The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 6 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time
Open accessAbstract
Significance: Many scholars have argued that discrimination in American society has decreased over time, while others point to persisting race and ethnic gaps and subtle forms of prejudice. The question has remained unsettled due to the indirect methods often used to assess levels of discrimination. We assess trends in hiring discrimination against African Americans and Latinos over time by analyzing callback rates from all available field experiments of hiring, capitalizing on the direct measure of discrimination and strong causal validity of these studies. We find no change in the levels of discrimination against African Americans since 1989, although we do find some indication of declining discrimination against Latinos. The results document a striking persistence of racial discrimination in US labor markets.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
A meta-analysis of all available US field experiments of hiring discrimination found no change over time in discrimination against African Americans since 1989, though there was modest evidence of declining discrimination against Latinos. Whites received substantially more callbacks than equally qualified African American and Latino applicants.
Key findings
- Across studies since 1989, white applicants received on average 36% more callbacks than equally qualified African Americans (95% CI: 25–47% more) and 24% more callbacks than Latinos (95% CI: 15–33% more).
- For African Americans, the paper found no change in hiring discrimination over the past 25 years; the 95% CI of the annual slope from 1989–2015 was −0.007 to 0.015, ruling out all but a slow decline, with the point estimate indicating no decline.
- For Latinos, the trend suggested a possible decline, from whites receiving 30% more callbacks than Latinos in 1990 to 15% more in 2010, but this was only marginally significant (P = 0.099) and based on only 9 Latino field experiments.
- Accounting for applicant education, gender, study method, occupational groups, local labor market conditions, and other controls did little to alter the African American result; including unpublished studies also did little to affect estimates.
Methods
- The authors conducted a meta-analysis of every available US field experiment of hiring discrimination, including resume audits and in-person audits, with fieldwork through December 2015.
- The full search located 28 studies representing 55,842 applications for 26,326 positions; the core analysis since 1989 used 24 studies with 30 estimates, representing 54,318 applications for 25,517 positions.
- They used random-effects meta-regression, regressing the log discrimination ratio—the ratio of white callback rates to African American or Latino callback rates—on year of fieldwork, with controls for study and applicant characteristics.
Limitations
- The paper states that results pertain only to discrimination at the point of hire, not later employment outcomes such as wage setting or termination, and do not address possible declines during the 1960s or early 1970s.
- The paper states that the small number of Latino field experiments (n = 9) limits controls and precision, and that the overall sample of African American studies since 1990 (n = 21) limits the ability to detect statistical significance for covariates.
- The paper notes publication bias as a potential concern but reports that including 11 unpublished field experiments did little to affect estimates; it also states that studies focused on racial discrimination showed no more discrimination than studies where race was secondary.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
33 Own result · 9 Own method · 6 Sources not found · 4 Own interpretation · 3 No basis given
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 95% confidence interval of the slope 1989-2015 is -0.007 to 0.015.”
§ Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time > Results
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
“The point estimate suggests a decline from whites receiving 30% more callbacks than Latinos in 1990 to 15% more callbacks in 2010 (1.30 vs. 1.15).”
§ Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time > Results
hedgedcorrelationaln = 9- 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.
- Rests on an assumption: The racial identifiers used in the original field experiments (e.g., racially identifiable names or tester race) validly signal race to employers and do not differ systematically on other employment-relevant characteristics.
- Rests on an assumption: The year in which data were gathered is a valid and comparable indicator of the time trend in hiring discrimination.
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 basic result-no decline in discrimination against African Americans over time-holds using both of the alternative measures, whereas evidence of a decline in discrimination for Latinos appears somewhat stronger with the difference in proportions or the odds ratio.”
§ Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time > The Meta-Analysis Model.
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 effect of race on callback rates varies across studies and situations, such as by year, occupation, and applicant skill level.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The true effects of race on callback rate in each situation estimated by each study vary between studies with a normal distribution around a mean effect.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Study-level heterogeneity follows a normal distribution around the linear predictor.
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 observe no change in the level of hiring discrimination against African Americans over the past 25 years, although we find modest evidence of a decline in discrimination against Latinos.”
- Also stated in: § Results · hedged
“Here, we see the line slopes downward, indicating a possible decline in discrimination, although this trend is outside of conventional levels of significance (P = 0.099).”
§ Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time > Abstract
hedgedcorrelationaln = 9- 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.
