they had experienced discrimination in Germany in the previous two years based on sexual orientation.
Hypothesis 2b.
High income, good promotion prospects, opportunities for further training, and interesting work are less important for sexual minority people who have experienced discrimination than they are for sexual minority people who have not experienced discrimination.
Thirdly, and following Ragins (2004), the vocational behavior of sexual minority people is influenced by a search for occupations and workplaces that will protect them from discrimination and allow them to disclose their sexual orientation. Furthermore, Ragins (2004) suggests that sexual minority employees prefer not to leave safe havens, even for better opportunities. I assume that an LGB-friendly work climate takes on heightened importance for sexual minority employees who have found a safe haven in their current job, whereas other job attribute preferences take on less importance. Hence, this study proposes the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 3a.
An LGB-friendly work climate is more important for sexual minority people who have found a safe haven in their current job than it is for sexual minority people who have not found a safe haven.
Hypothesis 3b.
High income, good promotion prospects, opportunities for further training, and interesting work are less important for sexual minority people who have found a safe haven in their current job than they are for sexual minority people who have not found a safe haven.
Hypothesis 1 focuses on the importance of an LGB-friendly work climate for the entire community. Whereas Hypotheses 2a and 2b focus on the effects of past discriminatory experiences, Hypotheses 3a and 3b address the current situation in the labor market and how safe havens shape the job attribute preferences of sexual minority people. To further examine whether the effect of previous discriminatory experiences varies between people in an early stage of their career and those who are already integrated into the labor market, Hypotheses 1, 2a, and 2b are analyzed by career stage. However, previous research found that job preferences change with the transition into adulthood (Rouvroye et al. 2023) and found differences in the consequences of discrimination for different age cohorts (Frost et al. 2022), which are arguments for considering different career stages when analyzing the association between job attribute preferences and discrimination.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Sample and Data Collection

I compiled the database for this study from an online convenience survey that was conducted in Germany in July and August of 2019 (LGBielefeld 2019) and that focused on sexual orientation and gender identity. The aim of the survey was to gain insights into the living circumstances of lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer, and intersex (LGBTQI*) people in Germany. The study was conducted by the working group “Quantitative Methods of Empirical Social Research” at Bielefeld University. To reach the target population of LGBTQI* people, respondents were recruited through ads on Facebook and Instagram. Participation in the survey was limited to people 18 years of age or older living in Germany. The opening screen of the survey indicated that participation was confidential and voluntary and referred to additional information about all the rights of survey participants and personal data. Prior to commencing the survey, participants were required to give their consent for the processing of their data. This consent was voluntary and could be withdrawn at any time. The data collection was approved by the Ethics Committee of Bielefeld University.
In total, 6588 people who identify as LGBTQI* completed the questionnaire (Zindel et al. 2023). As the study focuses on the LGBTQI* community, cisgender–heterosexual people are not included in the study. The questionnaire included questions about sexual orientation, gender identity, experiences of discrimination, and disclosure, as well as general questions about household composition, individual’s employment situation, and socio-demographic characteristics. The average survey duration was 14 min. To shorten the questionnaire, rotation modules were used. These modules included, for example, questions about health, well-being, or political opinions and were directed to respondents randomly. One of these modules contained an item battery with job attribute preferences and was completed by 2461 respondents. The sample for this study is limited to these respondents. Compared to a German probability sample of LGBTQI* people (SOEP-Q), the LGBielefeld 2019 sample consisted of more women, younger people, and those with high educational attainment. The sampling method, using Facebook and Instagram (Kühne and Zindel 2020), is likely responsible for these differences. All survey information is published in a data report (Zindel et al. 2023).
To investigate the research questions, I imposed some further sample restrictions. Firstly, I excluded people above the age of 64 (N = 250) to examine those who were either in education or training or in employment (the working population). Secondly, I excluded respondents with missing values for the dependent, the independent, or the control variables (N = 490) as well as gender minority and heterosexual respondents due to the small sample size (see Section 4.2). Finally, to account for different career stages, I split this reduced sample into two groups: Sample 1 (N = 660 sexual minority respondents) consisted of people who were pursuing an education (school, vocational training, university) and did not work full-time, whereas Sample 2 (N = 537 sexual minority respondents) consisted of people who worked full- or part-time or were marginally employed and were not in education or training. Additionally, I excluded respondents who were neither part of Sample 1 nor Sample 2 (N = 524).

4.2. Measures

The original survey covered many areas. For this study, I selected variables that pertain to job attribute preferences, past discrimination, sexual orientation, and socio-demographic control variables (for an overview, see Table A1).

4.2.1. Job Attribute Preferences

To measure job attribute preferences, respondents were asked to indicate the importance of different criteria when choosing an employer using a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (“not important at all”) to 7 (“very important”). Overall, respondents had to rank the importance of 13 different job attributes. To test the hypotheses, this paper focuses on four different job attributes which are assumed to be especially important for career decisions or job choices: “high income,” “good promotion prospects,” “opportunities for further training”, and “interesting work.” In particular, “high income” and “good promotion prospects”, but also “opportunities for further training” and “interesting work”, are frequently used in other studies on job attribute preferences (see, for example, Konrad et al. 2000a, 2000b; Valet et al. 2021; Wiswall and Zafar 2018; Griffith and Combs 2015). Additionally, to measure the importance of an “LGB-friendly work climate”, respondents were asked to indicate the importance of a work climate that is open regarding sexual orientation/identity. An LGB-friendly work climate has not been measured as a job attribute preference in previous studies, but previous research has measured the actual work climate for LGBTQI* employees by using multiple items measuring support for and hostility towards LGBTQI* people in a company (Holman et al. 2019). Other studies have measured job attribute preferences related to employees’ relationships with coworkers or supervisors (Konrad et al. 2000a, 2000b). However, previous research found that the importance of job attributes is relevant in vocational choice (e.g., in the decision to reject or accept an offer of employment) (Turban et al. 1993; Beaty 1990).

