The DOI matches its Crossref record; 99 of the 99 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 17 of the 44 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments
Open accessAbstract
Notwithstanding the improved integration of various minority groups in the workforce, unequal treatment in hiring still hinders many individuals’ access to the labour market. To tackle this inaccessibility, it is essential to know which and to what extent minority groups face hiring discrimination. This meta-analysis synthesises a quasi-exhaustive register of correspondence experiments on hiring discrimination published between 2005 and 2020. Using a random-effects model, we computed pooled discrimination ratios concerning ten discrimination grounds upon which unequal treatment in hiring is forbidden by law. Our meta-analysis shows that hiring discrimination against candidates with disabilities, older candidates, and less physically attractive candidates seems equally severe as the unequal treatment of candidates with salient racial or ethnic characteristics. Moreover, hiring discrimination against older applicants is more prominent in Europe than in the United States. Last, while we initially find a significant decrease in ethnic hiring discrimination in (Western) Europe, we find no structural evidence of recent temporal changes in hiring discrimination when controlling for the minority groups considered, at the country level, or based on the various other grounds within the scope of this review.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This meta-analysis synthesizes 306 correspondence experiments from 169 studies published between 2005 and 2020, comprising almost 965,000 fictitious job applications, to quantify hiring discrimination across ten legally protected grounds. It finds substantial discrimination against racial/ethnic minorities, people with disabilities, older applicants, and less physically attractive applicants, with limited robust evidence of temporal change and some regional differences.
Key findings
- Pooled discrimination ratios indicate applicants with disabilities receive about 41% fewer positive responses (DR = 0.5885, 95% CI [0.5277; 0.6563]), less physically attractive applicants about 37% fewer (DR = 0.6308, CI [0.4738; 0.8397]), older applicants about 31% fewer (DR = 0.6867, CI [0.6503; 0.7250]), and ethnic minority candidates about 29% fewer (DR = 0.7113, CI [0.6924; 0.7307]).
- Among specific groups, Arab/Maghrebi/Middle Eastern applicants face about 41% fewer positive responses (DR = 0.5937, CI [0.5548; 0.6353]), Eastern/South-Eastern Asian applicants about 37% fewer (DR = 0.6286, CI [0.5368; 0.7361]), Southern European applicants about 33% fewer (DR = 0.6673, CI [0.5711; 0.7798]), and African/African American/Black applicants about 32% fewer (DR = 0.6845, CI [0.6444; 0.7270]).
- Age discrimination is more severe in Europe (DR = 0.6288, CI [0.5349; 0.7392]) than the Americas (DR = 0.6881, CI [0.6438; 0.7354]); older applicants in several European countries face about 50% fewer positive call-backs (DR = 0.5152, CI [0.4258; 0.6234]) versus about 30% fewer in the United States (DR = 0.6916, CI [0.6342; 0.7541]).
- An initial decline in ethnic hiring discrimination in Europe becomes statistically insignificant when controlling for minority groups considered or country-level analyses; no structural temporal changes are found for other grounds. Potential publication bias is found for race/ethnicity/national origin and sexual orientation, but not structurally for other grounds.
Methods
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of correspondence experiments first published in English between 2005 and 2020, limited to discrimination grounds forbidden under United States federal or state law; sources included Baert’s (2018) register plus Web of Science and Google Scholar searches in spring 2021.
- The final dataset contains 169 studies and 306 units of observation, with almost 965,000 fictitious applications; two researchers independently reviewed studies, and missing outcome data for 32 experiments were partly completed, leaving 20 excluded.
- Random-effects models pooled log-transformed discrimination ratios (risk ratios) by discrimination ground and treatment group, using Knapp-Hartung confidence intervals and Mantel-Haenszel weights adjusted for between-study variance; heterogeneity was assessed with I² and weighted least squares meta-regressions for call-back classification, region, and period, with publication-bias and robustness checks.
Limitations
- Stated in the paper: the review includes only correspondence experiments, not in-person audits; it excludes unpublished and non-English research, so publication bias may remain; marital status, wealth, and military service/affiliation have too few experiments for convincing conclusions; most variability is unexplained, and meta-regression results are not causal because many relevant covariates were unavailable.
