10.1177/1059601102250018 ARTICLEGROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENTRagins et al. / HETEROSEXISM IN THE WORKPLACE Heterosexism in the Workplace DO RACE AND GENDER MATTER? BELLE ROSE RAGINS University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee JOHN M. CORNWELL Loyola University–New Orleans JANICE S. MILLER University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee This article examined the effects of multiple group memberships and relational demography on the workplace experiences of 534 gay employees, 162 of whom were gay employees of color. Two competing models of multiple group membership were tested by assessing the effects of race and gender on sexual orientation discrimination and the decision to disclose a gay identity at work. Race and gender were unrelated to heterosexism. Lesbians were as likely to disclose as gay men, but gay employees of color were less likely to disclose at work. Relational demography predictions were supported for race and sexual orientation but not for gender, suggesting that gender similarity predictions may not apply to gay employees. More heterosexism was reported with male supervisors or work teams, and these effects were stronger for lesbians than gay men. Irrespective of race, employees in racially balanced teams reported less heterosexism than those in primarily White or non-White teams. Keywords: diversity; race; gender; gay Although gay men and lesbians constitute between 4% and 17% of the workforce (Gonsiorek & Weinrich, 1991), we know very little about their workplace experiences. In fact, even though gay employees constitute a larger proportion of the workforce than many other minority groups, sexual The research described in this study was supported by a grant to the first author from the Wayne F. Placek Fund of the American Psychological Foundation. Earlier versions of this article were presented at the National Academy of Management meeting, August 2001, Washington, D.C., and at the Rice University conference on Psychological and Organizational Perspectives on Discrimination in the Workplace: Research, Theory and Practice, May 2000, Houston, TX. We would like to thank the editor and the reviewers for their excellent feedback and help with this manuscript. Group & Organization Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, March 2003 45-74 DOI: 10.1177/1059601102250018 © 2003 Sage Publications 45 orientation has been excluded from most empirical research on workplace diversity (Badgett, 1996; Croteau, 1996). Discrimination against employees who are gay, or simply appear to be gay, is legal in most workplaces (National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, 1996). Without legal protection, gay employees are vulnerable to discrimination, and existing research indicates that between 25% and 66% of gay employees report sexual orientation dis- crimination at work (cf. review by Croteau, 1996). However, these are proba- bly conservative estimates because most gay employees do not fully disclose their sexual orientation at work for fear of discrimination (Badgett, 1996; ...

1. 10.1177/1059601102250018 ARTICLEGROUP &
ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENTRagins et al. /
HETEROSEXISM IN THE WORKPLACE
Heterosexism in the Workplace
DO RACE AND GENDER MATTER?
BELLE ROSE RAGINS
University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee
JOHN M. CORNWELL
Loyola University–New Orleans
JANICE S. MILLER
University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee
This article examined the effects of multiple group memberships
and relational demography on
the workplace experiences of 534 gay employees, 162 of whom
were gay employees of color.
Two competing models of multiple group membership were
tested by assessing the effects of
race and gender on sexual orientation discrimination and the
decision to disclose a gay identity at
work. Race and gender were unrelated to heterosexism.
Lesbians were as likely to disclose as
gay men, but gay employees of color were less likely to disclose
at work. Relational demography
predictions were supported for race and sexual orientation but
not for gender, suggesting that
gender similarity predictions may not apply to gay employees.

2. More heterosexism was reported
with male supervisors or work teams, and these effects were
stronger for lesbians than gay men.
Irrespective of race, employees in racially balanced teams
reported less heterosexism than those
in primarily White or non-White teams.
Keywords: diversity; race; gender; gay
Although gay men and lesbians constitute between 4% and 17%
of the
workforce (Gonsiorek & Weinrich, 1991), we know very little
about their
workplace experiences. In fact, even though gay employees
constitute a
larger proportion of the workforce than many other minority
groups, sexual
The research described in this study was supported by a grant to
the first author from the Wayne
F. Placek Fund of the American Psychological Foundation.
Earlier versions of this article were
presented at the National Academy of Management meeting,
August 2001, Washington, D.C.,
and at the Rice University conference on Psychological and
Organizational Perspectives on
Discrimination in the Workplace: Research, Theory and
Practice, May 2000, Houston, TX. We
would like to thank the editor and the reviewers for their
excellent feedback and help with this
manuscript.
Group & Organization Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, March 2003
45-74
DOI: 10.1177/1059601102250018
© 2003 Sage Publications

3. 45
orientation has been excluded from most empirical research on
workplace
diversity (Badgett, 1996; Croteau, 1996). Discrimination against
employees
who are gay, or simply appear to be gay, is legal in most
workplaces
(National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, 1996). Without legal
protection, gay
employees are vulnerable to discrimination, and existing
research indicates
that between 25% and 66% of gay employees report sexual
orientation dis-
crimination at work (cf. review by Croteau, 1996). However,
these are proba-
bly conservative estimates because most gay employees do not
fully disclose
their sexual orientation at work for fear of discrimination
(Badgett, 1996;
Schneider, 1987).
This situation may be worse for gay and lesbian employees of
color. These
employees face discrimination not just because of their sexual
orientation but
also because of their race, ethnicity, and gender. Diversity
scholars observe
that women of color may face “double jeopardy” in the
workplace because of
their ethnicity and gender (cf. review by Ferdman, 1999). A key
question is
whether this becomes “triple jeopardy” for lesbian women of

4. color. Existing
theory and research provide little information on the combined
effects of rac-
ism, sexism, and heterosexism in the workplace. Do lesbians of
color face
greater heterosexism than other gay groups because racism and
sexism spills
over into heterosexism, or is heterosexism relatively
independent from these
other forms of discrimination?
In addition to discrimination, gender and race may also affect
the decision
to “be out,” or the disclosure of a gay identity to others in the
workplace. Les-
bians and gay people of color may be reticent to disclose their
sexual orienta-
tion at work because of their fear of becoming susceptible to yet
another form
of workplace discrimination and also because they are already
highly visible
because of their race and gender (Kanter, 1977). This visibility
may increase
their chances of being targeted for heterosexism. The disclosure
of a gay
identity at work is often done on a careful case-by-case basis;
gay employees
reveal their orientation in situations where they feel safe and to
individuals
whom they trust (Badgett, 1996; Friskopp & Silverstein, 1996).
Gay employ-
ees who are highly visible on the basis of their race and gender
may fear that
“coming out” to one coworker may result in a domino effect of
coming out to
the entire organization. Do these factors combine to make

5. lesbians and gay
people of color less likely than their White gay male
counterparts to disclose
their sexual orientation at work? The first purpose of this study
was to answer
these questions by exploring the effects of race and gender on
reports of
heterosexism in the workplace and the decision to disclose
sexual orientation
to others at work.
Although demographic variables of race and gender may affect
workplace
experiences, these effects do not occur in a vacuum but are
influenced by the
46 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT
broader context of work relationships. In fact, a relational
demography per-
spective holds that the individual’s work experiences are shaped
by the
demographic composition of the manager-subordinate
relationship and work
team (Tsui, Egan, & O’Reilly, 1992; Tusi & O’Reilly, 1989). A
number of
observable and nonobservable demographic characteristics have
been inves-
tigated in studies of relational demography, including race,
ethnicity, gender,
education, age, attitudes, and tenure (see review by Tsui &
Gutek, 1999), but
there has been no research on the effects of sexual orientation
demography on

6. work experiences. Similarly, other scholars have identified
work group com-
position as an important contextual variable to consider when
examining the
effects of multiple group memberships on interpersonal
discrimination
(Landrine, Klonoff, Alcaraz, Scott, & Wilkins, 1995; Tsui &
Gutek, 1999),
but sexual orientation has been omitted from these discussions.
A second
purpose of this study was to examine whether the race, gender,
and sexual
orientation of work groups and supervisors affect gay
employees’ reports of
discrimination and their decisions to disclose a gay identity at
work.
THEORETICAL AND LITERATURE REVIEW
HETEROSEXISM, RACISM, AND SEXISM:
THE EFFECTS OF MULTIPLE GROUP
MEMBERSHIPS ON WORKPLACE EXPERIENCES
There is a lack of research on the effects of multiple group
member-
ships on workplace discrimination. The impact of race and
gender are often
explored in isolation, as if employees have either a race or a
gender but not
both (Ferdman, 1999), and sexual orientation has been excluded
from these
discussions. In the following sections, we first introduce the
construct of
heterosexism and provide a foundation for examining the
relationship
between heterosexism, racism and sexism. We then review the

