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
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Results for a subset of these Table 3. Results from the GEMM study also show lower discrimination against White minorities (Di Stasio & Larsen 2020).”
§ 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
The results passage labeled “4,635” reports a smaller callback penalty for White minorities (−3.7%) than for Asian (−6.6%), Black (−11.8%), or MENAP (−11.9%) minorities. “Lower discrimination” is supported as a comparison with other minority groups, not as an absence of discrimination. (LLM, conf=0.93)
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.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The magnitude of this discrimination, however, varies significantly over countries and minority groups (Quillian et al. 2019).”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
“although levels vary significantly over countries”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Quillian et al. 2019 source
The Results report differences in hiring-discrimination levels across countries, including a higher estimated level in France than in the United States. They also report significantly less discrimination against European-origin immigrants than against Black or Sub-Saharan African applicants, while noting that not every group difference is statistically significant. (LLM, conf=0.92)
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.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · plain
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“There is high consistency between the country levels of discrimination in the Quillian et al. ( 2019) meta-analysis and the GEMM studies (see Di Stasio et al. 2019 andDi Stasio &Lancee 2020).”
§ 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 Measuring National Discrimination Levels and Results sections describe Quillian et al.’s meta-analysis and its country-level estimates of hiring discrimination. The citation identifies the meta-analysis being compared; it does not attribute the citing authors’ assessment of consistency with GEMM to Quillian et al. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Could not verifycites Di Stasio et al. 2019 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Data and method and Discussion and conclusion sections report GEMM results across five countries, but do not compare their country-level discrimination rates with the Quillian et al. (2019) meta-analysis. A search for Quillian and for a comparison with prior studies found no passage establishing the claimed high consistency. (LLM, conf=0.72)
- Not matchedcites Di Stasio &Lancee 2020
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.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Heath & Di Stasio (2019) perform a similar analysis for the United Kingdom and find little evidence of change in rates of hiring discrimination against minority groups over time.”
§ 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 Heath & Di Stasio (2019) source
The Summary and discussion (p. 29) reports no significant diminution in discrimination over time for Caribbeans, South Asians as a whole, or Pakistanis in particular. This supports the citing sentence’s characterization of little evidence of change in British hiring discrimination over time. (LLM, conf=0.94)
hedged- 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
“The United States has rates of discrimination similar to those of the lower-rate European 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
- Supportedcites Quillian et al. (2019) source
The Results group the United States with several lower-discrimination countries and report no statistically significant differences among them. The Discussion likewise identifies the United States, Norway, and Germany as having lower rates of hiring discrimination than France and Sweden. (LLM, conf=0.93)
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.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“In the United States, Kang et al. (2016) find that Asian American and Black applicants who whitewash their resumes (either by changing their first name or by removing experience with minority organizations) receive significantly more callbacks than applicants who do not, although this finding might also reflect the clarity of the race signal or concerns about language proficiency.”
§ 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 Kang et al. (2016) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results report significantly more callbacks for both Black and Asian applicants when both names and experiences were whitened. But the citing sentence's “either” formulation overstates the findings: name-only whitening was not statistically significant for Black applicants, and experience-only whitening was not statistically significant for Asian applicants. (LLM, conf=0.90)
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.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The meta-analysis by Quillian et al. (2019) finds evidence of somewhat lower racial discrimination on average for studies employing applicants with a college education or more compared with applicants with less education.”
§ 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 section reports less discrimination for jobs requiring a college degree than for jobs requiring a high school degree or less. The Notes table also shows lower estimated discrimination for studies whose most common applicant education level was ‘College or More,’ matching the claim’s comparison. (LLM, conf=0.92)
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 that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“Patterns are different: housing studies find evidence of declines in discrimination over the past 25-35 years both internationally (Auspurg et al. 2019, Flage 2018) and in the United States (Quillian et al. 2020a), while studies of employment discrimination find little evidence of change over time (see point 4).”
§ 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 Auspurg et al. 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Could not verifycites Flage 2018 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Flage is cited for the international part of the sentence, not the separate U.S. claim. The Method and data section describes studies from 2006–2017 across 14 countries, and the results report discrimination levels, but the passages found do not assess whether discrimination declined over 25–35 years. I searched for temporal trends and declines in the paper’s copy. (LLM, conf=0.72)
- Not matchedcites Quillian et al. 2020a
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.
