ABSTRACT
Title of dissertation: PREGNANCY IN THE WORKPLACE: 
STIGMATIZATION AND WORK IDENTITY 
MANAGEMENT AMONG PREGNANT EMPLOYEES
Virginia Smith Major, Doctor of Philosophy, 2004
Dissertation directed by: Professor Katherine J. Klein
Department of Psychology
As increasing numbers of women enter the workplace, more and more women 
and their employers are confronted with the issue of combining work, pregnancy, and 
childbirth. Unfortunately, very little management or organizational psychology research 
has examined the experiences of pregnant employees in the workplace. In this paper, I 
describe a qualitative, grounded theory study of the phenomenon of pregnancy and work, 
presenting a model of stigmatization and identity management among pregnant workers. I 
identify several work environment and job characteristics that may influence the 
likelihood that pregnant women perceive a threat of stigmatization, and I specify the 
relationship between that perceived stigmatization and efforts women make to manage
their work identities.
PREGNANCY IN THE WORKPLACE: STIGMATIZATION AND WORK IDENTITY 
MANAGEMENT AMONG PREGNANT EMPLOYEES
by
Virginia Smith Major
Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the
University of Maryland, College Park in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
2004
Advisory Committee:
Professor Katherine Klein, Chair
Professor Benjamin Schneider
Professor Melissa Milkie
Professor Paul Hanges
Professor Michele Gelfand
?Copyright by
Virginia Smith Major
2004
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables iv
List of Figures v
Introduction 1
Identity, Self-Presentation, and Stigmatization 7
Creating and Maintaining Desired Identities 7
Stigmatization: When an Identity Becomes Devalued 8
Methods 13 
Overview 13
Data Sources, Sampling, and Data Collection 14
Introduction to Theoretical Sampling 14
Interviews: Sampling Procedures and Sample Characteristics 16
Interview Protocol 19
Internet Bulletin Board Postings: Sampling Procedure
and Characteristics of Data Source 20
Data Analysis 22
Findings 28 
Identity Management Tactics 33
Maintaining Her Pace 33
Not Requesting Accommodations 34
Passing 36
Dressing Professionally 37
Downplaying the Pregnancy 38
Going the Extra Mile 39
Shortening Maternity Leave 39
Stated Motives for Identity Management 41
Perceiving the Threat of Stigmatization 47
Examining the Link Between Perceived Stigmatization
and Identity Management 50
Degrees of Identity Management 53
Degrees of Perceived Threat 55
Examining the Predictor-Outcome Matrix 57
Antecedents of Perceived Threat of Stigmatization 58
The Work Environment: Organizational Climate
and Supervisor Relationship 61
Job Characteristics: Tenure, Physical Demands, 
and Status 64
Discussion 70
iii
Limitations 79
Conclusion 83
Endnotes 87
Appendix A: Final Interview Guide 88
Appendix B: Coding Instructions for Stage Two of Data Analysis 91
Appendix C: Codes and Their Definitions 92
Appendix D: Instructions for Rating Degrees of Perceived Threat of 
Stigmatization and Identity Management 110
References 114
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Identity Management: Tactics 30
Table 2: Identity Management: Stated Motives 41
Table 3: Perceived Threat of Stigmatization as a Predictor of Identity 
Management 52
Table 4: Antecedents of Perceived Threat of Stigmatization 60
v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: A Model of Perceived Stigmatization and Work Identity Management 
Among Pregnant Employees 71
1
Introduction
In the last several decades, the number of women employed in the United States 
has increased dramatically. Between 1950 and 1998, the percentage of women who work 
rose from 34 to 60%, and today women comprise 47% of all workers (Kraut & Korman, 
1999; Robinson & Godbey, 1997). Women now work in a wide range of occupations, 
including traditionally male professions such as law, medicine, and engineering, and they 
occupy 40% of the management positions in American companies (Miller, Jablin, Casey, 
Lamphear-Van Horn & Ethington, 1996). These trends are unlikely to change any time 
soon. At least half of all college and professional school graduates are now women, and 
businesses increasingly recruit and hire beyond the ranks of white males, as a declining 
birth rate and tight labor markets make it harder to find talented employees (Kraut & 
Korman, 1999; Schwartz, 1989). One important consequence of this increased female 
labor force participation is that substantial numbers of women?and their employers?are 
confronted with the issue of combining work, pregnancy, and childbirth. In fact, 80% to 
90% of women who work will become pregnant at some point while they are employed 
(Fried, 2000), with the majority working late into their pregnancies (Miller et al., 1996). 
Given the number of workers who become pregnant each year, it is surprising 
how little research has examined the phenomenon of pregnancy at work. Indeed, the 
pregnant employee has been called ?a missing person in management research? (Caudill, 
1994, cited in Lyness et al., 1999, p. 487). I was able to identify only about twenty
empirical articles on pregnancy and work published in psychology or management 
journals between 1985 and today. Much of this research explored attitudes toward and 
evaluations of pregnant employees or job applicants (Bragger, Kutcher, Morgan, & Firth, 
2
2002; Corse, 1990; Guetal, Luciano, & Michaels, 1995; Gueutal & Taylor, 1991; Halpert 
& Burg, 1997; Halpert, Wilson, & Hickman, 1993; Pattison, Gross, & Cast, 1997). 
Despite the growing prevalence of women and mothers in the labor force, this research 
found that many people, including supervisors, coworkers, and subordinates, continue to 
hold negative stereotypes of pregnant workers. For example, in a study of MBA students, 
Guetal and Taylor (1991) reported that a substantial number had negative views of 
pregnant employees, believing that they limit group productivity and that organizations 
make too many concessions for them. Of these students, 46% said they would not hire a 
pregnant woman and 62% said they would not promote one. Furthermore, in lab studies, 
Halpert et al. (1993) found that women were given lower ratings on assessment-center-
type tasks when they wore pregnancy prostheses than when they did not (actual 
performance was held constant), while Bragger et al. (2002) found overall bias against 
pregnant job applicants. Similarly, in a field study, Hebl, Kazama, Singletary, and Glick 
(2004) found that women who appeared to be pregnant were subjected to hostile 
interpersonal discrimination when applying for jobs in retail stores. Other researchers
examined factors affecting the use of parental or maternity leave (e.g., Fried, 2000; 
Lyness, Thompson, Francesco, & Judiesch, 1999). This research concluded that, for a 
variety of reasons, including unsupportive organizational cultures, women often have 
difficult arranging for leaves that are of adequate length, are paid, and allow them to 
return to their previous positions (Fried, 2000; Hyde, 1995; Hyde et al., 1996; Lyness et 
al., 1999). In addition, both Fried (2000) and Judiesch and Lyness (1999) found that some 
supervisors give lower performance evaluations to women who take leaves for childbirth. 
3
Within sociology, research on pregnancy and work has focused almost 
exclusively on the effect of pregnancy on women?s employment choices (e.g., Budig, 
2003; Desai & Waite, 1991; Glass & Riley, 1998; Greenstein, 1986; Houston & Marks, 
2003). These studies reported that certain aspects of women?s work experiences, 
including longer, paid and job-guaranteed benefits (Glass & Riley, 1998; Waldfogel, 
1998), schedule flexibility (Glass & Riley, 1998), and coworker/supervisor support 
(Glass & Riley, 1998; Houston & Marks, 2003) were associated with fewer job changes 
and/or labor force exits after childbirth. We still know little, however, about how work 
characteristics or experiences affect pregnant women?s broader attitudes towards work
and career. I was able to identify only three studies that examined this issue. Brown, 
Ferrara, and Schley (2002) found that pregnant employees? job satisfaction was positively 
related to satisfaction with their organizations? maternity leave policies. Lyness et al. 
(1999) reported that pregnant employees who perceived more supportive work-family 
cultures had greater organizational commitment than those who did not. And, in a small 
interview study of new British mothers and fathers, Borrill and Kidd (1994) found that 
unsupportive organizational climates negatively affected new mothers? attitudes toward 
their jobs and careers. Specifically, women
. . . felt they had to reappraise their career expectations, not because of changes in 
their own priorities (although this was the case with some. . .) but as a 
consequence of their employers? policies, practices and attitudes. The message 
most received from their organizations was that their contribution was no longer 
valued and that their loyalty and commitment were in doubt. The consequences 
for the women were insecurity, anxiety, and mistrust for the organization (p. 230). 
4
Borrill and Kidd?s (1994) study, although very small in scope, suggests that work 
experiences during pregnancy and after return to work had real consequences not just for 
employers, in terms of lost commitment or turnover, but for women themselves. 
The literature reviewed above offers much needed insight into a poorly 
understood phenomenon. Unfortunately, given its rather limited scope, we still know 
little about pregnancy at work. Perhaps so few scholars have investigated the 
phenomenon because they simply assume that pregnancy is not important, that the key 
issues for organizations and workers arise after children are born. Yet collectively, the
existing studies paint a rather grim portrait of the life of the pregnant worker: negative 
reactions from supervisors and others, the possibility of lower performance appraisals and 
lost promotions, and pressure (financial or otherwise) to take short leaves or penalties for 
taking leave. And in fact, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reported a 
40% increase in claims of pregnancy discrimination since 1992 (Geller, Oct. 22, 2003). 
Clearly, it behooves organizational psychologists and management researchers to 
investigate more fully the phenomenon of pregnancy in the workplace, including the 
experiences of both pregnant workers and their employers. 
The purpose of this dissertation was to conduct an exploratory, qualitative, 
theory-building study of pregnancy and work, raising questions that had not previously 
been asked in the management and organizational psychology literature. I sought to 
investigate the issue from the perspective of pregnant employees themselves, building on 
the earlier work by Borrill and Kidd (1994), which explored how new mothers (as well as 
fathers) interpreted and responded to various work experiences. In other words, I did not 
want merely to document women?s experiences, positive or negative, but instead aimed 
5
to understand both how women assigned meaning to their experiences and the 
consequences of their interpretations. In particular, I focused on the dynamics of 
women?s work identities?that is, how the experience of being pregnant for the first time 
influenced their views of themselves as workers. Three initial research questions guided 
the research. 1) How do employed women?s work identities change, if at all, as a result of 
being pregnant for the first time? 2) How do they negotiate their identities with 
colleagues at work? What strategies do they use to convey desired identities and 
negotiate unwanted ones with colleagues? And 3) how do different work experiences
affect the identities women create as well as the strategies they use to convey those 
identities?
Although I did not enter the project with any apriori hypotheses, my familiarity 
with the literature on identity and motherhood led me to assume that the monumental 
change of becoming a mother would affect in some way women?s views of themselves at 
work. I discovered instead that most women claimed that their own work identities did 
not change substantially?rather, how others viewed and reacted to them did. I found that 
as a result many women perceived their pregnancy as a stigma that had the potential to 
threaten their desired work identities and at times even their very jobs. In this paper, I 
present a grounded theory of stigmatization and identity management among pregnant 
employees. I identify several job and work environment characteristics that influence the 
likelihood of perceived stigmatization, and identify the relationship between the
perceived threat of stigmatization and efforts women make to manage their identities as 
pregnant workers?to maintain and convey desired identities. The hypothesized model is 
based on analysis of interviews with 35 working women, the majority of whom were 
6
currently or recently pregnant with their first child, and anonymous postings on a ?Work 
and Pregnancy? Internet bulletin board. The themes of stigmatization and identity 
management emerged entirely from analysis of this data. Only in the final stages of the 
project did I turn to existing literature on stigma or identity to refine and extend the 
emerging model. 
Although I did not review or draw on this literature until late in the process of 
data analysis, in order to provide the reader with a foundation for the later discussion of 
the model, I begin below with a review of key concepts related to identity, self-
verification and self-presentation, and stigmatization. Next, data collection and analysis 
methods are described in detail. I then present the findings, examining relationships
between identity management, perceived threat of stigmatization, and various job and 
work environment characteristics. Finally, I discuss implications of this model, the 
study?s limitations, and avenues for future research.
7
Identity, Self-Presentation, and Stigmatization
Creating and Maintaining Desired Identities
An identity reflects the ?various meanings attached to a person by self and others? 
(Ibarra, 1999, p. 766) in regards to a specific role or group membership (Stets & Burke, 
2003). We all possess multiple identities?for example, as father, engineer, African-
American, Episcopalian. Some of these are more central and salient, others more 
peripheral and less frequently in use (Fiske & Taylor, 1991; Markus & Wurf, 1987).
Individuals? identities may change and adapt over time as they adopt new roles or 
experience major life events that alter how they view themselves (Burke & Cast, 1997; 
Ibarra, 1999; Kiecolt, 1994). For example, research on the transition to motherhood has 
found that women?s identities tend to evolve in complex ways with the birth of a child, as 
they seek to integrate the new role of mother within existing conceptions of the self 
(Bailey, 1999; McMahon, 1995; Smith, 1999). At the same time, there is also 
considerable evidence that people strive to maintain a degree of stability in their self-
concepts (e.g., Swann, 1983; Swann, Stein-Seroussi, & Geisler, 1992). Swann?s self-
verification theory asserts that once a given self-concept has been well established, 
individuals, for a variety of reasons, will employ a range of cognitive and behavioral 
?self-verification? strategies in order to preserve it. These strategies include deliberately 
avoiding or rejecting information that is inconsistent with their views of themselves, 
displaying symbols designed to project the desired identity, and engaging in various 
behaviors meant to elicit confirmatory feedback from others (Kernis & Goldman, 2003; 
Swann, 1987). 
8
Regardless of whether individuals are struggling to construct and claim new 
identities or maintain existing ones, research on impression management and self-
presentation (see Leary & Kowalski, 1990; Schlenker, 2003, for reviews) suggests they 
will attempt to manage or control how others perceive them. Self-presentation ?includes a 
range of behaviors that are united by the central idea that social behavior is a 
performance that symbolically communicates information about self to others? 
(Schlenker, 2003, p. 494). When we wear our best suit to a job interview, affix political 
bumper stickers to our cars, or smile and greet people warmly at a party, we are 
engaging, consciously or unconsciously, in self-presentation behaviors. The exact 
impression we seek to make depends not just on our particular self-concept, but also on 
the audience?s own ?identity expectations? and the situation itself (Leary & Kowalski, 
1990; Schlenker, 2003). In this way, self-presentation reflects a complex transaction
(Schlenker, 2003), consistent with the sociological view of identity as ?a ?joint 
construction? of the person, the audience, and the situation (Schlenker, 1985) that 
functions for both the individual and the interaction. Identities are presented to an 
audience? (Markus & Wurf, 1987, p. 325). 
Stigmatization: When an Identity Becomes Devalued
Importantly, a given identity may not always be desired or desirable. Research 
and theory on stigmatization has examined the process through which a social identity 
becomes ?devalued in a particular social context? (Crocker, Major, & Steele, 1998, p. 
505, emphasis added), the consequences of having a devalued identity, and how 
stigmatized persons respond to that predicament. Stigmas are socially constructed and 
situation-specific (Crocker et al., 1998; Dovidio, Major, & Crocker, 2000; Goffman, 
9
1963)?existing whenever ?elements of labeling, [negative] stereotyping, separation, 
status loss, and discrimination occur together in a power situation that allows them? (Link 
& Phelan, 2001, p. 377). Therefore, the number of characteristics that could potentially 
be stigmatizing is limitless, and indeed researchers have studied a vast array of stigmas, 
including abortion, mental illness, poverty, eating disorders, homosexuality, 
race/ethnicity, obesity, physical disabilities, and cancer (Link & Phelan, 2001). The 
responses of non-stigmatized, ?normal? individuals to the stigmatized can range from 
casual dismissal to ambivalence to murder (Crocker et al., 1998; Neuberg, Smith, & 
Asher, 2000), depending on the particular features of the stigma. In general, however, 
stigmatized individuals are always subject to some degree of prejudice and discrimination
that leads to negative economic and interpersonal outcomes (Link & Phelan, 2001; 
Schneider, Major, Luhtanen, & Crocker, 1996). 
Multiple studies have found that stigmatization can, under certain conditions, lead 
to lower self-esteem or sense of competence (e.g., Crocker & Major, 1989; Crocker, 
Voelkl, Testa, & Major, 1991, Frable, Platt, & Hoey, 1998, Schneider et al., 1996), as 
well as greater psychological distress and negative affect (e.g., Blaine, Crocker, & Major, 
1995; Major & Gramzow, 1999). In addition, stigmatized individuals experience 
stereotype threat if they believe they are likely to be judged according to negative 
stereotypes about their group and/or risk confirming those stereotypes through their own 
behavior (Steele & Aronson, 1995). Stereotype threat has been found to lead to 
considerable anxiety, self-doubts about ability, and even impaired performance (Steele & 
Aronson, 1995). Despite these findings, contemporary researchers do not assert that 
stigmatization always has negative consequences for individuals? self-esteem or 
10
personalities (Crocker & Quinn, 1998; Dovidio et al., 2000). Instead, they assume that 
people cope?often effectively?with the experience of being devalued using many of 
the same ?strategies as those used by nonstigmatized people when they are confronted 
with psychological challenges such as threats to self-esteem? (Dovidio et al., 2000, p. 2). 
Surprisingly, relatively little research has actually examined how stigmatized 
persons cope with their predicament, as most scholars have focused their attention instead 
on the role of stigmatizers (Crocker & Quinn, 2000; Miller, Rothblum, Felicio, & Brand, 
1995). However, a small body of research has documented a variety of creative strategies 
used to defend against the self-threat of stigmatization , many of which appear to be 
variants of the self-verification and self-presentation techniques described above. One of 
the most common strategies is to conceal the stigma altogether, if possible?in other 
words, passing as ?normal? (Chrobot-Mason, Button, & DiClementi, 2002; Goffman, 
1963; Siegel, Lune, & Meyer, 1998). Once a stigma is visible or has been disclosed, 
however, individuals are faced with the challenge of managing their stigmatized identities 
in interactions with others. From the perspective of stigmatized persons, these 
interactions are typically tainted both by a general awareness that their identity is 
devalued by others, but also by an ?aware[ness] of the specific stereotypes that others 
hold of their social groups? (Crocker et al., 1998, p. 518). Through various socialization 
experiences, people learn about what behaviors are expected or ?normal? in a given 
setting, as well as who does or does not belong there (Goffman, 1963). In other words, 
stigmatized persons are just as knowledgeable of the stereotypes pertaining to their 
groups as nonstigmatized persons are (Cioffi, 2000; Devine, 1989)?and they are 
?intimately alive to what others see as [their] failing? (Goffman, 1963, p. 7). 
11
Consequently, whenever they are in situations in which those stereotypes could be used 
to judge them, and when they could risk confirming the content of those stereotypes 
through their own behavior, they experience stereotype threat (Steele & Aronson, 1995). 
They are likely to feel anxious about how others perceive them and to be hyper-vigilant 
for any signs of bias or negative evaluations (Cioffi, 2000; Goffman, 1963; Schneider et 
al., 1996). They are also likely to use their knowledge of the stereotypes to guide how 
they present themselves to others.
Specifically, the stigmatized may try to disassociate themselves from stereotypes 
by engaging in a variety of tactics designed to reduce the obtrusiveness of their stigma?
what Goffman (1963) termed ?covering?. Such tactics include trying to avoid acting in 
ways expected of their group (e.g., the blind being clumsy), as well as doing things that 
would not be expected of them (e.g., a blind person navigating a city street alone, or a 
pregnant woman working past her due date) (Crocker et al., 1998). They may 
overcompensate for their stigma by behaving in quite extraordinary ways (e.g., a 
paraplegic person completing a marathon in a wheelchair) or trying to inflate other 
positive aspects of the self (Miller et al., 1995). They may also strategically display 
certain symbols, ?disidentifiers?, designed to counter negative impressions made by their 
?stigma symbols? (e.g., a pregnant woman carrying a briefcase and wearing a 
professional suit to counter the visibility of her belly) (Goffman, 1963). 
In sum, the literature on identity, self-verification, and more generally, self-
presentation, suggests that people actively construct and preserve desired identities 
through a variety of self-verification and impression management tactics designed to 
control how others perceive them.  Research and theory on stigma, in contrast, have
12
focused exclusively on the particular predicament of having a devalued identity. These 
two bodies of research have existed in almost total isolation from each other, with very 
little cross-fertilization (see Miller et al., 1995 for an exception), yet it is clear that stigma 
management strategies are merely a sub-type of the more general self-verification and 
self-presentation tactics individuals use to manage their identities. 
At least three studies have actually applied stigma theory to pregnancy (Langer, 
Fiske, Taylor, & Chanowitz, 1976; Taylor and Langer, 1977; Walton, Sachs, Ellingon, & 
Hazlewood, 1988). Both Taylor and Langer (1977) and Langer et al., (1976) found that 
pregnancy was a ?novel-stimulus? that, like other physical differences (e.g., being 
crippled), elicited staring and avoidant responses. These studies were conducted many 
years ago, however, when attitudes toward pregnancy and women in general were 
presumably quite different than today. But as explained above, more recent research has 
also documented bias against pregnant workers (e.g., Baker & Copp, 1997; Bragger et al., 
2002; Corse, 1990; Guetal et al., 1995; Halpert, et al., 1993), and illegal discrimination 
against pregnant employees actually appears to be on the rise (Geller, Oct. 22, 2003). 
Despite this evidence of continued prejudice, virtually no researchers have examined the 
consequences of this treatment for women?s feelings of self-worth or their identities as 
workers or new mothers (see Borrill and Kidd, 1994 for an exception), and none have 
examined the question of how women cope with such situations. The present study 
begins to fill this gap by presenting a grounded theory of stigmatization and identity 
management among pregnant employees. Below I describe the data collection and 
analysis methods on which the model was based before turning to a more detailed review 
of the findings.  
13
Methods
Overview
The model presented in this paper is based on a study of employed women who 
were pregnant for the first time or who had recently become mothers. My general interest 
was in questions of identity: how pregnancy affects women?s work-related identities, how 
they negotiate desired identities with others, and how particular work experiences might 
affect these processes. However, because we know little about pregnant workers in 
general and virtually nothing about how pregnancy affects women?s work identities, the 
purpose of this study was to develop rather than verify or test theory. I therefore adopted 
a qualitative, grounded theory methodology, in which I conducted two rounds of in-
depth, open-ended interviews and supplemented this data with content analysis of 
comments and queries posted on an Internet bulletin board devoted to work and 
pregnancy issues. 
