The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S.
Department of Justice and prepared the following final report:

Document Title:

Investigating Prisoner Reentry: The Impact ofConviction Status on the Employment
Prospects of Young Men

Author:Devah Pager and Bruce Western

Document No.:

228584

Date Received:

October 2009

Award Number:2005-IJ-CX-0019

This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice.
To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federallyfunded grant final report available electronically in addition to
traditional paper copies.

Opinions or points of view expressed are thoseof the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect
the official position or policies of the U.S.
Department of Justice.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

National Institute of Justice Grant: Final Report
Title: Investigating Prisoner Reentry: The Impact of Conviction Status on the Employment
Prospects of Young Men
Principle Investigators: Devah Pager and Bruce Western
Abstract:
Our research addresses the problem of prisoner reentry by focusing on the employment of ex­
offenders shortly after release. We completed a three-part project to study the employment
barriers facing men with criminal records. The empirical core of the project is a randomized
field experiment that sent matched teams of testers to apply for hundreds of entry-level jobs in
New York City. The experiment observed how employers respond to applicants who are equallyqualified but vary by race, ethnicity, and criminal record. Because the research design allowed
us to finely control characteristics ofjob seekers, and randomly assign criminal records and job
openings, the experimental data yields unusually clear and convincing evidence of the impact ofa criminal record. The audit study alone would provide a powerful method for studying theemployment barriers to ex-offenders, but it is complemented here by a telephone survey of thesame employers, and in-depth qualitative interviews with an additional subset. Combining
experimental measures with interview data offers a unique opportunity to study the hiring
process from both the job seeker's and the employer's point of view. Policies supporting
prisoner reentry and ex-offender employment are directly informed by the rich data resulting
from our multi-stage investigation.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Title: Investigating Prisoner Reentry:
The Impact of Conviction Status on the Employment Prospects of Young Men
As record numbers of young men leave prisons, nearly 700,000 this year alone, the question ofprisoner reentry has become a pressing concern. In particular, the employment outcomes of exoffenders represents a critical issue, given the connections between stable work and desistancefrom crime (Uggen, 2000). Unfortunately, current statistics do not present an optimistic picture.
Surveys of former inmates suggest that 60 to 75 percent remain jobless up to a year after release(Travis, 2005; Petersilia, 2003). In light of these outcomes, the fact that nearly half return to prison
within three years is of little surprise (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2002).
Adding to the general problems of prisoner reentry, the question of race presents
additional complexities in the reentry process. Blacks now represent over 40 percent of theprison population (relative to just 12 percent of the general population), and are likewisesignificantly overrepresented among reentering inmates. In addition to higher rates of criminal
records among African Americans, some evidence suggests that black ex-offenders may also pay
a higher penalty for having a criminal record relative to otherwise similar whites (Pager, 2007).
Given these patterns, understanding the nature of criminal and racial stigma-and the
combination of the two-represents and important goal for research and policy.
In this report we present the results of a two-part study investigating the barriers of raceand criminal background in access to low wage labor markets. The first stage of our research
involved a large-scale field experiment in which we sent teams of trained young men to apply forentry-level jobs, varying only according to their race and criminal background. The field
experiment was then followed by survey interviews and in-depth interviews with the same
employers to provide more detailed information about their businesses and their concerns abouthiring applicants with criminal records. This multi-method approach provides a richer
perspective on the process through which employers express and enact their preferences. The
1

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

experimental design allows us to isolate the causal influence of a criminal record, apart from themany possible sources of spuriousness; the survey methods allow us to compare our findings
with traditional measures of employer behavior; and the in-depth interviews allow us toinvestigate the meanings employers place on conviction status as a signal of employability. In
the remainder of this report, we discuss the central findings of this research and theirimplications for policy on prisoner reentry and ex-offender employment.

Stage I: Hiring Experiment
The New York City Hiring Discrimination Study sent matched teams of testers to apply for
hundreds of real entry-level jobs throughout New York City over nine months in 2004. The
testers were well-spoken, clean-shaven young men, aged 22 to 26. Most were college-educated,
between 5 feet 10 inches and 6 feet in height, recruited in and around New York City. They werematched on the basis of their verbal skills, interactional styles (level of eye-contact, demeanor,and verbosity), and physical attractiveness. Testers were assigned fictitious resumes indicating
identical educational attainment, and comparable quality of high school, work experience(quantity and kind), and neighborhood of residence. Resumes were prepared in different fonts
and formats and randomly varied across testers, with each resume used by testers from each racegroup. Testers presented themselves as high school graduates with steady work experience inentry-level jobs. Finally, the testers passed through a common training program to ensure
uniform behavior in job interviews. While in the field, the testers dressed similarly andcommunicated with teammates by cell phone to anticipate unusual interview situations.
For the study as a whole, the ten testers were randomly assigned (and rotated) across four teams,
each consisting of two or three people. In this report, we focus on the results related to the2This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

effects of a criminal record on the labor market outcomes of young black and white men.] The
teams for this part of the study each consisted of two testers of the same race; one team included
two white testers, the second team included two black testers. In both teams, one tester was
randomly assigned a "criminal record" for the first audit; the criminal record condition thenalternated between testers for each successive employment search. Thus each tester served in thecriminal record condition for an equal number of cases. By randomly allocating criminal records
to testers, unmeasured differences between testers were effectively controlled. None of thetesters in the study had real criminal backgrounds, but presented fictitious criminal record
information to employers for the purposes of the study. The criminal record was typicallydisclosed in answer to the standard question on employment applications, "Have you ever been
convicted of a crime? If yes, please explain." When asked, testers were instructed to reveal thatthey had recently been released from prison after serving 18 months for a drug felony(possession with intent to distribute, cocaine). In addition, following Pager (2003), the whitetester's criminal record was additionally signaled on the resume by listing work experience at astate prison, and by listing a parole officer as a reference.

2

Employers were sampled from job listings for entry-level positions, defined as jobs
requiring no previous experience and no education greater than high school. Job titles included
restaurant jobs, retail sales, warehouse work, couriers, telemarketers, customer service positions,clerical workers, stockers, movers, delivery drivers, and a wide range of other low wage
positions. Job listings were randomly drawn each week from the classified sections of The New

York Times, The Daily News, The New York Post, The Village Voice, and Craigslist. The broad

I A second major focus of the study was on measuring the prevalence of direct racial discrimination. Results fromthis part of the study appear in Pager, Western, and Bonikowski (forthcoming). For this grant, we focus primarily on
outcomes relevant to the employment of ex-offenders.
2 Results from Pager (2003) suggest that providing information about a criminal record to employers who do not
request the information does little to affect hiring decisions. Those employers who request the information are thosemost likely to use it.

3This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

range ofjob listings allows for comprehensive coverage of the entry-level labor market in New
York. From the available population ofjob listings, we took a simple random sample ofadvertisements each week (n = 250). Testers in each team applied to each job within a 24-hour
period, randomly varying the order of the applicants.
Our dependent variable recorded any positive response in which a tester was either
offered ajob or called back for a second interview. Callbacks were recorded by voicemail boxes
set up for each tester. For more information about the research design and methods, see Pager,
Western, and Bonikowski, forthcoming.

Results

Two key findings emerge from the first set of audit results. First, not surprisingly, a criminal
record has a significant negative impact on hiring outcomes, even for applicants with otherwise
appealing characteristics. Across teams, a criminal record reduced the likelihood of a callback or
job offer by nearly 50 percent (28% vs 15%). Second, evidence from our tester teams suggeststhat the negative effect of a criminal conviction is substantially larger for blacks than for whites.
As shown in Figure 1, the criminal record penalty suffered by white applicants (30%) is roughly
half the size of the penalty for blacks with a record (60%). The interaction between race andcriminal record in these data is large and statistically significant indicating that the penalty of acriminal record is more disabling for black job seekers than whites.

4This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Figure 1. The Effect of Race and Criminal Background on Employment
Opportunities

IEl non-offender35
31

11!:11ex-offender

30

'"
~ 25

25

0

.0

-'i

(; 20

'"0

-'"

'" 15

111
u
C'

"e 10

a.
"

5

0

white

black

The intensification of the criminal record effect among blacks is consistent with earlier audit
research (Pager, 2007), and points to special barriers facing blacks in the transition from prison
to work.

Employers, already reluctant to hire blacks, appear particularly wary of blacks withknown criminal histories. In seeking to better understand the interaction between race andcriminal background in shaping labor market outcomes, we looked to the sequence ofinteractions that lead to this ultimate pattern of results. As job applicants pass from the point ofapplication to an interview, and from an interview to an offer, we witness some of the underlying
dynamics that may shape employers' decision making and result in the systematic disadvantageof blacks with criminal records. In particular, we see ways in which opportunities for rapportbuilding appear to mediate the effects of race and criminal background on hiring outcomes.

The Importance ofPersonal Contact
One of the ways job applicants can build rapport with employers is through the interview
process. Though typically brief for low wage jobs, interviews provide an opportunity for
applicants to demonstrate their communication skills and their commitment to work. For
employers concerned about soft skills not reflected on a resume, even a quick interaction can

5This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

provide important information about the capacity of an individual applicant. Especially in thecase of stigmatized applicants, personal contact may serve a particularly important purpose as away of counteracting employers' initial stereotypes. As employers learn more about the person
behind the category (e.g., ex-offender, black man), their comfort level with the applicant inquestion is likely to increase.
As our testers passed from the point of application to an interview, and from an interview
to an offer, we witnessed some of the underlying dynamics that may shape employers' decisionmaking and result in the systematic disadvantage of blacks with criminal records. Indeed we findevidence that personal contact with an employer has a substantial impact on hiring outcomes.
Testers who interacted with employers were nearly six times more likely to receive a callback or
job offer relative to those who did not. 3 At the same time, it appears that this pathway to rapportbuilding may not be equally available to all applicant types. Though all testers in the study were
instructed to request to speak to the person in charge of hiring and to proceed as far as they couldin the interview process during their visit, some met with more success than others. In particular,
race has a significant effect on the likelihood of personal contact between applicant andemployer, with blacks roughly 40 percent less likely to have the opportunity to interact with
employers (p<.OO 1). Employers appear to be screening on the basis of race in deciding who toallow to proceed from application to interview (see Figure 2).

3 Results from a logistic regression predicting a positive response as a function of race, criminal record, aninteraction between the two, and a dummy variable for personal contact with employer. Models control forclustering on employer.

6This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Figure 2. The Liklihood of Personal Contact with Employer, by Race and Criminal
BackgroundGil non-offender~

Il1I ex-offender

61

59
60

."
Q'
~ 50

UJ

€

:;: 40

~

E 30

~

~ 20
~

a." 10

o
whoa

black

By contrast, the effect of a criminal record has no discernable impact on the likelihood ofinteraction. Given that a criminal record is typically unobserved until an employer has spoken
with the candidate and/or reviewed their materials, it is not surprising that this is not typically thebasis of an employer's decision to interview.
The barriers that emerge in this very early stage of the hiring process are no doubt
consequential for the ultimate disparities we observe. With fewer opportunities for face to facecontact with employers, black applicants were limited in their ability to demonstrate their
specific skills and attributes. Particularly in the case of black ex-offenders, for whom employers'concerns were likely to be particularly strong, limits on interaction reduced opportunities tocontextualize the conviction or to demonstrate evidence of successful rehabilitation.

Quality ofthe Interaction
Being granted an interview, or even a conversation, with the person in charge of hiring provides
an important opportunity for establishing rapport. But the nature of that rapport also hinges upon
what takes place during the interaction. Particularly for applicants with criminal records, theinterview provides a key opportunity to assuage employers' concerns. In this respect, our testers
had mixed experiences. The testers had a set script that they were instructed to convey to7This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

employers about their prior drug conviction and their commitment to rehabilitation. In somecases employers were extremely receptive to discussing these issues, while in others employers
seemed uncomfortable or unwilling to broach the subject. In one interaction, for example, an
employer inquired about the most recent job listed on Kevin's resume, which was at acorrectional facility. Kevin reports, "I thought she was asking me what I did to get in there. I

said, 'It was for drug possession. ' She said, 'No, not that. That's none ofmy business. '" The
employer then quickly moved on to discuss Kevin's previous work experience. It is unclear
from this interaction what lingering doubts the employer may have had about Kevin's criminal
background, but Kevin does not have the chance to explain further.
In another case, Anthony, an African American tester, reports, "As she looked over [myresume} I could barely hear her say, 'Oh, I see.' I don't know what it was in response to, but it
was pretty quick so I would guess it was my conviction ... She then just looked up at me and said,'I'll give you a call. ' It seemed like she ended it a bit abruptly. " Some employers seemed
uncertain about what was legally or socially appropriate to ask about prior convictions, andothers seemed simply uncomfortable with the topic or considered it outside of the realm of
employment-related concerns. In these cases, it is difficult to interpret the employers' responseto the criminal background, and the applicant typically has less opportunity to account for the
stigmatizing record or address employers' underlying concerns.
In other cases, employers' concerns about the criminal record are more transparent.
Worries about legal liability, for example, came up in this interview with Chad, an African
American tester:

When I finished the application I was interviewed by ... a large white man with a thickmustache. He shook my hand, invited me to have a seat, and began to look over myresume. He said, "First, I need you to explain this... correctional facility and parole
officer reference." I told him that I was convicted ofa drug charge -- possession withintent to sell. "I can't hire you, " he said. He went on to explain that a lot ofthings canhappen and the liability is too great. He said, "Let's say you got into afight with a guy
8This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

and you were in the right. The police come and run your background, yes, now you're in
the wrong, even though you may have been right. It wouldn't be goodfor you and it
wouldn't be goodfor us. I couldn't hire you. "Sometimes, employers' negative reactions are less explicit, but their concern over the prospect ofhiring an ex-offender is clear nevertheless. For example, Kevin, a white tester, reports his
experience at a specialty foods store:"I noticed a sign on the door which read, 'Help wanted, part time, some experience '.... A
few minutes later a man came out.... He told me that he had a great Part Time position[and] there could be some full time positions opening [in] a while. He pointed at myresponse for reasons for leaving on the application right next to [the correctional
facility] and said, 'Why did you write parole?' I said that I was currently on parole.
[He] then looked me in the eye and said, 'Did you commit a crime?' I said yes. He thenlooked down at the sheet and said that he really wasn't hiring right now ... . "Kevin's conviction record seemed to catch the employer by surprise. Within seconds, the manysignals pointing to a job opportunity (help wanted sign, "great part time positions," etc.)
disappeared, as the employer decided he was no longer hiring, or at least not hiring Kevin.
Despite these unpleasant experiences, not all employers reacted negatively upon noticing
a criminal record. In fact, on a number of occasions, testers encountered extremely sympathetic
employers. For example, Kevin records his experience in applying for ajob at a car dealership:"He saw the correctional facility [on my resume] and said, 'We're an Equal Opportunity
Employer. We don't care about this. About 75% ofthe people in this business have arecord anyway.... '"Kevin describes the end of the interview:"He said he was going to call me. Then he said, 'I know what you are thinking. Thisasshole is never going to call me. I will call you. Not because you have good sales
experience but just because you need a chance. '"This employer appears extremely sympathetic to the plight of an ex-offender looking for work.
In fact, the employer seems willing to privilege the desire to give Kevin a second chance over hisneed for workers with relevant experience. Indeed, this employer called Kevin about the job twodays later.

9

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

To be sure, many of the sympathetic responses received by testers in the criminal record
condition simply reflect the preexisting attitudes of employers, independent of the interaction.
Employers who feel sympathetic toward ex-offenders are likely to express such sympathies inconversations with ex-offender applicants. But above and beyond employers' predispositions,
we observe some evidence that the interaction itself can work to clarify and shape the employers'interpretation of the criminal record. For employers who have ambivalent feelings about hiring
ex-offenders, or who have anxieties about particular kinds of ex-offenders, interaction with thecandidate allows the employer to interrogate these concerns directly. In one case, for example,
Keith, a white tester, has an extended conversation with the manager at a furniture rental store:

Afterfinishing the application I brought it back to [the employer}, along with my resume.
He invited me to take offmy backpack and have a seat. He began looking over theres./app. and his first question was, 'Were you selling or using?' I told him, 'Using. It
was a minor thing. A stupid mistake and I'm now clean. ' He was sympathetic saying, 'I
gotcha. It was a question, not a criticism.' [The employer then asked him afew
questions about his driver's license and driving history.} He invited me to sit with him out
at the door while he smoked. When we got there he informally sat me down and lit up.
He turned to me and said, 'So why should I hire you instead ofone ofthe 47 other guys I
got coming to me?' I told him, 'I'll work hardfor you, bust my ass. It's a condition of
my parole that I work. ' He said, 'But do you want to work?' I answered, 'Yeah, I'mlooking to get back into society... ' He interrupted, 'You want to get your shit together. ''Yeah, ' I said. ... The conversation ended with him saying, 'My inclination is to say yes, '(regarding hiring me). He added, 'My bosses, the owners, are a little more close-minded
than me.... Look, you paid, you don't have to pay for it the rest ofyour fucking l(fe.
People make mistakes. I'll get you my card. 'This employer expresses some open-mindedness about Keith's criminal background from thestart ("It was a question, not a criticism"), but he also wants evidence that taking a chance on
Keith would be warranted amidst the large pool of other candidates. The conversation appears toprovide important reassurances to the employer, who ends the interview with an encouraging
note.
In another case, Anthony, an African American tester, discusses his criminal backgroundwith the manager of a healthcare company:

10This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

"[The employer] said, 'I'm sure people must take double-takes [when they see thecorrectional facility}. , I replied, 'Yeah, that does happen sometimes.' He told me that heknows the law, says I have to provide that information to a possible employer, but not toworry because he has had other employees who have 'lucked up in the past.' He said, '1

feel safer knowing you're telling me up front than me having to wonder ifyou're gonna
come here and tear shit up. Let's face it, interviews are bullshit. You can't know someone
from a 5-minute interview. So let's cut to the chase. '- 'How long were you in?' (18 months)- 'When 'd you get out?' (A few weeks ago)
- 'Ok, so you're fresh out and trying to get back on track?' (Yes, I am)- 'What'd you do?' (I had a small amount of drugs on me)- 'So you were guilty?' (Yes, I was young and made some mistakes but I learned fromthem and am completely drug-free)- (jokingly) 'So you weren't innocent?' (No, it was my fault.)- 'Don't worry, 1 find that those that messed up and want to set things right are better
workers.'
In this interaction the employer does acknowledge certain concerns about hiring someone with arecord, but seems to respond favorably to Anthony's honesty, and after learning more of thedetails of Anthony's background, offers him an encouraging response.
Thus, while a criminal record does have a significant negative impact on the employment
prospects ofjob seekers, some employers are willing to look beyond the conviction, or to
downplay its significance in the context of other information they acquire during the interview.
In these cases, a kind of empathy seems to develop between employer and job seeker, withgoodwill often translating into a substantial improvement in employment prospects. Of course
the types of individualizing information employers look to are not always in the applicants'
control. Race and ethnicity, in particular, appear to affect some employers' interpretations of theseriousness of the criminal background and the depth of empathy generated by the interaction.
11

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

For example, Keith, a white tester, reports on his interaction with the manager of a restaurant
supply company:[The employerj sat me down and went over my application and resume. He first saw [thecorrectionalfacilityj and asked about my working there. I told him that I had been
incarcerated. In a lower voice he said, "What did you do?" I told him about my beingcaught with cocaine, my time served, my current sobriety, which my parole officer could
verifY, the fact that it was a mistake and I had learned my lesson. At this point he said,"Zarriello... what is that, Italian?" I said, "Yes," and could immediately tell he was now
on my side. He asked more questions like, "What happened exactly?" I told him I was ina car with some ex-friends that was pulled over and we were all searched and they found6 grams in my possession. He asked, "You come from a nice Italianfamily? What doyour parents think about this?" I told him they were disappointed but thought I had
learned my lesson. He told me that "people make mistakes." He went on to say, "Itwould make me feel good to help a guy like you, more than just the rewards ofdoing myjob, but good as a person ?f I can help someone. "This employer's emphasis on the value of second chances and the desire to help a young exoffender get back on his feet are similar to sympathetic reactions we heard from other employers
in interactions with both black and white testers. Here, though, we see the employer explicitly
invoke Keith's ethnic background as the basis for solidarity, and as a key turning point in theemployer's reaction to the criminal background information, as Keith moves from being viewed
as an ex-offender to someone from a "nice Italian family."
In a similar case, Kevin applied for a job with a staffing agency and was asked a numberof detailed questions about his criminal history. Toward the end of the interview Kevin reports,"[The employerj said, 'Do you have Irish in you?' I said, 'On my mother's side I do. 'He asked what else I have. I said, 'French.' He was delighted! He said he has Irish andFrench in him, too. He said we could be related because we are bothfrom Frireland(France & Ireland). I said yes and laughed with him. "Kevin concluded his report byoffering his impression of the interaction: "He really wanted to help me out and seemed
to be going to great lengths to find me a job."
Once again, the ethnic solidarity expressed in this interaction appears to help establish a positive
rapport between candidate and employer. Conversations with employers thus simultaneously
offer the opportunity to present personalizing information about the applicant's work ethic andcommitment to rehabilitation, but may also generate new bases for categorical distinctions.

12This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Employers thus appear to offer a range of reactions to ex-offender applicants, varying interms of employers' comfort level in discussing criminal backgrounds and their evaluative
assessments of this information. To examine employers' responses more systematically, we
coded tester interactions with employers according to the nature of their response to the criminal
record information, based on narrative data provided by the testers. Focusing on testers withcriminal records who had personal contact with employers (roughly 50% of all tests), we code
responses as: ambiguous or no response, negative response, and sympathetic response.
Looking to the results in Figure 3, we see that overall employers are most likely to avoid
talking about the conviction altogether. Between two-thirds and three-quarters of employers
either avoided the subject of the criminal record altogether or gave little indication of how they
viewed the information. By contrast, less than 10 percent of employers made explicitly negative
comments. Though the hiring outcomes from the audit study indicate a large negative impact ofa criminal record on employers' evaluations, we see little of this reflected in their explicit
comments to job applicants. If expressing a clear valence, employers were more likely to offer
sympathetic reactions, with roughly 20 percent of employers coded as sympathetic toward theex-offender applicant. We see some evidence that blacks were less likely to have a clear reaction
from employers about their criminal background (73 vs 67%), more likely to receive a negative
response (8% vs 5%) and less likely to receive a sympathetic response (19 vs 29%), though thesedifferences are not statistically significant.

13This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Figure 3. Employer Reacllon to Criminal Record, by Race of Applicant

80

73

o white 1m! blackII

70 +--_-1:
60
50
40
30
20
10

o
ambiguous or no response

negative

sympathetic

Note: Includes those testers in the criminal record condition who interacted with the employer (n=144)

Overall, these results point to a reluctance among employers to address the criminal record issue
head on, or to reveal their reaction to the record to the applicant in question. Our final question,
then, considers the extent to which these differential responses in interaction correspond todifferences in hiring outcomes.

Relationship between Type ofInteraction and Employment Outcomes
The nature of interaction between employer and applicant is significant only if it provesconsequential for ultimate hiring outcomes. Matching interaction experiences with employmentoutcomes can provide some leverage on the pathways through which ex-offenders findopportunity. Figure 4 presents the percent of applicants with criminal records who received acallback or job offer, by race of the applicant and type of employer response. Not surprisingly,
employment outcomes are most favorable among those who received a sympathetic response
from employers. These employers were not simply paying lip service to the value of second
chances, but demonstrated an actual willingness to hire ex-offenders. Among those who

14This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

received sympathetic responses from employers, whites were slightly more likely to receive an
actual callback or job offer (37 vs 33%), though this difference is not statistically significant.
Showing even more consistency between interactions and outcomes, employers who
expressed negative reactions to applicants with criminal records in no cases made offers or
callbacks to these applicants.

Figure 4. The likelihood of a Positive Response, by Race and Interaction Type40

35

El while El black+--'=========='-----------~
32

~ 30
.a
~

25

l5

'"

~ 20

£
<ii

()

C 15

~

<D

0.

10

5

o

o
ambiguous or no response0
negative

sympathetic

Note: Includes those testers in the criminal record condition who interacted with the employer (n=144)

The group with less consistent results includes those employers who offered no reaction or
ambiguous reactions to the criminal background. Among these employers, we see a large racialdifference in employment outcomes with white applicants roughly three times more likely toreceive a callback or job offer relative to blacks who had similar encounters (32 vs 11 %). Notethat outcomes for whites differed little for those who received ambiguous or no response andthose who received a sympathetic response (32 vs 37%). Outcomes for blacks, by contrast, arequite different (11 vs 33%). Though it is not possible to directly interpret employers' underlying
reactions, this evidence is consistent with the role of stereotypes inhibiting the acquisition andimpact of individuating information. If employers who were concerned about the record among

15

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

black applicants chose to remain silent about the issue, the applicant would then have little
opportunity to anticipate or address the employer's concerns. Where for white ex-offenders thisreduced communication does not appear to have much of an impact, black ex-offenders seem toface significantly lower employment prospects as a result.