- Not matched
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Adida et al. (2010), for example, find evidence of higher discrimination against an immigrant from Senegal with signals of Muslim religion than one with Christian signals.”
§ 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 Adida et al. (2010) source
In “Our Matching Strategy” (page unavailable), the paper describes otherwise identical applicants with a Senegalese surname whose first names, work histories, and volunteer activities signaled Muslim or Catholic affiliation. The paper reports that the Muslim candidate was 2.5 times less likely to obtain a job interview than the Christian candidate. (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
“A meta-analysis by Quillian et al. (2019) finds no association between unemployment rates and measures of discrimination in audit studies.”
§ 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 Implications section says the analysis controlled for local unemployment rates and found that they did not predict the discrimination ratio. The Results section likewise describes a lack of an unemployment effect on discrimination. (LLM, conf=0.93)
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.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Pager (2003), Pager et al. (2009), and Wells (2013) also find an intensifying interaction of race and criminal background: Callback rates among Black respondents with criminal backgrounds were particularly low.”
§ 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 Pager (2003) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
In “Racial Differences in the Effects of a Criminal Record” (p. 23), Pager reports that the relative callback penalty for a criminal record was larger for Black applicants and describes the combined barriers as intensifying stigma. But the paper says the race-by-record interaction was not statistically significant in the full sample, a qualification missing from the citing sentence. (LLM, conf=0.83)
- Not matchedcites Pager et al. (2009)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Wells (2013) 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.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“In the Netherlands, Van den Berg et al. (2020) find that a criminal record does not appear to have much effect on the likelihood of receiving a callback; instead, ethnic minority applicants face substantial discrimination regardless of criminal record.”
§ 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 Van den Berg et al. (2020) source
The Conclusion and discussion reports that applicants with a criminal record were not significantly less likely to receive a positive response in the Dutch experiment. It also identifies ethnic minority background as the strongest observed effect, affecting applicants whether convicted or not. The criminal-record finding concerns the applications and offenses tested in this study. (LLM, conf=0.91)
hedged- 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
“Using a regression procedure, Koopmans et al. (2019) find evidence that some of the discrimination against Turkish immigrants and Muslims may reflect evaluations of cultural differences from German people.”
§ 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 Koopmans et al. (2019) source
The Multivariate results report that greater cultural value distance from the white-Christian-German baseline predicts lower callback rates, and that ethnic, racial, and religious penalties become statistically insignificant when value distance is included. The same section identifies lower callback rates for Turkish and Muslim applicants. The citing sentence appropriately hedges the interpretation as evidence that some discrimination may reflect evaluations of cultural differences. (LLM, conf=0.94)
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
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“Second, Pager (2016) finds that employers who discriminated in her field experiment were more likely to subsequently go out of business than those that did not, consistent with economic models of taste discrimination.”
§ 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 Pager (2016) source
The Results section reports that 36% of establishments that showed discrimination in the 2004 audit were no longer in business in 2010, compared with 17% of those that did not. The Conclusion describes this as an association consistent with Becker’s theory, not proof that discrimination caused closure. (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
“However, Thijssen et al. (2019) randomly assigned resumes to photos, reported a final course grade, and included in the cover letter a self-description as a hard-working person.They find no effect of these application features on hiring discrimination.”
§ 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 Thijssen et al. (2019) sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (page unavailable) report no statistically significant effects of the three information features on ethnic callback gaps in the separate analyses of Germany and the Netherlands. But the full-sample analysis found a marginally significant interaction for photos, suggesting a slightly smaller gap for applicants of Turkish origin. Saying the features had ‘no effect’ omits that qualification. (LLM, conf=0.85)
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
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“instead, ethnic minority applicants face substantial discrimination regardless of criminal record.”
§ 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 Van den Berg et al. (2020) source
The Conclusion and discussion states that ethnic minority status had the strongest effect observed in the Dutch study, for applicants whether convicted or not. It also reports that minority applicants without a criminal record were less likely to receive a positive response than convicted majority applicants. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plainSingle case- 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
“9. Public sector employers discriminate less.Studies in Great Britain, France, and Norway find considerably higher discrimination by private employers than by public employers (Cahuc et al. 2019, Midtbøen 2016, Wood et al. 2009).”