This topic was especially well suited to qualitative methods in general, and a 
grounded theory strategy in particular. Qualitative research, in its many variations, 
typically involves studying phenomena through extended time in the field or in a 
situation in order to discover the meaning people attach to those phenomena, as well as to 
gain a ?holistic? understanding of the context in which phenomena occur (Denzin & 
Lincoln, 1998; Miles & Huberman, 1994). Because of these characteristics, Maxwell 
(1998) argues that qualitative methods lend themselves especially well to certain research 
purposes, including a focus on the meaning of events to actors, the influence of context 
on actors and events, how processes unfold over time, and theory development. The latter 
was the principal purpose of the present study, but in order to develop the theory, I also 
14
sought to understand meaning, process, and context. Grounded theory methods aim to 
generate (not verify) theoretical explanations for phenomena, and are often used when 
researchers assume, as I did here, that the key concepts and relationships pertaining to a 
certain phenomenon have not yet been discovered (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Grounded 
theory often relies on qualitative methods because they offer a more contextually rich 
perspective on a subject and because of the traditionally strong emphasis on deduction 
and hypothesis testing in quantitative studies (Glaser & Strauss, 1967).
In the sections that follow, I provide a detailed description of the data sources 
used in this study, the sampling procedures I followed, and my data collection methods. I 
then offer a lengthy explanation of how I analyzed the data in order to arrive at the model 
presented later. Throughout, I also offer brief reviews of common guidelines and 
standards for conducting theory-building, qualitative research, beginning with an 
introduction to theoretical sampling.
Data Sources, Sampling, and Data Collection
Introduction to theoretical sampling. Grounded theory studies employ theoretical 
sampling, defined by Glaser and Strauss (1967) as: 
The process of data collection for generating theory whereby the analyst jointly 
collects, codes, and analyzes his data and decides what data to collect next and 
where to find them, in order to develop his theory as it emerges. This process of 
data collection is controlled by the emerging theory. . .? (p. 45).
This model of sampling differs considerably from that used in traditional quantitative 
research. In quantitative studies (especially survey research), the goal generally is to 
select a random sample that is representative of a given population and large enough to 
15
allow for statistical generalization (i.e., to make inferences about the population on the 
basis of the sample?s data) (Yin, 1994). In grounded theory research, however, ?the aim 
is not to generalize findings to a broader population? (Corbin & Strauss, 1990, p. 9). 
Instead, the fundamental goal is ?to build a theoretical explanation by specifying 
phenomena in terms of conditions that give rise to them, how they are expressed through 
action/interaction, the consequences that result from them, and variations of these 
qualifiers? (Corbin & Strauss, 1990, p. 9). To accomplish this goal, one selects 
participants for their relevance to a given conceptual category?for the information they 
can provide about a particular issue?not for how representative they are of a larger 
population.
1
Theoretical sampling is iterative and evolving in nature (Charmaz, 2000; Miles & 
Huberman, 1994). Researchers move from their data collection to analysis and back 
again, seeking to find whatever data will help them expand and develop the key concepts 
in their studies (Charmaz, 2000; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Miles & Huberman, 1994). In 
the beginning, because the important concepts related to a phenomenon have not yet been 
identified, researchers typically sample broadly, collecting data from a wide range of 
people or other sources (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Once conceptual categories begin to 
emerge, sampling becomes progressively more selective as one seeks to locate sources 
that can provide information on particular concepts (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). At this 
stage, one also deliberately looks for as much variation in the sample as possible in order 
to discover the conditions under which conceptual categories might vary (Glaser & 
Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Ideally, sampling and data collection for a given 
category cease when that category is ?theoretically saturated??that is, when one no 
16
longer finds any new data regarding a category, and the category?s properties, 
dimensions, and relationships are all well developed (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & 
Corbin, 1998). 
These guidelines represent the ideal for sampling in grounded theory studies. For 
practical reasons, few researchers are able to follow them exactly, but they serve as 
important standards that should inform decisions about sampling. Below I describe the 
particular sampling procedures used in this study, as well as the data collection methods, 
for two data sources: interviews and Internet bulletin board postings.  
Interviews: Sampling procedures and sample characteristics. In-depth interviews 
were the primary data source. I conducted two-rounds of interviews with a total of 35 
participants. In Phase One, I interviewed eighteen women in the Hartford, CT area, 
including two unstructured pilot interviews that served to develop the initial interview 
guide. In this first phase of research, I sampled broadly, locating participants through a 
combination of ?snowball? and ?convenience? techniques (Miles & Huberman, 1994): by 
disseminating fliers in Ob-Gyn offices, by staffing an information booth at a new parents? 
fair sponsored by a local baby apparel and furniture store, and by asking members of a 
large Mom?s Club to find friends and family members who would meet the sample 
criteria and be interested in participating. In Phase Two, I interviewed an additional 
seventeen participants. In this phase, I began by casting a broad net for participants and 
then became progressively more selective as I sought individuals who could provide 
information on key theoretical issues of interest. I located participants by emailing an 
extensive network of Industrial-Organizational Psychology students and faculty affiliated 
with a mid-Atlantic university, asking them to refer interesting and qualified individuals 
17
to the study. In some cases, participants themselves also referred me to other colleagues 
or friends who met the study?s criteria. 
Unfortunately, as is often the case in research, I was not able to control who 
responded to my ads or requests, but I nonetheless strived to adhere to the basic tenets of 
theoretical sampling. I analyzed the content of the interviews on an ongoing basis, and in 
doing so, searched for as much natural variation in events, incidents and resulting themes 
as possible (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). As the study progressed, when additional 
information was needed on certain themes or issues, I screened potential participants in 
an attempt to locate those who offered the necessary perspective.  When I was unable to 
collect certain data through interviews, I examined Internet bulletin board postings, 
which as explained below, offered insight into some issues and concerns not represented 
in the interview sample, thus expanding the complexity and diversity of the data. 
With a few exceptions, I restricted the sample of interview participants to women 
who either had had their first child within the last year or were in the second or third 
trimester of pregnancy with their first child, worked full-time during the pregnancy, and 
were in a long-term relationship with the baby?s father
2
. In addition, I interviewed 
women who worked in a wide range of jobs, including professional or managerial and 
lower status positions in both female- and male-dominated organizations. I chose to focus 
on women who met these various characteristics for several reasons. First, by selecting 
women who were or had recently been pregnant for the first time?when their role as a 
mother was new both to them and colleagues at work?I believed I would be better able 
to examine how pregnancy and impending motherhood affect women?s work 
experiences. By focusing on new mothers, I would be able to capture the experiences of 
18
women as they confront and work through the issues of pregnancy, work, and 
motherhood for the first time. They will not yet have had to cope with the challenges of 
actually raising children while working?challenges that ultimately may supercede the 
experience of being pregnant for many women. In addition, their supervisors, coworkers, 
and subordinates would also be dealing with new changes in the woman?s work and 
family roles. For all these reasons, I believed I would be better able to understand the 
dynamics of pregnancy and work by studying women pregnant with their first child. 
Second, by waiting to interview women until they were at least into their second 
trimesters, I could be sure that they had notified their coworkers and supervisors of the 
pregnancy and that people had had a chance to react to it. Third, by sampling women in 
professional/managerial jobs as well as lower status jobs, I would be able to learn about 
experiences in a wide range of settings. Although these women may share many things in 
common, the differences in status, power, and proportion of women within their jobs or 
departments could contribute to significant variations in their work-related experiences 
(Kanter, 1977; Martin & Meyerson, 1998; Ely, 1994). One needs to account for such 
variation in order to extend and delimit the boundaries of an emerging theory. Finally, 
although accounting for variation is critical to building a theory, I also wanted to ensure 
that I do not have to contend with an overwhelming number of differences. Hence, to 
maintain a degree of commonality in my participants, I chose not to study women who 
were single mothers or in same-sex relationships. 
Of the final 35 interviewees, 15 (43%) were currently pregnant, six in the second 
trimester and nine in the third. Of the remaining 20 participants, all but the two 
preliminary interviewees had babies less than one year old. On the whole, the sample was 
19
very well-educated: four women (11%) had attended some college, 17 (49%) had a 
bachelor?s degree, and 14 (40%) had a graduate degree. However, they held a wide range 
of jobs reflecting varying levels of status and power. Nine participants (26%) held 
relatively lower status jobs. Most of these positions, such as administrative assistant and 
licensed practical nurse (LPN), required little education and offered low pay. I also 
include in this category, however, a research associate in a university and a psychology 
fellow in a hospital because although they had advanced degrees their positions were 
temporary and near the bottom of the hierarchy within their organizations. In contrast, 
eighteen participants (51%) held permanent professional or managerial jobs, such as a 
lawyer, engineer, and CPA. The remaining eight participants (23%) held positions of 
mid-level status (e.g., business analyst, graphic designer, purchaser). Participants were 
evenly divided in the gender composition of their workplaces: 12 women (34%) worked 
in female-dominated organizations, 12 (34%) worked in male-dominated organizations, 
and eleven (31%) in mixed organizations. The vast majority of participants were 
Caucasian (32, or 91%); one woman was African-American, one Puerto Rican, and one 
Indian (9%). In sum, although the sample contained a disproportionate number of white, 
highly educated women in professional or managerial occupations, the overall sample 
nonetheless represented diverse types of work, job status, and gender composition of 
organization. I regret that the sample did not include more women of color. As noted 
below, additional diversity, especially in low status work, was offered by the 
Babycenter.com bulletin board postings. 
Interview protocol. I conducted all but one of the Phase One interviews in person, 
typically at a caf? or coffee shop. (I interviewed the other individual by phone.) The 
20
typical interview lasted approximately an hour and a half and with the participant?s 
permission was tape-recorded and later transcribed verbatim. Phase Two interviewees 
lived in various places throughout the United States, and so I conducted these interviews 
by phone. With participants? permission, I used a speaker-phone and thus was able to 
tape and later transcribe these interviews as well. To protect the confidentiality of my 
interviewees, I coded all tapes and transcripts using an anonymous identification number. 
I began the interviews by asking general questions about the pregnancy and about the 
participant?s job. I then said I would ask them to ?tell me a story? about their experience 
of being pregnant at work, beginning with the early months and continuing through the 
later trimesters. I guided the telling of this story by asking specific questions, such as how 
the pregnancy affected day-to-day life at work, when and how they revealed it, how 
others reacted to the news, how they felt about work at different times during the 
pregnancy, whether and how they believed pregnancy affected supervisors? or 
coworkers? perceptions of them, how they arranged for maternity leave, and whether or 
how pregnancy had affected their own view of themselves as employees. In the Phase 
Two interviews, I asked many of the original questions, but also asked additional 
questions about how participants felt about others? interest in and responses to the 
pregnancy, how they wanted others to view them at work, and what, if anything, they did 
to ensure that others viewed them in the way they would like. In general, Phase Two 
interviews were shorter and more focused on questions related to identity management. 
(See Appendix A for a copy of the final interview guide.)
Internet bulletin board postings: Sampling procedure and characteristics of data 
source. The interviews were supplemented by content analysis of postings on a ?Pregnant 
21
at Work? Internet bulletin board sponsored by Babycenter.com. Babycenter.com is a 
large web site offering a variety of resources for new and expectant parents, including 
information about almost every aspect of pregnancy and infancy, an on-line community 
with bulletin boards and chat sessions devoted to hundreds of different topics (e.g., 
breastfeeding, ultrasounds, sex during pregnancy, morning sickness), on-line shopping, 
and e-mail newsletters. The ?Pregnant at Work? bulletin board offers a forum for women 
to post comments and questions about any aspect of pregnancy and work or career. 
Almost all posts are anonymous, identified only by a user name. 
During the winter of 2004, I copied all posts that were currently on the board, 
extending over approximately a three month period, and pasted them into a word 
processing program. In all, 170 individuals made a total of 286 posts. The majority of 
women made only one or two posts during the time period sampled. Only a few 
individuals made more than four posts (the most frequent poster made 22 separate posts, 
most in response to others? comments and questions, and the second most frequent made 
11 posts.) The posts were on a variety of topics, not all of which were relevant to the 
current project. For instance, many posts concerned how to cope at work with the 
symptoms of pregnancy such as morning sickness and fatigue; many others inquired 
about federal or state family leave laws, how to take short-term disability, and so on. I 
read all posts, but as I was primarily interested in expanding the theory that had begun to 
emerge from the interview data analysis, I ultimately sampled a subset that pertained to 
issues of some theoretical interest, including complaints of discrimination, descriptions of 
coping with physically difficult working conditions, discussions of supervisor support (or 
lack thereof), and questions about applying for or starting new jobs while pregnant. These 
22
postings were particularly useful in providing data from women in diverse jobs and work 
situations that were not well represented in the interview sample. 
The bulletin board posters were clearly a self-selected sample. In addition, the 
sample may have included a disproportionate number of women who had experienced 
serious work-related problems, as such women may have been more motivated than the 
average person to seek advice from an on-line community. In addition, the short posts 
offered very little in-depth information about the women and their situations. 
Consequently, I relied on the postings only as a secondary, supplemental data source that 
suggested additional theoretical issues to consider and/or offered a slightly expanded and 
more diverse view on the major theoretical concepts emerging from the interviews. 
Data Analysis
Analysis in grounded theory research is typified by simultaneous data collection 
and analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Miles & Huberman, 1994), coupled with the basic 
analytic process of making comparisons (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). The constant 
comparative method is the ?heart? of grounded theory (Fielding & Lee, 1998). According 
to the original formulation by Glaser and Strauss (1967), it begins by comparing 
?incidents? in the data (defined as a complete expression of an attitude or an act by a 
person or group (Fielding & Lee, 1998)), developing labels for them, and then grouping 
them into higher-order categories. Then one continues making comparisons (of 
respondents, of new incidents to categories, of categories to each other) in order to fully 
develop theoretical categories in terms of their properties and dimensions. Finally, one 
begins to reduce the number of categories, express them at a higher level of abstraction, 
and build the theory. Throughout the process of data analysis, hunches are checked and 
23
the emerging theory expanded by seeking additional variation in themes, properties, and 
so on through ongoing data collection. Always the focus is on the development of a 
theory, however, not its testing or verification. This method represents a general way of 
approaching the data. In an effort to make the methods of analysis clearer, Strauss and 
Corbin (1998) articulated some more detailed procedures (e.g., ?open?, ?axial?, and 
?selective? coding), all of which are based on the general comparative method. I relied 
principally on their procedures, in conjunction with other techniques offered by Miles 
and Huberman (1994).
Data analysis proceeded in five stages. I began the first stage with open coding of 
the two preliminary and first five Phase One interviews. Open coding is the process of 
identifying initial concepts and their basic properties early in research (Strauss & Corbin, 
1998). With these first interviews, I relied on microanalysis, or detailed line-by- line 
coding, to identify key concepts (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). I then grouped these concepts 
into more abstract codes. Several interesting themes began to emerge in this early phase 
of research, including women?s concerns with the increased attention colleagues gave to 
the pregnancy and to their private lives in general, beliefs that their work identities 
remained unchanged, and concerns with how others viewed them at work. I used the 
codes that emerged in these interviews to analyze the remaining Phase One interviews 
(not line-by-line, but by meaningful unit?typically a paragraph or several sentences), 
adding to and revising the coding scheme as necessary. 
In Stage Two of the analysis, to ensure that the coding process was conducted in a 
systematic and reliable manner, a trained research assistant used the final coding scheme 
to code for a second time the full set of eighteen interviews, divided into meaningful units 
24
(again, typically a paragraph or several sentences). (See Appendix B for the coding 
instructions and Appendix C for a list of the codes used in this stage and their 
definitions.) Each unit or passage could be assigned up to three codes, and almost all 
units were assigned multiple codes. Agreement between the assistant?s and my coding 
was then assessed by 1) determining the maximum number of codes assigned to each unit 
(e.g., if the research assistant assigned three codes to a passage but I gave only two, the 
maximum number was considered three), 2) adding the maximum numbers for all units to 
determine the total number of codes, and 3) counting the number of codes on which the 
research assistant and I agreed. This was a fairly stringent test?for instance, if for one 
passage the assistant and I assigned two out of three codes in common, interrater 
agreement for that passage was 66%. Total interrater agreement was 70%. Discrepancies 
were resolved through discussion between the raters, and in most cases, resulted in 
additional codes being assigned to passages. The final step involved my sorting and 
printing units by major code categories in order to begin more detailed analyses to 
identify properties and dimensions of key categories, including identity management, 
public nature of pregnancy, supervisor reactions to pregnancy, and others. Importantly, 
this step indicated additional issues to explore in the Phase Two interviews. 
In Stage Three, I divided all Phase Two interviews into meaningful units (again, 
typically a paragraph long) and coded them using the Phase One coding scheme, making 
only minor revisions as needed. I continued to hear from these participants many of the 
same common themes identified in the earlier round of interviews. Next, I sorted and 
printed coded passages from all 35 interviews for those coding categories that were 
emerging as the most central and interesting, including identity management, fears and 
25
anxieties, public nature of pregnancy, passing, interpreting maternity policies, supervisor 
reactions to pregnancy, and supervisor perceptions. In this stage, the main objective was 
to further elaborate properties and dimensions of these key categories, and identify 
relationships between categories. I began to focus increasingly on one major theme, 
identity management, and searched specifically for conditions (including individual 
motivations and contextual influences), actions (strategies or tactics), and consequences 
of that category (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). This process is akin 
to developing provisional hypotheses that eventually form the foundation of the theory. 
Next, I turned to the Internet bulletin board postings in Stage Four. I coded each 
post using the existing coding scheme, adding new codes when necessary. I maintained a 
focus on the central theme of identity management with its conditions, strategies/tactics, 
and consequences. However, I looked primarily for key issues that may have been absent 
from the interviews and that could extend the theory emerging from the interviews. I 
found that few posters wrote explicitly about identity management tactics, but many 
wrote about what in the final model became the primary motivations for and contextual 
conditions influencing identity management. 
Finally, in Stage Five, I delved more deeply into the data, as well as relevant 
literature, in a continuing effort to expand the developing model.  A review of literature 
on identity management, especially Goffman?s (1963) seminal work on stigma, yielded 
significant new insights into themes identified earlier in the data. In addition, in this stage 
I adopted many of Miles and Huberman?s (1994) recommendations for ordering and 
explaining cross-case data and (to an extent) for confirming findings?in other words, 
their advice about how to develop a valid or credible theory that fits the data well.  My 
26
first step was to examine contrasting cases or ?negative evidence??in particular, 
interviewees who did not report engaging in any identity management effort, as well as 
bulletin board posters who represented unique situations or events?seeking to 
understand how they were both different and similar to the other cases. This technique 
guards against settling on premature explanations and adds complexity to an emerging 
theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). As Miles and Huberman explain, ?When a preliminary 
conclusion is in hand, the tactic is to say ?Do any data oppose this conclusion, or are any 
inconsistent with this conclusion?? . . . [Y]ou are actively seeking disconfirmation of 
what you think is true? (1994, p. 271). This analysis resulted in the identification of 
several contextual factors as possible predictors of whether or not an individual would 
perceive stigmatization or engage in identity management. 
My second step was to construct ?predictor-outcome matrices? in order to ground 
my interpretations more explicitly in the details of the interview data. These matrices 
provide a visual array of outcome and antecedent/predictor data for all cases. In this way, 
patterns that one assumed existed in the data can be fully grounded against the visual 
display of evidence. In order to construct the matrices, I devised decision rules for scaling 
the outcome and multiple predictors (see the Findings section for more detailed 
explanation) and then rated each individual case for its respective levels of outcome and 
predictors. For the two most central categories or variables (i.e., identity management and 
perceived threat of stigmatization), I also had a trained research assistant conduct 
independent ratings for 17 of the 35 interview cases (see Appendix D for the rating 
instructions). In order to ensure that the assistant?s ratings of perceived threat were not 
influenced by her ratings of identity management (or vice versa), she rated one half of the 
27
total 35 cases for identity management and the other half for perceived threat, with two 
cases rated for both variables. Interrater agreement for degree of identity management 
effort was 88% (15 out of 17); agreement for degree of perceived threat was 76% (13 out 
of 17). Our few differences were resolved by discussing the individual cases with full 
transcripts in hand; we ultimately decided roughly two- thirds in favor of my original 
ratings and a third in favor of the assistant?s. By examining the predictor-outcome 
matrices, I discarded or revised earlier assumptions about two contextual and one 
individual difference variable influencing perceived threat of stigmatization. In the 
section that follows, I describe the final model that emerged from these data analyses. 
28
Findings
To say that pregnancy is a life-altering event is clich?, but true. When a woman 
becomes pregnant, especially for the first time, not only is she bringing a new life into the 
world, but her own life is transformed dramatically and forever. The transition to 
motherhood is the subject of countless books and articles (e.g., Bolton, 2000; Michaels & 
Goldberg, 1988; Wolf, 2001; Zappert, 2002), involving as it does innumerable changes in 
a woman?s personal, social, and work life?her marriage, her friendships, her feelings 
about work, her feelings about herself. But pregnancy itself is also a transformative event, 
and in her interactions with others, a pregnant woman is often treated as a minor 
spectacle. While some people (particularly women) respond to her with unbridled 
curiosity and enthusiasm, others may feel somewhat anxious or uncomfortable around her
(Taylor & Langer, 1977). Complete strangers stare, ask her remarkably personal 
questions, and offer unsolicited advice or details of their own pregnancies and labors. 
People hold doors for her, offer her a seat on the bus, or otherwise regard her as 
something of an invalid. For months on end, the pregnancy may be the main focus of 
conversation between her and her friends. 
It was this extraordinary change in women?s status that I had in mind as I framed 
the research questions for this study: How do employed women?s work-related identities 
change, if at all, as a result of being pregnant for the first time? How do they negotiate 
their identities with colleagues at work? What strategies do they use to convey desired 
identities and negotiate unwanted ones with colleagues? And how do different work 
experiences affect the identities women create as well as the strategies they use to convey 
those identities? Research on the self has indicated that while individuals? central 
29
identities or self-conceptions tend to be fairly stable (although not static) over time 
(Baumeister, 1998; Fiske & Taylor, 1991; Swann, 1987), identities can and usually do 
change when people adopt new roles, experience a significant shift in status, or undertake 
some other major life change (Ibarra, 1999; Swann, 1987). And so, while remaining open 
to discovering other themes, I did expect to hear some discussion of women?s efforts to 
adjust their work identities to accommodate the transformations brought about by 
pregnancy. 
Instead I found that while impending motherhood may have entailed considerable 
changes in their personal lives, the majority of women I interviewed stated that their 
work identities, their basic views of themselves as workers, remained largely unchanged. 