7. existing the-
ory and research on the general effects of multiple group
memberships on
interpersonal discrimination. Following this, we examine how
these relation-
ships may transfer to work settings involving gay and lesbian
employees. We
use these various perspectives to develop and test two
competing models of
the effects of multiple group membership on heterosexism and
disclosure of
sexual orientation in the workplace.
Defining heterosexism and homophobia. Although there are a
number of
different terms that are used to characterize antigay attitudes
and discrimina-
tion (cf. Herek, 1984), two of the most common are
heterosexism and
Ragins et al. / HETEROSEXISM IN THE WORKPLACE 47
homophobia. Heterosexism is defined as “an ideological system
that denies,
denigrates, and stigmatizes any nonheterosexual form of
behavior, relation-
ship, or community” (Herek, 1990, p. 316). Heterosexism
incorporates
antigay attitudes, prejudice, and discriminatory behavior (Sears,
1997).
Homophobia is a popular term that is often used
interchangeably with
heterosexism. Homophobia reflects the fear and aversion

8. associated with
homosexuality (Weinberg, 1972). There is a lack of consensus
on the rela-
tionship between homophobia and heterosexism. Some authors
view homo-
phobia as the emotional component of heterosexism. For
example, Sears
(1997) defines homophobia as “prejudice, discrimination,
harassment or acts
of violence against sexual minorities, including lesbians, gay
men, bisexuals,
and transgendered persons, evidenced in a deep-seated fear or
hatred of those
who love and sexually desire those of the same sex” (p. 16).
Morin and
Garfinkle (1978) view homophobia as involving the individual’s
irrational
fear, as well as a cultural belief system that supports negative
stereotypes
about gay people.
Other authors maintain that homophobia and heterosexism are
independ-
ent constructs. For example, Jung and Smith (1993) observe that
“although
heterosexism is often accompanied by homophobia, no logical
or necessary
connection exists between the two. People who are homophobic
may not be
heterosexist; those who are heterosexist may not be
homophobic” (p. 14).
Jung and Smith also provide an analogy that is pivotal to this
study:
“Heterosexism is analogous to racism and sexism. Homophobia
finds appro-
priate analogies in racial bigotry and misogynism” (p. 14). The

9. debate as to
whether or not homophobia is part of heterosexism may be
similar to the
debate as to whether or not racial bigotry and misogyny are part
of racism and
sexism. It is clear that individuals can engage in racist, sexist,
or heterosexist
behaviors for reasons other than fear; prejudice may be based
on self-inter-
ests, beliefs, values, group norms, or social institutions
(Allport, 1954). At
issue is whether individuals can be fearful or even hate a group
without being
racist, sexist, or heterosexist. This discussion provides
important insights
into the similarities and differences between heterosexism,
racism, and
sexism.
The relationship between heterosexism, racism, and sexism. A
review of
the literature reveals two perspectives on the relationship
between
heterosexism and other forms of social prejudice. One
perspective is that
heterosexism shares a common root with racism and sexism
(e.g., Fernald,
1995). This “common roots” perspective holds that
heterosexism springs
from the same social, cultural, and political foundations as
racism and sex-
ism. Specifically, racism, sexism, and heterosexism are all
forms of social
48 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT

10. prejudice, and all involve attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors that
result in the
superiority of one group over another (Herek, 1990; Jones,
1972; Lott, 1995).
A second perspective is that heterosexism is different from
racism and
sexism. There are at least three factors that support this
“independence per-
spective.” First, the affective component of heterosexism,
homophobia, has
no real counterpart in racism or sexism. Homophobia is
grounded in hetero-
sexuals’ fear that they are gay, may become gay, or may simply
be perceived
as being gay by others (Herek, 1984). The ability to conceal
sexual orienta-
tion also fuels homophobia by allowing others to speculate
about an individ-
ual’s sexual orientation. This fear does not readily translate to
emotions
underlying racism and sexism; individuals usually are not afraid
that they
may become or be viewed as another race or gender.
Second, the stigma associated with homosexuality is different
from the
stigmas associated with other groups (Goffman, 1974). The
invisibility of
sexual orientation may amplify “courtesy stigmas,” which are
stigmas
received by associating with stigmatized groups (Goffman,
1974; Herek &
Capitanio, 1996). Heterosexuals who associate with gay

11. employees may be
assumed to be gay by others in the organization; this form of
stigma by asso-
ciation does not occur on the basis of gender and rarely occurs
on the basis of
race. Along with the courtesy stigma, gay men face an AIDS-
related stigma.
Although education has dispelled many of the myths associated
with HIV/
AIDS, the fear of AIDS is intertwined with a fear of
homosexuality in a way
that has no real parallel for race and gender.
The third factor that supports the independence perspective is
the con-
demnation of homosexuality by many religious groups.
Although various
religious groups throughout history have promulgated racism
and sexism,
the current focus of religious-based heterosexism has no direct
parallel with
race and gender. Jung and Smith (1993) observe that some
religious groups
view gay men and lesbians as unnatural or diseased and
“proclaims them to
be at the core of their very being abhorrent to God” (p. 61). A
compounding
factor is the idea that homosexuality is a “lifestyle choice”
(Jung & Smith,
1993), and this concept of choice is an important predictor of
antigay atti-
tudes (Herek & Capitanio, 1995). In contrast, race and gender
are not viewed
as immoral life choices that violate religious beliefs.
Herek (2000) identified two competing frameworks that have

12. been used
to understand gay prejudice and that parallel the common roots
and inde-
pendence perspectives. The “gay rights framework” holds that
attitudes
toward gay people are psychologically similar to attitudes
toward racial and
ethnic minority groups. Like other minority groups, attitudes
toward gays are
based on political and religious values, normative pressures
from peers, and
the degree of intergroup contact. In contrast, the “gay liberation
framework”
Ragins et al. / HETEROSEXISM IN THE WORKPLACE 49
holds that gay prejudice is less about attitudes toward others
and more about
attitudes toward one’s own sexual identity. Under this
framework, gay preju-
dice is due to the individual’s confusion about his or her own
sexuality, and
the fear of being labeled gay. This internal anxiety becomes
externalized in
prejudice against gays. Herek observed that both of these
frameworks may be
operative and that antigay prejudice may be due to a common
process under-
lying minority group attitudes, as well as an individual process
that reflects
fears and insecurities about one’s sexual identity.
Research on racist, sexist, and heterosexist attitudes provides
support for

13. both the “common roots” and the “independence” perspectives.
In support of
the common roots perspective, Henley and Pincus (1978) found
significant
relationships among attitudinal measures of racism, sexism, and
heterosexism. Additionally, Herek’s (1984) review of the
literature indicates
that although heterosexism shares many of the same predictors
as racism and
sexism (i.e., limited contact, conservative religious orientation,
limited edu-
cation), some predictors are unique to heterosexism (i.e., guilt
about sexual-
ity, permissiveness about sexuality, and prior homosexual
behaviors).
Ficarrotto (1990) found support for both the common roots and
independ-
ence perspectives in his study of 79 undergraduate students. In
support of the
common roots perspective, he found a significant relationship
between racist
and sexist attitudes and an attitudinal measure of homophobia.
However, he
also found support for the idea that negative attitudes toward
gays reflects the
unique dimension of sexual conservatism, or deep-seated,
negative feelings
about human sexuality. It is clear that more research is needed
to test these
two perspectives.
A final area that can shed theoretical light on the relationships
between
heterosexism, racism, and sexism is the area of aversive/modern
racism
(Dovidio & Gaertner, 1986) and subtle/modern sexism

14. (Benokraitis &
Feagin, 1995). In general, the modernist perspective on
prejudice holds that
because modern social values prohibit blatant expressions of
racism and sex-
ism, overt prejudice has gone underground and now surfaces in
more covert
ways. For example, the theory of aversive racism holds that
aversive racists
express egalitarian values and truly believe they are not racist
but uncon-
sciously harbor racist feelings that result in subtle, but potent,
biases
(Dovidio & Gaertner, 1986). At the heart of aversive racism is
the individ-
ual’s ambivalence over egalitarian beliefs regarding socially
acceptable
behavior, on one hand, and their negative feelings toward
minority groups,
on the other hand. These feelings are usually unconscious and
involve dis-
comfort, disgust, or even fear of the minority group. Aversive
racism may
have a direct counterpart in aversive heterosexism (Winegarden,
1994). In
essence, aversive heterosexism holds that unconscious
homophobia leads
50 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT
individuals to behave in heterosexist ways, even though they
profess and
believe that they are not heterosexists.