§ 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 Cahuc et al. 2019 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section 2.2 reports substantially more discrimination by private employers in France at the interview-invitation stage, and the Introduction reports similar correspondence-study findings for Great Britain and Norway. But the claim omits that stage limitation: the Introduction says lower invitation discrimination in the French public sector is compatible with stronger discrimination there after interviews. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Not matchedcites Midtbøen 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Wood et al. 2009
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.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“They find strong negative effects on callback of felony convictions (Decker et al. 2015, Galgano 2009, Mobasseri 2019, Pager 2003, Pager et al. 2009).”
§ 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 Decker et al. 2015 source
- Not matchedcites Galgano 2009
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Partly supportedcites Mobasseri 2019 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The “Callbacks for Job Applicants Perceived to Bear a Criminal Record” section reports an 11.9-percentage-point reduction in callback likelihood for applicants signaling a criminal record (P < .01). The study-design section describes that signal as an intended nonviolent drug conviction, but does not establish that the conviction was a felony; the felony-specific wording is therefore not fully supported. (LLM, conf=0.85)
boosteddirect- 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.
In the paper
“The first large-scale field experimental studies of discrimination in hiring that we know of is the Daniel (1968) study in England.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > THE RISE OF FIELD EXPERIMENTS
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Daniel 1968
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
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.
- Not matched
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
“Table 2 Number of field experiments of discrimination in hiring by country Country Number of studies Australia 3 Austria 1 Belgium 4 Canada 7 China 1 Czech Republic 2 Denmark 2 Finland 2 France 24 Georgia 1 Germany 6 Great Britain 12 Greece 2 Hungary 1 Ireland 1 Israel 2 Italy 2 Malaysia 1 Mexico 1 Netherlands 15 Norway 5 Peru 1 Poland 1 Russia 1 Singapore 1 Spain 3 Sweden 8 Switzerland 3 Turkey 1”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > SEVENTEEN CONCLUSIONS FROM THE CROSS-NATIONAL FIELD EXPERIMENTAL LITERATURE
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.
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 case of hiring, a large majority of field experiments use the receipt of an invitation for an interview or a request for further information as their main outcome, often called a callback.”
§ 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: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
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 few studies outside of these locations include studies of discrimination against Uighurs in China, Chinese in Malaysia, and indigenous people in Peru.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > THE RISE OF FIELD EXPERIMENTS
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.
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
“Table 3 shows discrimination ratios for country and target group combinations with at least two studies.2 The number indicates the weighted average discrimination ratio over studies.However, as the table shows, there is substantial variation in discrimination levels, ranging from 1.0 (parity with the White majority for European immigrants in the Netherlands) to 3.07 (Middle Eastern and North”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > SEVENTEEN CONCLUSIONS FROM THE CROSS-NATIONAL FIELD EXPERIMENTAL LITERATURE
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.
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
“Overall, Whites receive about 50% more callbacks than non-Whites on average.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
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.
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
“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.”
§ 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.
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
“the latter indicating that Jewish Israelis receive more than three times as many callbacks compared with Arab Israelis.”
§ 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.
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 large majority of studies have been in North America, Western Europe, and Australia.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > THE RISE OF FIELD EXPERIMENTS
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.
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 results in Table 3 suggest this holds true for Australia as well.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
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.
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
“Most studies do not find large occupational differences in racial discrimination.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > SEVENTEEN CONCLUSIONS FROM THE CROSS-NATIONAL FIELD EXPERIMENTAL LITERATURE
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.
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
“A final limitation of field experiments is that there is no established way to use the results to understand the extent to which discrimination creates racial disparities.”
§ 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: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a 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
“A problem in comparing field experiments is that the studies are not completely uniform in design.Field experiments vary in the exact occupations they cover, in the details of their fictitious applicants, in the target group they focus on, and so on.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > SEVENTEEN CONCLUSIONS FROM THE CROSS-NATIONAL FIELD EXPERIMENTAL LITERATURE
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.
In the paper
“Oreopoulos (2011, table 6) likewise finds few differences in outcomes across a range of white-collar occupations.”
§ 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 Oreopoulos (2011)
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.
