The DOI matches its Crossref record; 145 of the 145 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 39 of the 103 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments
Open accessAbstract
This article reviews studies of hiring discrimination against racial and ethnic minority groups in cross-national perspective. We focus on field experimental studies of hiring discrimination: studies that use fictitious applications from members of different racial and ethnic groups to apply for actual jobs. There are more than 140 field experimental studies of hiring discrimination against ethno-racial minority groups in 30 countries. We outline seventeen empirical findings from this body of studies. We also discuss individual and contextual theories of hiring discrimination, the relative strengths and weaknesses of field experiments to assess discrimination, and the history of such field experiments. The comparative scope of this body of research helps to move beyond micromodels of employer decision-making to better understand the roles of history, social context, institutional rules, and racist ideologies in producing discrimination. These studies show that racial and ethnic discrimination is a pervasive international phenomenon that has hardly declined over time, although levels vary significantly over countries. Evidence indicates that institutional rules regarding race and ethnicity in hiring can have an important influence on levels of discrimination. Suggestions for future research on discrimination are discussed.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This review synthesizes more than 140 field experiments of racial and ethnic discrimination in hiring across 30 countries, locating 147 studies. It concludes that discrimination against non-White groups is pervasive and has hardly declined over time in the United States and United Kingdom, though levels vary substantially by country and context.
Key findings
- Discrimination against non-Whites is ubiquitous: across 129 country-by-race estimates, the average discrimination ratio is 1.45, meaning Whites receive about 50% more callbacks than non-Whites on average; ratios range from 1.0 (European/White in the Netherlands) to 3.07 (Middle Eastern/North African groups in Israel).
- Country variation is substantial, and the United States has rates similar to lower-rate European countries; in the United States and United Kingdom, field experiments show no change in hiring discrimination over the past 25 years.
- Context and institutions matter: larger employers and public-sector employers discriminate less; formalized hiring procedures, transparency, and accountability can reduce discrimination; cultural distance, Muslim religious signals, and criminal background are associated with additional disadvantage, though effects vary.
- Field experiments using only callback outcomes underestimate total hiring discrimination: studies following applicants to job offers find roughly as much discrimination after the callback as up to it, suggesting callback-based estimates understate discrimination by about a factor of two.
Methods
- The paper is a cross-national review and meta-analysis of field experimental studies of racial/ethnic discrimination in hiring, including in-person audit studies and resume/correspondence studies using fictitious matched applicants.
- The authors searched studies in multiple languages, examined references, and surveyed experts, locating 147 distinct studies in 30 countries; they also draw on formal meta-analyses and the GEMM cross-national project.
- Main analyses compute discrimination ratios (White native callbacks relative to minority applicants), use random-effects meta-regression, and compare country, group, and study characteristics.
Limitations
- The paper states that field experiments are usually not feasible for decisions involving extensive prior contact, such as internal promotions; external validity is difficult to evaluate; callback outcomes omit post-callback discrimination; name signals may connote class or immigration status and only 17.5% of resume audits use name pretests; and there is no established way to use field experimental results to determine how much discrimination creates racial disparities.
- The review states that there are only a few field experiments outside North America, Europe, and Australia, and that studies of racism and studies of discrimination remain highly separate, limiting understanding of how racist ideologies correspond to discriminatory acts.
- Evident from the text: the review’s conclusions depend on the designs, samples, and outcome measures of the included studies, which are not completely uniform across occupations, applicant details, and target groups.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
49 Own interpretation · 25 Sources not found · 18 No full text of the sources · 17 Supported · 17 Partly supported · 16 No basis given · 9 Own result · 3 Supported so far · 2 Not checked yet · 1 Couldn’t confirm · 1 Own method · accuracy not yet measured
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Additionally, even equal treatment at the callback level may conceal subtler differences in treatment, as shown by Zschirnt (2019).”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > ASSESSING DISCRIMINATION: STRENGHS AND WEAKNESSES OF FIELD EXPERIMENTS
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Zschirnt (2019) source
Section 5.3.1, “Cases with Equal Outcomes” (page not specified in our copy), reports that applicants who were both invited or both rejected sometimes received different responses. In one example, both were rejected, but only the Swiss candidate was told his application would be kept for a later opportunity. (LLM, conf=0.95)
hedgedconditional- 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.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Evidence indicates that institutional rules regarding race and ethnicity in hiring can have an important influence on levels of discrimination.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > Abstract
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Dobbin et al. 2015 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Conclusions report that special recruitment programs promote diversity, while job tests and other personnel reforms are followed by declines in diversity among disadvantaged groups. This supports the point that hiring-related rules can affect racial and ethnic outcomes, but the paper measures workforce diversity rather than levels of discrimination directly. (LLM, conf=0.84)
hedgedconditional- 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.
- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Finally, GEMM results reported by Di Stasio & Larsen (2020) find evidence of interaction between gender and race in determining hiring after taking into account interactions with minority group and share of females in occupations (see also Bursell 2014).”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > SEVENTEEN CONCLUSIONS FROM THE CROSS-NATIONAL FIELD EXPERIMENTAL LITERATURE
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Di Stasio & Larsen (2020) source
In the results section (labelled “4,635” in our copy), Model 5 reports significant three-way interactions between candidate gender, racial background, and the share of women in an occupation. The paper finds that the gender premium in female-dominated occupations is cancelled out for Black and Middle Eastern women, supporting the claimed interaction in hiring outcomes. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bursell 2014 source
plaincorrelational- 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.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the 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.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > SEVENTEEN CONCLUSIONS FROM THE CROSS-NATIONAL FIELD EXPERIMENTAL LITERATURE
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Quillian et al. (2017) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results report no change over the past 25 years in hiring discrimination against African Americans in the United States. The Discussion explicitly limits the findings to discrimination at the point of hire; the cited paper does not establish that discrimination more broadly was unchanged. (LLM, conf=0.90)
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.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Similarly, the meta-analyses by Zschirnt & Ruedin (2016) and Quillian et al. (2019) find no statistically significant or substantively large difference in discrimination over immigrant generation groups.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > SEVENTEEN CONCLUSIONS FROM THE CROSS-NATIONAL FIELD EXPERIMENTAL LITERATURE
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Zschirnt & Ruedin (2016) source
- Partly supportedcites Quillian et al. (2019) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In the Results (page unavailable), Quillian et al. report that being foreign-born did not significantly predict the discrimination ratio; Table 3 (indexed under Notes, page unavailable) gives a small coefficient of −0.06. This supports a limited foreign-born versus native-born comparison, but the paper does not report a comparison across immigrant generation groups more broadly, and it cautions that low variability may explain the nonsignificant result. (LLM, conf=0.82)
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.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The one relatively inconsistent country is Norway, which appears to have higher discrimination in the GEMM results than in the Quillian et al. meta-analysis.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > SEVENTEEN CONCLUSIONS FROM THE CROSS-NATIONAL FIELD EXPERIMENTAL LITERATURE
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Quillian et al. (2019) source
The Results report Norway among the countries with lower estimated hiring discrimination, and the Discussion likewise describes Norway as having a lower rate. The GEMM comparison is the citing authors’ interpretation of their own results; Quillian et al. supplies the meta-analysis estimate used for that comparison. The supplied copy does not provide page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.87)
hedgedcorrelational- 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.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Theirmeta-analysis suggests that the White majority receives between 20% and 80% more callbacks than non-White groups depending on the group and the country.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Quillian et al. (2019) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results report that white natives received 22–41% more callbacks in Germany, the United States, and Norway, but 75–102% more in France and Sweden. The claim captures the direction and cross-country variation, but its 80% upper bound understates the reported range. (LLM, conf=0.93)
hedgedcorrelational- 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.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“2. White minorities experience less discrimination.Quillian et al. (2019) find evidence of less discrimination against White immigrants and White minority ethnic groups compared with non-White groups in the same country.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Quillian et al. (2019) source
The Discussion states that white immigrants and their descendants face less hiring discrimination than nonwhite applicants, while still facing some disadvantage relative to white natives. It describes this as a common pattern across the European and North American countries studied. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaincorrelational- 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.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Country is a stronger predictor than almost any other covariate in their models.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > SEVENTEEN CONCLUSIONS FROM THE CROSS-NATIONAL FIELD EXPERIMENTAL LITERATURE
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Quillian et al. (2019) source
The Results state that country differences are larger than minority-group effects or most controls. Note 12 also says that dropping country indicators causes by far the greatest decline in model R². Together, these support the claim about country’s relative predictive importance. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaincorrelational- 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.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“For White immigrants, discrimination appears to be low in North America, Western Europe, and Australia-this pattern is also apparent in”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Quillian et al. (2019) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion says white immigrants face less hiring discrimination than nonwhite applicants and that their disadvantage relative to white natives is often small and statistically insignificant. The Results list countries in Europe and North America, but not Australia, so the paper does not support extending this finding to Australia. (LLM, conf=0.89)
hedged- 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.
- Partly supported
- It may state two separate claims as one. 34
- Probably not a substantial claim. 15
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“This may be because the GEMM study included only private sector employers and discrimination is higher in this sector (see point 9), whereas the Norwegian studies in the meta-analysis by Quillian et al. (2019) included both private and public employers.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > SEVENTEEN CONCLUSIONS FROM THE CROSS-NATIONAL FIELD EXPERIMENTAL LITERATURE
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Quillian et al. (2019) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The paper’s Discussion reports a discrimination estimate for Norway, confirming that Norwegian studies were included in the meta-analysis. Our copy does not say whether those studies included both private- and public-sector employers; searches for those sector terms did not establish the claimed explanation for the difference from GEMM. (LLM, conf=0.78)
hedgedconditional- 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.
- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Second, standard errors can be calculated by building in an extra component of uncertainty because of study-level factors, a procedure used by Quillian et al. (2019) and Zschirnt & Ruedin (2016).”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > SEVENTEEN CONCLUSIONS FROM THE CROSS-NATIONAL FIELD EXPERIMENTAL LITERATURE
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Quillian et al. (2019) source
The Meta-analysis Model section says the authors use a random-effects variance component to capture unexplained study-level differences. It explicitly states that this component inflates standard errors to reflect those differences, matching the procedure attributed to Quillian et al. (2019). (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Zschirnt & Ruedin (2016) source
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.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“First, we can directly investigate if study characteristics seem to matter for the discrimination levels the studies find by controlling factors in design in meta-regression, a procedure used by Quillian et al. (2019).”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > SEVENTEEN CONCLUSIONS FROM THE CROSS-NATIONAL FIELD EXPERIMENTAL LITERATURE
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Quillian et al. (2019) source
The Meta-analysis Model section says meta-regression models discrimination rates as a function of study and effect characteristics, and that the authors include additional covariates that may influence discrimination. This supports the citing sentence’s description of Quillian et al. (2019) using meta-regression to examine whether study characteristics matter while controlling for design-related factors. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plaincorrelational- 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.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“1.Discrimination against non-Whites is ubiquitous.Quillian et al. (2019)find statistically significant discrimination against every non-White group in every country in Europe and North America except where statistical power is low due to few studies.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Quillian et al. (2019) source
The Results report statistically significant discrimination in 13 of 15 country-by-group estimates based on at least four studies; the two nonsignificant estimates concern white immigrants. They say nonsignificant estimates for other groups largely reflect low statistical power. The Discussion reports a significant callback disadvantage for nonwhite applicants in every country studied, supporting the claim for the nine countries analyzed. (LLM, conf=0.90)
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.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“They find substantial differences over countries-in some countries Whites receive 80-100% more job offers than non-Whites, but in others they receive only 20-30% more.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > SEVENTEEN CONCLUSIONS FROM THE CROSS-NATIONAL FIELD EXPERIMENTAL LITERATURE
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Quillian et al. (2019) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results report substantial country differences: white natives received 75–102% more callbacks in France and Sweden and 22–41% more in Germany, the United States, and Norway. This broadly supports the comparison, but the paper measures callbacks, not job offers, and its lower-discrimination range extends beyond the claimed 20–30%. (LLM, conf=0.87)
plaincorrelational- 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.