- Rests on an assumption: The racial identifiers used in the original field experiments (e.g., racially identifiable names or tester race) validly signal race to employers and do not differ systematically on other employment-relevant characteristics.
- Rests on an assumption: The year in which data were gathered is a valid and comparable indicator of the time trend in hiring discrimination.
- Also stated in: § Results · hedged
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 focus on this period because the data are sparse before this period (only four studies before 1989) and because our reading of the early studies indicates key methodological differences among these early studies that may affect their results.”
§ Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time > Coding and Selection of Analysis
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
“Since 1989, whites receive on average 36% more callbacks than African Americans, and 24% more callbacks than Latinos.”
- Also stated in: § Results · plain
“White applicants receive on average 24% more callbacks than Latinos (95% confidence interval of 15-33% more).”
§ Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time > Abstract
plaincorrelationaln = 24- 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.
- Rests on an assumption: The racial identifiers used in the original field experiments (e.g., racially identifiable names or tester race) validly signal race to employers and do not differ systematically on other employment-relevant characteristics.
- Also stated in: § Results · 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
“Excluding the early studies leaves us with 21 estimates of discrimination against African Americans and nine against Latinos from 24 studies (six studies include estimates of discrimination against both African Americans and Latinos).”
§ Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time > Coding and Selection of Analysis
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
“As a final check on the influence of covariates, we tested for time trends among our study-level and individual-level characteristics, finding no evidence of systematic change (SI Appendix, section 9 and Table S10).”
§ Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time > Results
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.
- Rests on an assumption: The racial identifiers used in the original field experiments (e.g., racially identifiable names or tester race) validly signal race to employers and do not differ systematically on other employment-relevant characteristics.
- Rests on an assumption: The year in which data were gathered is a valid and comparable indicator of the time trend in hiring discrimination.
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
“This produced 24 studies containing 30 estimates of discrimination against African Americans and Latinos since 1989, together representing 54,318 applications submitted for 25,517 positions.”
§ Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time > 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.
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 all models, we see little evidence of a reduction in hiring discrimination against African Americans over time.”
§ Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time > Results
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.
- Rests on an assumption: The racial identifiers used in the original field experiments (e.g., racially identifiable names or tester race) validly signal race to employers and do not differ systematically on other employment-relevant characteristics.
- Rests on an assumption: The year in which data were gathered is a valid and comparable indicator of the time trend in hiring discrimination.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 13
- Probably not a substantial claim. 12
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
“Overall, our search located 34 studies that were US-based field experiments of hiring, included contrasts between white and nonwhite applicant profiles that were on-average equivalent in their labor-market relevant characteristics (e.g., education, experience level in the labor market).”
§ Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time > Acknowledgements
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 each case, we see coefficients for the time trend that are close to zero-ranging from an estimated increase of 0.1% per year (0.001) to an increase of 1.3% per year (0.013) -suggesting little change in the level of discrimination facing African Americans over time.”
§ Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time > Results
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.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The racial identifiers used in the original field experiments (e.g., racially identifiable names or tester race) validly signal race to employers and do not differ systematically on other employment-relevant characteristics.
- Rests on an assumption: The year in which data were gathered is a valid and comparable indicator of the time trend in hiring discrimination.
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
“Studies have fieldwork periods range from 1972 to 2015 for African Americans and 1989 to 2015 for Latinos.”
§ Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time > Coding and Selection of Analysis
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.
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 remaining 28 studies yielded 24 estimates of discrimination against African Americans and 9 against Latinos relative to whites.”
§ Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time > Acknowledgements
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
“With this modification, the trend line for African Americans slants more downward, but is still close to zero (-0.008) and statistically nonsignificant.”
§ Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time > Results
plainn = 3- 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.
- Rests on an assumption: The racial identifiers used in the original field experiments (e.g., racially identifiable names or tester race) validly signal race to employers and do not differ systematically on other employment-relevant characteristics.
- Rests on an assumption: The year in which data were gathered is a valid and comparable indicator of the time trend in hiring discrimination.
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 modified results show the trend line slanting slightly more upward, providing less evidence to support a downward trend than the results including a more heterogeneous set of applicant characteristics.”
§ Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time > Results
plaindirectn = 7- 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.
- Rests on an assumption: The racial identifiers used in the original field experiments (e.g., racially identifiable names or tester race) validly signal race to employers and do not differ systematically on other employment-relevant characteristics.
- Rests on an assumption: The year in which data were gathered is a valid and comparable indicator of the time trend in hiring discrimination.
