Content uploaded by Stijn Baert
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Stijn Baert on Jul 21, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
63© Springer International Publishing AG 2018
S. M. Gaddis (ed.), Audit Studies: Behind the Scenes with Theory, Method,
and Nuance, Methodos Series 14, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71153-9_3
Chapter 3
Hiring Discrimination: AnOverview
of(Almost) All Correspondence Experiments
Since 2005
StijnBaert
Abstract This chapter aims to provide an exhaustive list of all (i.e. 90) correspon-
dence studies on hiring discrimination that were conducted between 2005 and 2016
(and could be found through a systematic search). For all these studies, the direction
of the estimated treatment effects is tabulated. In addition, a discussion of the nd-
ings by discrimination ground is provided.
Keywords Hiring discrimination · Measurement · Correspondence experiments ·
Review · Ethnicity · Gender · Religion · Disability · Age · Military service · Wealth
· Marital status · Sexual orientation · Political orientation · Union afliation ·
Physical appearance
3.1 Triple Goal
The lack of labour market integration of vulnerable groups, such as refugees and
other individuals with a migration background, the elderly, and people with a men-
tal or physical health impairment, has received much attention in both policy and
academic circles in the past decade (OECD 2008a, 2010). For policymakers, it is
important to understand what factors cause this lack of integration in order to design
the appropriate integration policies. Academic scholars have suggested discrimina-
tion in hiring as one important factor contributing to the poor labour market integra-
tion of these individuals (Altonji and Blank 1999; OECD 2008b). However, it is
very challenging to measure discrimination in hiring, which makes it difcult to
distinguish the effect of discrimination on employment from the effect of other fac-
tors, such as differences in human capital and other skills.
Historically, scholars have measured hiring discrimination through statistical
analysis of non-experimental (survey or administrative) data. A commonly used
S. Baert (*)
Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
e-mail: stijn.baert@ugent.be
64
approach has been to try to control for as many observed individual factors as pos-
sible, such as education, experience, and occupation, and then interpret any unex-
plained part in employment between groups as pointing in the direction of
discrimination (Blinder 1973; Oaxaca 1973). In general, these studies are likely to
suffer from an important endogeneity bias, because job applicants who appear simi-
lar to researchers (except for their discrimination ground), based on non- experimental
data, might in fact appear to be different to employers. For example, administrative
data seldom contain information about language skills of individuals with a migra-
tion background, but this is likely to be observed by the employer, perhaps at a job
interview. As long as not all relevant variables, taken into account by employers in
making their hiring decisions, are controlled by the researcher, no conclusive proof
of discrimination can be provided.
In response to this methodological problem, and inspired by the seminal work of
Bertrand and Mullainathan (2004), scholars in labour economics, sociology of
labour, and personnel psychology during the past decade have turned to so-called
correspondence experiments to measure hiring discrimination (Gaddis 2018). In
these experiments, ctitious job applications, differing only in a randomly assigned
discrimination ground, are sent in response to real job openings. By monitoring the
subsequent call-back from employers, unequal treatment based on this single char-
acteristic is identied and can be given a causal interpretation.
Not surprisingly, given the seminal status of the correspondence experimentation
framework1 and the numerous academic studies that have adopted this framework,
during the past years, scholars have written reviews and meta-analyses concerning
this literature. We are aware of four such meta-studies: Bertrand and Duo (2016),
Neumark (in press), Rich (2014), and Zschirnt and Ruedin (2016). While all are
inspiring high-quality syntheses, with excellent policy links and clever directions
for further research, they share two limitations. First, these studies focus on an in-
depth review of the eld experimental evidence on labour market discrimination
based on some grounds, while neglecting other grounds based on which unequal
treatment is also forbidden. Second, none of these studies attempt to provide the
reader with an exhaustive list of all experiments (conducted during a particular time
frame). They all seem to focus on the better known (i.e. from their own country or
highly cited) experiments while neglecting complementary work.
This chapter has a different ambition. It starts with identifying all discrimination
grounds based on which unequal treatment is prohibited in at least one state of the
United States and then provides the reader with a register of all correspondence
experiments conducted (later than Bertrand and Mullainathan 2004) to measure
these forms of discrimination. Given that the information provided for each study
(i.e. particular treatment, country, and sign of the effect) is kept very limited—no
effect size information is provided—this chapter has to be seen as a working instru-
ment rather than as a classical review.
The register we will present serves three goals. First, it serves as a reference table to
which later chapters of this book will refer. Second, and more broadly, it can be used
1 Some deciencies of the method were discussed in Chap. 2.
S. Baert
65
by scholars in search of a catalogue of all correspondence experiments on hiring dis-
crimination based on a (cluster of) particular ground(s). Third, it implicitly indicates
potentially fruitful directions for future correspondence experiments, as it unambigu-
ously shows where the lacunae in this literature are, i.e. the discrimination grounds and
regions to which researchers have paid little attention.
3.2 Scope
The register discussed in the next section is the result of a systematic search for cor-
respondence experiments conducted after Bertrand and Mullainathan (2004) with
the aim of measuring forms of unequal treatment in hiring which are prohibited by
law in at least one state of the United States, i.e. the country in which the most cor-
respondence experiments have been conducted. So, correspondence experiments
included to assess the causal effect of, e.g., other cv characteristics such as juvenile
delinquency, student employment and (former) unemployment spells were not
included (Baert and Verhofstadt 2015; Baert etal. 2016d; Kroft etal. 2013; Eriksson
and Rooth 2014).
