IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_10996.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Does Artificial Intelligence Help or Hurt Gender Diversity? Evidence from Two Field Experiments on Recruitment in Tech

Author

Listed:
  • Mallory Avery
  • Andreas Leibbrandt
  • Joseph Vecci

Abstract

The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in recruitment is rapidly increasing and drastically changing how people apply to jobs and how applications are reviewed. In this paper, we use two field experiments to study how AI recruitment tools can impact gender diversity in the male-dominated technology sector, both overall and separately for labor supply and demand. We find that the use of AI in recruitment changes the gender distribution of potential hires, in some cases more than doubling the fraction of top applicants that are women. This change is generated by better outcomes for women in both supply and demand. On the supply side, we observe that the use of AI reduces the gender gap in application completion rates. Complementary survey evidence suggests that anticipated bias is a driver of increased female application completion when assessed by AI instead of human evaluators. On the demand side, we find that providing evaluators with applicants’ AI scores closes the gender gap in assessments that otherwise disadvantage female applicants. Finally, we show that the AI tool would have to be substantially biased against women to result in a lower level of gender diversity than found without AI.

Suggested Citation

  • Mallory Avery & Andreas Leibbrandt & Joseph Vecci, 2024. "Does Artificial Intelligence Help or Hurt Gender Diversity? Evidence from Two Field Experiments on Recruitment in Tech," CESifo Working Paper Series 10996, CESifo.
  • Handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_10996
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cesifo.org/DocDL/cesifo1_wp10996.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jan Feld & Edwin Ip & Andreas Leibbrandt & Joseph Vecci, 2022. "Identifying and Overcoming Gender Barriers in Tech: A Field Experiment on Inaccurate Statistical Discrimination," Discussion Papers 2205, University of Exeter, Department of Economics.
    2. Marie-Pierre Dargnies & Rustamdjan Hakimov & Dorothea Kübler, 2022. "Aversion to Hiring Algorithms: Transparency, Gender Profiling, and Self-Confidence," CESifo Working Paper Series 9968, CESifo.
    3. Jeffrey A. Flory & Andreas Leibbrandt & John A. List, 2015. "Do Competitive Workplaces Deter Female Workers? A Large-Scale Natural Field Experiment on Job Entry Decisions," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 82(1), pages 122-155.
    4. Delfino, Alexia, 2021. "Breaking Gender Barriers: Experimental Evidence on Men in Pink-Collar Jobs," IZA Discussion Papers 14083, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. Goldin, Claudia D. & Rouse, Cecilia, 2000. "Orchestrating Impartiality: The Impact of “Blind†Auditions on Female Musicians," Scholarly Articles 30703974, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    6. Ernst Fehr & Simon Gachter & Georg Kirchsteiger, 1997. "Reciprocity as a Contract Enforcement Device: Experimental Evidence," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 65(4), pages 833-860, July.
    7. Zhang, Lixuan & Yencha, Christopher, 2022. "Examining perceptions towards hiring algorithms," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    8. Manuel Bagues & Mauro Sylos-Labini & Natalia Zinovyeva, 2017. "Does the Gender Composition of Scientific Committees Matter?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(4), pages 1207-1238, April.
    9. Aaron Chalfin & Oren Danieli & Andrew Hillis & Zubin Jelveh & Michael Luca & Jens Ludwig & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2016. "Productivity and Selection of Human Capital with Machine Learning," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(5), pages 124-127, May.
    10. Isabel Fernandez-Mateo & Roberto M. Fernandez, 2016. "Bending the Pipeline? Executive Search and Gender Inequality in Hiring for Top Management Jobs," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 62(12), pages 3636-3655, December.
    11. Alina Köchling & Marius Claus Wehner, 2020. "Discriminated by an algorithm: a systematic review of discrimination and fairness by algorithmic decision-making in the context of HR recruitment and HR development," Business Research, Springer;German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 13(3), pages 795-848, November.
    12. Dylan Glover & Amanda Pallais & William Pariente, 2017. "Discrimination as a Self-Fulfilling Prophecy: Evidence from French Grocery Stores," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 132(3), pages 1219-1260.
    13. Jan Feld & Nicolás Salamanca & Daniel S. Hamermesh, 2016. "Endophilia or Exophobia: Beyond Discrimination," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 126(594), pages 1503-1527, August.
    14. Dianat, Ahrash & Echenique, Federico & Yariv, Leeat, 2022. "Statistical discrimination and affirmative action in the lab," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 41-58.
    15. Bo Cowgill & Fabrizio Dell'Acqua & Samuel Deng & Daniel Hsu & Nakul Verma & Augustin Chaintreau, 2020. "Biased Programmers? Or Biased Data? A Field Experiment in Operationalizing AI Ethics," Papers 2012.02394, arXiv.org.
    16. Pierre Deschamps, 2018. "Gender Quotas in Hiring Committees: a Boon or a Bane for Women?," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-03393117, HAL.
    17. J. Aislinn Bohren & Alex Imas & Michael Rosenberg, 2019. "The Dynamics of Discrimination: Theory and Evidence," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(10), pages 3395-3436, October.