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
“studies in which racial discrimination was the focus of the analysis (and for which there may be more pressure to demonstrate a positive effect) show no more discrimination than studies in which other characteristics were the main focus”
§ Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time > Results
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.
- Rests on an assumption: The racial identifiers used in the original field experiments (e.g., racially identifiable names or tester race) validly signal race to employers and do not differ systematically on other employment-relevant characteristics.
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
“In later models, we include a more extensive set of predictors to control for other factors that might confound the time trend.”
§ Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time > The Meta-Analysis Model.
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.
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
“This formula will slightly overestimate the SE of the effect for studies that are paired but we treat as unpaired due to lack of information about the outcomes at the pair level, underweighting these studies a bit in computing the overall effect, and slightly inflating the overall cross-study SE.”
§ Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time > The Meta-Analysis Model.
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. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Likewise, from an accountability standpoint, discrimination is less easily detected, and therefore less costly to employers, at the point of hire (26).”
§ Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [26]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- 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.
- 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
“The field experimental method is a design with high causal (internal) validity because it benefits from aspects of experimental design.”
§ Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time > Abstract
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.
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
“We conclude that this evidence rules out all but a slow decline in discriminationwith the most likely estimate being the point estimate, which indicates no decline in discrimination at all.”
§ Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time > Results
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.
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
“Each study was coded independently by two raters, with disagreement resolved by the first author.”
§ Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time > Identifying Relevant Studies.
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.
In the paper
“Social psychological theories would predict hiring to be most vulnerable to the influence of racial bias, given that objective information is limited or unreliable (23)(24)(25).”
§ Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites (23)(24)(25)
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: 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
In the paper
“Random effects are recommended whenever there is reason to believe that the effect in question is likely to vary as a function of design features of the study, rather than representing a single underlying effect that is constant over the whole population.”
§ Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time > The Meta-Analysis Model.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [22]
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: fails — It may be too vague to check 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 be too vague to check against evidence.
- Not matched
In the paper
“We note that our results do not address the possibility that hiring discrimination may have substantially dropped in the 1960s or early 1970s, during the civil rights era when many forms of direct discrimination were outlawed, as some evidence suggests (1).”
§ Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [1]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- 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
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
“Contrary to claims of declining discrimination in American society, our estimates suggest that levels of discrimination remain largely unchanged, at least at the point of hire.”
§ Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time > Abstract
hedgedn = 28- 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.
- Rests on an assumption: The racial identifiers used in the original field experiments (e.g., racially identifiable names or tester race) validly signal race to employers and do not differ systematically on other employment-relevant characteristics.
- Rests on an assumption: The year in which data were gathered is a valid and comparable indicator of the time trend in hiring discrimination.
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
“We perform a meta-analysis of every available field experiment of hiring discrimination against African Americans or Latinos (n = 28).”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
“Together, these studies represent 55,842 applications submitted for 26,326 positions.”
§ Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time > Abstract
plainn = 28- 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: § Abstract · plain
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
“We also required that contrasts of hiring outcomes between race or ethnic groups were made for groups that were on average equivalent in their labor market relevant characteristics, since otherwise discrimination estimates are confounded with the difference in nonracial characteristics.”
§ Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time > Identifying Relevant Studies.
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.
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
“We also required that contrasts of hiring outcomes between race or ethnic groups were made for groups that were on average equivalent in their labor market relevant characteristics, since otherwise discrimination estimates are confounded with the difference in nonracial characteristics.”
§ Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time > Identifying Relevant Studies.
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.
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 initial rubric was reviewed and updated by all authors of this study for completeness.It was subsequently refined as coding progressed.”
§ Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time > Identifying Relevant Studies.
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 paper relies on this without support.
The racial identifiers used in the original field experiments (e.g., racially identifiable names or tester race) validly signal race to employers and do not differ systematically on other employment-relevant characteristics.
“In the typical resume audit, clues indicating race (such as a racially identifiable name) are randomly assigned to otherwise similar resumes, allowing for treatment and control groups to be equated through randomization.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The year in which data were gathered is a valid and comparable indicator of the time trend in hiring discrimination.
“We analyze the relationship of discrimination ratios to years in which the data were gathered to provide an estimate of the trend in discrimination.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The true effect of race on callback rates varies across studies and situations, such as by year, occupation, and applicant skill level.
“This is surely the case in our analysis, as we expect that the level of racial discrimination may depend on the year of the study, the situation the study considers (e.g., the occupational categories), the skill level of the applicants, and so on.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The true effects of race on callback rate in each situation estimated by each study vary between studies with a normal distribution around a mean effect.