- Evident from the text: statistical heterogeneity is very high, with I² ranging from 82.36% for age to 98.53% for sexual orientation, and several pooled estimates rely on fewer than ten experiments, making uncertainty large; some regional findings rest on very few studies, such as the Africa gender comparison and the Asia sexual-orientation estimate based on one Cyprus study.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
92 Own result · 15 Own interpretation · 14 Own method · 11 No basis given · 8 No full text of the sources · 7 Supported · 5 Sources not found · 4 Partly supported · 3 Supported so far · 3 Not checked yet · 1 Couldn’t confirm · accuracy not yet measured
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“the correspondence testing method is still considered the reference method for measuring hiring discrimination at present (Baert, 2018;Neumark, 2018;Verhaeghe, 2022).”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Baert, 2018 source
- Supportedcites Neumark, 2018 source
Section 7.2 states that the correspondence-study method has come to dominate field experiments on labor market discrimination. Section 7 describes audit and correspondence studies as the most extensive body of experimental research on hiring discrimination, supporting the claim that correspondence testing is a reference method. (LLM, conf=0.89)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Verhaeghe, 2022 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“This finding is also in line with the analysis of Lahey (2010) in that the legislation and social norms around working at an advanced age are on average more lenient in the United States compared to European countries.”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 3.4.2. Region heterogeneity
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Lahey, 2010 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract says European age-discrimination laws generally provide less enforcement and more exemptions than corresponding US laws, and the European Case section notes that many European countries permit mandatory retirement ages. This supports a legal comparison favorable to continued work at older ages in the US. The Conclusion discusses social norms around older employment but does not establish that US social norms are, on average, more permissive than European ones. Page numbers are not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Similar findings arise from another recent large-scale correspondence audit study in Australia (with more than 12,000 applications) where males received substantially more (less) positive responses than females in occupations dominated by male (female) gender workers (Adamovic and Leibbrandt, 2022).”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 3.3.2. Gender and motherhood status
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Adamovic and Leibbrandt, 2022 source
The Abstract reports that the Australian field experiment submitted more than 12,000 applications and found that men received around 50% more callbacks in male-dominated occupations but over 40% fewer in female-dominated occupations. The Methods section gives the application count as 12,274. (LLM, conf=0.95)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This meta-analysis synthesises a quasi-exhaustive register of correspondence experiments on hiring discrimination published between 2005 and 2020.”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > Abstract
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we find no structural evidence of recent temporal changes in hiring discrimination when controlling for the minority groups considered, at the country level, or based on the various other grounds within the scope of this review.”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The true level of discrimination varies across studies due to differences in the definition and conceptualisation of treatment and control groups, measurement of responses, and overall experimental design and process.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The included discrimination ratios follow a normal-like distribution.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our meta-analysis shows that hiring discrimination against candidates with disabilities, older candidates, and less physically attractive candidates seems equally severe as the unequal treatment of candidates with salient racial or ethnic characteristics.”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > Abstract
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The true level of discrimination varies across studies due to differences in the definition and conceptualisation of treatment and control groups, measurement of responses, and overall experimental design and process.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The included discrimination ratios follow a normal-like distribution.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Outcome measure data required to calculate pooled discrimination ratios were missing for 32 experiments (9.82%, out of a total of 326 units).”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 2.3. Data collection
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“while we initially find a significant decrease in ethnic hiring discrimination in (Western) Europe”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The true level of discrimination varies across studies due to differences in the definition and conceptualisation of treatment and control groups, measurement of responses, and overall experimental design and process.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The included discrimination ratios follow a normal-like distribution.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Adding up the job applications from each correspondence experiment, these experiments comprise almost 965,000 fictitious applications in response to real job vacancies.”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 1. Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, hiring discrimination against older applicants is more prominent in Europe than in the United States.”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The true level of discrimination varies across studies due to differences in the definition and conceptualisation of treatment and control groups, measurement of responses, and overall experimental design and process.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The included discrimination ratios follow a normal-like distribution.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 46
