IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolet/v221y2022ics0165176522003664.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Your resume is your gatekeeper: Automated resume screening as a strategy to reduce gender gaps in hiring

Author

Listed:
  • Pisanelli, Elena

Abstract

Firms increasingly rely on artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms for hiring. The literature prompts concerns about such AI algorithms hindering gender equality in employment outcomes. Using a unique field study, I find human recruiters’ gender stereotypes lead to women having 69% lower chances of being interviewed for a gender-neutral job, compared to equally qualified men. Introducing automated resume screening shrinks such a gender gap by 43 percentage points.

Suggested Citation

  • Pisanelli, Elena, 2022. "Your resume is your gatekeeper: Automated resume screening as a strategy to reduce gender gaps in hiring," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 221(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:221:y:2022:i:c:s0165176522003664
    DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2022.110892
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165176522003664
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.econlet.2022.110892?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Heather Sarsons & Klarita Gërxhani & Ernesto Reuben & Arthur Schram, 2021. "Gender Differences in Recognition for Group Work," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 129(1), pages 101-147.
    2. Danielle Li & Lindsey R. Raymond & Peter Bergman, 2020. "Hiring as Exploration," NBER Working Papers 27736, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Fumagalli, Elena & Rezaei, Sarah & Salomons, Anna, 2022. "OK computer: Worker perceptions of algorithmic recruitment," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(2).
    2. Jonas Radbruch & Amelie Schiprowski, 2023. "Committee Deliberation and Gender Differences in Influences," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 398, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    3. Ayllón, Sara, 2022. "Online teaching and gender bias," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    4. David Card & Stefano DellaVigna & Patricia Funk & Nagore Iriberri, 2022. "Gender Differences in Peer Recognition by Economists," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(5), pages 1937-1971, September.
    5. Deepa Dhume Datta & Nitzan Tzur-Ilan, 2024. "Gender Gaps in the Federal Reserve System," Working Papers 2417, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
    6. Baltrunaite, Audinga & Casarico, Alessandra & Rizzica, Lucia, 2022. "Women in economics: the role of gendered references at entry in the profession," CEPR Discussion Papers 17474, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    7. Kinnl, Klara & Möller, Jakob & Walter, Anna, 2023. "Borrowed Plumes:," Department of Economics Working Paper Series 345, WU Vienna University of Economics and Business.
    8. Jeffrey Wagner, 2021. "Concrete Strategies for Economics Tenure-Track Faculty and Their Mentors," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 47(3), pages 449-459, June.
    9. Davies, Benjamin, 2022. "Gender sorting among economists: Evidence from the NBER," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).
    10. Lata Gangadharan & Tarun Jain & Pushkar Maitra & Joe Vecci, 2022. "Lab-in-the-field experiments: perspectives from research on gender," The Japanese Economic Review, Springer, vol. 73(1), pages 31-59, January.
    11. Zoë Cullen & Ricardo Perez-Truglia, 2023. "The Old Boys' Club: Schmoozing and the Gender Gap," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 113(7), pages 1703-1740, July.
    12. Barron, Kai & Ditlmann, Ruth & Gehrig, Stefan & Schweighofer-Kodritsch, Sebastian, 2020. "Explicit and implicit belief-based gender discrimination: A hiring experiment," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Economics of Change SP II 2020-306, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    13. Peter Andre & Armin Falk, 2021. "What’s Worth Knowing? Economists’ Opinions about Economics," ECONtribute Discussion Papers Series 102, University of Bonn and University of Cologne, Germany.
    14. Jana Schuetz & Virginia Sondergeld & Insa Weilage, 2024. "The Women in Economics Index - Monitoring Women Economists' Representation in Leadership Positions," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 2076, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    15. Joshua Angrist & Marc Diederichs, 2024. "Dissertation Paths: Advisors and Students in the Economics Research Production Function," NBER Working Papers 33281, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Kevin Devereux, 2021. "Returns to Teamwork and Professional Networks: Evidence from Economic Research," Working Papers 202101, School of Economics, University College Dublin.
    17. Bateman, Victoria & Hengel, Erin, 2023. "The gender gap in UK academic economics 1996-2018: progress, stagnation and retreat," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 118205, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    18. Shen, Kailing, 2021. "Gender Discrimination," IZA Discussion Papers 14897, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    19. Catherine Eckel & Lata Gangadharan & Philip J. Grossman & Nina Xue, 2021. "The gender leadership gap: insights from experiments," Chapters, in: Ananish Chaudhuri (ed.), A Research Agenda for Experimental Economics, chapter 7, pages 137-162, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    20. Claudio Cardoso Flores & Marcelo Cunha Medeiros, 2020. "Online Action Learning in High Dimensions: A Conservative Perspective," Papers 2009.13961, arXiv.org, revised Mar 2024.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Artificial intelligence; Gender; Hiring; Inequality;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • J71 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Labor Discrimination - - - Hiring and Firing
    • J63 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Mobility, Unemployment, Vacancies, and Immigrant Workers - - - Turnover; Vacancies; Layoffs
    • M51 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Personnel Economics - - - Firm Employment Decisions; Promotions

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:221:y:2022:i:c:s0165176522003664. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolet .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.