“More formally, random-effects meta-analysis allows the true effects of race on the callback rate in each situation estimated by each study, θ i , to vary between studies by assuming that they have a normal distribution around a mean effect, θ.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Study-level heterogeneity follows a normal distribution around the linear predictor.
“The model assumes the study-level heterogeneity follows a normal distribution around the linear predictor:”
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 source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“In Quillian et al. [74]'s résumé audit studies, race-associated names produce callback differentials equivalent to approximately d = 0 . 10˘0 . 30”
From All Public Voices Are Equal, But Are Some More Equal Than Others to LLMs? (2026) · cites this paper as [74]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Quillian et al. (2017) find that there has been no change over the past 25 years in discrimination against African Americans in the United States.”
From Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments (2021) · cites this paper as Quillian et al. (2017)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Both of these findings align with existing work on the persistence of gender segregation (Zhu and Grusky 2022) and racial inequality (Quillian et al. 2017) in the U.S. labor market.”
From Getting a Foot in the Door: A Meta-Analysis of U.S. Audit Studies of Gender Bias in Hiring (2025) · cites this paper as Quillian et al. 2017
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing 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).”
From The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of (almost) all recent correspondence experiments (2023) · cites this paper as Quillian et al., 2017
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Tests for publication bias discussed in the supplemental material ofQuillian et al. (2017Quillian et al. ( , 2019)), however, find either no evidence of publication bias or that its effects on estimates is small.”
From Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments (2021) · cites this paper as Quillian et al. (2017
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time > Acknowledgements
“Our remaining 28 studies yielded 24 estimates of discrimination against African Americans and 9 against Latinos relative to whites.”
§ Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time > Coding and Selection of Analysis
“Excluding the early studies leaves us with 21 estimates of discrimination against African Americans and nine against Latinos from 24 studies (six studies include estimates of discrimination against both African Americans and Latinos).”
Citations
Cites
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009) · doi:10.1002/9780470743386 · Cited by 14,225
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2021) · doi:10.1002/9781119558378 · Cited by 9,799
(2004) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.41-3182 · Cited by 4,740
The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis
(2019) · doi:10.7758/9781610448864 · Cited by 4,553
Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2004) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/0002828042002561 · Cited by 4,504
Racism without racists: color-blind racism and the persistence of racial inequality in America
(2013) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.51-2956 · Cited by 2,685
(2010) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.47-6626 · Cited by 2,234
Prejudice and politics: Symbolic racism versus racial threats to the good life.
Kinder, D. R., & Sears, D. O. (1981) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.40.3.414 · Cited by 1,965
Racial Attitudes in America: Trends and Interpretations
Bruce, S. E., Schuman, H., Steeh, C., & Bobo, L. D. (1987) · British Journal of Sociology · doi:10.2307/590918 · Cited by 1,919
(1998) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 1,773
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- D Wessel Fear of bias suits may be affecting hiring decisions. Wall Street Journal section A p 2. (September 11 2003).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 401–500 of 886
Taylor, M. M., Fernandez, C. S. P., Dave, G., Brandert, K. T., Larkin, S., Mollenkopf, K., & Corbie, G. (2023) · Equity in Education & Society · doi:10.1177/27526461231159920 · Cited by 5