Under US federal law, unequal treatment is forbidden based on nine (clusters of)
discrimination grounds: (A) race and national origin, (B) gender and pregnancy, (C)
religion, (D) disability, (E) (older) age, (F) military service or afliation, (G) wealth,
(H) genetic information, and (I) citizenship status.2 With respect to (B), discrimina-
tion based on motherhood is also prohibited in Alaska3 and California.4 Finally,
discrimination based on (J) marital status,5 (K) sexual orientation and gender
identity,6 (L) political afliation,7 (M) union afliation,8 and (N) physical appear-
ance9 is forbidden in at least one state.
With this list of discrimination grounds at hand, a key word search (for the word
groups ‘correspondence test’, ‘correspondence experiment’, ‘correspondence
study’, ‘ctitious resume’, ‘ctitious cv’, ‘ctitious application’, and ‘eld experi-
ment’ in combination with ‘discrimination’) was conducted on three sources: Web
of Science, Google Scholar, and the IZA Discussion Paper Series. This exercise was
followed by the screening of all references in the relevant articles found and the
screening of the studies citing these relevant articles.
2 Source: https://www.eeoc.gov/
3 Source: http://touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/Statutes/Title18/Chapter80/Section220.htm
4 Source: http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/
5 Source: http://touchngo.com/lglcntr/akstats/Statutes/Title18/Chapter80/Section220.htm
6 Source: www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs5.asp?ActID=2266
7 Source: http://www.dfeh.ca.gov/
8 Source: http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/michie/
9 Source: https://www.law.hawaii.edu/les/downloads/LAW%20589%20Appearance%20
Discrimination_0.doc
3 Hiring Discrim ination: AnOverview of(Almost) All Correspondence Experiments…
66
3.3 The Register
Table 3.1 provides the reader with an overview of all studies (after Bertrand and
Mullainathan 2004 of which we are aware that build on correspondence experi-
ments aimed at measuring discrimination based on one of the grounds mentioned in
the previous section. The unit of observation is the individual correspondence
experiment. For each such experiment, there is a cell in column (3) of Table3.1.
Some cells contain more than one study, meaning that the studies exploited the same
experimental data. Some studies focussed on more than one discrimination ground,
and are therefore mentioned in more than one cell: Agerström etal. (2012), Albert
etal. (2011), Arceo-Gomez and Campos-Vazquez (2014), Banerjee etal. (2009),
Berson (2012), Capéau etal. (2012), Patacchini etal. (2015), Pierné (2013), and
Stone and Wright (2013).
In total, we are aware of 90 correspondence experiments conducted between
2005 and 2016 with the aim of measuring discrimination based on prohibited
grounds in at least one state of the United States. For 37 of these experiments, the
focus (at least partly) was on measuring ethnic discrimination. Other commonly
investigated discrimination grounds were gender (14 eld experiments), age (11
experiments), and sexual orientation (12 experiments). In addition, at least ve
experiments focussed on religion, disability, and physical appearance as determi-
nants of employers’ hiring decisions. Only three experiments had a wealth-related
focus and only two were related to military experience. Only one experiment has
been conducted on hiring discrimination based on political afliation and union
membership. We are not aware of any experiments measuring unequal treatment
based on genetic information, nor have any experiments—somewhat surprisingly
given the massive migration ows to Europe in recent years—investigated citizen-
ship status as a discrimination ground.
3.3.1 Treatment andTreatment Effects
As can be seen in column (1) of Table3.1, for many discrimination grounds studied,
a variety of particular treatments strategies have been used. For instance, ethnic
origin is mostly revealed by means of the names of the candidates. The various
minority groups studied are always groups that are substantially represented in the
country where the data gathering took place. Alternative designs have disclosed
ethnic origin by means of adding a resume picture or revealing one’s nationality.
Column (4) shows the average treatment effect for each experiment (averaged
across all vacancies and neglecting analyses by subsamples as presented in many
studies). Overall, an overwhelming majority of the studies report negative treatment
effects (i.e. discrimination of the group hypothesised to be discriminated against).
More concretely, 80 (i.e. 78.4%) treatment effects are signicantly negative, 17 (i.e.