15. Although aversive racism and heterosexism may share some
common
psychological processes, a key difference between them is that
the social
norms prohibiting heterosexism are not as well established as
norms prohib-
iting racism and sexism. For example, it is still legal to
discriminate on the
basis of sexual orientation in most workplaces (National Gay
and Lesbian
Task Force, 1996), and 6 out of 10 Americans believe that
homosexuality is
morally wrong (Newport, 1998). In addition to differences in
social norms,
the emotional component of heterosexism may be stronger,
more subcon-
scious, and more personal than the feelings associated with
racism and sex-
ism (Herek, 1984). One consequence of this may be that the
ambivalence
experienced by aversive racists may be less than or different
from than the
ambivalence experienced by aversive heterosexists.
In sum, whereas racism, sexism, and heterosexism may share
common
foundations in social prejudice, heterosexism may also be
distinct from tradi-
tional and modern forms of prejudice. The common roots and
independence
perspectives provide an important context for understanding the
effects of
multiple group membership on interpersonal discrimination and
are the
foundation for our model on heterosexism in the workplace. We
now exam-

16. ine the effects of multiple group membership on interpersonal
discrimination
and heterosexism in the workplace.
Multiple group memberships and interpersonal discrimination.
Although
the relationships between heterosexism, racism, and sexism
provide one the-
oretical piece of the puzzle, we need to understand how an
individual’s mem-
bership in multiple minority groups affects his or her experience
of
heterosexism in the workplace. Although Ransford’s (1980)
model does not
address workplace discrimination, his theory of multiple group
memberships
provides a good basis for examining the effects of multiple
group member-
ships on heterosexism in the workplace.
Ransford (1980) proposed the “Multiple Jeopardy-Advantage”
(MJA)
hypothesis, which holds that members of multiple low-status
groups (i.e.,
African American females) may be faced with a double
disadvantage,
whereas members of multiple high-status groups (i.e., White
males) enjoy a
double advantage. Ransford presented two competing scenarios
of multiple
group memberships. The first is that the effects of membership
in multiple
low- or high-status groups are independent. For example, he
notes that
women of color experience both racism and sexism, but these
effects may be

17. independent; women of color would therefore experience
equivalent sexism
as White women. As applied to gay men and lesbians, we would
expect that
Ragins et al. / HETEROSEXISM IN THE WORKPLACE 51
lesbians would experience equivalent heterosexism as gay men,
and gay peo-
ple of color would experience the same heterosexism as their
majority gay
counterparts.
In contrast, Ransford’s (1980) second scenario holds that group
member-
ships interact synergistically so that the total impact of multiple
group mem-
berships is greater than the sum of individual memberships. He
proposed that
“multiple jeopardy emphasizes that class, ethnicity, sex and age
discrimina-
tion may combine to produce unique barriers that cannot be
explained by any
one of these hierarchies singly” (p. 280). Under this scenario,
women of color
would experience greater sexism than White women because of
the synergis-
tic effect of multiple group memberships. As applied to the
current study, les-
bians and gay people of color could be expected to experience
greater
heterosexism at work than their majority gay counterparts.
Ransford also the-
orized that White males have a dual advantage position due to

18. their race and
gender. In addition to main effects for race and gender, we
would also expect
an interaction resulting in White gay males’ experiencing less
heterosexism
than any other group.
There is little guidance from the literature as to which of these
models best
predicts interpersonal discrimination. Landrine and her
associates (1995)
assessed the MJA hypothesis by reviewing interpersonal
discrimination
studies published in social psychology and feminist journals, by
examining
race and gender differences in 1991 census salary reports, and
by conducting
a laboratory study on discriminatory reactions to television
characters
(Landrine et al., 1995). Landrine and colleagues found
conflicting support
for the interaction between multiple group memberships and
concluded that
one problem with the MJA hypothesis is that it assumes
equivalency across
low- or high-status group memberships. Their conclusion that
the effects of
multiple group memberships may be contingent on the type of
membership is
a key point to consider when examining sexual orientation as a
group mem-
bership and is congruent with our earlier discussion on the
similarities and
differences between heterosexism, racism, and sexism. We now
revisit that
earlier discussion and examine how the MJA hypothesis can be

19. applied to
heterosexism in the workplace.
Sexual orientation and multiple group memberships in the
workplace.
There has been a lack of theory or research on the relationship
between sexual
orientation and other group memberships in the workplace.
Ransford’s
(1980) two competing scenarios of interpersonal discrimination
provide a
good foundation for examining this topic and are congruent with
the common
roots and independence perspectives reviewed earlier. We
integrate these
52 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT
approaches and use them as a springboard to develop two
competing models
of the effects of multiple group membership on heterosexism
and disclosure
in the workplace.
We call the first model the ”spillover model.” This model holds
that the
effects of race and gender spill over into heterosexism in the
workplace and
are in line with the MJA hypothesis prediction (Ransford, 1980)
that mem-
bership in multiple groups compounds the advantages or
disadvantages asso-
ciated with individual group memberships. This model is also
aligned with

20. the broader common roots perspective, which holds that
heterosexism, rac-
ism, and sexism are all forms of social prejudice that involve
attitudes,
beliefs, and behaviors that result in the superiority of one group
over another.
A basic premise of the spillover model is that the common
foundation of
different forms of prejudice allows for the transference of
discrimination
from one form to another at work. This is congruent with other
perspectives
on workplace diversity. For example, women and employees of
color are
often excluded from social networks and face increased
visibility and nega-
tive performance attributions that increase their susceptibility to
job discrim-
ination (Kanter, 1977; Pettigrew & Martin, 1987). These factors
may also
make gay employees of color reluctant to risk further
discrimination by dis-
closing their gay identity at work, and prior experiences of
racism or sexism
may amplify this reluctance (Rosabal, 1996).
Emerging norms on racism and sexism may also contribute to
the
spillover model. Because legislation and societal norms prohibit
blatant rac-
ism and sexism, these forms of discrimination may become
channeled into
more socially permissible forms of heterosexism. For example,
the use of a
racial slur against a gay employee of color could result in

21. immediate dis-
missal, but the use of a gay slur may not even warrant a
reprimand in most
workplaces.
A logical extension of the spillover model is that group
membership not
only penalizes employees who are members of low-status
groups but also
helps those in high-status groups. This view is aligned with
Ransford’s
(1980) proposal that upper-class White males obtain multiple
advantages
from their high-status group memberships. As applied to the
workplace, the
same perceptual and attributional processes that place women
and employ-
ees of color at a disadvantage may give advantages to their
majority counter-
parts. White gay males, for example, may be assumed to be
competent
because of their race and gender. Accordingly, although White
gay males
face heterosexism, the spillover model predicts that the status,
power, and
privilege associated with their race and gender should buffer
them from the
full brunt of heterosexism and decrease their experience of
heterosexism in
Ragins et al. / HETEROSEXISM IN THE WORKPLACE 53
the workplace. White gay males should therefore experience
less

22. heterosexism than any other gay group.
A competing model, which we label the “independence model,”
holds that
heterosexism is independent from other forms of workplace
discrimination.
This perspective predicts that race or gender will not affect
experiences of
heterosexism or the decision to be out at work. This model
builds upon
Ransford’s (1980) theory that group memberships are
independent in their
effects and is also aligned with the view that heterosexism
springs from a dif-
ferent foundation than racism or sexism. As discussed earlier,
there are a
number of ways in which heterosexism is different from other
forms of social
prejudice. First, heterosexism involves an emotional component
that lacks a
counterpart in racism and sexism. Second, the concealability of
homosexual-
ity amplifies courtesy stigmas and may fuel homophobia. Third,
homosexu-
ality is viewed as an immoral lifestyle choice that runs counter
to many reli-
gious doctrines. Finally, heterosexism may take a different form
in the
workplace than racism or sexism. For example, the competence,
intelligence,
motivation, or leadership of a female or minority employee is
often auto-
matically questioned as an expression of racism or sexism, but
these ques-
tions are usually not raised in response to an employee’s sexual
orientation.

23. In contrast, gay employees are often treated as an onerous
oddity, and their
identity becomes shaped by their sexual behavior. The questions
aimed at
gay employees often focus on their sexual behaviors, whether
they are HIV-
positive, or whether they will become sexual predators at work
(e.g.,
Friskopp & Silverstein, 1996; Woods, 1994) rather than on their
job perfor-
mance or competence.
These factors may combine to create a situation whereby the
heterosexism
faced by gay employees is not influenced by their other group
memberships.
Under this model, lesbians would be as likely as gay men to
experience
heterosexism, and gay people of color would face equivalent
heterosexism as
their White counterparts. Additionally, White gay males would
not gain a
heterosexism buffer by their race or gender and would therefore
be as likely
to experience heterosexism as their female and minority
counterparts. Simi-
larly, the independence model would predict that inasmuch as
race and gen-
der would not affect heterosexism, and heterosexism is related
to disclosure
decisions (Ragins & Cornwell, 2001), race and gender would
therefore not
affect the decision to disclose a gay identity at work.
Although both the spillover and the independence models are
plausible,