Hansen, H. (2023) · International Journal of Social Welfare · doi:10.1111/ijsw.12594 · Cited by 5
Fuhrer, J. C. (2023) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/15048.001.0001 · Cited by 5
Unstable Work Schedules and Racial Earnings Disparities Among U.S. Workers
Cai, J. Y., & Mattingly, M. (2025) · RSF The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences · doi:10.7758/rsf.2025.11.1.10 · Cited by 5
Can gender and race dynamics in performance appraisals be disrupted? The case of social influence
Bohnet, I., Hauser, O., & Kristal, A. S. (2025) · Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization · doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2025.107032 · Cited by 5
dos Santos, P. L., & Wiener, N. M. (2019) · Journal of Mathematical Sociology · doi:10.1080/0022250x.2019.1630832 · Cited by 5
A Critique of Repealing the Affordable Care Act: Implications for Queer People of Color
Williams, N. D., & Anderson, E. A. (2020) · Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy · doi:10.1111/asap.12197 · Cited by 5
Race, Repression and the Future of New Labor Activism
Wingfield, A. H. (2023) · Work and Occupations · doi:10.1177/07308884231162962 · Cited by 5
The implicit epistemology ofWhite Fragility
Sokal, A. D. (2023) · Journal of Philosophy of Education · doi:10.1093/jopedu/qhad025 · Cited by 5
Employers’ Neighborhoods and Racial Discrimination
Agan, A., & Starr, S. B. (2024) · The Journal of Legal Studies · doi:10.1086/728242 · Cited by 5
Bonoli, G., & Fossati, F. (2018) · Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies · doi:10.1080/1369183x.2018.1502658 · Cited by 5
Trends in Black–White Employment Gaps Since the Great Recession
Masterson, T. (2018) · The Review of Black Political Economy · doi:10.1177/0034644618813717 · Cited by 5
Ethnic and Racial Prejudice Across the Life Span
Hoffman, A. J., Rivas‐Drake, D., Settles, I. H., Brassel, S. T., & Pinetta, B. J. (2019) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-12228-7_2 · Cited by 8
Immigrant stereotypes and differential screening
Lambert, J. R., & Akinlade, E. (2019) · Personnel Review · doi:10.1108/pr-06-2018-0229 · Cited by 5
(Main)streaming Hate: Analyzing White Supremacist Content and Framing Devices on YouTube
Charles, C. A. D. (2020) · Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication Research · Cited by 5
Wagner, S., & Petev, I. D. (2024) · Socius Sociological Research for a Dynamic World · doi:10.1177/23780231241276343 · Cited by 5
An Old Theme Revisited: Sociology and Ideology
Wieviorka, M. (2003) · Comparative Sociology · doi:10.1163/15691330-00203006 · Cited by 5
DeWitt, S. E. (2018) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3108026 · Cited by 5
Equality Denied: Tech and African Americans
Lazonick, W. H., Open Society Fellow, Moss, P., & Weitz, J. (2022) · doi:10.36687/inetwp177 · Cited by 5
Gender and Gender Identity in the Rental Housing Market: Evidence from a Correspondence StudyPreprint
Jansson, J., & Fritzson, S. (2022) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4058828 · Cited by 5
Perspectives de l'emploi de l'OCDE
OECD (2009) · Perspectives de l'emploi de l'OCDE/OCDE perspectives de l'emploi · doi:10.1787/19991274 · Cited by 5
Relationship satisfaction in Black heterosexual couples: The role of self‐compassion and openness
Williams, Z., & Baptist, J. A. (2023) · Journal of Marital and Family Therapy · doi:10.1111/jmft.12666 · Cited by 4
Representation, Nonprofit Leaders of Color, and Job Attraction: A Survey Experiment
Li, B., & Kim, M. (2024) · Review of Public Personnel Administration · doi:10.1177/0734371x241302514 · Cited by 4
Lay Perceptions of Algorithmic Discrimination in the Context of Systemic Injustice
Lima, G., Grgić-Hlača, N., Langer, M., & Zou, Y. (2025) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3706598.3713536 · Cited by 5
Effects of name learning and name use on interethnic perceptions
Biernat, M., Zhao, X., Watkins, E. C., & Leonardelli, G. J. (2025) · Group Processes & Intergroup Relations · doi:10.1177/13684302251344919 · Cited by 4
Ajayi, A. A., Grier‐Reed, T., & Houseworth, J. E. (2022) · Journal of Black Psychology · doi:10.1177/00957984211067619 · Cited by 4
Diversifying the American Teacher Workforce: Problematizing the Past and Building the Future