4.2.2. Past Discrimination

Past discrimination was measured by asking the respondents whether they had experienced discrimination in Germany in the previous two years based on specific characteristics (e.g., age, gender, sexual orientation). Possible answers included “never,” “rarely,” “sometimes,” and “often.” This study focused on one of these factors—discrimination based on sexual orientation—and used discrimination as a dichotomous variable (0 “no discrimination”; 1 “discrimination”). Overall, 71.1% of the respondents reported experiencing discrimination within the past two years based on sexual orientation. The percentage is slightly higher in Sample 1 (72.6%) than in Sample 2 (69.3%). Compared to other studies (e.g., FRA European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights 2020), this is a relatively high percentage of discrimination reported against sexual minority people. Differences may be explained by varying measures of reported discrimination and sample composition.

4.2.3. Safe Haven

Theoretically, I defined safe havens as safe and secure workplaces that protect sexual minority people from discrimination and allow them to disclose their sexual orientation. Analytically, I operationalized a safe haven as present if respondents had not experienced discrimination in the past two years in their working life and if they were open about their sexual orientation with coworkers and supervisors in their current workplace. Of the respondents in Sample 2, 44.9% found a safe haven in their current workplace.

4.2.4. Controls

To test the hypotheses, I used a set of control variables in the multivariate analyses to control for socio-demographic and labor market differences. Previous research found differences in job attribute preferences by gender (e.g., Konrad et al. 2000a, 2000b; Griffith and Combs 2015; Esser and Lindh 2018). To control for these gender differences, respondents’ gender was based on the question “And what gender do you identify with?” with the answer categories “male”, “female”, “transgender”, “other gender” and “no answer”. Unfortunately, the group of transgender people (N = 8 (Sample 1), 1 (Sample 2)) and other gender identities (N = 41 (Sample 1), 8 (Sample 2)) was too small and diverse to integrate this group into the regression models. The current state of research suggests that gender minority people face high levels of discrimination (FRA European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights 2020; OECD 2019; de Vries et al. 2020) and points to the need for increased research on this group. However, recent research shows differences in labor market outcomes in the group of sexual minority people by sexual orientation (Mize 2016; Valfort 2017). Therefore, sexual orientation was included to control for differences due to sexual orientation. I measured sexual orientation based on sexual identity. In response to the item “What would you say: Are you…?”, the respondents could choose heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or other orientation. Respondents who chose “other” had the opportunity to write their sexual orientation in an open text field. The variable had three categories (“homosexual”, “bisexual”, and “other”). The category “other” included only respondents who gave valid answers in the open text field. Heterosexual respondents are excluded due to the small sample size. Migration status (“not immigrant”, “immigrant”) could be another cause of discriminatory experiences which is why I included migration status as a control variable. I defined respondents as immigrants if they had not acquired German citizenship at birth or if their parents were not born in Germany. This definition is in line with the definition of the German Federal Office of Statistics (Statistisches Bundesamt 2021). Further, I used age (in years) as a control variable to account for age differences. I included a range of additional control variables that may explain differences in job attribute preferences. The variables used varied by sample: Sample 1 included the variables educational institution (“school”, “vocational training”, “university”) and employment status (“not employed”, “employed”). Sample 2 included the variables academic degree (“no academic degree”, “academic degree”), employment status (“full-time”, “part-time or marginally employed”), industry sector based on NACE Rev. 2 (“manufacturing industry and primary sector”, “trade, car repair, hospitality”, “transportation and storage, communication”, “financial and insurance services, real estate/housing, economic services”, “civil service or similar”, “education”, “health care and social services”, “other”), and logarithmic gross income (per month).
Table 3 gives an overview of sexual orientation, gender, age, and migration backgrounds in Sample 1 and Sample 2. As can be seen from Table 3, the majority of the respondents in both samples identified as gay or lesbian. Sample 1 contains more respondents who identified as bisexual or as having another sexual orientation than Sample 2. The share of respondents who identified as women is also higher in Sample 1. Due to the sample restrictions, there are more young respondents in Sample 1.

4.3. Analyses

To investigate Hypothesis 1, the mean of each job attribute preference is calculated per sample. Box plots are used to illustrate differences between job attribute preferences. Furthermore, means are reported in the text. The box plots illustrate the distribution of each job attribute preference among respondents by sample. Higher-placed box plots suggest greater importance of a job attribute.
Next, to examine Hypotheses 2a and 2b, and Hypotheses 3a and 3b, multiple ordinary least squares (OLS) regression models with robust standard errors were used. The tables show the results for each job attribute separately for Sample 1 (Table 4 in Section 5.2) and Sample 2 (Table 5 in Section 5.3) to consider career trajectory and different career stages. The analyses were conducted in Stata 17.

4.4. Robustness

To ensure that the results for the variables “experienced discrimination” and “safe haven” are independent of each other, all OLS models for Sample 2 are additionally calculated with only one of these variables.
To address sample bias caused by sampling via social media, I ran all OLS models with an additional weighting of the data. The weight variable included pseudo-design weights that accounted for different probabilities of seeing an advertisement and an adjustment to the probability-based and parallel-conducted sample SOEP-Q. The adjustment to SOEP-Q used the characteristics of age, region, educational level, partnership, and children in the household. For a detailed overview of the weighting procedure see (Zindel et al. 2023).
All results of the robustness checks are discussed in Section 5.4. Robustness and available as Supplementary Online Material (Tables S1–S4).