- Probably not a substantial claim. 33
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“This method assumes a t-distribution of the pooled effect rather than a normal distribution, which reduces the chance of obtaining false-positive results (Langan et al., 2019).”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 2.4.1. Pooled discrimination ratios
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Langan et al., 2019 source
Section 2.3 (p. 8) says the HKSJ method relies on a t-distribution, in contrast to the standard-normal Wald-type interval. The HKSJ results (p. 14) report better confidence-interval coverage than the other methods across the simulated scenarios, supporting the paraphrase about fewer false positives. The paper cautions that coverage can still be poor for rare events. (LLM, conf=0.89)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The true level of discrimination varies across studies due to differences in the definition and conceptualisation of treatment and control groups, measurement of responses, and overall experimental design and process.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“This underutilisation of talent could result in needless economic costs for firms and society (Baert, 2021;OECD, 2020a;Pager, 2016).”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Baert, 2021 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The paper’s Abstract (page unavailable) links labour underutilisation to a societal economic concern: when more working-age people are inactive, fewer workers support non-working people, making social-security financing a greater problem. It does not address economic costs to firms or specifically describe the underutilised resources as talent. (LLM, conf=0.83)
- Not matchedcites OECD, 2020a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Partly supportedcites Pager, 2016 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract says racial preferences unrelated to productivity can be costly to employers, and the section ‘What Does the Relationship between Discrimination and Business Failure Represent?’ describes discrimination as prioritizing worker characteristics irrelevant to productivity. These passages support possible costs to firms, but the paper does not establish economic costs to society from underutilised talent. The paper also cautions that its results cannot establish discrimination as the direct cause of firm failure. Page numbers were not provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.84)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“some experiments only look at a 6-year age gap (e.g.Baert et al., 2016), while others go as far as examining a 35-year age gap (e.g.Neumark et al., 2019).”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 3.3.4. Age
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Baert et al., 2016 source
- Supportedcites Neumark et al., 2019 source
The Experimental Design compares applicants aged 29–31 with applicants aged 64–66. The midpoints are 30 and 65, a 35-year age gap. The separate six-year example is attributed to Baert et al., not to this source. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“we only calculated bias statistics if the total number of correspondence audits for a given analysis equalled or exceeded ten, otherwise, the statistical power could be too low to detect asymmetry.”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 2.4.3. Publication bias
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Harrer et al., 2021 source
- Partly supportedcites Sterne et al., 2011 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Box 2 recommends not testing funnel plot asymmetry when a meta-analysis has fewer than 10 studies, because test power is usually too low. The citing sentence applies that threshold to correspondence audits rather than studies; the source does not establish that it applies in that setting. No page number is provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.86)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“In the reported models, standard errors related to the model coefficients were clustered at the study level (Viechtbauer, 2010).”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 2.4.2. Heterogeneity analyses
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites Viechtbauer, 2010 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The paper discusses standard errors for model coefficients (Raw and standardized residuals, p. 22) and describes fitting meta-analytic models (Model fitting, p. 5). It does not say that coefficient standard errors were clustered at the study level or establish how the citing authors handled their reported models. Searches for “cluster,” “clustered standard errors,” and “sandwich robust standard errors” found no such passage. (LLM, conf=0.75)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Could not verify
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“These higher levels of hiring discrimination could be explained by (i) the relatively large local presence of these minority groups in Asian labour markets compared to European labour markets and (ii) the negative connotations associated with these groups within these particular regions, which do not necessarily exist in European countries (Asali et al., 2018;Maurer-Fazio, 2013).”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 3.4.2. Region heterogeneity
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Asali et al., 2018 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction (p. 3) says Armenian and Azeri people are Georgia’s largest distinct ethnic minorities, and the Conclusions (p. 16) report lower callback rates for non-Georgian applicants. The paper does not establish that these groups have a larger presence in Asian than European labour markets, or that negative connotations explain an Asia–Europe difference in hiring discrimination. Its Conclusions (p. 17) instead leave statistical and employer-preference explanations equally likely. (LLM, conf=0.86)