- Partly supported
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Germany also has a low level of discrimination in hiring, perhaps because of this distinctive practice (Quillian et al. 2019, Zschirnt & Ruedin 2016).”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > SEVENTEEN CONCLUSIONS FROM THE CROSS-NATIONAL FIELD EXPERIMENTAL LITERATURE
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Quillian et al. 2019 source
The Discussion identifies Germany as having a lower rate of hiring discrimination than France and Sweden. The Implications section explicitly says low hiring discrimination in Germany could result from its distinctive practice of requiring more extensive background information at initial application. It presents that explanation as a possibility, matching the claim's “perhaps.” (LLM, conf=0.94)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Zschirnt & Ruedin 2016 source
hedgedconditional- 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.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In Germany, for example, the level of employment discrimination is comparatively low while housing discrimination is high (e.g., contrasting country estimates from Quillian et al. 2019with Auspurg et al. 2019).”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > SEVENTEEN CONCLUSIONS FROM THE CROSS-NATIONAL FIELD EXPERIMENTAL LITERATURE
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Quillian et al. 2019 source
The Discussion reports that Germany has comparatively low hiring-discrimination rates, and the Implications explicitly describe its hiring discrimination as low. The citing sentence uses Quillian et al. for the employment-side estimate and contrasts it with Auspurg et al. for housing. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Not matchedcites Auspurg et al. 2019
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: 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.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“A lack of data on employee race or ethnicity at both the organizational and national levels in many European countries, together with a relative lack of attention to diversity in hiring there, may be reasons that the United States has levels of hiring discrimination below those of many European countries (Bartkoski et al. 2018, Quillian et al. 2019).”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > LESSONS FROM COMPARING FIELD EXPERIMENTS
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Bartkoski et al. 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Partly supportedcites Quillian et al. 2019 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
hedgedconditional- 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 cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Koopmans et al. (2019) include both membership in religious organizations on the resume and race based on appearance in a photo in a correspondence study in Germany.They find that both Muslim organizational participation and Black race were negatively associated with callbacks, but the effects were slightly larger for Black race.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > SEVENTEEN CONCLUSIONS FROM THE CROSS-NATIONAL FIELD EXPERIMENTAL LITERATURE
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Koopmans et al. (2019) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Multivariate results report significantly lower positive callback for both applicants with black phenotypes and applicants volunteering for a Muslim organization. They estimate the same seven-percentage-point penalty for each, not a slightly larger effect for Black race. The Descriptive results likewise show a larger callback gap for the Muslim signal than for Black phenotype. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plaincorrelational- 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.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the 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.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Quillian et al. (2017 source
The Results section reports that including 11 unpublished field experiments did little to affect the estimates. It also points to SI Appendix section 5 and Table S7, where studies focused on racial discrimination showed no more discrimination than studies focused on other characteristics, reducing concern about publication bias. This verdict concerns the cited 2017 paper only, not Quillian et al. (2019). (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Not matchedcites [2019]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
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.
- Supported
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
“None of the meta-analysis discrimination ratios are below one, giving no evidence for reverse discrimination against White natives.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
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
“The table shows a steady pattern of increase since the 2001-2005 period, with the most studies in the period 2010-2015.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > THE RISE OF FIELD EXPERIMENTS
plaincorrelational- 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.
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
“There are more than 140 field experimental studies of hiring discrimination against ethno-racial minority groups in 30 countries.”
- Also stated in: § INTRODUCTION · plain
“with, to date, more than 140 studies across 30 countries focusing on hiring discrimination alone.”
- Also stated in: § THE RISE OF FIELD EXPERIMENTS · plain
“In total, we have to date located 147 distinct studies of racial or ethnic discrimination in hiring conducted in a total of 30 countries.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > 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.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § INTRODUCTION · plain
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
“In the United States, the use of resume studies was slow to develop because US researchers had problems signaling race in a naturalistic way on a resume.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > THE RISE OF FIELD EXPERIMENTS
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: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Quillian et al. find roughly as much discrimination after the callback as up to the callback, so that discrimination in hiring from callback outcomes is approximately underestimated by a factor of two.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > ASSESSING DISCRIMINATION: STRENGHS AND WEAKNESSES OF FIELD EXPERIMENTS
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Quillian et al. (2020b)
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: 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.
- Not matched
In the paper
“However, a recent study by Auspurg et al. (2020) compares results of field experiments of racial discrimination in housing drawn from different sources and finds results change little, showing that, at least in this case, field experimental knowledge is not sensitive to sampling method.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > ASSESSING DISCRIMINATION: STRENGHS AND WEAKNESSES OF FIELD EXPERIMENTS
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Auspurg et al. (2020)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
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.
- 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
“First, field experiments are usually not feasible for detecting discrimination in decisions that involve extensive and detailed knowledge or a history of contact with the target, such as internal promotions.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > ASSESSING DISCRIMINATION: STRENGHS AND WEAKNESSES OF FIELD EXPERIMENTS
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: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
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
“Finally, taste and statistical discrimination are equally illegal in antidiscrimination law-it is the differential treatment based on race that is illegal, regardless of motivation.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > Individual-Level Theories
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: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The study by Bertrand & Mullainathan (2004) pioneered the technique of using distinctive Black names to conduct employment tests via mail, which has become a standard method in later research.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > THE RISE OF FIELD EXPERIMENTS
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Bertrand & Mullainathan (2004) source
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.
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
“Recently, field experiments have increased in prevalence because of the ease of performing them online.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > THE RISE OF FIELD EXPERIMENTS
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.