Conclusion to Stage One
The results of this study show a strong reluctance among employers to hire applicants withcriminal records, and especially so when considering black ex-offenders. What is perhaps more
notewOlihy in these data relates to the cases in which testers with criminal backgrounds were
given a chance at employment. Employment prospects improve significantly for applicants who
have a chance to interact with the hiring manager, and more so among those who elicit
sympathetic responses in the course of those interactions. To be sure, some of this variation is
attributable to characteristics and preferences of the employers alone, with little or no effect of
personal contact. Employers who are eager to hire will be more likely to meet with applicants on
the spot, and those who are sympathetic toward ex-offenders will be more likely to express suchsentiments in the course of interaction. At the same time, we suspect that the interaction itself
plays a non-trivial role in this hiring process. Employers have many reasons to be concerned
about applicants with prior histories of incarceration. Concerns about theft, violence, and drug
use are each relevant, not to mention the more mundane concerns over worker reliability andperformance. Personal contact with an applicant cannot reveal all of these issues, but can help toprovide some signals as to the disposition of the applicant, and can help the employer to develop
a "gut feeling" about whether or not this individual is likely to diverge from the stereotype of the
ex-con.
Unfortunately, the ability to have such a hearing does not appear available to allapplicants. Blacks were significantly less likely to be invited to interview by employers, offering
16This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

them fewer opportunities to present indicators at odds with their stigmatized group membership.
Further, though the distribution of reactions from employers was roughly similar among black
and white applicants with criminal backgrounds, actual employment outcomes differed for those
who had little opportunity to discuss their criminal record: Among whites, these limited
interactions did little to affect ultimate hiring outcomes, whereas for blacks positive responses
appeared substantially reduced.
The importance of rapport-building in the employment process, particularly for
applicants with stigmatizing characteristics, points to some important policy implications.
Initiatives that facilitate the matching of workers with employers in ways that help to overcome
these initial barriers may have a substantial impact. Intermediary organizations, for example,
which develop relationships with employers willing to hiring ex-offenders and help them to train,
screen, and place workers represents one important policy approach to bridging this divide.
Overall these findings suggest the importance of promoting social interaction with
employers to encourage employment among workers with criminal records. Because of the large
racial disparity in criminal convictions, job applicants with criminal background depend more onbuilding rapport with prospective employers but are less likely to be given the opportunity
because of their race. Policy intervention should aim to defuse stigma and provide employers
with more information about their prospective workers. Job referral services that act as labormarket intermediaries who vouch for job applicants might reduce the anonymous interaction of
the low-wage labor market. Certificates of rehabilitation and public education campaigns mightalso weaken the effects of stereotyping.
As incarceration rates have increased over the last few decades, official criminality
compounds the stigma of race and deepens of the economic disadvantage of young African
American men. Instead of just adding to the deficits of low-skill black men, a criminal record

17This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

modifies the effect of racial discrimination, raising the bar to employment higher for blacks thansimilarly-situated whites. In this context, we can understand the growth of incarceration rates,
and the racial disparities that characterize them, as producing an institutional racism with wide­
reaching economic effects.

Stage Two: An Employer's Perspective
The audit study allows us to tell the story of the employment process from the job seeker's
perspective. We can monitor the applicant's experiences at each stage of the hiring process,ultimately observing his 'success' or 'failure' in securing employment opportunities. By
recording the differential outcomes of matched pairs of applicants, we can make inferences about
employer preferences for particular worker characteristics; in particular, assessing the degree towhich race and a criminal record represent important signals to employers in their evaluation ofentry-level job candidates. And yet, we still know little about exactly how these signals work­
what is the content of the signal that provides "useful" information to employers. A job
applicant's criminal record may signal dangerousness, unreliability, or a variety of otherunappealing characteristics yet we have little precise idea about employers' specific concerns. In
order to unpack the meanings underlying employers' decisions, we turn our focus next to theemployers themselves. By gathering insight into the structural and attitudinal factors that shapehiring outcomes, we can better understand the decision-making process that leads to the
behavioral outcomes we observe. The dual perspectives afforded by this design-that of the job
seeker and the employer-offer an innovative way to view the employment exchange.
In the second phase of this research, we conducted both a telephone survey and in-depth
interviews with the same employers who participated in the audit study. All employers from theaudit study sample were included for contact in the telephone survey, yielding a final sample of18This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

385 employers (a response rate of 44%). On the survey, we included a wide range of questions
regarding the employers' hiring policies, their preferences for a wide range of applicant types,
and their experiences with recent hires. Of particular interest here, we included an extensive
module which probed employers regarding their attitudes about and experiences with workers
with criminal records.
Complementing the employer telephone surveys, we drew an additional subset from ouremployer sample (n=55) for the purpose of conducting in-depth in-person interviews. Through aseries of open-ended questions, we solicited employers' own accounts of the jobs they seek to fill
and the workers they find to fill them. During the interviews, which lasted between 45 minutes
to 2 hours, employers were asked a series of questions probing perceptions of various groups ofworkers for an understanding of how race/ethnicity/criminal record may become importantsignals to employers making hiring decisions in the context of minimal information. These in­depth interviews allowed for more open-ended discussions of employers' concerns andconsiderations in hiring entry-level workers, providing greater insight into exactly how and why
employers make the decisions they do.
In the following section, we provide an overview of employers' considerations andconcerns regarding applicants with criminal backgrounds. We present the main results from thesurvey data paired with the rich qualitative data from our in-depth interviews to better understandemployers' perspectives.

19This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Results4

In the survey we see a fairly strong reluctance to hire applicants with criminal records: Just overa quarter of employers (26%) indicated that they would probably or definitely be willing to hire
an applicant with a criminal record, relative to 63% who said they probably or definitely would
not, and only 1 I% who indicated that their decision would depend on the type or circumstancesof the crime. 5 Several of the in-depth interviews further reflected employers' significant
concerns about workers with criminal pasts. According to the manager of a retail store, "1justthink that people here would not allow someone with a criminal record to be around people that
do not have a criminal record. It just is not safe. It is not fair to the other employees. To bearound that kind ofenvironment. You never know what can happen. Jf 1 had the power, I would
make sure no one with a criminal record was ever hired here. It just is not right. I just think I
wouldn't go for that. "Despite the New York City Human Rights Law which prohibits blanket discrimination
against individuals with criminal records, several employers candidly stated that any candidate
with a criminal background would be immediately disqualified. According to one employer, "It

isn't worth the riskfor us. That is company policy. We have a place on the application that asks
about this. It is just not negotiable." Even among employers from large national companieswhose attentiveness to legal requirements is typically far greater than small local employers-we
see several cases of blanket bans on ex-offenders. Managers from three different national retailclothing stores told us of their company's policies against hiring ex-offenders. When asked how
information about a criminal record might affect his evaluation of an applicant, the manager ofIn this report, we focus primarily on employers' views about applicants with criminal records. While race was also
an important focus of this study as a whole, questions about racial attitudes and experiences are more difficult toprobe using standard survey techniques. We did discuss these topics in more detail during the in-person interviews;
further discussion of this analysis can be found in Pager & Karafin, 2009.
5 Responses differed moderately by race of the employer, with black and Hispanic employers indicating asomewhat greater openness to hiring ex-offenders (25% and 30%, respectively) than white employers (23%).

4

20

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

one of these clothing chains replied, "It doesn't impact me in any way, because at that point I'm

not allowed to hire them. "The manager of another retail chain elaborated on his understanding of his company's
policy, and regulations about what information can be shared with applicants.

1: Okay, so 1 have a few more questions about your screening process.
Let's say you have an applicant and you find out that they have acriminal record. How would you view this information?
A: Well we can't reveal that information. 1 would just say to theapplicant that at the moment it's not going to be possible because he
can't qualify. You know, 'Thanks for applying but at this time it won't
be possible. You are not right, we are looking for availability, it
doesn't fit what we need, what the company is looking for.' You know,
maybe you were making way too much money before, or something likethat. 1 don't want to hurt anyone, you can't reveal that information, so
you have got to keep it to yourself company-wise.
1: So does the company have a formal policy about hiring ex­
offenders?
A: Yes.
1: Does it matter based on the type of record, type of crime, and soforth?
A: Anybody or anything or any sort of issues and we won't hire you.
According to this manager, applicants are not meant to be told the specific reason for theirdismissal when related to concerns about a criminal background, perhaps out of concern for legal
challenges by the applicant in question. Nevertheless, the company appears to follow a clearcut
rule against hiring ex-offenders.
The manager of a third national retail clothing store expressed similar concerns about
legal challenges from applicants, though in this case inverts the law's intent, which is to promoteindividualized reviews rather than blanket restrictions. When asked whether exceptions could bemade for exceptional candidates with criminal records this manager replied:

A: Absolutely not. If their background check does not come backclear, they would not be hired.
21

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

1: 1 see. So that's just decided at the corporate level?
A: Correct .... From the company perspective, I think we're a large
enough company now where you have to have some black and whiterules, you know? You can't say, "Well, this is a drug conviction forpossession. This guy's a really nice kid. We're going to hire him. "Someone else comes back with stealing from another company. We're
not going to hire him. That's opens you up for a lawsuit right there.
And probably someone 's never going to find out about that, because all
their information's confidential, but it opens you up for a lawsuit,
because you're not treating people fairly. So from the company's
perspective, it makes sense to me to have certain rules that are justblack and white. If your background check comes back negative, or it's
not clear, sorry. Good luck on your search.
Whether based on formal company policy or the personal preferences of managers, that nearly
two-thirds of employers expressed a reluctance to hire applicants with criminal records points theserious barriers facing young men leaving prison. Even as bipartisan support grows forsupporting prisoner reentry (as evidenced by passage of the Second Chance Act), employerswho remain at the front lines of reentry efforts-remain highly skeptical of this population.
Interestingly, employers' survey responses suggest an even stronger reluctance to hire exoffenders than we see in the audit study, where roughly half the employers who hired at least one
tester hired the tester presenting a criminal background. The disparity between survey and audit
results may be do to a difference in attitudes versus behavior (e.g., even those who do not likethe idea of hiring an ex-offender may do so if their labor needs are sufficiently great). We
suspect, rather, that the primary difference results from our use of attractive, well-qualified
testers who did not fit the employers' stereotype or expectation of an ex-offender. Whenanswering the survey questions, employers are unlikely to have been imagining a candidate asappealing as those represented by our testers. If this is the case, the results of our audit study arelikely to represent a highly conservative estimate of the effect of a criminal record on hiring
outcomes, particularly as experienced by the more typical ex-offender who possesses lower
levels of schooling and prior work experience.

22

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Employers' Concerns about Applicants with Criminal Records
When asked to describe their main concerns about hiring an applicant with a criminal record,
employers focused on several key issues. A large number of employers focused on specificproblem behaviors such as theft (21 %), issues of violence and safety (9%), or the likelihood of
reoffending (6%).6 The manager of a record store explained, "If it was theft and they wereconvicted I am going to stay away from that because it is very easy to stealfrom the warehouseand they have a lot ofproblems with people stealing CD's and D VD 'so Those are tempting
items. Now I know that is kind ofdiscriminatory but I still do it. It is just one ofthose things thatsits in the back ofmy head. " Likewise, the manager of a local wine store told us, "We do have a
big problem with theft, as you can imagine. So, I wouldn't want to hire someone who has had aproblem in the past with stealing. I think this is a very tempting environment." Concerns overtheft came up often in our discussions with employers, particularly in retail environments or
where employees are often handling cash or expensive merchandise.
A number of employers regarded violence and/or safety in the workplace as a primaryconcern when probed about hiring applicants with a criminal record. Many of these employers
noted the discrepancy between non-violent and violent offenders as a critical element in theirdecision-making. Specifically, these employers expressed a fear of putting themselves, theiremployees, their customers, and the company as a whole, at risk. The manager of a testing
company emphasized that he would avoid "any kind ofcrimes that deal with bodily harm. Uh,you know, always concernedfor the safety and welfare ofmy employees ... I have to be worried
about my employees." Some also expressed concern that those with a violent past could not be

The distribution of concerns differed somewhat across telephone survey and in-depth interview samples. In our in­person interviews with employers more than 40% regarded violence and/or safety in the workplace as a primaryconcern when probed about hiring applicants with a criminal record. Just over half (54%) regarded issues of theft a
primary concern.

623This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

trusted with sensitive situations that could emerge - such a frustrating interaction with acustomer, as in the case of this manager from a car dealership:

1 mean if you have somebody with armed robbery, or rape, or something like that,
this is a violent person and 1 don't want that here. This is a very sensitive
business. People come in and they expect a lot. We don't have a good reputation
to begin with. People would prefer to go to the dentist rather than buy a car.
(laughs) People come in sometimes and they will be short-tempered. Oh my god.
They will say something like, oh my car is scratched, and they will come inscreaming and yelling. You have to be able to diffuse that situation. 1 needsomebody with patience. 1 need somebody that can talk to the person, calm themdown, and rectify the problem. What 1 don't need is someone that is just going toturn around to someone that is screaming at them and punch them in the face.
In addition to concerns over problem behaviors, employers also discussed character flaws
reflected by a criminal history, such as concerns over honestly/trustworthiness (16%) or
character/reliability (3%). When asked about her primary concerns about considering anapplicant with a criminal record, one retail employer stated simply, "Well, mostly the concern oftrust. Can the person be trusted? This would be my biggest concern. " Another employer went
further in explaining his view of an individual with a criminal record:

1 wouldjust be reluctant, you know, about morality, their character. Like apedophile or someone who has a record ofthat type. Even though we don't havekids in our place 1 would still be looking at that person, notfearful, but with
contempt. So maybe 1 wouldn't hire that person. Maybe 1 am being prejudiced
but 1 think it is a legitimate concern. 1would really really have to give it somethought before 1 would hire someone who was a criminal in the past. The person
has to have references a mile high for me to feel confidant. Somebody would haveto call me and say 1 know the person for so long and he is under my care, he is in
a program right now.
Finally, a few employers cited specific hassles associated with hiring ex-offenders as a primaryreason for avoiding such applicants. According to a tour company manager:

1 don't want to have to deal with parole officers, probation officers, sending
letters, having somebody come by to check up on them, and that kind ofstuff 1
can't have that type ofdistraction. 1 am just too busy for that. You know, as goodas somebody might be, 1 have 40 other employees to think about and their welfare
and their well-being. 1 don't know what kind ofpeople the ex-offender may be
associated with that might be coming here to lookfor them. It is kind oflike, thisis a business. We are publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange.
24This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

An employer from a video rental store emphasized a similar kind of hassle, though in this caserelated more to his practice of paying workers off the books:

I mean the only thing [that would make me reluctant to hire someone with acriminal record} would be that I do hire a lot ofpeople offthe books. And ex­
offenders do have to show a pay stub to their parole officer, so that could be anissue for me. I would have to work it out where they were on the books I guess.

Though many employers expressed strong opinions about how they would view an applicant
with a criminal record, a sizeable fraction (31%) indicated that their evaluation of the candidate
would depend on the severity, nature, and circumstances of offense.? According to a toy store
manager, "It depends kind ofon the situation. How long ago was it, what was it? There arepeople that have turned around and they are fine now. I am sure that some ofthem have worked
for us and we don't even know. It is hard to know. " The manager of an employment agency
echoed these sentiments, emphasizing the severity of the crime as a key determinant of his
evaluation: "Well, it depends on what the crime is, and how long they were in prison. If they

were in for 20 years, that would be bad. You know, you wouldn't be in jail for 20 years forstealing a bagelfrom a restaurant. Length oftime is important. That can show if it was a very
serious thing. "When we asked the manager of a bakery about her views on hiring an applicant with acriminal record, her initial response was very negative, but she then conditioned this reaction
with attention to the specifics of the offense:
1: If you found out an applicant had a criminal record, how would you view thisinformation?
7 This distribution is based on an open-ended survey that asked, "What would be your main concern about hiring anapplicant with a criminal record?" Earlier in the survey, we asked a more general close-ended ended question which
asked, "Would you be willing to hire an applicant with a criminal record?" In response to this question (discussed
above) nearly 90 percent offered a firm positive or negative response, with only 11 percent indicating that theirdecision would "depend on the crime." This latter category represents a spontaneous response-not one solicited by
the close-ended format-suggesting that these employers were resistant to being placed in a category they felt
inappropriately reflected their views. When allowed to answer in the open-ended format, by contrast, far moreconveyed variability in their responses. This finding is consistent with other surveys (e.g., Holzer et aI., 2002,
Pager, 2007), who report that up to 30 percent of employers report that their response "depends on the crime."

25

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

A: Eww. (pauses) I'm not sure. 1 don't like criminals (laughs). But, you know, 1
guess it depends. What the crime was, how long ago it was, how rehabilitatedthey seem. 1 wouldn't make a definite generalization and say no 1 wouldn't hire a
criminal, or yes, it wouldn't matter at all. You know, it depends on the individual
and the circumstance.
Another employer from a dessert chain emphasized the importance of offense severity, as well as
evidence of rehabilitation and future orientation.

Well, 1 wouldfirst look at what the offense was, if it was a misdemeanor or afelony. From there 1 would speak to the person, and try to get a feel for what they
were trying to do. What is their plan long-term, and what are their goals? 1
definitely wouldn't have any problem hiring someone with a prior conviction,
though 1 don't get to make the final decision here. For someone who 1feel would
work out great, 1 would certainly put my neck on the line to help them get hired
here. 1 don't think it is the deciding factor though, whether or not they have arecord. 1 think their character is what matters. 1 do think that the othermanagers and the owners would view a criminal record as a redflag, since you
did have an incident. They would be very reluctant to hire someone like that.
But, for me, 1 would really hope that they would at least consider them.
The manager of an ice cream chain emphasized the distinction between violent and non-violent
offense types:

Last year, this kid came to me because he was kicked out ofhis high school
because he had a drug problem. He said that he went through rehab and all thisstuffand is trying to turn his life around. llike that, so 1 gave him a job. He
worked out great. Or, you know, ifsomeone was convicted ofsomething that 1felt
was a crime. Marijuana possession or something like that. 1 really wouldn't care
too much about. Anything violent, if 1 was privy to that knowledge, 1 would
definitely not hire them. Violence isn't good. 1 wouldn't want that vibe aroundhere. Especially if1 knew the person had a history of it.
In each of these cases, employers appear sensitized to the diversity of criminal records, and apply
varying degrees of scrutiny depending on how they evaluate information about risk. Thoughemployers emphasized a wide range of distinctions, the most common appeared to be
distinctions according to crime type (with violent offenses and theft eliciting the greatest
concern) and signs of rehabilitation (e.g., time since offense, evidence of drug treatment,
indications of sincere repentance, etc.).

26

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Legal Liability
A growing literature emphasizes employers' concerns over legal liability as a key factor reducing
the job prospects of ex-offenders. Indeed, a few employers in our sample did raise suchconcerns. For example, an employer for a large national company explained: "There's a legal

category called negligent hiring, ifwe knowingly hired somebody that had a criminal record, saysomeone was charged with physical assault, we would subject to a lawsuit under negligent
hiring we should have known this person was apt to act out violently in the workplace. " Themanager of a courier company, discussing his reluctance to hire anyone with a history of violent
crime, touched on similar themes, though couched as an insurance concern: "It's an insurance

problem. I can't, I can't get insurance coverage, I can't bond, and I'm going to be sitting here
wondering, ifhe has a problem at work, is he going to smack somebody, one ofmy customers, ordo something like that in the street? " For these employers, workers with criminal records poserisks that extend beyond specific acts of violence or theft to represent significant financial
liability.
Interestingly, however, less than one percent of the employers in our telephone survey
sample mentioned the issue of legal liability as a key concern. Further, when asked about theissue directly in the in-person interviews, most employers had never heard of negligent hiringlaws. Even those who were familiar with these laws appeared more concerned over the behaviors
themselves (violence, theft) than potential legal liability resulting from those behaviors.
According to a retail store manager,

I mean, it is not in the forefront ofmy thoughts. I think people with a violent
nature, and anger problems, seem to have those regularly. They are explosive. I
try my best to be in a situation where I don't have to deal with that. Dealing withthe public can be a trying experience.... But in general, I am not usually thinking,oh, I don't want to take this person because I am afraid I am going to have somelegal issue.

27This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The manager of a record distribution company dismissed the notion that individuals withcriminal records pose any particular liability:

1: Are there ever any legal issues that you would worry about in hiring ex­
offenders?

A: Umm actually no. To tell you the truth no. You know what, I honestly havenever thought about this before. (laughs) But thinking about it now, if it were tohappen, I think there would be some type ofliability case whether or not theperson had a prior record. Yeah.
The owner of a supply company felt confident that the ex-offenders referred to his business were
insured against possible liability:

1: Are there ever any legal issues that you would worry about in hiring ex­
offenders?

A: None. If I am hiring one ofthose it is from one ofthose programs and they are
guaranteed and they are bonded. If they do anything here then I would be
reimbursed.
These findings stand against the growing literature emphasizing negligent hiring laws as a major
reason that employers are reluctant to hire ex-offenders (e.g., Bushway et aI., 2007). It is likelythat employers for large national companies (underrepresented by our sample) have moreelaborate legal regulations related to hiring, 8 norms about which may ultimately trickle down tosmaller employers over time. Nevertheless, our results suggest that negligent hiring laws
themselves are not at present a major barrier to employment for ex-offenders. Rather, possible
problem behaviors themselves (e.g., violence, theft), rather than legal liability for thosebehaviors, appear to drive employers concerns about this population.

In general, laws appear to have only marginal effects on employer attitudes about hiring exoffenders. As discussed earlier, New York City offers protection from blanket discrimination on
the basis of a criminal record, though many employers are unaware of the specific legal

8 This is also consistent with our finding from the audit study that large employers are less likely to hire applicantswith criminal records (opposite to the pattern of hiring racial minorities).

28

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

provisions and/or seem unconcerned about their effects. Only a few employers explicitly
referred to antidiscrimination law in discussing the evaluation of applicants with criminal
records. For example, one manager of a national clothing chain explained:

Well legally you don't turn an application away as long as they reveal that on
their application and they are forthcoming. You know it really depends. 1 guess
it depends on what they did. 1 would always pass it to HR if it was someone that 1
thought was worthy ofthe job, 1 would always partner with Human Resources
first. You don't want to discriminate. It is against the law to discriminate likethat. And we have had that, where we hired those kind ofpeople, and that is what
1 do, 1partner with our HR department. They help to make sure that I am notbreaking any rules, you know.
In general, however, special legal protections appeared to have little effect on employer's
attitudes about hiring ex-offenders. Even among employers who were aware ofantidiscrimination laws protecting people with criminal records (a question we explicitly asked
on the survey), fully 60% maintained that they would not be willing to hire an ex-offender.
While lower than the 70% unwilling to hire ex-offenders among those who do not believe exoffenders are covered by antidiscrimination law, in either case a large majority of employers
remain unwilling to hire applicants with criminal backgrounds.
In contrast to sanctions, we see some evidence that incentives are associated with changes
in employer behavior. Tax credits and the federal bonding program, in particular, appear to playsome role in employers' considerations. Of those who had hired an ex-offender in the past year,
roughly 12% had claimed the Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) and 4% have had their exoffender employees covered by the Federal Bonding Program. Of those who had claimed the
WOTC, fully 78% indicated they would be willing to hire ex-offenders in the future (7 of the 9employers who had claimed the WOTC), relative to only 43% of those who had hired exoffenders in the past but did not claim tax credit for those hires. Both employers who hadbonded ex-offender employees through this program indicated they would be willing to hire exoffenders in the future, though the sample size here is too small to generate reliable comparisons.
29This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Though only a small minority of employers who hire ex-offenders make use of tax credits andfederal bonding, these incentives do appear to increase employers' willingness to continue hiring
ex-offenders in the future.

An Uncomfortable Subject
The results of the audit study suggested that, though employers clearly notice criminal
background information in reviewing job applicants, many are reluctant to discuss the subject
explicitly. Likewise, in our interviews with employers, some emphasized the discomfort andanxiety that accompanies evaluations of applicants with criminal pasts. In some cases,
employers emphasized not just interpersonal anxiety but also the perception that they werelegally constrained from probing applicants about private legal matters. For example, one
employer expressed the belief that criminal record information was off-limits in screening
applicants:

A: In all honesty I am not really supposed to know what they have done anyway
so most ofthe time I really don't know unless they voluntarily tell me. Ur;ually I
just don't know.
1: You don't ask this on the application?

A: No, you can't ask them. It is against the law.
Likewise, the manager of a local restaurant expressed the belief that employers are prohibitedfrom asking applicants about their criminal pasts:

We do the criminal check. We can't ask them, 'Are you a criminal or not? 'That's why we check, the criminal check. So it says everything. Also it's against
the law, you can't ask them, 'Are you criminal? Are you? 'For the manager of a national restaurant chain, perceived limits on acquiring information about acriminal record leads to a better-safe-than-sorry policy of blanket exclusion:

This person is probably not trustworthy. They're not dependent, and if you'reusing drugs, how much are you using drugs. And I cannot go and ask you aquestion. 'All right, you [were] convicted ofusing drugs, how much drugs [did]you use?' I cannot ask that question. My question solely has to be based on your30

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

quality and your ability to do the job. So, being that I can't ask that question
straightforward I have to just use my own judgment and say I should probably
stay away from this person. Just to be safe.

In this case, the employer's misperception of the kinds of questions that are lawfully appropriate
in job interviews leads him to refrain from probing about the context of the conviction andinstead avoid ex·offenders altogether. As we saw above in the interactions between applicantsand employers in the audit study, employers who refrained from discussing the record with job
applicants were much less likely to hire these candidates, particularly in the case of black exoffenders.
The additional discomfort of race was raised explicitly by an employer for a tour
company, who commented on the problem of being perceived as racist for inquiring about anapplicant's criminal background: "I try not to ask [about a criminal background in theinterview] because sometimes people are like, 'What, are you racially profiling me?' So I do ask
everybody but it is very hard to ask. It is not an easy question .... " This employer appears to
struggle with concerns about how to talk about an applicant's criminal history without appearing
to be unfairly targeting black applicants for scrutiny. Given the charged issues around race andperceived discrimination, employers may be especially reluctant to voice concerns about
criminal records with black applicants, perhaps feeding in to some of the racial disparities
reported above. If employers feel uncomfortable inquiring about an applicant's criminal
background and gathering additional information about the context of the conviction, they may
instead choose to simply rule out these applicants altogether.