S. Baert
67
Table 3.1 Register of correspondence experiments conducted between 2005 and 2016 with the
aim of measuring discrimination based on prohibited grounds in US law
(1) Treatment
(2) Country of
analysis (3) Study
(4)
Effect
A.Discrimination ground: race and national origin
A.1. African (versus native)
name
France Cediey and Foroni (2008)−
Edo etal. (2013)−
US Nunley etal. (2015)−
Gaddis (2015)−
Jacquemet and Yannelis (2012)−
Agan and Starr (2016)−
A.2. African or Hispanic
(versus native) name
Sweden Bursell (2014)−
US Darolia etal. (2016) 0
Decker etal. (2015) 0
A.3. African, Asian, or
German (versus native) name
Ireland McGinnity and Lunn (2011)−
A.4. African, Caribbean,
Indian, or Pakistani (versus
native) name
UK Wood etal. (2009)−
A.5. Albanian (versus native)
name
Greece Drydakis and Vlassis (2010) and
Drydakis (2012a)
−
A.6. Antillean, Moroccan,
Surinamese, or Turkish (versus
native) name
Netherlands Andriessen etal. (2012)−
A.7. Arabian (versus native)
name
Netherlands Derous etal. (2012)−
Blommaert etal. (2014)−
Sweden Agerström etal. (2012)−
US Widner and Chicoine (2011)−
A.8. Asian or Roma (versus
native) name
Czech
Republic
Bartoš etal. (2014)−
A.9. Chinese, Greek, Indian,
or Pakistani (versus native)
name
US Oreopoulos (2011)−
A.10. Chinese, Indigenous,
Italian, or Middle-Eastern
(versus native) name
Australia Booth etal. (2012)−
A.11. Chinese, Nigerian,
Serbian, or Turkish (versus
native) name and appearance
Austria Weichselbaumer (in press)−
A.12. Congolese, Moroccan,
Italian, or Turkish (versus
native) name
Belgium Capéau etal. (2012)−
A.13. Ghanaian, Moroccan,
Turkish, or Slovakian (versus
native) name
Belgium Baert etal. (2017)−
A.14. Indigenous (versus
native) name
Peru Galarza and Yamada (2014)−
(continued)
3 Hiring Discrim ination: AnOverview of(Almost) All Correspondence Experiments…
68
Table 3.1 (continued)
(1) Treatment
(2) Country of
analysis (3) Study
(4)
Effect
A.15. Malaysian (versus
Chinese) name
Malaysia Lee and Khalid (2016)−
A.16. Middle-Eastern (versus
native) name
Sweden Carlsson (2010), Carlsson and
Eriksson (in press), Carlsson and
Rooth (2007) and Carlsson and Rooth
(2012)
−
Attström (2007)−
A.17. Mixed-race or
Indigenous (versus white) skin
Mexico Arceo-Gomez and Campos-Vazquez
(2014)
−
A.18. Mongolian, Tibetan, or
Uighur (versus native) name
China Maurer-Fazio (2012)−
A.19. Moroccan (versus
native) name
France Pierné (2013)−
Berson (2012)−
Duguet etal. (2010)−
A.20. Pakistani (versus native)
name
Norway Midtbøen (2013) and Midtbøen (2016)−
A.21. Turkish (versus native)
name
Belgium Baert etal. (2015)−
Baert and Vujić (2016)−
Germany Kaas and Manger (2012)−
A.22. Ukraine or Vietnamese
(versus native) name
Poland Wysienska-Di Carlo and Karpinski
(2014)
−
B.Discrimination ground: gender and motherhood
B.1. Being a mother (versus a
childless woman)
US Correll etal. (2007)−
B.2. Being pregnant (versus
revealing no pregnancy)
Belgium Capéau etal. (2012)−
B.3. Female (versus male)
gender
Australia Booth and Leigh (2010) +
Belgium Capéau etal. (2012) 0
Baert (2015) and Baert etal. (2016a) 0
China Zhou etal. (2013) +
France Petit (2007)−
Berson (2012) +
Spain Albert etal. (2011) 0
Sweden Agerström etal. (2012) 0
Carlsson (2011) 0
UK Jackson (2009) +
Riach and Rich (2006b)−
B.4. Transgender sexual
identity
US Make the Road NewYork (2010)−
C.Discrimination ground: religion
C.1. Muslim (versus majority
religion)
France Adida etal. (2010)−
Pierné (2013)−
India Banerjee etal. (2009) 0
(continued)
S. Baert
69
Table 3.1 (continued)
(1) Treatment
(2) Country of
analysis (3) Study
(4)
Effect
C.2. Pentecostal, Evangelical,
or Jehovah’s Witness (versus
majority religion)
Greece Drydakis (2010b)−
C.3. Religious group
membership
US Wright etal. (2013)−
C.4. Wearing headscarves Germany Weichselbaumer (2016)−
D.Discrimination ground: disability
D.1. Blindness, deafness, or
autism
Belgium Baert (2016)−
D.2. Former depression Belgium Baert etal. (2016b)−
D.3. Former mental illness
(versus physical injury)
US Hipes etal. (2016)−
D.4. HIV Greece Drydakis (2010a)−
D.5. Obesity Sweden Agerström and Rooth (2011) and
Rooth (2009)
−
D.6. Spinal cord injury or
Asperger’s Syndrome
US Ameri etal. (2015)−
D.7. Unspecied physical
disability
Belgium Capéau etal. (2012)−
D.8. Wheelchair user UK Stone and Wright (2013)−
E.Discrimination ground: age
E.1. Age 21 or age 27 (versus
age 39 or age 47)
UK Riach and Rich (2010)−
E.2. Age 24 or age 25 (versus
age 50 or age 51)
UK Tinsley (2012)−
E.3. Age 24 or age 28 (versus
age 38)
Spain Albert etal. (2011)−
E.4. Age 27 (versus age 57) France Riach and Rich (2006a)−
Spain Riach and Rich (2007)−
E.5. Age 29, age 30, or age 31
(versus age 64, age 65, or age
66)
US Neumark etal. (2015) and Neumark
etal. (2016)
−
E.6. Age 35 or age 45 (versus
age 50, age 55, or age 62)
US Lahey (2008)−
E.7. Age 35, age 47, or age 53
(versus age 23, age 35, or age
47)
Belgium Capéau etal. (2012)−
E.8. Age 46 (versus age 31) Sweden Ahmed etal. (2012)−
E.9. Age 50 or age 44 (versus
age 44 or age 38)
Belgium Baert etal. (2016c)−
E.10. Age 50 or older (versus
younger)
US Farber etal. (2016)−
F.Discrimination ground: military service or afliation
F.1. Military work experience Belgium Baert and Balcaen (2013) 0
F.2. Military service US Kleykamp (2009) +
(continued)
3 Hiring Discrim ination: AnOverview of(Almost) All Correspondence Experiments…
70
Table 3.1 (continued)
(1) Treatment
(2) Country of
analysis (3) Study
(4)
Effect
G.Discrimination ground: wealth
G.1. Residence in
neighbourhood with poor
(versus bland) reputation
UK Tunstall etal. (2014) 0
G.2. Non-upper-caste (versus
upper-caste)
India Banerjee etal. (2009) 0
Siddique (2011)−
H.Discrimination ground: genetic information
No related correspondence experiments found.