In the paper
“Zschirnt & Ruedin (2016) group countries together and find higher discrimination in hiring in Europe than in North America, and lower discrimination in German-speaking countries than the rest of Europe.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > SEVENTEEN CONCLUSIONS FROM THE CROSS-NATIONAL FIELD EXPERIMENTAL LITERATURE
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Zschirnt & Ruedin (2016) source
plaincorrelational- 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 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
“However, the difference is small in size, suggesting that minority status is more important than immigrant status in driving hiring discrimination.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > SEVENTEEN CONCLUSIONS FROM THE CROSS-NATIONAL FIELD EXPERIMENTAL LITERATURE
hedgeddirect- 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 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
“The apparent reduction after 2015 might reflect studies that have been conducted but not yet written up.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > THE RISE OF FIELD EXPERIMENTS
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.
In the paper
“A fifth critique, specific to resume audits, is that the names most often used to signal race vary in clarity as race signals and may connote other attributes like class or immigration status (see Gaddis 2017a,b).”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > ASSESSING DISCRIMINATION: STRENGHS AND WEAKNESSES OF FIELD EXPERIMENTS
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Gaddis 2017a,b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedcorrelational- 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
In the paper
“this method only captures discrimination that victims are aware of and is strongly influenced by institutional procedures that vary highly across contexts (Natl.Res.Counc.2004).”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > ASSESSING DISCRIMINATION: STRENGHS AND WEAKNESSES OF FIELD EXPERIMENTS
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Natl.Res.Counc.2004
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: 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.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The GEMM study is the most comprehensive field experimental investigation of racial and ethnic discrimination to date, as it contains 53 ethnic minority groups and is carried out in six countries: Germany, Norway, Spain, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States (Lancee 2019).”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > THE RISE OF FIELD EXPERIMENTS
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Lancee 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
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.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Field experiments in this area suggest following formalized hiring procedures, increasing transparency about the race/ethnicity of hires, and enforcing accountability to goals that aim to increase diversity can make a difference (e.g., Midtbøen 2015).”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > LESSONS FROM COMPARING FIELD EXPERIMENTS
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Midtbøen 2015
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: 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.
- 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
“These are highly racialized processes, however, because discrimination is usually based on appearance or name without assessing the accuracy of the shadow identity.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > LESSONS FROM COMPARING FIELD EXPERIMENTS
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.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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
“A mostly consistent result emerges from these studies: Signals of Muslim religion reduce chances of a callback, but the effect is weaker than racial origins from Islamic-majority countries.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > SEVENTEEN CONCLUSIONS FROM THE CROSS-NATIONAL FIELD EXPERIMENTAL LITERATURE
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.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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
“11.Muslims and ethnic groups from Muslim-majority countries are discrimination targets.Evidence points toward the importance of Islam as a basis of discrimination, especially in Europe.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > SEVENTEEN CONCLUSIONS FROM THE CROSS-NATIONAL FIELD EXPERIMENTAL LITERATURE
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.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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
“However, the self-reported nature of the information in the applications in their experiment may indicate that information matters only when it comes from what employers view as reliable external sources, such as official certificates and outside letters of recommendation.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > SEVENTEEN CONCLUSIONS FROM THE CROSS-NATIONAL FIELD EXPERIMENTAL LITERATURE
hedgedconditional- 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
“These contradictory findings suggest that both the specific target group in question and the geographical context in which field experiments are conducted play a role in whether and how race and employment status interact in shaping labor market opportunities.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > SEVENTEEN CONCLUSIONS FROM THE CROSS-NATIONAL FIELD EXPERIMENTAL LITERATURE
hedgedcorrelational- 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.
In the paper
“Similarly, Di Stasio et al. (2019) analyze GEMM data from five countries and find that immigrants who disclosed participation in Muslim organizations on their resume experienced additional discrimination, although the effect was weaker than the effect of origins from Islamic-majority countries.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > SEVENTEEN CONCLUSIONS FROM THE CROSS-NATIONAL FIELD EXPERIMENTAL LITERATURE
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Di Stasio et al. (2019)
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: 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.
- 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
“White ethnic minority groups experience hiring discrimination, but field experiments show they suffer from considerably less discrimination in hiring in White-majority countries than non-Whites do.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > LESSONS FROM COMPARING FIELD EXPERIMENTS
plaincorrelational- 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: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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
“However, it is entirely possible that both prejudice and stereotypical or statistical discrimination processes operate together in producing hiring discrimination.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > SEVENTEEN CONCLUSIONS FROM THE CROSS-NATIONAL FIELD EXPERIMENTAL LITERATURE
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: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“By contrast, Widner & Chicoine (2011) find high discrimination against Arab American applicants in a US resume audit, although because the study had a small sample and low callback rate, the estimate is highly imprecise.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > SEVENTEEN CONCLUSIONS FROM THE CROSS-NATIONAL FIELD EXPERIMENTAL LITERATURE
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Widner & Chicoine (2011) source
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.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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
“Labor and housing market discrimination, for instance, follow quite different patterns, suggesting that distinct factors influence the levels of each type of discrimination.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > LESSONS FROM COMPARING FIELD EXPERIMENTS
hedgedcorrelational- 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: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > SEVENTEEN CONCLUSIONS FROM THE CROSS-NATIONAL FIELD EXPERIMENTAL LITERATURE
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Pedulla (2018) source
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.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Conducting a formal meta-analysis of 26 field and lab experiments assessing discrimination against Muslims (with religion signaled) and Arabs (religion not signaled), Bartkoski et al. (2018) find discrimination against Muslims but more discrimination against Arabs.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > SEVENTEEN CONCLUSIONS FROM THE CROSS-NATIONAL FIELD EXPERIMENTAL LITERATURE
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Bartkoski et al. (2018)
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: 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.
- 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
“This may in part be due to more formalized procedures in the public sector-similar to common explanations of the size result discussed above.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > SEVENTEEN CONCLUSIONS FROM THE CROSS-NATIONAL FIELD EXPERIMENTAL LITERATURE
hedgedconditional- 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.
In the paper
“The meta-analysis by Zschirnt & Ruedin (2016), in contrast, finds more discrimination in hiring when country unemployment is very high but little correlation of discrimination and unemployment overall.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > SEVENTEEN CONCLUSIONS FROM THE CROSS-NATIONAL FIELD EXPERIMENTAL LITERATURE
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Zschirnt & Ruedin (2016) source
plaincorrelational- 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.