24. there is no research to support one perspective over another in
predicting dis-
crimination against gay employees. We therefore assess the
spillover model
by testing the prediction that lesbians and gay people of color
will be less
54 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT
likely to disclose their sexual orientation and will report more
workplace dis-
crimination on the basis of sexual orientation than will their
majority gay
counterparts.
We controlled for two important factors in our study. First,
because gay
employees in organizations covered by legislation prohibiting
sexual orien-
tation discrimination are more likely to be out at work and
report less work-
place discrimination than those in organizations that are not
governed by
such legislation (Ragins & Cornwell, 2001), we controlled for
this variable in
our study. It is also important to control for disclosure of sexual
orientation
when investigating reports of discrimination; a gay employee
may be less
likely to be the direct target of heterosexism if no one at work
knows that she
or he is gay. Accordingly, we controlled for these variables in
our test of the
spillover model:

25. Hypothesis 1a: Holding protective legislation constant, lesbians
will be less likely
than gay males to disclose their sexual orientation in the
workplace, and gay
people of color will be less likely than gay Caucasians to
disclose their sexual
orientation in the workplace.
Hypothesis 1b: Holding protective legislation constant, gay
White males will be
more likely than any other group to disclose their sexual
orientation in the
workplace.
Hypothesis 2a: Holding protective legislation and disclosure of
sexual orientation
constant, lesbians will report more heterosexism in the
workplace than will gay
males, and gay people of color will report more heterosexism
than will gay
Caucasians.
Hypothesis 2b: Holding protective legislation and disclosure of
sexual orientation
constant, White gay males will report less heterosexism in the
workplace than
will any other group.
Workplace discrimination may be affected by more than an
individual’s
group membership. As we discuss next, the demographic
composition of the
work group is a critical variable that may affect reports of
heterosexism and
the decision to be out at work.

26. RELATIONAL DEMOGRAPHY AND
HETEROSEXISM IN THE WORKPLACE
A factor that may be even more important than the gay
employee’s race or
gender is the race, gender, and sexual orientation of his or her
supervisor and
workgroup. A relational demography perspective predicts that
individuals
who work with managers and teams that are similar to them will
form closer
work relationships than will individuals who work in dissimilar
work groups
(Tsui et al., 1992; Tsui & O’Reilly, 1989). A number of
observable and
Ragins et al. / HETEROSEXISM IN THE WORKPLACE 55
unobservable demographic characteristics have been
investigated in studies
of relational demography (e.g., race, ethnicity, gender,
education, age, atti-
tudes, and tenure) (see Riordan, 2001; Tsui & Gutek, 1999).
However, these
studies have not examined sexual orientation as a demographic
variable and
have assumed that the effects of other demographic variables
generalize to
gay employees.
An application of relational demography theory to sexual
orientation in
the workplace leads to the prediction that sexual orientation

27. discrimination
and the decision to disclose a gay identity at work may be
affected by the rela-
tional demography of the work team and supervisory
relationship. Gay
employees who have coworkers and supervisors of the same
race, gender,
and sexual orientation should have a more supportive work
environment than
employees in work settings where they are the only people of
their race, gen-
der, or sexual orientation.
Holding protective legislation constant, we therefore expect the
following
relationships:
Hypothesis 3: Gay employees who share a similar sexual
orientation, gender, or
race with coworkers will be more likely to disclose their gay
identity and, hold-
ing disclosure constant, will report less workplace
discrimination than
employees who differ from their coworkers.
Hypothesis 4: Gay employees who share a similar sexual
orientation, gender, or
race with their supervisor will be more likely to disclose their
gay identity and,
holding disclosure constant, will report less workplace
discrimination than
employees who differ from their supervisor.
Finally, we explore whether these relational demography effects
are sym-
metrical for different groups. Existing research suggests that the

28. effects of
demographic similarity may be different for majority and
minority group
members, and some research indicates that majority members
have a more
difficult time in diverse groups than do minority members (see
reviews by
Riordan, 2001; Tsui & Gutek, 1999). Riordan (2001) has called
for more
research that investigates nonsymmetrical demographic effects,
but there is
little theory or research to guide an investigation of these
effects among gay
employees. In fact, asymmetrical demography effects may be
quite different
for gay employees. For example, current research predicts that a
heterosexual
male may have a negative reaction to being in an all-female
group (Riordan,
2001), but this reaction may be quite different in the case of a
gay male in an
all-female group. Accordingly, we investigate this issue with a
research
question:
56 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT
Research Question: Are relational demography effects among
gay employees
symmetrical for race and gender?
METHOD
PROCEDURE AND RESPONDENTS

29. Sampling procedure. As part of a larger study on workplace
diversity
(Ragins & Cornwell, 2001), surveys were sent to a national
random sample
of 2,919 members of three national gay rights organizations in
the United
States. Specifically, we sent surveys to 1,488 members of one of
the largest
gay civil rights organizations in the nation. To obtain a diverse
sample, we
sent an additional 681 surveys to members of a national gay
Latino/a organi-
zation, and 750 surveys were sent to a national gay African
American organi-
zation. A stratified random sampling technique was used in
which equal
numbers of men and women were selected by geographic area.
The surveys
were mailed in 1997 and were completely anonymously; there
was no identi-
fying information on the surveys that would connect them to the
respondents.
Two reminder postcards and a reminder letter were sent to all
respondents. A
total of 334 surveys were returned unanswered for various
reasons, the pri-
mary reason being undeliverable mail (283); 51 surveys were
returned unan-
swered because respondents were retired, unemployed, self-
employed, het-
erosexual, or deceased. Completed surveys were returned by
768
respondents, yielding a response rate of 30%.
Respondents. Because this study investigated workplace

30. discrimination
against gay employees, surveys returned from the following
groups were not
used in the analyses: those indicating they were heterosexual (n
= 20) or
unsure of their sexual orientation (n = 3), those who were self-
employed (n =
99) or employed by a gay, lesbian, or bisexual organization (n =
51), and
those who were not employed in paid positions (i.e., retired,
unemployed, or
volunteers) (n = 61). The final sample consisted of 534
respondents.
The sample consisted of 168 women and 363 men; 3
respondents did not
report their gender. The majority of the respondents considered
themselves
gay or lesbian (92.9%), as compared with bisexual (7.1%). The
racial and
ethnic background of the respondents was 67.6% White (n =
361), 15.2%
Black (n = 81), 12.2% Latino/Hispanic (n = 65), .7% Asian (n =
4), 1.1% mul-
tiracial (n = 6) and 1.1% other (n = 6); 11 (2.1%) did not report
their race.1 The
Ragins et al. / HETEROSEXISM IN THE WORKPLACE 57
average age of the respondents was 41 years. The respondents
were highly
educated—the majority held bachelor’s degrees (38.6%), and
many had
master’s (28.2%) and doctoral (17.9%) degrees. Forty-one

31. percent of the
sample earned between $26,000 and $50,000 a year, and 24%
earned
between $51,000 and $75,000 a year. The average tenure in
their current
organization was 9.3 years, and the average tenure in their
current position
was 6.1 years. The majority of respondents held professional or
technical
jobs (68.5%) and managerial jobs (19.7%); the remainder of the
sample were
employed in clerical or sales positions (4.9%), service or craft
(6.4%), or
agricultural (.4%). Respondents also came from a large range of
industries,
such as education (24.2%), health (17%), government (14.8%),
service
(12.2%), manufacturing (9.2%), finance/insurance (6.8%),
arts/entertain-
ment (4.8%), advertising/publishing (3.1%), travel (2.0%),
human services
(2.0%), and design/fashion (.9%).
MEASURES
The survey was developed and pretested on an opportunity
sample of 28
gay and lesbian employees across the nation. The pretest was
used to ensure
clarity, refine instruments, and select items. The staff from the
gay rights
organizations that provided the mailing lists also critiqued and
approved the
pretest and final surveys.
Controls for protective legislation. Respondents were asked the

32. city and
state in which they worked. Because legislation varies by
region, multiple
sources were used to determine current legislation governing
respondents’
employers (Button, Rienzo, & Wald, 1997; National Gay and
Lesbian Task
Force, 1996; Wald, Button, & Rienzo, 1997). The protective
legislation vari-
able was coded 0 = not covered by protective legislation or 1 =
covered by
protective legislation; therefore, higher values represent
protective coverage.
Work group and supervisor demographic composition. As
recommended
by Riordan and Shore (1997), we operationalized our
demographic variables
as the individual’s demographic characteristic relative to his or
her supervi-
sor and work group. A set of questions asked respondents to
indicate whether
their coworkers were mostly the same race or ethnicity as them
(coded as 3),
about equally balanced (coded as 2), or mostly a different race
or ethnicity
from them (coded as 1). Parallel sets of questions and codings
were used to
assess the gender and sexual orientation of the work group.
Another set of
questions asked respondents if their supervisors were the same
race or ethnic-
ity as them (coded 1) or a different race or ethnicity from them
(coded 0).
58 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT

33. Parallel questions and coding were used to assess the
supervisor’s gender and
sexual orientation. Higher values therefore represent greater
similarity of the
respondent’s race, gender, and sexual orientation to his or her
manager and
work group. Respondents were also given an option of “don’t
know” for
reporting similarities of their coworkers’ and manager’s race
and sexual ori-
entation. These responses were recoded as missing data in the
analyses.
Workplace discrimination. A review of the literature revealed
no
psychometrically established measures of sexual orientation
discrimination
at work. A modified version of the Workplace
Prejudice/Discrimination
Inventory (James, Lovato, & Cropanzano, 1994) was therefore
used to test
the hypotheses and research questions. The 15-item, single-
factor instrument
has established reliability and validity (James et al., 1994). The
inventory
measures perceptions of race discrimination in the workplace,
so items relat-
ing to race were replaced with items relating to sexual
orientation. Sample
inventory items are “Prejudice against gays and lesbians exists
where I
work,” “At work I am treated poorly because of my sexual
orientation,” and

34. “Supervisors scrutinize the work of gay and lesbian employees
more than the
work of heterosexual employees.” Although the instrument
measures both
experienced and observed discrimination, prior studies have
found that the
instrument represents a single factor (James et al., 1994), and a
principal
components factor analysis conducted on the present sample
also yielded a
single factor with an eigenvalue of 7.49, accounting for 53.6%
of the vari-
ance. The instrument uses a 7-point Likert-type scale, with
responses ranging
from 7 (completely agree) to 1 (completely disagree). Higher
values there-
fore indicate greater reported workplace discrimination. The
coefficient
alpha found in the present study for this instrument was .94.
Disclosure of sexual orientation at work. Disclosure was
measured with
the following question: “At work, have you disclosed your
sexual orientation
to (Please check one option): (1) no one, (2) some people, (3)
most people, (4)
everyone.” These four options were modified from similar “out
at work”
scales used by Croteau and Lark (1995), Levine and Leonard
(1984), and
Schneider (1987). Higher values represent greater disclosure of
sexual orien-
tation at work.
RESULTS

35. The correlations, means, and standard deviations for the
variables are dis-
played in Table 1. Our sample reflected substantial diversity in
work group
Ragins et al. / HETEROSEXISM IN THE WORKPLACE 59
relationships. For supervisor-subordinate relationships, 30% (n
= 159) of
respondents reported that their supervisor was a different race
or ethnicity
from them, 68% (n = 362) had supervisors of the same race or
ethnicity as
them, and 5 individuals did not know their supervisor’s race. In
terms of gen-
der, 43% (n = 227) had a supervisor of the opposite sex, and
57% (n = 299)
had a supervisor of the same sex. In terms of the supervisor’s
sexual orienta-
tion, 85.8% (n = 452) had heterosexual supervisors, 8.9% (n =
47) had gay
supervisors, and 5.3% (n = 28) did not know their supervisor’s
sexual orien-
tation. With respect to work group demography, 24% (n = 126)
had cowork-
ers that were mostly a different race or ethnicity from them,
18% (n = 97)
worked in groups that were about equally balanced, 57% (n =
305) had
coworkers who were mostly the same race or ethnicity as them,
and 1 respon-
dent reported not knowing coworkers’ race or ethnicity. For
gender, 29% (n =
154) worked in groups composed mostly of individuals of the

36. opposite sex,
43% (n = 224) were in gender-balanced work groups, and 28%
(n = 148)
worked in groups that were mostly the same gender as them. For
sexual ori-
entation, the majority of the respondents (89.3%, n = 474)
reported that most
of their coworkers were heterosexual, 6.6% (n = 35) reported
that their work
groups were about equally balanced, 2.3% (n = 12) reported that
most of their
coworkers were gay or lesbian, and 1.9% (n = 10) did not know
their cowork-
ers’ sexual orientation.
There was also significant variation in the degree to which
individuals
were out at work: In total, 11.7% reported that they were out to
no one at
work, 37% reported being out to some people, 24.6% reported
being out to
most people, and 26.7% reported being out to everyone at work.
We also wanted to assess whether our African American, Latino
Ameri-
can, Asian American, and multiracial respondents differed in
experienced
discrimination and disclosure decisions. Analyses of variance
indicated that
respondents of color did not significantly differ from one
another in the
dependent variables of disclosure of sexual orientation, F(3,
152) = .552, ns,
or reports of sexual orientation discrimination, F(3, 150) = .796,
ns. We
therefore combined and recoded the race variable as 1 (White

37. respondent) or
0 (respondent of color).
Hierarchical regression analyses were used to test the study’s
hypotheses.
Our first set of hypotheses tested the spillover perspective,
which predicted
that lesbians and gay people of color would be less likely to
disclose their sex-
ual orientation (Hypothesis 1a) and would report more
heterosexism at work
(Hypothesis 2a) than would their majority gay counterparts. We
also tested
for a significant interaction of race and gender, resulting in
White gay males
reporting less heterosexism (Hypothesis 2b) and being more
likely to dis-
close at work (Hypothesis 1b) than any other group. As
displayed in Table 2,
60 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT
only Hypothesis 1a was partially supported. When holding
protective legis-
lation constant, gender was not significantly related to
disclosure, but gay
people of color were less likely than their White counterparts to
be out at
work. No support was received for the other spillover
hypotheses. When
holding protective legislation and disclosure constant, we found
no signifi-
cant race or gender effects in reports of heterosexism at work.
Moreover, the

38. lack of a significant interaction between race and gender
indicated that White
gay males were as likely as other groups to disclose and report
equivalent
heterosexism.
Hypotheses 3 and 4 examined the effects of the demographic
composition
of the work team and supervisory relationship on disclosure and
reported dis-
crimination. Because women and people of color are more likely
to be in the
minority in work groups, we controlled for race and gender
effects by enter-
ing the respondent’s race and gender in the second step of our
hierarchical
analyses. As displayed in Table 2, we found partial support for
Hypothesis 3.
Gay respondents who worked with mostly gay coworkers
reported less
Ragins et al. / HETEROSEXISM IN THE WORKPLACE 61
TABLE 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations
for Study Variables (N = 499)
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Reported
discrimination 45.3 20.5
2. Protective
legislation .70 .46 –.14

39. 3. Out at work 2.66 1.00 –.29 .20
4. Supervisor’s race .70 .46 –.08 .01 .12
5. Supervisor’s
gender .57 .50 .00 –.04 –.04 .08
6. Supervisor’s
sexual orientation .09 .29 –.17 .05 .11 –.01 .09
7. Coworkers’ race 2.34 .84 –.02 –.04 .07 .66 .05 –.06
8. Coworkers’
sexual orientation 1.11 .38 –.28 .06 .26 –.04 –.01 .42 –.02
9. Coworkers’ gender 2.01 .76 –.01 –.04 –.04 –.05 .36 .01 –.02
.08
10. Respondent’s race .69 .46 –.04 .02 .08 .60 .10 –.05 .60 –.02
.03
11. Respondent’s gender .68 .47 –.04 .03 .01 .09 .13 .03 .04 .00
.16 .08
NOTE: The significance levels for correlations are r > .07, p <
.05; r > .10, p < .01; r > .14, p <
.001; r > .20, ns, one-tailed. Higher values represent more
discrimination, protective legislation,
greater disclosure at work, and greater demographic similarity
with coworkers and supervisors.
Respondent’s race is coded 1 = majority, 0 = minority.
Respondent’s gender is coded 1 = male,
0 = female.
heterosexism and were more likely to be out at work than were
respondents
who worked in balanced or mostly heterosexual groups.
However, the gender

40. or racial composition of the work team was not significantly
related to dis-
crimination or disclosure. Relational demography had a
somewhat stronger
effect in the supervisor-subordinate relationship. In partial
support of
Hypothesis 4, respondents with supervisors of the same sexual
orientation or
62 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT
TABLE 2
Results of Hierarchical Regression Analyses: Tests of
Hypotheses
Perceived Workplace
Disclosure At Work Discrimination
β ∆R2 R2 β ∆R2 R2
Hypotheses 1a and 2a
Step 1
Control variables .04*** .04*** .09*** .09***
Protective legislation .20*** –.09*
Disclosure at worka –.27***
Step 2
Race and gender effects .01 .04*** .01 .09***
Respondent’s race .07* –.02
Respondent’s gender –.01 –.03
Hypotheses 1b and 2b
Step 3