I.Discrimination ground: citizenship status
No related correspondence experiments found.
J.Discrimination ground: marital status
J.1. Married (versus
unmarried)
Mexico Arceo-Gomez and Campos-Vazquez
(2014)
0
K.Discrimination ground: sexual orientation
K.1. LGBT organisation
member
Cyprus Drydakis (2014)−
Germany Weichselbaumer (2015)−
Greece Drydakis (2009)−
Drydakis (2011)−
Drydakis (2012b)−
Italy Patacchini etal. (2015) 0
Sweden Ahmed etal. (2013)−
Bailey etal. (2013) 0
UK Drydakis (2015)−
US Tilcsik (2011)−
Mishel (2016)−
K.2. Same-sex marriage
partner
Belgium Baert (2014) 0
L.Discrimination ground: political orientation
L.1. Orientation of mentioned
youth political organisation
Belgium Baert etal. (2014) 0
M.Discrimination ground: union afliation
M.1. Youth union membership Belgium Baert and Omey (2015)−
N.Discrimination ground: physical appearance
N.1. Lower attractiveness of
resume picture
Argentina Lopez Bóo etal. (2013)−
Belgium Baert (in press)−
China Maurer-Fazio and Lei (2015)−
Israel Rufe and Shtudiner (2015)−
Italy Patacchini etal. (2015) 0
N.2. Facial disgurement (in
resume picture)
UK Stone and Wright (2013)−
+ (0) ((−)) indicates an overall signicantly positive (neutral) ((negative)) effect of the treatment in
column (1) on call-back outcomes. Used abbreviations: LGBT Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and
Transgender; UK United Kingdom; US United States. This register is kept updated at the author’s
homepage [http://users.UGent.be/~sbaert]
S. Baert
71
16.7%) are insignicantly different from 0, and 5 (i.e. 4.6%) are signicantly
positive.10
Most of the cases document discrimination against ethnic minorities. There are
two important exceptions with respect to this empirical pattern. First, in two recent
studies with experiments conducted in the United States, no ethnic discrimination in
hiring was found (Darolia etal. 2016; Decker etal. 2015). Second, in Malaysia the
(expected) unfavourable treatment of the ethnic majority was found (Lee and Khalid
2016).11 In addition, research in Belgium (Baert and Vujić 2016; Baert etal. 2015,
2017) revealed situations in which ethnic discrimination disappeared there, i.e.
when ethnic minorities mentioned volunteer work for mainstream organisations,
when they applied for occupations in which labour market tightness was high, and
when they had many years of work experience. For an in-depth review of a selection
of the studies in Panel A of Table 3.1, we refer to Bertrand and Duo (2016),
Neumark (in press), Rich (2014), and Zschirnt and Ruedin (2016).
With respect to evidence on gender discrimination, i.e. the experiments compar-
ing call-back for male and female candidates, the evidence is very mixed. This is
related to the particular occupations tested. Indeed, many authors mentioned that
gender discrimination was heterogeneous by occupational characteristics (Baert
etal. 2015; Petit 2007; Carlsson 2011). On the other hand, a signicant penalty for
being pregnant or being a mother was found in a study from Belgium and one from
the United States, respectively (Capéau etal. 2012; Correll etal. 2007). Disclosing
one’s transgender identity was found to be detrimental to labour market success in
the United States (Make the Road NewYork 2010).
With respect to discrimination based on religion, a majority of the studies
focussed on the signal of being a Muslim (directly mentioned or indicated by means
of a resume picture in which headscarves were worn), compared with being a
Christian (in countries where Christianity was the majority religion). Afliation
with Islam always yielded lower call-back rates (Adida etal. 2010; Banerjee etal.
2009; Pierné 2013; Weichselbaumer 2016). Somewhat surprisingly, no correspon-
dence experiments have been conducted yet with respect to other leading religions
(e.g., Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism) as well as to various folk religions.
Remarkably, all experiments on discrimination against the disabled have focussed
on different dimensions of disability. Thus, we are in favour of replication studies
for this dimension of discrimination. Nevertheless, each form of disability revealed
in the hiring process seems to result in adverse hiring outcomes. The same is true
with respect to age discrimination: across all studies listed in Table3.1, older age is
always punished.
10 These numbers do not sum up to 90, as some studies were included multiple times in Table3.1
(as mentioned in the rst paragraph of Sect. 3.3).
11 In general, comparing the results across the rows of Table3.1 is very tricky, as the experiments
differed substantially with respect to at least the following characteristics of their design: (i) region
of the experiment; (ii) experimental population (e.g., with respect to age and education level); and
(iii) sectors, occupations, and vacancies tested.