One could debate whether participants were being honest about this lack of change?
perhaps, for whatever reason, they were not willing to admit (to me or to themselves) that 
pregnancy was affecting their work identities?but I ultimately chose not to continue to 
pursue the issue. What I found more interesting and salient was that so many women
expressed a determination not to let pregnancy affect their work lives. They tended to 
paint a portrait of themselves as the eye in the center of a storm?an island of relative 
?normality? in the midst of their bosses?, coworkers?, and clients? changing perceptions 
and expectations. As one participant said, ?I think it?s more people change how they view 
you than [changes in] how you view yourself. That?s the big thing I?ve noticed. Often I 
was different to them, but I?m the same. You know?? 
These women were not passive. Instead, they actively attempted to manage
others? perceptions of and reactions to their pregnancy to ensure that they could preserve 
the identities they desired. In most cases, their goal was to be viewed as ?the same??that 
30
is, as committed, competent, professional, or reliable as they ever were. Consistent with 
Swann?s (1983; 1987) self-verification theory, the majority of women I spoke with?
whether managers or administrative assistants?described engaging in efforts to ensure 
that they maintained an existing work identity. They not only wanted others to view them 
in the ?right? way, but they also wanted to view themselves in a certain way, to meet their 
own identity standards and expectations. I have termed the actions women took to ensure 
that pregnancy did not affect valued work identities identity management . It emerged
fairly early in the data collection as one of the most central and interesting themes, with 
80% of participants (28 out of 35) reporting it. As indicated in Table 1, those 28 women 
described using seven specific tactics to manage their work identities. Below I briefly 
describe each of these tactics. In the next section, I will turn to an examination of 
women?s stated motives for managing their identities in this way.
Table 1
Identity Management: Tactics
Identity Management 
Tactics
Illustrative Quotes from Interviews
Maintaining Her Pace I?ve tried consciously to keep up with my work. . . And I 
show them that just because I?m pregnant doesn?t mean that 
the quality of my output changes.
I?ve tried really hard to maintain my work load and not end 
up having to dump things on other people or burden people 
with responsibilities I couldn?t handle. I?ve been really luck 
because I?ve felt great so it hasn?t really been an issue. But I 
think I was pretty sensitive to that. I just wanted to plow 
through and not relinquish any responsibilities.
I put a lot of pressure on myself and I still worked just as 
hard as I did before I got pregnant. 
I guess I felt pretty good about myself with the fact that I 
could still work and I was pregnant. . . . I could work until 
the week before she was born. I guess I felt pretty good 
31
about myself that I was strong enough to do both, be very 
pregnant and get up and work an 8-hour day, or maybe even 
a 9- or 10-hour day or go in on a Saturday. 
I had a lot of short days towards the end, but I was there 
every day. I worked past my due date. I was there every day. 
. . And I was almost apologetic. I?m sorry, I?m trying to keep 
up with everything. I?m sorry, I?m trying to take care of 
these last minute issues. 
Not Requesting 
Accommodations
I definitely made sure that?it was so tempting to call in sick 
so many times, but I always made sure that I was actually at 
work, and not using pregnancy as an excuse, I guess. I 
probably could have taken a few more sick days than I did, 
but I didn?t want them to start thinking, ?Oh, see?she can?t 
handle it. ? So there were definitely some days where I 
dragged myself into the office when I would have been much 
happier staying in bed all day long. 
Well, like we?d have a closing every month, and I?d offer to 
go in on a Saturday to help them out with putting the closing 
package together. One of the guys would say, ?You don?t 
have to if you don?t want to. I?m not trying to push you.? 
Normally, if I wasn?t pregnant, they would never have said 
that, but I would go ahead and say, ?I don?t mind. I?ll come 
in. It?s no big deal.? Going downstairs, if one of the 
supervisors worked downstairs and needed something 
brought over to this desk or something: ?Oh, you don?t have 
to do it. I know the stairs are real difficult to climb and go up 
and down?, but I?d say, ?No, no, no. I?ll do it.? I didn?t want 
them to think I couldn?t do it. I didn?t want them to think 
poorly of me. I guess that?s pretty bad.
I?ve worked with women before who kind of milked the 
whole pregnancy thing. I don?t do that. Like I haven?t called 
in sick or I haven?t gone home because I?m not feeling good. 
I try to get all my prenatal appointments as late in the day so 
I can take off the least amount of time possible. 
There was a change where you couldn?t use the overheads 
anymore. . . you had to use the LCD projector, and I simply 
couldn?t carry it. I wasn?t allowed to carry anything that 
heavy. So I almost made a big stink about it, like ?If that?s 
going to be the rule, then somebody carry it for me!? But 
then I thought, people might treat me differently then 
because I?d basically be saying because I?m pregnant I can?t 
32
do this. So I did just go and buy my own overheads. . . rather 
than make a big stink, and maybe some people will then treat 
you differently because ?Oh, you do need accommodations.?
Passing I didn?t meet with people. I didn?t have to travel after the end 
of October, so I didn?t have to meet with people. There were 
some people who wanted to meet with me in Connecticut, 
and unless I absolutely had to meet with them, I really 
wouldn?t meet with them. I?d talk to them on the phone.
But I did hide it. I?d walk around with papers in front of my 
belly, or always carrying a bag, or something to just try to 
get away with it, one more week, one more week, as long as 
possible I tried to hide it.
Thankfully, I don?t have too many cases where I have to deal 
with [contractors] anyway. The people I do tend to deal with 
I?ve worked with for years and years so when I see them I 
jump up and talk to them . . . But if it?s someone I don?t deal 
with, like somebody for plumbing or something, I don?t even 
leave my desk. I let one of the guys handle it. Because I just 
don?t want to be introduced to new contractors like this. 
Does that make sense? If I don?t have to be. 
Dressing Professionally And I tried to look presentable and professional. You know, 
keeping up appearances, that sort of thing. Because I didn?t 
want them to think I couldn?t handle it.
. . . I was really conscious of how I dressed, how I looked. 
Because I knew how tired I was. It?s like you have to make 
that extra effort to look professional and put together. 
I would try to?I had a couple of nice outfits that were more 
dressy. I tried to wear nice outfits to meetings. I didn?t want 
other people to think I was schleppy. I wanted to be neat and 
tidy and professional, without being cutesy. I think I made 
that effort. I was careful to make that effort.
Downplaying the 
Pregnancy 
I try not to bring up my pregnancy constantly in 
conversations, especially over the phone. I mean some of my 
colleagues, we eat lunch then go on a walk and talk about 
personal life. That?s different. But I mean with my boss, I 
never bring it up on my own. 
It probably comes back to the fact that I don?t want to focus 
too much on it, or?I don?t know, it?s a stereotype that once 
women are pregnant or have babies that?s all they want to 
talk about, so maybe I?m overreacting the other way, trying 
33
to quickly steer conversations away from it lest it too often 
be the topic of conversation.
Going the Extra Mile I think since I was obviously new, I?d just started? it?s made 
me work really hard there, to try to let them know, ?Hey, she 
can get this done, and it will be taken care of, and she does 
great work.? Instead of their focusing on my pregnancy and 
?Oh, she?ll have to leave, and will she come back, and she 
only has so much time left.?
So I started busting my butt at work. And I started working 
that much harder, coming up with an office manual so that 
when I?m gone they?d have something to refer back to, 
training others in the office to do things that I was doing. So 
I felt I took on even more. I was working that much harder 
because I felt like I had to for everyone to feel comfortable 
with the fact that I?m pregnant, I?m having a baby, and I?ll be 
gone for a little while.
Shortening Maternity 
Leave
I think in my third trimester they must have asked me what I 
wanted to do, and I told them I?d be back in ten weeks. I 
guess it was funny that I wasn?t taking twelve, but I think 
part of that was I wanted to show them I was still serious 
about work. Because a lot of women at my job would take 
three months or even six months. 
?[Because of complications in the last trimester,] I was not 
someone that people could count on. I felt not good about 
that. So I decided to take only a 21/2 month leave instead of 
a 4 month leave.?
Identity Management Tactics
Maintaining her pace. The most commonly mentioned identity management tactic 
involved participants? maintaining the same pace of work, including the same hours and 
level of output, as they had before the pregnancy. Over 60% of women (17 out of 28) 
who described efforts to manage their identities cited maintaining their pace as one of 
their tactics.  For the many women who had relatively easy, problem-free pregnancies, 
this was not especially difficult. Others, however, had to make a more deliberate effort to 
maintain their workload and hours while coping with the physical discomfort that often 
34
accompanies pregnancy, such as nausea and vomiting, fatigue, back pain, or more serious 
complications.    
I think that I?m a really hard worker and I?m always willing, I?m not one of those 
people who?s like, ?That?s not my job.? . . . I think that?s something I?ve always 
done. I?ve worked with women before who kind of milked the whole pregnancy 
thing. I don?t do that. . . . I still make a point to be there and work just as hard, 
even if I?m feeling really yucky one day. I don?t let anyone know that. 
Even now, I?m still at work through lunch, I?ll eat at my desk. I?ll work late. In 
the summer, we go to a four-day work week, but there have been many Fridays 
when I?ve been in working if I have work to do. So I think they see that I still 
have the dedication and the work ethic and that I?m putting in the time to make 
sure that the work is done properly. I?m consciously doing those things because I 
want them to know that I?m not just [someone who doesn?t] care about work 
anymore. 
As is evident from these quotes, participants tended to describe the desire to keep up and 
do well at work as central to their work identity?it was something they took pride in 
before their pregnancy and that they now made a conscious decision to continue doing. 
Not requesting accommodations. The second most common identity management 
tactic was to avoid, if at all possible, asking supervisors or coworkers for special 
accommodations of their condition. Half of the participants (14 out of 28) who described 
managing their identities reported using this tactic. So, for example, they chose not to 
take sick days even if they were not feeling well, minimized the amount of time they had 
35
to miss work for doctor?s appointments, accepted assignments (such as travel) that they 
felt were difficult or risky, refused to ask others for help or rejected help that was offered, 
and generally avoided the appearance of needing special accommodation in any way. In a 
couple of cases, women even failed to follow their doctor?s orders to reduce their time at 
work. One participant, who had previously lost a second-trimester pregnancy and was 
considered high-risk, described her resistance to asking for accommodations:
I guess I?ve tried not to make my pregnancy an issue. In other words, if I?m asked 
to go down to receiving to get something, I won?t be like, ?Oh, you know. . .? 
when really I?m thinking, ?I?m tired and I don?t feel like going down four flights 
of stairs.? There is an elevator, but still I won?t do that. I will go. I will do 
whatever within reason needs doing. I try to sit down a lot, especially because of 
the cerclage [a surgical procedure in which the cervix is stitched closed to prevent 
preterm labor], the doctor says always try to sit down. But if I?m standing in 
someone?s office, I don?t make a big deal that I?m standing, even though in my 
mind, I?m thinking, ?I?ve been standing here for ten minutes. I shouldn?t be 
standing.? But I never wanted anyone to think that I was kind of odd or not 
fulfilling their expectations. . .  I?m not that different. I don?t want to be 
accommodated because I?m in this condition. 
Not requesting accommodations was a tactic that to some extent supported women?s 
efforts to maintain their pace at work. By not taking sick days or leaving work early, of 
course, participants were better able to keep up with their workload. But in addition, by 
not asking for special treatment, these women communicated to others and to themselves 
that they were not different, that they were the same employees they had always been.
36
Passing.  Most of the women I interviewed chose to keep news of their pregnancy 
private for part or all of their first trimester due to the risk of miscarriage. However, 
approximately a third (36%, 10 out of 28) of the women concealed their condition for 
more strategic purposes, a tactic I refer to as passing. They hid the pregnancy for as long 
as possible in order to preserve an identity they valued. They believed passing would 
ensure that others still saw them as capable, reliable, ambitious. For example, one female 
engineer passed as non-pregnant into her third trimester in order to maintain a 
?professional? identity, which to her required that one?s private life be completely 
separate from work. In most cases, there was also an element of fear involved. That is, 
the decision to pass for as long as possible was motivated at least in part by concern 
about the consequences she might face once others knew. Would she be fired? Would she 
still receive a raise or promotion? If she was interviewing for a position, would they hire 
her? As a CPA explained, 
I didn?t want to tell them. You know, at a small firm, you think about if you?re 
pregnant, you don?t want to be let go. . . That?s why I didn?t want to tell them?
my fear of their hiring someone to replace me. 
Several bulletin board postings pertained to the question of whether to admit to being 
pregnant when interviewing for a job. The overwhelming consensus was that women 
should pass as non-pregnant or risk not being hired, a point to which I will return later in 
the paper. 
Participants used both passive and active methods to pass. Women who chose the 
former did not necessarily lie about their condition or go to great lengths to cover it up, 
but simply did not mention it or found ways to avoid meeting people (e.g., clients) face to 
37
face. The more active approach involved disguising the pregnancy with creative clothing, 
hiding or lying about her physical symptoms such as nausea, or refusing to acknowledge 
her condition when asked about it. This range of methods resembled the ?avoidance? 
versus ?counterfeiting? strategies used by lesbian and gay employees to manage their 
sexual identities at work (Chrobot-Mason et al., 2002). Avoidance involved appearing 
straight or ?asexual? simply by not revealing any information about their sexual identity, 
whereas counterfeiting involved actively constructing a false identity, as in lying about 
having a heterosexual relationship. 
Dressing professionally. As Rafaeli, Dutton, Harquail, and Mackie-Lewis (1997, 
p. 9) explain, ?the choice and wearing of business dress is a performance in the sense 
suggested by Goffman (1959): a behavior that individuals purposefully use to convey 
information about themselves to others, enabling them to engage in social interactions 
and place themselves in social systems.? Women in general may have more difficulty 
than men choosing business attire, as they face conflicting expectations that they appear 
both professional and feminine (Wolf, 1991). I would argue that this difficulty is 
exacerbated significantly when women are pregnant. A pregnant belly is not only 
feminine, but is overwhelmingly maternal?something typically out of place in a 
business environment.  In addition, pregnant women may feel tired or sick and feel they 
need to dress well in order to compensate for that. 
I try to make sure I get professional looking maternity clothes, so I have things 
that are fitting me. For a while I?d just buy bigger size clothes so I can look 
professional. . .  I think your physical appearance gives a certain perception at 
work. You want to look professional to be viewed as a professional. 
38
I was really conscious of how I dressed, how I looked, because I knew how tired I 
was. It?s like you have to make that extra effort to look professional and put 
together. Because I was getting bigger, and I was tired, and my feet were hurting. 
About 20% of interviewees (6 out of 28) described choosing their clothes carefully so 
they could continue to maintain their professional identity. 
Downplaying the pregnancy. Another tactic that approximately 20% of 
interviewees (5 out of 28) discussed using was to deflect or avoid drawing attention to 
their condition, a tactic I call downplaying the pregnancy.  As one manager explained:
Although I am very excited about this and I like talking to other women about 
their experiences, I want to be seen as professional, and I have this perception that 
as I become rounder, I?m going to become ?cuter?, and cuter is not professional. 
So [I have] a little mixed emotion about other people I work with noticing [that 
I?m pregnant]. 
Downplaying did not involve actually passing as non-pregnant, but instead reflected 
women?s efforts, once a pregnancy is public knowledge, to minimize the attention drawn 
to it, and thus the likelihood it will change how people perceive her.  By drawing 
attention away from her new status, she helped ensure that others still viewed her as 
unchanged. Techniques women used to downplay their pregnancy included deflecting 
questions about it (e.g., by answering briefly then quickly changing the topic); not 
bringing it up herself in conversation; choosing clothes that minimized the appearance of 
her stomach (as opposed to choosing attire that is distinctly professional, see above);  and 
consciously avoiding touching her stomach.  
39
Going the extra mile. Sometimes participants felt they had to demonstrate 
exceptional performance and commitment in order to ?prove themselves? to supervisors 
or coworkers?simply maintaining their pre-pregnancy pace was not enough. About 15% 
(4 out of 28) of women who engaged in identity management described trying to go the 
extra mile in order to create or preserve the image and identity they valued. As an 
employment agency manager explained: 
I started getting nervous that maybe I wouldn?t have a job to come back to. 
Because if [my boss] thought that I wasn?t going to be as driven, then maybe I 
wasn?t the right person for the position. . . And I started busting my butt at work. 
And I started working that much harder, coming up with an office manual so that 
when I?m gone they?d have something to refer back to, training others in the 
office to do things that I was doing. So I felt I took on even more. I was working 
that much harder because I felt like I had to for everyone to feel comfortable with
the fact that I?m pregnant, I?m having a baby, and I?ll be gone for a little while. 
As with the participants who passed, these women were motivated in part by fear?a 
concern that if others began to view them differently, they might be fired or denied 
opportunities, such as needed training. 
Shortening maternity leave. Another 15% of interviewees (4 out of 28) chose to 
ask for shorter maternity leaves than they were entitled to take. For example, a lawyer 
had planned to take 16 weeks off after delivery, but when her doctor ordered partial bed 
rest late in her pregnancy, she felt she was no longer ?someone that people could count 
on. I felt?not good about that.? And so she returned to work six weeks earlier than 
40
anticipated. A real estate developer submitted a leave proposal that was so ambitious as 
to make her supervisors laugh:
We don?t have a formal maternity leave policy in our company  because no one?s 
ever been pregnant . . . So when I submitted my proposal, I requested three weeks 
home no contact, then three weeks available by phone, and then after six weeks 
back in the office. And they all laughed at me! They said, ?OK. You haven?t had 
a kid before, but we have, and that?s not going to work!? So I think they know
that I?m still dedicated. 
These women constructed leaves that were consistent with their work identities. Like all 
of the tactics described above, taking a relatively short leave enabled pregnant employees 
to demonstrate their continuing dedication and reliability to supervisors, colleagues, and 
themselves.
In sum, 80% of the women I interviewed spoke in some way about trying to 
manage their identities while pregnant?to control how others perceived them in order to 
ensure that pregnancy did not alter an existing work identity. To accomplish their goals, 
they used one or more of seven different tactics.  In the section that follows, I examine 
these goals or motives more closely to identify precisely why so many pregnant workers 
felt compelled to act in this way. I sensed in the interviews that women?s actions were 
motivated by more than an automatic, unconscious need to self-verify, but may have been 
carried out in response to some ?crisis? of identity (Leary & Kowalski, 1990; Swann, 
1987). As I explain below, this analysis required careful examination of not just the 
explicit accounts women gave for their behavior, but their implied motivation as well. I 
41
begin, however, with an examination of participants? stated motives for managing their 
identities.
Stated Motives for Identity Management
In order to understand why pregnant employees were motivated to actively 
manage their work identities, I began by identifying the specific reasons participants gave 
for their behavior. Multiple participants cited more than one motive as explanation for 
their identity management efforts. In all, six different categories emerged (see Table 2). I 
will argue that these motives all reflect a common theme?perceiving the threat of 
stigmatization and fearing its consequences?and that this perceived threat in fact is the
fundamental motivation driving identity management. I briefly describe these six motives 
then consider the broader theme of stigmatization that underlies them. 
Table 2
Identity Management: Stated Motives
Identity Management 
Stated Motivations
Illustrative Quotes from Interviews
To prove to others she 
was the same
I didn?t want them to think that I didn?t want to work. I 
wanted them to think that I could work my butt off like I 
always have, and get through the busy season. I traveled for 
clients during my second trimester. I didn?t want people to 
think I couldn?t do it, so I did it. 
I guess I kind of strived to make sure that they wouldn?t 
think [that I couldn?t do the job as well.] Maybe I pushed 
myself a little too hard sometimes as far as trying to get 
things done for them. I didn?t want them to think I couldn?t 
do the job because of this thing happening in my life.
I think I might even have been determined not to let it 
[change the kind of employee I was], you know? I didn?t 
want anyone to think I couldn?t do something because I was 
pregnant and I didn?t want to lose any opportunities. 
But that?s the one thing I?ve seen with my friends and 
myself, is that you feel you have to prove yourself. OK, I 
42
may be pregnant but let me prove myself, prove that I?m a 
good employee before I leave so you won?t think that I?m 
not. That?s where most of my guilt came from. I thought I 
had to prove myself before I go. I?d already proved myself?
that?s what I forgot. 
So I think they see that I still have the dedication and the 
work ethic and that I?m putting in the time to make sure the 
work is done properly. I?m consciously doing those things 
because I want them to know that I?m not just [someone who 
doesn?t] care about work anymore.
I guess mostly I?ve tried not to let it look like work doesn?t 
mean as much to me.
To convey a professional 
image
I want to be seen as professional, and I have this perception 
that as I become rounder, I?m going to become ?cuter?, and 
cuter is not professional. So a little mixed emotion about 
other people I work with noticing [I?m pregnant].
[I was conscious of how I dressed] because I didn?t want 
people to think, ?Oh my God! She?s pregnant and she?s just 
looking a mess! We have clients coming here, you know!? 
I think your physical appearance gives a certain perception at 
work. You want to look professional to be viewed as a 
professional. 
To prove to herself she 
was the same
I probably wouldn?t push myself as hard as I did. I realized 
this afterwards. It doesn?t benefit anybody, because I was 
working the exact same hours. Near the end, I was very tired. 
I guess it was the last week, I talked to my doctor and he 
said, ?You?d better go reduced hours.? My boss said, ?Of 
course,? but I literally did that for five days then I had the 
baby. So, I think I was trying to prove something to myself 
to much. Sometimes you I just have to give in and let people 
do things for me.
Like sometimes you walk through stores and you see women 
and they?re kind of rubbing their stomachs. I mean we all 
know you?re pregnant. You don?t have to make it more 
apparent. That?s what I was trying not to do. Maybe to ease 
myself as much as other people. I?m not that different. I 
don?t want to be accommodated because I?m in this 
condition. I think that?s really it. 
To establish a new 
identity
I really was just focused on doing a great job so when I did 
let them know or they figured it out I would already have 
proved myself there. So it was hard because at that point too 
43
I was already wore out and you?re trying to make a name for 
yourself before this big secret is out.
I didn?t really anticipate any real negative consequence at 
work, but since I was reasonably new to my position, it did 
occur to me that it was kind of nicer to let them see me prove 
myself before I had to go to my boss and talk about a leave 
or anything.
To avoid being fired It was really hard to let them know [that I was pregnant], 
because I was afraid that all of a sudden there?d be an excuse 
for why I didn?t need to be there.
You know at a small firm, you think about if you?re 
pregnant, you don?t want to be let go. That?s why I didn?t 
want to tell them. 
To convince others she 
would not quit
And I was kind of like, ?What are they going to say??
Because I felt like I hadn?t been there long enough to be
pregnant, and I was nervous that they would think all the
things, you know, ?She?s going to be going. Let?s not spend
any more time with her.?
