The Use of Field Experiments to Study Mechanisms of Discrimination

Abstract

This paper discusses social mechanisms of discrimination and reviews existing field experimental designs for their identification. We first explicate two social mechanisms proposed in the literature, animus-driven and statistical discrimination, to explain differential treatment based on ascriptive characteristics. We then present common approaches to study discrimination based on observational data and laboratory experiments, discuss their strengths and weaknesses, and elaborate why unobtrusive field experiments are a promising complement. However, apart from specific methodological challenges, well-established experimental designs fail to identify the mechanisms of discrimination. Consequently, we introduce a rapidly growing strand of research which actively intervenes in market activities varying costs and information for potential perpetrators to identify causal pathways of discrimination. We end with a summary of lessons learned and a discussion of challenges that lie ahead. KeywordsCausal inference, discrimination, field experiment, labor market, social inequality, social mechanism Word count10,400 words AcknowledgmentsWe thank Sonja Pointner, Merlin Schaeffer, the editors, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments. M.K. and T.W. contributed equally to this work.

Gender Discrimination in the Hiring of Skilled Professionals in Two Male-Dominated Occupational Fields: A Factorial Survey Experiment with Real-World Vacancies and Recruiters in Four European Countries

“…Guryan and Charles (2013) point out that, after an initial debate in the 1970s and 1980s about whether one of the two models better described (gender) discrimination, the literature has only recently returned to the question of whether tastebased or statistical discrimination is a more appropriate description of the phenomenon of discrimination. These more contemporary analyses of discrimination differ from the early neoclassical approaches both in their definition and in their measurement of discrimination (Keuschnigg and Wolbring 2016). Economists initially defined discrimination as a difference in earnings between two groups of workers of equal productivity-the gender gap in wages, for instance-and applied regression-based methods to prove their theoretical assumptions.…”

“…Field experiments allow researchers to test more precisely specific assumptions by either the taste-based discrimination or the statistical discrimination model (see, for example, Weichselbaumer 2004). However, Keuschnigg and Wolbring (2016) argue that neither correspondence tests nor in-person audits manage to identify causal mechanisms behind discriminatory behaviour. While field experiments enable the measurement of discrimination in employment, they can hardly explain why employers discriminate based on gender, ethnicity or age (Imdorf 2017).…”

“…Similarly, Reskin (2003) proposes that prejudices and stereotypes only unfold if organisational contexts and practices allow for it. It is therefore of interest to better understand under which conditions discriminatory preferences translate into unequal treatment (Keuschnigg and Wolbring 2016). These conditional contexts are located at various levels, such as recruiter, vacancy, company, occupation, or country.…”

“…The two most prominent explanations- Becker's (1957) work on taste-based discrimination and the theory of statistical discrimination (Arrow 1973;Phelps 1972)-are rooted in economics. As such, both theoretical approaches assume that propensities to discriminate are constant over time and across social contexts (Keuschnigg and Wolbring 2016). The conditions under which employers' preferences translate into unequal treatment of job candidates remain underexplored.…”

The application of factorial surveys to study recruiters’ hiring intentions: comparing designs based on hypothetical and real vacancies

“…SeeBaert (2018) for an overview of field experiments to study hiring decisions. 2 SeeKeuschnigg and Wolbring (2016) andRiach and Rich (2004) for a detailed discussion of the possible real-life impact of this deception on employers and applicants.…”