- Not matchedcites Maurer-Fazio, 2013
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“In this process, we paid special attention to the reporting guidelines for meta-analyses in economics of Havránek et al. (2020)-we refer the reader to Appendix A (Table A2) for the corresponding checklist.”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 2. Data and methods
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Havránek et al. (2020) source
The title identifies Havránek et al. (2020) as a paper on reporting guidelines for meta-analysis in economics. The Abstract says the paper presents updated guidelines for future meta-analyses in economics. Whether the citing authors paid special attention to them is the citing authors’ own statement, not a claim attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“a recent large-scale correspondence audit study conducted in the United States (with more than 80,000 applications) in which the authors found that contact rates for male gender and female gender applicants differed significantly between firms: some employers favoured male gender candidates, while others favoured female gender candidates (Kline et al., 2021).”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 3.3.2. Gender and motherhood status
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Kline et al., 2021 source
Split into 2 atoms — 2 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Van Borm and Baert (2022), for example, found women to be perceived as more social and supportive but less assertive or physically strong than men.”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 3.3.2. Gender and motherhood status
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Van Borm and Baert (2022) source
The Results (section 4.2) report that participants perceived female applicants as more social and supportive, but less assertive and as having lower physical abilities than male applicants. The Conclusion (section 5) repeats these findings. (LLM, conf=0.95)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“First of all, our research is based on a synthesis of only correspondence experiments, whereas some earlier meta-studies that focused on specific discrimination grounds have also included in-person audits to paint a broader picture of hiring discrimination (e.g.Quillian et al., 2017).”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 4. Conclusion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Quillian et al., 2017 source
The “Identifying Relevant Studies” section (page not shown in our copy) says the meta-analysis included both in-person audit studies and résumé or correspondence studies. That supports the citing sentence’s use of Quillian et al. as an example of an earlier synthesis that included in-person audits. (LLM, conf=0.95)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“To further assess the robustness of our results, we (i) measured and controlled for outliers (i.e.influential cases that substantially affect the pooled discrimination ratio), (ii) evaluated potential statistical dependence between the sampled discrimination ratios, and (iii) recalculated p-values of the meta-regression coefficients via a permutation test (Borenstein et al., 2009;Higgins et al., 2”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 2.4.4. Robustness analyses
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Borenstein et al., 2009 source
- Not matchedcites Higgins et al., 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Supportedcites Viechtbauer et al., 2015 source
The Permutation Test section describes recalculating a meta-regression coefficient’s test statistic under permutations to obtain a p-value. That supports citing this paper for the permutation-test method; the outlier and dependence checks are described as the citing authors’ own procedures, not as findings of this source. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Moreover, in many of the studies where LGB+ orientation status is signalled through activism or affiliation, there is a similar non-LGB+ signal that is attributed to the control group, which might 'wash out' the activism or affiliation effect (e.g.Drydakis, 2009;Tilcsik, 2011).”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 3.3.6. Sexual orientation
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Drydakis, 2009 source
In §3.2, the paper says gay applicants were identified by volunteer membership in a homosexual community, while straight applicants’ CVs listed past volunteerism in an environmental community. It explicitly says the latter was included in case activism biased selection, supporting the citing sentence’s point about a comparable control-group signal. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Supportedcites Tilcsik, 2011 source
In “Signaling Sexual Orientation,” Tilcsik says he paired the gay-organization signal with a left-wing control organization so callback differences would not reflect political affiliation. “Stereotyping as a Mechanism” adds that the control organization could also signal activism. This supports the citation as an example of the design described, rather than as evidence for how many studies use it. (LLM, conf=0.88)
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These units were excluded from the meta-analysis, resulting in 306 valid units (cfr.supra).”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 2.3. Data collection
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After contacting the corresponding authors of the respective studies to retrieve these data, 12 cases could be completed (37.50% of cases with missing data), meaning that we had no data for the remaining 20 units of observation.”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 2.3. Data collection
plainn = 12- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Altogether, we gather 306 correspondence experiments (i.e. units of observation in our analysis) originating from 169 separate correspondence audit studies.”