In the paper
“In Norway, Birkelund et al. (2016) find such an additive pattern of discrimination; majority applicants without an unemployment gap in their resumes have the highest callback rates, while unemployed applicants with Pakistani names have the lowest.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > SEVENTEEN CONCLUSIONS FROM THE CROSS-NATIONAL FIELD EXPERIMENTAL LITERATURE
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Birkelund et al. (2016)
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: 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.
- 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
“The potential trade-off is that this would damage the job prospects of those whose backgrounds, based on the additional information, are not employment enhancing-with the danger (as may occur to ex-felons) of creating trapped groups who combine multiple forms of identities that have great difficulty gaining employment because of their background.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > LESSONS FROM COMPARING FIELD EXPERIMENTS
hedgeddirect- 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.
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
“Finally, studies of racism and studies of discrimination have been highly separate.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > CONCLUSION
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: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
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
“There are only a few field experiments of racial discrimination outside of North America, Europe, and Australia.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > CONCLUSION
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: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
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
“Under the right circumstances, designing recruitment processes to solicit more job-relevant information on applicants at the point of initial application could also be a route to reducing discrimination-in some ways, this would make application procedures and links to education more like those in German-speaking countries.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > LESSONS FROM COMPARING FIELD EXPERIMENTS
hedgedconditional- 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
“In the United States and United Kingdom, discrimination has hardly diminished over the past 25 years.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > CONCLUSION
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: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Just as the literature suggests salary transparency is a factor that can help control inequalities in earnings (e.g., Castilla 2015), transparency in the racial composition of employees and managers may be an important tool to help control discrimination in hiring.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > LESSONS FROM COMPARING FIELD EXPERIMENTS
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Castilla 2015 source
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.
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
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > SEVENTEEN CONCLUSIONS FROM THE CROSS-NATIONAL FIELD EXPERIMENTAL LITERATURE
“However, a study of occupations subject to high demand (bottleneck occupations) in the Netherlands finds less discrimination for the high-demand occupations (Baert et al. 2015).”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > SEVENTEEN CONCLUSIONS FROM THE CROSS-NATIONAL FIELD EXPERIMENTAL LITERATURE
“However, Baert et al. (2015) find lower discrimination in high-demand occupations than in low-demand occupations in Belgium.”
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
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > ASSESSING DISCRIMINATION: STRENGHS AND WEAKNESSES OF FIELD EXPERIMENTS
“These results show that racial discrimination in hiring in field experiments without callback outcomes tends to be significantly underestimated because post-callback discrimination is omitted.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > ASSESSING DISCRIMINATION: STRENGHS AND WEAKNESSES OF FIELD EXPERIMENTS
“Quillian et al. find roughly as much discrimination after the callback as up to the callback, so that discrimination in hiring from callback outcomes is approximately underestimated by a factor of two.”
Citations
Cites
Spence, M. (1973) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.2307/1882010 · Cited by 19,252
Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415 · Cited by 18,567
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009) · doi:10.1002/9780470743386 · Cited by 14,225
Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464 · Cited by 9,210
Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2004) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/0002828042002561 · Cited by 4,504
Racial Formation in the United States
Omi, M., & Winant, H. (2014) · doi:10.4324/9780203076804 · Cited by 3,510
Race Prejudice as a Sense of Group Position
Blumer, H. (1958) · The Pacific Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/1388607 · Cited by 3,487
The Economics of Discrimination
Leonard, R. C., & Becker, G. S. (1957) · The American Catholic Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/3708738 · Cited by 2,971
Toward a Theory of Minority-Group Relations
Davies, I., & Blalock, H. M. (1967) · British Journal of Sociology · doi:10.2307/588680 · Cited by 2,958
Pager, D. (2003) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/374403 · Cited by 2,840
Research works printed but not linked: 26
- Allport G., 1979, The Nature of Prejudice
- Auspurg K, 2020, Res. Soc. Strat. Mobil.
- Bartkoski T, 2018, Pers. Assess. Decis., 4, 1
- 10.3386/w22014 · DOI
- Biondi M., 2003, To Stand and Fight
- Birkelund GE, 2016, Eur. Sociol. Rev., 33, 17
- Bovenkerk F, 1979, Problems in International Comparative Research in the Social Sciences, 105
- Crenshaw K., 1989, Univ. Chicago Leg. Forum, 1, 8
- Di Stasio V, 2020, Res. Soc. Strat. Mobil., 64, 100463
- Di Stasio V, 2019, J. Ethn. Migr. Stud.
- FRA (Eur. Union Agency Fundam. Rights), 2008, Annual Report 2008
- Galgano SW., 2009, Soc. Thought Res., 30, 21
- Heath A, 2013, OECD International Migration Outlook 2013, 191
- Hirsh E, 2020, What Works? Evidence-Based Ideas to Increase Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the Workplace, 16
- Jolson MA., 1974, J. Mark., 38, 67
- Kirschenman J, 1991, The Urban Underclass, 203
- Lancee B., 2019, J. Ethn. Migr. Stud.
- Majors S., 2020, Washington Post
- Neumark D., 2012, J. Hum. Resourc., 47, 1128
- Oreopoulos P., 2011, Am. Econ. J., 3, 148
- Phelps ES., 1972, Am. Econ. Rev., 62, 659
- Raveau F, 1976, Cah. Anthropol., 1, 23
- Smith DJ., 2015, The Guardian
- Thijssen L, 2019, J. Ethn. Migr. Stud.