41. Race and gender interaction .14 .01 .05*** .07 .00 .09***
Hypothesis 3
Step 3
Work team effects .07*** .11*** .04*** .13***
Coworkers’ sexual orientation .26*** –.22***
Coworkers’ race .05 –.01
Coworkers’ gender .05 .01
Hypothesis 4
Step 3
Supervisor effects .02** .07*** .02** .11***
Supervisor’s sexual orientation .11** –.14***
Supervisor’s race .11** –.05
Supervisor’s gender –.05 .01
NOTE: Higher values represent protective legislation, more
discrimination, greater disclosure,
and greater demographic similarity to coworkers and
supervisors. Respondent’s race is coded
1 = majority, 0 = minority. Respondent’s gender is coded 1 =
male, 0 = female.
a. Disclosure at work was only entered as a control variable in
analyses involving perceived
workplace discrimination.
*p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001. One-tailed significance tests
were used for directional hypothe-
ses, two-tailed levels for control variables.
race were more likely to be out at work than were respondents
with supervi-
sors of a different race or sexual orientation. Additionally,
respondents with

42. gay supervisors reported less workplace discrimination than
those with het-
erosexual supervisors. The gender of the supervisor did not
affect disclosure
or reported discrimination. In short, we found significant
demography
effects for similarities based on sexual orientation and
supervisor’s race but
no significant effects for similarities based on gender.
The finding that gay employees were more likely to disclose
their sexual
orientation when they had supervisors of the same race led us to
ask a follow-
up question about whether this effect was independent of the
supervisor’s
sexual orientation. To answer this question, we entered the
supervisor’s sex-
ual orientation before the race similarity variable in a
hierarchical regression
analysis. When controlling for the sexual orientation of the
supervisor, along
with the other control variables (protective legislation,
respondent’s race and
gender), the similarity in the supervisor’s race variable
maintained its signifi-
cant relationship with disclosure of sexual orientation (Beta =
.10, p < .05).
This indicated that irrespective of the supervisor’s sexual
orientation and the
employee’s race, gay employees with supervisors of the same
race were
more likely to be out at work than those with supervisors of a
different race.
Our research question assessed whether these relational

43. demography
variables varied by the respondent’s race or gender.2 To answer
this question,
we tested the interaction between all the relational demography
variables and
the respondent’s race and gender in a series of regression
analyses. We
entered the control variables in the first step of the analyses,
followed by the
main effect terms in the second step (respondent’s race and
gender, and the
relational demography of the team and supervisory relationship)
and the
interaction terms in the final step. None of the interactions was
significant for
disclosure, indicating that the demography effects found for
disclosure did
not vary by the respondent’s race or gender.
Whereas race and gender main effects were not significant, we
found
three significant interactions for discrimination. First, as
indicated in Table 3,
we found a significant interaction between the respondent’s
gender and the
gender composition of the work team. As displayed in Figure 1,
both gay men
and lesbians encountered the most heterosexism in work teams
composed of
primarily men, and this effect was amplified for lesbians.
Second, we found a
significant interaction between the respondent’s and
supervisor’s gender. A
plot of the adjusted means in Figure 2 revealed that both gay
men and lesbians
reported more heterosexism with male supervisors than with

44. female supervi-
sors and that lesbians with male supervisors reported
significantly more
heterosexism than did any other group. Combined, these two
interactions
Ragins et al. / HETEROSEXISM IN THE WORKPLACE 63
indicate that heterosexism is more likely to be reported in work
environments
involving male supervisors and primarily male work teams and
that this
effect is stronger for lesbians than for gay men.
The third significant interaction was between the respondent’s
race and
the racial composition of the work group. As displayed in
Figure 3, both
64 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT
TABLE 3
Significant Interactions for Research Question
Perceived Workplace Discrimination
β ∆R2 R2
Step 1
Control variables .09*** .09***
Protective legislation –.09*
Disclosure at work –.27***

45. Step 2
Main effects .00 .09***
Respondent’s gender –.04
Coworkers’ gender .02
Step 3
Respondent × Coworker Gender –.53*** .02*** .12***
Step 1
Control variables .09*** .09***
Protective legislation –.09*
Disclosure at work –.27***
Step 2
Main effects .00 .09***
Respondent’s gender –.04
Supervisor’s gender –.01
Step 3
Respondent × Supervisor Gender .20* .003* .10***
Step 1
Control variables .09*** .09***
Protective legislation –.09*
Disclosure at work –.27***
Step 2
Main effects .00 .09***
Respondent’s race –.02
Coworkers’ race .00
Step 3
Respondent × Coworker Race .41** .01** .10***
NOTE: Only significant interactions are displayed in the table.
Higher values represent protec-

46. tive legislation, more discrimination, and greater demographic
similarity to coworkers and supervi-
sors. Respondent’s race is coded 1 = majority, 0 = minority.
Respondent’s gender is coded 1 = male,
0 = female.
*p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .001, two-tailed.
Ragins et al. / HETEROSEXISM IN THE WORKPLACE 65
42.72
43.4
58.38
51.67
42.41
43.67
40
42
44
46
48
50
52

47. 54
56
58
60
Same Balanced Opposite
Coworkers' Gender
P
er
ce
iv
ed
D
is
cr
im
in
at
io
n
Female Male
Lesbians in primarily male groups

48. Gay men in primarily male groups
Figure 1: Adjusted Perceived Discrimination Means for
Significant Respondent’s Gen-
der by Coworkers’ Gender Interaction
43.41
49.53
46.16
42.87
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
Same Opposite
Supervisor's Gender
P
er

49. ce
iv
ed
D
is
cr
im
in
at
io
n
Female Male Lesbians with male supervisors
Gay men with male supervisors
Figure 2: Adjusted Perceived Discrimination Means for
Significant Respondent’s Gen-
der by Supervisor Interaction
White gays and gays of color reported the most heterosexism in
primarily
White work teams. Additionally, both White gays and gays of
color reported
less heterosexism in groups that were racially balanced than in
groups that
were primarily White or composed primarily of people of color.
To ensure

50. that these interactions were not due to the sexual orientation of
coworkers or
supervisors, we reran all the analyses controlling for this
variable. All three
interactions retained significance.
DISCUSSION
We used a national sample of gay and lesbian employees to
examine the
effects of race, gender, and work group demography on reports
of sexual ori-
entation discrimination and disclosure of sexual orientation at
work. Our
study breaks new ground in exploring the effects of multiple
group member-
ships and relational demography on the workplace experiences
of gay
employees and provides a foundation for future research and
theory develop-
ment on this understudied population.
66 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT
46.3
36.63
47.42
44.16
37.93
49.56

51. 34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
Same Race Bala nced Different Race
Coworkers' Race
P
er
ce
iv
ed
D
is
cr

52. im
in
at
io
n
Majority M inority
Primarily white group
Primarily white group
Figure 3: Adjusted Perceived Discrimination Means for
Significant Respondent’s Race
by Coworkers’ Race Interaction
THE EFFECTS OF MULTIPLE GROUP MEMBERSHIPS
ON HETEROSEXISM AND DISCLOSURE
We developed and tested two competing models of the effects of
multiple
group membership on reports of heterosexism and the decision
to disclose a
gay identity at work: the independence model and the spillover
model. The
results of our study indicate more support for the independence
model than
for the spillover model. In contrast to the spillover model,
lesbians and gay
people of color did not report more heterosexism than their
White male coun-
terparts, and lesbians were as likely as gay men to be out at
work. However, in

53. support of the model, gay people of color disclosed their sexual
orientation to
fewer people at work than their White counterparts. One
explanation for this
is that gay people of color are more likely to be in the numerical
minority in
organizations than women, and this visibility may increase the
perceived
risks associated with disclosure. Gay employees of color may
already feel
that they are under a microscope at work because of their race
and may not
want to feed the gossip mill by coming out at work. They may
fear that their
visibility may promote a “domino effect” in which their
disclosure to a select
group of individuals results in everyone in the organization
knowing their
sexual orientation. Finally, gay people of color who encounter
racism at work
may fear that a revelation of a gay identity may “add fuel to the
discrimina-
tory fire.”
The finding that lesbians and gay employees of color reported
equivalent
heterosexism at work as White gay males supports the
independence model,
which holds that the forms and functions of heterosexism make
it distinct
from racism or sexism. A key distinction is that the invisibility
of sexual ori-
entation combines with sexual insecurities and identity conflicts
to create an
emotional reaction that has no real counterpart in race and
gender. Individ-

54. uals are usually not afraid that they are or will become another
race or gender
or that they will be perceived as being a different race or gender
by mere asso-
ciation with a stigmatized group. Another distinction is that
unlike sexual ori-
entation, race and gender are not viewed as immoral lifestyle
choices that
violate religious doctrines.
Although our study provides a good start, more research is
needed that
examines the underpinnings of racism, sexism, and
heterosexism in organi-
zations. Our study assessed race and gender effects, but future
research could
take the next step by comparing mean reports of sexism, racism,
and
heterosexism using a racially diverse sample of gay and lesbian
employees.
We also need a more thorough understanding of the relationship
between
homophobia and heterosexism in organizations and the
antecedents and out-
comes of these constructs.
Ragins et al. / HETEROSEXISM IN THE WORKPLACE 67
Whereas memberships in multiple high-status groups may give
some
individuals an advantage, we found no evidence of this among
the White gay
men in our study, who reported equivalent heterosexism as other
groups. The