Easley, J. (2023) · Excelsior Leadership in Teaching and Learning · doi:10.14305/jn.19440413.2023.15.2.03 · Cited by 4
Silver, I. A., D’Amato, C., & WOOLDREDGE, J. D. (2023) · Social Forces · doi:10.1093/sf/soad113 · Cited by 4
To Impress an Algorithm: Minoritized Applicants’ Perceptions of Fairness in AI Hiring Systems
Girona, A. E., & Yarger, L. K. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-57860-1_4 · Cited by 7
Milian, R. P., & Wijesingha, R. (2024) · Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de sociologie · doi:10.1111/cars.12471 · Cited by 4
Confederate Monuments and Anti-Black Stereotypes in the U.S. South
O’Connell, H. A. (2024) · Sociology of Race and Ethnicity · doi:10.1177/23326492241264234 · Cited by 4
Páez, A., & Arcila-Valenzuela, M. (2023) · Isonomía - Revista de teoría y filosofía del derecho · doi:10.5347/isonomia.59/2023.653 · Cited by 4
Quirós, S., & Biswas, N. (2025) · Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities · doi:10.1007/s40615-025-02321-z · Cited by 4
Wingfield, A. H., & Roach, A. (2025) · Sociology of Race and Ethnicity · doi:10.1177/23326492251320960 · Cited by 4
Igarashi, A. (2024) · European Sociological Review · doi:10.1093/esr/jcae036 · Cited by 4
Guo, X., Chen, W., & Iurchenko, D. (2021) · New England journal of entrepreneurship · doi:10.1108/neje-04-2021-0025 · Cited by 4
Glover, J., Lynn, C., Holzman, J. B. W., Germone, M. M., & Talmi, A. (2022) · Journal of Pediatric Psychology · doi:10.1093/jpepsy/jsac063 · Cited by 4
Alvarado, S. E., & Cooperstock, A. (2023) · City and Community · doi:10.1177/15356841231179436 · Cited by 4
The Societal Impacts of Algorithmic Decision-Making
Raghavan, M. (2023) · ACM eBooks · doi:10.1145/3603195 · Cited by 8
Equity, diversity, and inclusion in sports analytics
Fernandes, C., Vescovi, J. D., Norman, R., Bradish, C. L., Taback, N., & Chan, T. C. Y. (2024) · Journal of Quantitative Analysis in Sports · doi:10.1515/jqas-2022-0025 · Cited by 4
Murphy, B. R. (2020) · Fisheries · doi:10.1002/fsh.10543 · Cited by 4
How Financial Aid Policy Shortchanges American Healthcare
Baugh, A. D., & Baugh, R. F. (2021) · Teaching and Learning in Medicine · doi:10.1080/10401334.2021.1977135 · Cited by 4
Slavery, Colonialism, and Ecological Imperialism: Insights from Stratification Economics
Goubert, A. E. A. (2022) · American Journal of Economics and Sociology · doi:10.1111/ajes.12473 · Cited by 5
Accounting for Black-White Wealth Differences: A Stylized Model of Wealth Accumulation
Edwards, K. A. (2022) · RAND Corporation eBooks · doi:10.7249/rra1259-1 · Cited by 4
Hughes, C. (2023) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-33250-0_1 · Cited by 4
Gender Discrimination and Retaliation at Pinterest
Jha, S. K., & Jha, S. (2022) · FIIB Business Review · doi:10.1177/23197145221099600 · Cited by 4
An Examination of the Experiences of Black Football Athletes
Porter, J. (2019) · Journal of Intercollegiate Sport · doi:10.17161/jis.v12i1.11561 · Cited by 4
Parasurama, P., Ghose, A., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2020) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3672484 · Cited by 4
Reminders of ingroup privilege often threaten identity but rarely change beliefsPreprint
Puryear, C., Steele, L. M., Lawler, J. R., & Vandello, J. A. (2019) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/gvjkc · Cited by 4
Changes in the Amount and Type of Social Science Research on Discrimination: 1950 to 2015Preprint
Crabtree, C. D., Gaddis, S. M., Holbein, J. B., & Larsen, E. N. (2021) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.3977169 · Cited by 4
Socio-Economic Impacts of Predictive Policing on Minority Communities and Potential SolutionsPreprint
Singhvi, H. (2024) · doi:10.58445/rars.2024 · Cited by 4
Bellisle, D., & Ybarra, M. (2024) · Poverty & Public Policy · doi:10.1002/pop4.396 · Cited by 3
Avent‐Holt, D., Kristal, T., & Garmash, L. (2025) · Research in Social Stratification and Mobility · doi:10.1016/j.rssm.2025.101021 · Cited by 3
İlhan, Ü. D., Güler, B. K., Turgut, D., & Duran, C. (2025) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0325932 · Cited by 4
Welfare chauvinism in divided societies: the role of national identity in social policy preferences
Ward, P., & Denney, S. (2025) · Policy and Society · doi:10.1093/polsoc/puaf027 · Cited by 3
Verhaeghe, P. (2025) · Sociology Compass · doi:10.1111/soc4.70141 · Cited by 3