- Wienk RE, 1979, Measuring Discrimination in American Housing Markets: The Housing Market Practices Survey
- Wood M, 2009, A test for racial discrimination in recruitment practice in British cities
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Schaerer, M., du Plessis, C., Nguyen, M. H. B., van Aert, R. C. M., Tiokhin, L., Lakens, D., Giulia Clemente, E., Pfeiffer, T., Dreber, A., Johannesson, M., et al. (2023) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2023.104280 · Cited by 87
Galos, D. R., & Coppock, A. (2023) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.ade7979 · Cited by 92
Computer says ‘no’: Exploring systemic bias in ChatGPT using an audit approach
Lippens, L. (2024) · Computers in Human Behavior Artificial Humans · doi:10.1016/j.chbah.2024.100054 · Cited by 68
Paradox of diversity in the collective brain
Schimmelpfennig, R., Razek, L., Schnell, E., & Muthukrishna, M. (2021) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2020.0316 · Cited by 41
Bjørnshagen, V. (2021) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.114181 · Cited by 36
Midtbøen, A. H., & Quillian, L. (2021) · Søkelys på arbeidslivet · doi:10.18261/issn.1504-7989-2021-03-04-02 · Cited by 28
Self-citationWeiner, J. M., Garrett-Walker, W. L., Strickland, T., & Burton, L. (2022) · Frontiers in Education · doi:10.3389/feduc.2022.925510 · Cited by 28
Østerud, K. L. (2022) · Sociology of Health & Illness · doi:10.1111/1467-9566.13544 · Cited by 34
Pütten, A. M. R.-V. D., & Sach, A. (2024) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1416504 · Cited by 28
Immigration theory between assimilation and discrimination
Safi, M. (2023) · Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies · doi:10.1080/1369183x.2023.2207250 · Cited by 24
U.S. Job-Seekers' Organizational Justice Perceptions of Emotion AI-Enabled Interviews
Pyle, C., Roemmich, K., & Andalibi, N. (2024) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3686993 · Cited by 23
Martiniello, B. A. M., & Verhaeghe, P. (2022) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0270990 · Cited by 26
“Was It Me or Was It Gender Discrimination?” How Women Respond to Ambiguous Incidents at Work
Doering, L. B., Doering, J., & Tilcsik, A. (2023) · Sociological Science · doi:10.15195/v10.a18 · Cited by 21
Location Matters: Everyday Gender Discrimination in Remote and On-site Work
Doering, L. B., & Tilcsik, A. (2024) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.2022.16949 · Cited by 24
How Segregation Ruins Inference: A Sociological Simulation of the Inequality Equilibrium
Mijs, J. J. B., & Usmani, A. (2024) · Social Forces · doi:10.1093/sf/soae033 · Cited by 20
Martiniello, B. A. M., & Verhaeghe, P. (2023) · Frontiers in Sociology · doi:10.3389/fsoc.2023.1125384 · Cited by 19
Verhaeghe, P.-P. (2022) · Handbook of Labor, Human Resources and Population Economics · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-57365-6_306-1 · Cited by 33
Davis, A., Smith, E., Yang, X., & Wright, R. (2024) · Journal of Child & Adolescent Trauma · doi:10.1007/s40653-024-00624-7 · Cited by 16
Bjørnshagen, V. (2022) · Work and Occupations · doi:10.1177/07308884221126877 · Cited by 17
Kirk, D. S., & Rovira, M. (2022) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0267889 · Cited by 15
Henderson, K. E., & Welsh, E. T. (2023) · International Journal of Selection and Assessment · doi:10.1111/ijsa.12454 · Cited by 16
How to reduce discrimination? Evidence from a field experiment in amateur soccer
Dur, R. A. J., Gómez‐González, C., & Nesseler, C. (2022) · Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies · doi:10.1080/1369183x.2022.2071688 · Cited by 14
Verhaeghe, P., Martiniello, B. A. M., Endrich, M., & Landschoot, L. V. (2022) · International Journal of Hospitality Management · doi:10.1016/j.ijhm.2022.103423 · Cited by 13
Understanding public support for workplace diversity and antidiscrimination policies in Europe
Blommaert, L., & Coenders, M. (2024) · Frontiers in Sociology · doi:10.3389/fsoc.2024.1256751 · Cited by 16
Explaining the attainment of the second-generation: When does parental relative education matter?
Ferrara, A., & Luthra, R. R. (2024) · Social Science Research · doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2024.103016 · Cited by 13
Larsen, E. N., & Midtbøen, A. H. (2024) · Tidsskrift for samfunnsforskning · doi:10.18261/tfs.65.4.1 · Cited by 13
Self-citationWages and working conditions of non-Irish nationals in Ireland
Laurence, J., Kelly, E., McGinnity, F., & Curristan, S. (2022) · doi:10.26504/jr2 · Cited by 13
Tutić, A., Grehl, S., & Liebe, U. (2023) · European Sociological Review · doi:10.1093/esr/jcad067 · Cited by 12
“Take It to the Lord”: Religion and Responses to Racial Discrimination in the Workplace
Schneider, R. C., Mabute-Louie, B., Ecklund, E. H., & Daniels, D. (2024) · Sociology of Race and Ethnicity · doi:10.1177/23326492241231766 · Cited by 12
Maghbouleh, N. (2025) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-083024-064121 · Cited by 12
Stawnychko, L., Rafi, M., & Eaton, S. E. (2025) · International Journal of Leadership in Education · doi:10.1080/13603124.2025.2534350 · Cited by 12
Guimond, S. (2023) · Appartenances & Altérités · doi:10.4000/alterites.516 · Cited by 12
Bennett, C. (2022) · Journal of Policy Analysis and Management · doi:10.1002/pam.22448 · Cited by 11
A Research Agenda for Skills and Inequality
Magnusson, C., & Tåhlin, M. (2023) · Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks · doi:10.4337/9781800378469 · Cited by 12
Wingate, T. G., Rasheed, S., Risavy, S. D., & Robie, C. (2024) · International Journal of Selection and Assessment · doi:10.1111/ijsa.12467 · Cited by 10
Heritability of class and status: Implications for sociological theory and research
Hootegem, A. V., Rogne, A. F., & Lyngstad, T. H. (2024) · Research in Social Stratification and Mobility · doi:10.1016/j.rssm.2024.100940 · Cited by 11
Nair, K., Mosleh, M., & Kouchaki, M. (2024) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/09567976241274738 · Cited by 9
Midtbøen, A. H., & Orupabo, J. (2024) · Ethnic and Racial Studies · doi:10.1080/01419870.2024.2418413 · Cited by 9
Self-citationSilver, I. A., Semenza, D. C., & WOOLDREDGE, J. D. (2025) · The British Journal of Criminology · doi:10.1093/bjc/azae094 · Cited by 9
Leaving the bike unlocked: trust discrimination in inter-ethnic encounters
Kanitsar, G. (2023) · European Sociological Review · doi:10.1093/esr/jcad045 · Cited by 10
Criminal Record Stigma in the Labor Market for College Graduates: A Mixed Methods Study
Cerda-Jara, M., & Harding, D. J. (2024) · Sociological Science · doi:10.15195/v11.a2 · Cited by 9
Unionization, licensure and workplace variation in pay inequality between immigrants and natives
Drange, I., Helland, H., & Hermansen, A. S. (2024) · Socio-Economic Review · doi:10.1093/ser/mwad075 · Cited by 9
Lauer, R., & Khalifa, K. (2023) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-023-04361-6 · Cited by 8
Trifilo, A., & Blau, G. J. (2024) · Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management · doi:10.21818/001c.115890 · Cited by 8
Disability discrimination in hiring: A systematic review
Schwitter, N., Chatzitheochari, S., & Liebe, U. (2025) · Research in Social Stratification and Mobility · doi:10.1016/j.rssm.2025.101069 · Cited by 10
Gender, race-ethnicity and postdoctoral hiring in STEMM fields
Shauman, K. A., & Huynh, J. (2023) · Social Science Research · doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2023.102854 · Cited by 7
Sacchi, S., & Samuel, R. (2024) · Research in Social Stratification and Mobility · doi:10.1016/j.rssm.2024.100959 · Cited by 7
Wages: An underestimated dimension of ethno-racial inequalities in France
Palheta, U., Ichou, M., Translations, C. A., Lozier, A., Burden, M., & Mellor, M. (2024) · Revue Française de Sociologie · doi:10.3917/rfs.644.0557 · Cited by 7
Delaporte, I., & Kulu, H. (2024) · European Journal of Population / Revue européenne de Démographie · doi:10.1007/s10680-024-09709-3 · Cited by 7
Schaeffer, M., Krakowski, K., & Olsen, A. L. (2024) · American Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1111/ajps.12933 · Cited by 10
Diversity and Discrimination in Research Organizations: Theoretical Starting Points
Müller, J., Striebing, C., & Schraudner, M. (2022) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/978-1-80117-956-020221001 · Cited by 8
A reinvestigation of the stock price reactions to announcements of Black top executive appointments
Bermiss, Y. S., Green, J., & Hand, J. R. M. (2023) · Journal of Management Scientific Reports · doi:10.1177/27550311231213341 · Cited by 7
Entering the mainstream economy? Workplace segregation and immigrant assimilation
Lillehagen, M. E., & Hermansen, A. S. (2024) · Social Forces · doi:10.1093/sf/soae162 · Cited by 9
Lee, J. (2024) · The Journal of Race Ethnicity and Politics · doi:10.1017/rep.2024.24 · Cited by 6
Goldstein, J. A., & Sastry, G. (2024) · Proceedings of the AAAI/ACM Conference on AI Ethics and Society · doi:10.1609/aies.v7i1.31653 · Cited by 6
Elites on Equality: Room for Gender Balance and Ethnic Diversity in Leadership Positions?
Teigen, M., Midtbøen, A. H., & Karlsen, R. (2022) · Acta Sociologica · doi:10.1177/00016993211070192 · Cited by 6
Self-citationÅ spille på norskhet for å få en sjans: Stigmahåndtering hos unge jobbsøkere med innvandrerbakgrunn
Thiyagarajah, M., & Orupabo, J. (2023) · Søkelys på arbeidslivet · doi:10.18261/spa.40.3.2 · Cited by 6
Advancing Group-Based Disparities Research and Beyond: A Cautionary Note on Selection Bias
Ren, D., & Loh, W. W. (2024) · Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/25152459241260256 · Cited by 7
Descary, G., Dupéré, V., Hébert, S. T., & Schoon, I. (2023) · Journal of Youth and Adolescence · doi:10.1007/s10964-023-01843-1 · Cited by 5
How (Not) to Use Risk Ratios in Sociological Research
Karlson, K. B., & Quillian, L. (2023) · Socius Sociological Research for a Dynamic World · doi:10.1177/23780231231192394 · Cited by 5
Self-citationFamily wealth and adolescent physical health
Jones, E. J., Miller, P. L., Gibson‐Davis, C. M., Hanson, J. L., & Votruba‐Drzal, E. (2025) · Health Psychology Review · doi:10.1080/17437199.2025.2451232 · Cited by 5
Out of sight, out of mind: underrepresentation of racialized faculty in Canadian psychology
Faber, S. C., Strauss, D., Dasgupta, A., & Williams, M. T. (2025) · Academia Mental Health and Well-Being · doi:10.20935/mhealthwellb7762 · Cited by 5
Racial disparities in the screening of candidates for software engineering internships
Campero, S. (2022) · Social Science Research · doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2022.102773 · Cited by 5
Hansen, H. (2023) · International Journal of Social Welfare · doi:10.1111/ijsw.12594 · Cited by 5
Fang, T., Zhang, T., & Hartley, J. (2023) · Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies · doi:10.1080/15562948.2023.2219634 · Cited by 5
Samarsky, E. (2023) · Career Development International · doi:10.1108/cdi-07-2022-0219 · Cited by 5
Sheftel, M. G., Goldman, N., Pebley, A. R., Pratt, B., & Park, S. S. (2024) · Socius Sociological Research for a Dynamic World · doi:10.1177/23780231241258022 · Cited by 5
Tica, S. (2024) · Sociology · doi:10.1177/00380385241293291 · Cited by 5
Social Encounters and the Worlds Beyond: Putting Situationalism to Work for Qualitative Interviews