And then she said, ?Maybe you?ll decide to stay home and 
maybe you won?t. That?s OK. Whatever you choose to do 
this is what is most important for you and your family.? And 
I said, ?No, no. I?m definitely coming back.? And she said, 
?No you might not. You?ll have to decide.? She kept saying I 
might not. I kept saying, ?No I will.? In the back of her head, 
she thought I wasn?t coming back.
I was a little bit worried that they might think, ?Oh, that 
means she?s going to leave.?
As I have indicated, many interviewees claimed that how they viewed themselves 
as an employee was relatively unchanged by their impending motherhood. It follows, 
therefore, that the most common reason cited for identity management was to prove to 
others she was the same. Approximately 60% (17 out of 28) of participants who managed 
their identities described wanting to demonstrate to colleagues , supervisors, clients, or 
others that they were not changing in a significant way because of the pregnancy. As a 
research assistant explained, ?You want to let people know that you?re still working. 
44
You?re not just like this pitiful little thing. You?re fine and you can still do it. . . I mean 
you?re still the same person!? Often, this desire was expressed not just in terms of how an 
individual hoped people would view her, but also what she feared people would think 
now that she was pregnant?in other words, alluding to the identities or images she 
wanted to avoid. 
I didn?t want them to think that I didn?t want to work. I wanted them to think that 
I could work my butt off like I always have and get through the busy season. 
I didn?t want anyone to think I was irresponsible or anything. 
I didn?t want people to think I was some slacker or had my priorities mixed up or 
anything of that nature. 
Similarly, 25% of interviewees (7 out of 28) noted that they specifically wanted to convey 
a professional image to the people with whom they worked. In all of these cases, 
?professionalism?, however they defined it, was an important element of their identities 
as employees, and in this respect, the category overlaps considerably with the one above. 
I differentiated the two categories, however, because of the way in which some women 
specifically singled out professionalism as a key goal of their tactics. They expressed 
concern that pregnancy (e.g., the large belly, the frumpy clothes, swollen feet) would be 
viewed as unprofessional, and their behaviors were calculated to ensure that the 
pregnancy did not in fact spoil their desired image.  
Yet another goal of identity management was to prove to herself she was the 
same. In other words, 18% of participants who reported managing their identities (5 out 
45
of 28) stated that they engaged in such behaviors in order to reassure themselves that 
pregnancy was not altering their work identity--?to prove to myself that I could still do 
it?. In their interviews, three of these five made a point to compare themselves favorably 
to other women who ?flaunted? their pregnancies, ?played the pregnancy card?, or could 
not keep up at work. For example: 
My character didn?t change, I didn?t become wimpy or anything, you know what I 
mean? Some women, the day they find out they?re pregnant, they get a parking 
spot for the handicapped! There?s this special spot if you need to park close for 
whatever reason. And we always joke that it?s the ?pregnancy spot?. You could 
see who was there! These women get the spot because they don?t want to walk 
that far. I: Oh really? Is that common? R: Very common. And that?s fine, if you 
have an issue where you don?t want to walk very far. But I never changed 
anything. I never did that.
Participants seemed to use these stories as cautionary tales, as extra motivation to 
maintain their performance and as reassurance that they were not in fact ?like that?. 
The fourth category is of women who were new to their positions and 
consequently sought to establish a new identity in those jobs .  While only three (11%) of 
the interviewees who managed their identities cited this as a motivation, their concerns 
were significant enough to note here. Two of the women discovered they were pregnant 
immediately before beginning their new jobs and the other had recently been promoted to 
a manager. All three chose to conceal their pregnancies until they felt they had had some 
chance to prove themselves in their positions. To these women, being pregnant 
potentially compromised their ability to demonstrate their capabilities and value to 
46
supervisors and colleagues, and so even after revealing their condition, they remained 
vigilant about establishing their identities. Many bulletin board postings also conveyed 
the special worries of new employees or women who were interviewing for jobs. One 
bulletin board poster who was recently hired after having concealed her pregnancy during 
the interview process explained her decision to pass in this way:
I finally found a job and got hired. I have been actively looking for a job since 
September . . . I am currently 21 weeks! And NO I didn't tell them yet! I know 
honesty is the best policy, blah, blah, blah. But we as women have to face the fact 
that we will always be discriminated against, we already have a glass ceiling, now
add maternity. I have decided to wait a month until I share that I am pregnant and 
that I will be needing 6 weeks off. I came to this decision because if I tell them 
right away they may carry resentment towards me and be completely biased on
my work evaluation. I feel this gives me an opportunity to show them how hard of 
a worker I am and that I am committed to the success of my career. 
As she clearly explains, this woman felt that passing not only allowed her to secure a job, 
but gave her the time she needed to create the image and identity she wanted as a new 
employee.
Finally, the last two categories reflect not just interviewees? concerns about how 
they were perceived, but their fears about specific consequences that might result from 
negative perceptions. Approximately 20% (6 out of 28) described managing their 
identities in order to avoid being fired, while 25% (7 out of 28) did so to convince others 
she would not quit?because if people thought she was going to leave, they might deny 
her training and development opportunities, take away her assignments, or demote her.
47
The women in these two categories hoped that by managing how others perceived them 
they could avoid these consequences. 
Perceiving the Threat of Stigmatization
These six stated motives for identity management are all related to a  more implicit 
theme. Although they rarely explicitly said so, the participants? descriptions of their 
motives?the desires and concerns that led them to engage in identity management 
efforts?conveyed a belief that pregnancy at work was a stigma that had the potential to 
threaten their status and well-being. As Crocker et al. (1998) state, ?stigmatized 
individuals possess (or are believed to possess) some attribute, or characteristic, that 
conveys a social identity that is devalued in some particular social context? (p. 505). In 
every case, the women who engaged in identity management did so because they 
believed that pregnancy was or might be a devalued identity within their particular 
workplace?and so a potential source of prejudice and discrimination. I argue that each 
of the stated motives described above reflects this concern about stigmatization, and that 
the perceived threat of stigmatization was the primary, underlying motivation for 
individuals? identity management efforts. 
Specifically, participants seemed to experience the particular predicament of 
stereotype threat. As explained previously, stereotype threat occurs when stigmatized 
persons believe they are likely to be evaluated according to specific negative stereotypes 
about their group and/or risk confirming stereotypes through their own behavior (Steele 
& Aronson, 1995). In contrast to the broad challenge to one?s self-worth that might 
accompany a general devaluation of one?s identity, ?stereotype threat leads to self-threat 
only when the specific content of a negative stereotype is salient and directly relevant to 
48
one?s behavior in a given situation? (Dovidio et al., 2000, p. 16-17). Like other 
stigmatized individuals, the participants in this study held certain assumptions about 
others? perceptions of and expectations for them, based on their understanding of cultural 
stereotypes of pregnant women (Cioffi, 2000; Dovido et al., 2000; Link & Phelan, 2001). 
In the interviews, women offered insights into these assumptions through comments 
about what they worried people would think of them (e.g., not capable, uncommitted, 
unprofessional), the cautionary tales they told about other pregnant women, and their 
stories about how supervisors or others actually responded to the pregnancy. For 
example:
Some of them, a couple of the [day shift nurses] were almost over-protective?
you know, ?Oh no you shouldn?t be doing that??something I could do. And 
although it was nice in the beginning that they wanted to do this, there were times 
I didn?t want to be perceived as not being able to do it and then causing them 
more work.
. . . that was part of why I was a little anxious about telling them because I was 
kind of worried they might think, ?Oh, she?s probably not planning to come back 
so we could let her go.?
I didn?t want them to think that I was slacking off just because I was pregnant and 
using it as an excuse. That was something thing, too. I was afraid that everyone 
would think that I was just using this as an excuse to pawn work off on other 
49
people. And so, I tried very hard to be like, gung ho and motivated. I wasn?t, but I 
acted like I was.
In fact, the descriptions contained in the various statements and stories, such as being 
viewed as ?delicate?, ?irresponsible?, ?cute?, ?slacking off?, and not ?serious about 
work?, strongly resemble what researchers (e.g., Gueutal and Taylor, 1991; Halpert et al., 
1993) have identified as common stereotypes of pregnant women.  
While such stereotypes may or may not have been threatening outside of the 
workplace, they were decidedly threatening to the women?s status at work?suggesting 
that pregnant women could not or would not meet the standards expected of employees in 
their organizations.  Such stereotypes were at odds with the content of the women?s own 
desired work identities, with how they wanted others to view them as employees and 
professionals. In addition, their awareness of these stereotypes led to concerns that 
supervisors, coworkers, or others might expect them to behave accordingly and 
potentially discriminate against them based on those expectations. 
The motives women gave for identity management conveyed their desires to 
counter these stereotypes and to avoid being discriminated against on the basis of them. 
Thus, participants described wanting to prove to others that they were still the same (not 
uncommitted, unreliable, etc.) or still professionals, or wanting to create, as new 
employees, work identities that were not affected by pregnancy. Even when discussing a 
need to prove to themselves that they were the same, participants implied that pregnancy 
was in some fashion inconsistent with their valued self, threatening changes in identity 
that they needed to ward off, if only for their own peace of mind. As noted above, some 
participants stated they relied on identity management tactics to avoid the worst case 
50
scenario of actually being fired, or to persuade others they would not quit once the baby 
came?because if people thought they would quit, they might lose a promotion, or be 
denied certain opportunities. And although bulletin board posters rarely discussed 
specific identity management tactics other than passing, several wrote about similar fears, 
anxieties, and suspicions of possible discrimination?will I be fired? Will I be hired? 
Will I get my raise or promotion? How should I broach the subject of leave? Why are my 
supervisors disregarding my doctor?s orders? How do I handle my boss?s disapproval?
Fortunately, their concerns about overt, formal discrimination did not ultimately 
materialize for most interviewees (nor, I suspect, for most posters). And I should 
emphasize that their worries were usually tempered by other, positive encounters with 
coworkers or supervisors. For example, women often spoke of how pregnancy had 
brought them closer to some colleagues, especially other mothers, with whom they now 
shared much in common. Nonetheless, as I explain in greater detail below, every woman 
who managed her identity described experiencing some degree of concern about possible 
stigmatization at work. 
Examining the Link Between Perceived Stigmatization and Identity Management
To summarize, I have argued that pregnant employees? efforts to manage their 
identities were ultimately driven by beliefs that they either were or might be stigmatized 
at work because they were pregnant?that others might judge them and even discriminate 
against them on the basis of negative stereotypes of pregnant workers. These beliefs were 
evidenced in the specific motives they cited for their identity management efforts, and 
more generally in comments about how they thought people viewed them or other 
pregnant employees and how people actually responded to the pregnancy. Women 
51
appeared to employ identity management tactics in order to counter these stereotypes?
thus maintaining the work identities they desired while also avoiding encountering bias 
and discrimination. 
This analysis was based on an examination of interview passages coded for 
identity management, from which I identified various tactics as well as motives. I wanted 
to ensure, however, that my assumptions about the relationship between identity 
management and perceived threat of stigmatization were well grounded?that I was not 
inferring something that was not really there. In order to check my interpretations, I 
constructed a ?predictor-outcome matrix? (Miles & Huberman, 1994), which provides a 
visual display of data for an outcome and the suspected antecedent or predictor. 
Predictor-outcome matrices allow one to move from description to explanation without 
losing sight of the complexity and variability that exist in the multiple cases. The goal is 
not necessarily to test or verify a hypothesis, but to ensure that one?s explanations are 
fully grounded in the data. 
In constructing the matrix, I scaled both the outcome (i.e., identity management) 
and the predictor (i.e., perceived threat of stigmatization) (Miles & Huberman, 1994). 
Interviewees had demonstrated considerable variability in the lengths to which they went 
to try to manage their identities, as well as their level of concern about stigmatization and 
the risk it posed to them. I therefore devised decision rules for categorizing participants 
according to their degrees of identity management effort and degrees of perceived threat
(see below for a description). After scaling the variables, a research assistant and I 
independently rated interview participants for their levels of perceived threat and identity 
management. I rated all 35 interview cases for both; the assistant rated half of the cases 
52
for identity management and the other half for perceived threat, and rated two cases for 
both. Our interrater agreement was 86% for degree of identity management and 76% for 
degree of perceived threat. I then arrayed individual participants by their respective 
degrees of outcome and predictor in a table format. Below, I review the evidence 
displayed in the completed matrix (see Table 3). 
Table 3
Perceived Threat of Stigmatization as a Predictor of Identity Management
Interview 
Case Number
Degree of Identity 
Management
Degree of Perceived 
Threat of 
Stigmatization
1 None None
4 None None
15 None None
16 None None
24 None None
31 None None
35 None None
5 Mild Severe
18 Mild Mild
28 Mild Moderate
33 Mild Mild
2 Moderate Moderate
6 Moderate Severe
7 Moderate Moderate
9 Moderate Severe
11 Moderate Moderate
13 Moderate Moderate
14 Moderate Mild
19 Moderate Moderate
20 Moderate Mild
21 Moderate Moderate
22 Moderate Moderate
23 Moderate Severe
25 Moderate Severe
27 Moderate Moderate
32 Moderate Severe
34 Moderate Moderate
53
3 Extreme Severe
8 Extreme No data
10 Extreme Severe
12 Extreme Severe
17 Extreme Severe
26 Extreme Moderate
29 Extreme Severe
30 Extreme Severe
Degrees of identity management. Participants varied considerably in the degree 
to which they were determined to manage their identities at work. Consequently, I 
developed criteria for categorizing each interviewee into one of four groups reflecting 
different degrees of identity management. The key feature that differentiated the groups 
was how much overall psychological and/or physical effort participants described 
making to manage their identities. The underlying logic was that persistence in identity 
management tactics that are difficult to carry out is an indicator of how determined an 
individual was to successfully manage her identity. The independent rater and I made 
judgments about overall effort based on the accounts interviewees gave of the relative 
ease or difficulty they experienced in trying to manage their identity?i.e., the amount of 
psychological and/or physical effort they described exerting. 
Participants were classified as making No Effort if they made no mention of using 
any identity management tactics. Twenty percent of interviewees (7 out of 35) made no 
effort. I classified approximately 10 % (4 out of 35) as making a Mild Effort because they 
only discussed using identity management tactics that required little overall psychological 
or physical effort. For example, one woman passed until near the end of her first trimester 
(not especially difficult to do), but did not mention making any other attempt to manage 
her identity. Another described maintaining her pre-pregnancy pace as well as not 
54
requesting any special accommodations, but apparently did not expend any significant 
energy trying to do so. About 45 % of interviewees (16 out of 35) were classified as 
making a Moderate Effort to manage their work identities when they described using one 
or more tactics that required a moderate amount of overall psychological or physical 
effort. So, for example, two women described finding creative ways to pass throughout 
their pregnancies?not from their supervisors or coworkers (which would have been even 
more difficult to do, see below), but from vendors and contractors who, they felt, might 
not want to negotiate or work with them if they knew of the pregnancy. Many women in 
this category made conscious choices to work long hours or refuse to ask for help even 
when very pregnant or ill. 
I definitely made sure that?it was so tempting to call in sick so many times, but I 
always made sure that I was actually at work and not using pregnancy as an 
excuse, I guess. I probably could have taken a few more sick days that I did, but I 
didn?t want them to start thinking, ?Oh see?she can?t handle it.?
Finally, approximately 25% of participants (8 out of 35) were classified as making an 
Extreme Effort to manage their work identities when they described using one or more 
tactics that required extreme overall psychological or physical effort. Again, the chief 
difference between Moderate and Extreme Effort was not which tactics women used, but 
the lengths they went to carry them out and the distress they experienced as a result?
even, in at least two cases, risking their own health or that of the baby. Examples of such 
extreme identity management include a participant who concealed her pregnancy from 
coworkers into the third trimesters?a feat requiring considerable ingenuity and 
vigilance. Some women embarked on a near-frantic pace of work (?busting their butts?, 
55
so to speak), while simultaneously refusing to ask for any accommodations and finding 
various ways to conceal or downplay their condition. 
Degrees of perceived threat. To measure degree of perceived threat of 
stigmatization, I assessed how much concern a participant expressed, indirectly or 
directly, about others? negative perceptions of her or about stereotypes of pregnant 
workers. This concern was reflected in the amount of anxiety and mental distress 
participants described feeling, as well as the specific consequences, if any, that they 
feared would result from these perceptions or stereotypes (e.g., people not giving them 
assignments, denying them training, or firing them). 
Twenty percent of the interview participants (7 out of 35) described feeling No 
Threat from their pregnant status at work. They made no mention of any awareness of 
stigmatization, and did not discuss having any concerns about the consequences of 
pregnancy for their identities, their relationships, or their jobs. I classified about 10% (4 
out of 35) as perceiving a Mild Threat because they did express an awareness of the 
potential for stigmatization?that is, they recognized that others might view them or other 
women differently because of pregnancy?but described feeling little to no anxiety about 
it, and also did not mention any concern about specific, negative consequences they 
might experience. An example of someone in this category was a real estate developer 
who, although she implied being aware that her colleagues might no longer view her as 
?dedicated? and reliable, was not apparently concerned that the pregnancy would 
ultimately threaten her status at work. In fact, she expressed delight with how supportive 
her colleagues were of her pregnancy. I classified about 30% of participants (11 out of 
35) as experiencing a Moderate Threat when they described experiencing a moderate 
56
level of concern or anxiety about being stigmatized (that is, about being perceived 
negatively), and/or mentioned being concern about moderately negative consequences 
(e.g., receiving fewer opportunities at work, being less able to negotiate effectively with 
vendors). Note that either a moderate level of anxiety or a mention of concern about a 
moderately negative consequence was sufficient to place someone in this category. As an 
example, a psychology fellow described feeling very anxious about revealing her 
pregnancy because she worried her supervisors would not be accommodating and also 
might question her level of interest in the position. Finally, I identified about 35% of the 
interviewees (12 out of 35) as experiencing a Severe Threat because they described a 
very high level of concern or anxiety about being stigmatized, and/or mentioned being
concern about severe consequences (e.g., being fired, being demoted). The women in this 
category all expended considerable mental energy worrying about how they were being 
perceived or what negative repercussions they might face. For instance, a professor
described the level of concern she felt about how others would view her once they 
learned of her pregnancy: 
I just thought, well, some people might treat you differently and not give you 
opportunities, thinking you?re not going to be here. I didn?t want anyone to think 
that way, ?Well, you?re not going to be here so I?m not going to ask you to work 
on this or that.? Just in general, I expected people to treat me very differently after 
they found out. 
And she continued to monitor how others perceived her throughout her pregnancy. Ten of 
the eleven participants in this category described worrying that they would experience 
negative treatment at work as a result of being pregnant. And the one individual who did 
57
not discuss hypothetical consequences actually did experience negative treatment from 
her supervisor and some team members (as did a few others in this category). 
Examining the predictor-outcome matrix. If there is an observable relationship 
between perceived threat of stigmatization and identity management, then in examining 
data in the predictor-outcome matrix, one should find that as the degree of identity 
management effort increases across cases, so does the degree of perceived threat. As 
shown in Table 3, there is a general corresponding increase in the level of perceived 
threat as one scans the columns from No Effort to Extreme Effort, with some exceptions. 
There is a perfect correspondence in the No Effort category?of the seven cases, 100% 
reported perceiving No Threat. The Mild and Moderate Effort categories reveal a greater 
mix, as would be expected, with a particularly clear increase in the level of threat in the 
Moderate Effort group: of the 16 cases in this category, none (0%) experienced No 
Threat, two (13%) reported a Mild Threat, nine (56%) a Moderate Threat, and five (31%)
a Severe Threat. Finally, participants in the Extreme Effort category expressed a 
considerable perceived threat from stigmatization. Of the eight cases in this category, 
none (0%) reported No Threat, none (0%) reported Mild Threat, one (13%) described 
experiencing a Moderate Threat, and six (75%) perceived Severe Threat. (One case, a 
preliminary interview, had no data on perceived threat.) 
The data in Table 3 suggest the theorized relationship between individuals? 
perceived threat of stigmatization and their efforts to manage their work identities is well 
grounded in the interview data. Identity management, therefore, appears to be the 
management of a stigmatized identity (Goffman, 1963). The women in this study acted to 
defend their desired identities against the ?spoiling? of stigma and also to mitigate any 
58
risk of overt discrimination. The tactics participants adopted functioned to rescue valued 
work identities (and perhaps their very jobs) by challenging or refuting the negative 
expectations and assumptions bosses, coworkers, or clients might have for them. Indeed, 
the tactics they used resemble those adopted by other stigmatized persons (Crocker et al., 
1998; Goffman, 1963; Miller et al., 1995): concealment, behaving in ways that are not 
expected of their group (i.e., maintaining their pace and even going the extra mile), 
downplaying their condition, avoiding behaviors that are typically identified with the 
stigma (i.e., not asking for special accommodations), and displaying ?disidentifying? 
symbols (i.e., dressing professionally). 
If perceived threat accounts for variations in individuals? degrees of identity 
management, what factors might be related to variations in the degree of perceived 
threat? In other words, what conditions might lead some workers to believe that they are 
or could be stigmatized because of pregnancy, or even worse, that such stigmatization 
threatens their jobs, while other women perceive no stigmatization at all? I turn now to a 
consideration of potential antecedents of perceived threat. 
Antecedents of Perceived Threat of Stigmatization
To answer the above question, I explored a range of contextual factors and 
individual differences that could influence variations in perceptions of stigmatization. As 
explained in the Methods section, I first examined the ?negative cases? (participants who 
reported no identity management or perceived threat) and used their shared 
characteristics as a starting point for examining similarities and differences between these 
participants and the others. I then constructed a predictor-outcome matrix (Miles & 
Huberman, 1994), as described in the previous section, to explore the visual display of 
59
data related to several potential antecedents. I rejected some factors that did not have a 
clearly visible relationship with perceived threat or for which I had insufficient data, 
including coworker support, the gender composition of the participant?s organization, and 
personal gender beliefs. I then supplemented the remaining list by examining bulletin 
board postings to find any key issues that might not have been represented in the 
interview sample. Table 4 contains the final predictor-outcome matrix based on the 
interview data. I included an additional antecedent (physically demanding/hazardous 
jobs) based on the analysis of bulletin board postings, but did not have sufficient 
interview data on that antecedent to include it in the predictor-outcome matrix.
