Cited by 105Names, Identity, and Discrimination ResearchSocial and Intergroup PsychologyUrban, Neighborhood, and Segregation Studies

Evidence from Field Experiments in Hiring Shows Substantial Additional Racial Discrimination after the Callback

Quillian, Lincoln, Lee, John J, Oliver, Mariana·2020·Social Forces

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

Crossref · 10.1093/sf/soaa026

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Quillian, L., Lee, J. J., & Oliver, M.
Affiliations
Northwestern University (US)
Corresponding author
Quillian, Lincoln
Venue
Social Forces
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
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