3 Hiring Discrim ination: AnOverview of(Almost) All Correspondence Experiments…
72
A minority sexual orientation, revealed by means of mentioning membership in
a rainbow organisation or the name of one’s (same-sex) marital partner in the
resume, has a non-positive effect on employment opportunities. Including an attrac-
tive facial picture (compared to a less attractive one) with one’s resume has a bene-
cial effect. Finally, Table3.1 lists little evidence for non-negative effects of military
service and higher wealth (Baert and Balcaen 2013; Kleykamp 2009), a negative
effect of trade union membership (Baert and Omey 2015), and zero effects for mari-
tal status (Arceo-Gomez and Campos-Vazquez 2014) and political afliation (Baert
etal. 2014).
3.3.2 Country ofAnalysis
Column (2) of Table 3.1 shows that the summarised literature on labour market
discrimination is unbalanced with respect to the country of analysis. Grouped at the
continental level, 59 of the 90 correspondence experiments were conducted in
Europe, compared to 20in North America, only 7in the largest continent of Asia,
2in South America, 2in Australia, and none in Africa.
At the country level, most experiments (19) were conducted in the United States.
The European countries of Belgium (13 experiments), France (8 experiments),
Greece (6 experiments), Sweden (9 experiments), and the UK (8 experiments) are
clearly overrepresented. On the other hand, these European countries are, together
with the United States, the only ones in which within-country comparisons can be
made of the discrimination measured for different grounds. In 6 of the 10 largest
countries by population (Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Nigeria, Bangladesh, and
Russia), no correspondence experiments have been conducted yet.
3.4 Conclusion
This chapter provided the reader with a catalogue of all correspondence experi-
ments on hiring discrimination conducted after Bertrand and Mullainathan (2004)
that could be found through a systematic search. It shows that these experiments
have focussed on a few specic grounds for discrimination (race, gender, religion,
disability, age, sexual orientation, and physical appearance). An overwhelming
majority of these studies reported unfavourable treatment of the group hypothesised
to be discriminated against. On the other hand, other topical forms of potential hir-
ing discrimination (e.g., based on genetic information, citizenship status, or politi-
cal orientation) have hardly been assessed. Moreover, in 6 of the 10 largest countries
by population, no correspondence experiments have been conducted yet.
The register presented in Table3.1—enriched with hyperlinks to the electronic
versions of the included studies—is kept updated at the author’s homepage [http://
users.UGent.be/~sbaert].
S. Baert
73
References
Adida, C.L., Laitin, D.D., & Valfort, M.A. (2010). Identifying barriers to Muslim integration in
France. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107,
22384–22390.
Agan, A., & Starr, S. B. (2016). Ban the box, criminal records, and statistical discrimination:
A eld experiment (pp.16–012). University of Michigan Law School, Law and Economics
Research Paper Series.
Agerström, J., & Rooth, D.O. (2011). The role of automatic obesity stereotypes in real hiring
discrimination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 790–805.
Agerström, J., Björklund, F., Carlsson, R., & Rooth, D.O. (2012). Warm and competent Hassan
= Cold and incompetent eric: A harsh equation of real-life hiring discrimination. Basic and
Applied Social Psychology, 34, 359–366.
Ahmed, A.M., Andersson, L., & Hammarstedt, M. (2012). Does age matter for employability?
A eld experiment on ageism in the Swedish labour market. Applied Economics Letters, 19,
403–406.
Ahmed, A.M., Andersson, L., & Hammarstedt, M. (2013). Are gay man and lesbians discrimi-
nated against in the hiring process? Southern Economic Journal, 79, 565–858.
Albert, A., Escot, L., & Fernández-Cornejo, J.A. (2011). A eld experiment to study sex and
age discrimination in the Madrid labour market. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 22, 351–375.
Altonji, J.G., & Blank, R.M. (1999). Race and gender in the labor market. Handbook of Labor
Economics, 3, 3143–3259.
Ameri, M., Schur, L., & Meera, A. (2015). The disability employment puzzle: A eld experiment on
employer hiring behavior (NBER Working Paper Series 21560).
Andriessen, I., Nievers, E., Dagevos, J., & Faulk, L. (2012). Ethnic discrimination in the Dutch
Labor Market: Its relationship with job characteristics and multiple group membership. Work
and Occupations, 39, 237–239.
Arceo-Gomez, E.O., & Campos-Vazquez, R.M. (2014). Race and marriage in the labor market:
A discrimination correspondence study in a developing country. American Economic Review,
104, 376–380.
Attström, K. (2007). Discrimination against native Swedes of immigrant origin in access to
employment. Geneva: International Labour Ofce.
Baert, S. (2014). Career lesbians. Getting hired for not having kids? Industrial Relations Journal,
45, 543–561.
Baert, S. (2015). Field experimental evidence on gender discrimination in hiring: Biased as
Heckman and Siegelman predicted? Economics: The Open-Access, Open-Assessment
E-Journal, 9, 25.
Baert, S. (2016). Wage subsidies and hiring chances for the disabled: Some causal evidence.
European Journal of Health Economics, 17, 71–86.
Baert, S. (in press). Facebook prole picture appearance affects recruiters’ rst hiring decisions.
New Media & Society, 17, 1377–1396.
Baert, S., & Balcaen, P. (2013). The impact of military work experience on later hiring chances in
the civilian labour market. Evidence from a eld experiment. Economics: The Open-Access,
Open-Assessment E-Journal, 7, 37.
Baert, S., & Omey, E. (2015). Hiring discrimination against pro-union applicants: The role of
union density and rm size. Economist, 163, 263–280.