I ultimately theorized that five contextual factors served as antecedents of
perceived stigmatization, organized into two general categories: characteristics of the 
work environment (i.e., supervisor relationship and organizational climate) and 
characteristics of the pregnant worker?s job (i.e., status, tenure, and physical demands). I 
describe each of the contextual factors in turn below. I should emphasize that because I 
did not collect data on actual workplace conditions (e.g., through observation in 
organizations), I cannot claim that these particular jobs or work environments in fact lead 
to stigmatization. I do not know whether any pregnant workers in this study were actually 
stigmatized. I only suggest that these factors are related to individuals? perceptions that 
they might be or are stigmatized in the workplace due to pregnancy. 
60
Table 4
Antecedents of Perceived Threat of Stigmatization
Interview 
Case 
Number
Perceived 
Threat
Super. 
Relation.
a
Org?l. 
Climate
b
Short 
Tenure
c
Lower
Status
d
1 None +++ FF
4 None +++ FF Low
15 None +++ FF
16 None +++ FF
24 None +++ FF   
31 None +++ FF
35 None +++ FF
14 Mild OK FF
18 Mild +++ FF
20 Mild OK FF Yes Low
33 Mild +++ FF
2 Moderate +++ FF
7 Moderate No data Not-FF
11 Moderate OK FF
13 Moderate -- FF Yes
19 Moderate +++ FF
21 Moderate OK FF Yes
22 Moderate +++ FF Low
26 Moderate OK FF
27 Moderate +/- FF
28 Moderate +++ FF Yes Low
34 Moderate +/- Not-FF
3 Severe OK Not-FF Yes Low
5 Severe +/- FF
6 Severe +++ Not-FF Low
9 Severe +/- No data Yes Low
10 Severe -- Not-FF Low
12 Severe -- Not-FF Yes
17 Severe OK Not-FF Yes
23 Severe +/- Not-FF Yes
25 Severe +/- Not-FF
29 Severe OK No data Yes Low
30 Severe +/- Not-FF
32 Severe OK Not-FF Yes
61
Note. A fifth antecedent, Physically Demanding/Hazardous Work, was not included in 
this table due to lack of interview data. Its inclusion in the final model (see Figure 1) was 
based on analysis of Internet bulletin board data.
a
Supervisor relationship: +++ = Very positive. OK = Neutral. +/- = Mixed. -- = Very 
negative/unsupportive.
b
Organizational climate: FF = Family-friendly. Not-FF = Non-family-friendly.
c
Short Tenure: Yes = Participant had been in her position for less than two years when 
she became pregnant.
d
Lower Status: Low = Participant held a lower status position, typically requiring less 
education and receiving lower pay.
The work environment: Organizational climate and supervisor relationship.  Two 
features of the work environment appeared to be related to differing levels of perceived 
threat: the quality of participants? relationships with their supervisors and the degree to 
which their organizational climates were ?family-friendly??i.e., supportive and 
accommodating of working parents? needs. First, there were four different types of 
supervisor relationships apparent among the 35 interviewees. I characterized a participant 
as having a Very Positive Supervisor Relationship when she described her supervisor as 
going out of his/her way to support the pregnancy, and when she had only very positive 
things to say about the supervisor. I defined a relationship as Neutral when a participant 
described her supervisor as supportive enough of her needs, but did not report having an 
exceptionally positive relationship (e.g., she would not call the supervisor a ?friend?, the 
supervisor followed procedures but was not exceptionally accommodating). A 
relationship was characterized as Mixed when the participant described her supervisor as 
having both positive and negative characteristics (e.g., a boss who was accommodating 
but had a terrible temper). Finally, participant was classified as having an Unsupportive 
relationship when she reported that her supervisor made no effort to be accommodating 
or supportive, or when an immediate supervisor was so terrible as to nullify any support 
received from other superiors.  
62
As shown in Table 4, as the degree of perceived threat increases across cases, the 
quality of supervisor relationships becomes more negative, suggesting that pregnant 
workers? relationships with their supervisors are a factor related to or influencing their 
perceived stigmatization. All seven participants who reported No Threat also reported 
having Very Positive supervisor relationships, and as one scans the column from Mild to 
Severe Threat, there is a general decline in the quality of relationship. Of the four 
participants reporting Mild Threat, two (50%) described a Very Positive relationship and 
two (50%) a Neutral relationship, with none (0%) reporting a relationship that was Mixed 
or Unsupportive. The eleven Moderate Threat cases were more mixed: four (36%) 
reported a Very Positive relationship, three (27%) Neutral, and three (27%) either Mixed 
or Unsupportive. (One case, a preliminary interview, was missing data on her supervisor 
relationship). And in the Severe Threat category, only one (8%) participant reported a 
Very Positive relationship. Four (33%) reported a Neutral relationship, and 7 (58%) 
described a Mixed or Unsupportive relationship.  
I found similar trends with organizational climate. I defined Family-Friendly 
Organizational Climate as involving company and/or departmental policies and practices 
that were supportive and accommodating of working parents? needs, in particular new 
mothers?. Examples of these policies and practices included offering job-sharing or 
flexible hours, having generous and clearly defined maternity leave policies (e.g., paid 
leave and meeting or exceeding FMLA standards), and top leaders who articulated 
support for working parents. I characterized participants as working in a Non-Family-
Friendly Organizational Climate when they described company and/or departmental 
policies and practices that were not supportive or accommodating of working parents? 
63
needs, in particular those of new mothers. Examples included offering no paid leave, 
having nonexistent or unclear leave policies, having leaders who actually voiced lack of 
support for working mothers, and not supporting part-time work. These anonymous 
postings, from a law enforcement officer and a healthcare worker, illustrate some of the 
dilemmas faced by women who work in unsupportive environments. 
I'm 10 weeks pregnant and I work in law enforcement. Ever since I told my boss 
that I'm expecting I've had nothing but problems at work. They've changed my 
schedule and reduced my hours. Everyone was nice to me at first and 
congratulated my husband and I, but now I'm getting nothing but the cold
shoulder. People talk behind my back and say that I shouldn't be in this line of 
work now that I'm pregnant. My lawyer is handling the whole schedule thing, but 
I was wondering if anyone had any tips on how to handle the nastiness I've had to 
deal with. My hormones are crazy right now anyway. It doesn't help that every 
time I here one of there comments I cry. That just reassures their beliefs that I 
should "take some time off." Help...please!
I am also being treated like crap at work and I am also in the medical field. I had 
to tell my boss when I was 4 wks pregnant, because I was spotting and needed 
some help. They wanted me to go out on disability right then, which we cannot 
afford!! They've consistently treated me terribly since then leaving me to work by 
myself often and putting me in unneeded stressfull situations, only because they 
refuse to get me help!! I am 30 wks right now and going out (28 working days 
and counting) a month early on my maternity leave, because I also cannot handle 
64
the stress, and we don't really have the money either. I don't understand how they
get away with it and why they even want to IT'S THE MEDICAL FIELD and 
they treat you like you have this terrible disease an they want to just get rid of 
you!!
The above postings also, of course, are examples of unsupportive supervisor 
relationships?but these bosses were also responsible for establishing and enforcing 
policies and practices that clearly created a non-family friendly climate for these women 
and others in their predicament.
As indicated in Table 4, all participants in both the No Threat and Mild Threat 
categories reported having Family-Friendly Organizational Climates, while two of the 
eleven participants (18%) in the Moderate Threat group reported working in Non-Family-
Friendly Climates. In striking contrast, nine of the twelve participants (75%) who 
perceived a Severe Threat described working in Non-Family-Friendly Climates. Only one 
(8%) reported a friendly climate; two were missing data. These data suggest a strong 
relationship between having a Non-Family-Friendly Organizational Climate and 
perceiving that one will be stigmatized as a result of pregnancy. 
Job characteristics: Tenure, physical demands, and status. Three different 
characteristics of women?s jobs were associated with increased perceptions of threat: 
short tenure (i.e., being new to a position), physically demanding or hazardous work, and 
lower status. First, although most interview participants had been in their positions for 
some time, ten of them were relatively new to their jobs. I defined Short Tenure as being 
in a position for less than two years. This quote from a marketing assistant who started 
65
her new job without revealing she was a few weeks pregnant conveys the dilemma she 
faced: 
I really didn?t want them to know. For one, being new there and not knowing if 
that would make a ?I really was just focused on doing a great job so when I did let 
them know or they figured it out I would already have proved myself there. So it 
was hard because at that point too I was already wore out and you?re trying to 
make a name for yourself before this big secret is out. That?s a hard position to be 
in, being new to the company and already being on the pregnant clock, so to 
speak. You know, it?s like every week is counting. I didn?t tell them until I was
four months, just a few weeks ago.
As is indicated in Table 4, being new to a job was related to an increased perception of 
stigmatization among interview participants. None of women in the No Threat category 
were new, and only one participant (25%) in the Mild Threat group and three participants 
(27%) in the Moderate Threat groups were. However, seven of the twelve women (58%) 
in the Extreme Threat category had short tenures. Evidence from bulletin board postings 
further supports this theorized relationship, including the dilemma of applying for a new 
job while pregnant. The consensus of ?posters? was that pregnancy jeopardized both the 
ability to get hired and to keep a new job, as indicated in these postings: 
I have to agree with the last poster, although it is not legal to discriminate against 
a woman who is pregnant it is done all the time. It is very easy during the 
interview process to find another reason for not hiring someone so it is a practice 
of discrimination that is easy to get away with. I would not mention being 
66
pregnant until after you are hired. But be prepared to have an unhappy boss for a 
few days. 
Bulletin board postings also shed important light on another characteristic 
associated with perceived threat: the degree of physical demands and risk associated with 
the job. I defined work as Hazardous or Very Physically Demanding when it involved 
extraordinary physical exertion, including standing for long periods of time without rest 
and lifting heavy objects, or unusually high risk to the mother or fetus, including working 
with dangerous substances (e.g., some pharmacists and nurses) or in dangerous situations 
(e.g., law enforcement). Because only one interview participant, an LPN, held a job that 
was physically demanding, I did not include this factor in Table 4, but this participant did 
report perceiving a Severe Threat. Of the 286 total Internet postings, however, 23% 
concerned complaints, inquiries, or advice about how to handle physical or hazardous 
work. Pregnant workers cannot typically perform such work without special 
accommodations; if they do, they potentially risk their own health or that of the fetus. For 
example, some women who posted described experiencing cramping, bleeding, and 
excessive fatigue after standing or lifting heavy objects all day. In addition, some 
complained that supervisors or coworkers believed such work was not suitable or 
appropriate for a pregnant woman (see for example the above posting from a law 
enforcement officer). I argue that for these reasons, physically demanding or hazardous 
work is likely to be associated with ?real? or perceived stigmatization. This quote from a 
lab assistant provides one of the clearest examples of how such work conditions might 
contribute to perceptions of threat:
67
I take care of research animals for a big university and I am having a lot of 
problems all of a sudden. I had to get a doctor's note so I wouldn't have to lift 50 
pounds bags of feed. Then I wanted to be removed from a pig room cause they are 
huge and I didn't feel comfortable working on a wet floor. I had to get a note for
that one too. My doctor threw on there to avoid rabbit rooms, guinea pig rooms (I 
would need a stool for the top row plus moving the cages would be dangerous for 
me) and then to avoid the chicken rooms cause of bacteria. Now I am being told 
that with these restrictions, I can either move to a different area or take my FMLA 
early! I am only 28 weeks along. What I don't get is that they just won't switch me 
with one of my co-workers in the same area for his mouse room (then I would 
have three) and he take my pig room from me. . .Legally, they cannot force me to 
take my FMLA early because there is work for me to do, they are just refusing to 
assign me to it. I have worked at this place [for 8 years]. Now I am being treated 
like sh*t and I do not deserve it!
The stories shared by posters suggest when working under such conditions, pregnancy 
complicates or hinders an employee?s ability to perform as expected. Because they 
cannot perform at their former level or must ask for special accommodations, pregnant 
workers would likely believe that they are or might be stigmatized by pregnancy. 
The final characteristic related to variations in perceptions of threat was Lower 
Job Status. I classified participants as having Lower Status Jobs when they occupied 
positions that required little education or that offered low pay. Examples include 
administrative assistants, retail salespersons, and LPNs or certified nursing assistants 
(CNAs).  I also included in this category a research fellow in a university and a 
68
psychology fellow in a hospital because, although they had advanced degrees, their 
positions were temporary and near the bottom of the hierarchy within their organizations. 
In addition, I examined whether Managerial/Professional Status Jobs was associated 
with variations in perceived threat, defining this category as including managerial 
positions or permanent positions requiring professional degrees (e.g., lawyer, CPA, 
tenured or tenure-track professors). (Some interview participants had mid-level status 
positions and so were not classified into either of these categories.) Interestingly, 
Managerial/Professional Status did not appear to be related to degree of perceived threat, 
but Lower Status was?of the nine interview participants who held fairly low status jobs, 
five (55%) of them reported perceiving a Severe Threat (42% of all participants in the 
Severe Threat group had Lower Status jobs). In contrast, only one of the participants 
(14%) in the No Threat category held a lower status position (see Table 4). Bulletin board 
postings further strengthened my confidence in this theorized relationship. Although most 
posters did not describe the type of work they did, at least 37% (19 out of 51) of the 
postings that described a perceived threat or complained of actual discrimination were 
from women who clearly held lower status jobs, such as hourly service workers, 
receptionists, and nurses.  
In sum, the data revealed five characteristics of individuals? work environments 
and jobs that were associated with increased perceptions of threat: less supportive 
supervisor relationships, non-family-friendly organizational climates, short tenures, 
hazardous or physically demanding work, and lower status. Unfortunately, but not 
surprisingly, many of these characteristics may commonly appear as a package. In 
particular, jobs that are lower in status may be more likely to include unsupportive and 
69
unaccommodating supervisors and organizational climates, as well as more physically 
demanding work. Pregnant workers in such jobs may be less likely to have benefits, 
including paid or job-protected maternity leave, or to have supervisors who are flexible 
and accommodating. But regardless of whether they occur together or separately, these 
factors appear to increase the likelihood that pregnant women will perceive that they are 
stigmatized?and experience associated stereotype threat?in their workplaces. 
70
Discussion
This paper describes a theory-building study of the rarely examined phenomenon 
of pregnancy in the workplace.  I began the project seeking to understand the dynamics of 
work identity for pregnant women?how their interpretations of and responses to 
different work experiences might affect their views of themselves as workers. Few 
researchers have examined the consequences of pregnant women?s work experiences for 
their orientations towards work and career, and none has specifically examined the issue 
of work identity. Through analysis of interviews and Internet bulletin board postings, I 
discovered that the more interesting and salient issue for most women was not whether or 
how their work identities changed, but instead how they sought to preserve their existing 
identities in the face of supervisors? and colleagues? changing perceptions. 
The grounded theory that emerged from the study is summarized in Figure 1. 
Many participants believed that the people with whom they worked might hold certain 
stereotyped expectations of them?expectations that as pregnant women they could not, 
would not, or should not perform up to the standards demanded by their organizations. 
These participants therefore regarded pregnancy as a stigma that could potentially 
threaten their desired work identities and status on the job. Five job and work 
environment characteristics appeared to be associated with an increased perception of 
stigmatization: unsupportive supervisor relationships, non-family-friendly organizational 
climates, short job tenures, lower status positions, and performing physically demanding 
or hazardous work. Depending on the level of threat they perceived, women responded 
with a range of behaviors intended to preserve and maintain (i.e., ?verify?) their existing 
work identities and avoid possible discrimination. I identified seven specific tactics used 
71
to challenge or refute negative stereotypes that others might have about pregnant women, 
including ?passing?, ?downplaying the pregnancy?, and ?going the extra mile?.  
Figure 1
A Model of Perceived Stigmatization and Identity Management among Pregnant 
Employees
Conspicuously absent from the model in Figure 1 are the stated motives for 
identity management. The exact relationship between perceived threat of stigmatization, 
stated motives, and identity management tactics is not yet clear. It remains a theoretical 
and empirical question whether participants? specific motives for identity management 
were indicators or facets of a perceived threat of stigmatization or instead represented 
goals that mediated the relationship between perceived threat and identity management. 
Work 
Environment
?Non-family-
friendly 
Organizational 
Climate
?Unsupportive 
Supervisor 
Relationship
Job 
Characteristics
?Physically 
Demanding or 
Hazardous Work
?Lower Status
?Short Tenure
Perceiving the 
Threat of 
Stigmatization
Managing Her 
Identity
?Maintaining Her 
Pace
?Not Requesting 
Accommodations
?Passing
?Dressing 
Professionally
?Downplaying the 
Pregnancy
?Going the Extra 
Mile
?Shortening 
Maternity Leave
72
In other words, it is possible that the perception of stigmatization led pregnant employees 
to establish certain goals (e.g., to prove they were the same, to avoid being fired), which 
in turn led them to engage in various identity management tactics in order to accomplish 
those goals. Alternatively, these motives may simply have been indicators of an 
underlying construct of perceived threat, which was directly related to identity 
management. Because there was little variability in the data on stated motives (other than 
whether or not participants mentioned them), I was not able to investigate in detail the 
relationship between variations in stated motives, degree of perceived threat, and degree 
of identity management. Consequently, I cannot choose between the two possibilities 
described above with any certainty. In this respect, the model remains incomplete, and 
additional research is needed to test the two alternatives. 
These findings contribute to a growing body of research documenting prejudice
and discrimination against pregnant employees. The stories some participants told of 
negative treatment by coworkers or bosses, and the various fears and concerns many 
expressed (whether they materialized or not), echoed previous findings regarding 
negative stereotypes of pregnant workers (e.g., Guetal & Taylor, 1991; Halpert et al., 
1993), bias in performance evaluations, and prejudice against pregnant job applicants 
(e.g., Bragger et al., 2002; Corse, 1999; Halpert et al., 1993; Hebl et al., 2004). Statistics 
on employment discrimination further suggest that at least some pregnant women 
continue to be stigmatized in the workplace. Prior to 1978 and the passage of the 
Pregnancy Discrimination Act, of course, it was not uncommon for employees to be fired 
for being pregnant or forced to take unpaid leaves as soon as they started to ?show? 
(often without a guarantee of returning to their jobs) (Geller, 2003; Harris, 1992). But 
73
even today, some women return from maternity leaves to find that their positions have 
been eliminated or that they have jobs with similar titles but fewer responsibilities, and 
new mothers are much more likely to be fired after taking disability leave for childbirth 
than employees who take other kinds of medical leaves (Harris, 1992). Between 1992 and 
2002, pregnancy discrimination claims actually rose almost 40% (Geller, Oct. 22, 2003). 
Furthermore, pregnancy and childbirth can negatively affect the career success of women
in more subtle ways. For example, although the causes of the ?glass ceiling? phenomenon 
are complex and varied, pregnancy?or the capacity to become pregnant?clearly is a 
significant contributor. The fear that pregnancy and childbirth will interfere with 
women?s careers may lead some executives to avoid promoting women into management 
levels (Schwartz, 1989). 
The findings described here, therefore, support existing research indicating that 
many pregnant workers continue to confront discrimination on the job. Importantly, the 
present study also broadens our understanding of how pregnant women cope with this 
predicament, and more generally, how stigmatized persons manage their status. The 
women in this study were not passive victims of stigmatization?to the contrary, they 
actively attempted to control how others perceived and reacted to them. To my 
knowledge, no prior research has examined the strategies pregnant employees use to 
handle their negative work experiences. Indeed, even within the stigma literature, there 
has been comparatively little attention to how stigmatized individuals manage a ?spoiled? 
identity (Crocker & Quinn, 2000; Miller et al., 1995). Goffman?s seminal book, 
published in 1963, remains one of the primary texts on the subject. As noted earlier, the 
identity management tactics I identified resemble in many ways those described by 
74
Goffman (1963) and others (e.g., Chrobot-Mason et al., 2002; Miller et al., 1995; Siegel 
et al., 1998), including ?passing?, ?covering? (i.e., avoiding behaving in ways expected 
of their group or behaving in ways others do not expect), and overcompensating 
behaviors. In this respect, it appears that the tactics used by pregnant workers are not
unique to pregnancy but are examples of more general, universal strategies employed by 
the stigmatized to cope with their conditions. Given the relative paucity of research on 
identity management, this finding is significant?and made even more interesting by 
apparent differences between the stigma of ?pregnant worker? and more commonly 
studied stigmas like race or homosexuality. For instance, unlike these conditions, 
pregnancy is always a temporary status (although it portends the potentially stigmatized 
identity of ?working mother?), and one that is more likely to elicit benevolent rather than 
hostile discrimination outside a work context (Hebl et al., 2004). Nonetheless, the 
participants in this study appeared to respond to their situation much as other stigmatized 
individuals do. 
I should emphasize that while the majority of women in this study expressed a 
degree of concern about stigmatization, most did so in the absence of any direct 
experience with prejudice or negative treatment. Of course, stigmatization can lead to a 
host of insidious, undesirable outcomes even if no formal discrimination occurs (Hebl et 
al., 2004; Link & Phelan, 2004). But in highlighting participants? concerns, I risk leaving 
the reader with the inaccurate impression that their experiences were overwhelmingly 
negative. In fact, I heard about a wide range of experiences, from very positive to very 
negative. Some women I interviewed had significant fears about encountering bias at 
work, others had none at all, while most fell somewhere in the middle of the spectrum. 
75
Usually participants said they did not believe they themselves actually would or had 
suffered any explicit discrimination, but at the same time, they suspected that pregnant 
workers in general were the subject of negative stereotypes or expectations. 
Consequently, prejudice was a possibility that they needed to guard against. In the 
interviews, their comments were at times conflicted and contradictory, as in this 
statement from a CPA, who tried to conceal her pregnancy from her managers because 
she worried she might be fired: 
Basically I don?t trust people in the workplace, I guess. That?s why I didn?t want 
to tell them?my fear of their hiring someone to replace me. I mean, I didn?t
really think they?d do that, but there was a chance they would. But I mean, they?re 
nice people. I expected them to treat me well.
Like this participant, interviewees tended to say they were treated well, or expected to be, 
while simultaneously alluding to anxieties about how people would react to their 
pregnancies. The actions they took to manage their work identities indicated they thought 
it best to take defensive action, as it were, against the possibility that they too could be 
stigmatized. 
The finding that participants varied in the degree to which they perceived a threat 
of stigmatization is consistent with research on individual differences in stigma 
consciousness. Pinel (1999) suggested that not everyone approaches their stigmatization 
?with the same mind-set? (p. 126). She found that people who are high on stigma 
consciousness are more likely to expect to be judged on the basis of their stigma and are 
also more likely to perceive or anticipate discrimination, compared to people who have 
low stigma consciousness. Pinel conceptualized her construct as an individual trait, and 
76
some of the variation I found among interviewees may in fact be due to their respective 
individual differences in stigma consciousness. At the same time, my findings also 
suggest that a number of situational or contextual factors may account for variations in 
women?s perceptions of and concern about stigmatization.