- Not matched
In the paper
“because it requires all nonracial causes to have been accounted for, it is typically debatable whether the remaining residual is only discrimination (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.
hedged- 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.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Furthermore, statistical discrimination creates the possibility for vicious cycles in which discrimination contributes to racial inequalities that then become the basis for further discrimination (e.g., Loury 2002).”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > Individual-Level Theories
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Loury 2002
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: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In employment applications, out of 40 tests, 15 White testers received positive replies, compared with only one non-White tester.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Daniel 1968
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: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- 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
“7.There is mixed evidence on occupation and education.Most studies do not find large occupational differences in racial discrimination.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > SEVENTEEN CONCLUSIONS FROM THE CROSS-NATIONAL FIELD EXPERIMENTAL LITERATURE
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.
In the paper
“The classic study by Bertrand & Mullainathan (2004) finds little evidence of variation in discrimination over four white-collar occupations or industries, noting the surprising uniformity of discrimination.”
§ 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 Bertrand & Mullainathan (2004) source
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.
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
“or they may overestimate discrimination because targets may interpret poor treatment as discriminatory when it has another basis.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > ASSESSING DISCRIMINATION: STRENGHS AND WEAKNESSES OF FIELD EXPERIMENTS
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.
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
“Importantly, discrimination is driven by perceived race or racial cues in the context in which discrimination occurs.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > RACE AND DISCRIMINATION
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: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says 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
“self-reports may underestimate discrimination because targets may sometimes not be aware of discrimination that occurs”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > ASSESSING DISCRIMINATION: STRENGHS AND WEAKNESSES OF 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.
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 results are a sobering counterpoint to the idea of inevitable declines in discrimination over time.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > SEVENTEEN CONCLUSIONS FROM THE CROSS-NATIONAL FIELD EXPERIMENTAL LITERATURE
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.
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
“6.Studies differ about intersections with gender.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > SEVENTEEN CONCLUSIONS FROM THE CROSS-NATIONAL FIELD EXPERIMENTAL LITERATURE
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.
In the paper
“Likewise, Arai et al. (2018) find more discrimination against Arab men than Arab women in Sweden.”
§ 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 Arai et al. (2018)
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.
- 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
“3. Countries differ considerably in hiring discrimination levels.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > SEVENTEEN CONCLUSIONS FROM THE CROSS-NATIONAL FIELD EXPERIMENTAL LITERATURE
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.
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
“Corresponding to the basis of discrimination in perception, some racial discrimination is motivated by discrimination against identities correlated with race rather than race itself.We refer to these identities as shadow identities.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > RACE AND DISCRIMINATION
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.
In the paper
“In Sweden, Bursell (2014) find no statistically significant difference in discrimination by gender against Arab 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 Bursell (2014) source
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.
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
“Surveys or in-depth interviews with employers provide insights into employer thinking but have obvious limitations as measures of discrimination because of strong social desirability bias.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > ASSESSING DISCRIMINATION: STRENGHS AND WEAKNESSES OF FIELD EXPERIMENTS
boosteddirect- 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.
In the paper
“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
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.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Carlsson (2010), for example, designed a field experiment to compare discrimination against first-and second-generation immigrants in Sweden, finding no difference in discrimination.”
§ 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 Carlsson (2010) source
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.
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
“Despite these limitations, field experiments are superior to other approaches in providing the clearest and most convincing assessments of direct discrimination in hiring.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > ASSESSING DISCRIMINATION: STRENGHS AND WEAKNESSES OF FIELD EXPERIMENTS
boosteddirect- 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.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As a result, field experiments can confidently determine that it is perceived race rather than other factors that drives the racial gaps in outcomes.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > ASSESSING DISCRIMINATION: STRENGHS AND WEAKNESSES OF FIELD EXPERIMENTS
boosteddirect- 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.
In the paper
“In Denmark, Dahl & Krog (2018) find significantly more discrimination against men with Arabic-sounding names contrasted with women.”
§ 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 Dahl & Krog (2018) 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.
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
“5. Immigrant generation differences in discrimination are small.Several analyses find that foreign-born and native-born children of immigrants experience fairly similar levels of discrimination.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > SEVENTEEN CONCLUSIONS FROM THE CROSS-NATIONAL FIELD EXPERIMENTAL LITERATURE
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.
In the paper
“data on important outcomes, like income or employment status, that include race and ethnicity data are often unavailable (see Simon 2012).”
§ 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 Simon 2012
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.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Gaddis (2017a) finds, however, that only 17.5% of resume audits employ name pretests.”
§ 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)
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.
- 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
“Existing studies establish that racial and ethnic discrimination is a worldwide phenomenon found in all countries that have conducted field experiments.”
