2018
DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3111157
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Neighborhood Signaling Effects, Commuting Time, and Employment: Evidence from a Field Experiment

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This result is in line with recent studies in France that seem to indicate relatively low levels of residential discrimination (Challe et al, 2018). Furthermore, our regressions control for commuting distance, which turns out to be one of the main components of the address penalty (Carlsson et al, 2018; Diaz and Salas, 2020; Phillips, 2018).…”
Section: Results Of the Testsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This result is in line with recent studies in France that seem to indicate relatively low levels of residential discrimination (Challe et al, 2018). Furthermore, our regressions control for commuting distance, which turns out to be one of the main components of the address penalty (Carlsson et al, 2018; Diaz and Salas, 2020; Phillips, 2018).…”
Section: Results Of the Testsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The study by Tunstall et al (2014), which covers three employment areas in the UK, concluded that there was no significant discrimination linked to residence in a neighbourhood considered poor. Finally, various studies such as those by Carlsson et al (2018), Diaz and Salas (2020) and Phillips (2018) find that it is essentially the commuting distance that negatively affects the chances of getting an interview.…”
Section: Place Of Residence and Access To Employment: An Overviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We included these additional vignette dimensions to mimic real-life hiring decisions as closely as possible and cover up the prime goal of the research to avoid social desirability bias. These extra vignette dimensions are all elements typically mentioned on U.S. résumés and were selected based on the findings of previous studies (i.e., Olian, Schwab, & Haberfeld, 1988;Lahey, 2008;Nuijten, Poell, & Alfes, 2017;Carlsson, Reshid, & Rooth, 2018;Van Belle et al, 2018;Van Belle et al, 2019;Van Borm, Burn, & Baert, 2021). Moreover, to check whether these extra factors were perceived to be (i) relevant, (ii) realistic, and (iii) informative for employers, we conducted a pilot test of our survey with 80 U.S. Prolific-users experienced in hiring.…”
Section: Vignette Designmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As can be seen in Table 1, we also varied the applicants' details in four additional factors: their (i) commuting distance (i.e., the distance the applicants would have to commute between the job and their home; 0-5 miles, 5-10 miles, 10-50 miles, or More than 50 miles), (ii) experience in the occupation (None, About two years, About five years, or About ten years), (iii) recent period of unemployment (Yes or No), and (iv) extracurricular activities (None, Volunteering, Sports activities, or Cultural activities). 12,13 We selected these extra factors and corresponding levels based on (i) a screening of American résumés for elements typically included in these résumés and (ii) findings in the literature (Olian, Schwab, & Haberfeld, 1988;Lahey, 2008;Nuijten, Poell, & Alfes, 2017;Carlsson, Reshid, & Rooth, 2018;Van Belle et al, 2018;Van Belle et al, 2019;. To check whether these extra factors were recommendation to work with vignettes of middling complexity, i.e., vignettes in which approximately seven (plus or minus two) vignette dimensions varied.…”
Section: Vignette Designmentioning
confidence: 99%