Table 1
Previous research findings on the stereotype content of the intersection of gender and sexual orientation.
| REFERENCE | CONTEXT | SURVEY | CATEGORY | WARMTH | COMPETENCE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strinić et al. (2021) | Sweden, workplace context | Warmth: friendly, benevolent, warm, and considerate Competence: competent, talented, skillful, and ambitious 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all; 5 = extremely) | Swedish man | 3.20 | 3.91 |
| Swedish woman | 3.68 | 3.67 | |||
| Swedish gay man | 3.83 | 3.60 | |||
| Swedish gay woman | 3.28 | 3.58 | |||
| Klysing et al. (2021) | Sweden | Agency/Communion scale (e.g. competitive, efficient/caring, friendly) 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all to 5 = a great deal) | Heterosexual men | 2.79/3.22* | 3.71/3.59 |
| Men | 2.74/3.22 | 3.93/3.79 | |||
| Heterosexual women | 3.71/3.79 | 2.92/3.41 | |||
| Women | 3.74/3.96 | 2.73/3.36 | |||
| Gay men | 3.43/3.44 | 2.83/3.18 | |||
| Lesbian women | 3.04/3.45 | 3.58/3.50 | |||
| Vaughn et al. (2017) | U.S. | Competence—capable, competent Warmth—warm, friendly 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all; 5 = extremely) | Gay men | 3.75 | 3.12 |
| Lesbians | 2.94 | 3.28 | |||
| Fiske et al. (2002) | U.S. | Warmth/competence scale 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all; 5 = extremely) | Gay men | Middle of warmth/competence space Individual level—higher warmth than competence | |
| Women | High competence, high warmth cluster Individual level—higher warmth than competence | ||||
| Men | High competence, lower warmth | ||||
[i] *The results are from two separate studies done on different samples. The format is as follows study 1 results/study 2 results.
Table 2
Warmth and competence ratings forming the basis for job position selection.
| REFERENCE | CONTEXT | SURVEY | CATEGORY | WARMTH | COMPETENCE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strinić et al. (2022) | Sweden | Warmth: friendly, benevolent, warm, and considerate Competence: competent, talented, skillful, and ambitious 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all; 5 = extremely) | Personal assistant | 4.15 | 3.00 |
| Higher warmth than competence | |||||
| Accountant | 2.61 | 3.87 | |||
| Higher competence than warmth | |||||
| Fiske and Dupree (2014) | U.S. | ‘To what extent do most Americans view holders of this job as competent? Warm? Capable? Trustworthy?’ 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all; 5 = extremely) | Nurse | The high-warmth, high-competence, ‘pride’ corner | |
| Accountant | The high-competence, low-warmth, ‘envied’ professions | ||||
| He et al. (2019) | U.S. | Warmth: warm, good-natured, sincere, friendly, well-intentioned, trustworthy Competence: competent, capable, intelligent, efficient, skillful, confident 7-point Likert scales (1 = not at all; 7 = extremely) Residualized mean ratings presented | Nurse | 1.34 | 0.22 |
| Medical assistant | 0.90 | –0.18 | |||
| Accountant | –0.55 | 1.02 | |||
| The current (our) pilot study | U.S. | Warmth: friendly, well-intentioned, warm, and considerate Competence: competent, intelligent, skillful, and ambitious 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all; 5 = extremely) | Personal Care Assistant | 4.29 | 3.47 |
| Accountant | 2.91 | 4.42 | |||
Figure 1
Illustration of hypothesized interaction effect for fabricated men job seekers.
Note that the illustration pertains only to the direction of the effect and not to the size of expected differences.
Figure 2
Illustration of hypothesized interaction effect for fabricated women job seekers.
Note that the illustration pertains only to the direction of the effect and not to the size of expected differences.
Table 3
Mean job suitability scores for intersected demographic groups across job positions.
| JOB POSITION | GROUP | M | SD |
|---|---|---|---|
| Accountant | Straight man | 3.62 | 1.40 |
| Gay man | 4.08 | 1.45 | |
| Straight woman | 3.60 | 1.49 | |
| Lesbian woman | 4.27 | 1.43 | |
| Personal care assistant | Straight man | 4.98 | 1.23 |
| Gay man | 5.19 | 1.24 | |
| Straight woman | 4.88 | 1.21 | |
| Lesbian woman | 5.33 | 1.23 |
Figure 3
Men job seekers’ job suitability ratings as a function of occupation and sexual orientation.
Figure 4
Women job seekers’ job suitability ratings as a function of occupation and sexual orientation.