Cited by 892Ethics and Social Impacts of AINames, Identity, and Discrimination ResearchMedia, Gender, and Advertising

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 26 of the 26 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Algorithmic Bias? An Empirical Study of Apparent Gender-Based Discrimination in the Display of STEM Career Ads

Open access
Lambrecht, Anja, Tucker, Catherine·2019·Management Science

Abstract

We explore data from a field test of how an algorithm delivered ads promoting job opportunities in the science, technology, engineering and math fields. This ad was explicitly intended to be gender neutral in its delivery. Empirically, however, fewer women saw the ad than men. This happened because younger women are a prized demographic and are more expensive to show ads to. An algorithm that simply optimizes cost-effectiveness in ad delivery will deliver ads that were intended to be gender neutral in an apparently discriminatory way, because of crowding out. We show that this empirical regularity extends to other major digital platforms. This paper was accepted by Joshua Gans, business strategy.

Overview

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

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

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1287/mnsc.2018.3093

Cites

26 of 26 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

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

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

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

Claims other papers make about this one

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 26 references

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Arrow K, 1973, Discrimination Labor Markets, 3, 3
  2. Ghosh A, 2009, WINE, 208
  3. Gunderson M, 1989, J. Econom. Lit., 27, 46
  4. 10.1353/jhr.2011.0025 · DOI
  5. Silverstein MJ, 2009, Harvard Bus. Rev., 87, 46
  6. Tucker C, 2014, Social Advertising: How Advertising That Explicitly Promotes Social Influence Can Backfire

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 501–600 of 892

Metadata

Authors
Lambrecht, A., & Tucker, C.
Affiliations
Boston College (US)
Venue
Management Science
Published
2019-07
Volume
65
Issue
7
Pages
2966-2981
ISSN
  • 0025-1909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-5501
OpenAlex
W2550925836
Cited by
854
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 108 · 2025: 128 · 2024: 139 · 2023: 163 · 2022: 109 · 2021: 120 · 2020: 73 · 2019: 12
FWCI
137.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Management Science (publishedVersion)
  • London Business School Research Online (London Business School) (submittedVersion)
  • DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Names, Identity, and Discrimination Research
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Media, Gender, and Advertising
Keywords
algorithmic bias, gender discrimination, online advertising, STEM careers, crowding out, demographic targeting, digital platforms, women in STEM

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