Advanced search
1 file | 244.79 KB Add to list

Field experimental evidence on gender discrimination in hiring: biased as Heckman and Siegelman predicted?

Stijn Baert (UGent)
Author
Organization
Abstract
Correspondence studies are nowadays viewed as the most compelling avenue to test for hiring discrimination. However, these studies suffer from one fundamental methodological problem, as formulated by Heckman and Siegelman (The Urban Institute audit studies: Their methods and findings. In M. Fix, and R. Struyk (Eds.), Clear and convincing evidence: Measurement of discrimination in America, 1993), namely the bias in their results in case of group differences in the variance of unobserved determinants of hiring outcomes. In this study, the authors empirically investigate this bias in the context of gender discrimination. The authors do not find significant evidence for the feared bias.
Keywords
Gender discrimination, Unobserved heterogeneity, AGE, Correspondence experiments, LABOR-MARKET

Downloads

  • Economics 2015-25.pdf
    • full text
    • |
    • open access
    • |
    • PDF
    • |
    • 244.79 KB

Citation

Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:

MLA
Baert, Stijn. “Field Experimental Evidence on Gender Discrimination in Hiring: Biased as Heckman and Siegelman Predicted?” ECONOMICS-THE OPEN ACCESS OPEN-ASSESSMENT E-JOURNAL 9.25 (2015): 1–11. Print.
APA
Baert, Stijn. (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), 1–11.
Chicago author-date
Baert, Stijn. 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): 1–11.
Chicago author-date (all authors)
Baert, Stijn. 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): 1–11.
Vancouver
1.
Baert S. Field experimental evidence on gender discrimination in hiring: biased as Heckman and Siegelman predicted? ECONOMICS-THE OPEN ACCESS OPEN-ASSESSMENT E-JOURNAL. 2015;9(25):1–11.
IEEE
[1]
S. Baert, “Field experimental evidence on gender discrimination in hiring: biased as Heckman and Siegelman predicted?,” ECONOMICS-THE OPEN ACCESS OPEN-ASSESSMENT E-JOURNAL, vol. 9, no. 25, pp. 1–11, 2015.
@article{6912176,
  abstract     = {Correspondence studies are nowadays viewed as the most compelling avenue to test for hiring discrimination. However, these studies suffer from one fundamental methodological problem, as formulated by Heckman and Siegelman (The Urban Institute audit studies: Their methods and findings. In M. Fix, and R. Struyk (Eds.), Clear and convincing evidence: Measurement of discrimination in America, 1993), namely the bias in their results in case of group differences in the variance of unobserved determinants of hiring outcomes. In this study, the authors empirically investigate this bias in the context of gender discrimination. The authors do not find significant evidence for the feared bias.},
  articleno    = {201525},
  author       = {Baert, Stijn},
  issn         = {1864-6042},
  journal      = {ECONOMICS-THE OPEN ACCESS OPEN-ASSESSMENT E-JOURNAL},
  keywords     = {Gender discrimination,Unobserved heterogeneity,AGE,Correspondence experiments,LABOR-MARKET},
  language     = {eng},
  number       = {25},
  pages        = {201525:1--201525:11},
  title        = {Field experimental evidence on gender discrimination in hiring: biased as Heckman and Siegelman predicted?},
  url          = {http://dx.doi.org/10.5018/economics-ejournal.ja.2015-25},
  volume       = {9},
  year         = {2015},
}

Altmetric
View in Altmetric
Web of Science
Times cited: