Stephen versus Stephanie? Does Gender Matter for Peer-to-Peer Career Advice

Warn N. Lekfuangfu and Grace Lordan

Journal of Human Capital, 2026, vol. 20, issue 1, 35 - 68

Abstract: Occupational segregation is one of the major causes of the gender pay gap. We probe the possibility that individual beliefs regarding gender stereotypes established in childhood contribute to gendered sorting. We consider whether UK students aged 15–16 years recommend that a fictitious peer pursue different college majors and career paths simply because of the peer’s gender. We find strong evidence that this is the case. The within-majors treatment design shows that our respondents are 11 percentage points more likely to recommend corporate law to a male peer. The across-majors design reveals that students presented with a male fictitious peer tend to recommend degrees that have lower shares of females to males.

Date: 2026
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/736020 (application/pdf)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/736020 (text/html)
Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

Related works:
Working Paper: Stephen versus Stephanie? Does Gender Matter for Peer-to-Peer Career Advice (2026)
Working Paper: Stephen versus Stephanie? Does Gender Matter for Peer-to-Peer Career Advice (2023)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ucp:jhucap:doi:10.1086/736020

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Journal of Human Capital from University of Chicago Press
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Journals Division ().