Baert, S., & Verhofstadt, E. (2015). Labour market discrimination against former juvenile delin-
quents: Evidence from a eld experiment. Applied Economics, 47, 1061–1072.
Baert, S., & Vujić, S. (2016). Immigrant volunteering: A way out of labour market discrimination?
Economics Letters, 146, 95–98.
3 Hiring Discrim ination: AnOverview of(Almost) All Correspondence Experiments…
74
Baert, S., Jong, A.Pin, R., De Freyne, L., & Parmentier, S. (2014). Political ideology and labour
market discrimination. Conference presentation at the spring meeting of Young Economists
2014.
Baert, S., Cockx, B., Gheyle, N., & Vandamme, C. (2015). Is there less discrimination in occupa-
tions where recruitment is difcult? ILR Review, 68, 467–500.
Baert, S., De Pauw, A.S., & Deschacht, N. (2016a). Do employer preferences contribute to sticky
oors? ILR Review, 69, 714–736.
Baert, S., De Visschere, S., Schoors, K., Vandenberghe, D., & Omey, E. (2016b). First depressed,
then discriminated against? Social Science & Medicine, 170, 247–254.
Baert, S., Norga, J., Thuy, Y., & Van Hecke, M. (2016c). Getting grey hairs in the labour market.
A realistic experiment on age discrimination. Journal of Economic Psychology, 57, 86–101.
Baert, S., Rotsaert, O., Verhaest, D., & Omey, E. (2016d). Student employment and later labour
market success: No evidence for higher employment chances. Kyklos, 69, 401–425.
Baert, S., Albanese, A., du Gardein, S., Ovaere, J., & Stappers, J.(2017). Does work experience
mitigate discrimination? Economics Letters, 155, 35–38.
Bailey, J., Wallace, M., & Wright, B. (2013). Are gay men and lesbians discriminated against when
applying for jobs? A four-city, internet-based eld experiment. Journal of Homosexuality, 60,
873–894.
Banerjee, A., Bertrand, M., Datta, S., & Mullainathan, S. (2009). Labor market discrimination in
Delhi: Evidence from a eld experiment. Journal of Comparative Economics, 37, 14–27.
Bartoš, V., Bauer, M., Chytilová, J., & Matějka, F. (2014). Attention discrimination: Theory and
eld experiments with monitoring information acquisition (IZA Discussion Paper Series 8058).
Berson, B. (2012). Does competition induce hiring equity? Documents de travail du Centre
d’Economie de la Sorbonne 12019.
Bertrand, M., & Duo, E. (2016). Review on eld experiments on discrimination. In A.Banerjee
& E.Duo (Eds.), Handbook of eld experiments. Cambridge: Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty
Action Lab.
Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2004). Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and
Jamal? A eld experiment on labor market discrimination. American Economic Review, 94,
991–1013.
Blinder, A. (1973). Wage discrimination: Reduced form and structural estimates. Journal of
Human Resources, 8, 436–455.
Blommaert, L., Coenders, M., & van Tubergen, F. (2014). Discrimination of Arabic named appli-
cants in the Netherlands: An internet-based eld experiment examining different phases in
online recruitment procedures. Social Forces, 92, 957–982.
Booth, A.L., & Leigh, A. (2010). Do employers discriminate by gender? A eld experiment in
female-dominated occupations. Economics Letters, 107, 236–238.
Booth, A.L., Leigh, A., & Varganova, E. (2012). Does ethnic discrimination vary across minority
groups? Evidence from a eld experiment. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 74,
547–573.
Bursell, M. (2014). The multiple burdens of foreign-named men—evidence from a eld experi-
ment on gendered ethnic hiring discrimination in Sweden. European Sociological Review, 30,
399–409.
Capéau, B., Eeman, L., Groenez, S., & Lamberts, M. (2012). Two concepts of discrimination:
Inequality of opportunity versus unequal treatment of equals (Ecore Discussion Paper Series
2012–58).
Carlsson, M. (2010). Experimental evidence of discrimination in the hiring of rst- and second-
generation immigrants. Labour, 24, 263–278.
Carlsson, M. (2011). Does hiring discrimination cause gender segregation in the Swedish labor
market? Feminist Economics, 17, 71–102.
Carlsson, M., & Eriksson, S. (in press). Do attitudes expressed in surveys predict ethnic discrimi-
nation? Ethnic and Racial Studies, 40(10), 1739–1757.
S. Baert
75
Carlsson, M., & Rooth, D.O. (2007). Evidence of ethnic discrimination in the Swedish labor mar-
ket using experimental data. Labour Economics, 14, 716–729.
Carlsson, M., & Rooth, D. O. (2012). Revealing taste-based discrimination in hiring: A corre-
spondence testing experiment with geographic variation. Applied Economics Letters, 19,
1861–1864.
Cediey, E., & Foroni, F. (2008). Discrimination in access to employment on grounds of foreign
origin in France. Geneva: International Labour Ofce.
Correll, S.J., Benard, B., & Paik, I. (2007). Getting a job: Is there a motherhood penalty? American
Journal of Sociology, 112, 1297–1338.
Darolia, R., Koedel, C., Martorell, P., Wilson, K., & Perez-Arce, F. (2016). Race and gender effects
on employer interest in job applicants: New evidence from a resume eld experiment. Applied
Economics Letters, 23, 853–856.
Decker, S.H., Ortiz, N., Cassia, S., & Hedberg, E. (2015). Criminal stigma, race, and ethnicity:
The consequences of imprisonment for employment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 43, 108–121.
