scholarly journals Beliefs about Racial Discrimination and Support for Pro-Black Policies

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-38
Author(s):  
Ingar Haaland ◽  
Christopher Roth
Keyword(s):  
Racial Discrimination ◽  
Hiring Discrimination ◽  
Information Treatment

Abstract This paper provides representative evidence on beliefs about racial discrimination and examines whether information causally affects support for pro-black policies. Eliciting quantitative beliefs about the extent of hiring discrimination against blacks, we uncover large disagreement about the extent of racial discrimination with particularly pronounced partisan differences. An information treatment leads to a convergence in beliefs about racial discrimination but does not lead to a similar convergence in support of pro-black policies. The results demonstrate that while providing information can substantially reduce disagreement about the extent of racial discrimination, it is not sufficient to reduce disagreement about pro-black policies.

scholarly journals The Racialized and Gendered Workplace: Applying an Intersectional Lens to a Field Experiment on Hiring Discrimination in Five European Labor Markets

2020 ◽  
Vol 83 (3) ◽  
pp. 229-250
Author(s):  
Valentina Di Stasio ◽  
Edvard N. Larsen
Keyword(s):  
Field Experiment ◽  
Labor Markets ◽  
Racial Discrimination ◽  
Women Of Color ◽  
White Women ◽  
Middle Eastern ◽  
Hiring Discrimination ◽  
Stereotype Content ◽  
The Feminine ◽  
European Labor Markets

We draw on a field experiment conducted in five European countries to analyze hiring discrimination on the basis of gender and race. We adopt an intersectional perspective and relate existing theories on gender and racial discrimination to recent work on the gendered stereotype content of different races. We find that employers prefer hiring white women over men for female-typed jobs. By contrast, women of color do not have any advantage over men of the same race. Moreover, black and Middle Eastern men encounter the strongest racial discrimination in male-typed jobs, where it is possible that their stereotyped masculinity, made salient by the occupational context, is perceived as threatening. Overall, we argue that the employment chances of applicants of different gender and racial backgrounds are highly dependent on their perceived congruence (or lack thereof) with the feminine or masculine traits of the job they apply to.

Evidence from Field Experiments in Hiring Shows Substantial Additional Racial Discrimination after the Callback

Social Forces ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 99 (2) ◽  
pp. 732-759 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lincoln Quillian ◽  
John J Lee ◽  
Mariana Oliver
Keyword(s):  
Racial Discrimination ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Experimental Studies ◽  
Ethnic Discrimination ◽  
Statistical Discrimination ◽  
Important Method ◽  
Hiring Discrimination ◽  
Hiring Process ◽  
Job Offers

Abstract Field experiments using fictitious applications have become an increasingly important method for assessing hiring discrimination. Most field experiments of hiring, however, only observe whether the applicant receives an invitation to interview, called the “callback.” How adequate is our understanding of discrimination in the hiring process based on an assessment of discrimination in callbacks, when the ultimate subject of interest is discrimination in job offers? To address this question, we examine evidence from all available field experimental studies of racial or ethnic discrimination in hiring that go to the job offer outcome. Our sample includes 12 studies encompassing more than 13,000 job applications. We find considerable additional discrimination in hiring after the callback: majority applicants in our sample receive 53% more callbacks than comparable minority applicants, but majority applicants receive 145% more job offers than comparable minority applicants. The additional discrimination from interview to job offer is weakly correlated (r = 0.21) with the level of discrimination earlier in the hiring process. We discuss the implications of our results for theories of discrimination, including statistical discrimination.

scholarly journals Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lincoln Quillian ◽  
Arnfinn H. Midtbøen
Keyword(s):  
Racial Discrimination ◽  
Race And Ethnicity ◽  
Field Experiments ◽  
Minority Groups ◽  
Experimental Studies ◽  
Ethnic Discrimination ◽  
Comparative Perspective ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Institutional Rules ◽  
Hiring Discrimination

This article reviews studies of discrimination against racial and ethnic minority groups in hiring in cross-national comparative perspective. We focus on field-experimental studies of hiring discrimination: studies that use fictitious applications from members of different racial and ethnic group to apply for actual jobs. There are more than 140 field experimental studies of hiring discrimination against ethno-racial minority groups in 30 countries. 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. The comparative perspective from this body of research helps to move beyond micro-models of employer decision-making to better understand the roles of history, social context, institutional rules, and racist ideologies in producing discrimination. Some racial discrimination is driven by correlated conditions like religion, but the clues producing most discrimination on these bases are fundamentally racialized. Studies suggest 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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document