    18. Heather Sarsons, 2017. "Recognition for Group Work: Gender Differences in Academia," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(5), pages 141-145, May.
    19. Jussupow, Ekaterina & Benbasat, Izak & Heinzl, Armin, 2020. "Why Are We Averse Towards Algorithms? A Comprehensive Literature Review on Algorithm Aversion," Publications of Darmstadt Technical University, Institute for Business Studies (BWL) 138565, Darmstadt Technical University, Department of Business Administration, Economics and Law, Institute for Business Studies (BWL).
    20. Nima Kordzadeh & Maryam Ghasemaghaei, 2022. "Algorithmic bias: review, synthesis, and future research directions," European Journal of Information Systems, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(3), pages 388-409, May.
    21. Manuel F. Bagues & Berta Esteve-Volart, 2010. "Can Gender Parity Break the Glass Ceiling? Evidence from a Repeated Randomized Experiment," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 77(4), pages 1301-1328.
    22. John W. Patty & Elizabeth Maggie Penn, 2022. "Algorithmic Fairness and Statistical Discrimination," Papers 2208.08341, arXiv.org.
    23. Maria De Paola & Vincenzo Scoppa, 2015. "Gender Discrimination and Evaluators’ Gender: Evidence from Italian Academia," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 82(325), pages 162-188, January.
    24. Vojtěch Bartoš & Michal Bauer & Julie Chytilová & Filip Matějka, 2016. "Attention Discrimination: Theory and Field Experiments with Monitoring Information Acquisition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(6), pages 1437-1475, June.
    25. Logg, Jennifer M. & Minson, Julia A. & Moore, Don A., 2019. "Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 90-103.
    26. Della Giusta, Marina & Bosworth, Steven J., 2020. "Bias and Discrimination: What Do We Know?," IZA Discussion Papers 13983, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    27. Cecilia Rouse & Claudia Goldin, 2000. "Orchestrating Impartiality: The Impact of "Blind" Auditions on Female Musicians," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(4), pages 715-741, September.
    28. Amanda Y. Agan & Diag Davenport & Jens Ludwig & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2023. "Automating Automaticity: How the Context of Human Choice Affects the Extent of Algorithmic Bias," NBER Working Papers 30981, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    29. Chang‐Tai Hsieh & Erik Hurst & Charles I. Jones & Peter J. Klenow, 2019. "The Allocation of Talent and U.S. Economic Growth," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(5), pages 1439-1474, September.
    30. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/7bucmgmilh9ul9ogmiku5legh5 is not listed on IDEAS
    31. Eszter Czibor & David Jimenez‐Gomez & John A. List, 2019. "The Dozen Things Experimental Economists Should Do (More of)," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 86(2), pages 371-432, October.
    32. Phelps, Edmund S, 1972. "The Statistical Theory of Racism and Sexism," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 62(4), pages 659-661, September.
    33. Raviv Murciano-Goroff, 2022. "Missing Women in Tech: The Labor Market for Highly Skilled Software Engineers," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(5), pages 3262-3281, May.
    34. Gächter, Simon & Fehr, Ernst, 2008. "Reciprocity and Contract Enforcement," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, in: Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 37, pages 319-324, Elsevier.
    35. Laura K. Gee, 2019. "The More You Know: Information Effects on Job Application Rates in a Large Field Experiment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(5), pages 2077-2094, May.
    36. Marta Serra-Garcia & Uri Gneezy, 2023. "Improving Human Deception Detection Using Algorithmic Feedback," CESifo Working Paper Series 10518, CESifo.
    37. Pierre Deschamps, 2018. "Gender Quotas in Hiring Committees: a Boon or a Bane for Women?," Post-Print hal-03393117, HAL.
    38. David Neumark, 2018. "Experimental Research on Labor Market Discrimination," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 56(3), pages 799-866, September.
    39. Berkeley J. Dietvorst & Joseph P. Simmons & Cade Massey, 2018. "Overcoming Algorithm Aversion: People Will Use Imperfect Algorithms If They Can (Even Slightly) Modify Them," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(3), pages 1155-1170, March.
    40. José J. Domínguez, 2021. "The Effectiveness of Committee Quotas; The Role of Group Dynamics," ThE Papers 21/12, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
    41. Conrad Miller, 2017. "The Persistent Effect of Temporary Affirmative Action," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 9(3), pages 152-190, July.
    42. Banerjee, Ritwik & Ibanez, Marcela & Riener, Gerhard & Sahoo, Soham, 2021. "Affirmative action and application strategies: Evidence from field experiments in Columbia," DICE Discussion Papers 362, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    43. Roland G. Fryer & Jacob K. Goeree & Charles A. Holt, 2005. "Experience-Based Discrimination: Classroom Games," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(2), pages 160-170, April.
    44. Pierre Deschamps, 2018. "Gender Quotas in Hiring Committees: a Boon or a Bane for Women?," SciencePo Working papers hal-03393117, HAL.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tanvir Ahmed Khan, 2023. "Can Unbiased Predictive AI Amplify Bias?," Working Paper 1510, Economics Department, Queen's University.
    2. Pushkar Maitra & Ananta Neelim, 2024. "Discrimination in Developing Countries," Monash Economics Working Papers 2024-03, Monash University, Department of Economics.