- Also stated in: § Timing · plain
“We retained a total of 169 studies, of which 90 were already included in Baert's (2018) book chapter, resulting in 306 units of observation.”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 1. Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Timing · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Older applicants (vis-à-vis young to middle-aged applicants), but not younger applicants (vis-à-vis middle-aged applicants), are strongly discriminated against in correspondence experiments ( ̂ DR = 0.6646, CI 95% = [0.6292;0.7020]).”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 3.3.4. Age
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The random-effects model is an appropriate model to account for between-study heterogeneity.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we found only one experiment related to political orientation and one experiment related to union affiliation, from which we could not calculate pooled discrimination ratios.”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 2.1. Scope
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The decline becomes statistically insignificant when controlling for the considered treatment groups or when restricting the analysis to each country for which we have data separately (see Table A16, Table A18 and Figure A1-4).”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 3.4.3. Period heterogeneity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the study did not use the correspondence testing method (e.g.in-person audit; N = 10, 17.24%)”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > Timing
plainn = 10- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the study was solely related to housing discrimination instead of hiring discrimination (N = 1, 1.72%).”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > Timing
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“people with disabilities are on average approximately 41% less likely to receive a positive response to a job application ( ̂ DR = 0.5885, CI 95% = [0.5277;0.6563])”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 3.2. Differences in hiring discrimination by discrimination ground
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The random-effects model is an appropriate model to account for between-study heterogeneity.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the original estimate related to physical disability is not statistically significant, this discrimination ratio becomes statistically significant at the 5% level after excluding one outlier from the analysis (k-adj.̂ DR = 0.7494, CI 95% = [0.6259;0.8974]; see Table A6 and Table A12).”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 3.3.5. Disability
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This finding is exceptional given that the ages in the treatment groups of the European correspondence experiments range from 37 to 56 years, while the ages used in the American studies are generally higher, ranging from 50 to 66 years.”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 3.4.2. Region heterogeneity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“estimates based on physical appearance and age indicate reduced positive responses by approximately 37% ( ̂ DR = 0.6308, CI 95% = [0.4738;0.8397]) and 31% ( ̂ DR = 0.6867, CI 95% = [0.6503;0.7250]), respectively.”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 3.2. Differences in hiring discrimination by discrimination ground
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“I 2 estimates range from 82.36% (for age) to 98.53% (for sexual orientation)-not considering the exceptional cases of wealth, military service or affiliation, and marital status, which are based on a too low number of correspondence experiments to meaningfully interpret the statistical heterogeneity.”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 3.2. Differences in hiring discrimination by discrimination ground
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Hiring discrimination based on religion seems to be mainly driven by the unequal treatment of this former group (i.e.Muslims; ̂ DR = 0.7730, CI 95% = [0.7069;0.8452]).”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 3.3.3. Religion
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The random-effects model is an appropriate model to account for between-study heterogeneity.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we find empirical evidence for unequal treatment in hiring concerning the discrimination grounds of race, ethnicity, and national origin, age, religion, disability, physical appearance, wealth, and marital status.”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 3.2. Differences in hiring discrimination by discrimination ground
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The random-effects model is an appropriate model to account for between-study heterogeneity.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After an initial screening of the titles and abstracts, we reviewed the full text of the remaining 137 articles.”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > Timing
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“estimates based on physical appearance and age indicate reduced positive responses by approximately 37% ( ̂ DR = 0.6308, CI 95% = [0.4738;0.8397]) and 31% ( ̂ DR = 0.6867, CI 95% = [0.6503;0.7250]), respectively.”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 3.2. Differences in hiring discrimination by discrimination ground
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the discrimination ratios for marital status ( ̂ DR = 0.8846, CI 95% = [0.8109;0.9650]) and wealth ( ̂ DR = 0.8806, CI 95% = [0.8081;0.9596]), which are significantly different from but closer to one.”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 3.2. Differences in hiring discrimination by discrimination ground
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After excluding two clear outliers from the analysis, we also observe that the unequal treatment based on affiliation with an LGB+ organisation becomes statistically insignificant at the 5% level (k-adj.̂ DR = 0.7924, CI 95% = [0.6203;1.0122]; see Table A6 and Table A12).”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 3.3.6. Sexual orientation
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We also find overall hiring discrimination against African, African American, or Black ( ̂ DR = 0.6845, CI 95% = [0.6444;0.7270]), Southern Asian or Indian ( ̂ DR = 0.7004, CI 95% = [0.6352;0.7723], and Western Asian ( ̂ DR = 0.7508, CI 95% = [0.6977;0.8080]) applicants.”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 3.3.1. Race, ethnicity, and national origin
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“unfavourable treatment in hiring is highest for applicants belonging to the groups of Arab, Maghrebi, or Middle Eastern ( ̂ DR = 0.5937, CI 95% = [0.5548;0.6353]), Eastern Asian or South-Eastern Asian ( ̂ DR = 0.6286, CI 95% = [0.5368;0.7361]), and Southern European ( ̂ DR = 0.6673, CI 95% = [0.5711;0.7798]) applicants.”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 3.3.1. Race, ethnicity, and national origin
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The random-effects model is an appropriate model to account for between-study heterogeneity.
