A new meta-analysis examining hiring bias in the US challenges the idea that racial bias against job seekers of color is diminishing. The analysis, conducted by Northwestern University researchers, examined nearly 56,000 applications submitted for more than 26,000 job openings.

Between 1990 and 2015, the analysis found there was no change in hiring discrimination against African Americans. White applicants received 36% more callbacks than black applicants and 24% more callbacks than Latinos.

Lincoln Quillian, a sociology professor and a fellow at the Institute for Policy Research at Northwestern University and lead researcher of the study, explains the findings, the role of implicit bias in hiring discrimination, and what employers and policymakers can do to decrease racial hiring bias.

'America has done a terrible job of telling the truth about racism' Read more

What prompted you and your team to research this?

We were really interested in whether there was a change over time in the level of discrimination. Studies had pretty consistently found discrimination against black job seekers with identically strong résumés to white jobseekers. And I realized there were enough of the studies done over time for us to look at whether there was a time trend of discrimination.

What were some of the traits researchers used to distinguish between candidates’ race and ethnicity?

The vast majority of studies used names to do so – “Lakisha” and “Jamal” versus “Emily” or “Brandon” would be the kind of names that signal race and ethnicity. They found out that Emily and Brandon get significantly more callbacks for job interviews than Lakisha and Jamal do.

A few studies do put on an HBCU [historically black college or university] or some kind of mention of them in the Black Students Association or something like that as a kind of additional signal of race or ethnicity. Some studies used in-person applications by trained tester pairs of white and black applicants. In these studies, race or ethnicity was indicated by appearance.

Many jobs require applicants to have a social media or online presence. Did your study account for that?

A few of the studies actually created a fake online profile on Facebook. They’re all jobs you can apply for with a high school degree or college degree, but without necessarily having a super detailed résumé of work. They did not generally include jobs like physicians or journalists that require a lot of specific training. Black respondents are still getting fewer callbacks than white respondents and whatever is changing the application process hasn’t very much changed that rate.

Your study mentions the gains that minorities made in the 1960s and 1970s. Why do you think, despite continuing activism, that such hiring disparities have remained over the past 25 years?

Our specific study doesn’t have much data before 1989. But from reading the [existing] literature, it does look like there were much more notable reductions in racial inequalities in the 1960s and 1970s. After that, there hasn’t been, really, that much progress. Some things got a little better; some things, a little worse, depending on what you’re looking at. There’s evidence that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the legislation that followed it led to crackdowns on the most, kind of, blatant and extreme forms of racism in parts of the south that reduced racial inequality in some ways.

What are the kinds of implicit biases that employers may have against black applicants?

In their heads, they may have an automatic association that the black employee maybe is more likely to cause some kind of problem, whether [they are perceived as being] more difficult to work with, more likely to do something you’re not supposed to do. In some sense, they assume they are less qualified. I’m not sure how explicitly employers always think about it.

There is evidence from some psychological studies that people have these vague positive and negative associations that affect how we think about categories of people that have built [since] childhood. If that does end up affecting a situation where they’re looking at two candidates that have [similar] credentials, that it makes it more likely they go toward the person that they feel [they] have some vague positive association with.

I believe some employers are overtly racist. Then there are also a lot employers who are more open-minded, but without necessarily thinking about it actively, they’re actually acting to discriminate against black employees. I think strong cultural association – positive and negative images and feelings people grow up with – are indirectly influencing how a lot of people make judgments in some cases, without [them] really realizing it.

What are some ways we can start addressing implicit hiring bias?

I think it helps for people to just be aware of it. There really hasn’t been a change in the level of employment discrimination over the last 25 years against African Americans. It’s depressing, but it’s also important to think both about individual employers as they are making decisions, and to think about it in a public policy framework.

Laws that enforce anti-discrimination are really needed and still need to be policed. I’m not sure policies themselves can completely solve the problem realistically, but I think they can help in some ways.

Some companies have instituted implicit bias testing and training. What are your thoughts on that as a method for addressing the issue?

They have found some ways that implicit bias can be reduced [through testing], although I would say there’s a lot that’s really unknown about it. It’s unclear how long the effects of these interventions last.

My personal take on it is that just being aware of the possibility that you have associations in your head that you’re not necessarily thinking about – that does help some. Questioning yourself before you make a final decision: “Is this decision really based in the things I really know about the applicant? Or some vague feeling that might lead to unfairness?”