5. Results

5.1. Importance of Job Attribute Preferences

To examine if an LGB-friendly work climate is more important than high income, good promotion prospects, opportunities for further training, and interesting work for sexual minority people (Hypothesis 1), Figure 1 provides an overview of the importance of job attribute preferences for Sample 1 and Sample 2 separately. There are small differences in the average importance of job attribute preferences. Respondents rated the importance of interesting work (means = 6.5 (Sample 1), 6.3 (Sample 2)) and an LGB-friendly work climate (means = 6.0 (Sample 1), 5.9 (Sample 2)) higher than the importance of opportunities for further training (means = 5.5 (Sample 1), 5.3 (Sample 2)), a high income (means = 4.9 (Sample 1), 5.0 (Sample 2)) and good promotion prospects (means = 4.9 (Samples 1 and 2)). There are only small differences by sample. The results suggest that, in line with Hypothesis 1, an LGB-friendly work climate is an important job attribute for sexual minority people. However, interesting work is more important compared to an LGB-friendly work climate, which is not in line with Hypothesis 1.

5.2. The Role of Past Discrimination

Table 4 and Table 5 display estimates for testing Hypotheses 2a and 2b. The results of the OLS regressions show differences in the importance of an LGB-friendly work climate (beta = 0.484, p < 0.001) between respondents with and without experiences of discrimination in Sample 1 (Table 4).
Table 4. Results of OLS regression models on job attribute preferences for Sample 1.
Table 4. Results of OLS regression models on job attribute preferences for Sample 1.
High IncomeGood Promotion ProspectsOpportunities for Further TrainingInteresting WorkLGB-Friendly Work Climate
BSEBSEBSEBSEBSE
Experienced Discrimination−0.229 *(0.107)−0.081(0.132)0.066(0.114)0.048(0.075)0.484 ***(0.127)
Woman−0.111(0.113)−0.048(0.133)0.229(0.118)0.114(0.077)0.302 *(0.123)
Sexual orientation (Ref. Gay/lesbian)
  Bisexual−0.178(0.120)−0.157(0.141)−0.247 *(0.122)−0.048(0.081)−0.081(0.120)
  Other orientation−0.081(0.198)−0.369(0.233)−0.488 *(0.214)−0.098(0.112)−0.084(0.210)
Immigrant0.426 ***(0.125)0.553 ***(0.140)0.139(0.132)−0.073(0.090)−0.063(0.140)
Age−0.016(0.016)−0.004(0.017)0.007(0.014)0.012(0.008)0.013(0.013)
Educational institution (Ref.: School)
  Vocational training−0.014(0.205)0.013(0.233)0.094(0.214)−0.146(0.142)−0.322(0.198)
  University0.235(0.170)−0.161(0.190)0.009(0.178)−0.051(0.122)−0.216(0.159)
Employed0.048(0.109)0.038(0.129)−0.293 *(0.114)−0.133(0.068)−0.070(0.106)
Constant5.238 ***(0.358)5.154 ***(0.388)5.362 ***(0.318)6.347 ***(0.219)5.489 ***(0.330)
Observations660660660660660
Note: Robust standard errors in parentheses; significance levels: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. Source: LGBielefeld 2019 (unweighted), own calculations.
This is in line with Hypothesis 2a: An LGB-friendly work climate is more important for sexual minority people who have experienced discrimination than it is for sexual minority people who have not experienced discrimination in Sample 1. Contrary to Hypothesis 2a, the results of the OLS regressions show no statistically significant differences in the importance of an LGB-friendly work climate between respondents with and without experiences of discrimination in Sample 2 (Table 5). This suggests that the importance of an LGB-friendly work climate for sexual minority people is only affected by past discrimination in an early career stage and confirms Hypothesis 2a only for Sample 1. To test Hypothesis 2b, Table 4 and Table 5 display the effect of past discrimination on other job attribute preferences. The results can only partially confirm Hypothesis 2b. A high income is statistically significantly less important (beta = −0.229, p < 0.05) for respondents who experienced discrimination in Sample 1. In Sample 2 the negative association between experienced discrimination and the preference for good promotion prospects is statistically significant (beta = −0.354, p < 0.01). There are no other statistically significant effects of past discrimination on job attribute preferences. This suggests that general job attribute preferences of sexual minority people are only partly affected by past discrimination.

