No abstract

In today’s labor market, the majority of individuals experience a lapse in employment at some point in their careers, most commonly due to unemployment from job loss or leaving work to care for family or children. Existing scholarship has studied how unemployment affects subsequent career outcomes, but the consequences of temporarily “opting out” of work to care for family are relatively unknown. In this article, I ask: how do “opt out” parents fare when they re-enter the labor market? I argue that opting out signals a violation of ideal worker norms to employers—norms that expect employees to be highly dedicated to work—and that this signal is distinct from two other types of résumé signals: signals produced by unemployment due to job loss and the signal of motherhood or fatherhood. Using an original survey experiment and a large-scale audit study, I test the relative strength of these three résumé signals. I find that mothers and fathers who temporarily opted out of work to care for family fared significantly worse in terms of hiring prospects, relative to applicants who experienced unemployment due to job loss and compared to continuously employed mothers and fathers. I examine variation in these signals’ effects across local labor markets, and I find that within competitive markets, penalties emerged for continuously employed mothers and became even greater for opt out fathers. This research provides a causal test of the micro- and macro-level demand-side processes that disadvantage parents who leave work to care for family. This is important because when opt out applicants are prevented from re-entering the labor market, employers reinforce standards that exclude parents from full participation in work.

Organizations implement formalized procedures to eliminate the biasing effects of gender and other characteristics on evaluations. Prior work shows managers play a key role, but researchers have been unable to observe the thought processes guiding managers’ evaluations. This article takes a first step in examining managers’ sensemaking as they interpret and evaluate employee behaviors. Our data include managers’ written performance reviews and numeric ratings of employees at a Fortune 500 technology company. Our theoretical model—the Viewing and Valuing Social Cognitive Processing Model—explains how and when gender beliefs frame managers’ evaluations, affecting what behaviors managers notice (i.e., view) and rate highly (i.e., value). After conducting a detailed coding of the language in reviews, we assess whether there are gender differences in (1) the language used to describe performance (i.e., viewing differences) and (2) the correlations between that language and numeric ratings (i.e., valuing differences). Our analysis of 88 language attributes reveals where gender frames managers’ evaluations and where the process instead operates gender-neutrally. For example, men and women are equally likely to be described as having technical ability, while women are viewed as too aggressive and men as too soft. Furthermore, some behaviors, such as “taking charge,” are more valued for men than for women: “taking charge” is associated with the highest performance ratings for men but not for women. Overall, our analysis identifies novel ways that gender biases emerge in a process intended to be meritocratic.

In this article, we consider how individuals’ long-term employment trajectories relate to wage inequality and the gender wage gap in the United States. Using more than 30 years of data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 sample, we identify six employment trajectories for individuals from ages 22 to 50. We find that women across racial/ethnic groups and Black men are more likely than White and Hispanic men to have nonsteady employment trajectories and lower levels of employment throughout their lives, and individuals who have experienced poverty also have heightened risks of intermittent employment. We then assess how trajectories are associated with wages later in careers, at ages 45–50. We find significant variation in wages across work trajectories, with steady high employment leading to the highest wages. This wage variation is primarily explained by work characteristics rather than family characteristics. Finally, we examine gender variation in within-trajectory wages. We find that the gender wage gap is largest in the steady high employment trajectory and is reduced among trajectories with longer durations of nonemployment. Thus, although women are relatively more concentrated in nonsteady trajectories than are men, men who do follow nonsteady wage trajectories incur smaller wage premiums than men in steady high employment pathways, on average. These findings demonstrate that long-term employment paths are important predictors of economic and gender wage inequality.

This paper examines a topic of continuing interest for demographers and sociologists of the family: which factors promote relationship stability among couples. Two competing theories have been highly debated to explain how relative earnings relate to relationship quality and stability. The neoclassical economic theory posits that specialization of home and work duties leads to stability because partners fill complementary roles. Gender scholars propose an alternative explanation, suggesting that when couples violate the traditional male breadwinner model, they experience relationship strain and are more likely to experience a breakup. Using the new How Couples Meet and Stay Together (HCMST) dataset, this paper offers a unique perspective on the debate, by comparing same-sex couples to heterosexual couples. The paper presents three sets of analyses to determine how relative earnings relate to relationship stability. The first analysis employs discrete-time event history models to assess the likelihood of breakup for both heterosexual and same-sex cohabiting couples. Next, the paper presents results predicting self-reported relationship quality among married and cohabiting couples. The final analysis focuses on non-cohabiting couples from Wave I of the HCMST survey and examines the likelihood of entering cohabitation in subsequent survey waves. Results demonstrate that the economic or specialization model does not hold in same-sex relationships, suggesting that the effect of earnings equality is dependent upon gender norms in heterosexual relationships. When earnings power is disentangled from gender, as is the case of same-sex couples, equality in earnings promotes stability.