CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 43Names, Identity, and Discrimination ResearchExperimental Behavioral Economics StudiesEmployer Branding and e-HRM

Do equal employment opportunity statements backfire? Evidence from a natural field experiment on job-entry decisions

Open access
Leibbrandt, Andreas, List, John·2018·National Bureau of Economic Research
DOI 10.3386/w25035
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Labor force composition and the allocation of talent remain of vital import to modern economies.For their part, governments and companies around the globe have implemented equal employment opportunity (EEO) regulations to influence labor market flows.Even though such regulations are pervasive, surprisingly little is known about their impacts.We use a natural field experiment conducted across 10 U.S. cities to investigate if EEO statements in job advertisements affect the first step in the employment process, application rates.Making use of data from nearly 2,500 job seekers, we find considerable policy effects, but in an unexpected direction: the presence of an EEO statement dampens rather than encourages racial minorities' willingness to apply for jobs.Importantly, the effects are particularly pronounced for educated job seekers and in cities with white majority populations.Complementary survey evidence suggests the underlying mechanism at work is "tokenism", revealing that EEO statements backfire because racial minorities avoid environments in which they are perceived as regulatory, or symbolic, hires rather than being hired on their own merits.Beyond their practical and theoretical importance, our results highlight how field experiments can significantly improve policymaking.In this case, if one goal of EEO regulations is to enhance the pool of minority applicants, then it is not working.

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 · 10.3386/w25035

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

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

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

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

Claims other papers make about this one

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

  • In employment law, behavioral scientists have found that equal opportunity and diversity statements can reduce applications from minority job seekers.

    “In employment law, behavioral scientists have found that equal opportunity and diversity statements can reduce applications from minority job seekers [37].”

    From Null Compliance: NYC Local Law 144 and the challenges of algorithm accountability (2024) · cites this paper as [37]

    The Introduction reports that EEO statements in job advertisements discouraged applications from racial minorities, especially educated applicants and those in cities with white-majority populations. The paper does not establish the same result for diversity statements; its Introduction instead mentions another study finding that an explicit interest in diversity increased interest among racial minorities. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 44