5.3. The Role of Safe Havens

Table 5 also displays estimates for testing Hypotheses 3a and 3b. The positive association between a safe haven and an LGB-friendly work climate is statistically significant (beta = 0.548, p < 0.001). This finding confirms Hypothesis 3a: An LGB-friendly work climate is more important for sexual minority people who have found a safe haven in their current job than it is for sexual minority people who have not found a safe haven. However, there is no statistically significant effect of a safe haven on the other job attribute preferences in Sample 2. Nonetheless, the results support Hypothesis 3a but not Hypothesis 3b.
With regard to controls, in both samples, an LGB-friendly work climate was statistically significantly more important for women (ref.: men, beta = 0.302, p < 0.05 (Samples 1 and 2)) and less important for bisexual people (ref.: gay/lesbian, beta = −0.764, p < 0.001). Additionally, good promotion prospects were statistically significantly less important for women in Sample 2 (beta = −0.314, p < 0.05). The results for women are in line with previous research that found differences in job attribute preferences by gender (e.g., Konrad et al. 2000a, 2000b; Griffith and Combs 2015; Esser and Lindh 2018).
Table 5. Results of OLS regression models on job attribute preferences for Sample 2.
Table 5. Results of OLS regression models on job attribute preferences for Sample 2.
High IncomeGood Promotion ProspectsOpportunities for Further TrainingInteresting WorkLGB-Friendly Work Climate
BSEBSEBSEBSEBSE
Experienced discrimination−0.055(0.118)−0.354 **(0.131)−0.175(0.129)0.028(0.089)0.168(0.125)
Safe haven0.030(0.110)−0.178(0.130)−0.084(0.125)0.006(0.083)0.548 ***(0.115)
Woman−0.115(0.108)−0.314 *(0.125)0.072(0.120)−0.015(0.092)0.302 *(0.122)
Sexual orientation (Ref. Gay/lesbian)
  Bisexual−0.120(0.149)−0.122(0.183)0.027(0.174)−0.009(0.132)−0.764 ***(0.210)
  Other orientation−0.657(0.342)−0.794 **(0.295)−0.623(0.323)0.200(0.154)−0.196(0.248)
Immigrant0.244(0.143)0.280(0.157)0.045(0.154)−0.084(0.113)0.054(0.159)
Age−0.021 ***(0.006)−0.040 ***(0.006)−0.032 ***(0.006)−0.008(0.004)0.007(0.006)
Academic degree−0.188(0.116)−0.159(0.134)0.015(0.124)0.253 **(0.085)0.056(0.125)
Part time/marginally employed−0.136(0.181)−0.191(0.186)−0.043(0.178)0.071(0.120)−0.372 *(0.172)
Industry sector (Ref.: Manufacturing industry and primary sector)
  Trade, car repair, hospitality−0.097(0.224)−0.302(0.254)−0.233(0.250)−0.354 *(0.173)0.281(0.248)
  Transportation and storage, communication−0.066(0.253)0.053(0.266)0.215(0.268)−0.075(0.169)0.072(0.263)
  Financial and insurance services, real estate/housing, economic services−0.182(0.218)−0.378(0.233)−0.147(0.244)−0.178(0.143)0.111(0.247)
  Civil service or similar0.033(0.249)−0.311(0.296)0.060(0.263)−0.154(0.202)0.355(0.240)
  Education−0.343(0.237)−0.488 *(0.246)−0.121(0.251)−0.014(0.138)0.335(0.233)
  Health care and social services−0.035(0.211)−0.273(0.223)0.409(0.219)−0.183(0.135)0.112(0.222)
  Other−0.716 *(0.280)−0.430(0.270)−0.258(0.280)0.124(0.159)0.187(0.274)
Gross income (log.)0.234(0.127)0.312 *(0.136)0.254 *(0.127)0.067(0.073)−0.169(0.112)
Constant4.234 ***(0.998)4.790 ***(1.043)4.585 ***(0.987)5.958 ***(0.557)6.482 ***(0.904)
Observations537537537537537
Note: Robust standard errors in parentheses; significance levels: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. Source: LGBielefeld 2019 (unweighted), own calculations.

5.4. Robustness

Robustness analyses using separate models for experienced discrimination and a safe haven confirmed the results with small differences in effect size. Robustness analyses using the weighting variable confirmed most of the results: Nearly all the statistically significant effects were also found in the weighted models with small differences in effect size. Only the association between experienced discrimination and good promotion prospects in Sample 2 is not confirmed by the weighted models, which limits the interpretability of this result. All results of the robustness checks are available as supplementary online material (Tables S1–S4).