55. race and gender of these men apparently did not buffer them
from sexual ori-
entation discrimination. One reason for this may be that openly
gay men may
not be invited to join the “good old boys’ club.” Moreover, the
disclosure of a
gay identity after entering this club may evoke heterosexist
backlash; gay
men may be viewed as “imposters who infiltrated the White
heterosexual
male bastion.” Additionally, our finding that White gay men
were as likely to
be out at work as their female and minority counterparts
suggests that
although coming out may mean relinquishing the privileges
associated with
their race and gender, the emotional costs involved with hiding
a gay identity
may make that decision well worthwhile.
Future research should use both quantitative and qualitative
approaches to
examine race and gender differences in identity management
strategies. Our
study examined race and gender differences in the decision to
disclose, but
we did not explore the strategies used by those who concealed
their sexual
identity at work (cf. Button, 2001). Although lesbians were as
likely as gay
men to be out at work, it would be interesting to examine the
identity manage-
ment strategies used by those who remained in the closet. For
example,
Woods (1994) observed that two nondisclosure strategies
involve avoiding

56. the issue of sexuality and counterfeiting a heterosexual identity.
Are there
race and gender differences in the use of these strategies? One
could argue
that counterfeiting a heterosexual identity would be difficult for
those who
are already highly visible because of their minority status.
Additionally, the
number of minority group memberships may matter; individuals
who are
members of multiple stigmatized groups may be more adept at
managing
their identities than those who are members of just one
stigmatized group.
Future research could also explore the factors that predict
disclosure in the
workplace. Lesbians were as likely as gay men to be out at
work, but the fac-
tors that led to this decision may vary by race and gender. We
need to under-
stand what factors build the sense of trust and safety necessary
for lesbians
and gay people of color to disclose at work. Perhaps they
disclose their sexual
orientation to coworkers only after they have “tested the water”
for racism
and sexism. These questions point to the importance of
examining not just the
race and gender of the gay employee but also the demographic
composition
of their work environment.
68 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT

57. THE IMPACT OF RELATIONAL DEMOGRAPHY
ON HETEROSEXISM AND DISCLOSURE
Although the race and gender of gay employees did not affect
their reports
of heterosexism, the demographic composition of their work
environment
emerged as an important predictor of disclosure and
discrimination. In fact,
sexual orientation emerged as the leading demographic
predictor of work-
place experiences for gay employees. In support of relational
demography
theory, gay employees with gay supervisors or primarily gay
work groups
were more likely to be out at work and reported less
heterosexism than
employees in heterosexual work environments. Whereas sexual
orientation
is often omitted from discussions of relational demography, it is
central to
gay employees and should be included in future research.
Also in line with relational demography theory was the finding
that gay
employees were more likely to disclose their sexual orientation
when they
had supervisors of the same race or ethnicity, and this effect
held regardless
of the supervisor’s sexual orientation or the employee’s race.
This suggests
that although gay employees of color may be more reluctant
than White
employees to disclose at work, having a same-race supervisor
may lessen this

58. reluctance. Even if the supervisor is heterosexual, similarity in
race may be
sufficient to build the trust necessary for disclosure. Gay
employees may also
view a supervisor of a different race as less motivated to protect
them from
the potentially negative consequences of disclosure.
We found no support for relational demography predictions
regarding
gender similarity. Gender similarity in supervisory relationships
and work
teams did not affect disclosure or reports of heterosexism. On
closer inspec-
tion, it becomes clear that the assumption of heterosexuality
underlies rela-
tional demography predictions. Gender similarity predictions
are based on
the idea that working with someone of the same gender
increases an individ-
ual’s sense of comfort, security, and acceptance. This comfort
may not be
afforded to gay employees; the experience of a gay male
working in a group
of heterosexual men may be quite different from the experience
of a hetero-
sexual male in a heterosexual male group. The prediction that
gender similar-
ity creates a positive group climate also assumes that
individuals in same-
gender groups do not encounter the potential for sexual tension
that may be
present in cross-gender groups. This prediction is reversed for
gay employ-
ees; a gay male working in a group of gay males may encounter
similar sexual

59. tensions as might a heterosexual male working in a group of
heterosexual
females. This suggests that biological sex may be a poor
predictor of
Ragins et al. / HETEROSEXISM IN THE WORKPLACE 69
perceived similarity among gay employees. Moreover,
biological sex may be
an entirely meaningless construct for transgendered employees,
whose gen-
der identity is independent from their biological sex.
Some of the most intriguing findings in our study involved the
significant
interactions between the relational demography variables and
the respon-
dent’s race and gender. The most provocative finding was that
both White
and minority gay employees reported less heterosexism in
groups that were
racially balanced than in primarily White or non-White groups,
and this find-
ing held even when controlling for the group’s sexual
orientation. One expla-
nation for this finding is that teams that are diverse on one
dimension (i.e.,
race) may undergo a diversity awareness process that transfers
to other
dimensions (i.e., sexual orientation). This supports the idea that
diversity in
one area helps teams deal with diversity in other areas.
However, a less opti-
mistic interpretation is that racially diverse groups are so

60. focused on dealing
with race issues that issues relating to sexual orientation slip
into the back-
ground. These two scenarios present an exciting agenda for
future research.
Do racially diverse teams develop greater self-awareness of all
forms of
diversity, or does the conflict derived from dealing with one
form of diversity
overshadow issues relating to other forms of diversity?
Our study also revealed that gay employees who worked in
primarily male
groups or who had male supervisors were more likely to report
heterosexism
than were employees who worked in gender-balanced or female-
dominated
work environments. Additionally, this effect was significantly
more likely to
be found among lesbians than among gay men, indicating that
lesbians in
male-dominated environments may face extensive heterosexism
at work.
Future research can build on this finding by examining the
predictors, moder-
ators, and outcomes of these relationships.
Although the demography of the work group is an important
predictor of
the workplace experiences of gay employees, team demography
may not be
as important as the group’s values and attitudes about
homosexuality. Future
research can investigate this topic and draw on current views of
workplace
diversity that distinguish between demographic “surface

61. diversity” and
“deep-level diversity,” which reflects group members’ attitudes,
values, and
beliefs (Harrison, Price, & Bell, 1998). It would be interesting
to assess how
group demography interacts with attitudes toward
homosexuality to affect
work outcomes for gay employees.
LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY
Several limitations of this study should be mentioned. First, the
use of
members of national gay rights organizations may limit the
generalizability
70 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT
of the study. This group may be more likely than other gay
groups to be out at
work, they may be more sensitive to discrimination, and they
may be more
likely to choose organizations that are supportive of gay
employees.
It should also be noted that we examined subjective reports of
perceived
workplace discrimination, which may under- or overestimate
objective dis-
crimination. For example, lesbians and gay employees of color
may
underreport heterosexism if they perceive it as being minimal
relative to the
racism and sexism they experience at work. The lack of gender

62. and race dif-
ferences in reported discrimination could also be a function of
gender and
race differences in discrimination attributions. Existing research
indicates
that women and people of color are less likely than their White
male counter-
parts to blame poor performance in ambiguous situations on
discrimination
(Ruggiero & Taylor, 1995). This research suggests that lesbians
and gay
employees of color may deny that discrimination exists or may
assume per-
sonal responsibility for workplace discrimination.
Another limitation of our study is that we did not take the
climate of the
organization into account. Disclosure of a gay identity may be
affected not
only by “gay-friendly” climates but also by the degree to which
employees
are allowed or encouraged to share any form of personal
disclosure at work.
Personal disclosure may be more common in some workplaces
and occupa-
tions than others and may vary by tasks and relationships with
peers. For
example, disclosure may be less likely to occur in teams that do
not involve
face-to-face interaction, in cases where employees have
different coworkers
every day (i.e., flight attendants), or in work situations that
involve physi-
cally close interactions (i.e., firefighters and police officers).
Finally, the results of our study may or may not generalize to

63. the bisexual
and transgender populations. Additionally, our survey did not
allow respon-
dents to indicate whether they were transgendered.
Transgendered individu-
als may self-identify as heterosexual, and because we excluded
self-identi-
fied heterosexuals (n = 20) from our analyses, we may have also
excluded
transgendered respondents.
In conclusion, the results of our study suggest that race, gender,
and sexual
orientation should not be considered in a vacuum but should be
considered in
relation to the broader work environment. Although the results
of this study
suggest that relational demography is central to the work
experiences of gay
employees, heterosexual assumptions underlying this theory
need to be
examined more closely. Finally, it is clear that more research is
needed that
explores the complex interactions between multiple group
identities in the
workplace and the effects of these identities on gay employees’
workplace
experiences.
Ragins et al. / HETEROSEXISM IN THE WORKPLACE 71
NOTES
1. Undeliverable mail was due to change of addresses. The

