Research from Cornell University indicates that laws requiring employers to disclose pay ranges in job postings—policies introduced to promote pay equity—may have unintended consequences for women in the labour market. While these transparency rules are designed to reduce wage disparities by giving applicants clearer information about compensation, the research suggests they may sometimes discourage women from applying for positions with very broad salary ranges. As a result, the policies intended to close gender pay gaps could inadvertently contribute to maintaining differences in participation and earnings if the information is presented in certain ways. The findings highlight the complexity of workplace reforms and suggest that how salary information is communicated can influence job-seeking behaviour.

Alice Lee, an assistant professor of organisational behaviour, led the research. Lee explained that across several studies, the research team consistently observed gender differences in how applicants interpret salary range information. Women, on average, showed a stronger preference for positions that advertised narrower pay ranges, whereas men were generally more comfortable applying for roles with broader salary spans. This difference was also connected to negotiation behaviour. Applicants who preferred narrower ranges tended to negotiate less assertively over compensation, meaning they were less likely to request higher salaries or push for larger adjustments during hiring discussions. According to Lee, this pattern suggests that the structure of salary disclosures may shape not only application choices but also later compensation outcomes.

The study, titled “The Implications of Pay Range Transparency on Job Application Preferences and Negotiations,” was published in the Journal of Applied Psychology. By 2025, fifteen U.S. states and Washington, D.C. had enacted laws requiring employers to include salary ranges in job advertisements, and many organisations in other regions have adopted similar practices voluntarily. The goal of these laws is to provide workers with clearer expectations and reduce inequities associated with gender and race. However, the legislation typically does not specify how wide or narrow the disclosed pay ranges should be. As a result, employers may publish ranges that span very large differences in potential earnings, which can affect how applicants interpret their chances of receiving higher salaries.

The research also found that the width of salary ranges influenced how applicants approached negotiations after deciding to pursue a position. Individuals who applied to roles with narrower salary bands were more likely to accept offers near the middle of the range and reported greater satisfaction with those offers. At the same time, they were less inclined to negotiate for higher pay, and when they did negotiate, the increases they requested tended to be smaller. Lee noted that this behaviour is important because starting salaries often influence future compensation. Pay raises, bonuses, and career opportunities are frequently tied to an employee’s initial salary, meaning that a lower starting point can affect earnings and professional advancement over many years.

To investigate these dynamics, the researchers conducted four complementary studies combining large datasets and controlled experiments. In the first study, the team analysed an archival dataset containing nearly ten million job postings across the United States. This allowed them to examine how common different pay-range widths are and how those ranges correlate with female representation in certain roles. A second study involved upper-level undergraduate students preparing to enter the labour market, enabling the researchers to observe whether gender differences in salary-range preferences appeared among prospective job seekers. Additional studies included experiments with actual job seekers making real application decisions based on advertisements that presented different salary disclosures.

One particularly important finding emerged when job advertisements included extra context about compensation. When employers explained typical starting salaries or described how final pay offers were determined, the gender differences in application behaviour largely disappeared. Women were no longer significantly more likely than men to avoid positions with broader pay ranges, and the gap in negotiation behaviour also diminished. Lee concluded that pay transparency laws remain a meaningful step towards fairer workplaces, but the results suggest that transparency alone may not be sufficient. The way employers frame and explain pay information—rather than simply listing a numerical range—can strongly influence how applicants interpret opportunities and decide whether to pursue them.

More information: Alice Lee et al, The implications of pay range transparency on job application preferences and negotiations, Journal of Applied Psychology. DOI: 10.1037/apl0001360

Journal information: Journal of Applied Psychology Provided by Cornell University