6. Discussion

This study examined the association between past discrimination, safe havens, and job attribute preferences among sexual minority people. Building on research on discrimination, occupational segregation, and labor market inequalities that are rooted in sexual orientation (e.g., Badgett et al. 2021; Neumark 2018), this study aims to estimate the extent to which these experiences are systematically connected to the occupational preferences of sexual minority people. To explore this association the present study focuses on the following question: What role do past discrimination and safe havens play in the job attribute preferences of sexual minority people? The study focuses on five job attribute preferences: high income, good promotion prospects, opportunities for further training, interesting work and LGB-friendly work climate. This study is based on data from a German online convenience sample (N = 1197 sexual minority respondents). The results on differences in the importance of job attributes (Figure 1) show that an LGB-friendly work climate is more important than high income, good promotion prospects, and opportunities for further training, which is in line with Hypothesis 1 and shows the high value of an LGB-friendly work climate for sexual minority people. Contrary to Hypothesis 1, interesting work is more important than an LGB-friendly work climate.
To determine whether occupational segregation and other labor market differences based on sexual orientation result from vocational choice and behavior in response to past experiences of discrimination, this study examined the relationship between past discrimination, a safe haven, and job attribute preferences. The results are mixed. Respondents who experienced discrimination ranked the importance of an LGB-friendly work climate statistically significantly higher than respondents who did not experience discrimination in Sample 1 but not in Sample 2 (Table 4 and Table 5), which supports Hypothesis 2a only for Sample 1. The finding for Sample 1 is in line with research showing that discrimination influences vocational choice or behavior (Chung 2001; Goldsmith et al. 2004; Ng et al. 2012; Pager and Pedulla 2015; Ragins 2004) and seems to confirm Ragins’ assertion that the career trajectory and different career stages are important in research on discrimination and vocational behavior (Ragins 2004). There are some possible explanations for differences between the samples: Firstly, it is possible that discrimination has a higher negative effect on the psychological imbalance of younger people, whereas older people are more experienced in dealing with discrimination and its consequences. Secondly, it is possible that older people have discovered more effective coping strategies to respond to discrimination, rather than solely seeking out an LGB-friendly work climate. Previous research found that job preferences change with the transition into adulthood (Rouvroye et al. 2023) and differences in consequences of discrimination by age cohorts (Frost et al. 2022). However, further research should address differences in vocational behavior by career stage and age in light of discrimination. The negative association between discrimination and other job attribute preferences was partially statistically significant in Samples 1 (high income) and 2 (good promotion prospects, but with limited robustness) (Table 4 and Table 5), which supports Hypothesis 2b partially. It seems that discriminatory experiences only have a small effect on general job attribute preferences.
However, I found a statistically significant positive association between a safe haven and the importance of an LGB-friendly work climate (Table 5), which is consistent with Hypothesis 3a and supports the assumption that sexual minority people prefer to remain in their safe haven. However, there was no statistically significant association between a safe haven and general job attribute preferences (no support for Hypothesis 3b, Table 5), which speaks against the assumption that sexual minority people who found a safe haven, may be hesitant to leave it, even for better career opportunities or higher compensation.
Differences by gender are partly in line with recent research which could also show differences in job attribute preferences by gender (e.g., Konrad et al. 2000a, 2000b; Griffith and Combs 2015; Esser and Lindh 2018) and differences between gay, lesbian, and bisexual people may be caused by different labor market situations (Mize 2016; Valfort 2017).
Overall, the high importance of an LGB-friendly work climate is in line with previous research which found an association between sexual minority status and job preferences, occupational interests, and labor market behavior (e.g., Ellis et al. 2012; Chung and Harmon 1994; Lippa 2002; Ng et al. 2012). Nevertheless, I found little evidence for an association between discrimination, safe havens, and general job attribute preferences. There are some possible explanations for this weak association. On the one hand, it is possible that sexual minority people are not willing to sacrifice important job attributes for an LGB-friendly work climate even if an LGB-friendly work climate is important to them. On the other hand, it is also assumed that job attribute preferences of sexual minority people are also affected by the expectation of discrimination (Ragins 2004). This would reduce the effect of discriminatory experiences but highlight the importance of minority group status for labor market decisions and career trajectory. The high importance of an LGB-friendly work climate for sexual minority people (Hypothesis 1) underpins this consideration. Moreover, this is in line with considerations on educational decisions (e.g., Burn and Martell 2020; Boertien et al. 2023).
Although the association between discrimination, safe havens. and job attribute preferences is not as strong as expected, the findings may explain some aspects of occupational segregation and differences in labor market outcomes according to sexual orientation in light of the high importance of an LGB-friendly work climate. Vocational choices that are based on being protected from discrimination and that render career opportunities less important are likely to influence an individual’s career trajectory.
Nevertheless, some limitations of this study need to be mentioned. Firstly, the analyses are based on cross-sectional data. Especially with regard to the safe haven variable, this may result in some bias in terms of the associations described. I attempted to compensate for the lack of longitudinal data by integrating perspectives at two different stages in the career trajectory and by introducing several control variables in all the models. However, due to the cross-sectional design, the results can be interpreted only as associations between dependent and independent variables and not as causal effects. Second, this study is based on data from a convenience sample, which can also result in bias, and the results are not representative of the entire German population of sexual minority people. Robustness checks with an additional weighting of the data confirm most of the main results. Nevertheless, the results offer valuable insights into job attribute preferences of sexual minority people which highlight the role of an LGB-friendly work climate in their careers.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/socsci13030124/s1, Table S1. Results of OLS regression models on job attribute preferences for Sample 1 (weighted), Table S2. Results of OLS regression models on job attribute preferences for Sample 2 (weighted), Table S3. Results of OLS regression models on job attribute preferences for Sample 2 (experienced discrimination), Table S4. Results of OLS regression models on job attribute preferences for Sample 2 (safe haven).

Funding

The data collection of SOEP-Q was funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Berlin, Germany (BMBF) [ref. 01UW1803A, 01UW1803B].

Institutional Review Board Statement

The data collection was approved by the Ethics Committee of Bielefeld University (approval No.: 2019–058, approval date: 5 March 2019).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The LGBielefeld 2019 full data set is available for reanalysis. Data access can be requested at https://pub.uni-bielefeld.de/record/2965457, accessed on 9 January 2022. The Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP) data (10.5684/soep.v34) are available to employees and students at universities and other research institutes for non-commercial scientific research and are provided based on a data use contract (www.diw.de/en/soep) accessed on 9 February 2022.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Items used in the LGBielefeld 2019 study (own translation).
Table A1. Items used in the LGBielefeld 2019 study (own translation).
ItemQuestionCategories, Scale
GenderAnd what gender do you identify with?Male, female, transgender, other gender, no answer
Sexual orientationWhat would you say: Are you…?Heterosexual (that is, attracted to the opposite sex), homosexual (gay or lesbian, that is, attracted to the same sex), bisexual (that is, attracted to both sexes), other orientation, no answer
Job attribute preferencesHow important are the following to you when choosing an employer: high income, good promotion prospects, opportunities for further training, interesting work, a corporate climate that is open regarding sexual orientation.7-point scale (1 = not important at all to 7 = very important)
Past discriminationHow often in the last two years have you personally experienced discrimination in Germany because of one or more of the following characteristicsNever, rarely, sometimes, often
Past discrimination (working life)How often in the last two years have you felt discriminated against in the following areas in Germany because of your sexual orientation?—working lifeNever, rarely, sometimes, often, no contact
OutingHow open are you about your sexual orientation in these groups today? …co-workers, supervisorsVery open, somewhat open, somewhat closed, very closed, not disclosed, does not apply, no answer
Citizenship 1Do you have German citizenship?Yes, no
Citizenship 2Did you acquire German citizenship at birth or later on?At birth, later on
Citizenship parentsWere both of your parents born in Germany?Yes, no
AgeWhat year were you born?
Educational institutionWhat type of education or training are you pursuing?General education, vocational training, university, further training/retraining
Academic degree Do you have one or more of the following vocational or university degrees?Apprenticeship, full-time vocational school/commercial college/health sector school, technical college, training for civil servants, dual university/college of advanced vocational studies/specialized college of higher education, university/technical university, doctorate/postdoctoral dissertation, other
Employment statusAre you currently employed? Which one of the following best describes your status?Employed full-time, employed part-time, completing in-service training/apprentice-ship/in-service retraining, In marginal or irregular employment, In partial retirement, phase with zero working hours, voluntary social/ecological year/federal volunteer service, Not employed
Industry sectorWhat sector of business or industry is your company or institution active in for the most part?
Gross incomeHow much did you earn from your work last month?—gross income, which means income before deduction of taxes and social security