Vassenden, A., & Mangset, M. (2022) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/00491241221082609 · Cited by 5
Carlsson, M., & Eriksson, S. (2022) · Scandinavian Journal of Economics · doi:10.1111/sjoe.12509 · Cited by 5
Silver, I. A., D’Amato, C., & WOOLDREDGE, J. D. (2023) · Social Forces · doi:10.1093/sf/soad113 · Cited by 4
How Discrimination Narratives Resolve Ambiguity: The Case of Islamophobia in Quebec
Doering, J. (2024) · Social Problems · doi:10.1093/socpro/spae009 · Cited by 4
Gomelsky-Haiby, D., Kabiya, R., Lavee, E., & Levanon, A. (2024) · Ethnic and Racial Studies · doi:10.1080/01419870.2024.2436084 · Cited by 4
Does College Prestige Matter? Asian CEOs and High-Skilled Immigrant Hiring in the US
Kim, E. (2023) · Work Employment and Society · doi:10.1177/09500170231169680 · Cited by 4
Bjørnset, M., Sterri, E. B., & Rogstad, J. (2021) · Søkelys på arbeidslivet · doi:10.18261/issn.1504-7989-2021-03-04-05 · Cited by 4
Social injustice and corporate innovation
Korkmaz, A. G., & Ucar, E. (2025) · The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance · doi:10.1016/j.qref.2025.101981 · Cited by 3
The return of university reputation in job applications: evidence from a field experiment in China
Li, X., Zhou, J., & Cai, Y. (2024) · Applied Economics · doi:10.1080/00036846.2024.2393458 · Cited by 3
Black Representation Through the University to Audit Firm Pipeline
Madsen, P. E. (2026) · Contemporary Accounting Research · doi:10.1111/1911-3846.70070 · Cited by 3
Martiniello, B. A. M., & Verhaeghe, P. (2022) · Society · doi:10.1007/s12115-022-00776-y · Cited by 3
Elias, A. (2024) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/978-1-83753-512-520241004 · Cited by 3
Gender and Social Contacts: Labour Market Entry Among Refugee and Family Reunion Migrants in Sweden
Weber, R. (2024) · Nordic Journal of Migration Research · doi:10.33134/njmr.664 · Cited by 3
Hvem holder Norge rent? Renholdsbransjen og arbeidsstyrkens særtrekk – segmentert og kjønnet arbeid
Valestrand, E. T. (2022) · doi:10.23865/noasp.181.ch6 · Cited by 3
Institutional Racism in International Relations
Lipscy, P. Y., & Zhou, J. (2026) · International Organization · doi:10.1017/s0020818325101252 · Cited by 3
The Causal Effect of Gun Violence on Everyday Mobility Patterns Across US Neighborhoods
Vachuska, K. F., & Movahed, M. (2025) · Spatial Demography · doi:10.1007/s40980-025-00139-1 · Cited by 2
Aslan, P., & Cheung, M. (2025) · Sociology Compass · doi:10.1111/soc4.70106 · 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
Stressful discrimination: two field experiments on social interaction
Aranguren, M. (2025) · European Sociological Review · doi:10.1093/esr/jcaf047 · Cited by 3
Ballo, J. G., Skålholt, A., & Kindt, M. T. (2025) · Education + Training · doi:10.1108/et-09-2024-0443 · Cited by 2
Shades of Égalité : Educational Mobility and Ethnoracial Hierarchy Over Three Generations in France
Ferry, M., Bouchet-Valat, M., Drouhot, L. G., Ichou, M., & Obućina, O. (2025) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/00031224251391760 · Cited by 2
Reichelt, M., & Müller, C. (2026) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/00031224261424488 · Cited by 2
Rathelot, R., & Safi, M. (2022) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-981-33-4016-9_1-1 · Cited by 2
Hermansen, A. S., Friberg, J. H., & Midtbøen, A. H. (2023) · Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks · doi:10.4337/9781800378469.00015 · Cited by 2
Self-citationNesseler, C., & Kobierecki, M. M. (2024) · Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies · doi:10.1080/1369183x.2024.2329266 · Cited by 2
Wang, A. A., & Jamison, C. S. E. (2024) · Biomedical Engineering Education · doi:10.1007/s43683-024-00154-6 · Cited by 2
Implicit Racial Bias in Europe: Cross-National Variation and Time Trends
Dederichs, K., & Verhaeghe, P. (2024) · Socius Sociological Research for a Dynamic World · doi:10.1177/23780231241291131 · Cited by 2
Kindt, M. T., & Bjørnset, M. (2023) · Journal of International Migration and Integration / Revue de l integration et de la migration internationale · doi:10.1007/s12134-023-01012-0 · Cited by 2
Dyrlid, L., & Sætermo, T. F. (2022) · doi:10.23865/noasp.181.ch8 · Cited by 2
Semyonov, M., Gorodzeisky, A., Raijman, R., & Hinz, T. (2024) · Research in Social Stratification and Mobility · doi:10.1016/j.rssm.2024.100891 · Cited by 2
Baraku, I., & Busetta, G. (2024) · Quality & Quantity · doi:10.1007/s11135-024-01944-4 · Cited by 3
Fernández-Reino, M., & Rovira, M. (2024) · Oxford Review of Economic Policy · doi:10.1093/oxrep/grae032 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Quillian, L., & Midtbøen, A. H.
- Affiliations
- Northwestern University (US)
- University of Oslo (NO)
- Venue
- Annual Review of Sociology
- Publisher
- Annual Reviews
- Published
- 2021-07-31
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 391-415
- ISSN
- 0360-0572 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-2115
- OpenAlex
- W3157931011
- Cited by
- 180
- References
- 129
- Citations by year
- 2026: 19 · 2025: 48 · 2024: 46 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 5
- FWCI
- 5.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Annual Review of Sociology (publishedVersion)
- NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Sage Foundation
- John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation
- 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 › Racial and Ethnic Identity Research
- Keywords
- racial discrimination in hiring, ethnic minorities, field experiments, cross-national comparison, racist ideology, employer decision-making
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).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