Prior Experiences with Ex·Offenders
According to the survey, about 30 percent of New York City employers have hired an applicant
with a criminal record over the past year. In both the survey and during in-person interviews, we
asked employers to tell us about their previous experiences with workers with criminal
31This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

backgrounds. In a few cases, employers reported negative experiences with ex-offender
employees. For example, the manager of a dessert chain told us about one recent
experience: "Well, I have had an applicant who worked here, who was in ajuvenile hall. She

had a history with drugs. And, umm. She was trying to clean up her act. Eventually I had to fire
her. She was showing up late, going out all night. " Though this employer remained open to thepossibility of hiring ex-offenders in the future, the experience points to some of the potential
problems posed by individuals with histories of substance abuse. For others, negative
experiences left them extremely reluctant to hire applicants with criminal backgrounds in the
future. For example, the manager of a retail store explained, "We recently had a receptionist who

was stealingfrom the register. We had known about a drug history past. And she was inrecovery and so we gave her a chance. I don't think that my boss would take that chance again. "In this case, one negative experience can lead to strong generalized views about the risks posedby ex-offenders.
Apart from a small number of strongly negative experiences, for the most patt employers
reported mixed or positive experiences with ex-offenders, leaving them open to hiring additional
ex-offenders in the future. According to the manager of a clothing chain, "So, in terms ofthe

criminal record, it does not mean that I wouldn't hire them. I have hired them before. I have
had two great employees that had criminal records, and I have had one horrible one. So it iskind ofhit or miss. " Similarly, the manager of a courier company explained, "Very rarely do I
have guysfrom thefacility or programs that I work with that end up getting in trouble here. In
six years ofhiring I would say maybe two ofthe ex-offenders I have hired have done something
on the job that they weren't supposed to do. "Consistent with these more positive experiences, in general we find evidence that
previous experience with ex-offenders increases the likelihood that an employer would be

32

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

willing to hire ex-offenders in the future. Of those who had hired an ex-offender in the past year,
fully 43% indicated they would be willing to hire an applicant with a criminal record in the
future, relative to only 17% of those without recent experience hiring ex-offenders. Some of thisdisparity is likely to simply reflect the diverse applicant pools different employers draw from;but we also see some evidence that the e'xperience of working with ex-offenders actively reduces
employers' concerns. Indeed, roughly 85% of employers who have hired ex-offenders in thepast year report their work performance to be at or above average, suggesting that in generalemployers are having fairly positive experiences with this group of employees. The following
excerpt comes from an interview with the manager of a national retail store:/: How have the employees you have hired with a record worked out compared to
employees you have hired without a record?
A: Umm, actually they have pretty much been good employees. 1 don't know if it
is because they had to keep the job. (laughs) But you know 1 didn't have aproblem with them. 1 mean afew people that have applied with a criminal
background have been turned away, but it was because like one told me he had
been convicted ofattempted murder. So that kind ofscared me a little. 1 went
through HR and it was time consuming but we decided not to hire him. But that
was a good thing. 1 have hired people though and 1 haven't really had badexperiences with these people.
Several employers emphasized particular advantages of ex-offenders as employees, in that they
may be more likely to take the job seriously and value the opportunity more than workers withwider options. An employer for a manufacturing company described his experiences:

1: Is there any way to predict whether or not an applicant will be likely to steal,aside from them having a criminal record?
A: You know you really can't tell. The majority ofthem arefine. These are justexamples that I'm pulling out because you are asking me. So those two are theonly ones. We have another fellow downstairs who is here every day and is very
good. We had to signfor him for being in the halfivay house and he is awonderful guy. A lot ofpeople here need their jobs so they are very committed.
/: How many ex-offenders do you currently have on staff?
A: Let's see. We have about 4 right now and really they are working outfine.

33

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The manager of a specialty foods store reports similar experiences, emphasizing how committed
ex-offenders are to staying out of prison:

A: We have actually hired people on work-release programs. So that is not a
problem. Having a problem, giving someone a second chance is not a problem.
It is when they are not reformed and they continue. And honestly, myfeeling onthat is that you are so close to getting out that you are not going to screw up. You
have a taste offreedom but you have to go back at a certain time after work. You
have an hour and a halfor whatever it is that you have to get home. So you are
too close to tasting thatfreedom that you are not going to screw up here. So thatis my theory on why they are going to be goodfor us.
1: How did the ex-offender employees you hired work out?

A: Oh they worked out good. 1 think that system really works.
An employer for a courier company echoed these sentiments, "1've had a couple ofpeople thatwere upfront, said they had criminal backgrounds, and I checked in with their parole orprobation officers, and they worked out pretty well.... Matter offact they, they turned out to besome ofthe better workers. 'Cause they're trying to make another shot at life for themselves. "Overall, then, employers reported generally positive experiences with ex-offenders andremain more open to hiring ex-offenders in the future relative to those with no recent experience.
Further, employers who have had recent experience working with ex-offenders report fewer
serious concerns about this group relative to employers who have no recent experience. As
shown in Table 1, fully a quarter of employers with no recent experience with ex-offender
employees are concerned about theft by this group, relative to less than half that proportion of
employers who have hired ex-offenders in the past year. Likewise, 18% of employers unfamiliar
with ex-offenders are concerned about honesty or trustworthiness, relative to only 11 % of those
who have recently hired ex-offenders. Employers who have worked with ex-offenders in the
recent past are more likely to acknowledge wide variation among the ex-offender population,with 45% indicating that their willingness to hire an ex-offender would depend on the severity,
nature, or circumstances of the crime (relative to just 26% of those employers less experienced

34

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

with this population). Interestingly, those with recent experience with ex-offender employees
were more than twice as likely to report concerns over reliability (4.8% vs 2.2%) anddrug/alcohol use (2.4% vs 0.44%), though each of these concerns came up among less than five
percent of employers overall.

Table 1. Primary Concern about Hiring an Applicant with a Criminal
Record, by Prior Experience with Ex-Offender Employees

Hired Ex-Offender in Past Year?
no

yes

total

depends on severity/circumstancetheft/stealinghonesty/trustworthinessviolence/safetyconcern over worker quality
will re-offend
reliability
drugs/alcohol
constraints due to parole
legal/liability concerns
other

26.22
24.89
17.78
8.89
3.56
6.67
2.22
0.44
1.33
0.89
7.11

44.48
12.05
10.84
9.64
4.82
4.82
4.82
2.41
1.20
2.41
2.41

31.17
21.43
15.91
9.09
3.90
6.17
2.92
0.97
1.30
1.30
5.84

total

100

100

100

Concern

In general, then, experience with ex-offender employees appears to reduce employers' majoranxieties about this group (theft, honesty), while increasing recognition of the diversity of the exoffender population and the need to carefully review the context and severity of the individual's
criminal history.
Mirroring findings about the importance of personal contact presented above, theseresults suggest that the more familiarity employers have with ex-offenders-either based on
previous employees or through personalizing information about a particular ex-offenderapplicant-the more open an employer is likely to be with respect to hiring such candidates.

35

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Conclusion to Stage II
Many studies of employers focus merely on employers' own accounts, taking at face value theconcerns, priorities, and practices they describe (e.g., Holzer, 1996; Waldinger and Lichter,2003). This research, by contrast, is solidly grounded in external observation of employer
behavior. The audit study demonstrates the selection process in real employment interactions; theinterviews with employers then help us to understand the thought processes and considerations
that may have led to the observed outcomes. In this way, the research offers the unique
opportunity to examine what employers say in the context of what they actually do.
Substantial investment has gone into developing programs that facilitate offender reentry.
Such efforts routinely emphasize the fundamental importance of employment, typically with afocus on improving the skills and resources of the offenders themselves (Travis, 2003; Petersilia,
2003; SVORI, 2004). We applaud these efforts, and hope to build on their insights. Developing
an approach complementary to offender-focused strategies, we place emphasis on the demandside of the labor market. Improving the job readiness of ex-offenders can only be effective if
employers are willing to hire individuals with criminal records. Understanding the strength andsources of employers' aversion to ex-offenders can direct us in shaping strategies to facilitate
effective job placement for this group.
This research raises important questions about the kinds of policies that may makeemployers more likely to hire ex-offenders. In particular, we believe this research has important
implications for the work of parole officers and employment mediators. Given the findings that
employers' anxieties about hiring ex-offenders focus more on risk (of violence/theft) rather thanskills, these groups can play an invaluable role in helping to reduce the uncertainty associatedwith hiring individuals with criminal pasts. Parole officers and employment mediators can speak
knowledgeably to the concerns of employers, helping them to better understand the risks36This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

associated with different kinds of offenders, as well as in providing additional sources ofoversight for these workers. In the spirit of Petersilia' s (2003) suggestion of establishingcommunity partnerships, this research supports the development of relationships between paroleagencies, intermediaries, and employers, improving the prospects for reintegration and public
safety overall.

Dissemination Strategy
We have presented the results of this research in a number of public and academic forums. Early
versions of the audit research were presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological
Association, the Population Association of America, and at numerous academic departments. In
addition, we were invited to present our results for a regional meeting of the EEOC in New York
City, for the New York City Council Civil Rights Committee, and at the New York State
Attorney General's Office on Civil Rights. We were also invited to testify at a hearing of the
EEOC in Washington DC concerning employment regulations governing the use of criminal
records. Our research was featured in a conference sponsored by the New York City
Commission on Human Rights, with hundreds of New York employers in attendance; and at a
public forum sponsored by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice (leading to coverage in the

New York Times and several local media outlets). Finally, we are publishing our results in a
number of academic journals, including forthcoming articles in the American Sociological

Review, the Annals ofthe American Society ofPolitical and Social Sciences, and the UniversityofChicago Legal Forum.

37

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

References
Ayres, Ian and Peter Siegelman. 1995. "Race and Gender Discrimination in Bargaining for a
New Car." The American Economic Review 85(3):304-321.
Bartik, Timothy. 2001. Jobsfor the Poor: Can Labor Demand Policies Help? New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.
Becker, Howard. 1963. Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. London: Free Press
Bendick, Marc, Jr., Charles Jackson, and Victor Reinoso. 1994. "Measuring Employment
Discrimination through Controlled Experiments." Review ofBlack Political Economy
23: 25-48.
Bonczar, Thomas P. and Allen J. Beck. Lifetime Likelihood o.fGoing to State or Federal Prison.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Borjas, George 1. 1999. Heaven's Door: Immigration Policy and the American Economy.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Bushway, Shawn D. 1997. "Labor Market Effects of Permitting Employer Access to Criminal
History Records." Working Paper. University of Maryland, Department of Criminology.
Bushway, Shawn D., Michael A. Stoll, David F. Weiman. 2007. Barriers to Reentry?: The Labor
Market for Released Prisoners in Post-Industrial America. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Bradburn, N.M. 1983. "Response Effects." In Rossi, P., 1. Wright, and A. Anderson (Eds.).
Handbook ofSurvey Research. New York: Academic Press, pp.289-328.
Braman, Donald. 2004. Doing Time on the Outside: Incarceration and Family Life in Urban
America. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Branham, Lynn S. 2002. The Law ofSentencing, Corrections, and Prisoners Rights. 6th Editition.
St. Paul: Minnesota: West Group.
Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin. 2001. Prisoners in 2000, by Allen J. Beck and Paige M.
Harrison. August, Washington, D.C. NCJ 188207.
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Special Report. 2003. Education and Correctional Populations. By
Caroline Wolf Harlow. January, Washington, D.C., NCJ 195670.
Bussey, Jenny and John Trasvina. 2003. "Racial Preferences: The Treatment of White andAfrican American Job Applicants by Temporary Employment Agencies in California."
Working Paper, Discrimination Research Center, The Impact Fund.

38

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Cancio, A. Silvia, T. David Evans, and David 1. Maume. 1996. "Reconsidering the Declining
Significance of Race: Racial Differences in Early Career Wages." American Sociological
Review 61 :541-56.
Crandall, C.S. 1994. "Prejudice against Fat People: Ideology and Self-Interest." Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 66: 882-894.
Cross, Harry, Genevieve Kenney, Jane Mell, and Wendy Zimmerman. 1989. Differential
Treatment ofHispanic and Anglo Job Seekers: Hiring Practices in Two Cities.
Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
Cross, Harry, et aI. 1990. Employer Hiring Practices: Differential Treatment ofLatino andAnglo Job Seekers. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
Culp, Jerome and Bruce Dunson. 1986. "Brothers of a Different Color: A Preliminary Look at
Employer Treatment of White and Black Youth." In Freeman, Richard B. and Harry J.
Holzer (eds). 1986. The Black Youth Employment Crisis. Chicago, IL: U Chicago Press
for National Bureau of Economic Research.
D'Souza, Dinesh. 1995. The End ofRacism: Principlesfor a Multiracial Society. New Yark:
Free Press.
Duster, Troy. 1997. "Pattern, Purpose and Race in the Drug War: the Crisis of Credibility in
Criminal Justice." In Crack in America: Demon Drugs and Social Justice, edited by Craig
Reinarman and Harry G. Levine. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Espino, Rodolfo and Michael M. Franz. "Latino Phenotypic Discrimination Revisted: The
Impact of Skin Color on Occupational Status." Social Science Quarterly 83(2): 612-623.
Farkas, George. and K. Vicknair. 1996. "Appropriate Tests of Racial Wage Discrimination
Require Controls for Cognitive Skill: Comment on Cancio, Evans, and Maume."
American Sociological Review 61 :557-60.
Fix, Michael and Raymond 1. Struyk (Eds.). 1993. Clear and Convincing Evidence:
Measurement ofDiscrimination in America. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
Freeman, Richard B. 1995. "The Labor Market." Pp. 171-192 in Crime, edited James Q. Wilson
and Joan Petersilia.San Francisco, CA: Institute for Contemporary Studies Press.
Freeman, Richard B. and Harry 1. Holzer (eds). 1986. The Black Youth Employment Crisis.
Chicago, IL: U Chicago Press for National Bureau of Economic Research.
Hakken, Jon. 1979. Discrimination against Chicanos in the Dallas Rental Housing Market: An
Experimental Extension ofthe Housing Market Practices Survey. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Harris, Anthony. 1976. "Race, Commitment to Deviance and Spoiled Identity." American
Sociological Review 41 :432-42.
39

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Heckman, James and Peter Siegelman. 1993. "The Urban Institute Audit Studies: Their Methods
and Findings: Response to Comments by John Yinger" Pp. 271-75 in Clear andconvincing evidence: Measurement ofDiscrimination in America, edited by Michael Fix
and Raymond Struyk. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Hogg, Robert V. and Allen T. Craig. 1989. Introduction to Mathematical Statistics. Fourth
Edition. New York: Macmillan.
Holzer, Harry J. 1996. What Employers Want: Job Prospects ofLess-Educated Workers. New
York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Holzer, Harry, Steven Raphael, and Michael Stoll. 2001. "Perceived Criminality, Criminal
Background Checks and the Racial Hiring Practices of Employers." Working Paper.
Holzer, Harry, Steven Raphael, and Michael Stoll. 2002. "Will Employers Hire Ex-offenders?
Employer Preferences, Background Checks, and Their Determinants." Institute for
Research on Poverty Discussion Paper 1243-02.
Kirschenman, Joleen and Katherine Neckerman. 1991. "We'd Love to Hire Them, but.. .. ": The
Meaning of Race for Employers," in Christopher Jencks and P. Peterson, The Urban
Underclass, Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institute.
Kluegel, James R. and Lawrence Bobo. 2001. "Perceived Group discrimination and Policy
Attitudes: The Sources and Consequences of the Race and Gender Gaps." In Urban
Inequality: Evidence from four Cities, edited by A. O'Connor, C. Tilly, and L.D. Bobo.
New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Loury, Glenn C. 1977. "A Dynamic Theory of Racial Income Differences." In Wallace, PA
and La Mond, AM (Eds). Women, Minorities, and Employment Discrimination.
Lexington, MA: Heath, pp.153-86.
Milgram, Stanley. 1974. Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. New York: Harper andRow.
Moss, Philip, and Chris Tilly. 1996. '''Soft Sills' and Race: An Investigation of Black Men's
Employment Problems." Work and Occupations 23(3): 256-276.
Nurse, Anne. 2002. Fatherhood Arrested: Parentingfrom Within the Juvenile Justice System.
Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
Neal, Derek, and William Johnson. 1996. "The Role of Premarket Factors in Black-White
Wage Differences." Journal ofPolitical Economy, 104(5):869-895.
Neumark, David. 1996. "Sex Discrimination in Restaurant Hiring: An Audit Study." Quarterly
Journal ofEconomics XX: 915-40.

40This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Pager, Devah, Bruce Western, and Bart Bonikowski. 2009. "Race at Work: Results from a Field
Experiment of Discrimination in a Low Wage Labor Market." American Sociological
Review, forthcoming.
Pager, Devah and Diana Karafin. 2009. "Bayesian Bigot? Statistical Discrimination, Stereotypes,
and Employer Decision-Making." Annals ofthe American Academy ofPolitical andSocial Sciences 621 (January):70-93.
Pager, Devah. 2007. Marked: Race, Crime, and Finding Work in an Era ofMass Incarceration.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pager, Devah. 2003. "The Mark of a Criminal Record." American Journal ofSociology 108(5):937-975.
Petersilia, Joan. 2003. When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry. Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press.
Pettit, Becky and Bruce Western. 2001. "Inequality in Lifetime Risks ofIncarceration." Paper
presented at the annual meetings of the Population Association of America, Washington
DC.
Portes, Alejandro and Cynthia Truelove. 1987. "Making Sense of Diversity: Recent Researchon Hispanic Minorities in the United States." Annual Review ofSociology 13: 359-85.
Steele, Shelby. 1991. The Content ofOur Character: A New Vision ofRace in America. New
York: Harper Perennial.
Sullivan, Mercer. 1989. "Getting Paid: " Youth Crime and Work in the Inner City. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press.
SVORI,2004. National Portrait ofSVORI: Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative.
http://www.svori-evaluation.org/SV 0 RIN ationalPortrait.pdf
Travis, Jeremy. 2003. Prisoners Once Removed. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
Travis, Jeremy. Forthcoming. But They All Come Back. Washington DC: Urban Institute Press.
Turner, Margery, Michael Fix, and Raymond Struyk. 1991. Opportunities Denied,
Opportunities Diminished: Racial Discrimination in Hiring. Washington, DC: Urban
Institute Press.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2003. "Hispanic or Latino by Type: 2000; Geographic Area: New YorkCounty, New York." Census 2000 Summary File 1. American FactFinder.
Wacquant, Loic. 2000. "The New 'Peculiar Institution:' On the Prison as Surrogate Ghetto."
Theoretical Criminology 4:377-89.

41

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Waldinger, Roger D. and Michael I Lichter. 2003. How the Other Half Works: Immigration and
the Social Organization ofLabor. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Western, Bruce. 2002. "The Impact ofIncarceration on Wage Mobility and Inequality."
American Sociological Review 67:477-98.
Western, Bruce and Katherine Beckett. 1999. "How Unregulated is the U.S. Labor Market?
The Penal System as a Labor Market Institution." American Journal ofSociology
104(4): 1030-60.
Western, Bruce and Becky Pettit. 2000. "Incarceration and Racial Inequality in Men's
Employment." Industrial and Labor Relations Review 54(1): 3- 17.
Western, Bruce, Becky Petit, and Josh Guetzkow. 2002. "Black Economic Progress in the Era ofMass Imprisonment." Pp. 165-80 in Invisible Punishment: The Collateral ConsequencesofMass Imprisonment, edited by Meda Chesney-Lind and Marc Mauer. New York: New
Press.
Western, Bruce, Jeffrey R. Kling, and David F. Weiman. 2001. "The Labor Market
Consequences ofIncarceration." Crime and Delinquency 47:410-27.
Wienk, Ronald E., Clifford E. Reid, John C. Simonson, and Frederick 1. Eggers. 1979.
Measuring Discrimination in American Housing Markets: The Housing Market
Practices Survey. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development.
Wilson, William Julius. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, andPublic Policy. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Wilson, William Julius. 1996. When Work Disappears: The World ofthe New Urban Poor.
New York: Vintage Books.

42

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Sequencing
Disadvantage:
Barriers to
Employment
Facing Young
Black andWhite Menwith Criminal
Records

By
DEVAH PAGER,
BRUCE \VESTERN,
andNAOMI SUGIEIn this ~uticle, the authors report the results of a large­
scale fIeld experiment conductecl in New York City inves­tigating the effects of race and a prison record on
employment. Teams of black and white men werematched and sent to apply fe)r low-wage jobs throughout
the city, presenting equivalent reSlllTleS and differing onlyin their race and criminal background. The authors fInd asignillcant negative effect of a climinal record on employ­ment outcomes that appears substantially larger for
African Americans. The sequence of interactions preced­
ing hiIing clecisions suggests that black applicants areless often invited to interview, thereby providing fc;wer
opportunities to establish rappOlt with the employer.
Furthermore, employers' general reluctance to discuss
the criminal record of an applicant appears especiallyharmful for black ex-oflEmders. Overall, these results point
to the impOltance of rappOlt-builcling for finding work,something that the stigmatizing characteristics of minority
and climinal status rnake more diffIcult to achieve.
Keywords:

race; criminal record; discrimination;
employment; low-wage labor markets

oughly se~en hundred thousand inm,:tes ~rereleased from plison each yeal~ a fIvefold
increase from the late 1970s (Bureau of Justice
Statistics 2004). Consisting mostly of young men
with less than a college education, about two­
thirds of ex-plisoners remain out of work a year
after prison release, and 60 percent are rear­
rested within three years (Bureau of Justice
Statistics 2002; Petersilia 2003; Travis 2005).
Those that can find steady work are less likely toreturn to plison and are better-equipped toassume the mainstream social roles of spouseand parent (Lopoo and Western 2005; Sampsonand Laub 1993; Uggen 2000). Unfortunately,
the goal of stable employment remains elusive
for a large fraction of ex-offenders. The chal­lenges of reentering society from prison arecompounded for many by the racial stigma

R

NOTE: Research for this article was supported by
grants from the National Science Foundation, theNational Institute of ustice, and the JEHT Foundation.
\Vegrateu . y ac now cc ge the generous assistance ofCommissioner Patricia Gatling and the New York
Commission on !1uman Rights and the contributions of
Glenn Martin of the Fortune Society])01: 1O.1177/000271620S:J:J079:J

ANNALS, AAPSS, 62.3, May 2009
Downloaded from htlp:i!anrl.sa\J8Pub.com at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on May 5, 2009

J9.5

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

196

THE ANNALS OF THE AMEHICAN ACADEMY

produced by prejudice and discrimination. Black men are about six times more
likely than whites to be sent to prison and are likewise overrepresented among
released prisoners (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2004). Smne evidence suggests thatblacks may also pay a higher penalty for having a criminal record relative to other­wise similar whites (Pager 2007). Given these patterns, understanding the natureof criminal and racial stigma-and the combination of the t\vo-n;presents an
impOltant goal for research and policy.
We study the effects of race and a prison record on employment \'vith a large­
scale field experiment conducted in NevI York City. In this study, teams of black
and white men were matched and sent to apply for hundreds of low-wage jobs
throughout the city, presenting equivalent resumes and differing only in their raceand criminal background. These results build upon our earlier work (Pager 200:3),
pointing to a robust interaction between race and criminal background. Fmthermore,this research allows us to look \'vith more detail into the inteJTlersonal contact
between job seekers and employers for some insight into the process by which raceand criminal background translate into labor market disadvantages.
vVe find a significant negative effect of a criminal record on employment out­
comes, and one that appears substantially larger for African Americans. The
sequence of interactions preceding hiring decisions suggests that black applicants
are less often invited to interview, thereby providing fewer opportunities toestablish rapport with the employer. Furthermore, employers' general reluctanceto discuss the criminal record of an applicant appears especially harmful for black
ex-offenders. Overall, these results point to the importance of rapport-building
for flnding work, something that the stigmatizing characteristics of minority andcriminal status make more difficult to achieve.
T

Stignla, Rapport, and the Job- Matching Process
Little is known about the process by which employers select workers. Economic
models of employment often assume that the productivity of prospective workers
can be readily assessed, but in reality, employers often face acute information
Devah Pager is an associate professorofsociolol!!f and afaculty associate o[the Office ofPopulation
Research at Princeton University. Her resean't focuses on institutions affecting racial stratifica­tion, including education, labor markets, and the criminaljustice system. Her recent book, Marked:
Race, Crime, and Finding 'Nork in an Era of Mass Incarceration (University of Chicago 2007),
describes the results from a field experiment investigating the racial and economic consequences oflarge-scale imprisonment for contemporary U. S. lahor markets.
Bruce 'Vestern is a prr~fessor ofsociology and director of the Program in Tnequality and Social
Policy at Harvard Univer:sity. His research interests are in the areas ofsocial stratification andinequality, political sociology, and s'iatistical methods. His latest book, Punishment andInequality in America (Russell Sage Foundation 20(6), examines the causes, scope, and conse­
quences of the growth of the U. S. penal system.
Naomi Sugieis a phD student in sociology and social policy at Princeton Universitlj. BEifcJreheginning her graduate studies, she worked at the Vera Institute of Justice on child welfare,policing, and jail reentry issues. She is coauthor of a book profiling working rnothers lining in
New York City shelters and is currently investigating the economic consequences of incarcera­tion on families of (~ffenders.

