Cited by 155Ethics and Social Impacts of AINames, Identity, and Discrimination ResearchAI and HR Technologies

Investigating the Impact of Gender on Rank in Resume Search Engines

Open access
Chen, Le, Ma, Ruijun, Hannák, Anikó, Wilson, Christo·2018·Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Abstract

In this work we investigate gender-based inequalities in the context of resume search engines, which are tools that allow recruiters to proactively search for candidates based on keywords and filters. If these ranking algorithms take demographic features into account (directly or indirectly), they may produce rankings that disadvantage some candidates. We collect search results from Indeed, Monster, and CareerBuilder based on 35 job titles in 20 U. S. cities, resulting in data on 855K job candidates. Using statistical tests, we examine whether these search engines produce rankings that exhibit two types of indirect discrimination: individual and group unfairness. Furthermore, we use controlled experiments to show that these websites do not use inferred gender of candidates as explicit features in their ranking algorithms.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/3173574.3174225

Cites

84 of 84 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Uncontrolled biases in recommender systems can lead to uneven distribution of opportunities and resources, exacerbating echo chamber or filter bubble effects.

    “Usually, a biased system generates the biased output, and the uncontrolled biases can lead to the uneven distribution of opportunities and resources [58, 78], exacerbating the “ 𝐸𝑐ℎ𝑜 𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 ” or “ 𝐹𝑖𝑙𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝐵𝑢𝑏𝑏𝑙𝑒𝑠 ” effects [86, 87].”

    From A Deep Dive into Fairness, Bias, Threats, and Privacy in Recommender Systems: Insights and Future Research (2024) · cites this paper as [58]

    The Introduction (CHI 2018 section; page unavailable) says biased resume-search rankings may disadvantage candidates, and the Interpretation section explains that candidates who are not seen have no chance of an interview or hire. This supports uneven access to hiring opportunities, but the paper does not establish uneven distribution of resources across recommender systems generally. The citing sentence attaches separate citations to echo chambers and filter bubbles, so those effects are not attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Google, Twitter, and Pinterest all provide similar features, called Customer Match, Tailored Audiences, and Customer Lists, respectively.

    “Google, Twitter, and Pinterest all provide similar features; these are called Customer Match[7], Tailored Audiences, and Customer Lists[61], respectively.”

    From Discrimination through Optimization (2019) · cites this paper as [7]

    The Hiring Websites section (page not provided) discusses resume-search services, not advertising audience features. Searches of our full-text copy for Customer Lists, Tailored Audiences, Customer Match, and Pinterest found no passage addressing the attributed feature names. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Automated interviews, including the use of speech and facial recognition software, have been shown to perform poorly, particularly with regards to women of colour.

    “Automated interviews, including the use of speech and facial recognition software, has been shown to perform poorly, particularly with regards to women of colour [15,16].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 85 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Motahhare Eslami, Amirhossein Aleyasen, Karrie Karahalios, Kevin Hamilton, and Christian Sandvig. 2015. Feedvis: A path for exploring news feed curation algorithms. In Proc. of CSCW Companion.
  2. Faisal Kamiran and Toon Calders. 2010. Classification with No Discrimination by Preferential Sampling. In Proc. of Machine Learning Conference of Belgium and The Netherlands.
  3. Pauline T. Kim. 2017. Data-Driven Discrimination at Work. William & Mary Law Review 58 (2017).
  4. Gabriel Magno, Camila Souza Araujo, Wagner Meira Jr., and Virgílio A. F. Almeida. 2016. Stereotypes in Search Engine Answers: Local or Global? CoRR abs/1609.05413 (2016). · arXiv
  5. Devah Pager and Hana Shepherd. 2008. The sociology of discrimination: Racial discrimination in employment, housing, credit, and consumer markets. Annual review of sociology 34 (2008), 181.
  6. Christian Sandvig, Kevin Hamilton, Karrie Karahalios, and Cedric Langbort. 2014. Auditing algorithms: Research methods for detecting discrimination on internet platforms. In Proceedings of "Data and Discrimination: Converting Critical Concerns into Productive Inquiry", a preconference at the 64th Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association.
  7. Latanya Sweeney. 2013. Discrimination in Online Ad Delivery. (2013). http://ssrn.com/abstract=2208240.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chen, L., Ma, R., Hannák, A., & Wilson, C.
Affiliations
  • Northeastern University (US)
  • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
  • Central European University - Budapest Campus (HU)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2018-04-21
Pages
1-14
OpenAlex
W2796402109
Cited by
155
References
85
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 2
FWCI
30.43
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
Funders
NSF (IIS-1408345, IIS-1553088)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Names, Identity, and Discrimination Research
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › AI and HR Technologies
Keywords
gender discrimination, job search engines, algorithmic fairness, indirect discrimination, candidate ranking, gender inference, Indeed, monsters, recruitment bias

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