64. majority of these returned sur-
veys came from the mailing lists of the African American and
Latino American gay civil rights
groups. Race differences in return rates may therefore partially
be attributable to the use of older
mailing lists by the African American and Latino American
groups.
2. We were not able to test for symmetrical sexual orientation
effects because we did not
have heterosexuals in our sample.
REFERENCES
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Badgett, L. (1996). Employment and sexual orientation:
Disclosure and discrimination in the
workplace. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services, 4, 29-
52.
Benokraitis, N. V., & Feagin, J. R. (1995). Modern sexism:
Blatant, subtle, and covert discrimi-
nation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Button, S. B. (2001). Organizational efforts to affirm sexual
diversity: A cross-level examina-
tion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 17-28.
Button, J. W., Rienzo, B. A., & Wald, K. D. (1997). Private
lives, public conflicts: Battles over
gay rights in American communities. Washington, DC: CQ
Press.
Croteau, J. M. (1996). Research on the work experiences of
lesbian, gay and bisexual people: An

65. integrative review of methodology and findings. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 48, 195-
209.
Croteau, J. M., & Lark, J. S. (1995). On being lesbian, gay, or
bisexual in student affairs: A
national survey of experiences on the job. NASPA Journal, 32,
189-197.
Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (Eds.). (1986). Prejudice,
discrimination and racism. San
Diego: Academic Press.
Ferdman, B. M. (1999). The color and culture of gender in
organizations: Attending to race and
ethnicity. In G. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender & work (pp.
17-34). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Fernald, J. L. (1995). Interpersonal heterosexism. In B. Lott &
D. Maluso (Eds.), The social psy-
chology of interpersonal discrimination (pp. 80-117). New
York: Guildford.
Ficarrotto, T. J. (1990). Racism, sexism, and erotophobia:
Attitudes of heterosexuals towards
homosexuals. Journal of Homosexuality, 19(1), 111-116.
Friskopp, A., & Silverstein, S. (1996). Straight jobs, gay lives:
Gay and lesbian professionals,
the Harvard Business School, and the American workplace. New
York: Touchstone/Simon
& Schuster.
Goffman, E. (1974). Stigma: Notes on the management of

66. spoiled identity. New York: Jason
Aronson.
Gonsiorek, J. C., & Weinrich, J. D. (1991). The definition and
scope of sexual orientation. In J.
C. Gonsiorek & J. D. Weinrich (Eds.), Homosexuality: Research
implications for public pol-
icy (pp. 1-12). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond
relational demography: Time and the
effects of surface-and deep-level diversity on work group
cohesion. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 41, 96-107.
Henley, N. M., & Pincus, F. (1978). Interrelationship of sexist,
racist, and antihomosexual atti-
tudes. Psychological Reports, 42, 83-90.
72 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT
Herek, G. M. (1984). Beyond “homophobia”: A social
psychological perspective on attitudes
towards lesbians and gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 10, 1-
21.
Herek, G. M. (1990). The context of anti-gay violence. Journal
of Interpersonal Violence, 5,
316-333.
Herek, G. M. (2000). Sexual prejudice and gender: Do
hetereosexuals’ attitudes towards lesbi-
ans and gay men differ? Journal of Social Issues, 56, 251-266.

67. Herek, G. M., & Capitanio, J. P. (1995). Black heterosexuals’
attitudes toward lesbians and gay
men in the United States. Journal of Sex Research, 32, 95-105.
Herek, G. M., & Capitanio, J. P. (1996). “Some of my best
friends”: Intergroup contact,
concealable stigma, and heterosexuals’ attitudes toward gay
men and lesbians. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 412-424.
James, K., Lovato, C., & Cropanzano, R. (1994). Correlational
and know-group comparison val-
idation of a workplace prejudice/discrimination inventory.
Journal of Applied Social Psy-
chology, 24, 1573-1592.
Jones, J. M. (1972). Prejudice and racism. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Jung, P. B., & Smith, R. F. (1993). Heterosexism: An ethical
challenge. Albany: State University
of New York Press.
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New
York: Basic Books.
Landrine, H., Klonoff, E. A., Alcaraz, R., Scott, J., & Wilkins,
P. (1995). Multiple variables in
discrimination. In B. Lott & D. Maluso (Eds.), The social
psychology of interpersonal dis-
crimination (pp. 183-224). New York: Guildford.
Levine, M. P., & Leonard, R. (1984). Discrimination against
lesbians in the workforce. Journal
of Women in Culture and Society, 9, 700-724.
Lott, B. (1995). Distancing from women: Interpersonal sexist

68. discrimination. In B. Lott & D.
Maluso (Eds.), The social psychology of interpersonal
discrimination (pp. 12-49). New
York: Guildford.
Morin, S. F., & Garfinkle, E. M. (1978). Male homophobia.
Journal of Social Issues, 34, 29-47.
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. (1996). Capital gains and
losses: A state by state review
of gay-related legislation. Washington, DC: Author.
Newport, F. (1998, July). Americans more likely to believe
sexual orientation due to environ-
ment, not genetics. Gallup Poll Monthly, pp. 14-16.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Martin, J. (1987). Shaping the
organizational context for Black American
inclusion. Journal of Social Issues, 43, 41-78.
Ragins, B. R., & Cornwell, J. M. (2001). Pink triangles:
Antecedents and consequences of
heterosexism in the workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology,
86, 1244-1261.
Ransford, H. E. (1980). The prediction of social behavior and
attitudes: The correlates tradition.
In V. Jeffries & H. Ransford (Eds.), Social stratification: A
multiple hierarchy approach (pp.
265-295). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Riordan, C. M. (2001). Relational demography within groups:
Past developments, contradic-
tions, and new directions. Research in Personnel and Human
Resource Management, 19,
131-173.

69. Riordan, C. M., & Shore, L. M. (1997). Demographic diversity
and employee attitudes: An
empirical examination of relational demography within work
units. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 82, 342-358.
Rosabal, G. S. (1996). Multicultural existence in the workplace:
Including how I thrive as a
Latina lesbian feminist. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social
Services, 4, 17-28.
Ruggiero, K. M., & Taylor, D. M. (1995). Coping with
discrimination: How disadvantaged
group members perceive the discrimination that confronts them.
Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 68, 826-838.
Ragins et al. / HETEROSEXISM IN THE WORKPLACE 73
Schneider, B. E. (1987). Coming out at work: Bridging the
private/public gap. Work and Occu-
pations, 13, 463-487.
Sears, J. T. (1997). Thinking critically/intervening effectively
about homophobia and
heterosexism. In J. T. Sears & W. L. Williams (Eds.),
Overcoming heterosexism and homo-
phobia: Strategies that work (pp. 13-48). New York: Columbia
University Press.
Tsui, A., Egan, T. D., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1992). Being
different: Relational demography and
organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly,

70. 37, 549-579.
Tsui, A. S., & Gutek, B. A. (1999). Demographic differences in
organizations: Current research
and future directions. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
Tsui, A. S., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1989). Beyond simple
demographic effects: The importance of
relational demography in superior-subordinate dyads. Academy
of Management Journal,
32, 402-423.
Wald, K. D., Button, J. W., & Rienzo, B. A. (1997). All politics
is local: Analyzing local gay
rights legislation. Washington, DC: National Gay and Lesbian
Task Force Policy Institute.
Weinberg, G. (1972). Society and the healthy homosexual. New
York: St. Martin’s.
Winegarden, B. J. (1994). Aversive heterosexism: An
exploration of unconscious bias toward
lesbian psychotherapy clients. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Wisconsin,
Milwaukee.
Woods, J. D. (1994). The corporate closet: The professional
lives of gay men in America. New
York: Free Press.
Belle Rose Ragins is a professor of management at the
University of Wisconsin–Milwau-
kee. She received her Ph.D. in industrial-organizational
psychology from the University
of Tennessee. Her research interests focus on diversity and
mentoring in organizations.

71. John M. Cornwell is an associate professor of psychology at
Loyola University–New
Orleans. He received his Ph.D. in industrial-organizational
psychology from the Uni-
versity of Tennessee. His research interests include
psychometrics, statistics, and educa-
tional reform.
Janice S. Miller is an associate professor of management at the
University of Wisconsin–
Milwaukee. She received her Ph.D. from Arizona State
University. Her research inter-
ests include performance management, compensation, and
employee development.
74 GROUP & ORGANIZATION MANAGEMENT
Read the article included in this folder, and answer the
following questions:
1. What is the ‘double jeopardy’ in the workplace?
2. According to the authors what impact can diversity in one
area have on other areas of an organization?
3. Why is it important to understand the relationship between
heterosexism, racism, and sexism?