Evidence from Field Experiments in Hiring Shows Substantial Additional Racial Discrimination after the Callback
Abstract
Field experiments using fictitious applications have become an increasingly important method for assessing hiring discrimination. Most field experiments of hiring, however, only observe whether the applicant receives an invitation to interview, called the “callback.” How adequate is our understanding of discrimination in the hiring process based on an assessment of discrimination in callbacks, when the ultimate subject of interest is discrimination in job offers? To address this question, we examine evidence from all available field experimental studies of racial or ethnic discrimination in hiring that go to the job offer outcome. Our sample includes 12 studies encompassing more than 13,000 job applications. We find considerable additional discrimination in hiring after the callback: majority applicants in our sample receive 53% more callbacks than comparable minority applicants, but majority applicants receive 145% more job offers than comparable minority applicants. The additional discrimination from interview to job offer is weakly correlated (r = 0.21) with the level of discrimination earlier in the hiring process. We discuss the implications of our results for theories of discrimination, including statistical discrimination.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Limited studies that examine the final point of the screening stage-the job offer-present more substantial discrimination than when only examining the callback stage.
“Limited studies that do examine the final point of the screening stage-the job offer-present more substantial discrimination than when only examining the callback stage (Quillian, Lee, and Oliver 2020).”
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, Lee, and Oliver 2020
Cites
The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis
(2019) · doi:10.7758/9781610448864 · Cited by 4,553 · see citing works
Perceived discrimination and health: A meta-analytic review.
Pascoe, E. A., & Smart Richman, L. (2009) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0016059 · Cited by 4,427 · see citing works
Discrimination in a Low-Wage Labor Market: A Field Experiment
Pager, D., Bonikowski, B., & Western, B. (2009) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/000312240907400505 · Cited by 1,022 · see citing works
Meta-analysis of field experiments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time
Quillian, L., Pager, D., Hexel, O., & Midtbøen, A. H. (2017) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1706255114 · Cited by 887 · see citing works
Self-citationHow Conditioning on Posttreatment Variables Can Ruin Your Experiment and What to Do about It
Montgomery, J. M., Nyhan, B., & Torres, M. (2018) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12357 · Cited by 800 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Conditioning on callback in calculating job offers conditions on a posttreatment variable, which can create bias in analyses of experiments (Coppock 2019; Montgomery et al. 2018).”
BackgroundAutomatic associations and discrimination in hiring: Real world evidence
Rooth, D.-O. (2010) · Labour Economics · doi:10.1016/j.labeco.2009.04.005 · Cited by 413 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments
Quillian, L., & Midtbøen, A. H. (2021) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-090420-035144 · Cited by 180 · see citing works
Self-citationGetting a Foot in the Door: A Meta-Analysis of U.S. Audit Studies of Gender Bias in Hiring
Park, S. Y., & Oh, E. (2025) · Sociological Science · doi:10.15195/v12.a2 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Lippens, L., Vermeiren, S., & Baert, S. (2023) · European Economic Review · doi:10.1016/j.euroecorev.2022.104315
- Authors
- Quillian, L., Lee, J. J., & Oliver, M.
- Affiliations
- Northwestern University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Quillian, Lincoln
- Venue
- Social Forces
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2020-04-07
- Volume
- 99
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 732-759
- ISSN
- 0037-7732 (ISSN-L)
- 1534-7605
- OpenAlex
- W3015393644
- Cited by
- 105
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 4 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 18.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model (vor)
- Locations
- Social Forces (publishedVersion)
- Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Names, Identity, and Discrimination Research
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Urban, Neighborhood, and Segregation Studies
- Keywords
- racial discrimination in hiring, ethnic discrimination, callbacks, job offers, job applications, statistical discrimination, labor market discrimination, interview process, minority candidates
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.
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