- Rests on an assumption: The pooled discrimination ratios enable comparison of the severity of unequal treatment in hiring across different discrimination grounds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we find no evidence of hiring discrimination related to the treatment groups 'transgender' or 'mother'.”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 3.3.2. Gender and motherhood status
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“when the only identified outlier from the analysis of this minority group is excluded, the pooled discrimination ratio becomes statistically significant at the 5% level (k-adj.̂ DR = 0.8175, CI 95% = [0.7095;0.9420]; see Table A6 and Table A12).”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 3.3.1. Race, ethnicity, and national origin
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we do not find evidence for overall hiring discrimination against Hispanic, Latin American, or Caribbean applicants ( ̂ DR = 0.9220, CI 95% = [0.8091;1.0507])”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 3.3.1. Race, ethnicity, and national origin
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Last, we initially observe that hiring discrimination against applicants who are affiliated with an LGB+ organisation or who signal to be LGB+ orientated is higher in Asia ( ̂ DR = 0.2489, CI 95% = [0.2218;0.2793]) than in the Americas ( ̂ DR = 0.7650, CI 95% = [0.4181;1.400]; β = -1.1651,p = 0.019) or Europe ( ̂ DR = 0.7735, CI 95% = [0.5378;1.1126]; β = -1.0876,p = <0.001;see Table 3, Table 4, a”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 3.4.2. Region heterogeneity
plaincorrelationalSingle case- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“unequal treatment based on the discrimination ground in the scope of the study was not forbidden under United States law (N = 27, 46.55% of the total number of excluded full texts)”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > Timing
plainn = 27- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the discrimination ratios for marital status ( ̂ DR = 0.8846, CI 95% = [0.8109;0.9650]) and wealth ( ̂ DR = 0.8806, CI 95% = [0.8081;0.9596]), which are significantly different from but closer to one.”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 3.2. Differences in hiring discrimination by discrimination ground
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Ethnic minority candidates face on average approximately 29% fewer positive responses (k = 143, 46.73% of total units of observation; ̂ DR = 0.7113, CI 95% = [0.6924;0.7307]).”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 3.2. Differences in hiring discrimination by discrimination ground
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The random-effects model is an appropriate model to account for between-study heterogeneity.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After excluding outliers from the analysis, the discrimination ratio for female gender (vis-à-vis male gender) applicants remains statistically significant and positive (k-adj.̂ DR = 1.0663,CI 95% = [1.0221;1.1124]; see Table A6 and Table A12).”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 3.3.2. Gender and motherhood status
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In cases where we suspected publication bias, we reported the results with the necessary caveats but, in general, there were few.”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 4. Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the correspondence experiment was entirely based on data used in a previously published (and already included) study (N = 20, 34.48%)”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > Timing
plainn = 20- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“estimates from just four experiments, we find no overall evidence of hiring discrimination based on military service or affiliation ( ̂ DR = 0.9983, CI 95% = [0.7766;1.2834]).”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 3.2. Differences in hiring discrimination by discrimination ground
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the uncovered unequal treatment based on gender and motherhood status is very small ( ̂ DR = 1.0413,CI 95% = [1.0151;1.0682]; see also Section 3.3.2)”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 3.2. Differences in hiring discrimination by discrimination ground
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In total, we evaluated the titles and abstracts of 933 studies against our eligibility criteria (see Section 2.1).”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > Timing
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Intercept | -35.1630* (15.4015)”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 4. Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Period | Year | 0.0173* (0.0077)”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 4. Conclusion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Asia | -0.3906 (0.2133) | 0.0743 (0.1293) | N/A | -0.1604 (0.6872) | N/A | -1.1651* (0.2440)”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 4. Conclusion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Europe | -0.0833 (0.0687) | 0.0356 (0.1192) | -0.2839* (0.0974)”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 4. Conclusion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Africa | N/A | 0.7105*** (0.1268)”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 4. Conclusion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The risk of reviewer bias was reduced by having two researchers independently review the selected articles.”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > Timing
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The accuracy of these variables was independently assessed and verified by at least two authors.”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 2.3. Data collection
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To generate more balanced weights, the weights were adjusted for between-study variance (τ 2 ).”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 2.4.1. Pooled discrimination ratios
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The true level of discrimination varies across studies due to differences in the definition and conceptualisation of treatment and control groups, measurement of responses, and overall experimental design and process.