Future research should not only test the hypothesized relationships between these 
various job and work environment characteristics and perceived stigmatization, but 
should also examine further the extent to which individual-level traits might contribute to 
variations in perceived threat and any related coping behaviors. For pregnant workers, 
these individual characteristics might include stigma consciousness, but also differences 
such as conscientiousness and the salience and centrality of their work identities. 
Individuals high on conscientiousness, for instance, might be particularly likely to react 
to stereotype threat by keeping up their pace or going the extra mile at work in order to 
disprove others? negative expectations. Differences in the salience and centrality of a 
person?s work identity (or more generally in level of career commitment) might moderate 
the relationship between perception of threat and identity management effort. 
Alternatively, they might affect whether an individual perceives any threat of 
stigmatization at all, if threat is defined as level of concern about the  risk to one?s desired 
identity, not just fear of discrimination. (It is important to note, however, that I did not 
find any systematic differences in degree of identity management between women who 
knew they were going to quit or return part-time and those who knew they would remain 
full-time.) 
Another important avenue for future research is the consequences of 
stigmatization for pregnant women, other than their engaging in identity management. 
77
Although I did not have enough data to warrant including specific outcomes in the 
theorized model, the current study in combination with existing literature does suggest 
several possible short- and long-term consequences. For example, an immediate 
consequence of perceived stigmatization is likely to be anxiety and general psychological 
distress for the pregnant worker. These are commonly recognized consequences of 
stigmatization and stereotype threat in general (Blaine et al., 1995; Major & Gramzow, 
1999; Spencer et al., 1999), and as noted, both interviewees and bulletin board posters 
spoke of their worries about how people would react to their pregnancy. Fortunately, 
their fears were often assuaged after they received positive responses to their pregnancy 
from supervisors and coworkers. Nonetheless, such fears could be a source of 
considerable distress, even if only in the short-term. Furthermore, research into stereotype 
threat has found that individuals? anxiety over whether or not they are confirming others? 
negative expectations can ultimately impair their performance on ?stereotype-relevant 
tasks? (Steele & Aronson, 1995)?in effect, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. Might 
pregnant employees? worries actually interfere with their job performance? If, for 
example, they exhausted themselves trying to keep up a rigorous pace when sick, might 
they actually compromise their ability to perform?thus confirming the very stereotype 
they sought to disprove? Unfortunately, this study cannot answer this question, but it is 
an intriguing issue for future investigation. 
One might also expect high levels of work-related stress to be associated with 
adverse health outcomes for the pregnant woman or fetus. Existing research on the effects 
of employment on fetal or maternal health have yielded contradictory, inconclusive 
findings (Bramwell, 1997; Pattison & Gross, 1996), although there is evidence that 
78
pregnant women with lower status and physically demanding jobs?for instance, who 
have to stand for hours at a time or do heavy lifting?are at greater risk of hypertension, 
miscarriage, and preterm delivery (Romito, 1997). And as noted by Romito (1997), often 
?it is the women with the most tiring and worst-paid jobs who tend to benefit least from 
protective maternity legislation, and who are most penalized by the experience of 
motherhood.? Multiple bulletin board posters complained of the physical demands of 
their jobs (e.g., working night shifts, lifting patients, standing at sales jobs) and the 
reluctance of their supervisors to accommodate their limitations, and some alluded to 
health problems such as bleeding, severe back pain, and hypertension. Furthermore, a few 
interviewees wondered if they had pushed themselves too hard in their efforts to ?prove 
themselves? to supervisors and others. Of the participants who made ?extreme? efforts to 
manage their identities, one was put on bed rest for hypertension and another who had a 
high risk pregnancy did not follow her doctor?s orders to reduce her hours at work. 
However, the data in this study do not offer clear evidence of a relationship between 
perceived stigmatization or identity management and health outcomes. Additional 
research should continue to examine the effect of varying levels of work-related stress on 
the health of pregnant women and their birth outcomes. 
Pregnant employees? experiences with stigmatization could also have long-term 
consequences for their attitudes and decisions about work and career. As noted in the 
introduction, research suggests that women who worked in supportive, family-friendly 
organizations (e.g., who received longer, paid maternity leaves or had flexible schedules), 
and who had supportive supervisor and coworker relationships were less likely to quit,
switch jobs, or otherwise reevaluate their feelings towards their work and organizations 
79
(Borrill and Kidd, 1994; Bond, 1991; Glass & Riley, 1998; Lyness et al., 1999). I found 
that both supervisor support and family-friendly organizational climate appeared to 
predict the perceived threat of stigmatization, suggesting that perceptions of 
stigmatization might at least partially mediate the relationship between these work 
environment characteristics and individuals? organizational commitment and employment 
outcomes. Additional research is needed to clarify the long-term consequences of 
pregnant women?s various work experiences. 
Limitations
A limitation of the current study is that while the data presented here suggest 
intriguing relationships among several important phenomena, in some respects the 
theoretical model remains incomplete. I have already discussed two ways in which the 
model could benefit from further development: 1) to clarify the role of women?s stated 
motives or goals for identity management, and 2) to posit specific short- and long-term 
consequences of stigmatization and identity management for pregnant workers. Another 
area for refinement concerns the role of stress within the model. Currently, stress may to 
some extent be confounded with both perceived threat of stigmatization and identity 
management. In order to scale perceived threat, for example, I assessed the degree to 
which a person expressed anxiety about others' negative perceptions of pregnant workers 
or the possibility of being discriminated against. Given that participants expressed some 
amount of concern almost every time they mentioned negative perceptions/stereotypes or 
potential discrimination, it would have been practically impossible to separate the two?
in the interviews, they were inextricably linked. Stress of a different kind was included in 
the judgments of degree of identity management?not anxiety per se, but amount of 
80
physical effort (e.g., pushing beyond her limits) and/or psychological effort (e.g., 
monitoring her success) the participant exerted in trying to manage her identity. 
Quantitative data might allow one to separate statistically the three phenomena of 
perceived threat, identity management, and stress. For instance, in a survey one could ask 
participants to indicate whether or not they believed colleagues perceived them in a 
certain way and then ask other questions to assess their general levels of psychological 
distress. However, given the nature of the data at hand, it is much more difficult to 
disentangle them. Future research should explore the exact role of anxiety or stress in the 
model, including whether it serves as an outcome of both perceived stigmatization and
identity management or perhaps as a mediator between the two. 
Beyond the model?s need for further development, there are other methodological 
limitations to the present study. One concerns the generalizability of the findings, given 
that only three of the 35 interview participants (9%) were women of color. These three 
women?s experiences did not differ in any observable way from the other participants?; 
nonetheless, additional research is needed to investigate how the dynamics of racial and 
ethnic identity, as well as these women?s prior experiences with stigmatization and 
stereotype threat, might interact with their perceptions of being stigmatized as a pregnant 
worker. 
In addition, because I was only able to interview each participant once, I did not 
have longitudinal data chronicling their experiences over the nine months of pregnancy . 
When developing grounded theory, it is preferable to collect data from individuals on 
multiple occasions in order to investigate issues over time and to expand on emerging 
theoretical categories (Charmaz, 2000). This study thus risked failing to capture how 
81
certain processes evolved during the course of pregnancy. I tried to counter this limitation 
by ensuring that I spoke with women who were at various stages of their pregnancies, 
including some who had already given birth, and I structured the interviews so that 
women discussed their experiences as they unfolded over the nine months. Nevertheless, 
the accounts women gave were always to some extent retrospective and reflected their 
efforts to make sense, after the fact, of what had transpired during their pregnancies. This 
does not invalidate their accounts, of course, but simply suggests that some caution is 
warranted when reading and analyzing them. 
Another related limitation is that because I did not have the opportunity to 
develop a longer-term relationship with the women in this study, some may have felt 
reluctant to disclose important personal information in the interview. A benefit of 
repeated interviewing is that participants become more comfortable with the research 
process and as a result may be more forthcoming in talking about their experiences. One 
question this raises is to what extent women engaged in identity or impression 
management duri ng their interviews with me. As I have noted, most stated that their work 
identities remained unchanged by pregnancy. But if they were experiencing some 
change?perhaps reconsidering their attachment to a career?would they have felt safe 
enough in the interview to admit it? Or, were their concerns about confirming stereotypes 
so strong that they would not have dared admit to me anything that might appear to 
validate those stereotypes? I cannot know. While some interviewees were less 
forthcoming than others, most appeared enthusiastic about the topic and the interview, 
leading me to believe the majority enjoyed the process and felt comfortable with me.
82
Nonetheless, I undoubtedly would have learned more about some issues had I had the 
opportunity to discuss them with participants over an extended time.
83
Conclusion
In conclusion, this study represents an important contribution to our limited 
understanding of pregnant women?s experiences within the workplace. For the most part, 
the women who participated in this study rejected the notion that impending motherhood 
had or would alter their identities as committed and capable employees. They spoke 
passionately of the importance they continued to place on doing a good job, being 
dependable and ?professional?. Why should others assume they would necessarily be 
different? As an administrative assistant explained:
Pregnancy?bringing a life into the world?is a normal occurrence, and it does 
happen. You shouldn?t feel ashamed of it. You shouldn?t feel like you?re different 
or you?re going to lose your job over it or anything else. You shouldn?t feel 
awkward about going to your supervisor about it.
Unfortunately, the reality is that many pregnant workers continue to face prejudice and 
discrimination in the workplace, and the threat of this bias?whether real or only 
anticipated?may create a challenging environment for women. Faced with the 
possibility that supervisors and colleagues might judge them according to common 
stereotypes of pregnant employees (e.g., unreliable, overly emotional, uncommitted), 
women may feel compelled to ?prove themselves? on the job as they struggle to preserve 
valued work identities. In this study, participants concealed their conditions for as long as 
possible, worked hard even when feeling sick, avoided asking for any special assistance, 
and otherwise found creative ways to ensure that pregnancy would not alter people?s 
perceptions of them. 
84
Perhaps it should not come as a surprise that pregnant workers would confront 
such challenges. When employees become pregnant, they unwittingly contradict deeply 
held cultural beliefs about the gendered divisions between work and family. Since the 
industrial revolution, work has been considered a fundamentally masculine, public 
domain, while women have been expected to preside over the private sphere of family 
and household (Martin, 1992). Today, women represent almost half of all workers (Kraut 
& Korman, 1999; Robinson & Godbey, 1997), and yet ?when an employee becomes 
visibly pregnant, it becomes impossible to ignore her gender? (Martin, 1992, p. 175).
Reproduction is undeniably a private phenomenon?involving as it does intimacy, sex, 
and of course babies?and so when it emerges in the middle of the workplace, in the 
burgeoning form of a pregnant woman, it may present a stark challenge to those long-
standing assumptions about what belongs in the public sphere. As such, researchers may 
find that the phenomenon of pregnancy at work offers a unique opportunity to investigate 
and expose powerful but implicit societal and organizational norms, values, and 
assumptions about work and family.
In addition, although most male and female employees have family or non-work
responsibilities that occasionally infringe on the work domain, when a woman becomes 
pregnant for the first time, her new status inevitably raises questions about how she will 
choose to integrate work and motherhood. Will she quit? Will she want to go part-time? 
Can we depend on her? This study contributes to a growing body of research suggesting 
that too many people will fail to give a pregnant woman the benefit of the doubt, instead 
assuming that her work attitudes and behavior will fundamentally change. Some women I 
interviewed did allude (sometimes with a degree of discomfort) to a shifting of priorities, 
85
to a recognition that being responsible for a new life inevitably means work may at times 
assume less importance. Maybe they would temporarily stop seeking the next promotion. 
Maybe they had simply achieved a new perspective on issues at work?a new awareness 
that the daily hassles and personality conflicts that once assumed crisis stature were not 
so important after all. Yet these same women would often state, quite definitely, that their 
view of themselves at work was unchanged by pregnancy. They were the same. As I have 
mentioned, it is impossible to know the extent to which participants felt comfortable and 
safe enough in their interviews to be honest about their real feelings and intentions. 
Nevertheless, it is undoubtedly true that for most, their work identities remained an 
important part of who they were. Even women who said they would return to work part-
time noted that it remained important to them to be as competent and professional as 
always. For these participants, their shifting priorities may simply have reflected efforts 
to ?weave? work and motherhood (Garey, 1999) in a way that might allow them to 
preserve their desired identities as workers as they created new identities as mothers. 
At a practical level, perhaps the key question for employers and organizations 
should not be whether women?s priorities will shift during and after pregnancy, but how 
best to respond to what are inevitable changes in so many women?s lives. Employers 
have substantial economic interests in ensuring that women feel they can continue in their 
jobs during and after pregnancy, should they wish to do so. When organizations lose 
workers due to pregnancy and childbirth, they bear the costs of recruiting, selecting, and 
training replacements, as well as the substantial ?hidden costs? of lost productivity and 
efficiency (Fried, 2000; Schwartz, 1989). Unfortunately, this study and other research on 
the work experiences of pregnant women (e.g., Borrill & Kidd, 1994) suggests that even 
86
when a woman wants to continue working, she may be confronted with doubts about her 
abilities and commitment, as well as inhospitable and unsupportive policies and 
supervisors. Although we are not yet certain of the long-term effects of such experiences, 
it is reasonable to hypothesize that they would increase the likelihood that women would 
begin to distance themselves from work and career. Perhaps when employers finally 
recognize and accept the fundamental fact that most women will have children, and most 
women will want to work, then they will institute policies and practices that more 
effectively help employees and managers alike negotiate this rocky terrain?to 
everyone?s benefit. 
87
Endnotes
1 
In fact, Strauss and Corbin (1998) argue that in grounded theory studies, one does 
not sample people per se, but incidents and events that are relevant to the theory. People 
may, or may not, be the primary source of data on those incidents and events.
2
The two preliminary interviews were with women who each had two older 
children and had worked during both pregnancies. One Phase Two participant, a 
psychology fellow in a hospital, did not work full-time, but she offered an interesting 
perspective as a new, temporary, relatively-low status employee. Another was pregnant 
with her second child, but had started a new job right after discovering she was pregnant. 
In the interview, we focused on her experiences as a new employee who was pregnant.
88
Appendix A
Final Interview Guide
I am a doctoral candidate in Industrial/Organizational Psychology. Organizational 
psychologists study people at work and work organizations to learn about what makes 
people happy and productive in their jobs, as well as how work affects their personal 
lives. We know virtually nothing about the experiences of pregnant women in the 
workplace. This study begins to fill that gap by exploring how pregnancy affects 
women?s relationships on the job, the way others view her, and the way she views herself 
at work. I don?t have specific hypotheses or things I?m trying to prove. The study is 
exploratory, so what I?m most interested in is whatever is most important and interesting 
to you.
1. Basic questions about pregnancy
 How many weeks pregnant are you? 
 How has your pregnancy been so far? 
2. Basic questions about job 
 Tell me about your job. What kind of work do you do?
 What is your company like?
 How long have you been in your job? With your company?
 How many people do you work with? Are they mostly men, mostly women, or a 
mix? 
 Whom do you report to? 
 Do you supervise anyone? 
 What is your educational background?
3. Early pregnancy
Now we?re going to talk about what it has been like to be pregnant at work. We?ll first 
talk about the early months and then continue through the later trimesters. At the end, I?ll 
ask you some questions about a few issues that may have come up at various times 
throughout the pregnancy.
89
 Think back to the first trimester of your pregnancy, those first weeks and months 
of the pregnancy. Describe for me what it was like to be pregnant at work during 
this time. 
- How did your pregnancy affect your day-to-day life at work?
 Did you conceal the pregnancy at all from people at work? 
- If so, what steps did you take to conceal it? 
- How did you feel about concealing the pregnancy?
 When did you tell people about the pregnancy? How did you tell them?
 How did people react to learning you were pregnant? 
- Supervisor?
- Coworkers?
- Clients?
4. Later pregnancy 
 Now tell me about the second (and third) trimester(s) of your pregnancy, when 
you started to look more visibly pregnant. Describe for me what it has been like to 
be pregnant at work during this time. 
- How has your pregnancy affected your day-to-day life at work? 
 How have you been feeling about work? 
 How has your pregnancy affected your relationships with people at work, if at all?
- Supervisor?
- Coworkers?
- Clients?
 How have you felt about others? responses to or interest in your condition?
 Has being pregnant changed the kind of employee you are? 
- Has it changed how you view yourself at work? Explain.
90
 Do you think your pregnancy has affected how others at work view you? Explain.
 How would you like others to view you?
 What, if anything, have you done to ensure they view you in the way you would 
like? 
- Have you altered your behavior at work in any way since becoming pregnant? 
If yes, how so? 
- Tell me a little more about your decision to . . . . What led to your decision to . 
. .? 
- Do you think your efforts were a success? How did others respond to your 
efforts?
 Describe what you have done, if anything, to arrange for your maternity leave and 
return to work, if you are planning to return. 
- How did you learn about your benefits? Was the information clear and easily 
available? 
- Tell me about your discussions with your supervisor.
- How do you feel about your plans for after the baby is born? 
5. Conclusion
 If you were pregnant at work again, are there things you would do differently? If 
so, what? 
 Is there anything else that you believe is important or interesting that we haven?t 
covered that you would like to share?
6. Demographic Information
Age, Number of weeks pregnant or age of child, Race/ethnicity, Education
91
Appendix B
Coding Instructions for Stage Two of Data Analysis
1) Read all category definitions and examples very carefully (at least twice) before 
beginning.
2) Keep your list of categories and category definitions at hand while coding.
3) Read each quote/passage carefully, line by line.
4) Code the quotes by assigning them to those categories which have the best fit. "Best 
fit" is defined as the most explicit, direct match between the passage and category 
definition. Do not try to infer too much from the quotes.  
5) A category may apply even if only part of the quote is directly related to it. 
6) Try to use no more than 3 categories. If you feel a particular quote must be assigned to 
more than 3 categories, do so, but highlight the quote in some way (e.g., circling, 
starring) so we can discuss it together after the coding is completed.
92
Appendix C
Codes and Their Definitions
Category/Code Definition Examples
DESCRIBING HER 
PREGNANCY
Not Showing References to occasions or 
periods during the 
pregnancy when other 
people could not or did 
not detect the pregnancy 
(i.e., growing stomach not 
visible) 
?I didn?t show for a long time, so 
that made it very easy at work!?
I: ?Do you think anybody noticed 
before you made it officially 
known that you were pregnant??
R: ?No, and interestingly enough?
cause I felt so huge, and I couldn?t 
wear any of my clothes. . . I guess I 
have a large enough frame . . . and 
I was carrying low. So everyone 
that I finally did tell, they were 
like, ?Wow! I didn?t know!? . . .?
Experiencing Physical 
Symptoms 
Descriptions of 
experiencing symptoms of 
pregnancy, ranging from 
mild to pronounced (e.g., 
nausea,  fatigue, back 
pain, varicose veins, 
dizziness).  
?I just remember being very tired, 
not wanting to get up in the 
morning. And the nausea in the 
beginning just made it ten times 
worse. And actually towards the 
end, I found it hard to get around. I 
had to move my office 
downstairs.?
?Towards the end, towards the last 
month, I had really sharp pains in 
my side . . . I was bedridden for a 
few days. It hurt so badly. They 
said it was the position of the baby, 
pushing up against one side, 
stretching the tendons. The last 
month I called in sick a lot.?
High-Risk Pregnancy Descriptions of high risk 
factors. Must be true 
medical risks to the 
baby?s or mother?s health 
(e.g., diabetes, placenta 
previa). 
?I was pregnant last year and my 
baby was born at 28 weeks and he 
died after he was born because he 
had an infection . . . I go to the 
doctor every week. There are a lot 
of ultrasounds and that sort of 
thing.?
Requesting Descriptions of any ?My doctor said I should cut down 
93
Accommodations special accommodations  
or significant adjustments 
requested by respondent 
of her supervisor and/or 
organization, such as 
reduced hours, 
rearrangement of office, 
etc. (NOTE: Very minor 
adjustments such as 
asking for help with 
lifting a heavy box should 
be coded under ?Taking 
Care of Herself.? )
to three days but I felt fine so I cut 
down to four to compromise. At 
first, that was difficult, but now it?s 
a routine. We have a schedule. I 
send her a calendar, and she?s 
getting more comfortable with that 
idea. You?re going from full time 
to not being there everyday.?
??I told them I wanted to move 
downstairs, so I moved down there. 
It was too much to walk up and 
down the stairs to go to the 
bathroom every fifteen minutes. 
Rejecting 
Accommodations 
References to decisions 
not to ask for certain 
accommodations or 
refusals to accept offered 
help. Also can include 
descriptions of negative 
feelings about having to 
ask for accommodations, 
such as ambivalence, 
guilt, or shame.
?Going downstairs, if one of the 
supervisors needed something 
brought over to his desk or 
something, [he?d say] ?Oh, you 
don?t have to do it. I know the 
stairs are real difficult to climb and 
go up and down?, but I?d say, ?No, 
no, no. I?ll do it.? I didn?t want 
them to think I couldn?t do it. I 
didn?t want them to feel poorly of 
me. I guess that?s pretty bad.?
Taking Care of 
Herself
Descriptions of small 
adjustments the 
participant made in her 
work life in order to take 
care of the baby?s and her 
own health and well-
being. Examples include 
resting enough, eating 
well, taking a walk to 
stretch her legs.
?In this job you stand on your feet, 
but there were some jobs I needed 
to sit down to do. Anything I could 
sit down to do I would. It may have 
taken me a little bit longer, but 
over the past seven years I?ve been 
probably the best and most 
efficient worker he?s had. I don?t 
mean to brag. So, I said I deserved 
a break. I deserved the time and I 
was going to take it.?
?I took breaks more often. Before I 
was pregnant, I?d work all day and 
skip lunch. [When I was pregnant], 
I?d eat all day long!?
Fears and Anxieties Descriptions of worries, 
fears, concerns, as well as 
how participant coped 
with them. She may use 
actual words like 
?I was more afraid of telling people 
than excited to tell people because 
I?d only been there for a year. I 
didn?t know if that was going to 
cramp anybody?s style or anything 
94
?worrying?, ?nervous?, 
?scared?, etc., but might 
also describe concerns 
without applying such 
labels. Can cover wide 
range of fears or anxieties, 
from miscarriage to taking 
maternity leave to 
consequences of revealing 
pregnancy.
like that.? 
