ArticleScience advances2023
Gender composition predicts gender bias: A meta-reanalysis of hiring discrimination audit experiments.
Article in Science advances, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Which immigrants do citizens prefer? A meta-reanalysis of 100 conjoint experiments.Science advances · 2026Pooled it
- Perceived warmth and competence predict callback rates in meta-analyzed North American labor market experiments.PloS one · 2024Pooled it
- A Serious Game for Soft Skills Assessment in Human Resources: Cross-Sectional Within-Participant Convergent Validity Study.JMIR serious games · 2026Article
- Joint Effect of Workplace Gender Discrimination and Gender Composition on the Mental Well-Being in Korean Workers.Safety and health at work · 2026Article
- Hiring Discrimination in the Organisational Context: A Harmonized Factorial Survey Dataset from Four European Countries (Germany, Norway, Poland, Romania).Scientific data · 2026Article
- Socioeconomic inequality in mental health disorders: A cross-sectional study from the Tehran University of Medical Sciences employees' cohort study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Shifting landscapes of gender equity in oncology journals: a decade of authorship trends.Molecular cancer · 2025Article
- Workplace Injury and Death: A National Overview of Changing Trends by Sex, United States 1998-2022.American journal of industrial medicine · 2025Article
- Gender differences in paid work over time: Developments and challenges in comparative research.PloS one · 2025Article
- Bias of AI-generated content: an examination of news produced by large language models.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Gender equity in hiring: examining the effectiveness of a personality-based algorithm.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Since 1983, more than 70 employment audit experiments, carried out in more than 26 countries across five continents, have randomized the gender of fictitious applicants to measure the extent of hiring discrimination on the basis of gender. The results are mixed: Some studies find discrimination against men, and others find discrimination against women. We reconcile these heterogeneous findings through a "meta-reanalysis" of the average effects of being described as a woman (versus a man), conditional on occupation. We find a strongly positive gender gradient. In (relatively better paying) occupations dominated by men, the effect of being a woman is negative, while in the (relatively lower paying) occupations dominated by women, the effect is positive. In this way, heterogeneous employment discrimination on the basis of gender preserves status quo gender distributions and earnings gaps. These patterns hold among both minority and majority status applicants.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.