In the paper
“We applied Knapp-Hartung adjustments when calculating the confidence intervals around the pooled discrimination ratio estimates (Knapp and Hartung, 2003).”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 2.4.1. Pooled discrimination ratios
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Knapp and Hartung, 2003 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The true level of discrimination varies across studies due to differences in the definition and conceptualisation of treatment and control groups, measurement of responses, and overall experimental design and process.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Reporting bias, which could (partly) originate from missing data, was formally evaluated when we tested for publication bias (see Section 2.4.3).”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 2.3. Data collection
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Knapp-Hartung adjustments produce more conservative (i.e.wider) confidence interval estimates than when these adjustments would not be applied.”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 2.4.1. Pooled discrimination ratios
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The true level of discrimination varies across studies due to differences in the definition and conceptualisation of treatment and control groups, measurement of responses, and overall experimental design and process.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As an anonymous reviewer has pointed out, other studies focusing on different discrimination grounds could face the same criticism-i.e. the signal used may not be externally valid.”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 3.3.6. Sexual orientation
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Following Schwarzer et al., (2015) guidelines, we only performed meta-regressions on the groups of studies for which the total number of included studies was equal to or greater than ten.”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 2.4.2. Heterogeneity analyses
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Schwarzer et al., (2015) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Potentially, in correspondence experiments where the effects of origin and religion interact, confounding might lead to a wrong estimation of the true discrimination.”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 3.3.6. Sexual orientation
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“these individuals are at elevated risk of long-term unemployment and labour market inactivity”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 1. Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites OECD, 2020a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites OECD, 2020b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Compared with in-person audits, the perceived differences between applicants, produced by minute differences in their behaviour during the interview, are nullified.”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 1. Introduction
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“One noteworthy change, however, is that discrimination based on LGBT+ status has been made illegal at the US federal level (Boystock v. Clayton County, 2020).”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 2.2. Study selection
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Boystock v. Clayton County, 2020
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The standardised meta-analytical approach enables comparisons of levels of hiring discrimination across discrimination grounds and minority groups.”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 1. Introduction
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The true level of discrimination varies across studies due to differences in the definition and conceptualisation of treatment and control groups, measurement of responses, and overall experimental design and process.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The included discrimination ratios follow a normal-like distribution.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This discrepancy is presumably because we primarily focused on differences at the (sub-)regional level and not on differences at the country level.”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 3.4.2. Region heterogeneity
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“To measure and counter the impact of publication bias, we applied three analytic techniques: (i) a graphical inspection of funnel plot asymmetry, (ii) the calculation of a 'bias statistic' of funnel plot asymmetry, and (iii) the calculation of bias-adjusted hiring discrimination estimates through 'limit' meta-analyses (Harrer et al., 2021).”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 2.4.3. Publication bias
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Harrer et al., 2021
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Note that several of these results are based on a small number of correspondence experiments and thus should be interpreted with caution.”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 3.4.2. Region heterogeneity
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“A representative example is the study by Riach (2015), where older candidates were 47 years old, while younger candidates were 27 years old, creating a 20-year age gap between the treatment group and the control group.”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 3.3.4. Age
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Riach (2015) source
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the estimate for younger applicants is based on a very small number of tests (k = 2), which warrants caution in interpreting this discrimination ratio.”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 3.3.4. Age
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, we did not explain most of the variability around the hiring discrimination estimates, in part because the scope of our review was already very broad but also because many relevant covariates were not retrievable at the study level across discrimination grounds.”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 4. Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Discrepancies in legislation and the resulting social norms might have played a role but we cannot rule out alternative explanations.”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 4. Conclusion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“meta-regression analyses were only performed for discrimination grounds for which k ≥ 10”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 4. Conclusion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Schwarzer et al. (2015) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Standard errors were clustered at the study level.”
§ The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments > 4. Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The authors state this as an assumption.
The true level of discrimination varies across studies due to differences in the definition and conceptualisation of treatment and control groups, measurement of responses, and overall experimental design and process.
“We assumed that there was at least some variation in these levels caused by (subtle) differences in the (i) definition and conceptualisation of the treatment and control groups, (ii) measurement of the responses (or call-backs), and (iii) overall experimental design and process.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The included discrimination ratios follow a normal-like distribution.
“Since our estimation strategy assumed that the included discrimination ratios follow a normal-like distribution, we logtransformed these ratios before pooling them in our meta-analysis (see Section 2.4.1).”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The random-effects model is an appropriate model to account for between-study heterogeneity.
“This confirms our priors that (i) there is between-study variation that is driven by differences in the operationalisation of the experimental groups and, more broadly, how the correspondence experiments are designed, and (ii) the random-effects model is an appropriate model to account for such between-study heterogeneity.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Publication bias could adversely impact the results from the meta-analysis, resulting in either an over- or underestimation of hiring discrimination in certain cases.