References

  1. Ahmed, Ali, Lina Andersson, and Mats Hammarstedt. 2011. Are Homosexuals Discriminated against the Hiring Process? Uppsala: IFAU—Institute for Labour Market Policy Evaluation. [Google Scholar]
  2. Aksoy, Cevat Giray, Christopher S. Carpenter, Jeff Frank, and Matt L. Huffman. 2018. Gay Glass Ceilings: Sexual Orientation and Workplace Authority in the UK. Discussion Paper Series 11574. Bonn: IZA Institute of Labor Economics. [Google Scholar]
  3. Antecol, Heather, Anneke Jong, and Michael Steinberger. 2008. The Sexual Orientation Wage Gap: The Role of Occupational Sorting and Human Capital. ILR Review 61: 518–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Badgett, M. V. Lee. 1995. The Wage Effects of Sexual Orientation Discrimination. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 48: 726–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Badgett, M. V. Lee. 2001. Money, Myths, and Change: The Economic Lives of Lesbians and Gay Men. Worlds of Desire. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  6. Badgett, M. V. Lee, Christopher S. Carpenter, and Dario Sansone. 2021. LGBTQ Economics. Journal of Economic Perspectives 35: 141–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Barnad, Sarah, Andrew Dainty, Sian Lewis, and Andreas Culora. 2023. Conceptualising Work as a ‘Safe Space’ for Negotiating LGBT Identities: Navigating Careers in the Construction Sector. Work, Employment and Society 37: 1565–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Beaty, David. 1990. Re-examining the link between job characteristics and job satisfaction. The Journal of Social Psychology 130: 131–2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Beigang, Steffen, Karolina Fetz, Dorina Kalkum, and Magdalena Otto. 2017. Diskriminierungserfahrungen in Deutschland. Ergebnisse einer Repräsentativ- und einer Betroffenenbefragung. Baden-Baden: Nomos; Antidiskriminierungsstelle des Bundes. [Google Scholar]
  10. Berg, Nathan, and Donald Lien. 2002. Measuring the Effect of Sexual Orientation on Income: Evidence of Discrimination? Contemporary Economic Policy 20: 394–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Black, Dan A., Hoda R. Makar, Seth G. Sanders, and Lowell J. Taylor. 2003. The Earnings Effects of Sexual Orientation. ILR Review 56: 449–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Boertien, Diederik, Francisco Perales, and Lea Pessin. 2023. Does intergenerational educational mobility vary by sexual identity? A comparative analysis of five OECD countries. European Sociological Review, jcad062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Burn, Ian, and Michael E. Martell. 2020. The role of work values and characteristics in the human capital investment of gays and lesbians. Education Economics 28: 351–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Cabrita, Jorge, Julie Vanderleyden, Isabella Biletta, and Barbara Gerstenberger. 2020. Gender Equality at Work. European Working Conditions Survey 2015 Series. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. [Google Scholar]
  15. Carpenter, Christopher. 2008a. Sexual orientation, income, and non-pecuniary economic outcomes: New evidence from young lesbians in Australia. Review of Economics of the Household 6: 391–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Carpenter, Christopher. 2008b. Sexual orientation, work, and income in Canada. Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue Canadienne D’économique 41: 1239–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Cech, Erin A., and Michelle V. Pham. 2017. Queer in STEM Organizations: Workplace Disadvantages for LGBT Employees in STEM Related Federal Agencies. Social Sciences 6: 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Chung, Y. Barry. 2001. Work Discrimination and Coping Strategies: Conceptual Frameworks for Counseling Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Clients. The Career Development Quarterly 50: 33–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Chung, Y. Barry, and Leonore W. Harmon. 1994. The Career Interests and Aspirations of Gay Men: How Sex-Role Orientation Is Related. Journal of Vocational Behavior 45: 223–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. de Vries, Lisa, and Stephanie Steinmetz. 2023. Sexual Orientation, Workplace Authority and Occupational Segregation: Evidence from Germany. Work, Employment and Society, Online First. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. de Vries, Lisa, Mirjam M. Fischer, David Kasprowski, Martin Kroh, Simon Kühne, David Richter, and Zaza Zindel. 2020. LGBTQI* People on the Labor Market: Highly Educated, Frequently Discriminated Against. DIW Weekly Report 36: 375–83. [Google Scholar]
  22. de Vries, Lisa, Mirjam M. Fischer, Martin Kroh, Simon Kühne, and David Richter. 2021. SOEP-Core—2019: Design, Nonresponse, and Weighting in the 2019 Sample Q (Queer) of the Socio-Economic Panel. SOEP Survey Paper. Berlin: DIW/SOEP. [Google Scholar]
  23. Drydakis, Nick. 2021. Sexual orientation and earnings: A meta-analysis 2012–2020. Journal of Population Economics 35: 409–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ellis, Lee, Malini Ratnasingam, and Mary Wheeler. 2012. Gender, sexual orientation, and occupational interests: Evidence of their interrelatedness. Personality and Individual Differences 53: 64–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Esser, Ingrid, and Arvid Lindh. 2018. Job Preferences in Comparative Perspective 1989–2015: A Multidimensional Evaluation of Individual and Contextual Influences. International Journal of Sociology 48: 142–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Fassinger, Ruth E. 1991. The Hidden Minority: Issues and Challenges in Working with Lesbian Women and Gay Men. The Counseling Psychologist 19: 157–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Festinger, Leon. 2001. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press. First published 1957. [Google Scholar]
