Tamar Katz

We develop an evidence-based theoretical account of how widely shared cultural beliefs about gender, race, and class intersect in interpersonal and other social relational contexts in the United States to create characteristic cultural “binds” and freedoms for actors in those contexts. We treat gender, race, and class as systems of inequality that are culturally constructed as distinct but implicitly overlap through their defining beliefs, which reflect the perspectives of dominant groups in society. We cite evidence for the contextually contingent interactional “binds” and freedoms this creates for people such as Asian men, Black women, and poor whites who are not prototypical of images embedded in cultural gender, race, and class beliefs. All forms of unprototypicality create “binds,” but freedoms result from being unprototypical of disadvantaging rather than advantaging statuses.

Why do women sellers in product markets receive lower prices than men sellers when selling the same identical products? This Article investigates the effects of cultural beliefs about competence, desert and trust on market interactions with women and men sellers. We use an experimental approach to show that the prices people are willing to pay for the exact same product are affected by cultural beliefs about gender; when a woman sells a gift card, she is likely to receive five percent less for it, compared to when a man does. Our analysis further suggests that it is beliefs about women’s relative competence and moral entitlement that drive the gender price gap in product markets. When the participants in the experiment were presented with information that suggested that the woman seller was a competent or entitled seller, no gender price differences were found between such women sellers and their equally qualified male counterparts. Nonetheless, information about the trustworthiness of sellers did not decrease the gap between women and men sellers. This suggests that price gaps between women and men in product markets are not generated by beliefs about the trustworthiness of women and men.

This Article takes an experimental approach to test whether the salience of the law as a system that governs an interaction affects people’s preferences. I find that when the law is made salient in an interaction people’s preferences are altered: they express more future-oriented preferences and donate less money to charity, as compared to when the law is not salient in an otherwise identical interaction. When the law is salient in an interaction people also prefer ‘products’ over experiences, but this gap is only marginally significant. The findings suggest that the framing of an interaction as legal tends to evoke cultural scripts and implicit rules of behavior (“common knowledge”) that incorporate the shared assumptions in society about the law. In response, participants interpret the interaction as more rational and instrumental and express preferences accordingly.