Derous, E., Ryan, A.M., & Nguyen, H.H. (2012). Multiple categorization in resume screening:
Examining effects on hiring discrimination against Arab applicants in eld and lab settings.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 544–570.
Drydakis, N. (2009). Sexual orientation discrimination in the labour market. Labour Economics,
16, 364–372.
Drydakis, N. (2010a). Labour discrimination as a symptom of HIV: Experimental evaluation: The
greek case. Journal of Industrial Relations, 52, 201–217.
Drydakis, N. (2010b). Religious afliation and labour bias. Journal for the Scientic Study of
Religion, 49, 472–488.
Drydakis, N. (2011). Women’s sexual orientation and labor market outcomes in Greece. Feminist
Economics, 11, 89–117.
Drydakis, N. (2012a). Estimating ethnic discrimination in the labour market using experimental
data. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 12, 335–355.
Drydakis, N. (2012b). Sexual orientation and labour relations: New evidence from Athens, Greece.
Applied Economics, 44, 2653–2665.
Drydakis, N. (2014). Sexual orientation discrimination in the Cypriot labour market. Distastes or
uncertainty? International Journal of Manpower, 35, 720–744.
Drydakis, N. (2015). Measuring sexual orientation discrimination in the UK’s labour market; a
eld experiment. Human Relations, 68, 1769–1796.
Drydakis, N., & Vlassis, M. (2010). Ethnic discrimination in the Greek labour market: Occupational
access, insurance coverage and wage offers. Manchester School, 78, 201–218.
Duguet, E., Leandri, N., L’Horty, Y., & Petit, P. (2010). Are young french jobseekers of ethnic
immigrant origin discriminated against? A controlled experiment in the Paris area. Annals of
Economics and Statistics / Annales d’Économie et de Statistique, 99(100), 187–215.
Edo, A., Jacquemet, N., & Yannelis, C. (2013). Language skills and homophilous hiring discrimi-
nation: Evidence from gender- and racially-differentiated applications (CES Working Paper
Series, pp.13–58).
Eriksson, S., & Rooth, D.O. (2014). Do employers use unemployment as a sorting criterion when
hiring? Evidence from a eld experiment. American Economic Review, 104, 1014–1039.
Farber, H.S., Silverman, D., & von Wachter, T. (2016). Factors determining callbacks to job appli-
cations by the unemployed: An audit study. American Economic Review, 106, 314–318.
Gaddis, S.M. (2015). Discrimination in the credential society: An audit study of race and college
selectivity in the labor market. Social Forces, 93, 1451–1479.
Gaddis, S. M. (2018). An introduction to audit studies in the social sciences. In S. M. Gaddis
(Ed.), Audit studies: Behind the scenes with theory, method, and nuance. Cham: Springer
International Publishing.
Galarza, F.B., & Yamada, G. (2014). Labor market discrimination in Lima, Peru: Evidence from a
eld experiment. World Development, 58, 83–94.
Hipes, C., Lucas, J., Phelan, J.C., & White, R.C. (2016). The stigma of mental illness in the labor
market. Social Science Research, 56, 16–25.
3 Hiring Discrim ination: AnOverview of(Almost) All Correspondence Experiments…
76
Jackson, M. (2009). Disadvantaged through discrimination? The role of employers in social strati-
cation. British Journal of Sociology, 60, 669–692.
Jacquemet, N., & Yannelis, C. (2012). Indiscriminate discrimination: A correspondence test for
ethnic homophily in the Chicago labor market. Labour Economics, 19, 824–832.
Kaas, L., & Manger, C. (2012). Ethnic discrimination in Germany’s labour market: A eld experi-
ment. German Economic Review, 13, 1–20.
Kleykamp, M.A. (2009). Great place to start? The effect of prior military service on hiring. Armed
Forces & Society, 35, 266–285.
Kroft, K., Lange, F., & Notowidigdo, M.J. (2013). Duration dependence and labor market condi-
tions: Evidence from a eld experiment. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 128, 1123–1167.
Lahey, J.N. (2008). Age, women, and hiring: An experimental study. Journal of Human Resources,
43, 30–56.
Lee, H.A., & Khalid, M.A. (2016). Discrimination of high degrees: Race and graduate hiring in
Malaysia. Journal of the Asia Pacic Economy, 21, 53–76.
Lopez Bóo, F., Rossi, M., & Urzúa, S. (2013). The labor market return to an attractive face:
Evidence from a eld experiment. Economics Letters, 118, 170–172.
Make the Road NewYork. (2010). Transgender need not apply: Gender identity job discrimina-
tion in NewYork City’s retail sector. NewYork: Make the Road NewYork.
Maurer-Fazio, M. (2012). Ethnic discrimination in China’s internet job board labor market. IZA
Journal of Migration, 1, 1–24.
Maurer-Fazio, M., & Lei, L. (2015). As rare as a panda. How facial attractiveness, gender, and
occupation affect interview callbacks at Chinese rms. International Journal of Manpower,
36, 68–85.
McGinnity, F., & Lunn, P.D. (2011). Measuring discrimination facing ethnic minority job appli-
cants: An Irish experiment. Work, Employment and Society, 25, 693–708.
Midtbøen, A.H. (2013). The invisible second generation? Statistical discrimination and immigrant
stereotypes in employment processes in Norway. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 40,
1657–1675.
Midtbøen, A.H. (2016). Discrimination of the second generation: Evidence from a eld experi-
ment in Norway. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 17, 253–272.