  28. Finnigan, Ryan. 2020. Rainbow-Collar Jobs? Occupational Segregation by Sexual Orientation in the United States. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World 6: 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Fischer, Mirjam M., Martin Kroh, de Lisa Vries, David Kasprowski, Simon Kühne, David Richter, and Zaza Zindel. 2022. Sexual and Gender Minority (SGM) Research Meets Household Panel Surveys: Research Potentials of the German Socio-Economic Panel and Its Boost Sample of SGM Households. European Sociological Review 38: 321–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Flores, Andrew R. 2019. Social Acceptance of LGBT People in 174 Countries: 1981 to 2017. Los Angeles: The Williams Institute. [Google Scholar]
  31. FRA European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. 2020. A Long Way to Go for LGBTI Equality. Luxembourg: FRA European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. [Google Scholar]
  32. Frank, Jeff. 2006. Gay Glass Ceilings. Economica 73: 485–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Frost, David M., Ilan H. Meyer, Andy Lin, Bianca D. M. Wilson, Marguerita Lightfoot, Stephen T. Russel, and Phillip L. Hammack. 2022. Social Change and the Health of Sexual Minority Individuals: Do the Effects of Minority Stress and Community Connectedness Vary by Age Cohort? Archives of Sexual Behavior 51: 2299–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Goebel, Jan, Markus M. Grabka, Stefan Liebig, Martin Kroh, David Richter, Carsten Schröder, and Jürgen Schupp. 2019. The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP). Jahrbücher Für Nationalökonomie Und Statistik 239: 345–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Goldsmith, Arthur H., Stanley Sedo, Wiliam Darity, and Darrick Hamilton. 2004. The labor supply consequences of perceptions of employer discrimination during search and on-the-job: Integrating neoclassical theory and cognitive dissonance. Journal of Economic Psychology 25: 15–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Griffith, Jakari, and Gwendolyn M. Combs. 2015. Racial Differences In Job Attribute Preferences: The Role Of Ethnic Identity And Self-Efficacy. Academy of Management Proceedings 2015: 15401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Holman, Elizabeth G., Jessica N. Fish, Ramona F. Oswald, and Abbie Goldberg. 2019. Reconsidering the LGBT Climate Inventory: Understanding Support and Hostility for LGBTQ Employees in the Workplace. J Career Assess 27: 544–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Hughes, Bryce E. 2018. Coming out in STEM: Factors affecting retention of sexual minority STEM students. Science Advances 4: eaao6373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Konrad, Alison M., Elizabeth Corrigall, Pamela Lieb, and J. Edgar Ritchie. 2000a. Sex Differences in Job Attribute Preferences among Managers and Business Students. Group & Organization Management 25: 108–31. [Google Scholar]
  40. Konrad, Alison M., J. Edgar Ritchie, Pamela Lieb, and Elizabeth Corrigall. 2000b. Sex differences and similarities in job attribute preferences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin 126: 593–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Kroh, Martin, Simon Kühne, Christian Kipp, and David Richter. 2017. Income, Social Support Networks, Life Satisfaction: Lesbians, Gays, and Bisexuals in Germany. DIW Weekly Report 33–35: 335–45. [Google Scholar]
  42. Kühne, Simon, and Zaza Zindel. 2020. Using Facebook & Instagram to Recruit Web Survey Participants: A Step-by-Step Guide and Application. In Survey Methods: Insights from the Field: Special issue: Advancements in Online and Mobile Survey Methods. Available online: https://surveyinsights.org/?p=13558 (accessed on 5 December 2023).
  43. Lippa, Richard A. 2002. Gender-related traits of heterosexual and homosexual men and women. Archives of Sexual Behavior 31: 83–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Mize, Trenton D. 2016. Sexual Orientation in the Labor Market. American Sociological Review 81: 1132–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Neumark, David. 2018. Experimental Research on Labor Market Discrimination. Journal of Economic Literature 56: 799–866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ng, Eddy S., Linda Schweitzer, and Sean T. Lyons. 2012. Anticipated Discrimination and a Career Choice in Nonprofit. Review of Public Personnel Administration 32: 332–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. OECD. 2019. Society at a Glance 2019: Oecd Social Indicators. A Spotlight on LGBT People. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. [Google Scholar]
  48. Pager, Devah, and David S. Pedulla. 2015. Race, Self-Selection, and the Job Search Process. American Journal of Sociology 120: 1005–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Patacchini, Eleonora, Giuseppe Ragusa, and Yves Zenou. 2015. Unexplored dimensions of discrimination in Europe: Homosexuality and physical appearance. Journal of Population Economics 28: 1045–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Plug, Erik, Dinand Webbink, and Nick Martin. 2014. Sexual Orientation, Prejudice, and Segregation. Journal of Labor Economics 32: 123–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ragins, Belle Rose. 2004. Sexual Orientation in the Workplace: The Unique Work and Career Experiences of Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Workers. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management 23: 35–120. [Google Scholar]
  52. Rouvroye, Lin, Hendrik P. van Dalen, Kène Henkens, and Joop J. Schippers. 2023. A distaste for insecurity: Job preferences of young people in the transition to adulthood. European Sociological Review, jcad041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Sansone, Dario, and Christopher S. Carpenter. 2020. Turing’s children: Representation of sexual minorities in STEM. PLoS ONE 15: e0241596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Schmidt, Christa K., Joseph R. Miles, and Anne C. Welsh. 2011. Perceived Discrimination and Social Support. Journal of Career Development 38: 293–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Schneider, Margaret S., and Anne Dimito. 2010. Factors influencing the career and academic choices of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. Journal of Homosexuality 57: 1355–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Statistisches Bundesamt. 2021. Migrationshintergrund. Available online: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Gesellschaft-Umwelt/Bevoelkerung/Migration-Integration/Glossar/migrationshintergrund.html (accessed on 5 December 2023).