Implicit Bias: Evolution of a Powerful Idea
Payne, B. K. (2026) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-030525-043416 · Cited by 4
A framework for merit, diversity, equity, and inclusion
Madera, J. M. (2026) · International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management · doi:10.1108/ijchm-05-2025-0636 · Cited by 3
Mapping the use of large language models in hiring decisions: a scoping review
Tripathi, A., Tripathi, A., Dařena, F., & Mishra, P. K. (2026) · Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.3389/frai.2026.1798519 · Cited by 6
Haro‐Ramos, A. Y., Block, R., & Sánchez, G. R. (2024) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.117254 · Cited by 3
On the Limits of Anonymization for Promoting Diversity in Organizations
Chang, L. W., & Chang, E. H. (2025) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/01461672241304593 · Cited by 6
Sedlacek, Q. C., Villa, A. M., Friend, M., Perez, G. A., Dozier, S. J., Haeger, H. A., Lomelí, K., & Mejia, J. A. (2025) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-025-10021-7 · Cited by 6
Craig, M. A., & Pietri, E. S. (2025) · Social and Personality Psychology Compass · doi:10.1111/spc3.70063 · Cited by 3
Applying While Black: The Collateral Effects of Racial Differences in Work Histories
Parasurama, P., Leung, M. D., & Koppman, S. (2025) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.1177/00018392251340351 · Cited by 3
Perceived Discrimination against Black Americans and White Americans
Zigerell, L. J. (2021) · Meta-Psychology · doi:10.15626/mp.2019.1778 · Cited by 3
How different are minority managers from White managers in the mutual fund industry?
Dewald, F., & Fan, Z. (2022) · Economics Letters · doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2022.110910 · Cited by 3
Tran, H., & Platt, S. (2023) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/978-1-83753-494-420231011 · Cited by 3
Kaleidoscopic Inquiries: Queering Approaches to Organizational Diversity Work
Kenney, S. C. (2024) · Management Communication Quarterly · doi:10.1177/08933189241239175 · Cited by 3
Understanding Implicit Bias and Its Impact in Veterinary Medicine
Tan, J., & Fogelberg, K. (2024) · Veterinary Clinics of North America Small Animal Practice · doi:10.1016/j.cvsm.2024.06.005 · Cited by 3
Rorie, M. L., Sohoni, T., & Reed, S. M. (2024) · Justice Quarterly · doi:10.1080/07418825.2024.2388205 · Cited by 3
Aversive Racism and Implicit Bias
Dovidio, J. F., Pearson, A. R., Schellhaas, F. M. H., Gaertner, S. L., & Penner, L. A. (2024) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108885492.008 · Cited by 3
Good jobs, good tenants? Understanding racial and gender discrimination in the housing market
Huang, A. H., & Bao, H. X. H. (2025) · Housing Studies · doi:10.1080/02673037.2025.2498377 · Cited by 3
The power of affective capital: rethinking emotions in racial domination
Hordge-Freeman, E., & Loblack, A. (2025) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.1080/01419870.2025.2570477 · Cited by 3
Bendick, M., & Cohn, E. M. (2021) · The Social Science Journal · doi:10.1080/03623319.2021.1884776 · Cited by 3
Quota-based debiasing can decrease representation of the most under-represented groups
Smirnov, I., Lemmerich, F., & Strohmaier, M. (2021) · Royal Society Open Science · doi:10.1098/rsos.210821 · Cited by 4
McConnell, C. (2022) · The Open Journal of Occupational Therapy · doi:10.15453/2168-6408.1888 · Cited by 3
Banks-Hall, R., & Miller, O. (2022) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009064668.004 · Cited by 3
How to Motivate People to Care about Prejudice Reduction in the Workplace
Legate, N., & Weinstein, N. (2023) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197600047.013.53 · Cited by 3
Mesurer des discriminations ethno-raciales en France : l’apport des testing
L’Horty, Y., & Petit, P. (2023) · Appartenances & Altérités · doi:10.4000/alterites.441 · Cited by 3
Measuring ethno-racial discrimination in France: the contribution of correspondence tests
L’Horty, Y., & Petit, P. (2023) · Appartenances & Altérités · doi:10.4000/alterites.473 · Cited by 3
Holding Back: The Impact of Motivation to Control Prejudice on Stereotypes About Immigrants
Fladmoe, A., Orupabo, J., Brekke, J.-P., & Mohn, F. A. (2024) · Nordic Journal of Migration Research · doi:10.33134/njmr.541 · Cited by 3