Downloaded from hltp:!lann.sagepub.Gom at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on May 5. 2009

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

SEQUENCING DISADVANTAGE

197

shortages in evaluating new hires. Particularly in low-wage job markets, where
few concrete skills or expelience are required, employers typically rely on limited
information provided on a resume or gathered duling a cursory interview. Indeed,
many employers claim to base hiling decisions on a "gut feeling" about candidates(Moss and Tilly 2001, 209), the source of which remains largely unknown.
'iVhere employers are often looking for applicants with whom they feel an
intuitive rapport, applicants with stigmatizing characteristics (such as minority sta­tus or a climinal background) may face special barders to establishing such a rap­
port, even if possessing othervvise highly appealing characteristics. Indeed, a wealthof social psychological evidence indicates that negative stereotypes compromiseinteractions and undermine the ability of interaction partners to demonstrate traits
that are inconsistent with stereotypical eA1)(~ctations. Experimental evidence sug­gests that people ask fe'vver questions of stereotyped targets (Trope and Thomson
1997) and selectively notice and retain information consistent with the stereotypes
while ignOling information that is inconsistent 'with initial expectations (Fiske andNeuberg 1990). Although the effects of stereotypes have been shown to weaken as
personaliZing information becomes available (AllpOlt 1954; Anderson 1999; Fiske
and Neuberg 1990), perceivers are less likely to seek out or retain individuating
information when confronted with members of stigmatized social groups.
It is easy to imagine how this process might play out in employment settings. In
cases where employers are confronted with stereotyped applicants, they may be
more likely to make negative attributions about the individual \vithout probing
deeper into the speCific characteristics of the applicant in question. Employers may
be less likely to grant an interview to such applicants and, during the course of aninterview, may ask fewer questions or provide less opportunity for the applicant topresent his or her profile in the best light (e.g., vVord, Zanna, and Cooper 1974).
vVhile in some cases these dynamics may result from overt prejudice, they can alsocome from Simple discomfc)rt or more subtle, unconscious biases (Crocker, Major,
and Steele 1998).
Most of the research on stereotyping and social interaction focuses on racialdifferences. In contemporary low-wage urban labor markets, a criminal convic­
tion represents another source of disadvantage that may contribute to the dif­ferential treatment of young low-skill men. In f~lct, one might expect the effectof a criminal conviction to be more disqualif)ring for job applicants than racial
stigma because of its direct association with negative behaviors-like dishonesty,
violence, or unreliability-that suggest poor job performance on the job. On theother hand, criminal history is a legitimate topic of discussion in a job intelview,
with job applications comnlOnly asking about criminal backgrounds and employ­ers often discussing criminal convictions with job seel<ers. These opportunities
for candid discussion may provide chances to defuse the effect of a crirninal
background, a strategy less available in the case of racial stigma, where prevailingnorms discourage open conversations about race. Furthermore, relatively little is
known about how various stigmatizing characteristics may interact to produce
new forms of labor market disadvantage. How do employers' assumptions orconcerns about black applicants overlap with or intensify their concerns about
ex-offenders? In what ways do the barriers bcing one applicant type (e.g., a black
Downloaded from hHp:ffann.sagepub.Gorn at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on May 5,2009

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

198

THE ANNALS OF' THE AMElUCAN ACADEMY

applicant) contribute to the disadvantages experienced by those with additional
stigmatizing characteristics (e,g" a black ex-offEmder)?
These ideas were previously examined in Pager's (2003) audit study of entry­
level jobs in Milwaukee, Using an audit methodology, replicated in this article,
two-person teams of trained testers were assigned resumes with equivalent school­
ing and work histories. vVithin each team, one tester was randomly assigned acriminal record. The applicant pairs applied for enby-level jobs, measuring theextent to which race and a criminal background represented barriers to employ­ment. Milwaukee employers strongly disfavored job seekers with climinal records,
and the penalty of the climinal record was especially large for blacks, These results
suggested that minority status compounds the stigma of a criminal record, though
the mechanism through which this stigma is exerted remained unobserved.
We replicate the design of the Milwaukee study in New York City, and lookbeyond the general patterns of employment to investigate the sequence of events
that precede an ultimate hiring decision. In particular, we examine the patternsof interaction (quantity and kind) experienced by black and white job seekers andtheir relationship to ultimate hiring outcomes. By studying the hiring process
through this lens, we can better understand how rapport-building is facilitated orcompromised as a function of an applicant's race or criminal background.

Data and Methods
The New York City Hiring Discrimination Study sent matched teams of test­
ers to apply for 250 real ently-level jobs throughout New York City over ninemonths in 2004. The testers were well-spoken, clean-shaven young men, ages
twenty-tvvo to twenty-six. Most were college-educated, between .5 feet 10 inches
and 6 feet in height, and recruited in and around New York City. They werematched on the basis of their verbal skills, interactional styles (level of eye-contact,demeanor, and verbosity), and physical attractiveness. Testers were assigned
fictitious resumes indicating identical educational attainment and comparability
in quality of high school, work experience, and neighborhood of residence.
Resumes were prepared in different fonts and formats and randomly varied
across testers, with each resume used by testers from each race group. Testers
presented themselves as high school graduates with steady work experience inentry-level jobs. Finally, the testers passed through a common training program
to ensure uniform behavior in job intervievvs. 't\Thile in the field, they dressedsimilarly and communicated with teammates by cell phone to forewarn one
another of unusual interview situations.
To study employers' responses to applicants with criminal records, we fielded
two teams of testers. The first team paired two white applicants, one presenting
a criminal record and the other a clean record. The second teaH) paired two
similar black applicants. None of the testers had real criminal backgrounds, but
presented fictitious records to employers. Testers rotated which member of thepair presented criminal background information, which allowed for control of

Downloaded from hllp:/lann.sagepub.com at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on May 5, 2009

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

SEQUENCING DISADVANTAGE

199

within-pair differences that might affect hiring outcomes. The criminal record was
typically disclosed in answer to the standard question on job applications: "Haveyou ever been convicted of a crime? If yes, please explain." vVhen asked, testers
were instructed to reveal that they were recently released from prison after serv­
ing eighteen months for a drug felony (possession with intent to distributecocaine). Following Pager (2003), the tester's criminal record was also Signaled
on his resume by listing work experience at a state prison and by listing a parole
officer as a reference. 1
For both teams, employers 'vvere sampled from job listings for entry-level posi­tions, defined as jobs requiling no previous experience and no education greaterthan high school. Jobs included restaurant positions, retail sales, warehouse work,
couriers, telemarketers, customer service positions, clerical workers, stockers, mov­ers, delivery drivers, and a wide range of other low-wage positions. Job listings wererandomly drawn each week fi'om the classified sections of the New York Times,
Daily News, New York Post, Village Voice, and craigslist. The broad range of job
listings allows for extensive coverage of the entry-level labor market in New York.
From the available population of job listings, we took a simple random sample ofadvertisements each week. Testers in each team applied to each job \vithin atwenty-four-hour period, randomly varying the order of the applicants. Ourdependent vmiable recorded positive responses in which a tester was either offereda job or called back for a second interview. Callbacks were recorded by voice mailboxes set up for each tester. For more information about the research deSign andmethods, see Pager, \Vestern, and Bonikowski (2009).

Results
Two key findings emerge from the audit results. First, as in earlier research, acriminal record has a Significant negative impact on hiring outcmnes, even for
applicants with otherwise appealing characteristics. Across teams, a criminal
record reduces the likelihood of a callback or job offer by nearly 50 pcrcent (28vs. 1.5 percent). Second, the negative effect of a criminal conviction is substan­tially larger for blacks than for whites. As shown in Figure 1, the magnitude of
the criminal record penalty suffered by black applicants (60 percent) is roughly
double the size of the penalty for whites 'vvith a record (30 percent). This interac­tion bet\;veen race and criminal record is large and statistically signiflcant, whichindicates that the penalty of a criminal record is more disabling for black job
seekers than whites. The intensification of the criminal record efJect among
blacks is consistent with earlier audit research (Pager 20(7) and points to special
barriers hlcing blacks in the transition from prison to work. Employers, already
reluctant to hire blacks, appear particularly wary of blacks with known criminal
histories. In the remainder of this article, we examine the sequence of interac­tions that lead to this ultimate pattern of results. As job applicants pass from thepoint of application to an interview, and from an interview to an offer, we witness
some of the underlying dynamics that may shape employers' decision making andresult in the systematic disadvantage of blacks with criminal records.
Downloaded from Illlp:iiann.sagepub.com at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on May 5, 2009

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

200

THE ANNALS OF THE AMElUCAN ACADEMYFIGURE I
THE EFFECT OF HACE AND CHIMINAL BACKGROUNDON EMPLOYMENT OI)POHTUNITIES

[SJ

35
31
~

Non-offender

III Ex-offender

30

Q)

::::
0

.0
0

25

--------

J

.....
0

(f)

20

.::x.

u
C1:l
::9 15
"iii

()

C
10
Q)
u.....
Q)

0..

5
0
White

Black

The importance of personal contact
One of the ways that job applicants can build rapport with employers isthrough the interview process. Though typically brief for low-wage jobs, inter­views provide opportunities for applicants to demonstrate cormnunication skills
and commitment to work. For employers concerned about soft skills not reflected
on a resume, even a brief interaction can provide important information about
the capacity of an applicant. Especially in the case of stigmatized applicants, per­sonal contact may serve an important means of counteracting employers' initialstereotypes. As employers learn more about the person behind the category (e.g.,ex-offender, black man), their comfort level with the applicant in question is
likely to increase.
The evidence from our audit study indeed confirms that personal contact with
an employer has a substantial impact on hiring outcomes. Restricting our sample
to cases in which both team partners had the same level of contact with an
employer, we find that testers who interact with employers are between four andsix times more likely to receive a callback or job ofTer than those who do not; andpersonal contact reduces the eHect of a criminal record by roughly 15 percent(see the appendix).2 Personal contact thus seems to play an important role inmediating the effects of criminal stigma in the hiring process. At the same time,

Downloaded from Ill1p:/lann<sagepub<corn at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on May 5, 2009

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

SEQUENCING DISADVANTAGE

201

this pathway to rapport-building may not be equally available to all applicant
types. Although all testers in the study were instructed to request to speak to theperson in charge of hiring and to proceed as br as they could in the interview
process, some met with more success than others. In particular, race has a sig­
nificant effect on the likelihood of personal contact between applicant andemployer, with blacks roughly a third less likely to have the opportunity to inter­
act with employers (p < .001). Employers appear to be screening on the basis ofrace in deciding "vhom to allow to proceed from application to interview (seeFigure 2). By contrast, the effect of a criminal record has no discernable impact
on the likelihood of interaction. Given that a criminal record is t)'1)ically unob­
served until an employer has spoken with the candidate ancVor reviewed hismaterials, it is not surprising that this is typically not the basis of an employer's
decision to interview.

Perso'nal contact ... seen1.~ to play
an important role in Inediating the effectsof crirninal stignw in the hirirLg process.
At the same time, this pathtvay to rapport­
building may not be equally available
to all applicant types.

The barriers that emerge in this very early stage of hiring are likely consequen­
tial for the disparities observed. With fe\ver opportunities for f~lCe-to-face contact
with employers, black applicants are limited in their ability to demonstrate spe­cific skills and attributes. Particularly in the case of black ex-offenders, for whom
employers' concerns are likely particularly strong, limits on interaction reduce
opportunities to contextualize a conviction or to demonstrate evidence of suc­cessful rehabilitation.

Quality of the interaction
Being granted an interview, or even a conversation, with the person in chargeof hiring provides an important opportunity for establishing rapport. But thenature of that rapport also hinges upon what takes place during the interaction.
Particularly for applicants \vith criminal records, the interview provides a key
opportunity to assuage employers' concerns. In this respect, our testers had

Downloaded from hllp:iiann.sagepub.com at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on May 5, 2009

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

202

THE ANNALS OF THE AMEHICAN ACADEMYFIGURE 2
THE LIKELIHOOD OF PERSONAL CONTACT WITH EIVIPLOYER,BY RACE AND CRIMINAL BACKGROUND

1£1 Non-offender70.,....----------------------1~ 60+------:

1£1 Ex-offender

60

59

o

0..

J] 50+---

43£.§ 40+--­OJ
C~ 30+---­.$
C

20+---­

Q)

10+---­

C
Q)
2
0...

0+---

White

Black

mixed experiences. The testers had a set script that they were instructed to con­vey to employers about their prior drug conviction and their commitment torehabilitation. In some cases, employers were extrernely receptive to discussingthese issues, while in others, employers seemed uncomfOltable or unwilling tobroach the subject. In one interaction, for example, an employer inquired about
the most recent job listed on Kevin's resume, which was at a correctional facility.
Kevin reports,
I thought she was asking me what I did to get in there. I said, "It \vas for drug posses­
sion," She said, "No, not that. That's none of my business,"

The employer then quickly moved on to discuss Kevin's previous work experi­ence. It is unclear fi'om this interaction what lingering doubts the employer may
have had about Kevin's criminal background, but Kevin did not have the chance
to explain further.
In another case, Anthony, an African American tester, reports,
As she looked over [my resume] I could barely hear her say, "Oh, I see," I don't know what
it was in response to, but it was pretty quick so I \vould guess it was my conviction . . . .
She then just looked up at me and said, 'Til give you a call." It seemed like she ended
it a bit abruptly

Downloaded from Ilttp:flann.sageplIb.com at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on May 5, 2009

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

SEQUENCING DlSADVANTAGE

Some employers seemed uncertain about what was legally or socially appropriate
to ask about prior convictions, and others seemed simply uncomfcntable with the
topic or considered it outside of the realm of employment-related concerns. In
these cases, it is diHlcult to interpret the employers' response to the criminal
background, and the applicant typically had less opportunity to account for the
stigmatizing record or address employers' underlying concerns.
In other cases, employers' concerns about the criminal record are more trans­parent. "Vorries about legal liability, for example, came up in this interview \vith
Chad, an African American tester:
When I finished the application I was interviewed by . . . a large white man with athick mustache. He shook my hand, invited me to have a seat, and began to look over
my resume. He said, "First: I need you to explain this . . . correcti~nal facility andparole offlcer reference." I told him that I was convicted of a drug charge-possession
with intent to sell. "I can't hire you," he said. He went on to explain that a lot of things
can happen and the liability is too great. He said, "Let's say you got into a fight with a
guy and you 'vvere in the right. The police come and run your background, yes, now
you're in the wrong, even though you may have been right. It wouldn't be good for you
and it wouldn't be good for us. I couldn't hire you."Sometimes, employers' negative reactions are less explicit, but their concern overthe prospect of hiring an ex-offender is clear nevertheless. For example, Kevin, awhite tester, reports his experience at a specialty foods store:
I noticed a sibfIl on the door which read, "Help wanted, pmi-time, sorne experience."
A few minutes later a man came out. ... He told me that he had a great part-time position[and] there could be smne full-time positions opening [in] a while. He pointed at my...
application ... and said, "vVhy did you write parole?" 1 said that I was currently on parole.
[He] then looked me in the eye and said, "Did you cOllnnit a crirne?" 1 said yes. He thenlooked down at the sheet and said that he really wasn't hiring right now.

Kevin's conviction record seemed to catch the employer by surprise. "Vithin sec­
onds, the many signals pointing to a job opportunity (help-wanted sign, "greatpart-time positions," etc.) disappeared, as the employer decided he was no longer
hiring, or at least not hiring Kevin.
Despite these unpleasant experiences, not all employers reacted negatively
upon noticing a criminal record. In fact, on a number of occasions, testers
encountered extremely sympathetic employers. For example, Kevin records his
experience in applying for a job at a car dealership:
He saw the correctional facility [on my resume] and said, "We're an Equal Opportunity
Employer. We don't care about this. About 7.5 percent of the people in this businesshave a record anyway."

Kevin describes the end of the interview:
He said he was going to call me. Then he said, "1 know what you are thinking. Thisasshole is never going to call me. 1 will call you. Not because you have good sales
experience but just because you need a chance."

Downloaded from Ilttp:{!ann,sagepub.com at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on May 5,2009

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

204

THE ANNALS OF THE AMEIUCAN ACADEMYThis employer appears sympathetic to the plight of an ex-offender looking forwork. In fact, the employer seems willing to privilege the desire to give Kevin asecond chance over his need for workers with relevant experience. This employer
called Kevin about the job two days later.

For ernployers 'who have mnbivalent feelings
about hiring ex-(~ffenders, or who haveanxieties about particular kinds of ex-offenders,interaction toUh the candidate allotos theernployer to interrogate these concerns directly.

To be sure, many of the sympathetic responses received by testers in thecliminal record condition simply reflect the preexisting attitudes of employers,
independent of the interaction. Employers who feel sympathetic toward ex­
offenders are likely to express such sympathies in conversations with ex-offenderapplicants. But above and beyond employers' predispositions, we obselve someevidence that the interaction itself can work to clarify and shape the enlployers'interpretation of the criminal record. For employers who have ambivalent feel­ings about hiring ex-offenders, or who have anxieties about particular kinds of
ex-offenders, interaction with the candidate allows the employer to interrogate
these concerns directly. In one case, for example, Keith, a white tester, has anextended conversation \\lith the manager at a furniture rental store:
After flnishing the application I brought it back to [the employer], along with myresume. He invited me to take off my backpack and have a seat. He began looking over
the res./app. and his first question was, "Were you selling or using'?" I told him, "Using.
It was a minor thing. A stupid mistake and I'm now clean." He was sympathetic saying,"I gotcha. It was a question, not a criticism." [The employer then asked him a few ques­
tions about his driver's license and driving history.] He invited me to sit with him out atthe door while he smoked. When we got there he informally sat me down and lit up. He
turned to me and said, "So why should I hire you instead of one of the forty-seven otherguys I got coming to me'?" I told him, ''I'll work hard for you, bust my ass. It's a conditionof my parole that I work" He said, "But do you want to ,vork'?" I answered, "Yeah, I'mlooking to get back into society . . ." He interrupted, "You want to get your shit
together." "Yeah," I said. . . . The conversation ended with him saying, "My inclination
is to say yes" (regarding hiring me). He added, "My bosses, the owners, are a little moreclose-minded than me. . . . Look, you paid, you don't have to pay for it the rest of yourfucking life. People make mistakes. I'll get you my card."

Downloaded from I1ttp:iiann.sagepub.com at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on May 5, 2009

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

SEQUENCING DISADVANTAGE

205

This employer expresses some open-mindedness about Keith's criminal back­ground from the stmt ("It was a question, not a criticism") but also wants evi­
dence that taking a chance on Keith would be warranted anlid the large pool ofcandidates. The conversation seems to provide important reassurances to theemployer, who ends the interview with an encouraging note.
In another case, Anthony, an African American tester, discusses his criminal
background with the manager of a health care company:[The employer] said, ''I'm sure people must take double-takes [when they see the cor­
rectional faCility]." I replied, "Yeah, that does happen sometimes." He told me that heknows the law, says I have to provide that infimnation to a possible employer, but not toworry because he has had other employees who have "flIcked up in the past." He said,"I feel safer knowing you're telling me up front than me having to wonder if you're
gomut corne here and tear shit up. Let's face it, interviews are bullshit. You can't know
someone from a five-minute interview. So let's cut to the chase.""How long were you in?" (Eighteen rnonths)"\Vhen'd you get out?" (A few weeks ago)
"Ok, so you're fresh out and trying to get back on track?" (Yes, I am)"vVhat'd you do?" (I had a srnall amount of drugs on Ine)"So you were guilty?" (Yes, I was young and made some mistakes but I learned hornthem and arn completely drug-free)[Jokingly] "So you weren't innocent?" (No, it was my fault.)"Don't worry, I find that those that messed up and want to set things right are better
workers."

In this interaction the employer does acknowledge certain concerns about hiring
someone with a record but seems to respond favorably to Anthony's honesty and,after learning more of the details of Anthony's background, offers him an encour­aging response.
Thus, while a criminal record has a signifIcant negative impact on employment
prospects of job seekers, some employers are willing to look beyond the convic­
tion, or to downplay its significance in the context of other information acquired
during the intervie\v. In these cases, a kind of empathy seems to develop between
employer and job seeker, with goodwill often translating into a substantial
improvement in employment prospects. Of course, the types of individualizing
information employers look to are not always in the applicants' control. Race andethnicity, in palticular, appear to affect some employers' interpretations of theseriousness of the criminal background and the depth of empathy generated by
the interaction. For example, Keith, a \vhite tester, reports on his interaction withthe manager of a restaurant supply company:[The employer] sat me down and went over my application and resume. He first saw[the correctional facility] and asked abollt my working there. I told him that I had been
incarcerated. In a lower voice he said, "vVh~t did YO~I do?" I told him about my beingcaught with cocaine, my time selved, my current sobriety, which Iny parole officer could
verify, the fact that it \vas a mistake and I had learned my lesson. At this point he said,"Zar~iello . . . what is that, Italian'?" I said, "Yes," and :~ould immediately tell he was

Downloaded from I1ttp:/!ann.sagepub.com at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on May 5, 2009

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

206

THE ANNALS OF TIlE AM ElUCAN ACADEMY

nov,,' on my side. He asked more questions like, "vVhat happened exactly?" I told him I
was in a car with some ex-friends that was pulled over and we were all searched and theyfound six grams in my possession. He asked, "You come from a nice Italian family? Wh<~tdo your parents think about this'?" I told him they were disappointed but thought I had
learned my lesson. He told me that "people make mistakes." He went on to say, "Itwould make me feel good to help a guy like you, more than just the rewards of doing myjob, but good as a person if I can help someone."

This employer's emphasis on the value of second chances and the desire to help
a young ex-offender get back on his feet are similar to sympathetic reactions weheard from other employers in interactions with both black and white testers.
Here, though, we see the employer explicitly invoke Keith's ethnic backgroundas the basis for solidarity and as a key turning point in the employer's reaction to
the crirninal background information, as Keith moves from being viewed as an
ex-offender to someone from a "nice Italian family."
In a similar case, Kevin applied for a job with a staffing agency and was asked
a number of detailed questions about his criminal history. Toward the end of theintervie\v, Kevin reports,[The employer] said, "Do you have Irish in you?" I said, "On my mother's side I do." Heasked what else I have. I said, "French." He was delighted! He said he has Irish andFrench in him, too. He said we could be related because we are both from FrIreland[France and Ireland]. I said ,ves andlaughcd
with him.
c

Kevin concluded his report by offering his impression of the interaction: "Hereally wanted to help me out and seemed to be going to great lengths to find mea job.". Once again, the ethnic solidarity expressed in this interaction appears to help
establish a positive rapport between candidate and employer. Conversations with
employers thus simultaneously offer the opportunity to present personalizing
information about the applicant's work ethic and commitment to rehabilitation
but may also generate new bases for categorical distinctions.
Employers thus appear to offer a range of reactions to ex-offender applicants,
varying in terms of employers' comfort level in discussing criminal backgrounds
and their evaluative assessments of this information. To examine employers'
responses more systematically, we coded tester interactions with employers
according to the nature of their response to the criminal record information, basedon narrative data provided by the testers. Focusing on testers with criminal
records who had personal contact with employers (roughly .50 percent of all tests),
we code responses as "ambiguous or no response," "negative response," and "synl­
pathetiC response."
Looking to the results in Figure 3, we see that overall employers are most
likely to avoid talking about the conviction altogether. Between two-thirds andthree-quarters of employers either avoided the subject of the criminal record
altogether or gave little indication of how they viewed the information. By con­trast, less than 10 percent of employers made expliCitly negative comrnents.

Downloaded from 11ltp://ann.sagepllb.com at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on May 5.2009

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

207

SEQUENCING DISADVANTAGE

FIGURE 3
EMPLOYEH HEACTION TO CIUMINAL HECOHD, BY HACE OF APPLICANT

70
63
60
50
+-'

c

40

<l)

c..>
....

<l)

0..

30
20
10
3
0
Ambiguous or no response

Negative response

Sympathetic response

Although the hi ling outcomes from the audit study indicate a large negative
impact of a criminal record on employers' evaluations, we see little of thisreflected in their explicit comments to job applicants. If expressing a clear
valence, employers are more likely to offer sympathetic reactions, \vith roughly
35 percent of employers coded as sympathetic toward the ex-offender applicant.'3
vVe see some evidence that blacks are more likely to receive a negative response(6 vs. .3 percent) and less likely to receive a sympathetic response (30 vs. 36 per­cent), though these differences are not statistically significant. Overall, theseresults point to a reluctance among employers to address the criminal record
issue head-on, or to reveal their reaction to the record to the applicant in ques­tion. Our final question, then, considers the extent to which these differential
responses in interaction correspond to differences in hiring outcomes.

Relationship between type of interaction and employment outcomes
The nature of interaction between employer and applicant is Significant pri­marily to the extent that it proves consequential for hiring. Matching interaction
experiences with employment outcomes provides some leverage on the pathways
through which ex-oHEmders find opportunity. Figure 4 presents the percentage

Downloaded from I1l1p:ile"n.sagepub.com at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on May 5,2009

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

208

THE ANNALS OF THE AMEHlCAN ACADEMYFIGUHE 4
THE LIKELIHOOD OF A CALLBACK OR JOB OFFEn,
BY RACE AND INTERACTION TYPE

45
[B] White ill Black

40 + - - " - - - - - - - - - - ' - - - - - - - - - - - - (J)

05 35

8

-g30+----=~------------------

J

....
o

(J)

.::t:-

o
Cll
:f1

20

Cil

~c 15
Q)

2Q) 100..

ooAmbiguous or no response0

Negative response

Sympathetic responseof applicants with criminal records who received a callback or job ofter, by raceof the applicant and type of employer response. Not surprisingly, employmentoutcomes are most favorable among those who received a sympathetic response
from employers. These employers are not simply paying lip service to the valueof second chances but demonstrate an actual willingness to hire ex-offenders.
Among those who receive sympathetic responses from employers, whites are
more likely to receive an actual callback or job offer (42 vs. :32 percent), although
this ditf(~rence is not statistically signiHcant.
Showing even more consistency between interactions and outcomes, employ­ers who express negative reactions to applicants with criminal records in no cases
made offers or callbacks to these applicants. The group with less consistent
results includes employers who offer no reaction or ambiguous reactions to thecriminal background. Among these employers, we see a large racial difference inoutcomes, with white applicants roughly three times more likely to receive acallback or job offer relative to blacks who have similar encounters (29 vs. 8 per­cent). Relative to those who receive a sympathetic response, the penalty associ­ated with limited or no discussion about the criminal record is roughly 30 percent

Downloaded from hltp:llann.sa,Jepub.com at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on May 5, 2009

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

209

SEQUENCING DISADVANTAGE

for whites; for blacks, this limited interaction appears far more consequential,
resulting in 75 percent fewer callbacks or job offers relative to those who received
a sympathetic reaction. Though we cannot directly interpret ernployers' underly­
ing reactions, this evidence is consistent with the role of stereotypes inhibiting
the acquisition and impact of personalizing information. If employers who areconcerned about the record among black applicants choose to remain silent
about the issue, the applicant then has little opportunity to anticipate or address
the employer's concerns. Where for white ex-offenders this reduced communica­tion does not appear overly consequential, black ex-offenders seem to hlce sub­stantially lower employment prospects as a result.

Conclusion
The results of this study show a strong reluctance among employers to hireapplicants with criminal records, especially when considering black ex-oH(~nders.
Despite the many appealing personal characteristics of our testers, employers
often appear to base their decisions on the more salient markers of race andcriminal background. vVhat is perhaps more notevvorthy in these data relates tothe cases in which testers with criminal backgrounds are given a chance at employ­ment. Employment prospects improve significantly for applicants who have achance to interact with the hiring manager, and more so among those \:vho elicit
sympathetiC responses in the course of those interactions. Surely, some of thisvariation is attributable to preexisting characteristics and preferences of theemployers, vvith little or no effect of personal contact. Employers who are eager
to hire will be more likely to meet 'vvith applicants on the spot, and those who aresympathetic toward ex-ofTenders will be more likely to express such sentiments inthe course of interaction. Still, we suspect that the interaction itself plays a non­triv·ial role in this hiring process. Employers have many reasons to be concerned
about applicants with prior histories of incarceration. Concerns about theft, vio­
lence, and drug use are all relevant, not to mention the more mundane concerns
over worker reliability and performance. Personal contact 'vvith an applicant can­not reveal all of these issues but can help to provide some Signals as to the dispOSi­tion of the applicant and can help the employer develop a "gut feeling" about
whether this individual is likely to diverge from the stereotype of the eX-COIl.
Unfortunately, the ability to have such a hearing does not appear available to
all applicants. Blacks are significantly less likely to be invited to interview by
employers, offering them fewer opportunities to present indicators at odds with
their stigmatized group membership. Furthermore, although the distribution ofreactions from employers is roughly similar among black and white applicantswith criminal backgrounds, actual employment outcomes differ for those whohave little opportunity to discuss their criminal record: among whites, these lim­
ited interactions are not overly consequential; whereas for blacks, job opportuni­
ties appear substantially reduced.