Mishel, E. (2016). Discrimination against Queer women in the U.S.Workforce: A Résumé audit
study. Socius, 2, 2378023115621316.
Neumark, D. (in press). Experimental research on labor market discrimination. Journal of
Economic Literature.
Neumark, D., Burn, I., & Button, P. (2015). Is it harder for older workers to nd jobs? New and
improved evidence from a eld experiment (NBER Working Paper Series 21669).
Neumark, D., Burn, I., & Button, P. (2016). Experimental age discrimination evidence and the
Heckman critique. American Economic Review, 106, 303–308.
Nunley, J.M., Pugh, A., Romero, N., & Seals, R.A. (2015). Racial discrimination in the labor mar-
ket for recent college graduates: Evidence from a eld experiment. B.E.Journal of Economic
Analysis & Policy, 15, 1093–1125.
Oaxaca, R. (1973). Male-female wage differentials in urban labor markets. International Economic
Review, 14, 693–709.
OECD. (2008a). Jobs for immigrants. Labour market integration in France, Belgium, the
Netherlands and Portugal. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2008b). The price of prejudice: Labour market discrimination on the grounds of gender
and ethnicity. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD. (2010). Sickness, disability and work. Breaking the barriers—A synthesis of ndings
across OECD countries. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Oreopoulos, P. (2011). Why do skilled immigrants struggle in the labor market? A eld experiment
with thirteen thousand resumes. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 3, 148–171.
Patacchini, E., Ragusa, G., & Zenou, Y. (2015). Unexplored dimensions of discrimination in
Europe: Homosexuality and physical appearance. Journal of Population Economics, 28,
1045–1073.
S. Baert
77
Petit, P. (2007). The effects of age and family constraints on gender hiring discrimination: A eld
experiment in the French nancial sector. Labour Economics, 14, 371–391.
Pierné, G. (2013). Hiring discrimination based on national origin and religious closeness: Results
from a eld experiment in the Paris area. IZA Journal of Labor Economics, 2, 4.
Riach, P.A., & Rich, J.(2006a). An experimental investigation of age discrimination in the French
labour market (IZA Discussion Paper Series 2522).
Riach, P.A., & Rich, J.(2006b). An experimental investigation of sexual discrimination in hiring
in the English labor market. B.E.Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 5, 1–22.
Riach, P.A., & Rich, J.(2007). An experimental investigation of age discrimination in the Spanish
labour market (IZA Discussion Paper Series 2654).
Riach, P.A., & Rich, J.(2010). An experimental investigation of age discrimination in the English
labor market. Annals of Economics and Statistics, 99(100), 169–185.
Rich, J.(2014). What do ld experiments of discrimination in markets tell us? A meta analysis of
studies conducted since 2000 (IZA Discussion Paper Series 8584).
Rooth, D.O. (2009). Obesity, attractiveness, and differential treatment in hiring: A eld experi-
ment. Journal of Human Resources, 44, 710–735.
Rufe, B., & Shtudiner, Z. (2015). Are good-looking people more employable? Management
Science, 61, 1760–1776.
Siddique, Z. (2011). Caste-based discrimination: Evidence and policy. Labour Economics, 18,
S146–S159.
Stone, A., & Wright, T. (2013). When your face doesn’t t: Employment discrimination against
people with facial disgurements. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 515–526.
Tilcsik, A. (2011). Pride and prejudice: Employment discrimination against openly gay men in the
United States. American Journal of Sociology, 117, 586–626.
Tinsley, M. (2012). Too much to lose: Understanding and supporting Britain’s older workers.
London: Policy Exchange.
Tunstall, R., Green, A., Lupton, R., Watmough, S., & Bates, K. (2014). Does poor neighbourhood
reputation create a neighbourhood effect on employment? The results of a eld experiment in
the UK. Urban Studies, 51, 763–780.
Weichselbaumer, D. (2015). Testing for discrimination against lesbians of different marital status:
A eld experiment. Industrial Relations, 54, 131–161.
Weichselbaumer, D. (2016). Discrimination against female migrants wearing headscarves (IZA
Discussion Paper Series 10217).
Weichselbaumer, D. (in press). Discrimination against migrant job applicants in Austria: An exper-
imental study. German Economic Review.
Widner, D., & Chicoine, S. (2011). It’s all in the name: Employment discrimination against Arab
Americans. Sociological Forum, 26, 806–823.
Wood, M., Hales, J., Purdon, S., Sejersen T., & Hayllar O. (2009). A test for racial discrimination
in recruitment practice in British cities (DWP Research Reports 607)
Wright, B. R. E., Wallace, M., Bailey, J., & Hyde, A. (2013). Religious afliation and hiring
discrimination in New England: A eld experiment. Research in Social Stratication and
Mobility, 34, 111–126.
Wysienska-Di Carlo, K., & Karpinski, Z. (2014). Discrimination facing immigrant job applicants
in Poland—Results of a eld experiment. In Conference presentation at the XVIII ISA World
Congress of Sociology.
Zhou, X, Zhang, J, & Song, X. (2013). Gender discrimination in hiring: Evidence from 19,130
resumes in China. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2195840. Accessed 11 Nov 2016.
Zschirnt, E., & Ruedin, D. (2016). Ethnic discrimination in hiring decisions: A meta-analysis of
correspondence tests 1990–2015. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 42, 1115–1134.
3 Hiring Discrim ination: AnOverview of(Almost) All Correspondence Experiments…