Gender Pay Gap Persists Despite Ongoing Battle of the Sexes

Occupational devaluation theory—outlined in the mid-1990s by sociologist Paula England—offers a clear lens on one of the most persistent workplace mysteries: why jobs held by more women often pay less. The framework argues that society discounts what women “do,” and that this devaluation can translate into lower wages for entire occupations, even when overt discrimination is not obvious.

In new research led by Catherine Taylor, an associate professor of sociology at UC Santa Barbara, the central question shifts from correlation to causation. Taylor and co-authors ask whether occupations are paid less because women are concentrated in them—an important distinction for understanding how gender pay gaps actually form.

The study centers on a survey experiment designed to isolate the effect of occupational gender composition. Participants were shown an occupation described as gender-neutral in reputation—management consulting—then presented it in three variations based on the proportion of women: 25%, 45%, and 67%.

Respondents were asked what salary the occupation ought to offer under each demographic scenario. Critically, this approach tests whether people adjust pay expectations purely based on the gender makeup of the workforce implied by the occupation.

The results show a consistent pattern: participants recommended substantially lower compensation when the job was described as female-dominated. On average, the female-dominated version was assigned nearly $1,000 less per year than the male-dominated version.

Taylor interprets this as a causal mechanism. Because participants lowered pay recommendations when women’s presence increased, the findings suggest that devaluation is not merely a byproduct of workplace realities—it can be triggered by gender associations themselves.

Importantly, the researchers report that respondents’ own gender did not change the salary recommendations. Both women and men appeared to assign lower pay when women were more heavily represented, pointing to a socially shared bias rather than individual attitudes alone.

The study also implies a practical takeaway for employers. If wage differences arise from standardized pay criteria being undermined by implicit assumptions, then structured compensation policies—anchored in measurable qualifications such as education and experience—could help reduce inequities.

Overall, the work strengthens the argument that the pay gap reflects societal devaluation of women’s contributions at the level of occupations, rather than differences in women’s job preferences.