Downloaded from htlp:il£mn.sagepub.com at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on May 5,2009

210

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

These findings must be contextualized in light of the sampling design of thestudy, which focused exclusively on jobs obtained through formal classified list­
ings. Given that many job seekers flnd employment through social networks andother informal channels, our analysis may understate opportunities for personal
contact made possible through mediated contacts. However, evidence on social
networks in employment suggests racialized consequences of these pathways as
well, with blacks less likely to obtain quality leads to employment from their net­
works relative to similarly situated whites (d. Royster 2003). Racial disparities inaccess to social networks have also been shown in the case of ex-offenders(Sullivan 1989). These informal methods of job search behavior, therefore, Inay
result in greater evidence of racial disparities in employment follOWing incar­
ceration than what is reported here.
Overall, these findings point to the importance of rapport-building in theemployment process, particularly for applicants with stigmatizing characteristics.
In light of these findings, policy intervention should aim to defuse stigma andprovide employers with more information about their prospective workers.
Initiatives that facilitate the matching of workers with employers in ways that
help to overcome these initial barriers may have a substantial impact. Job referral
services that act as labor market intermediaries who vouch for job applicants
represent one important policy approach to bridging this divide. Certificates ofrehabilitation and public education campaigns might also weaken the effects ofstereotyping.
As incarceration rates have increased over the past few decades, ofTicial crim­
inality compounds the stigma of race and deepens the economic disadvantage ofyoung African American men. Instead of merely adding to the deficits oflow-skill
black men, a criminal record modifies the efIect of racial discrimination, whichraises the bar to employment higher for blacks than similarly situated whites. In
this context, \ve can understand the growth of incarceration rates, and the racialdisparities that characterize them, as prodUCing a new form of institutional rac­
ism with wide-reaching economic effects.

Downloaded from hltp:!/ann.sagepub.com at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on May 5, 2009

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

o

~
g-

o.
~

APPENDIX

a3

THE EFFECT OF PERSONAL CONTACT ON THE LIKELIHOOD OF A CALLBACK/JOB OFFER
AND THE MAGNITUDE OF CRIMINAL STIGMA

~
~

'"'"

ta

No Interaction with Employer

ru

:;:

Both Testers Interacted with Employer

a­(:.
o

No Record(NR)

Criminal
Record (CR)

Ratio 1
(NRlCR)nNR

CR(NRlCR)n

Percentage
Changein CR Effect

8.82
10.00

.5.88
2.82

1..50
3.5.5

34
70

44.44
41.86

35.19
13.95

1.26
3.00

54
4.3

-0.16
-0.15

3

2!.

"z

; )J
(")

m

.....

Ratio 2

o

z

White
Black

c

z

<:

r

iii

;)J

»

NOTE: First two columns of each section represent rates of positive response (callback/job offer) for testers by race and criminal status.
Percentage change in the effect of a criminal record (final column) is calculated as: (ratio 1 - ratio 2)lratio 1.

;)J

-<

g
s:

'"
-'"

'<

'"oo
<0

to
f-'
f-'

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

212

THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

Notes
1. Results fj'om Pager (2003) suggest that providing information about a criminal record to employers
who do not request the information does little to affect hiring decisions. Those employers who request the
information are those most likely to use it.
2. \Ve restrict our sample here to cases in which both testers on a team received the same level of
personal contact to better control for compositional differences behveen those employers more or lesslikely to interview candidates on the spot. By compming the effect of a criminal record within teams where
either both or neither tester interacts with the employer, we can better understand the ways in which
personal contact rnay mediate the effects of stigma. This sample restriction has little effect on the substan­tive conclusions of the analysis.
3. This proportion corresponds closely vvith the :3:3 percent of urban employers surveyed by Holzer(1996, ,'59) who report that they would "probably accept" or "definitely accept" an applicant with a criminal
background.

References
Allport, Gordon. W.'54. The nature of pn~jlt(lice. New York: Doubleday Anchor.
Anderson, Elijah. 1999. Code of the streets: Decency, violence, and the moral life of the inner city. New
York: Norton.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2002. Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. By Patrick Langan and David
Levin. \Vashington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
- - - . 2004. Reentry trends in the u.s. 'Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/reentIy/reentry_contents.htm#contents.
Crocker, Jennifer, Brenda Major, and Claude Steele. 1998. Social stigma. In The hand/wok of social psy­
clwlogy, ed. D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, and G. Lindzey, .504-53. Boston: McGraw-Hili.
Fiske, Susan, and S. L. Neuberg. 1990. A continuum model of impression formation: from category-based
to indi\iduating processes: Influence of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. Tn
Advances in experimental psychology, ed. M. P. Zanna, 1-74. New York: Academic Press.
Holzer, Harry. 1996. What ernployers want: Job prospects for less educated workers. New York: Bussell
Sage Foundation.
Lopoo, Leonard M., and Bruce \Vestern. 200.'5. Incarceration and the formation and stability of marital
unions. Journal of lv[arriage and Family 67:721-34.
lvloss, Philip, and ChriS TIlly. 2001. Stories employers tell: Bace, skill. and hiring in America. New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.
Pager, Devah. 200:3. The mark of a c:riminal record. American .Journal of SOciology 108:937-75.
2007. Marked: Race, crime, and finding work in an era ofrnass incarceration. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.
Pager, Devah, Bruce \Vestern, and Bart Bonikowski. 2008. Race ai work: Results from a field experimentof discrimination in low wage labor markets. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Pctersilia, Joan. 2003. 'When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Hoyster, Deirdre. 2()(X3. Bace and the invisible hancl: How white networks exclude black men .limn blue­
collarjobs. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Sampson, Robert J., and John H. Laub. 199,3. Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points throughlife. Camblidge, MA: IIaIvard University Press.
Sullivan, Mereer L. 1989. "Getting paid": Youth crinw and lVork in the inner city. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
Travis, Jeremy. 200.'5. But they all come black: Facing ihe challenges of prisoner reentnj. \Vashington, DC:
Urban Institute Press.

Downloaded from http://ann.sagepub.com al PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on May 5, 2009

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

SEQUENCING DISADVANTAGE

2l:3

Trope, Yaacov, and Erik P. Thomson. 1997. Looking for truth in all the wrong places? Asymmetric searchof individuating information about stereotyped group members. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 7,3:229-41.
Uggen, Christopher. 2000, Work as a turning point in the life course of criminals: A duration model of age,
employment, and recidivism. American Sociological Review 65:529-46.
Word, Carl 0., Mark P. Zanna, and Joel Cooper. 1974. The nonverbal mediation of self-fulfilling prophecies
in interracial interactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 10:109-20.

Downloaded from htlp:fiann.sagepub.com at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on May 5, 2009

Discrimination in a Low-Wage Labor
Market: A Field Experiment
Devah Pager
Princeton University

Bruce Western
Harvard University

Bart Bonikowski
Princeton University

Decades ofracial progress have led some researchers and policymakers to doubt that
discrimination remains an important cause ofeconomic inequality. To study
contemporary discrimination, we conducted a field experiment in the low-wage labormarket ofNew York City, recruiting rvhite, black, and Latino job applicants who werematched on demographic characteristics and intefpersonal skills. These applicants were
given equivalent resume.I' and sent to apply in tandem for hundreds ofentry-level jobs.
Our results show that black applicants were halfas likely as equally qual(fied whites toreceive a callback orjob offer. In fact, black and Latino applicants with clean
backgrounds fared no better than white applicantsjust releasedfrom prison. Additional
qualitative evidencefrom our applicants' experiencesfurther illustrates the multiple
points at which employment trajectories can he deflected by various{rJrnlS ofracial bias.
These results point to the subtle yet systematic forms ofdiscrimination that continue toshape employment opportunities for low-wage workers.

espite legal bans on discrimination and theliberalization of racial attitudes since the1960s, racialdifferences in employment remainamong the most enduring forms of economic
inequality. Even in the tight labor market of thelate 1990s, unemployment rates for black men
remained twice that for whites. Racial inequal-D

Direct all correspondence to Devah Pager,
Department of Sociology, Princeton University,
Princeton, NJ 08544 (pager@princeton.edu). This
research has been supported by grants from the
National Science Foundation, the National Instituteof Justice, the JEHT Foundati~ the Princeton
ResearC11Institute on the Region, and the Industrial
Relations Section of Princeton University. The firstauthor acknowledges generous support from NSF
CAREER, NIH KO I, and a w.T. Grant Scholars
Award. We also gratefully acknowledge the supportof the New York City Commission on Human Rights,
and Commissioner Patricia Gatling. Thanks to Glenn
Martin, Don Green, and the many workshop partic­
ipants who provided generous feedback on earlier
drafts of this article.

ity in total joblessness----including those who
exited the labor market-increased among
young men during this period (Holzer andOffner 2001). Against this backdrop of persist­ent racial inequality, the question of employment
discrimination has generated renewed interest.
Although there is much research on racial dis­parities in employment, the contemporary rel­evance of discrimination remains widely
contested.
One line of research points to the persist­ence of prejudice and discrimination as a criti­
cal factor shaping contemporary racialdisparities (Darity and Mason 1998; Roscigno
et a1. 2007). A series of studies relying on sur­veys and in-depth interviews finds that firms are
reluctant to hire young minority men---espe­
cially blacks-because they are seen as unreli­able, dishonest, or lacking in social or cognitive
skills (Holzer 1996; Kirschenman andN eckerman 1991; Moss and Tilly 200 I;
Waldinger and Lichter 2003; Wilson 1996: chap.
5). The strong negative attitudes expressed by
employers suggest that race remains highly

AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW, 2009, VOL. 74 (October:777-799)

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

778

AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

salient in employers' evaluations of workers.
At the same time, research relying on inter­views with employers leaves uncertain the
degree to which self-reported attitudes are influ­
ential in actual hiring decisions (Pager andQuillian 2005). Indeed, Moss and Tilly(2001: 151) report the puzzling finding that"businesses where a plurality ofmanagers com­plained about black motivation are more likely
to hire black men." In fact, across a series ofanalyses controlling for firm size, starting wage,
the percent black in the relevant portion of themetropolitan area, and a business's average dis­
tance from black residents in the area, Moss andTilly find that employers who overtly criticize
the hard skills or interaction skills of black
workers are between two and four times more
likely to hire a black worker (pp.lS1-52). Hiring
decisions, of course, are influenced by a com­plex range off~lctors, racial attitudes being only
one. Employers' stated preferences do not pro­vide a clear picture of the degree to which neg­
ative attitudes about blacks translate into active
forms of discrimination.
Research focusing on wages rather thanemployment offers even less evidence of con­temporary discrimination. Neal and Johnson(1996), for example, estimate wage differences
between white, black, and Latino young men.
They find that two thirds of the black-white
gap in wages in 1990 to 1991 can be explainedby race differences in cognitive test scores meas­
ured 11 years earlier, and test scores fully
explain wage differences between whites andLatinos. This and similar studies trace theemployment problems of young minority men
primarily to skill or other individual deficien­
cies, rather than any direct effect of discrimi­
nation (Farkas and Vicknair 1996; Neal andJohnson 1996; O'Neill 1990). Heckman(1998: 101-102) puts the point most clearly,
writing that "most of the disparity in earnings
between blacks and whites in the labor marketof the 1990s is due to differences in skills theybring to the market, and not to discrimination
within the labor market." He goes on to describe
labor market discrimination as "the problem ofan earlier era."
Does employer discrimination continue toaffect labor market outcomes for minority work­ers? Clear answers are elusive because dis­
crimination is hard to measure. Withoutobserving actual hiring decisions, it is difficult

to assess exactly how and under what conditions
race shapes employer behavior. We address thisissue with a field experiment that allows direct
observation of employer decision making. By
presenting equally qualified applicants who dif­
fer only by race or ethnicity, we can observe thedegree to which racial considerations affect realhiring decisions. Furthermore, we move beyond
experimental estimates of discrimination to
explore the processes by which discrimination
occurs. Examining the interactions between job
seekers and employers, we gain new insights
into how race influences employers' percep­
tions of job candidate quality and desirability.
Studying the multifaceted character of dis­
crimination highlights the range ofdecisions thatcollectively reduce opportunities for minority
candidates.

CONCEPTUALIZINGDISCRIMINATION
Empirical studies often portray discrimination
as a single decision. Research on employment
disparities, for example, considers the role ofdiscrimination at the point of initial hire;
research on pay disparities considers discrimi­
nation at the point of wage-setting decisions. In
reality, discrimination may occur at multiple
decision points across the employment rela­tionship. In this way, even relatively small
episodes of discrimination--whcn experienced
at multiple intervals or across multiple con­texts--can have substantial effects on aggregate
outcomes.
Depictions of discriminators also often por­tray the labor market as divided neatly between
employers with a "taste for discrimination" andthose who are indifferent to race (Becker 1957).
Consequently, it is suggested, job seekers can
avoid discrimination by sorting themselves into
sectors of the labor market where discriminationis less likely to occur (Heckman 1998: 103).
Fryer and Levitt (2003 :5) characterize employ­ers according to a similar dichotomy, with appli­
cants best advised to identify and avoid
employers prone to discrimination, rather than
wasting time pursuing job opportunities amongfirms unwilling to hire them: "In the face of dis­
criminatory employers, it is actually in the inter­est of both employee and employers for Blacks
to signal race, either via a name or other resume
information, rather than undertaking a costlyThis document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

DISCRIMINATION IN A LOW-WAGE LABOR MARKET

interview with little hope of receiving a job
offer." According to this conceptualization oflabor market discrimination, racial preferences
or biases are fixed and concentrated among a
specific subset of employers.
Other evidence challenges this tidy distinc­tion between employers who do and do not dis­
criminate. Alternative formulations of labormarket discrimination encourage us to view theprocess as more interactive, contextual, andwidespread. Theories of both statistical dis­
crimination and stereotypes view race as aheuristic employers use to evaluate job appli­
cants about whom little is known. Here, group­
based generalizations provide guidance about
the expected profile of individuals fl'om a given
group and facilitate decision making when infor­
mation or time are scarce (Aigner and Cain
1977; fiske 1998). Heuristics of this kind arepervasive (and often unconscious). Their effects
may vary depending on the availability of andattention to person-specific information (suchas that conveyed through application materials
or in an interview) that may interact with andpotentially override initial expectations.
A long line of social psychological research
investigates how stereotypes give way to indi­vidualizing information, as well as the condi­
tions under which stereotypes demonstrate a
stubborn resistance to change (Bodenhausen
1988; fiske 1998; Trope and Thomson 1997).1
This research suggests that salient personaliz­ing information can quickly counteract stereo­
typed expectations; however, in evaluating
difficult-to-observe or ambiguously relevantcharacteristics, or when decision makers havecompeting demands on their attention, stereo­
types often filter information in ways that pre­serve expectations (Darley and Gross 1983;
Dovidio and Gaertner 2000; Gilbert and Hixon
1991). In these cases of decision making under
uncertainty, racial preferences or biases areunlikely to be expressed in any static or uniform
way, but will vary in intensity and consequence
depending on other characteristics of the appli­cant, the employer, and the interaction between
the two.

I Theories of statistical discrimination also predict
employer responsiveness to individual characteristics(e.g., Altonji and Pierret 2001; Oettinger 1996; cf.
Pager and Karafin 2009).

779

In addition to noting the varying role of race
across employment interactions, some researchshifts the focus from employer characteristics tothe characteristics of the job for which a given
worker is being considered. Previous research
points to the negative consequences of thechanging composition of low-wage jobs forblack men, with the shift from manufacturing
to services skewing the distribution of skill
demands toward "soft skills," for which black
men are considered lacking (Moss and Tilly
2001). Jobs involving customer service or con­tact with clients heighten the salience of race
because ofemployers' concerns about the dressand demeanor of young black men (Moss andTilly 2001). Jobs at the "back of the house" orthose emphasizing manual skills are less like­ly to activate concerns of this kind. In this sce­nario, discrimination may obtain not at theemployer level but at the job level, with black
applicants excluded from some job types andchanneled into others. In this case, we would
look to variation in discrimination not among
employers but among the job openings for which
workers are being considered.
Rather than viewing discrimination as a sin­gle decision, or as the result ofa small group of
highly prejudiced employers, a growing body ofresearch points to the variable contexts thatshape how information about applicants may befiltered and interpreted along racial lines.
Decision making under uncertainty and therace-typing of jobs both make discrimination
more likely. To capture the contingent and cumu­
lative effects of discrimination implied by these
theories requires an examination of how expe­
riences of discrimination may be distributed
across a wide range ofdecision points and mayvary depending on interactions among theemployer, the applicant, and the job in question.

THE CHANGING LANDSCAPE OF
LOW-WAGE LABOR MARKETS
Economic theory predicts the decline of dis­
crimination through market competition (Becker1957), but several features of contemporary
low-wage labor markets may sustain or renew
racialized decision making. Shifts in the com­position of both low-wage jobs and workers
have potentially created new incentives andopportunities for employers to enact racial pref­
Cl'ences in hiring. first, low-wage job growth isThis document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

780

AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

concentrated in service industries, in positions
that place a heavy emphasis on self-presentation,interaction with customers, and other person­
ality-related attributes (Moss and Tilly 2001). As
discussed earlier, employers consistently express
concerns over the "soft skills" of black men,
implying a potential skills mismatch between theskill requirements of new job growth and theperceived skill profile of black male job seek­
ers. Furthermore, because many of the qualities
valued by employers for contemporary low­
wage jobs are difficult to evaluate from a writ­
ten application or brief meeting, generalized
negative perceptions of minority workers may
be more difficult for individual minority appli­
cants to disconfirm (Biernat and Kobrynowicz
1997).
Second, low-wage labor markets today arecharacterized by increasing heterogeneity of
the urban minority work force, with low-skill
black workers now more likely to compete withother minority groups-in particular, low-skill
Latino workers. Interviews with employers in
Los Angeles and Chicago suggest consistentpreferences for Latinos over blacks, with Latino
workers viewed as more pliant, reliable, andhard-working (Kirschenman and Neckerman
1991; Waldinger and Lichter 2003). Given these
racial preferences among employers, growing
competition within the low-wage labor market
may leave black men vulnerable to discrimina­tion relative not only to whites, but to Latinos
as well.
Finally, low-wage labor markets are increas­
ingly supplied by workers with criminal records.
Nearly a third of black men without a college
degree have prison records by their mid-30s,
adding to employers' reservations about black
male job applicants (Pager 2007b; Pettit andWestern 2004). The high rate of incarceration
makes a criminal record a newly importantsource of stigma that is worth studying in its own
right. Moreover, we can view a criminal record
as an extreme and authoritative signal of thekinds of problematic behaviors that employers
ascribe to young black men. In this context,
separating the effects of criminal stigma fromrace provides a useful benchmark for measur­
ing racial stigma. Tn the first effort in this direc­
tion, Pager's (2003) research in a Milwaukee
field experiment compared racial and criminal
stigma among matched pairs of job seekers.
Fielding a pair of black and a pair of white job

applicants (in which one member of each pair
was randomly assigned a criminal record), Pager
found that a black applicant with no criminal
background experiences job prospects similar
to those of a white felon. That blackness con­fers the same disadvantage as a felony com/ic­
tion helps calibrate the deeply skeptical view ofyoung black men in the eyes of Milwaukee
employers.
The growing importance of soft skills, etlmic
heterogeneity, and job seekers with criminal
records suggest the persistence or increasing
incidence of discrimination in contemporary
low-wage labor markets. Whether based on sta­tistical generalizations or inaccurate stereo­
types, preconceived notions about thecharacteristics or desirability of black men rel­
ative to other applicant types are likely to struc­ture the distribution of opportunity along racial
lines.

METHODS FOR STUDYING LABORMARKET DISCRIMINATION
Racial discrimination in the labor market is typ­ically studied by comparing the wages of whites
and minorities, statistically controlling forhuman capital characteristics. Estimates from avariety of social surveys suggest that the black­white difference in hourly wages among men
usually range between about 10 and 20 percent(Cancio, Evans, and Maume 1996; Darity andMeyers 1998; Neal and Johnson 1996).
Although widely used, this residual method, inwhich discrimination is defined as the unex­
plained race difference in wages, is sensitive tothe measurement of human capital. Where race
differences in human capital are incompletely
observed, the effect of discrimination may beoverestimated (Farkas and Vicknair 1996; Nealand Johnson 1996).
Residual estimates of discrimination infer
employer behavior from data on workers' wages.
Field experiments, by contrast, offer a more
direct approach to the measurement of dis­
crimination. This approach, also referred to as
an audit methodology, involves the use ofmatched teams of job applicants-called
testers-who apply to real job openings andrecord responses from employers. Testers are
assigned equivalent resumes and are matched ona variety of characteristics like age, education,
physical appearance, and interpersonal skills.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

DISCRIMINATION IN A tOW-WAGE I"ABOR MARKET

Because black and white testers are sent to thesame firms, and testers are matched on a wide
variety of characteristics, much of the unex­
plained variation that confounds residual esti­mates of discrimination is experimentallycontrolled.
In part due to taxing logistical requirements,
the use of in-person audit studies ofemployment
remains rare, with only a handful of such stud­ies conducted over the past 20 years (Bendick,Jackson, and Reinoso 1994; Bendick et a1. 1991;
Cross et a1. 1990; Pager 2003; Turner, Fix, andStruyk 1991 ).2 Moreover, the typical emphasis
on a single comparison group leaves several
significant features ofcontemporary urban labormarkets unexplored.
By studying both race and criminal back­ground, the Milwaukee audit study represents animportant starting point for this project (Pager
2003). The Milwaukee study examined the influ­
ence of the criminal justice system on labormarket stratification by studying the effect ofa
ctiminal record for black and white job seekers.
Although race emerged as a key theme in the
study's findings, the topic of racial discrimina­tion was not a central focus. Moreover, theresearch design yielded only indirect evidence
ofracial discrimination because black and whitetesters did not apply to the same employers.
Our ability to investigate when and how racial
discrimination occurs is therefore limited inthis context.
The current study updates and extends ear­lier research in several ways. First, we focus
directly on the question of racial discrimination,in both conceptualization and design. Thisemphasis allows us to situate our research with­in ongoing debates about discrimination and toprovide a rigorous design for detecting racial
discrimination. Second, we move beyond stan­
dard two-race models of discrimination by
including matched black, white, and Latino job
seekers, reflecting the racial heterogeneity of

2 For a summary of the results of earlier audit
studies ofemployment, see Heckman and Siegelman(1993) and Pager (2007a). Correspondence studies,
which rely on resumes sent by mail rather than in-per­son applications (e.g., Bertrand and Mullainathan
2004), are less costly but rely on application proce­dures less suited for low-wage labor markets (which
typically require in-person applications).

781

large urban labor markets. To our knowledge,
this is the first study of its kind to simultane­
ously examine the employment experiences ofthree racial/ethnic groups. Third, to help cali­brate the magnitude of racial preferences, we
compare applicants affected by varying formsof stigma; specifically, we compare minority
applicants with white applicants just released
from prison. Where the Milwaukee study
attempted this comparison across teams, thepresent analysis provides a direct test by com­paring the outcomes of minority and ex-offend­
er applicants who visit the same employers.
Finally, we extend our analysis from the quan­titative evidence of differential treatment to arich set of qualitative data that allow for an
exploration of the process of discrimination.
Drawing from the testers' extensive field notesthat describe their interactions with employers,
we provide a unique window into the range of
employer responses that characterize discrimi­
nation in contempormy low-wage labor markets.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSThe New York City Hiring Discrimination Study
sent matched teams of testers to apply for 340
real entry-level jobs throughout New York City
over nine months in 2004. The testers were
well-spoken, clean-cut young men, ages 22 to
26. Most were college-educated, between 5 feet
10 inches and 6 feet in height, and recruited inand around New York City. They were matchedon the basis of their verbal skills, interactional
styles (level of eye contact, demeanor, and ver­bosity), and physical attractiveness. Testers wereassigned fictitious resumes indicating identi­
cal educational attainment and comparable qual­
ities of high school, work experience (quantityand kind), and neighborhood of residence.
Resumes were prepared in different fonts andformats and randomly varied across testers,with each resume used by testers from eachrace group. Testers presented themselves ashigh school graduates with steady work expe­
rience in entry-level jobs. Finally, the testers
passed a common training program to ensure
uniform behavior injob interviews. While in thefield, the testers dressed similarly and commu­
nicated with teammates by cell phone to antic­
ipate unusual interview situations.
We fielded two teams that each included awhite, Latino, and black tester. To help ensure

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

782

AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

comparability, the Latino testers spoke in unac­
cented English, were U.S. citizens of Puerto
Rican descent, and, like the other testers,
claimed no Spanish language ability. The firstteam tests a standard racial hierarchy, with thewhite tester serving as a benchmark against
which to measure variation in racial and ethnic
discrimination. To calibrate the magnitude of
racial stigma, the second team compares blackand Latino testers with a white tester with acriminal record. The criminal record was typi­cally disclosed in answer to the standard ques­tion on employment applications, "Have you
ever been convicted of a crime? If yes, please
explain." We instructed testers to reveal, when
asked, that they had recently been released fromprison after serving 18 months for a drug felony(possession with intent to distribute, cocaine).
In addition, following Pager (2003), the whitetester's criminal record was also signaled on
the resume by listing work experience at a state
prison and by listing a parole officer as a ref­erence. 3
For both teams, we sampled employers fromjob listings for entry-level positions, defined
as jobs requiring little previous experience andno more than a high school degree. Job titles
included restaurant jobs, retail sales, warehouse
workers, couriers, telemarketers, customer ser­vice positions, clerical workers, stockers,
movers, delivery drivers, and a wide range ofother low-wage positions. Each week, we ran­
domly drew job listings f]-om the classified sec­
tions of the Nevv York Times, Dai~y News, NewYork Post, Village Voice, and the online service
Craigslist. The broad range of job listings
allowed for extensive coverage of the entry­
level labor market in New York. From the avail­able population ofjob listings, we took a simple
random sample of advertisements each week.
Testers in each team applied to each job with­in a 24-hour period, randomly varying the orderof the applicants.
Our dependent variable records any positive
response in which a tester was either offered a
job or called back for a second interview. We
recorded callbacks using voicemail boxes set up

for each tester. For employer i (i 1, ... ,N) andtester t (t = rv, B, or L for white, black, or Latino),
a positive response, Yil' is a binary variable thatscores 1 for a job offer or callback, and 0 oth­erwise. We define the level of differential treat­ment as the ratio in positive response rates foreach comparison, rWB = Yvv I YB, where.10 is the
proportion of positive responses for testers ofrace t. Under the null hypothesis ofequal treat­ment, l'WB
1, the proportion of positive
responses received by each racial group is equal.
For data on matched pairs, several statisticaltests have been proposed that use within-paircomparisons to account for the correlation ofobservations from the same pair (e.g., Agresti
1990; Heckman and Siegelman 1993). In ourcase, where three testers are sent to the same
employer, we have a matched triplet and infor­
mation from all three testers should ideally con­tribute to an inference about a contrast between
any two. Ghosh and colleagues (2000) suggestthat matched pairs can be fit with a hierarchi­
cal logistic regression with a random effect foreach pair. We generalize their approach to ourmatched triplets, fitting a random effect foreach employer. If the probability of a positive
response is given by E(YiJ = Pit, the hierarchi­
cal model is writtenlog(1 ~~J =(Xi+ (jB it + "{Lit,where Bit is a dummy variable for blacks, Lit isa dummy variable for Latinos, and the random
effects for employers, (Xi, is given a normal dis­tribution. The employer effects, (Xj, induce a
correlation among observations from the same
employers and reduce standard errors, as in theusual matched-pair inference. We estimate themodels with Markov Chain Monte Carlo meth­ods. We construct intervals for the ratios (rWB.
rWL, and 1'81) by taking random draws from theposterior predictive distribution of Yit.
Alternative methods that adjust for clustering by
employer yield similar results to those report­
ed below.
THE PROBLEMS OF MATCHING

3 Results from Pager (2003) suggest that provid­
ing information about a criminal record to employ­ers who cIo not request the information does little toaffect hiring decisions.