  1. Adams, R. B., & Ferreira, D. (2009). Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance. Journal of financial economics,94(2), 291-309.
  2. Ahern, K. R., & Dittmar, A. K. (2012). The changing of the boards: The impact on firm valuation of mandated female board representation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 127(1), 137-197.
  3. Altonji, Joseph G., and Rebecca Blank. (1999). Race and Gender in the Labor Market. In Handbook of Labor Economics, Vol. 3C, eds. O. Ashenfelter, and D. Card, 3144- 3259. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
  4. Aronson, J., Fried, C. B., & Good, C. (2002). Reducing the effects of stereotype threat on African American college students by shaping theories of intelligence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(2), 113-125.
  5. Banerjee, A., Bertrand, M., Datta, S., & Mullainathan, S. (2009). Labor market discrimination in Delhi: Evidence from a field experiment. Journal of Comparative Economics, 37(1), 14-27.
  6. Beaman, L., Chattopadhyay, R., Duflo, E., Pande, R., & Topalova, P. (2009) Powerful women: female leadership and gender bias. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(4), 1497-1540.
  7. Bertrand, M., Chugh, D., & Mullainathan, S. (2005). Implicit discrimination. American Economic Review, 94-98.
  8. Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2004). Are Emily and Greg More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination. The American Economic Review, 94(4), 991-1013.
  9. Bertrand, M. (2010). New Perspectives on Gender. In Handbook of Labor Economics, Vol. 4b, eds. O. D. Card, and O. Ashenfelter, 1543-1590 (Amsterdam: Elsevier Science).
  10. Bertrand, M., Hanna, R., & Mullainathan, S. (2010). Affirmative action in education: Evidence from engineering college admissions in India. Journal of Public Economics, 94(1), 16-29.
  11. Blau, F., Feber, M, Winkler, A. (2010). The Economics of Women, Men and Work (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs).
  12. Bonilla-Silva, E. (2002). The linguistics of color blind racism: How to talk nasty about blacks without sounding "racist". Critical Sociology, 28(1-2), 41-64.
  13. Bull, C., Schotter, A., & Weigelt, K. (1987). Tournaments and piece rates: An experimental study. The Journal of Political Economy, 1-33.
  14. Card, D., & Krueger, A. B. (2005). Would the elimination of affirmative action affect highly qualified minority applicants? Evidence from California and Texas. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 58(3), 416-434.
  15. Carlsson, M., & Rooth, D. O. (2007). Evidence of ethnic discrimination in the Swedish labor market using experimental data. Labour Economics, 14(4), 716-729.
  16. Charles, Kerwin Kofi, and Jonathan Guryan. "Prejudice and wages: an empirical assessment of Becker's The Economics of Discrimination." Journal of Political Economy 116.5 (2008): 773-809.
  17. Coate, S., & Loury, G. C. (1993). Will affirmative-action policies eliminate negative stereotypes?. The American Economic Review, 1220-1240.
  18. Dickson, L. M. (2006). Does ending affirmative action in college admissions lower the percent of minority students applying to college?. Economics of Education Review, 25(1), 109-119.
  19. Flory, J. A., Leibbrandt, A., and List, J. A. (2015). Do Competitive Workplaces Deter Female Workers? A Large-Scale Natural Field Experiment on Job Entry Decisions. Review of Economic Studies, 82(1), 122-155.
  20. Fryer R, Levitt S, and List J.A. (2008). Exploring the Impact of Financial Incentives on Stereotype Threat: Evidence from a Pilot Study. American Economic Review, 98 (2), 370-375.
  21. Fryer, R. G., Pager, D., and Spenkuch, J. L. (2013). Racial disparities in job finding and offered wages. The Journal of Law and Economics, 56(3), 633-689.
  22. Goldin, C., and C. Rouse. (2000). Orchestrating Impartiality: The Impact of 'Blind' Auditions on Female Musicians. American Economic Review, 90(4): 715-741.
  23. Gupta, V. K., Turban, D. B., & Bhawe, N. M. (2008). The effect of gender stereotype activation on entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(5), 1053.
  24. Harrison, G.W. and J.A. List, "Field Experiments," Journal of Economic Literature, (2004), 42(4), pp. 1009-1055.
  25. Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., & Lucas, J. A. (1992). Presumed incompetent? Stigmatization and affirmative action efforts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(4), 536.
  26. Hinrichs, P. (2012). The effects of affirmative action bans on college enrollment, educational attainment, and the demographic composition of universities. Review of Economics and Statistics, 94(3), 712-722.
  27. von Hippel, C., Issa, M., Ma, R., & Stokes, A. (2011). Stereotype threat: Antecedents and consequences for working women. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(2), 151-161.
  28. Ibañez, M. & Riener, G. (2018). Sorting through affirmative action: Three field experiments in Colombia. Journal of Labor Economics, 36(2), 437-478.
  29. Kang, S. K., DeCelles, K. A., Tilcsik, A., & Jun, S. (2016). Whitened resumes: Race and self-presentation in the labor market. Admin. Science Quarterly, 61(3), 469-502.
  30. Kanter, R. M. (2008). Men and women of the corporation: New edition. Basic books.
  31. Leibbrandt, A., and J. A. List (2014). Do women avoid salary negotiations? Evidence from a large-scale natural field experiment. Management Science, 61(9), 2016-2024.
  32. Leibbrandt, A., Wang, L. C., & Foo, C. (2017). Gender quotas, competitions, and peer review: Experimental evidence on the backlash against women. Management Science.
  33. List, J. A. (2004). The nature and extent of discrimination in the marketplace: Evidence from the field. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 49-89.
  34. Matsa, D., and A. Miller. (2013). A female style in corporate leadership? Evidence from quotas. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 5:3: 136-169.
  35. McKay, P. F., & Avery, D. R. (2005). Warning! Diversity recruitment could backfire. Journal of Management Inquiry, 14(4), 330-336.
  36. Niederle, M., Segal, C., Vesterlund, L. (2013). How costly is diverstity? Affirmative action in light of gender differences in competitiveness. Management Science. 59(1), 1-16.
  37. Osborne, J. W. (1995). Academics, self-esteem, and race: A look at the underlying assumptions of the disidentification hypothesis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(5), 449-455.
  38. Pager, D., Western, B., & Bonikowski, B. (2009). Discrimination in a low-wage labor market a field experiment. American Sociological Review, 74(5), 777-799.
  39. Roberson, L., & Kulik, C. T. (2007). Stereotype threat at work. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(2), 24-40.
  40. Schotter, A., & Weigelt, K. (1992). Asymmetric tournaments, equal opportunity laws, and affirmative action: Some experimental results. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 511-539.
  41. Shih, M., Pittinsky, T. L., & Ambady, N. (1999). Stereotype susceptibility: Identity salience and shifts in quantitative performance. Psychological science, 10(1), 80-83.
  42. Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual ability and performance. American Psychologist 52(6), 613-629.
  43. Stone, J. (2002). Battling doubt by avoiding practice: The effects of stereotype threat on self-handicapping in white athletes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(12), 1667-1678.
  44. Van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & society, 4(2), 249-283.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Leibbrandt, A., & List, J.
Affiliations
National Bureau of Economic Research (US)
ORCID
Venue
National Bureau of Economic Research
Publisher
National Bureau of Economic Research
Published
2018-09
DOI
10.3386/w25035
OpenAlex
W2892163328
Cited by
43
References
5
Citations by year
2025: 7 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
Type
report
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • National Bureau of Economic Research (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Names, Identity, and Discrimination Research
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Employer Branding and e-HRM
Keywords
equal employment opportunity, job advertisements, job applications, racial minorities, tokenism, labor market regulation, job seekers, racial 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