How Race and Unemployment Shape Labor Market Opportunities: Additive, Amplified, or Muted Effects?
Abstract
The manner in which social categories combine to produce inequality lies at the heart of scholarship on social stratification. To date, scholars have largely pointed to two primary ways that negatively stereotyped categories may aggregate: 1) additive effects, whereby one category has similar consequences across the other category, and 2) amplified congruence, whereby a secondary category exacerbates the negative effects of the first category. This article develops an alternative potential aggregation pattern—muted congruence—which posits that when individuals evaluate others that occupy multiple social positions about which stereotypes are highly congruent, such as being black and being unemployed, the additional category membership will have limited influence over the ultimate evaluation. Using evidence from a field experiment, where fictitious applications were submitted to real job openings, I examine which aggregation pattern most accurately reflects how race and unemployment shape actual hiring decisions. In line with predictions from the “muted congruence” perspective, the findings indicate that racial discrimination is prominent, but that there are limited additional negative effects of unemployment for African American workers. I conclude by discussing the implications of these findings for understanding the aggregation of social categories in the production of inequality.
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?
Pedulla (2018) did not find evidence of additive effects of race and unemployment in the US.
“In a US study, Pedulla (2018), by contrast, does not find evidence of additive effects of race and unemployment.”
From Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments (2021) · cites this paper as Pedulla (2018)
Pedulla (2018) documents substantial discrimination against African Americans, but the penalties of unemployment are weaker for Black applicants than for equally qualified White applicants.
“This field experiment documents substantial discrimination against African Americans, but the results show that the penalties of unemployment are weaker for Black applicants than for equally qualified White applicants.”
From Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments (2021) · cites this paper as Pedulla (2018)
Cites
Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment.
Brewer, R. M., & Collins, P. H. (1992) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2074808 · Cited by 19,445 · see citing works
Crenshaw, K. (2018) · Feminist Legal Theory · doi:10.4324/9780429500480-5 · Cited by 9,510 · see citing works
The Complexity of Intersectionality
McCall, L. (2005) · Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society · doi:10.1086/426800 · Cited by 6,682 · 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
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
Getting 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
- Authors
- Pedulla, D. S.
- Affiliations
- Stanford University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Pedulla, David S
- ORCID
- Pedulla, David S
- Venue
- Social Forces
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2018-03-15
- Volume
- 96
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1477-1506
- ISSN
- 0037-7732 (ISSN-L)
- 1534-7605
- OpenAlex
- W2793938728
- Cited by
- 82
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 4
- FWCI
- 14.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Social Forces (publishedVersion)
- Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (5 R24 HD042849, 1203135)
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1H79AE000100‐1)
- Princeton University
- University of Chicago
- Horowitz Foundation for Social Policy
- Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R24HD042849)
- 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, unemployment, job applications, hiring decisions, African American workers, additive effects, stereotypes, labor market inequality, social stratification
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