The quality of audit results depends on the com­parability of the testers. Because race cannot be
experimentally assigned, researchers must relyon effective selection and matching to construct
audit teams in which all relevant characteristics

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

DISCRIMINATION IN A LOW-WAGE LABOR MARKETof testers are similar-something that may leave
substantial room for bias. Heckman andSiegelman (1993) argue that researchers know
little about the hard-to-observe characteristics
highly prized by employers. If testers are poor­ly matched, evidence of discrimination may be
merely an artifact of idiosyncratic tester char­acteristics.
Bertrand and Mullainathan (2004) remove
tester effects in a "correspondence test" thatsent resumes with common white and blacknames to employers in Boston and Chicago.
Their design allows the random assignment ofresume characteristics to white- and black­sounding names, largely removing concerns
about unobserved charactetistics. Resumes withwhite names were 50 percent more likely thanthose with black names to receive callbacks
from employers (9.7 versus 6.5 percent). Studiesof this kind provide some reassurance that
results from the body of audit research are notdriven by tester effects alone.
Because we rely on in-person audits for ourstudy of low-wage labor markets, the effective
matching of testers is a key concern. 4 We
reviewed more than 300 applicants to identify
our final team of 10 testers. 5 Successful appli­
cants were subject to two lengthy screening
interviews and a written test, a far more prob­
ingjob selection process than the testers encoun­
tered in their fieldwork. 6 Each tester passed a

4 In-person audits also allow for the inclusion ofa wide range of entry-level job types (which often
require in-person applications); they provide a clear
method for signaling race, without concerns overthe class-connotations of racially distinctive names(Fryer and Levitt 2004); and they allow us to gather
both quantitative and qualitative data, with informa­tion on whether an applicant receives the job as well
as how he is treated during the interview process.
5 These 300 applicants were prescreened for appro­
priate age, race, ethnicity, and gender.
6 Indeed, as an employer herself, the researcher
must identify subtle cues about applicants that indi­cate their ability to pelform. Whether or not these cuesare explicit, conscious, or measurable, they are pres­ent in a researcher's evaluation of tester candidates,
just as they are in employers' evaluations of entry­
level job applicants. Like employers, researchers areaffectcd by both objectivc and subjective/subcon­
scious indicators of applicant quality in their selec­tion and matching of testers in ways that should

783

standard training period, was required to dress
uniformly, and was subject to periodic spot
checks for quality control. 7
Despite these measures, uncontrolled tester
effects remain a threat to inferences about dis­
crimination. We assess the sensitivity of ourresults to testers in four ways. First, each tester
may have a unique effect, but the average effectof the testers may be zero. In this case, theobservations from each tester will be correlat­
ed and standard errors that ignore this cluster­ing will tend to be too small. We allow for thispossibi lity by fitting an additional random effectfor each tester in our hierarchical logistic regres­sion. 8 Second, each tester may have a uniqueeffect, but these effects may not average to zero.
To assess the sensitivity of our results to eachtester, we perform a type of cross-validation inwhich the treatment effect is recalculated for a
reduced data set, sequentially omitting those
employers associated with each individual tester.
Confidence intervals below are based on mod­els that include employer and tester random
effects. We compare these results with cross-val­
idation treatment effects based on subsets ofthe data in which individual testers are sequen­
tially omitted. Third, we recalculate our key
results for each unique combination of testers
matched in teams over the course of the field­
work (see Appendix, Table A2). These results,
although sensitive to small sample sizes forsome combinations, tend to support the con­sistency of effects across a number of tester
compansons.
As a final investigation of tester effects, weconsider the possibility that the expectations or
behaviors of testers may influence the audit
results in nonrandom ways. For example, if ablack tester expects to be treated poorly byultimately improve the nuanced calibration of test
partners.
7 In addition to on-site supervision at the start andfinish of each day of fieldwork, on several occa­
sions, we "tested the testers." For example, we hidvideo cameras in the offices of confederate employ­ers, which allowed us to monitor testers' camp liancewith the audit protocol as well as to use the tapes asa training tool to better synchronize test partners' per­formance (not counted among results).
8 Additionalmoclels (not shown here) test for fixed
effects of individual testers; we find no significant
differences across testers within each race group.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

784

AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

employers, he may appear more withdrawn,
nervous, or defensive in interactions. The natureof the interaction may create a self-fulfilling
prophecy, in which the tester experiences pooroutcomes for reasons unrelated to his race
(Steele and Aronsen 1995). We assess thesetester effects by analyzing the degree to which
personal contact between testers and employers
is associated with widening racial disparities.
Overall, we find no evidence that testers' inter­
personal styles or expectations are associatedwith increasing discrimination; if anything, per­sonal contact appears to weaken the effect ofrace, suggesting that testers' performance min­imized, rather than exaggerated, our measuresof racial bias (see Appendix, Table AI).
The problem of imperfect matching among
testers is a well-understood vulnerability ofaudit experiments, and one to which we devot­
ed considerable attention. Ironically, however,achieving perfect matches can itself produce
distortions in the hiring process. Because audit
partners are matched on all characteristics thatare most directly relevant to hiring decisions(e.g., education, work experience, and physicalattributes), employers may be forced to privilege
relatively minor characteristics simply out ofnecessity to break a tie (Heckman 1998: 111). If
employers care only marginally about race, but
are confronted with applicants equal on all otherdimensions, this single characteristic may takeon greater significance than it would under nor­mal circumstances when evaluating real appli­
cants who differ according to multiple
dimensions.
The design of our study, which focuses on theearly stages of the hiring process, avoids situa­
tions in which employers must choose only asingle applicant. By using "callbacks" as one of
our key dependent variables, we include casesthat represent an employer's first pass at appli­
cant screening. 9 Indeed, recent surveys suggestthat employers interview an average of six to

9 Positive responses recorded in this study werefairly evenly split between callbacks and job offers.
Employers who made offers on-the-spot were typi­cally hiring more than one applicant, thus similarly
avoiding a situation in which a forced-choice becomes
necessary. In fact, rates ofjob offers were more even­ly distributed by race relative to callbacks (see Tables
AI and A2).

eight applicants for each entry-level job open­
ing (Pager 2007b). If race represents only aminor concern for employers, we would expect
all members ofour audit team to make it throughthe first cut. If race figures prominently in thefirst round of review, we can infer that this char­acteristic has been invoked as more than a meretie-breaker. In these cases, the evidence of race­
based decision making is quite strong.

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
The primary results from the field experimentfocus on the proportion of applications sub­mitted by testers that elicited either a callback
or a job offer from employers, by race of theapplicant. Our first team assesses the effects ofrace discrimination by comparing the outcomesof equally qualified white, Latino, and black
applicants. Figure 1a reports positive response
rates for each racial/ethnic group. In applications
to 171 employers, the white tester received acallback or job offer 31.0 percent of the time,compared with a positive response rate of25.2
percent for Latinos and 15.2 percent for blacks.
These results show a clear racial hierarchy, withwhites in the lead, followed by Latinos, andblacks trailing behind.
Figure 1b shows the contrasts between thethree race groups. Once we adjust for employ­er and tester effects, the confidence interval for
the white-Latino ratio of 1.23 includes one. IO By
contrast, the white-black ratio of 2.04 is sub­stantively large and statistically significant. The
positive response rate for blacks is also signif­
icantly lower than the rate for Latinos. The
points in the figure show the cross-validation
results obtained by sequentially dropping cases
associated with each individual tester. All ratios
remain consistently greater than one, indicatingthat employers treat blacks less positively

10 In a model pooling cases fi'om the two teams,
with main effects for team and criminal background,
the white-Latino gap becomes statistically significant.
The generality ofthis result certainly deserves morestudy. The Puerto Ricans of New York that our Latino
testers represent are a longstanding community of
U.S. citizens. In other local labor markets, where
markers of citizenship and accent are more prominent
sources of difference, evidence of ethnic discrimi­
nation may be stronger.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

DISCRIMINATION IN A LOW-WAGE I,ABOR MARKET

785

lb. Ratios of Positive Responses
by Race and Ethnicity

lao Positive Responses
by Race and Ethnicity

3,00

35
31.0
30

2,50

"" 25
~
~

Q>

'"

I:

!...
Q>

0';;:

d

2,00

20
~~

15

],50

00:;

c

::l-

i

~~

10

J ,00

5
0

0.50
White

Figure 1.

LatinoBlaek

White I Latino White I Black

Latino I Black

Positive Response Rates and Paired Comparisons by Race and Ethnicity

Notes: Positive responses refer to callbacks or job offers. Hollow circles in Figure Ib indicate point estimates of theratio. Solid circles indicate ratios obtained by sequentially dropping testers from the analysis. We estimated 95 per­cent confidence intervals from a hierarchical logistic regression with employer and tester random effects. Numberof employers = 171.

regardless of which testers are applying forjobs. Overall, these results indicate that, rela­tive to equally qualified blacks, employers sig­
nificantly prefer white and Latino job
applicants. The findings suggest that a black
applicant has to search twice as long as anequally qualified white applicant before receiv­
ing a callback or job offer from an employer.
The results from this first comparison indi­cate employers' strong racial preferences, but
the magnitude of this preference remains some­what abstract. To calibrate the effects of race
against another stigmatized category, the ex­
offender, we repeated the experiment, this timeassigning a criminal record to the white tester.
Figure 2a shows the percentage of positive
responses-,job offers or callbacks,-,received
by each tester. In this experiment, whites withcriminal records obtained positive responses in
17.2 percent of 169 job applications, com­pared with 15.4 percent for Latinos and 13.0
percent for blacks. 11 The white testers' racialadvantage narrows substantially in this comII The overall rate of positive responses is lower
for all testers relative to the results presented in
Figure 1. This is likely due to the staggered fielding
ofteams and resulting differences in the compositionof employers audited across the two time periods.

parison; yet the white applicant with a crimi­
nal record still does just as well. if not better,
than his minority counterparts with no crimi­
nal background.
Figure 2b shows that the white-Latino ratio
is close to one and the confidence interval
overlaps one by a large margin. The white­black ratio is now a statistically insignificant
1.32, compared with a significant ratio of2.04
when the white tester had a clean record. As in
the previous experiment, Latinos were pre­ferred to blacks, but here the difference is not
significant. As before, the cross-validation
treatment effects, obtained by dropping
employers associated with one particular tester,
are all close to one. These results indicate that.
regardless of which testers were sent into thefield, employers differentiated little among thethree applicant groups.
The comparison of a white felon with blackand Latino applicants with clean backgrounds
provides a vivid calibration of the effects ofrace on hiring decisions. While ex-offenders
are disadvantaged in the labor market relative
to applicants with no criminal background, thestigma of a felony conviction appears to be no
greater than that of minority status. Replicating
earlier results from Milwaukee (Pager 2003),
these findings suggest that New York employ-

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

786

AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW
2a. Positive Responses byRace, Etlmicity, and Criminal Record

2b. Ratios of Positive Responses byRace, Ethnicity, and Criminal Record
3.00

35
30

2.50

'"' 25

~
~

'" 20

8-~

2.0D
17.2

~

Cl:

.:.:::... [5

o

1.50

~

(~

:::.. to

<p

4~

l.00

5
0

0.50

While felon

Figure 2.

LalinoBlack(clean record)(clean record)

White felon /LatinoWhite feloll /Black

Latino /Black

Positive Response Rates and Paired Comparisons by Race, Ethnicity, and Criminal
Background

Notes: Positive responses refer to callbacks or job offers. Hollow circles in Figure 2b indicate point estimates of theratio. Solid circles indicate ratios obtained by sequentially dropping testers from the analysis. We estimated 95 per­cent confidence intervals from a hierarchical logistic regression with employer and tester random effects. Numberof employers = 169.

ers view minority applicants as essentiallyequivalent to whites just out of prison.
Theories of statistical discrimination point
to the very high incarceration rates among
young black men as a key explanation for
employers' indifference between white felons
and blacks with potentially unobserved crimi­
nal histories. Current estimates suggest thatroughly 18 percent of young black men withhigh school degrees will experience incarcera­tion by their early 30s (Pettit and Western 2004),
and a larger fraction surely have lower level
convictions and arrests. Still, the fact that known
information about a white applicant's serious
criminal conviction is viewed with no moreconcern than the assumed characteristics of ayoung black man points to the strength andintensity of contemporary racial attitudes.
Overcoming these negative expectations, evenfor a candidate with otherwise appealing char­acteristics, requires the negotiation of a numberof significant hurdles not present for white job
seekers.

RACE AT WORK: AN EXAMINATION OF
INTEilACTIONS BETWEEN ApPLICANTS ANDEMPLOYERS

The strong evidence of hiring discriminationfrom the field experiment provides a clear
measure of the continuing significance of racein employer decision making. These numbers,
however, tell us little about the process by whichrace comes to matter. Fortunately, the in-person
design of the experiment allows us to further
supplement the experimental findings with qual­
itative evidence from testers' field notes thatreport their interactions injob interviews. These
detailed narratives describe employers' delib­
erations and suggest some of the ways racecomes into play during employment interac­tions.
Our analysis examines cases in which testers
had sufficient interaction with employers forcontent coding. Consistent with the notion that
contemporary forms ofdiscrimination are large­
ly subtle and covert, many cases contain little
that would lead us to anticipate the differential
treatment that followed. Of those that do, how­ever, we observe several consistent patterns in
employers' responses. In particular, three cate­gories of behavior stand out, which we refer toThis document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

DISCRIMINATION IN A LOW-WAGE LABOR MARKET

here as: categorical exclusion, shifting stan­dards, and race-coded job channeling. The first
type of behavior, categorical exclusion, is char­acterized by an immediate or automatic rejec­tion of the black (or minority) candidate in favorof a white applicant. Occurring early in theapplication process, these decisions involve lit­
tle negotiated interaction but appear to reflecta fairly rigid application of employers' racial
preferences or beliefs. A second category of
behavior, shifting standards, reflects a more
dynamic process of decision making. Here weobserve cases in which employers' evaluationsof applicants appear actively shaped or con­structed through a racial lens, with similar qual­
ifications or deficits taking on varying relevancedepending on an applicant's race. Finally, a third
category of behavior moves beyond the hiring
decision to a focus on job placement. Race­based job channeling represents a process bywhich minority applicants are steered toward
particular job types, often those characterized
by greater physical demands and reduced cus­
tomer contact.
By observing the interactions that character­ize each of these behavior types, we gain a rarc
glimpse into the processes by which discrimi­
nation takes place. At the same time, we empha­
size that this discussion is intended as a
descriptive exercise rather than a formal causal
analysis. Indeed, the categories we identify are
not mutually exclusive; some of the sameprocesses may be operating simultaneously,with employers' shifting evaluations ofapplicant
skills leading to different patterns ofjob chan­
neling, or assumptions about the appropriate
race of the incumbent of a particular position
leading to forms of categorical exclusion.
Likewise, this typology cannot account for allof the differential treatment we observe--atleast half of the employer decisions were madeon the basis of little or no personal contact
between applicant and employer, leaving thenature ofthc decision entirely unobserved. With
these caveats in mind, we nevertheless view theanalysis as providing a unique contribution to
the study of racial discrimination, revealingmechanisms at work that observational research
can rarely identify.

787

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION

Few interactions between our testers andemployers revealed signs of racial animus or
hostility toward minority applicants. At the sametime, a close comparison of test partners' expe­
riences shows a number of cases in which race
appears to be the sole or primary criterion foran employer's decision. With little negotiation
or deliberation over the selection decision, these
employers' decisions seem to reflect a preex­
istingjudgment regarding the adequacy or desir­ability of a minority candidate. The
uncompromising nature of the employer's deci­sion can be characterized as a form of categor­
ical exclusion.
A clear-cut case of categorical exclusion wasprovided when all three testers applied for awarehouse worker position and received a per­functory decision. Zuri, one of our black testers,
reported: "The original woman who had herd­
ed us in told us that when we finished filling out
the application we could leave because 'there's
no interview today, guys!' ... When I made it
across the street to the bus stop ... the woman
who had collected our completed applications
pointed in the direction of Simon, Josue, andmyself [the three test partners] motioning for us
to return. All three of us went over.... She
looked at me and told me she 'needed to speak
to these two' and that I could go back:' Zuri
returned to the bus stop, while his white andLatino test partners were both asked to comeback at 5 p.m. that day to start work. Simon, thewhite tester, reported, "She said she told theother people that we needed to sign something~­that that's why she called us over----so as not to
let them know she was hiring us. She seemed
pretty concerned with 110t letting anyone elseknow."In this context, with no interview and virtu­
ally 110 direct contact with the employer, weobserve a decision that appears to be based onlittle other than race. The job is a manual posi­tion for which Zuri is at least as able, yet he isreadily passed over in favor of his white andLatino counterparts.
This case is unusual in that three testers wererarely present at a given location at the sametime. More often, we found evidence of differ­ential treatment only after comparing the testers'
reports side by side. 1-1ere again, we observed
several hiring decisions in which race appeared
to be the sole or primary source of differentia-

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

788

AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

tion. In one example, the three testers inquired
about a sales position at a retail clothing store.
Joe, one of our black testers, reported that, "[theemployer] said the position was just filled andthat she would be calling people in for an inter­view if the person doesn't work out." Josue, his
Latino test partner, was told something very
similar: "She informed me that the position was
already fillecl, but did not know if the hired
employee would work out. She told me to leave
my resume with her." By contrast, Simon, their
white test partner, who applied last, had anotably different experience: "I asked what thehiring process was--if they're taking applica­
tions now, interviewing, etc. She looked at myapplication. 'You can start immediately?' Yes.
'Can you start tomorrow?' Yes. '10 a.m.' She wasvery friendly and introduced me to another
woman (white, 28) at the cash register who willbe training me."A similar case arose a few weeks later at anelectronics store. Joe, the black tester, wasallowed to complete an application but was toldthat his references would have to be checked
before he could be interviewed. Meanwhile,
Simon and Josue, his white and Latino partners,
applied shortly afterward and were interviewed
on the spot. Joe's references were never called,
while Simon received a callback two days later
offering him the job.
When evaluated individually, these interac­tions do not indicate racial prejudice or dis­
crimination. Side by side, however, we see thatminority applicants encounter barriers not pres­ent for the white applicant, with employers cit­ing excuses for putting off the black or minority
candidate (e.g., "the job has already been filled"or "we'd have to check your references before
we can proceed") that appear not to apply for thewhite applicant. To be sure, certain cases may
capture random error--perhaps a position
became available between the testers' visits, oran employer was otherwise preoccupied when
one applicant arrived but not another, leading to
the employer's differential response. Still, theconsistency of the pattern in these data sug­gests that random error is unlikely to be a dom­
inant factor. Indeed, of the 171 tests conductedby the first team (no criminal background),white testers were singled out for callbacks or
job offers 15 times, whereas there was only asingle case in which a black tester received apositive response when his white or Latino part­ner did not. 12
These cases of categorical exclusion,
although directly observed in only a small num­
ber of audits (5 of the 47 cases of differential
treatment across the two teams), reveal one
form of discrimination in which racial consid­
erations appear relatively fixed and unyield­
ing. 13 Before black (or minority) candidates
have the chance to demonstrate their qualifica­
tions, they are weeded out on the basis ofa sin­gle categorical distinction.
Categorical exclusion represents one impor­tant form of discrimination. While these rather
abrupt interactions reveal little about the under­
lying motivation that drives employers' deci­
sions, they do demonstrate the sometimes rigid
barriers facing minority job seekers. In thesecases, black (or minority) applicants are dis­couraged or dismissed at the outset of theemployment process, leaving little opportunity
for a more nuanced review.
SIIIFl1NG STANDARDS

Making it past the initial point of contact was
not the only hurdle facing minority applicants.
Indeecl, among those who recorded more exten­
sive interaction with employers, we observe acomplex set of racial dynamics at work. On the
one hancl, personal contact with employers was
associated with significantly improved out­
comes for all testers and a narrowing of the
racial gap (see Appendix, Table A1). The testers'interpersonal skills seemed to reduce the influ-

12 In an additional l3 cases, both white and Latino
testers received positive responses; in seven cases, theLatino tester alone was selected (see Appendix,
TableA2).
13 The denominator of47 represents the total num­
ber of cases of black-white differential treatment
from the first (N = 28) and second (N = 19) teams.
In calculating the numerator, we do not include anumber of additional cases of differential treatment
resulting from applications in which there was little
or no personal contact between testers and theemployer (rates of personal contact were similar byrace of tester). In such cases, differential treatment
may reflect categorical exclusion (based on a visualassessment of the candidate), shifting standards(based on a review of the completed applications),
random error, or something else.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

DISCRIMINATION IN A LOW-WAGE LABOR MARKET

ence of racial bias, or at least did not exacerbate
it. Yet, even in the context of this more person­
alized review, we see evidence of subtle bias in
the evaluation of applicant qualifications. In
particular, a number ofcases reveal how testers'"objective" qualifications appear to be reinter­
preted through the lens ofrace. Although testers'
resumes were matched on education and work
experience, some employers seemed to weighqualifications differently depending on theapplicant's race. In the following interactions,
we see evidence that the same deficiencies ofskill or experience appear to be more disquali­
fying for the minority job seekers (N:= 11).
In one case, Joe, a black tester, was notallowed to apply for a sales position due to hislack of direct experience. He reported, "[Theemployer] handed me back my resume and told
me they didn't have any positions to offer me... that I needed a couple years ofexperience."
The employer voiced similar concerns with
Josue and Kevin, Joe's Latino and white part­ners. Josue wrote, "After a few minutes of wait­
ing ... I met with [the employer] who looked
over my resume. He said that he was a little wor­ried that I would not be able to do the work."
Kevin reported an even stronger reaction: "[Theemployer] looked at my resume and said, 'Thereis absolutely nothing here that qualifies you forthis position.'"Yet, despite their evident lack ofqualifications, Kevin and Josue were offered thesales job and asked to come back the next morn­ing. In interactions with all three testers, theemployer clearly expressed his concern over
the applicants' lack of relevant work experi­ence. This lack of experience was not grounds
for disqualification for the white and Latino
candidates, whereas the black applicant was
readily dismissed.
When applying for a job as a line cook at amidieveI Manhattan restaurant, the three testers
encountered similar concerns about their lackof relevant experience. Josue, the Latino tester,reported, "[The employer] then asked me if! had
any prior kitchen or cooking experience. 1 told
him that I did not really have any, but that 1
worked alongside cooks at [my prior job as aserver]. He then asked me ifI had any 'knife'
experience and I told him no.... He told me hewould give me a try and wanted to know if! wasavailable this coming Sunday at 2 p.m." Simon,
his white test partner, was also invited to comeback for a trial period. By contrast, Joe, the789

black tester, found that "they are only looking
for experienced line cooks." Joe wrote, "I start­
ed to try and convince him to give me a chance
but he cut me off and said I didn't qualify."
None of the testers had direct experience withkitchen work, but the white and Latino appli­
cants were viewed as viable prospects while
the black applicant was rejected because helacked experience.
In other cases, employers perceived real skill
or experience differences among applicants
despite the fact that the testers' resumes were
designed to convey identical qualifications. In
one example, the testers applied for a job at amoving company. Joe, the black applicant, spokewith the employer about his prior experience asa stockperson at a moving truck company, but"[the employer] told me that he couldn't use me
because he is looking for someone with mov­ing experience." Josue, his Latino partner, pre­sented his experience as a stocker at a delivery
company and reported a similar reaction, 'TIe
then told me that since I have no experience ...
there is nothing he could do for me." Simon,
their white test partner, presented identical qual­
ifications, but the employer responded morefavorably: '''To be honest, we're looking forsomeone with specific moving experience. But
because you've worked for [a storage company],that has a little to do with moving.' He wanted
me to come in tomorrow between 10 and 11."
The employer is consistent in his preference
for workers with relevant prior experience, but
he is willing to apply a more flexible, inclusive
standard in evaluating the experience of thewhite candidate than in the case of the minori­ty applicants. Employers' shifting standards,
offering more latitude to marginally skilled
white applicants than to similarly qualified
minorities, suggest that even the evaluation of"objective" information can be affected byunderlying racial considerations.
Even in cases where the white tester pre­sented as a felon, we see some evidence that thisapplicant was afforded the benefit of the doubt
in ways that his minority counterparts were not.
In applying at an auto dealership, for example,
the three testers met with very different reac­
tions. Joe, the black tester, was informed at theoutset that the only available positions were forpeople with direct auto sales experience. When
Josue, his Latino partner, applied, the lack of
direct auto sales experience was less of a prob-

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

790

AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

lem. Josue reported, "He asked me ifI had any
customer service experience and I said not real­
ly.... He then told me that he wanted to get rid
of a few bad apples who were not performing
well. He asked me when I could start." Josue wastold to wait for a callback on Monday. When theemployer interviewed Keith, their white ex­
felon test partner, he gave him a stern lecture
regarding his criminal background. The employ­er warned, "I have no problem with your con­viction, it doesn't bother me. But if I find out
money is missing or you're not clean or notshowing up on time I have no problem ending
the relationship." Despite the employer's con­cerns, Keith was offered the job on the spot. The
benefit of the doubt conferred by whitenesspersists here, even in the context of a white
applicant just released from prison.
A pattern in these interactions, when com­pared side by side, is the use of double stan­dards-seeking higher qualifications fromblacks than non-blacks, or viewing whites as
more qualified than minorities who present
equivalent resumes. Recent research empha­
sizes employers' use of race as a proxy for dif­ficult-to-observe productivity characteristics(Moss and Tilly 2001; Waldinger and Lichter2003). Where we have detailed field notes on
job interviews, the interactions we observe sug­gest that employers also use race in interpreting
and weighing observable skill characteristics.
Standards appear to shift: as employers evaluatevarious applicants' qualifications differently
depending on their race or ethnicity (see also
Biernat and Kobrynowicz 1997; Yarkin, Town,
and Wallston 1982).
RrlGE-CODEIJ JOB ClIANNELINGThe first two categories of differential treat­ment focus on the decision to hire. Beyond thisbinary decision, employers also face decisions
about where to place a worker within the organi­zational hierarchy. Here, at the point of job
placement, we observe a third category of dif­ferential treatment. In our review of the testers'
experiences, we noticed that applicants weresometimes encouraged to apply for different
jobs than the ones initially advertised or about
which they had inquired. In many cases, these
instances of channeling suggest a race-codingof job types, whereby employers prefer whites
for certain positions and minorities for others.

