A recent comprehensive study sheds light on the trajectory of gender discrimination in job applications over the last 44 years. The findings reveal that while discrimination against women in traditionally male-dominated jobs has seen a significant decrease, biases against men applying for roles typically viewed as female-dominated persist stubbornly.
Furthermore, both laypeople and academics appear to overestimate the current extent of discrimination against female applicants, indicating a gap between societal perceptions and the realities of gender bias in the workplace. The new findings were published in the scientific journal Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.
“Recently, the literature on gender discrimination has started to produce divergent results, some studies showing continued discrimination, some showing improvement in discrimination, and some studies even showing reverse discrimination. Thus, we were curious what the situation looks like if you looked at the cumulative evidence over time,” said study author Michael Schaerer, an associate professor of organizational behavior and human resources at Singapore Management University.
Methodology
At the heart of the research was a pre-registered meta-analysis, a statistical technique used to synthesize results from numerous studies to discern overarching trends. The researchers meticulously gathered data from field audits, where fictitious job applications, identical in qualifications but varying by gender, were submitted to real-world job openings. This method is revered for its high ecological validity, allowing for an estimation of gender’s causal effect on hiring decisions without the confounding variables often present in observational studies.
The selection process for studies was rigorous. The research team sought out all field audits conducted between 1976 and 2020, regardless of their publication status, to mitigate publication bias. These studies were then subjected to a detailed coding process, where variables such as the year of the study, job type, and geographic location were systematically recorded and analyzed.
The meta-analysis, based on the combined results from 361,645 individual job applications, aimed to answer several research questions, including the overall presence of gender discrimination, the role of job stereotypicality, and the evolution of biases over time.
Complementing the meta-analysis was an innovative forecasting survey designed to assess expectations about the study’s findings among both laypeople and scholars. This survey queried participants on their predictions regarding the prevalence and direction of gender discrimination in hiring, as perceived across different time periods and job types. Participants were also asked about their beliefs in system-justifying ideologies and their personal demographics, including political orientation and academic background.
The forecasting survey engaged a diverse sample comprising both academics and laypeople. The academic sample consisted of 312 participants, primarily drawn from the social and behavioral sciences. The lay sample included 499 participants, curated to be nationally representative of the United States based on criteria such as age, sex, and ethnicity, using U.S. Census Bureau data as a reference.
Overall Gender Gaps in Application Outcomes
The results of the meta-analysis indicated that the average odds of male applicants receiving a callback were 0.91 times the odds of equally qualified female applicants, which suggests a slight overall bias in favor of female applicants. However, a high level of heterogeneity was observed among the studies, indicating varied outcomes across different contexts and settings.
Job type significantly moderated the effect of gender on callbacks. Specifically, male applicants were less likely to receive callbacks than female applicants for female-typed jobs, with an odds ratio of 0.75. For male-typed and gender-balanced jobs combined, the odds ratio was closer to neutral at 0.97.
In other words, women were slightly more likely to get a callback than men, but the results varied a lot depending on the job and time period. For jobs typically done by women, men had a harder time getting a callback. But for jobs usually done by men or for gender-neutral jobs, the chances were almost the same for both men and women.
Changes in Gender Discrimination Over Time
Prior to 1991, there was evidence of discrimination favoring male applicants, particularly for jobs traditionally dominated by men. This trend aligns with longstanding gender stereotypes that have historically disadvantaged women in the workforce, especially in male-dominated fields.
However, the researchers observed a significant decrease in discrimination against female applicants for jobs traditionally dominated by men over time. This finding suggests a positive shift towards greater gender equality in the workplace over the last 44 years, reflecting broader societal changes in attitudes towards women’s roles in professional settings.
But the picture is not uniformly positive. The study also found that discrimination against male applicants for roles traditionally viewed as female-dominated has remained stubbornly persistent. This indicates that while progress has been made in some areas, gender stereotypes and biases continue to influence hiring decisions.
“The good news is that we see an improvement in gender discrimination against female job applicants over time – at least on average,” Schaerer told PsyPost. “The bad news is that discrimination seems to only have improved for female applicants in stereotypically male/gender-balanced domains, but seems to continue for male applicants in stereotypically female domains.”
Forecasting Results: Perception vs Reality
The forecasting survey component of the study revealed a notable gap between beliefs about the current state of gender discrimination and the empirical evidence. Both laypeople and academics were found to overestimate the extent of ongoing discrimination against female applicants in traditionally male-dominated jobs. This misalignment suggests that perceptions of gender bias in hiring may lag behind actual improvements or, conversely, reflect a generalized skepticism about the depth of societal progress towards gender equality.
Interestingly, the survey also showed that participants expected a decrease in discrimination against women over time but simultaneously anticipated that discrimination against men in female-typed roles would also diminish. This latter expectation contrasts with the meta-analysis findings, where bias against men in such roles has not shown a significant change. This discrepancy highlights a critical area where societal beliefs about gender equality may not fully capture the nuances of how discrimination manifests across different contexts.
“I was particularly surprised by how much forecasters (both lay people and expert scientists) overestimated the pervasiveness and extent of gender discrimination in more recent time periods,” Schaerer said. “Forecasters were accurate in expecting a decrease in gender discrimination against female applicants, however.”
Key Caveat: Narrow Scope
The new research provides important insights into the current state of gender biases in the workplace, particularly in in Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) societies. But it was focused on a single form of discrimination: treatment when it comes to applying for jobs.
Regarding the study’s caveats, Schaerer noted “that the studies in our sample primarily looked at so-called ‘call back rates,’ so to what extent did job applicants get positive feedback on their application (e.g., follow-up questions, interview invites, etc.). The results cannot speak to whether these applicants would have actually been hired (though some research suggests this can be a valid proxy of hiring outcomes, though the correspondence is not perfect).”
“Second, our study showed large heterogeneity in discrimination outcomes. Even though female applicants on average no longer experience discrimination in the most recent years in our sample and geographies studied, and in some cases even experience an advantage over males depending on the time period, this does not mean there is no discrimination against female applicants. There will certainly still be organizations, industries, countries etc. where you can observe discrimination in either direction.”
“Finally, we only looked at the initial application stage, so the study does not suggest that there’s no discrimination further down the employment stage, such as salary, promotions, etc.,” Schaerer said.
The study, “On the trajectory of discrimination: A meta-analysis and forecasting survey capturing 44 years of field experiments on gender and hiring decisions,” was authored by Michael Schaerer, Christilene du Plessis, My Hoang Bao Nguyen, Robbie C.M. van Aert, Leo Tiokhin, Daniël Lakens, Elena Giulia Clemente, Thomas Pfeiffer, Anna Dreber, Magnus Johannesson, Cory J. Clark, the Gender Audits Forecasting Collaboration, and Eric Luis Uhlmann.