- Also stated in: § Abstract · boosted
“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.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > INTRODUCTION
boosted- 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.
- Also stated in: § Abstract · boosted
In the paper
“This may be because larger employers more often follow formalized hiring procedures including diversity management efforts (e.g., Dobbin et al. 2011).”
§ 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 Dobbin et al. 2011 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.
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
“10.Cultural distance increases discrimination.In Europe, evidence from several studies suggests that there may be significantly more discrimination against minority group members who are viewed as less assimilated to the culture of the White majority in the country.”
§ 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.
In the paper
“Correspondingly, Kaas & Manger (2012) find no discrimination in a field experimental study in Germany when reference letters for applicants include positive information about the 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 Kaas & Manger (2012) source
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.
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
“12. Criminal background is a disadvantage and shows mixed results on interaction with race.”
§ 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.
In the paper
“They also find discrimination against Muslims to be lower in the United States than in 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 matchedcites Bartkoski et al. (2018)
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.
- 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
“Some discrimination based on identities distinct from race, but significantly correlated with it-what we have called shadow identities-plays a role in racial discrimination.”
§ 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.
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
“14.Evidence on interactions of race and unemployment scarring is mixed.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > SEVENTEEN CONCLUSIONS FROM THE CROSS-NATIONAL FIELD EXPERIMENTAL LITERATURE
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.
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
“13.Evidence on labor market tightness and discrimination is mixed.Many studies of unemployment find that the gap between White and minority unemployment rates tends to close as overall unemployment rates drop.This has led some to suggest that discrimination declines when labor markets are tight.Evidence from field experiments, however, is highly mixed.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > SEVENTEEN CONCLUSIONS FROM THE CROSS-NATIONAL FIELD EXPERIMENTAL LITERATURE
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.
In the paper
“First, a US field experiment by Agan & Starr (2018), conducted across a change in policy that prevented employers from checking criminal backgrounds of applicants, finds evidence that when employers cannot ask about past criminal record, racial discrimination increases.”
§ 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 Agan & Starr (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.
- 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
“17.Increasing information about applicants can reduce discrimination.Employers may rely less on group stereotypes when they have more individual information about employees' characteristics.Several findings from field experiments support this view.”
§ 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.
In the paper
“Third, in the housing literature, studies have coded the amount of information presented in the application and find less discrimination when more nonracial information is solicited up-front from renters (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
- 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.
- Not matched
In the paper
“This suggests that some employers discount Black applicants because they assume these applicants may have criminal backgrounds in the absence of information from a background check (see also Raphael 2021).”
§ 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 Raphael 2021
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.
- Not matched
In the paper
“First, Carlsson & Rooth (2012) find greater discrimination against Arab applicants in a field experiment in regions of Sweden with more negative attitudes toward immigrants on a population survey.”
§ 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 Carlsson & Rooth (2012) 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.
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
“16.Housing discrimination and employment discrimination patterns are distinct.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > SEVENTEEN CONCLUSIONS FROM THE CROSS-NATIONAL FIELD EXPERIMENTAL LITERATURE
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.
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
“consistent with economic models of taste discrimination.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > SEVENTEEN CONCLUSIONS FROM THE CROSS-NATIONAL FIELD EXPERIMENTAL LITERATURE
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.
In the paper
“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
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Baert et al. 2015 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.
In the paper
“Similarly, Weichselbaumer (2020) finds that ethnically Turkish women applying for jobs in Germany receive much lower callback rates if they wear a headscarf in their photo than if they do not (photos are standard in job applications in Germany).”
§ 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 Weichselbaumer (2020)
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.
- Not matched
In the paper
“However, Baert et al. (2015) find lower discrimination in high-demand occupations than in low-demand occupations in Belgium.”
§ 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 Baert et al. (2015) 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.
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
“There is also evidence that members of racial and ethnic groups who present as culturally similar to the White majority experience less discrimination (e.g., for members of immigrant ethnic groups who have a White native first name).”
§ 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: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a 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
“Likewise, looking across countries, there is little correlation between countries' levels of employment discrimination and countries' level of housing market discrimination.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > SEVENTEEN CONCLUSIONS FROM THE CROSS-NATIONAL FIELD EXPERIMENTAL LITERATURE
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.
In the paper
“In a US study, Pedulla (2018), by contrast, does not find evidence of additive effects of race and unemployment.”