In one case, Zuri, a black tester, applied for asales position at a lighting store that had a signin the front window stating "Salesperson
Wanted." Zuri described the following interac­tion: "When she asked what position I was look­ing for I said I was open, but that since they werelooking for a salesperson I would be interested
in that. She smiled, put her head in her hand andher elbow on the table and said, 'I need a stockboy. Can you do stock boy?'" Zuri's white andLatino test partners, by contrast, were each able
to apply for the advertised sales position.
Another black tester, Joe, was similarly chan­
neled out of a customer service position in his
application to a Japanese restaurant. Joe report­
ed, "I told her I was there to apply for the wait­
er position and she told me that there were no
server positions. I told her it was advertised in
the paper, and she said there must have been a
mistake. She said all she had available was abusboy position. I told her since there was nowaiter position, I would apply for the busboy."
Later that day, Kevin, his white test partner,
was hired for the server position on the spot.
We also observed chaImeling of the Latino
testers. Josue's fieldnotes of an audit at a cloth­
ing retailer begin by describing the "young
white 20-something women running the place."
One ofthe women interviewed him, asked aboutpast work experience, and asked which job he
was applying for. "I told her 'sales associate,'"Josue reported, and he presented a resume onwhich the most recent job listed was as a sales
assistant at a sporting goods store. "She then told
me that there was a stock position and asked if
I would be interested in that." Josue was offered
the stocker job and asked to start the next day.
In many cases, these instances of channelingare coded as "positive responses" in the initial
analyses. While our key concern is about accessto employment of any kind, this general focus
masks another form of racial bias at work. A
closer analysis of the testers' experiences sug­gests that decisions about job placement, likehiring more generally, often follow a racial
logic. We coded all instances ofjob channelingacross both our teams and counted 53 cases(compared with 172 positive responses). By
comparing the original job title to the suggest­
edjob type, we then categorized these cases as
downward channeling, upward channeling, lat­eral channeling, or unknown. We define down­
ward channeling as (1) a move from a job

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

DISCRIMINATION IN A LOW·WAGE tABOR MARKET

involving contact with customers to ajob with·out (e.g., from server to busboy), (2) a movefrom a white-collar position to a manual posi­tion (e.g., from sales to stocker), or (3) a movein which hierarchy is clear (e.g., from supervi­
sor to line worker). We define upward chan­
neling as a move in the opposite direction. We
focus on these two types of channeling for ourcurrent analysis. After eliminating cases inwhich all testers within a team were similarly
channeled, we have 23 additional cases of dif­ferential treatment that were not recorded by our
initial measurement ofjob offers and callbacks.
Like hiring criteria, job placement is also
patterned by race (see Table I). Black applicants
were channeled into lower positions in ninecases, Latinos were channeled down in fivecases, and whites experienced downward chan­
neling in only one case. Many of these cases
were restaurant jobs in which the tester applied
for a position as a server but was steered to a job
as a busboy or dishwasher. In almost all cases,
the original position required extensive cus­
tomer contact while the suggested position did
not (e.g., salesperson to stocker). Testers weresometimes guided into lower positions because
their resumes indicated limited work experi­ence, but racial differences in channeling sug­gest that insufficient work experience was more
penalizing for minorities than for whites. The
one case ofdownward channeling among white
applicants involved a tester presenting with acriminal background.
In fact, whites were more often channeled upthan down. In at least six cases, white testers
were encouraged to apply for jobs that were ofa higher-level or required more customer con­tact than the initial position they inquired about.
In one case, the white tester was even encour­
aged to apply for a supervisory position, despite
limited work experience. Kevin reported: "[Theemployer] then asked me if! had any experiencein construction. I told him I did not. He asked
if! would be okay working with people that havethick accents like his. I told him that was fine.
He then told me that he wanted me to be his newcompany supervisor."
Employers appear to have strong views about
what kind of person is appropriate for whatkind ofjob, based either on their own assump­
tions of worker competence or assumptions
about what their clients expect or prefer in theappearance of those serving them. Consistent

Original Job Title

Suggested Job

Blacks Channeled Down
ServerCounter person
ServerAssistant manager
ServerRetail sales
Counter person
Sales
Sales

BusserDishwasher/porter
BusboyEntry fast-food position
Busboy/nlllner
Maintenance
DeliveryStockboy
Not specified"

791

Latinos Channeled Down
Server
RunnerSales
Stock
Steam cleaning
Exterminator
Counter person
DeliverySales
Stock person
Whites Channeled Down
ServerBusboyLatinos Channeled Up
Carwash attendantWarehouse worker

Manager
Computer/office

Whites Channeled Up
Line cook
Mover
Dishwasher
Driver
Kitchen job~~~ti()_~i:~t

Waitstatl'
Office/telesales
Waitstatl'
Auto detailing"Front of the house" job<;:~JEP_'.lll:Ls~1£~!.':'L~()E____

Note: This table includes all eases of upward anddownward channeling, except when all testers on ateam were channeled similarly.
" Employer told tester that "sales might not be rightfor you."with the testers' field notes, employers appear
to apply more stringent hiring criteria to minor­
ity workers, preferring whites for jobs that
require greater skill or responsibility. In addi­tion, minorities are disproportionately chan­
neled out of customer service positions,consistent with other research in which employ­ers view minority applicants as lacking com­munication skills or as otherwise discomfiting
for customers. Although our testers presented
highly effective styles of interpersonal com­munication, the cursory review process for thesejobs often leaves group membership moresalient than any individuating characteristics.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

792

AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEWAssessment of
Qualifications

Initial Point ofContact

CategoricalExclusion
Figure 3.

Job
Placement

Shifting
Standards

Channeling

Discrimination at Three Decision Points

The three types of differential treatment weobserve illustrate how employers enact their
racial preferences in the hiring process. Rather
than outward hostility or racial animus, we seemore subtle forms of discouragement or rejec­tion. At multiple points in the hiring process,black (or Latino) applicants face additional hur­dles or barriers that reduce their chances of
employment and affect the quality of jobs forwhich they are considered. Figure 3 illustrates
the processes identified in the preceding dis­cussion. At each of the three decision points, we
see pathways deflected by various forms of
racial bias. Subtle differences in employers'
responses--often imperceptible to the appli­
cants themselves-···produce a pattern of out­
comes systematically affected by race.
Complementing the quantitative indicators
ofdifferential treatment, these qualitative obser­
vations provide a rare window into the process­es by which discrimination occurs. The three
categories ofdifferential treatment observed inthese data point to the range ofexperiences that
constitute discrimination in the employment
process. 14 In a small number of cases, minori­ty testers were disqualified early on in deci­
sions that appear to reflect employers' fairly
rigid preferences. These instances of categori-

14To be sure, our study captures only a few of themany pathways in the employment process that arepotentially affected by racial bias. Beyond our win­
dow of observation, the pathways of this diagram
would presumably continue along later points in theemployment process, including wage-setting deci­
sions, training opportunities, promotion, and tenni­
nation decisions. This research represents one
incremental contribution to understanding-··and doc­
umenting-the varied decision points that may beaffected by race.

cal exclusion represent one of the most extreme
forms ofdiscrimination, wherein minority appli­
cants have little opportunity to overcome
employers' potential concerns. By contrast, alarger number of interactions suggest a more
complicated set of negotiations at play. In eval­uating applicant qualifications, minority appli­
cants, and black men in particular, appear to beheld to a higher standard than their white coun­terparts. Black men are disqualified more read­
ily, or hired more reluctantly, than their whitepartners with identical skills and experience.
Furthennore, racialized assessments of applicant
quality and "fit" affect not only the decision tohire, but also decisions about job placement,with minority applicants more often channeledinto positions involving less skill or customer
contact. Together, these experiences illustrate
how racial disadvantage is dynamically con­structed and reinforced, with the assessment ofapplicant qualifications and suitability subject
to interpretation and bias. While not an exhaus­
tive catalogue of discrimination experiences,
the fact that these dynamics are observed innatural settings (with little prompting) attests totheir relative frequency and regularity. Ourtesters' experiences suggest how race shapes
employers' evaluations in subtle but systemat­
ic ways, with important implications for stmc­
turing opportunity along racial lines.

DISCUSSION
Sending trained testers with equivalent resumes
to apply for entry-level jobs reveals clear evi­
dence of discrimination among low-wage
employers in New York City. Blacks were only
half as likely to receive a callback or job offer
relative to equally qualified whites; moreover,black and Latino applicants with clean back­grounds fared no better than a white applicant

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

DISCRIMINATION IN A LOW·WAGE LABOR MARKET

just released from prison. The magnitude ofthese racial disparities provides vivid evidenceof the continuing significance of race in con­temporary low-wage labor markets. There is a
racial hierarchy among young men favoring
whites, then Latinos, and finally blacks as thecandidates of last resort.
The episodes of discrimination recorded inthis study were seldom characterized by overt
racism or hostility. In fact, our testers rarely
perceived any signs of clear prejudice. It was
only through side-by-side comparisons of ourtesters' experiences that patterns of subtle but
consistent differential treatment were revealed.
Minority applicants were disqualified more
readily and hired more reluctantly than their
white partners with identical skills and experi­ence. Additionally, black and Latino applicants
were routinely channeled into positions requir­
ing less customer contact and more manual
work than their white counterparts. In interac­tions between applicants and employers, we seea small number of cases that reflect employers'
seemingly rigid racial preferences. More often,
differential treatment emerged in the social
interaction of the job interview. Employers
appeared to see more potential in the statedqualifications of white applicants, and they
more commonly viewed white applicants as abetter fit for more desirable jobs.
Our findings of discrimination are particu­
larly striking because the testers in this study
represent a best-case scenario for low-wage job
seekers. The testers were college-educatedyoung men with effective styles of self-presen­tation. Although posing as high school gradu­
ates with more limited skills, these young men
stood well above the typical applicant for these
low-wage jobs. The effects ofrace among indi­viduals with fewer hard and soft skill advantages
may well be larger than those estimated here.
At the same time, while we find robust evi­
dence of racial discrimination, we should be
careful not to interpret these results as showing
the level ofdiscrimination actively experienced
by minority job seekers in the New York labormarket. Our sampling design, based on employ­ers, not workers, over-represents small firms
relative to their share of employment. The sam­ple includes many restaurants and independent
retailers for whom hiring is less bureaucratic,
and who lack the human resource departmentsthat manage the equal employment opportuni-

793

ty obligations of large firms (Dobbin et aL
1993). Nevertheless, our sampled employers
well represent the kinds of low-skill service
work that dominate low-wage urban labor mar­kets.
A second limitation on the generalizability of
our findings results from our sampling proce­dures based on classified advertisements.
Surveys ofjob seekers suggest that 25 to 30 per­cent oflow skill jobs are filled by classified ads;
the remainder are filled through some combi­
nation of network referrals, walk-in applica­
tions, and employment agencies (Holzer 1987).
These search strategies may generate a differ­
ent distribution of employers from that report­
ed here. Some argue that the focus on jobs
advertised through metropolitan newspapers
understates the extent of discrimination. Firms
that wish to discriminate, it is argued, are more
likely to advertise job openings through more
restrictive channels, such as networks of exist­
ing employees, employment agencies, or more
selective publications (Elliott 2000; Fix andStruyk 1993; Petersen, Saporta, and Seidcl
2000). Others, by contrast, argue that any ran­dom sample of employers will overstate theextent ofdiscrimination actually experienced byjob seekers. Ifminority applicants can identify
and avoid firms that discriminate, the actual
incidence of labor market discrimination will bc
correspondingly reduced (Beckcr 1957;
Heckman 1998).
Ofcourse, minority workers' ability to avoid
the effects of discrimination by self-selecting
into nondiscriminatory firms requires that asufficient number ofnondiscriminatory employ­ers exist; that there are no differences in the qual­
ity of jobs offered by employers who are more
and less likely to discriminate; and that the
search costs necessary to locate nondiscrimi­
natory employers are trivial. Future researchusing microdata to track the search patterns andoutcomes of black and white job seekers could
better address these issues. From our data, we
can safely conclude that job searches across awide range of employers represented by theclassified ads of five New York newspapers
reveal substantial discrimination. Understanding
how job seekers adapt to this reality remains achallenge for future research.
Our findings for the New York City labormarket add to evidence of racial discrimina­tion in employment reported from recent field

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

794

AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

experiments in Milwaukee, Boston, and Chicago(Bertrand and Mullainathan 2004; Pager 2003).
The significant evidence of discrimination
found in these studies contrasts sharply withrecent survey research showing small racial dif­ferences in wages (Farkas and Vicknair 1996;
Neal and Johnson 1996). How might these dis­parate findings be reconciled? First, as noted
above, the presence of discrimination in thelabor market may lead workers to differential­
ly sort across employers, such that minority job
seekers queue for jobs offered by employers
who are less likely to discriminate. These
dynamics can lead to longer search or wait
times for minority job seekers, which might not
be reflected in ultimate wage offers. Indeed,data from the late 1990s show that the unem­
ployment spells of black men (3.1 months) areabout twice as long as those for whites (1.6months) (Gottschalck 2003 :2). This suggeststhat the primary effects of discrimination onlabor market outcomes may be reflected in
employment differentials rather than wages. 15
Second, the experience of discrimination may
add to the psychic costs of the job search
process, prompting some to opt out altogether.
If discrimination discourages all but the most
motivated and able black job seekers, black
wage earners would represent an increasingly
select group. Since the 1990s, increasing num­bers of young black men have dropped out of
the formal labor market, contributing to an arti­
ficial convergence of black and white wages(Western and Pettit 2005). Without effectively
accounting for the processes that precede labor

15 Johnson and Neal (1998), for example, findthat after controlling for cognitive ability and otherhuman capital characteristics, black-white differ­ences in employment among young men remain large
and statistically significant. The importance of
employment over wages for racial inequality in eco­nomic status is likely to be especially great for young
non-college-educated men, for whom the overalllevel of wage dispersion is low. Later in the life
course, as wage dispersion increases and labor force
experience accumulates, the racial wage gap becomes
more pronounced (Tomaskovic-Devey, Thomas, andJohnson 2(05). For a historical example, see Whatley(1990), who shows that despite the substantial racial
barriers to employment that existed among Northernfirms after World War I, blacks and whites experi­
enced remarkably similar wage rates.

force participation-including the discouraging
effects of discrimination--wage estimates canaccount for only one incomplete picture of thelarger employment process.
Our findings add to a large research program
demonstrating the continuing contribution of
discrimination to racial inequality in the post­
civil rights era. Still, significant questions
remain unanswered. The audit experiment nec­
essarily focuses on employers' hiring behav­
iors but does not examine the skills, preferences,and networks of job seekers. We do not know,
and few research designs have been devised totest, the relative magnitude of the effects of dis­
crimination compared with the effects of humanand social capital. Such an analysis would needto study both employers as they screenjob appli­
cants and workers as they search for jobs.
The effects of discrimination, relative tohuman and social capital, should also be definedbroadly. As evidence of discrimination in the
post-civil rights era accumulates, new researchshould go beyond determining whether dis­
crimination is present to consider how the effects
of discrimination unfold over the life cycle andacross social space. Episodes of discrimination
may not only cause unemployment at one point
in time, but may have long-term effects thatweaken minority workers' attachment to thelabor market and reduce labor force participa­tion. Discrimination may produce broad cul­tural effects in which work itself isde-legitimated as a fair source of opportunity.
The effects of discrimination may also varyacross the population, concentrating perhaps
among the young men whose employment rates
are lowest. Tracing these larger and more var­
ied effects of discrimination show both theadvantages and limits of the experimental
method used here. The experiment allows us toinfer discrimination with great certainty, but
the effects of discrimination are narrowly
defined. The broader effects of discrimination­on the cultural dimensions of economic life andover the life course-are harder to pinpoint but
may indicate more fundamental and intractable
inequalities. A research agenda that includes
these wider consequences would be less skep­
tical that discrimination exists and more curious
about its continuing effects on not just employ­ment inequality, but on American race relations
more broadly.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

DISCRIMINATION IN A l.OW-WAGE LABOR MARKET

Devah Pager is an Associate Professor ofSociology
and Faculty Associate of the Office ()[ Population
Research at Princeton University. Her book, Marked:
Race, Crime, and Finding Work in an Era of Mass
Incarceration, investigates the racial and economic
consequences of large scale imprisonment jar con­temporary u.s. labor markets.
Bruce Westem is Projessor ofSociology and direc­
tor ofthe Multidisciplinary Program in Inequality andSocial Policy at Harvard University.
Bart BonikoIVski is a PhD candidate in sociology at
Princeton Universi~Y. In addition to his work on strat­
ification. he is completing a project that compares
popular conceptions ofthe nation among the popu­
lations of30 countries.

APPENDIX
ROBUSTNESS CHECKS

We examine the robustness of our primary
results by looking at racial and ethnic contrasts
for different subsets of the data (Table AI).
Although small numbers in certain cells lead tosome instability in estimates, these breakdowns
can examine the consistency ofeffects across thefull range of the sample. To account for learn­ing or adaptation by the testers, we estimate
effects for the first and second halves of theexperimental period. In each period, whites andLatinos received significantly more positive
responses than did blacks, and whites received
slightly more positive responses than did
Latinos. To examine whether our results depend
strongly on any particular area within New York,
we separate the experimental effects by location.
Over half the audited employers were located in
Manhattan. We found the pattern of black dis­advantage throughout Manhattan and in theouter boroughs. To examine whether the firsttester sent to an employer was more likely to be
successful, we randomized the order in which
testers were sent. Experimental effects are sim­
ilar regardless of which tester interviewed first.
Finally, we compare the outcomes of audits inwhich testers had little or no interaction with theemployer with those characterized by more sub-795

stantial personal contact. Here we see some evi­
dence that personal contact reduces racial dis­parities in employment, consistent with thenotion that individualizing information can help
offset the effects of negative stereotypes.
The bottom half of Table A 1 presents thesesame comparisons for the team in which thewhite applicants presented evidence of a felony
conviction. Across these comparisons, we findtreatment effects close to zero, supporting thefinding that employers did not distinguishstrongly between whites with criminal records
and minority job seekers without. In short, theseresults indicate a large racial preference among
New York employers for white job applicants
over black applicants, smaller preference forwhites over Latinos and Latinos over blacks, andlittle difference between white felons andminorities with clean backgrounds. All results
are robust to tester effects and experimental
effects and appear to be roughly uniform across
New York City.
RESULTS BY TESTER TEAMSIn the course offielding two three-person teamsof testers, we used 10 different testers: two
Latinos, four blacks, and four whites. In each
three-person team consisting of a white, a black,and a Latino, we combined the 10 testers into
six different unique combinations. Before pool­ing the data across combinations of testers,
Heckman and Siegelman (1993) recommend
testing for the homogeneity of responses acrosscombinations. The columns in Table A2 repre­
sent mutually exclusive outcomes; overall
response rates by race can be calculated bysumming all columns in which a given racegroup is represented. A chi-square test withineach team fails to reject the null hypothesis ofhomogeneity across combinations. With thisevidence of homogeneity, we report treatment
effects pooled across testers. Table A2 reports
the detailed experimental results for each unique
combination of testers.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

796

AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

Table A1.

Percentage of Positive Responses and Race Differences, by Date, Employer Address,
and Race of First Tester(N)
Total (171)
Dateb
Feb. 23 to April 7 (84)
April 8 to July 16 (84)
Location"
Below 34th St. (56)34th St. to 72nd St. (46)
Above 72nd St. (18)Other (50)Race of First Tester
White (68)Black (45)
Latino (53)Type of Positive Response d
Callback (171)
Job offer (171)Personal Contact C
No personal contact (46)1'
Personal contact(N)
Total (169)
Dateb
March 2 to April 13 (83)
April 14 to Aug. 6 (82)
Location C
Below 34tb St. (51)34tb St. to 72nd St. (46)
Above 72nd St. (7)Other (62)Race of First Tester
White (53)Black (59)
Latino (52)lype of Positive Response d
Callback (169)
Job offer (169)
Personal Contact"
No personal contact (75)Personal contact

Race Differences a

White
(W)

Latino
(L)

Black
(B)

31.0

25.1

15.2

1.2

(.02)

2.0

(.00)

1.7 (.00)

29.8
33.3

23.8
27.4

9.5
21.4

1.3
1.2

(.08)
(.04)

3.1
1.6

(.00)
(.00)

2.5 (.00)
1.3 (.05)

23.2
30.4
33.3
40.0

21.4
21.7
22.2
34.0

12.5
17.4
5.6
20.0

l.l
1.4
1.5
1.2

(.31)
(.02)
(.00)
(.12)

1.9
1.8
6.0
2.0

(.00)
(.00)
(.00)
(.00)

1.7
1.3
4.0
1.7

27.9
40.0
28.3

23.5
31.1
22.6

10.3
20.0
18.9

1.2
1.3
1.3

(.11 )
(.06)
(.09)

2.7
2.0
1.5

(.00)
(.00)
(.00)

2.3 (.00)
1.6 (.01 )
1.2 (.15)

12.9
21.1

9.9
17.0

2.9
12.9

1.3
1.2

(.10)
(.02)

4.4
1.6

(.00)
(.00)

3.4 (.00)
1.3 (.02)

10.9
52.3

6.5
46.2

0
29.2

1.7
l.l

White felon(Wf)

Latino
(L)

Black
(B)

17.2

15.4

13.0

1.1

(.25)

1.3

(.08)

1.2 (.17)

16.9
17.1

13.3
17.1

10.8
15.9

1.3
1.0

(.16)
(.43)

1.6
1.1

(.06)
(.35)

1.2 (.21 )
1.1 (.34)

9.8
13.0
0
29.0

7.8
17.4
0
21.0

3.9
13.0
0
21.0

1.3
.8

(.30)
(.74)

2.5
1.0

(.05)
(.42)

2.0 (. 00)
1.3 (.14)

1.4

(.08)

1.4

(.09)

1.0 (.46)

20.8
18.6
11.5

18.9
15.3
11.5

13.2
15.3
11.5

1.1
1.2
1.0

(.34)
(.20)
(.44)

1.6
1.2
1.0

(.13)
(.15)
(.42)

1.4 (.15)
1.0 (.39)
1.0 (.41 )

11.2
5.9

9.5
6.5

5.3
7.7

1.2
.9

(.23)
(.58)

2.1
.8

(.0 I)(.77)

1.8 (.02).8 (.65)

8.0
35.9

8.0
28.2

4.0
30.8

1.0
1.3

(.45)

(.09)

(.04)

WIB

WIL

LIB

Race Differences"

(.03)
(.15)
(.00)
(.00)

..._"--_.._.

---_.~_._-~~

Wf/L

WflB

LIB

"Numbers in parentbeses are bootstrap p-values for a one-sided test of whetbel' the ratio is less than or equal toone.
b Changes over time capture several possible effects: learning or adaptation by testers, compositional changes inthe types of employers brought into the sample at different points, and changes in the business cycle.
C Street addresses are for Manhattan.
d Because some testers received both ajob oner and a subsequent callback, the sum ofthese two columns may begreater than the total listed above (in which a positive response is calculated by the presence of a callback or a job
otTer).
C Analyses of "personal contact" include only those cases in which all tester partners experienced personal contact; the "no personal contact" analyses include cases in which none of the testers experienced personal contact.
This exclusion avoids any confounding effect of employers' racial preferences as reflected in the decision tointerview.
I' Because the response rate for blacks in this subsample is zero, ratios in which blacks are in the denominator are
undefined. For the purposes ofthis analysis, we represent this ratio as greater than the value of the numerator
over one.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

DISCRIMINATION IN A tOW-WAGE tABOR MARKET

Table A2.