?You know, I didn?t want to tell 
them. You know, at a small firm, 
you think about if you?re pregnant, 
you don?t want to be let go. That?s 
why I didn?t want to tell them.? 
(NOTE: In this quote, the implied 
fear is that she?ll be let go if they 
know she?s pregnant.}
?Well, I was worried, I mean, the 
normal stuff. I just didn?t want to 
tell people; if something was to 
happen in the beginning of the 
pregnancy then I would have to go 
back and explain that something 
had happened, and I wasn?t even 
showing yet. We didn?t even tell 
my family until the end of the first 
trimester.?
?You know, my husband and I 
talked about it quite a few times, 
and I basically came to the 
conclusion that it is whatever it is, 
and the fact is, I am pregnant and if 
she?s not happy with that, then too 
bad. And if it makes a hostile work 
environment, then maybe I?ll leave 
. . . So at a certain point, I just let 
go of those anxieties, and kind of 
?let the chips fall where they 
may?.?
CONCEALMENT 
AND DISCLOSURE
Revealing the 
Pregnancy
Descriptions of how and 
when the participant 
shared news of her 
pregnancy with other 
people?friends, family, 
coworkers, supervisors. 
Also includes her feelings 
about telling the news: 
excited, nervous, etc.
?I told my manager first and I was 
very, very nervous to tell him. But 
he was very excited. He didn?t hug 
me, but later on he said, ?I wanted 
to come around the table and hug 
you.? So I was very excited. And 
after I told him, then I shared it 
with my other coworkers.?
?I think [I told her] at about three 
95
months, right before I had 
anticipated telling her. I wasn?t 
showing yet, and that was the plan, 
to wait until I was showing to tell 
her. I don?t know why I [went 
ahead and told her.] I think the 
anxiety was just too much. I was 
just like ?get it over with?.?
Concealing Intentions 
to Have Children
References to felt need or 
efforts to conceal plans to 
have children someday 
(from supervisors, 
coworkers, etc.)
?I also was quiet about [the 
possibility of having kids.] My 
thought was I would progress in 
the company. I guess I thought if I 
said I wanted kids, it might hold 
me back a little. It never did, but I 
thought, it?s nobody?s business. 
Maybe it?ll never happen, and I 
don?t want to have to put that out 
on the line and have people ask me 
about it.?
Passing?No Attempt Descriptions of decision 
to be forthcoming about 
the pregnancy, not to keep 
it a secret, even in the first 
trimester. Can include 
descriptions of rationales 
behind such decisions.
?Well, everyone knew. I took a 
pregnancy test like on a Tuesday 
night. I told everyone Wednesday 
morning!?
?I kind of thought I wanted to keep 
it secret because of a miscarriage 
or whatever, but if I had a 
miscarriage, they?d know anyway. 
So I think it?d be harder for them if 
all of a sudden I had a miscarriage, 
to go through it with me. Because 
if something does happen, people 
who are close to you are going to 
know.?
Passing Any references to keeping 
the pregnancy secret, 
whether for a month, three 
months, or into later 
trimesters. Also includes 
descriptions of how and 
why she ?passed?, 
whether or not she was 
successful, and her 
feelings about trying to 
conceal the pregnancy. 
?And the people at work, I waited a 
couple of months. I wanted to 
make sure everything was a go, and 
I wanted to figure out my plans in 
terms of taking time and what I 
wanted to do in terms of going 
back full-time or part-time.?
?I guess I was very excited, and it?s 
hard when you?re pregnant and you 
think ?I?m pregnant! And everyone 
should be able to look at me and 
96
tell!? But obviously they can?t. And 
I kept from telling them.?
?I don?t know if they could tell I 
was pregnant. I had a meeting with 
[a man] about half way through my 
pregnancy and I just never said 
anything.? 
?I didn?t meet with [vendors]. I 
didn?t have to travel to Atlanta 
after the end of October, so I didn?t 
have to meet with people. There 
were some people who wanted to 
meet with me [here], but unless I 
absolutely had to meet with them, I 
really wouldn?t . . . I?d talk to them 
on the phone.?
?Actually, they knew before I told 
them, the girls in the office. 
Probably my eating habits changed, 
that?s what cued them in, you 
know, because I was nauseous . . . I 
think they saw me run to the 
bathroom!?
Concealing Post-
Pregnancy Plans 
References to 
participant?s concealing 
from coworkers, 
supervisors, clients her 
plans for after the 
pregnancy (e.g., length of 
her leave, whether she 
will return or quit, etc.) as 
well as why she decided 
to do so. May include 
efforts to delay or 
postpone a discussion of 
the topic.
?I guess I didn?t know what his 
reaction would be. And I already 
knew in the back of mind that I 
wasn?t going back to work after 
she was born, and I didn?t know if 
he was going to be able to tell that I 
knew that I wasn?t going to come 
back. And I was really nervous 
about how he was going to handle 
that. . . At that point he didn?t 
know what my intentions were, and 
he said we?ll work it out in 
December or January or whenever 
she?s born.?
?So I?d say no, I mean I knew I 
wasn?t coming back, but the people 
I dealt with outside the company, 
some of our vendors, I didn?t want 
97
to share that with because I needed 
to get some things wrapped up for 
my manager.?
?I was just concerned about their 
actions. Not that they would have 
done anything spiteful. Just, ?Why 
would I lower your rates?? I guess 
I was dishonest, not dishonest, but 
I mean to get them to lower their 
rates by promising to give them 
more business. They?re not going 
to lower their rates if they know 
I?m not going to be there, because I 
was the person that was working 
with the division, allocating the 
funds.?
MATERNITY 
LEAVE AND POST-
PREGNANCY 
PLANS
Interpreting Maternity 
Policies
References to women?s 
efforts to interpret 
maternity policies, 
whether for leave, reduced 
hours, or other 
accommodations. Includes 
descriptions of feelings 
about confusing policies 
or lack of readily 
available information. 
Also includes descriptions 
of more routine, 
successful research 
efforts. 
?I called the HR department to try 
to find out at least the basics of it?
what I was entitled to, how it 
would work with my vacation time 
and sick time and disability. I 
actually already had it all pretty 
much planned out . . .?
?The other thing I found peculiar 
about my work situation was when 
I did call benefits and pay roll and I 
talked to the woman in the office 
about paid leave, people were very 
clueless, as if no one had ever 
taken maternity leave. There is no 
one university policy on what a 
person would do.? 
I: ?How did that make you feel that 
you had to figure [the policies] out 
on your own? What difference 
would it have made to you if it 
were clearer?? 
R: ?I guess I would have felt that it 
98
was normal?pregnancy, bringing 
a life into the world is a normal 
occurrence, and it does happen. 
You shouldn?t feel ashamed of it, 
you shouldn?t feel like you?re 
different or you?re going to lose 
your job over it or anything else. 
You shouldn?t feel awkward about 
going to your supervisor about it. If 
that had been spelled out a little bit 
more, it would have made things 
just slightly easier. You know??
Negotiating Maternity 
Leave
Descriptions of 
discussions with 
supervisors about 
maternity leaves, 
strategies used, 
agreements constructed.
?Well, when I told my supervisor 
about my leave, I also told him I 
wanted to go part-time. I was 
nervous about it, but I had to tell 
him and ask him. Might as well get 
it over with. . . .He kind of used his 
wife as an example of how it?s very 
beneficial for somebody to be at 
home, at least part time, part of the 
day, with the children. . . He said 
just take the time, and let me know 
what the days are, the months.?
?Everyone knew I was going to do 
the full family leave, the Family 
and Medical Leave Act. Early on, 
when I was probably four or five 
months, Keith laid out a plan for 
how we were going to transition 
things, how things were going to be 
reallocated in the group . . . and 
how we were going to divvy up 
other things so there?d be a 
balance.?
Maternity Leave 
Length
References to intended or 
actual length of leave.
End Game Descriptions of how 
participant handled (is 
handling/plans to handle) 
last few weeks and 
months of work before 
delivery. May include 
?Because I was leaving . . . I 
wasn?t going to risk my child?s 
health or my health to go in a few 
more days to get a little bit farther 
on several jobs. You know, I really 
didn?t care at that point. I?m sure 
99
descriptions of attitudes 
towards work as well as 
steps taken to prepare 
leave.
my feelings would have been 
different had I needed to go back 
full-time after.?
?But I definitely could get away 
with a few things and my attitude 
was probably more relaxed because 
I knew I wasn?t coming back.?
Post-Pregnancy Plans References to 
participant?s decisions or 
thoughts about what she 
will do after the baby is 
born (e.g., return full time, 
part-time, quit). Includes 
also descriptions of 
conversations with 
supervisor or others about 
those plans (e.g., when 
she announced her 
intentions, supervisor?s 
response). [NOTE: Code 
intended or actual length 
of maternity leave as 
?Maternity Leave 
Length?. See above.]
?Oh, I was 99.9% sure I wasn?t 
coming back. When we moved up 
here, we bought the house we 
bought to set ourselves up 
financially so that . . . we would 
have the option of my not 
working.?
?My husband and I talk about it 
now. I may come back part time. I 
may come back full time. I can?t 
imagine not coming back, but I?m 
not eliminating it. I think it?s 
dangerous to say never, because 
you just never know.?
?[My boss] said I don?t expect an 
answer now, just in a few months, 
let me know what you plan on
doing. Probably three months 
before I left, I told them what my 
plans were. I told them I?d work 
ten hours there, maybe more 
home.?
ORGANIZATIONAL, 
WORK GROUP, 
AND JOB CHARS. 
Accommodating 
Workplace 
References to 
organizational or work 
group policies, practices 
and procedures that are 
accommodating and 
supportive of pregnant 
employees? needs. These 
may be general policies, 
practices or procedures 
that apply to all 
employees or special 
?For me, it was a really 
comfortable workplace. . . I could 
snack all day, have my snacks in 
the fridge, and I?d eat all day long. 
And I could go the bathroom 
whenever I needed to. I could go 
outside for walks. My job was 
pretty flexible anyway. Well, [my 
boss] was flexible. As long as you 
got your work done, then that?s all 
you needed to do. So it was pretty 
100
accommodations for 
pregnant women or new 
parents.
flexible.?
Unaccommodating 
Workplace
References to 
organizational or work 
group policies, practices 
and procedures that create 
difficulties or obstacles 
for pregnant women. 
Job Status?High Participant has a job with 
considerable status, such 
as a professional or 
managerial position 
requiring extensive 
education and/or 
experience.
Job Status?Low Participant has job with 
little power or status. May 
be a traditionally female 
position, something 
requiring little formal 
education, low earning, 
etc.
Male Dominated 
Organization
Majority males in 
company or department.
?I went to our office and said, 
?Could you summarize the leave 
that I have available? . . . Because I 
want to take it for maternity leave.? 
And I said, ?What do people 
normally do?? And she said there 
were only two other people she 
could think of, and they were both 
students?graduate students. . . So 
as far as she knew there were no 
faculty members. And this is 2002! 
I mean, I know this is happening, 
because you see it on the news, you 
read it in the magazines! But 
apparently not at the university 
level. I mean there aren?t that many 
women to be honest. They?re 
mostly men [in my department].?
Female Dominated 
Organization
Majority females in 
company or department.
DIMENSIONS OF 
JOB SATISFACTION
Work Satisfaction References to ?I guess the hardest thing for me is 
101
participant?s satisfaction 
or dissatisfaction with her 
work. (E.g., finding it 
challenging, satisfying, 
interesting or. dull, 
difficult, meaningless.) 
General comments about 
?loving? or ?hating? job 
can also be coded in this 
category.
I?m not passionate about [what my 
company builds.] It didn?t really 
interest me. So I wasn?t really 
interested in what I did so I think 
that was the problem.?
Supervisor 
Relationship
Descriptions of 
participant?s relationship 
with her supervisor. Can 
include references to  
positive, happy 
relationships or negative, 
unhappy relationships. 
May also include general 
evaluations of the 
supervisor (e.g., ?I think 
[my boss] is particularly 
hard to work for.?
(NOTE: Descriptions of 
the supervisor?s specific 
treatment of the 
participant during the 
pregnancy should be 
coded under ?Supervisor 
Reactions to Pregnancy? 
or ?Supervisor 
Perceptions?)
I: ?So how did you feel after your 
conversation with him??
R: ?I felt really good and relieved, 
that I didn?t have to ask him or 
worry about asking him. But also I 
felt, I guess, cared for. Like I said, 
he?s a very good boss, very 
understanding.?
?She had no clue what we did, and 
she?d make decisions about our 
group. She wasn?t really involved 
and didn?t know what we did. It 
made it harder.?
?I think [my boss] is particularly 
hard to work for. It?s just little 
things, like we have all these extra 
offices, but he puts the accountants 
in cubicles. And even when they 
hired someone who had ten years 
experience, they put the guys in a 
cube. And there?s all these 
offices!?
Coworker 
Relationships
Descriptions of 
participant?s relationship 
with her coworkers. 
(NOTE: Descriptions of 
coworkers?  specific 
treatment of the 
participant during the 
pregnancy should be 
coded under ?Coworker 
Reactions to Pregnancy? 
or ?Coworker 
?We?re very good friends. We?re 
all the best of friends.?
?The people are very good in my 
group. They?re very generous and 
kind and understanding.?
She said she wanted her 
relationship with them to be 
business-related, professional. She 
wasn?t that close to them before 
102
Perceptions?) being pregnant. She felt if they 
knew she was pregnant, they might 
start relating to her in a more 
personal way [and she didn?t want 
that].
OTHERS? 
RESPONSES TO 
PREGNANCY
Supervisor?s Reaction 
to Pregnancy
Descriptions of how the 
participant?s supervisor 
responded to news of the 
pregnancy and to the 
pregnancy in general (e.g., 
Was he or she happy? 
Critical? Worried?). 
Includes descriptions of 
ways in which supervisor 
was supportive or 
unsupportive of the 
pregnant employee.
?I told my manager first and I was 
very, very nervous to tell him. But 
he was very excited. He didn?t hug 
me, but later on he said, ?I wanted 
to come around the table and hug 
you!? So I was very excited.?
?He called me into his office, and 
he told me that he was happy for 
me and he wanted to make it work 
and he was hoping that I would 
continue working after the 
pregnancy. He?s a very nice 
person.?
Supervisor?s Reaction 
to Post-Pregnancy 
Plans
Descriptions of how the 
supervisor responded to 
participant?s post-
pregnancy plans (e.g., 
desired length of leave, 
returning part-time). 
?Very, very surprised. I talked to 
him on the phone and he was just 
completely, he just didn?t say 
anything for a few minutes. And he 
said, ?I?m very, very surprised.? 
Coworkers? Reactions 
to Pregnancy
Descriptions of how 
coworkers responded to 
news of the pregnancy 
and to the pregnancy in 
general (E.g., were they 
happy? Critical? 
Worried?).
?They were very excited for me. 
They all have children except for 
one of them who would like to be a 
mom, so they were very 
welcoming.? 
?They were very happy for us, for 
my husband and I, for me. They 
asked lots of questions, you know, 
how was I feeling, how many do 
we want after this one, you know. 
People were a little concerned 
about how I was going to go up 
and down the stairs and take care 
of things, carry things up and down 
the stairs. The stairs were a big 
thing. . . A lot of the men were 
103
very . . . you know, ?I can carry 
anything you want!? And opening 
doors for me. Very mice.?
Coworkers? Reactions 
to Post-Pregnancy 
Plans
Descriptions of how 
coworkers responded to 
participant?s post-
pregnancy plans (e.g., 
desired length of leave, 
returning part-time). 
?I work with a lot of men, so I 
think they were surprised [that I 
wasn?t coming back.] . . . They 
were very, very surprised. They 
were supportive. They said they 
had wives who stayed at home and 
it allowed their families some 
flexibility. So I think people were 
pretty supportive. I didn?t get any 
negative feedback.?
Subordinates? 
Reactions to 
Pregnancy
Descriptions of how the 
participant?s subordinates
(if she had any) responded 
to her pregnancy.
Subordinates? 
Reactions to Post-
Pregnancy Plans
Descriptions of how the 
participant?s subordinates 
(if she had any) responded 
to her post-pregnancy 
plans (e.g., desired length 
of leave, returning part-
time).
Customer/Client 
Reactions to 
Pregnancy
Descriptions of how 
customers or clients 
responded to news of the 
participant?s pregnancy.
?Well, there came a time when you 
could definitely tell I was pregnant. 
Then it was all positive. 
[Customers] would tell stories 
about their daughter, or 
themselves.?
Supervisor?s 
Perceptions
Descriptions of how 
supervisor?s perceptions 
or view of the participant 
as an employee changed 
or did not change as a 
result of her pregnancy.
?My boss, however, probably 
thinks?and she?s made a couple of 
comments about it?that priorities 
have changed and will change, and 
the role of my career will change 
with that. I think it?s mainly a time 
issue than a quality issue.?
?She realized that our career paths 
were not the same thing that she
thought it was. I just wasn?t going 
to be able to give as much of 
myself to the company, to the 
position, as she did. I think that 
made a big difference. And the way 
that she viewed me was one of 
104
those, ?You don?t know how 
you?re going to feel once you have 
the baby? type of things. Or, ?Well, 
you?re pregnant, so we?ll have to 
see what happens.??
Coworkers? 
Perceptions
Descriptions of how 
coworkers? perceptions or 
views of the participant as 
an employee changed or 
did not change as a result 
of her pregnancy.
Subordinates? 
Perceptions
Descriptions of how 
subordinates? perceptions 
or views of the participant 
as an employee/supervisor 
changed or did not change 
as a result of her 
pregnancy.
Public Nature of 
Pregnancy
Descriptions of times 
when or ways in which 
the pregnancy was a very 
public phenomenon. For 
example, accounts of how 
the pregnancy invites 
personal questions, 
comments, and stories 
from others, including 
strangers; references to 
feeling like the pregnancy 
is a public event. Includes 
also descriptions of how 
participant felt about the 
public nature of her 
pregnancy. 
?People talk about it to me. People 
are constantly . . . it?s really 
interesting because women will 
forever tell you advice or 
experiences about being pregnant 
or having a baby before anything 
else, which I find fascinating in and 
of itself, because I mean people 
you hardly even know tell you the 
most intimate details of their life. 
And I find that somewhere 
peculiar, but I?ve encountered it so 
often.?
?She would ask me, ?So how?s 
your appointment? How was the 
appointment?? each week. And I 
mean I understand, and it?s nice, 
because it?s consideration, but still 
it?s pressure for me because 
everyone has expectations?even 
with a normal pregnancy?of 
women, I think. Everyone wants to 
know, ?Is it a boy? Is it a girl? 
When are you due? What are you 
going to do after it?s born??? 
105
?I?m a little different than most 
people. [I believe that] people are 
generally concerned. They?re not 
trying to get something out of it. 
When they ask if you?re feeling 
OK, they honestly want to see. And 
I respect that of them.?
?Well, it?s kind of hard to tell your 
supervisor that you?re pregnant. 
It?s a strange thing to do. It?s easier 
to tell your family members, but to 
go up to somebody you work with, 
especially when it?s a man, and tell 
him, ?I?m pregnant,? and to have 
the idea that he knows how it 
happened, he knows my husband, 
and it?s just a little awkward.?
Privacy Specific references to 
privacy or lack of it. 
Includes descriptions of 
the participant?s feelings 
about or attitudes toward 
keeping things private?
e.g., ?I?m not a very 
private person. I can?t 
keep anything secret!? 
Look for actual use of 
words such as ?secrecy?, 
?privacy?, ?openness?, 
etc.
?I mean I just view it as kind of, I 
mean it?s very private. I feel that 
it?s a very private thing. But yet it?s 
very public. Very visually 
showing. I just feel that you have a 
certain responsibility to people that 
you work with, like the other 
women in the office and the girl I 
work with in the lab. And to me 
that?s just more energy and time 
that I need to spend. I mean some 
of it is enjoyable, to a point it is, 
but I almost prefer not to get into 
the details of everything. And that 
might be because of the details of 
everything I?ve been through 
[losing my first baby], and I?d 
rather it just be done without 
talking about it.? 
WORK IDENTITY
Work Identity Descriptions of how 
participant views herself 
as an employee, at work. 
Also includes descriptions 
of how she wants others to 
view her. 
?I guess on a daily basis I don?t 
want to let anyone down. Whether 
it?s an important job or not, a job?s 
a job, and you try to do good no 
matter what you?re doing.? 
106
?Basically, I know I?m a good 
accountant, because I?ve seen what 
other people do, and it?s scary how 
many mistakes people make . . . 
They don?t do the research. But 
I?m anal about that. If I don?t know 
something I?ll go look it up and 
read about it, where other people 
don?t do that. They just let garbage 
go out the door.?
Changing Work 
Identity
Descriptions of how 
participant?s view of 
herself as an employee is 
changing/has changed as a 
result of her pregnancy. 
?I guess I kind of felt good about 
myself with the fact that I could 
still work and I was pregnant. I 
know there are some women who 
have a hard time doing that, 
working and being pregnant and 
feeling sick and tired. . . I guess I 
felt pretty good about myself that I 
was strong enough to do both, be 
very pregnant and get up and work 
a 8-hour day, or maybe even a 9 or 
10 hour day or go in on a 
Saturday.?
[I: Did your view of yourself as an 
employee change at all as a result 
of your pregnancy?]
?R: I guess I would hope it didn?t, 
and that I would still view myself 
as a dedicated employee to my 
work. However, I think the 
emotional considerations inevitably 
subtract from that dedication . . . I 
would guess that it would have to 
change, that the priority is no 
longer the project that I was 
working on, that I am working on. 
It is staying healthy and going to 
my doctor?s appointments and 
things like that.?
Work Identity 
Unchanged
References to a 
participant?s view of 
herself as an employee 
remaining unchanged, 
unaltered by her 
I: ?Would you say your view of 
yourself at work changed in any 
way during the second and third 
trimesters??
R: ?I Don?t think so. .  . It only 
107
pregnancy. enhanced the person that I was and 
the work that I was doing.?
I: ?So you don?t feel that your core 
identity or sense of yourself as an 
artist or framer changed at all.?
R: ?Not at all.?
?My character didn?t change. I 
didn?t become?wimpy or 
anything, you know what I mean? 
Some women, the day they find out 
they?re pregnant, they get a parking 
spot for the handicapped! There?s 
this special spot if you need to park 
close for whatever reason. And we 
always joke that it?s the ?pregnancy 
spot?. You could see who was 
there! These women get the spot 
because they don?t want to walk 
that far.?
