ArticlePloS one2024
Career sacrifice for an LGBTQ*-friendly work environment? a choice experiment to investigate the job preferences of LGBTQ* people.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Workplace Harassment of Transgender People: A Narrative Review.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Work participation disparities among LGBTQ+ Australians: Insights from a nationally representative cohort study.PloS one · 2026Article
- Association of State Legislation Restricting Reproductive and LGBT Rights With Infectious Diseases Fellowship Match Rates.Open forum infectious diseases · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent research in economics and sociology demonstrates the existence of significant occupational segregation by sexual orientation and gender identity and differences in a range of labor market outcomes, such as hiring chances, earnings, and leadership positions. In this paper, we examine one possible cause of these differences that is associated with the disadvantaged position of sexual and gender minorities in the labor market: LGBTQ* individuals' choices aimed at avoiding possible discrimination. This paper examines LGBTQ* people's relative importance of income, time, promotion prospects, an LGBTQ*-friendly work environment, and diversity management in the decision for or against a job. Based on a discrete choice experiment conducted in a large online sample recruited through social media in Germany (N = 4,507), an LGBTQ*-friendly work climate accounted, on average, for 33.8 percent of respondents' decisions which is comparable with the relative importance of income. Overtime, a diversity management on company level and promotion prospects are less important in the job decision process of LGBTQ* people. While the results show only small differences by sexual orientation, they show group-specific preferences by gender identity. An LGBTQ*-friendly work climate is more important for cisgender women of the LGBTQ* community and gender minorities than for cisgender men of the LGBTQ* community. In contrast, income is less important for gender minorities and cisgender women of the LGBTQ* community than for cisgender men of the LGBTQ* community.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.