New Cornell research suggests that broad salary ranges in job postings, meant to advance pay equity, can actually discourage women from applying and negotiating. The findings point to simple changes in how employers present pay information that could help close gender gaps.
Pay transparency laws are supposed to help close gender pay gaps. New research from Cornell University suggests that, depending on how employers present salary information, these laws can sometimes do the opposite.
Analyzing nearly 10 million job postings and a series of experiments with job seekers, Cornell researchers found that broad salary ranges in job ads tend to discourage women from applying and from negotiating as assertively as men. Over time, that can widen the very pay gaps transparency laws are meant to shrink.
The pattern was striking across multiple studies, according to lead author Alice Lee, an assistant professor of organizational behavior at Cornell.
“Across our four studies, we consistently found that women show a stronger preference for jobs with narrower salary ranges compared to men, and that this preference is associated with less assertive negotiation behaviors. In other words, the way these laws are being implemented may be perpetuating the very pay gaps they were designed to close,” Lee said in a news release.
The research is published in the Journal of Applied Psychology.
Pay transparency laws, now on the books in 15 states and Washington, D.C., require employers to include salary ranges in job postings. Many companies elsewhere have adopted similar practices. The idea is that when workers know the pay range upfront, it becomes harder to hide unequal pay based on gender or race.
But the laws generally do not specify how wide those ranges can be. A posting might list a salary band of $60,000 to $65,000, or it might say $60,000 to $120,000. That difference, the Cornell team found, can shape who applies and how they negotiate.
In their first study, the researchers used a large archival dataset of almost 10 million U.S. job ads to map how much salary ranges vary and how that variation relates to the share of women in different roles. This broad view allowed them to see real-world patterns in how pay ranges show up across industries and occupations.
Next, they turned to people on the cusp of entering the job market. In a second study, the team recruited upper-level undergraduates to see whether gender differences in pay-range preferences appeared even before people started full-time careers, and whether general comfort with risk might explain those differences.
They then moved into the field. In a third study, actual job seekers made real application decisions for a genuine job opening that was presented with different versions of pay range disclosures. This allowed the researchers to observe how people behave when the stakes are real, not hypothetical.
Across these studies, the team also examined what happened after people chose jobs with narrower or broader ranges. They found that applicants who selected positions with narrow salary bands tended to negotiate less assertively. They were more satisfied with a midpoint offer, less likely to negotiate at all and, when they did negotiate, they asked for less money.
Lee emphasized why that matters for long-term equity.
“This matters because starting salaries have compounding consequences,” she said. “Raises, bonuses and future opportunities are often tied to your initial salary, so a lower starting point doesn’t just affect your first paycheck. It ripples through your career.”
The research also points to a relatively simple fix: better context in job ads.
In one of the experiments, the team tested what happened when employers added a brief explanation of how starting salaries are typically set and how final offers are determined within the posted range. Providing that extra information changed the way women responded to broader salary bands.
“We found that when job ads included some additional context about the typical starting salary and how final offers are determined, it mitigated women’s stronger preference for narrower pay ranges,” Lee added. “When that information was provided, we no longer observed the gender gap in application decisions, and it also eliminated the gap in negotiation behaviors.”
In other words, transparency alone is not enough. Simply listing a wide range without explaining what most new hires actually earn or how pay decisions are made can leave applicants guessing. For women, who on average may be more cautious about overestimating their value or pushing too hard in negotiations, that uncertainty can translate into lower pay and fewer applications.
The findings arrive at a moment when more states and cities are rolling out or tightening pay transparency rules, and employers are revising their hiring practices in response. Advocates see these laws as a key tool for closing persistent wage gaps, but the Cornell research suggests that the details of implementation matter.
For employers, the study offers practical guidance: keep ranges meaningful, and pair them with clear, plain-language explanations of how offers are set. For policymakers, it raises the question of whether future regulations should address not only whether pay ranges are disclosed, but also how they are presented.
For students and early-career workers, the research underscores the importance of understanding how starting salaries shape long-term earnings and being prepared to negotiate. While laws can open the door to fairer pay, the way information is shared — and how applicants respond to it — will help determine whether those laws fulfill their promise.
Source: Cornell University