Identity Management References to the 
participant?s feeling like 
she either does or does not 
have to manage her image 
or identity at work. 
In the latter case, 
participant may describe 
her choice to ?just be 
herself? at work or refer to 
feelings that she ?doesn?t 
have anything to prove to 
anyone?. 
In the former case, 
participant may offer 
descriptions of when, 
how, and why she has 
attempted to maintain a 
desired identity. Can 
include efforts to convince 
themselves that they 
possess a desired identity 
as well as attempts to 
influence ways in which 
other people viewed them 
?I guess I?ve tried not to make my 
pregnancy an issue. In other words, 
if I?m asked to go down to 
receiving to get something, I won?t 
be like, ?Oh, you know. . .? when 
really I?m thinking, I?m tired and I 
don?t feel like going down four 
flights of stairs. . . I won?t do that. I 
will go. I will do whatever within 
reason needs doing. I try to sit 
down a lot, especially because of 
the circlage, the doctor says always 
try to sit down and I do that. But if 
I?m standing in somebody?s office, 
I don?t make a big deal that I?m 
standing, even though I?m 
thinking, ?I?ve been standing here 
ten minutes. I shouldn?t be 
standing.? But I never wanted 
anyone to think I was odd or not, 
you know, fulfilling their 
expectations. I try not to draw 
attention to it. I don?t wear crazy 
clothes. You know some clothes 
really exaggerate being pregnant. I 
don?t do that.?
108
during their pregnancies. 
?Maybe I pushed myself a little too 
hard sometimes as far as trying to 
get things done for them. I didn?t 
want them to think I couldn?t do 
the job because of this thing 
happening in my life.?
?[Because of complications in the
last trimester,] I was not someone 
that people could count on. I felt 
not good about that. So I decided to 
take only a 21/2 month leave 
instead of a 4 month leave.?
?I haven?t felt like I?ve had to go 
out of my way to prove that I?m 
still here, on time, even though I?m 
pregnant. Like I said, I?ve been 
very healthy, have had a very good 
pregnancy. I could see that 
changing if I?d been sick a lot, if 
I?d had to miss a lot of time, if I 
wasn?t as productive.?
Priorities Descriptions of how a 
participant?s priorities 
have or have not changed 
as a result of her 
pregnancy. Changing 
priorities may or may not 
have affected her basic 
work identity.
?However, I think the emotional 
considerations inevitably subtract 
from that dedication [to my work], 
because my priority, as it continues 
to be, is to make sure that this baby 
makes it to my house and grows 
up. So that wasn?t there before. . . 
the priority is no longer the project 
that I was working on, that I am 
working on. It is staying healthy 
and going to my doctor?s 
appointments and things like that.?
?I think [work] became less 
important. I stopped thinking about 
where my job was going, but more 
about how I was going to balance 
all of it. I started thinking more 
along those lines than, ?What?s the 
next level? What about 
promotion?? Those just went on the 
back-burner completely.?
109
MISCELLANEOUS
Clothes Any references to choice 
of clothing during 
pregnancy.
?I try not to draw attention to it. I 
don?t wear crazy clothes. You 
know some clothes really 
exaggerate being pregnant. I don?t 
do that.?
?I loved being pregnant! I felt 
great. . . I started wearing maternity 
clothes right away!?
Managing Boundaries 
Between Work and 
Home
Descriptions of how 
participant tries to manage 
boundaries between her 
home life and her work 
life?e.g., keeping them 
separated as much as 
possible vs. integrating 
them.
?I?ve gotten to the point that I don?t 
even talk about work when I get 
home because I?ve had enough of it 
at work, that I stop talking about it. 
. . I haven?t been bringing it home, 
because there?s nothing to bring 
home. It would just cause me more 
headaches and stress . . .I enjoy the 
people I work with very much, 
don?t get me wrong, but I really see 
work and home very separate.?
Gender 
Attitudes/Beliefs
Comments that reveal the 
participant?s personal 
gender beliefs or attitudes, 
such as references to her 
preferred division of labor 
within family, comments 
about women managers, 
attitudes towards the roles 
of women and men in 
organizations, etc.
?I think women executives in 
corporate America generally have 
their pros and cons.  . . I?ve always 
worked for women in high 
positions and I think, um . . . I 
mean I give them a lot of credit, 
but I think it?s hard being young in 
the workplace.  . . It took me a 
while, coming out of college, to 
realize that they have to be 
competitive. I think they are 
competitive. They?re in a higher 
position; they have other women 
that are striving for high positions 
working for them. It?s intimidating, 
absolutely.
?My mom stayed home with us. 
She didn?t go back to work. . . And 
that was just what I was always 
going to do. That?s just what 
people do, you know? So that was 
always the plan, what I always 
wanted to do.?
110
Appendix D
Instructions for Rating Degrees of Perceived Threat of Stigmatization and Identity 
Management
Degrees of identity management. The key feature that differentiates participants is 
how much overall psychological and/or physical effort they described making in order to 
manage their identities. The same tactics can involve different levels of effort depending 
on the unique features of an individual?s situation (e.g., maintaining one?s pace might 
have been fairly easy for a woman who felt terrific through her pregnancy, but quite 
difficult for someone who was very sick; passing until the end of the first trimester is not 
especially hard, but passing well into the second trimester is much more difficult). The 
logic is that persistence in tactics that are difficult to carry out should be an indicator of 
how determined an individual was to successfully manage her identity. Judgments about 
overall effort should be based on the accounts interviewees provided of the relative ease 
or difficulty they experienced in trying to manage their identity?in other words, the 
amount of psychological and/or physical effort they described exerting. 
Read all passages for a given participant then assign one of the following ratings to 
that participant:
 No Effort-- no mention of using any identity management tactics. 
 Mild Effort-- discussed using identity management tactics that required little overall 
psychological or physical effort. Examples:
o Being somewhat conscious of trying to manage her identity, such as keeping 
up with her regular pace of work or not asking for special accommodations, 
111
but without apparently expending any extra energy trying to do so. It comes 
easily for her?just all in a day?s work, so to speak.
o Engaging in only one tactic that was fairly easy to carry out, like passing just 
until the end of the first trimester. 
 Moderate Effort- described using one or more tactics that required a moderate amount 
of overall psychological or physical effort. Examples:
o Finding creative ways to pass throughout the pregnancy?not from her 
supervisors or coworkers (which would have been very difficult to do, see 
below), but from vendors or clients. 
o Mentioning multiple tactics that required attention and energy to carry out, 
such as working to maintain her pace even when she was very tired and 
devoting considerable attention to dressing professionally. 
 Extreme Effort-- described using one or more tactics that required extreme overall 
psychological or physical effort. Again, the chief difference between Moderate and 
Extreme Effort was not which tactics women used, but the lengths they went to carry 
them out and the distress they experienced as a result. Examples:
o Concealing her pregnancy from coworkers into the third trimester (a feat 
requiring considerable ingenuity and vigilance)
o Multiple tactics that required a great deal of attention and energy to carry out, 
such as embarking on a near-frantic pace of work (?busting my butt?), while 
vigilantly downplaying her condition around others.  
112
o Describing feeling worried about how well she was performing or carrying 
out her tactics?e.g., ?Am I really successful in my efforts to prove I can still 
do well?? They better think so, because I?m trying really hard!?
Degrees of perceived threat of stigmatization. Degree of perceived threat refers to 
how much concern a participant expressed, indirectly or directly, about others? negative 
perceptions of her or about common stereotypes of pregnant workers. This concern was 
reflected in the amount of anxiety and mental distress participants described feeling about 
these perceptions/stereotypes, as well as the specific consequences, if any, that they 
feared would result from negative perceptions/ stereotypes (e.g., people not giving them 
assignments, denying them training, or firing them). Look carefully for the comments 
about consequences?they are often mentioned casually, in passing.
Read all passages for a given participant then assign one of the following ratings to 
that participant:
 Mild Threat?Comments suggest she is aware of the potential for stigmatization (i.e., 
recognizes that others might view her or other women differently because of 
pregnancy) but describes feeling little to no anxiety about it, and also did not mention 
any concern about specific, negative consequences she might experience. Example: 
o Mentioning that she didn?t want others to think she was less dedicated (or 
capable, etc.) now, but doing so casually?without expressing any real anxiety 
that her pregnancy would cause her problems at work. 
 Moderate Threat?Described experiencing a moderate level of concern or anxiety 
about being stigmatized (that is, about being perceived negatively), and/or mentioned 
being concerned about moderately negative consequences. Moderately negative 
113
consequences include receiving fewer opportunities at work, being less able to 
negotiate effectively with vendors, not getting a raise. Note that either a moderate 
level of anxiety or a concern about a moderately negative consequence alone is 
sufficient to place someone in this category. Examples:
o Feeling very anxious about revealing her pregnancy because she worried her 
supervisors would not be accommodating and also might question her level of 
interest in the position. 
o Worrying others would think she was not interested in working and also that 
she might not get a raise.
 Severe Threat?Describing a high level of concern or anxiety about being 
stigmatized, and/or being concerned about severe consequences (i.e, being fired or 
being demoted). If someone expended considerable time and energy worrying about 
possible threat, that alone is sufficient to place her in this category. If someone 
mentions she thinks she might get fired or demoted, that alone is sufficient. 
Examples:
o Being really convinced that others would view her poorly, and that she might 
be treated differently or badly because this. 
o Thinking that she might be let go because others no longer view her as right 
for the job.
o Actually hearing her superiors say they don?t think mothers should work or 
making other prejudicial remarks.  
114
References
Bailey, L. (1999). Refracted selves? A study of changes in self-identity in the 
transition to motherhood. Sociology, 33(2), 335-352.
Baker, P., & Copp, M. (1997). Gender matters most: The interaction of gendered 
expectations, feminist course content, and pregnancy in student course evaluations. 
Teaching Sociology, 25, 29-43.
Baumeister, R. F. (1998). The self. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey 
(Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4
th
 ed., pp. 680-740). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Borrill, C., & Kidd, J. M. (1994). New parents at work: Jobs, families, and the 
psychological contract. British Journal of Guidance and Counseling, 22(2), 219-231.
Bolton, M. K. (2000). The third shift: Managing hard choices in our careers, 
homes, and lives as women. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Blaine, B., Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1995). The unintended consequences of
sympathy for the stigmatized. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25(10), 889-905.
Bragger, J. D., Kutcher, E., Morgan, J., & Firth, P. (2002). The effects of the 
structured interview on reducing biases against pregnant job applicants. Sex Roles, 46(7-
8), 215-226.
Bramwell, R. (1997). Studying the impact of the psychosocial work environment 
on pregnancy outcome. Journal of Reproductive & Infant Psychology, 15(3/4), 257-270.
Brown, T., Ferrara, K., & Schley, N. (2002). The relationship of pregnancy status 
to job satisfaction: An exploratory analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, 17(1), 
63-73.
115
Budig, M. J. (2003). Are women's employment and fertility histories 
interdependent? An examination of causal order using event history analysis. Social 
Science Research, 32(3), 376-401. 
Burke, P. J., & Cast, A. D. (1997). Stability and change in the gender identities of 
newly married couples. Social Psychology Quarterly, 60, 277-290.
Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In 
N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln, (Eds.) The handbook of qualitative research, Vol 2: 
Strategies of Inquiry (pp. 509-535.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 
Chrobot-Mason, D., Button, S. B., & DiClementi, J. D. (2002). Sexual identity 
management strategies: An exploration of antecedents and consequences. Sex Roles, 
45(5/6), 321-336.
Cioffi, D. (2000). The looking-glass self revisited: Behavior choice and self-
perception in the social token. In T. F. Heatherton, R. E. Kleck, M. R. Hebl, & J. G. Hull 
(Eds.), The social psychology of stigma (pp. 184-219). New York: The Guilford Press. 
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, 
and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3-21.
Corse, S. J. (1990). Pregnant managers and their subordinates: The effects of 
gender expectations on hierarchical relationships. The Journal of Applied Behavioral 
Science, 26(1), 25-47.
Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-
protective properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96, 608-630.
116
Crocker, J., Major, B., & Steele, C. (1998). Social stigma. In D. T. Gilbert & S. T. 
Fiske (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4
th
 ed., pp. 504-553). New York: McGraw-
Hill. 
Crocker, J., Voelkl, K., Testa, M., & Major, B. (1991). Social stigma: The 
affective consequences of attributional ambiguity. Journal of Personality and Social 
Psychology, 60, 218-228.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1998). Introduction: Entering the field of 
qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln, (Eds.), The landscape of 
qualitative research: Theories and issues. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Desai, S., & Waite, L. J. (1991). Women?s employment during pregnancy and 
after the first birth: Occupational characteristics and work commitment. American
Sociological Review, 56, 551-566.
Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled 
components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5-18.
Dovidio, J. F., Major, B., & Crocker, J. (2000). Stigma: Introduction and
overview. In T. F. Heatherton, R. E. Kleck, M. R. Hebl, & J. G. Hull (Eds.) The social 
psychology of stigma, (pp. 1-28). New York: The Guilford Press. 
Ely, R. (1994). The effects of organizational demographics and social identity on 
relationships among professional women. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 203-238.
Femlee, D. (1995). Causes and consequences of women?s employment 
discontinuity, 1967-1973. Work and Occupations, 22, 167-187.
Fielding, N. G., & Lee, R. M. (1998). Computer analysis and qualitative research.
London: Sage.
117
Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E.  (1991). Social c ognition (2
nd
 ed.).  New York: 
McGraw-Hill.
Frable, D. E. S., Platt, L., & Hoey, S. (1998). Concealable stigmas and positive 
self-perceptions: Feeling better around similar others. Journal of Personality and Social 
Psychology, 74(4), 909-922.
Fried, M. (2000). Taking time: Parental leave and corporate culture. Philadelphia: 
Temple University Press. 
Garey, A. I. (1999). Weaving work and motherhood. Philadelphia: Temple University 
Press. 
Geller, A. (2003, Oct. 22). Claims of pregnancy bias swell; 40% rise over ten years 
gives employers, watchdogs pause. Associated Press.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: 
Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
Glass, J. L., & Riley, L. (1998). Family responsive policies and employee 
retention following childbirth. Social Forces, 76(4), 1401-1435.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: 
Doubleday. 
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. New 
York: Simon & Schuster, Inc.
Greenstein, T. N. (1986). Social-psychological factors in perinatal labor-force 
participation. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, 565-571.
Gueutal, H. G., Luciano, J., & Michaels, C. A. (1995). Pregnancy in the 
workplace: Does pregnancy affect performance appraisal ratings? Journal of Business 
and Psychology, 10(2), 155-167.
118
Gueutal, H. G., & Taylor, E. (1991). Employee pregnancy: The impact on 
organizations, focals, & coworkers. Journal of Buisness and Psychology, 5(4), 459-476.
Halpert, J. A., & Burg, J. H. (1997). Mixed messages: Coworker responses to the 
pregnant employee. Journal of Business and Psychology, 12(2), 241-253.
Halpert, J. A., Wilson, M. L., & Hickman, J. L. (1993). Pregnancy as a source of 
bias in performance appraisals. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 649-663. 
Harris, D. (1992, August.) You?re pregnant? You?re out. Working Woman, 48, 
50-51, 74, 76.
Hebl, M. R., Kazama, S. M., Singletary, S. L., & Glick, P. (2004). Hostile and 
benevolent discrimination toward pregnant women. Manuscript submitted for 
publication.
Houston, D. M., & Marks, G. (2003). The role of planning and workplace support 
in returning to work after maternity leave. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 41(2), 
197-214.
Hyde, J. S. (1995). Women and maternity leave: Empirical data and public policy. 
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 19, 299-313.
Hyde, J. S., Essex, M. J., Clark, R., Klein, M. H., & Byrd, J. E. (1996). Parental 
leave: Policy and research. Journal of Social Issues, 52(3), 91-109.
Ibarra, H. (1999). Provisional selves: Experimenting with image and identity in 
professional adaptation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 764-791.
Judiesch, M. K., & Lyness, K. S. (1999). Left behind? The impact of leaves of 
absence on managers? career success. Academy of Management Journal, 42(6), 641-651.
119
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic 
Books.
Kernis, M. H. & Goldman, B. M. (2003). Stability and variability in self-concept 
and self-esteem. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (
pp. 106-127). New York: The Guildford Press.
Kiecolt, K. J. (1994). Stress and the decision to change oneself: A theoretical 
model. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57, 49-63.
Kraut, A. I., & Korman, A. K. (1999). The ?DELTA Forces? Causing Change in 
Human Resource Management. In A. I. Kraut & A. K. Korman, (Eds.), Evolving 
practaices in human resource management: Responses to a changing world of work (pp. 
3-22). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 
Langer, E. J., Taylor, S. E., Fiske, S. T., & Chanowitz, B. (1976). Stigma, staring 
and discomfort: A novel stimulus hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 
12, 451-463.
Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature 
review and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 34-47. 
Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of 
Sociology, 27, 363-385.
Lyness, K. S., Thompson, C. A., Francesco, A. M., & Judiesch, M. K. (1999). 
Work and pregnancy: Individual and organizational factors influencing organizational 
commitment, timing of maternity leave, and return to work. Sex Roles, 41(7/8), 485-508.
120
Major, B., & Gramzow, R. H. (1999). Abortion as stigma: Cognitive and 
emotional implications of concealment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 
77(4), 735-745.
Markus, H. R., & Wurf, E. (1987). The dynamic self-concept: A social 
psychological perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 38, 299-337.
Martin, J. and Meyerson, D. (1998). ?Women and Power: Conformity, 
Resistance, and Disorganized Co-Action.? In R. Kramer and M. Neale (Eds.), Power and 
Influence in Organizations, 1998, pp. 311-348.
Martin, J. (1992). The suppression of gender conflict in organizations. In D. M.
Kolb and J. M. Bartunek (Eds.), Hidden conflict in organizations:  Uncovering behind-
the-scenes disputes.  New York: Sage.
Maxwell, J. A. (1998). Designing a qualitative study. In Bickman, L., & Rog, D. 
J. (Eds.), Handbook of applied social research methods, pp. 69-100.
McMahon, M. (1995). Engendering motherhood: Identity and self- transformation 
in women?s lives. New York: Guilford Press. 
Michaels, G. & Goldberg, W. (Eds.) (1988). The transition to parenthood.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded 
sourcebook (2
nd
 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miller, V. D., Jablin, F. M., Casey, M. K., Lamphear-Van Horn, M., & Ethington, 
C. (1996). The maternity leave as a role negotiation process. Journal of Managerial 
Issues, 8(3), 286-309.
121
Miller, C. T., Rothblum, E. D., Felicio, D., & Brand, P. (1995). Compensating for 
stigma: Obese and nonobese women?s reactions to being visible. Personality and Social 
Psychology Bulletin, 21(10), p. 1093-1106.
Neuberg, S. L., Smith, D. M., & Asher, T. (2000). Why people stigmatize: 
Toward a biocultural framework. In T. F. Heatherton, R. E. Kleck, M. R. Hebl, & J. G. 
Hull (Eds.) The social psychology of stigma (pp. 31-61). New York: The Guilford Press. 
Pattison, H. M., & Gross, H. (1996). Pregnancy and women's well- being: a
review. Work and Stress, 10, 72-87. 
Pattison, H. M., Gross, H., & Cast, C. (1997). Employee pregnancy: The impact 
on organizations, pregnant employees and co-workers. Journal of Business and 
Psychology, 5(4), 459-576. 
Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Pinel, E. C. (1999). Stigma consciousness: The psychological legacy of social 
stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(1), 114-128.
Rafaeli, A., Dutton, J., Harquail, C. V., & Mackie-Lewis, S. (1997). Navigating 
by attire: The use of dress by female administrative employees. Academy of Management 
Journal, 40(1), 9-45.
Robinson, J. P., & Godbey, J. (1997). Time for life: The unexpected ways 
Americans use their time.
Romito, P. (1997). Studying work, motherhood and women's well-being: A few 
notes about the construction of knowledge. Journal of Reproductive & Infant Psychology, 
15(3/4), 209-221.
122
Schlenker, B. R. (2003). Self-presentation. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), 
Handbook of self and identity (492-518). New York: The Guilford Press. 
Schneider, M. E., Major, B., Luhtanen, R. & Crocker, J. (1996). Social stigma and 
the potential costs of assumptive help. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(2), 
201-209.
Schwartz, F. N. (1989). Management women and the new facts of life. Harvard 
Business Review, Jan-Feb, 65-76.
Siegel, K., Lune, H., & Meyer, I. H. (1998). Stigma management among 
gay/bisexual men with HIV/AIDS. Qualitative Sociology, 21(1), 3-24.   
Smith, J. A. (1999). Identity development during the transition to motherhood: An 
interpretive phenomenological analysis. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology,
17(3), 281-300.
Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype vulnerability and the intellectual 
test performance of African-Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 
69, 797-811.
Stets, J. E., & Burke, P. J. (2003). A sociological approach to self and identity. In 
M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 128-152). New 
York: The Guilford Press. 
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and 
procedures for developing grounded theory (2
nd
 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 
Swann, W. B., Jr. (1983). Self-verification: Bringing social reality into harmony 
with the self. In J. Suls & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on the self
(Vol. 2, pp. 33-66). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
123
Swann, W. B., Jr. (1987). Identity negotiation: Where two roads meet. Journal of 
Personality and Social Psychology, 53(6), 1038-1051. 
Swann, W. B., Jr., Stein-Seroussi, A., & Giesler, R. B. (1992). Why people self-
verify. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 392-401.
Taylor, S. E., & Langer, E. J. (1977). Pregnancy: A social stigma? Sex Roles, 
3(1), 27-35.
Waldfogel, J. (1997). The effect of children on women?s wages. American 
Sociological Review, 62, 209-217.
Waldfogel, J. (1998). The family gap for young women in the United States and 
Britain: Can maternity leave make a difference? Journal of Labor Economics, 16, 505-
545.
Walton, M. D., Sachs, D., Ellington, R., & Hazlewood, A. (1988). Physical 
stigma and the pregnancy role: Receiving help from strangers. Sex Roles, 18(5-6), 323-
331.
Wenk, D., & Rosenfeld, R. (1992). Women?s employment exit and reentry. 
Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 11, 127-150.
Wolf, N. (1991). The beauty myth. London: Chatto & Windus.
Wolf, N. (2001). Misconceptions: Truth, lies, and the unexpected on the journey 
to motherhood. New York: Doubleday Books. 
Yin, R. (1994). Case study research (2
nd
 ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Zappert, L. T. (2002). Getting it right: How working mothers successfully take up 
the challenge of life, motherhood, and career. New York: Touchstone.