Cited by 267Names, Identity, and Discrimination ResearchSocial and Intergroup PsychologyDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

Temporal Distance and Discrimination: An Audit Study in Academia

Milkman, Katherine L., Akinola, Modupe, Chugh, Dolly·2012·Psychological Science

Abstract

Through a field experiment set in academia (with a sample of 6,548 professors), we found that decisions about distant-future events were more likely to generate discrimination against women and minorities (relative to Caucasian males) than were decisions about near-future events. In our study, faculty members received e-mails from fictional prospective doctoral students seeking to schedule a meeting either that day or in 1 week; students' names signaled their race (Caucasian, African American, Hispanic, Indian, or Chinese) and gender. When the requests were to meet in 1 week, Caucasian males were granted access to faculty members 26% more often than were women and minorities; also, compared with women and minorities, Caucasian males received more and faster responses. However, these patterns were essentially eliminated when prospective students requested a meeting that same day. Our identification of a temporal discrimination effect is consistent with the predictions of construal-level theory and implies that subtle contextual shifts can alter patterns of race- and gender-based discrimination.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0956797611434539

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Research on racialized bias in virtual reference demonstrates that under-serving patrons of color extends to online environments.

    “Furthermore, the work of Shachaf, Oltmann, & Horowitz (2008) and Shachaf & Horowitz (2006) on racialized bias in virtual reference demonstrates that under-serving patrons of color extends to online environments, showing that the disembodied and abstracted nature of online service delivery is not a corrective for racialized bias (Milkman, Akinola, & Chugh, 2012).”

    From In Pursuit of Antiracist Social Justice: Denaturalizing Whiteness in the Academic Library (2015) · cites this paper as Milkman, Akinola, & Chugh, 2012

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Milkman, K. L., Akinola, M., & Chugh, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Columbia University (US)
  • New York University (US)
Venue
Psychological Science
Published
2012-05-21
Volume
23
Issue
7
Pages
710-717
ISSN
  • 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9280
OpenAlex
W2159495932
Cited by
267
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 31 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 2
FWCI
29.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Association for Psychological Science
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Names, Identity, and Discrimination Research
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
temporal distance, discrimination, construal level theory, racial discrimination, gender discrimination, time perspective, decision-making
MeSH terms
Adult, Ethnicity, Faculty, Female, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Psychological Tests, Random Allocation, Sex Factors, Time Factors, Universities, Racism, Sexism, Social Discrimination

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review