  57. The SOEP group. 2020. 2019 SOEP Annual Report. Berlin: DIW/SOEP. [Google Scholar]
  58. Tilcsik, Andras, Michel Anteby, and Carly R. Knight. 2015. Concealable Stigma and Occupational Segregation. Administrative Science Quarterly 60: 446–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Turban, Daniel B., Alison R. Eyring, and James E. Campion. 1993. Job attributes: Preferences compared with reasons given for accepting and rejecting job offers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 66: 71–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Ueno, Koji, Abraham E. Peña-Talamantes, and Teresa A. Roach. 2013a. Sexual Orientation and Occupational Attainment. Work and Occupations 40: 3–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Ueno, Koji, Teresa A. Roach, and Abraham E. Pena-Talamantes. 2013b. Sexual Orientation and Gender Typicality of the Occupation in Young Adulthood. Social Forces 92: 81–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Valet, Peter, Carsten Sauer, and Jochem Tolsma. 2021. Preferences for work arrangements: A discrete choice experiment. PLoS ONE 16: e0254483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Valfort, Marie-Anee. 2017. OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers: LGBTI in OECD Countries. Paris: OECD Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  64. Verbakel, Ellen. 2013. Occupational status of partnered gay men and lesbians in the Netherlands: How to explain the gap with men and women in heterosexual couples? Social Science Research 42: 942–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Weichselbaumer, Doris. 2003. Sexual orientation discrimination in hiring. Labour Economics 10: 629–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Weichselbaumer, Doris, and Rudolf Winter-Ebmer. 2005. A Meta-Analysis of the International Gender Wage Gap. Journal of Economic Surveys 19: 479–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Wiswall, Matthew, and Basit Zafar. 2018. Preference for the Workplace, Investment in Human Capital, and Gender. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 133: 457–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Zindel, Zaza, de Lisa Vries, Simon Kühne, and Martin Kroh. 2023. LGBielefeld 2019. Data Report: Online Survey on LGBTQI* People in Germany. Bielefeld: Bielefeld University. [Google Scholar]
Socsci 13 00124 g001
Figure 1. Importance of job attribute preferences for Sample 1 and Sample 2 separately (box plots). Note: Observations = 1197; Source: LGBielefeld 2019 (unweighted), own calculations. The box plots illustrate the distribution of each job attribute preference among respondents by sample. Higher-placed box plots suggest greater importance of a job attribute.
Figure 1. Importance of job attribute preferences for Sample 1 and Sample 2 separately (box plots). Note: Observations = 1197; Source: LGBielefeld 2019 (unweighted), own calculations. The box plots illustrate the distribution of each job attribute preference among respondents by sample. Higher-placed box plots suggest greater importance of a job attribute.
Socsci 13 00124 g001
Table 1. Industry sector by sexual orientation (men).
Table 1. Industry sector by sexual orientation (men).
SOEP 2019LGBielefeld (Sample 2)
Heterosexual MenSexual Minority MenSexual Minority Men
Industry Sector%%%
Manufacturing industry and primary sector41.021.211.9
Trade, car repair, hospitality11.312.013.9
Transportation and storage, communication12.811.38.3
Financial and insurance services, real estate/housing, economic services12.114.516.6
Civil service or similar7.37.56.6
Education4.69.412.9
Health care and social services7.517.920.2
Other3.26.39.6
N6549277302
Source: Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP) v.36.1 (weighted), LGBielefeld 2019 (unweighted), own calculations.
Table 2. Industry sector by sexual orientation (women).
Table 2. Industry sector by sexual orientation (women).
SOEP 2019LGBielefeld (Sample 2)
Heterosexual WomenSexual Minority WomenSexual Minority Women
Industry Sector%%%
Manufacturing industry and primary sector13.317.610.6
Trade, car repair, hospitality16.914.814.5
Transportation and storage, communication5.26.76.4
Financial and insurance services, real estate/housing, economic services14.69.98.9
Civil service or similar7.96.28.5
Education11.89.417
Health care and social services25.428.327.2
Other5.07.26.8
N6963348235
Source: Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP) v.36.1 (weighted), LGBielefeld 2019 (unweighted), own calculations.
Table 3. Socio-demographic characteristics by sample.
Table 3. Socio-demographic characteristics by sample.
Sample
Sample 1Sample 2Total
No.%No.%No.%
Sexual Orientation
Gay/lesbian40561.444482.784970.9
Bisexual20330.87313.627623.1
Other orientation527.9203.7726.0
Gender
Man23836.130256.254045.1
Woman42263.923543.865754.9
Age
18–19 years18728.381.519516.3
20–29 years45769.219436.165154.4
30–39 years142.116931.518315.3
40–49 years20.38315.5857.1
49 and older00.08315.5836.9
Immigrant
No immigrant54482.444282.398682.4
Immigrant11617.69517.721117.6
Total660100.0537100.01197100.0
Source: LGBielefeld 2019 (unweighted), own calculations.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

de Vries, L. Job Attribute Preferences of Sexual Minority People: The Role of Past Discrimination and Safe Havens. Soc. Sci. 2024, 13, 124. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13030124

AMA Style

de Vries L. Job Attribute Preferences of Sexual Minority People: The Role of Past Discrimination and Safe Havens. Social Sciences. 2024; 13(3):124. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13030124

Chicago/Turabian Style

de Vries, Lisa. 2024. "Job Attribute Preferences of Sexual Minority People: The Role of Past Discrimination and Safe Havens" Social Sciences 13, no. 3: 124. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13030124

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop