arbiter
JournalsAccount

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

Warn N. Lekfuangfu & Grace Lordan

Journal of Human Capital2025https://doi.org/10.1086/736020article
AJG 3ABDC A
Weight
0.50

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.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1086/736020

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{warn2025,
  title        = {{Stephen versus Stephanie? Does Gender Matter for Peer-to-Peer Career Advice}},
  author       = {Warn N. Lekfuangfu & Grace Lordan},
  journal      = {Journal of Human Capital},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1086/736020},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

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

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.