Maternal employment when children are in preschool: Variations by race, ethnicity, and nativity
Kesler, C. (2019) · Social Science Research · doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2019.102349 · Cited by 3
Comparing genderblind and colorblind ideologies in public and private contexts
Koenig, A. M. (2021) · Journal of Applied Social Psychology · doi:10.1111/jasp.12808 · Cited by 3
Ren, C. (2022) · Social Science Research · doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2022.102710 · Cited by 3
Avoiding Bias in the Search for Implicit Bias
Cyrus-Lai, W., Tierney, W., du Plessis, C., Nguyen, M., Schaerer, M., Clemente, E. G., & Uhlmann, E. L. (2022) · Psychological Inquiry · doi:10.1080/1047840x.2022.2106762 · Cited by 3
Diskriminierung auf dem Arbeitsmarkt
Veit, S., & Arikan, Z. (2023) · Springer Reference Sozialwissenschaften · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-11119-9_48-1 · Cited by 5
Marijuana Use and Perceptions of Employment Suitability
Tews, M. J., Pons, S., & Yu, H. C. (2023) · Journal of Personnel Psychology · doi:10.1027/1866-5888/a000332 · Cited by 3
Capital Market Pressure and Racial Inequality in Labor Violations
Carnahan, S., McVay, S. E., & Rabier, M. (2026) · The Accounting Review · doi:10.2308/tar-2024-0063 · Cited by 3
Kent, S. R., John, J. E., & Robnett, R. D. (2020) · International Journal of Gender, Science, and Technology · Cited by 3
Hall, G., & Burrowes, S. (2019) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/549493 · Cited by 3
Racial/Ethnic Perceptions from Hispanic Names: Selecting Names to Test for DiscriminationPreprint
Gaddis, S. M. (2017) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.2975829 · Cited by 3
When People of Color Are Left out of Research, Science and the Public Loses
Ray, K. S. (2020) · AJOB Neuroscience · doi:10.1080/21507740.2020.1830885 · Cited by 3
Audit Studies of Housing in the United States: Established, Emerging, and Future ResearchPreprint
Gaddis, S. M., & DiRago, N. V. (2021) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.31235/osf.io/fn4ta · Cited by 3
BIAS Word inventory for work and employment diversity, (in)equality and inclusivity (Version 2.0)Preprint
Konnikov, A., Denier, N., Hu, Y., Hughes, K. D., Deutsch, R., Ding, L., Al-Ani, J. A., Rets, I., & Tarafdar, M. (2022) · doi:10.31235/osf.io/t9v3a · Cited by 3
Fear of appearance discrimination and its influence on well‐being across cultures
Ai, L., Cui, Q., Tanimoto, C., & Ishii, K. (2024) · Asian Journal Of Social Psychology · doi:10.1111/ajsp.12655 · Cited by 2
Zschirnt, E., Lacroix, J., & Ruedin, D. (2025) · European Societies · doi:10.1162/euso_a_00034 · Cited by 2
Tomlinson, O., Nix, A., & TyreeHageman, J. (2025) · Journal of Business Ethics · doi:10.1007/s10551-025-06022-9 · Cited by 3
Keith, M. G., Strah, N., & Sorensen, M. B. (2025) · Industrial and Organizational Psychology · doi:10.1017/iop.2025.10023 · Cited by 2
A Stealth Serious Game About Hiring Bias
Pesak, P., & Hlavacs, H. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-10518-9_4 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Quillian, L., Pager, D., Hexel, O., & Midtbøen, A. H.
- Affiliations
- Northwestern University (US)
- Harvard University (US)
- Institute for Social Research (NO)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Publisher
- National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2017-09-12
- Volume
- 114
- Issue
- 41
- Pages
- 10870-10875
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- PMC
- PMC5642692
- OpenAlex
- W2756054281
- Cited by
- 887
- References
- 36
- Citations by year
- 2026: 88 · 2025: 121 · 2024: 111 · 2023: 138 · 2022: 130 · 2021: 104 · 2020: 76 · 2019: 79 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 4
- FWCI
- 13.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- BIBSYS Brage (BIBSYS (Norway)) (acceptedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Russell Sage Foundation (RSF) (88-15-06)
- Northwestern Institute for Policy Research (N/A)
- 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
- racial discrimination in hiring, callbacks, African Americans, Hispanic Americans, labor market discrimination, field experiments, applicant gender
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Personnel Selection, Racism, Social Discrimination
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).
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