§ 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
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.
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
“Discrimination levels appear to be specific to the domain in which the discrimination occurs.”
§ 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: passes — The paper gives a 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
“The field experimental literature on discrimination suggests that a single level of racism in a country or population does not uniformly drive discrimination.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > LESSONS FROM COMPARING FIELD EXPERIMENTS
hedged- 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.
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
“Non-White race, rather than ethnic differences, most strongly determines hiring discrimination.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > LESSONS FROM COMPARING FIELD EXPERIMENTS
boosteddirect- 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.
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 ubiquity of discrimination against non-White minority groups in Western countries regardless of context suggests an important cross-national role for race in hiring decisions.”
§ 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: passes — The paper gives a 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
“And some discrimination against US Black applicants is driven by stereotypes that tie race and criminal backgrounds.”
§ 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.
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
“15.Evidence suggests prejudice plays a role.Results from at least two studies suggest a role for prejudice or other forms of animus in discrimination.”
§ 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.
In the paper
“Likewise, Carlsson & Rooth (2007) find more discrimination by employers at workplaces with fewer than 20 employees in Sweden.”
§ 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 Carlsson & Rooth (2007) 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.
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
“Second, the German-speaking countries in Europe are distinct from most other countries for the high level of information provided on initial applications.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > SEVENTEEN CONCLUSIONS FROM THE CROSS-NATIONAL FIELD EXPERIMENTAL LITERATURE
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.
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
“while studies of employment discrimination find little evidence of change over time (see point 4).”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > SEVENTEEN CONCLUSIONS FROM THE CROSS-NATIONAL FIELD EXPERIMENTAL LITERATURE
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.
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
“Overall, these studies provide some support for ideas about cultural homophily in hiring as a basis for racial discrimination.”
§ 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.
In the paper
“For instance, a study by Duguet et al. (2010) finds that native-born applicants (indicated on resume) with French first names and North African last names were subject to significantly less discrimination than those with both North African first and last names.”
§ 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 Duguet et al. (2010) 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, Galgano (2009), Uggen et al. (2014), andDecker (2015) find no such interaction.”
§ 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 Galgano (2009)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Uggen et al. (2014) source
- Not matchedcites Decker (2015)
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.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In the US context, Gorsuch & Rho (2017) find that Somali Americans, many of whom are Muslim, experience slightly lower hiring discrimination than African Americans.”
§ 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 Gorsuch & Rho (2017)
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: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“8. Large employers discriminate less.Banerjee et al. (2018) in Canada and Wood et al. (2009) in Great Britain find that larger employers discriminate significantly less against minority applicants than smaller 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
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Banerjee et al. (2018) source
- Not matchedcites Wood et al. (2009)
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.
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
“Individuals originating from the Middle East are discriminated against partly because they are presumed to be Muslim, for instance.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > LESSONS FROM COMPARING FIELD EXPERIMENTS
plainconditional- 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: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says 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
“Employers may rely less on group stereotypes when they have more individual information about employees' characteristics.”
§ 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.
In the paper
“Vuolo et al. (2017) examine whether discrimination against African Americans changed in a resume audit that was fielded as the United States tipped into recession in 2007, and they find no increase in discrimination.”
§ 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 Vuolo et al. (2017)
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.
- 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
“Note that racial unemployment gaps could decrease as labor markets tighten without discrimination changing because employers lack applications from well-qualified Whites, resulting in increased hiring of minorities even if the White preference of employers remains unchanged.”
§ 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: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says 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
“A hopeful conclusion suggested by these results is that hiring discrimination can be reduced significantly by procedural and legal steps.”
§ 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.
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
“Field experiments show that countries vary significantly, and often in somewhat surprising ways, in levels of racial discrimination in hiring.”
§ 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: passes — The paper gives a 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
“The large differences that exist in discrimination levels over countries seem to result in part from a variety of institutional and situational differences, but further research is needed to provide further explanations and to better test these explanations with evidence.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > CONCLUSION
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: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says 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
“The large body of field experimental studies suggests that racial and ethnic discrimination in hiring is a pervasive international phenomenon.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > CONCLUSION
hedged- 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.
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
“Field experiments have been important for establishing these facts with greater certainty than other methods, and they also have the advantage that their results are readily understandable by lawmakers and the public.”
§ Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments > CONCLUSION
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: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
- 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
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
