Abstract:Extensive literature probes labor market discrimination through correspondence studies in which researchers send pairs of resumes to employers, which are closely matched except for social signals such as gender or ethnicity. Upon perceiving these signals, individuals quickly activate associated stereotypes. The Stereotype Content Model (SCM; Fiske 2002) categorizes these stereotypes into two dimensions: warmth and competence. Our research integrates findings from correspondence studies with theories of social psychology, asking: Can discrimination between social groups, measured through employer callback disparities, be predicted by warmth and competence perceptions of social signals? We collect callback rates from 21 published correspondence studies, varying for 592 social signals. On those social signals, we collected warmth and competence perceptions from an independent group of online raters. We found that social perception predicts callback disparities for studies varying race and gender, which are indirectly signaled by names on these resumes. Yet, for studies adjusting other categories like sexuality and disability, the influence of social perception on callbacks is inconsistent. For instance, a more favorable perception of signals like parenthood does not consistently lead to increased callbacks, underscoring the necessity for further research. Our research offers pivotal strategies to address labor market discrimination in practice. Leveraging the warmth and competence framework allows for the predictive identification of bias against specific groups without extensive correspondence studies. By distilling hiring discrimination into these two dimensions, we not only facilitate the development of decision support systems for hiring managers but also equip computer scientists with a foundational framework for debiasing Large Language Models and other methods that are increasingly employed in hiring processes.

Revisiting the design of selection systems in light of new findings regarding the validity of widely used predictors

Revisiting meta-analytic estimates of validity in personnel selection: Addressing systematic overcorrection for restriction of range.

Selection tests work better than we think they do, and have for years

The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings.

Paving the way for research in recruitment and selection: recent developments, challenges and future opportunities

Opening the black box of selection

Reconsidering vocational interests for personnel selection: The validity of an interest-based selection test in relation to job knowledge, job performance, and continuance intentions.

Candidates' Ability to Identify Criteria: A New Research Domain in Personnel Selection

New Development in Research on Conditional Reasoning Tests: A Method for Personnel Selection

Algorithms in selection decisions: Effective, but unappreciated

Validity of Social Media Assessments in Personnel Selection

Review on ranking and selection: A new perspective

The Validity of Situational Judgment Tests: A Review of Recent Research

Reducing Subgroup Differences in Personnel Selection Through the Application of Machine Learning

Perceived warmth and competence predict callback rates in meta-analyzed North American labor market experiments

The validity and incremental validity of knowledge tests, low-fidelity simulations, and high-fidelity simulations for predicting job performance in advanced-level high-stakes selection.

Selection procedures in sports: Improving predictions of athletes’ future performance

Assessing Negative Response Bias Using Self-Report Measures: New Articles, New Issues

Making the grade? A meta-analysis of academic performance as a predictor of work performance and turnover

Michael is better than Mehmet: exploring the perils of algorithmic biases and selective adherence to advice from automated decision support systems in hiring

Practical Applications of Generalizability Theory for Designing, Evaluating, and Improving Psychological Assessments