“There are several reasons why publication bias could adversely impact the results from our meta-analysis, resulting in either an over-or underestimation of hiring discrimination in certain cases.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The pooled discrimination ratios enable comparison of the severity of unequal treatment in hiring across different discrimination grounds.
“The pooled discrimination ratios enable us to compare the severity of unequal treatment in hiring across different discrimination grounds.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Hiring discrimination may be lower if the call-back is measured in the broad sense compared to the narrow sense.
“We assume that hiring discrimination may be lower if the call-back is measured in the broad sense compared to the narrow sense.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Correspondence testing is the reference method of measurement that allows for a causal interpretation of the empirical evidence of unequal treatment in hiring.
“In this meta-analysis, we extensively documented and synthesised the recent hiring discrimination literature grounded in the correspondence testing method-i.e. the reference method of measurement that allows for a causal interpretation of the empirical evidence of unequal treatment in hiring.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies compiled a special issue on ethnic discrimination in the labour market that was first published online in 2019.
“the Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies compiled a special issue on ethnic discrimination in the labour market that was first published online in 2019”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“A recent meta-analysis of hiring practices34 shows that discrimination against candidates with disabilities, older candidates, less physically attractive candidates, and candidates with salient racial or ethnic traits is still an issue in Europe and the United States.”
From A benchmarking framework and dataset for learning to defer in human-AI decision-making (2025) · cites this paper as [34]
Citations
Cites
The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., et al. (2021) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.n71 · Cited by 108,283
Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis
Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1186 · Cited by 36,763
Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package
Viechtbauer, W. (2010) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v036.i03 · Cited by 20,464
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
(2019) · doi:10.1002/9781119536604 · Cited by 14,828
Statistical Aspects of the Analysis of Data From Retrospective Studies of Disease
(1959) · JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/22.4.719 · Cited by 14,689
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009) · doi:10.1002/9780470743386 · Cited by 14,225
Male-female wage differentials in urban labor markets
Oaxaca, R. (1973) · International Economic Review · doi:10.2307/2525981 · Cited by 8,463
Sterne, J. A. C., Sutton, A. J., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Terrin, N., Jones, D. R., Lau, J., Carpenter, J., Rucker, G., Harbord, R. M., Schmid, C. H., et al. (2011) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.d4002 · Cited by 7,709
Wage discrimination: Reduced form and structural estimates
Blinder, A. S. (1973) · The Journal of Human Resources · doi:10.2307/144855 · Cited by 6,922
How to perform a meta-analysis with R: a practical tutorial
Balduzzi, S., Rücker, G., & Schwarzer, G. (2019) · Evidence Based Mental Health · doi:10.1136/ebmental-2019-300117 · Cited by 5,827
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Trends in racial and ethnic discrimination in hiring in six Western countries
Quillian, L., & Lee, J. J. (2023) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2212875120 · Cited by 88
Schaerer, M., du Plessis, C., Nguyen, M. H. B., van Aert, R. C. M., Tiokhin, L., Lakens, D., Giulia Clemente, E., Pfeiffer, T., Dreber, A., Johannesson, M., et al. (2023) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2023.104280 · Cited by 87
Identifying and Improving Disability Bias in GPT-Based Resume Screening
Glazko, K., Mohammed, Y., Kosa, B., Potluri, V., & Mankoff, J. (2024) · The 2024 ACM Conference on Fairness Accountability and Transparency · doi:10.1145/3630106.3658933 · Cited by 85
Galos, D. R., & Coppock, A. (2023) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.ade7979 · Cited by 92
Lippens, L., Baert, S., Ghekiere, A., Verhaeghe, P., & Derous, E. (2022) · Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies · doi:10.1080/1369183x.2022.2050191 · Cited by 87
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Lippens, L., Vermeiren, S., & Baert, S.
- Affiliations
- Vrije Universiteit Brussel (BE)
- Ghent University (BE)
- University of Antwerp (BE)
- Corresponding author
- Lippens, Louis
- Venue
- European Economic Review
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2023-01
- Volume
- 151
- Pages
- 104315
- ISSN
- 0014-2921 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4287460468
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 91
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- European Economic Review (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Econstor (Econstor) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (S004119N)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Names, Identity, and Discrimination Research
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Keywords
- hiring discrimination, correspondence experiment, labor market access, minority groups, racial discrimination, ethnic discrimination, disability discrimination, age discrimination, physical attractiveness, discrimination ratio
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-04, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-04 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