    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. Laura Hospido & Carlos Sanz, 2021. "Gender Gaps in the Evaluation of Research: Evidence from Submissions to Economics Conferences," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 83(3), pages 590-618, June.
    2. Pierre Deschamps, 2018. "Gender Quotas in Hiring Committees: a Boon or a Bane for Women?," Sciences Po publications 82, Sciences Po.
    3. Nickolas Gagnon & Kristof Bosmans & Arno Riedl, 2020. "The Effect of Unfair Chances and Gender Discrimination on Labor Supply," CESifo Working Paper Series 8058, CESifo.
    4. José J. Domínguez, 2021. "The Effectiveness of Committee Quotas; The Role of Group Dynamics," ThE Papers 21/12, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
    5. Laura Hospido & Carlos Sanz, 2019. "Gender gaps in the evaluation of research: evidence from submissions to economics conferences (Updated March 2020)," Working Papers 1918, Banco de España, revised Mar 2020.
    6. Lepage, Louis Pierre, 2020. "Endogenous learning and the persistence of employer biases in the labor market," CLEF Working Paper Series 24, Canadian Labour Economics Forum (CLEF), University of Waterloo.
    7. Katherine B. Coffman & Christine L. Exley & Muriel Niederle, 2021. "The Role of Beliefs in Driving Gender Discrimination," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(6), pages 3551-3569, June.
    8. Joanna N. Lahey & Douglas R. Oxley, 2021. "Discrimination at the Intersection of Age, Race, and Gender: Evidence from an Eye‐Tracking Experiment," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 40(4), pages 1083-1119, September.
    9. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/7bucmgmilh9ul9ogmiku5legh5 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/26s2fhqla9901btt78qnrel14d is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Paul Heidhues & Botond KH{o}szegi & Philipp Strack, 2019. "Overconfidence and Prejudice," Papers 1909.08497, arXiv.org.
    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. Berson, Clémence & Laouénan, Morgane & Valat, Emmanuel, 2020. "Outsourcing recruitment as a solution to prevent discrimination: A correspondence study," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    14. Dianat, Ahrash & Echenique, Federico & Yariv, Leeat, 2022. "Statistical discrimination and affirmative action in the lab," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 41-58.
    15. Jan Feld & Edwin Ip & Andreas Leibbrandt & Joseph Vecci, 2022. "Identifying and Overcoming Gender Barriers in Tech: A Field Experiment on Inaccurate Statistical Discrimination," CESifo Working Paper Series 9970, CESifo.
    16. Ayaita, Adam, 2021. "Labor Market Discrimination and Statistical Differences in Unobserved Characteristics of Applicants," EconStor Preprints 236615, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    17. Pierre Deschamps, 2018. "Gender Quotas in Hiring Committees: a Boon or a Bane for Women?," Post-Print hal-03393117, HAL.
    18. Nikoloz Kudashvili & Philipp Lergetporer, 2019. "Do Minorities Misrepresent Their Ethnicity to Avoid Discrimination?," CERGE-EI Working Papers wp644, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague.
    19. Lepage, Louis Pierre, 2021. "Endogenous learning, persistent employer biases, and discrimination," CLEF Working Paper Series 34, Canadian Labour Economics Forum (CLEF), University of Waterloo.
    20. José J. Domínguez & Natalia Montinari, 2021. "Gender Quotas and Task Assignment in Organizations," ThE Papers 21/13, Department of Economic Theory and Economic History of the University of Granada..
    21. Menzel, Andreas & Woodruff, Christopher, 2021. "Gender wage gaps and worker mobility: Evidence from the garment sector in Bangladesh," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    22. Daskalova, Vessela, 2018. "Discrimination, social identity, and coordination: An experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 238-252.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    artificial intelligence; gender; diversity; field experiment;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C93 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Field Experiments
    • J23 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Labor Demand
    • J71 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Labor Discrimination - - - Hiring and Firing
    • J78 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Labor Discrimination - - - Public Policy (including comparable worth)

    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:ces:ceswps:_10996. 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: Klaus Wohlrabe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesifde.html .

    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.