Results.

Detailed

797

Combination of Testers

Who Gets a Positive
All

None

W+L

W+B

L+B

W

L

B

N

4.4
3.8
18.2
0
0
0
4.7

0
0
9.1
0
0
0
.6

91
53
6
7
3
171

4.9
7.3
0
20
0
0
4.7

2.5
4.9
2.8
0
25
0
3.6

81
41
36
5
4
2
169

White without criminal record (posterior predictive probability o!'X 2 statistic: .054)"
I
II
69.2
4.4
3.3
0
7.7
2
7.5
67.9
11.3
0
0
9.4
3
36.4
18.2
0
0
0
18.2
4
33.3
33.3
33.3
0
0
0
57.1
14.3
0
0
0
5
28.6
6
0
66.7
0
0
0
33.3
12.9
63.7
7.6
1.8
0
8.8
Total
White with criminal record (posterior predictive probability ofx 2 statistic: .588)
I
3.7
75.3
2.5
2.5
1.2
7.4
2
4.9
56.1
2.4
2.4
7.3
14.6
8.3
2.8
2.8
2.8
3
2.8
77.8
4
0
60
0
0
20
0
5
0
75
0
0
0
0
6
0
100
0
0
0
0
Total
3.6
71.0
3.6
2.4
3.6
7.7

II

Note: W = white; L Latino; B = black. Columns of "Who Gets a Positive Response" represent mutually exclu­
sive categories (i.e., rows sum to 100 percent). In the first experiment (no criminal record), there was only asingle case (group 3) in which a black tester received a callback when neither of his test partners received one.
a The chi-square test is undefined with marginal counts of zero. We calculate a posterior predictive p-value by
simulating counts under independence for nonzero cells.

REFERENCES
Agresti, Alan. 1990. Categorical Data Analysis. New
York: Wiley.
Aigner, Dennis.l. and Glen G. Cain. 1977. "Statistical
Theories of Discrimination in Labor Market."Industrial and Labor Relations Reviev.1 30:749-·76.
Altonji, Joseph G. and Charles R. Pierret. 2001.
"Employer LearningandStatistical
Discrimination." Journal of Economics
116:313~50.

Becker, Gary S. 1957. The Economics ofDiscrimination. Chicago, II.: University of
Chicago Press.
Bendick, Marc, Jr., Charles Jackson, and Victor
Reinoso. 1994. "Measuring Employment
Discrimination through Controlled Experiments."
Review ofBlack Political Economy 23:25-48.
Bendick, Marc, Jr., Charles Jackson, Victor Reinoso,
and Laura Hodges. 1991. "Discrimination against
Latino Job Applicants: A Controlled Experiment."
Human Resource Management 30:469-84.
Bertrand, Marianne and Sendhil Mullainathan. 2004.
"Are Emily and Greg More Employable thanLakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor
Market Discrimination." American Economic
Review 94:991··1013.
Biernat, Monica and Diane D. Kobrynowicz. 1997.
"Gender and Race-Based Standards ofCompetence: Lower Minimum Standards but
Higher Ability Standards for Devalued Groups."

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
72:544·-57.
Bodenhausen, Galen. 1988. "Stereotypic Biases in
Social Decision Making and Memory: Testing
Process Models of Stereotype Use." Journal of
Personali~vand Social Psychology 55(5):726-37.
Cancio, A. Silvia, T. David Evans, and David .J.
Maume. 1996. "Reconsidering the Declining
Significance of Race: Racial Differences in Early
Career Wages." American Sociological Review
61:541·-56.
Cross, Harry, Genevieve Kenney, Jane Mell, andWendy Zimmerman. 1990. Employer Hiring
Practices: D(fJerential Treatment ofHispanic andAnglo Job Seekers. Washington, DC: Urban
Institute Press.
Darity, William, Jr. and Patrick A. Mason. 1998.
"Evidence on Discrimination in Employment:
Codes of Color, Codes of Gender." The Journal of
Economic Perspectives 12:63-90.
Darity, William, Jr. and Samuel L. Meyers. 1998.
Persistent Disparity: Race and Economic
Inequality in the United S'tates since 1945.
Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
Darley, John M. and Paget H. Gross. 1983. "A
Hypothesis-Confirming Bias in Labeling Effects."
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
44:20-33.
Dobbin, Frank, 1. Sutton, 1. Meyer, and W. R. Scott.
1993. "Equal Opportunity Law and theThis document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

798

AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

Construction ofIntemal Labor Markets." American
Journal (jlSociology 99:396-427.
Dovidio, John F. and Samuel L. Gaertner. 2000.
"Aversive Racism and Selection Decisions."
Psychological Science 11 :315-19.
Elliott, James R. 2000. "Class, Race, and Job
Matching in Contemporary Urban Labor Markets."
Social Science Quarterly 81: 1036-52.
Farkas, George and Keven Vicknair. 1996.
"Appropriate Tests of Racial Wage Discrimination
Require Controls for Cognitive Skill: Comment on
Cancio, Evans, and Maume." American
Sociological Review 61 :557-60.
Fiske, Susan. 1998. "Stereotyping, Prejudice, andDiscrimination." Pp. 357--411 in The Handbook ofSocial Psychology, edited by D. Gilbert, S. Fiske,
and G. Lindzey. Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.
Fix, Michael and Raymond 1 Struyk, cds. 1993.
Clear and Convincing Evidence: Measurement ofDiscrimination in America. Washington, DC:
Urban Institute Press.
Fryer, Ronald G., Jr. and Steven D. Levitt. 2003.
"The Causes and Consequences of Distinctively
Black Names." NBER Working Paper 9938.
- - - . 2004. "The Causes and Consequences ofDistinctively Black Names." The Quarterly Journal(jf Economics I 19:767-805.
Ghosh, Malay, Ming-Hui Chen, Atalanta Ghosh, andAlan Agresti. 2000. "Hierarchical Bayesian
Analysis ofBinary Matched Pairs Data." Statistica
Sinica 10:647-57.
Gilbert, Daniel T. and 1 Gregory Hixon. 1991. "TheTrouble of Thinking: Activation and Applicationof Stereotypical Beliefs." Journal olPersonality
and Social Psychology 60(4):509-17.
GottschaIck, Alfred 0.2003. "Dynamics of Economic
Well-Being: Spells of Unemployment,
1996-1999." Current Population Reports.
Washington, DC: US Census Bureau.
Heckman, James 1 1998. "Detecting Discrimination."
The Journal of Economic Perspectives
12:101-116.
Heckman, James and Peter Siegelman. 1993. "TheUrban Institute Audit Studies: Their Methods andFindings." Pp. 187-258 in Clear and Convincing
Evidence: lvleasurement of Discrimination in
America. edited by M. Fix and R. Struyk. Lanham,
MD: University Press of America.
Holzer, I-larry 1 1987. "Informal Job Search andBlack Youth Unemployment." American Economic
Review 77:446-52.
- - - . 1996. What Employers Want: Job
Prospects of Less-Educated Workers. New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.
Holzer, Harry 1 and Paul Offner. 2()()!. "Trends in
Employment Outcomes of Young Black Men."
Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
Unpublished manuscript.
Johnson, William and Derek Neal. 1998. "Basic

Skills and the Black-White Earnings Gap." Pp.
480--500 in Black-White Test Score D!fferences,edited by C. Jencks and M. Phillips. Washington,
DC: Brookings Institution.
Kirschenman, Joleen and Katherine Neckennan.
1991. "'We'd Love to tlire Them, but. . .': The
Meaning of Race for Employers." Pp. 203234 in
The Urban Underclass, edited by C. Jencks and P.
Peterson. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.
Moss, Philip and Chris Tilly. 2001. Stories Employel:s'
Tell: Race, Skill, and Hiring in America. New
York: Russell Sage.
Neal, Derek and William Johnson. 1996. "The Roleof Premarket Factors in Black-White Wage
Differences." Journal of Political Economy
104:869-95.
Oettinger, Gerald S. 1996. "Statistical Discliminationand the Early Career Evolution of the Black-White
Wage Gap." Journal of Labor Economics
14:52-78.
O'Neill, June. 1990. "The Role of Human Capital in
Earnings Differences between White and BlackMen." The Journal ol Economic Perspectives
4(4):25-45.
Pager, Devah. 2003. "The Mark of a Criminal
Record." American Journal of Sociology
108:937-75.
- - - . 2007a. "The Use ofField Experiments for
Studies of Employment Discrimination:
Contributions, Critiques, and Directions for the
Future." Annals of the American Academy ol
Political and Social Sciences 609: 104-133.
- - - . 2007b. Marked: Race, Crime, and Finding
Work in an Era oflvJass Incarceration. Chicago, lL:
University of Chicago Press.
Pager, Devah and Diana Karafin. 2009. "Bayesian
Bigot? Statistical Discrimination, Stereotypes, andEmployer Decision-Making." Annals of theAmerican Aeadem}/ ofPolitical and Social Science621(1):70-93.
Pager, Devah and Lincoln Quillian. 2005. "Walking
the Talk: What Employers Say Versus What They
Do." American Sociological Review 70(3):355-80.
Petersen, Trond, Ishak Saporta, and Marc-David L.
Seidel. 2000. "Offering a Job: Meritocracy andSocial Networks." American Journal ofSociology
106:763-816.
Pettit, Becky and Bruce Western. 2004. "Mass
Imprisonment and the Life Course: Race and Class
Inequality in U.S. Incarceration." American
Sociological Review 59: 151-69.
Roscigno, Vincent l, Lisette Garcia, Sherry Mong,and Reginald Byron. 2007. "Racial Discrimination
at Work: Its Occurrence, Dimensions, andConsequences." The New Black: Alternative
Paradigms and Strategies for the 21st Century
Research in Race and Ethnic Relations 14: 131--55.
Steele, Claude M. and Joshua Aronson. 1995.
"Stereotype Threat and the Intellectual Test

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

DISCRIMINATION IN A LOW·WAGE LABOR MARKET

Performance of African Americans." Journal of
Personality and Social Psycholob'}' 69(5):797--811.
Tomaskovic-Devey, Donald, Melvin Thomas, and
Kecia Johnson. 2005. "Race and the Accumulationof Human Capital across the Career: A Theoretical
Model and Fixed-Effects Application." American
Journalo.!Sociology 111(1 ):58-89.
Trope, Yaacov and Erik P. Thomson. 1997. "Looking
for Truth in All the Wrong Places? Asymmetric
Search of Individuating Information about
Stereotyped Group Members." Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 73(2):229-41.
Turner, Margery, Michael Fix, and Raymond Struyk.
1991. Opportunities Denied, Opportunities
Diminished: Racial Discrimination in Hiring.
Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
Waldinger, Roger and Michael!. Lichter. 2003. How
the Other Ha/fWorks: Immigration and the Social

799

Organization ofLabOl: Berkeley, CA: Universityof California Press.
Western, Bruce and Becky Pettit. 2005. "Black-White
Wage Inequality, Employment Rates, andIncarceration." American Journal of Sociology
111 :553-78.
Whatley, Warren C. 1990. "Getting a Foot in the
Door: 'Learning,' State Dependence, and the Racial
Integration of Firms." The Journal of Economic
HistOlY 50( I):43-66.
Wilson, William Julius. 1996. When Work
Disappears: The World of the New Urban POOl:
New York: Vintage Books.
Yarkin, K. L., 1. P. Town, and B. S. Wallston. 1982.
"Blacks and Women Must Try Harder: Stimulus
Person's Race and Sex Attributions of Causality."·Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
8:21-24.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Much of the debate over the underlying causes of dis­crirnination centers on the rationality of enlployer decision
making. Economic models of statistical discriminationemphasize the cOf,rnitive utility of group estimates as ameans of dealing with the problems of uncertainty.
Sociological and social-psychological models, by contrast,
question the accuracy of group-level attributions.
Although mean differences may exist between groups on
productivity-related characteristics, these clifferences areoften inflated in their application, leading to rnuch larger
diftfcrences in individual evaluations than would be war­
ranted by actual group-level trait distributions. Tn thisstudy, the authors examine the nature of emplover atti­
tud~s about black and white workers and the e~tent towhich these views are calibrated against their direct expe­
riences with workers from each gn)l]p. They use datafrom fifty-five in-depth interviews with hiring managers
to explore employers' group-level attributions and theirdirect observations to develop a model of attitude forma­tion and employer learning.

Bayesian Bigot?
Statistical
Discrimination,
Stereotypes,
and Employer Keywords: racial discrimination; employment; employer
interviews; African Americans; stereot)1)es
Decision
MakingT
By
DEVAH PAGER
andDIANA KAHAFIN

he conti,nuing signiflcance of race in theminds of employers has been demonstrated
in numerous contexts. Interviews with employ­ers reveal the persistence of strong negative
associations with minority workers, with partic­
ularly negative characteristics attributed to
African American men (Kirschenman andNeckerman 1991; Moss and Ti11y 2001; \Vilson
1996). Studies of hiring behavic;r likewise sug­gest that employers strongly prefer white (andLatino) workers to otherwise similar African

NOTE: We thank Bruce VVestern for his contributions
to the original interview schedule and for valuable com­ments on the article. Thanks also to Susan Fiske andJeremy Freese for helpful comments and suggestions.
Support for this proJect carne from grants from NSF(SES-0.'547810), NTH (K01-HD053694), and a William
T. Grant Foundation Scholar's Award. Direct all corre­
spondence to Devah Pager, Department of Sociology,
Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544; e­mail: l)ager@princeton.edu'J./'
DO!:

70

]()1~77/()0027]6201<124628

f1! /

r

;)006~# IS.. . tX"

ANNALS, AAPSS, 621, January 2009
Downloaded from http://ann.sagepub.com at PRINCETON UNtV LIBRARY on January 15.2009

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

DOlaI

71

BAYESIAN BlGOT?

Americans (Pager 2003; Pager, \Vestern, and Bonikowski 2007; Bertrand andMullainathan 2004; Bendick, Brown, and \Vall 1999; Fix and Struyk 1993).
\Vhere the continuing existence of discrimination is a matter of little controversy,
however, the underlying causes remain widely contested.
.
Much of the debate over the causes of discrimination centers on the rational­
ity of employer decision making. Economic models of statistical discrimination,for example, emphasize the cognitive utility of group estimates as a means ofdealing with the problems of uncertainty (Phelps 1972; Arrow 1972). Group-level
estimates of diHlcult-to-observe characteristics-such as productivity, reliability,
or willingness to submit to authority-can provide useful information in thescreening of individual applicants. If employers can accurately estimate differ­ences in the skills or disposition of blacks and whites on average, this information
can be helpful in guiding decisions about individual black and white candidates
for whom these characteristics are Inore difficult to observe directly,
Sociological and social-psychological models, by contrast, question'thc degree towhich group-level attributions reflect accurate assessments (Bielby and 'Baron
1986; Tomaskovic-Devey and Skaggs 1999). Although mean differences may exist
between groups on some productivity-related characteristics, these differences
may be inflated in their application, leading to much larger difIerences in individ­
ual evaluations than would be warranted by actual group-level trait distJibutions(Rothschild and Stiglitz 1982).1 Furthermore, estimates of group characteristics
may ref1ect outdated associations, with factors such as occupational segregation,
imperfect information flows, and negative feedback effects reducing awareness ofchantY.ing
distributions(\Vhatlevj and \Vrityht
1994·
b
.
b
' Arrow 1998·, Farmer and Terrell1996). It thus remains unclear whether employers' assessments of various racial
groups represent accurate representations and to what extent these assessments
are responsive to novel or competing sources of information.
In this study, we take one step toward investigating these questions by mea­suring the nature of employer attitudes about black and white workers and theextent to which these views are calibrated against their direct experiences withworkers froIn each group. Using data from fifty-flve in-depth interviews with hir­ing managers, we explore employers' group-level attributions and their direct
observations to develop a model of attitude formation and employer learning.
C

Dewh Pager is an associate professor (!f sociology and a faculty associate of the Office ofPopulation Hesearch at Princeton University. Her research focuses on institutions affecting
racial stratification, including education, lahor markets, and the criminal justice system. Her
current research has ir/1)olved a series of.field experiments studying discrimination against
minorities and ex-offenders in the low-wage labor market. Hecent puhlications include Marked:
Race, Crime, and Finding \-Vork in an Era of Mass Incarceration (University of Chicago Press
20(7) and "\Valldng the Talk: Vlhat Ernployers Say versus What They Do" (with Lincoln
Quillian), in Arnerican Sociological Review 70, no. .3 (2005): 355-S0.
Diana Karafin is a PhD candidate at Ohio State University whose research jc)cuses on conse­
quences of neighborhood integration, racial democracy and crime, and discrimination in the
housing and labor markets.

Downloaded from hUp'.t/annsagepub.Gorn at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on January 15, 2009This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

72

THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

Prior Research on Discrilnination
Direct observations of employer behavior suggest that race continues toshape employment opportunities in important ways. A recent field experimentof employment discrimination in New York City, for example, provided a rare
glimpse into the pervasiveness of discrimination in low-wage labor markets(Pager, \Vestern, and Bonikowski 2007). Across hundreds of applications forentry-level jobs, blacks were half as likely to receive a callback or job offer as
equally qualified white applicants. Furthermore, blacks with clean records
fared no better than a white man just released from prison. The results of thisand earlier audit studies provide vivid illustration of the degree to which racialconsiderations continue to actively shape the employment opportunities avail­able to young black men (Bendick, Brown, and Wall 1999; Fix and Struyk 1993;
Bertrand and Mullainathan 2004; Pager 2003; see Pager [2007] for a review).
Although the foregoing studies provide an important measure of the demandside of the labor market, audit methods otler little inSight into the motivations or
attitudes that shape employer behavior. Does discrimination typically reflect
racial animus? Have employers had negative experiences with African American
employees in the past that have led them to shy away from hiring blacks? Or doother factors shape employer decision making?
Previous research leaves these questions only partially answered. The classic
study by Kirschenman and Neckennan (1991) indicates that race is indeed
salient to employers in their hiring decisions. Results from a large sample of in­depth interviews reveal employers' blatant admission of their avoidance of young
inner-city black men, attributing characteristics such as "lazy" and "unreliable" tothis group (p. 21.3; see also \Vilson 1996; Moss and Tilly 2001; Waldinger andLichtcr 2003). 2
At the same time, while this study has been widely cited as evidence of
employers' deep biases about African Americans, espeCially young black inner­city men, the findings themselves present a more complicated picture. vVhile
some employers spoke only in general terms about the assumed characteristics ofblack inner-city men, suggestive of the role of broad cultural stereotypes, others
made specific reference to negative experiences with their own black employees,
indicating that employer attitudes may be heavily shaped by direct observation of
racial differences among their workers.
The underlying sources of employer attitudes thus remain somevvhat unclear.
Indeed, in framing their analysis with the concept of statistical discrimination,
Kirschenman and Neckerman (1991) remain agnostic as to whether employers'
comments represent accurate depictions or exaggerated stereotypes. Ernployers
are clearly using race as a proxy for employment-relevant characteristics, but thedegree to which the use of this proxy is informed by empirical realities remains
uncertain.

Downloaded from http://ann.sagepub.Gom at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on January 15, 2009This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

BAYESIAN BIGOT?

Moss and Tilly (2001) also find employers readily referring to negative char­acteristics among African American workers, ""ith pervasive concerns about
dependability, motivation, attitude, and skill. Many of these employers cite con­crete experiences with their own black employees as the basis of their attitudes,
though some also cite media representations and more general observations ofAfrican Americans as the source of their racial attributions (pp. 138-40). At thesame time, Moss and Tilly note that a "silent majority" of employers claim not to
notice racial differences among their employees. The authors speculate thatthese responses are due to some combination of social desirability bias, effective
screening or training techniques (rendering a population-level racial skills gap
irrelevant for the particular firm), or an honest experience of black and white
workers as comparable. Among the largest group of employers, then, it is difflcult
to assess to what extent perceptions of racial differences are relevant for employ­ers' decision making.
'While the present study can move no closer to assessing the accuracy (or hon­esty) of employers' racial assessments, it does attempt to provide a more explicit
understanding of the connection between employers' direct experiences andtheir more general racial attitudes. Following in the footsteps of the important
employer-interview studies from the 1990s, this project seeks to better under­
stand the degree to which employers' extensive experience with black and white
workers generates assessments of racial differences that reflect their own empir­
ical observations. In exploring the link between experience and beliefs, we hopeto provide some inSight into the dynamic process by which racial attitudes areconstructed and reinforced.

A Rational Actor Model of .Hiring
Economic models of statistical discrimination suggest that race offers a usefulproA)f for difHcult-to-observe characteristics. Because productivity is difflcult toobserve directly, particularly for new hires, employers rely on indirect informa­tion inferred from group membership. This model can represent rational action
on the part of employers, provided that the information they have about groups
is accurate, and provided that there is a mechanism for updating estimates ofgroup characteristics over time. vVhere discussions of statistical discrimination
typically focus on accounting for single-point hiring decisions, the theoretical
propositions can be readily extended to a dynamic process. Figure 1 represents
such a model schematically, in its Simplest form.
The model starts with information about k.nown group characteristics: forexample, employers may be aware of racial differences in graduation rates, testscores, incarceration rates, and other relevant disparities. Ernployers may also
have direct pdor experiences to which they refer in shaping their own beliefs.
These antecedent sources of infcmnation then shape the employers' general
heliefs ahout hlacks-about their productivity, reliability, intelligence, and other

Downloaded from fitlp:!/ann.sagepub.Gom at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on January 15, 2009This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

74

THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMYFIGURE I
A RATIONAL ACTOR MODEL OF HIRING DECISIONS
Known group characteristics
Prior personal experience

1

Beliefs about blacks --.... Hiring decisions _ _.... Experience withblack employees

Updating ofbeliefs

relevant characteristics. Those beliefs will then guide individual hiring decisions.
Once hiring decisions are made, employers are exposed to a range of black
employees, and to the extent that these experiences with black employees do not
fit the assumptions of the employer about members of that group, employers willrevise their belief" in a sort of Bayesian updating process to reflect a more accu­
rate set of m,vectations.3
This equilibrium model of statistical discrimination describes the mechanisms
by which employers can incorporate their direct observations into more general
assessments of group characteristics. This feedback loop provides an efficientmeans of calibrating expectations, observations, and behavior. Consistent withsuch a model, some research docs indeed point to evidence of employer updat­
ing. Altonji and Pierret (2001), for example, show that as firms acquire more
information about a worker (through posthire observation), their evaluations (asreflected in wage offers) rely less on general (noisy) characteristics, such as edu­
cational attainment, and more on individual-specific characteristics, such as cog­
nitive skill (see also Oettinger 1996; Farber and Gibbons 1996).4 These studies
prOVide compelling evidence that employers weigh their direct observations
more heavily than inferences based on group proxies and that employer learning
can improve on initial estimates. Nonetheless, this line of research applies specif­
ically to learning about individual workers, whereby group-based estimates are
replaced with the observed characteristics of individuals. It remains unclear,
however, whether an employer's learning about an individual employee affects
the employer's expectations about the broader group to which that individual
employee belongs.
Indeed, Farmer and Terrell (1996) provide an elegant theoretical analysis of
employer learning and statistical discrimination in which initial employer beliefs
are revised through an updating process similar to that described above.

Downloaded from rltlp:i/ann,sagepub.com at PRINCETON UN1V LIBRARY on January 15, 2009This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

BAYESIAN BIGOT?

According to the authors, however, the updating process might apply only to thespecific employees under observation, rather than to members of the larger
group. "Higher than expected output of one worker provides much information
about individual ability, but only a single data point to estimate the average abil­
ity of a population of millions. In addition to observation of workers, an employer
receives an abundance of information on average group ability from othersources. Observations of average output, or perhaps occupations, of other mem­bers of the group influence the assessment of group ability" (p. 206). The processby \\lhich employers generate estimates of group characteristics and update thoseestimates over time thus remains unknown. In the following analysis, we seek tomake headway in understanding this dynamic process.

Source of Data
This research is based on in-depth, in-person interviews with 55 New York
City employers. The employers in this study represent a subsample of firms
advertising for enhy-Ievel positions in 2004. 5 In selecting respondents, we aimed
to capture the full range of enby-Ievcl employers according to industry, occupa­tion, and other tYI,es of characteristics thought to be associated with discrimina­tion. In all, we made 243 in-person contacts \\lith 152 firms to solicit participationin our study, 55 of whom agreed, rendering a response rate of 36 percent. The
rnajority of respondents were male (70 percent); white (59 percent); located in
Manhattan (82 percent); and managing a firm in the retail industry (46 percent),
the restaurant industry (.31 percent), or the service industry (11 percent).6
Furthermore, 47 percent of respondents represented independent firms, 40 per­cent national chains, and 13 percent local New York City chains.
Interviews ranged in length from thirty minutes to two hours, with the aver­age interview lasting flfty minutes. Content of the interviews reflected a wide
range of topics, including recruitment strategies; screening procedures; concerns
about enh),-level workers; and criteria for selection, placement, and promotion
decisions. The questions we focus on here come from a module focusing on
employers' racial attitudes. This core segment of the interview probed three pri­mm)' sets of issues related to (1) employers' general attitudes about the employ­ment problems of black men, (2) their specific experiences with black applicantsand employees, and (3) the relationship between employers' concrete experi­
ences and their general attitudes. In the following discussion, we examine thepattern of responses that emerged from our conversations with employers, focus­
ing speCifically on the link between employers' general attitudes about blacks andtheir specific experiences.
The use of qualitative data is well suited to investigating complex processes
given its ability to capture the nuance and depth of personal attitudes (Orbuch1997). But this approach also has its limitations. The relatively small sample pre­vents us from drawing strong conclusions about the attitudes of employers more

Downloaded from ~lttp:!!ann.sagepub.com at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on January 15, 2009This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

76

THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

generally. More important, the validity of findings from interview data depends
on respondents' willingness to provide truthful answers to questions. Given thesensitive nature of this investigation, concerns over social desirability bias arehighly relevant. As we discuss below, the candid answers we received from
employers about their negative racial attitudes offer some reassurance that
employers were not entirely self-censoring. At the same time, we must remainaware of the possibility that some responses may be affected by these COIlcenlS.
Despite these limitations, in-depth interviews provide a rare window into
employers' thought processes and offer some leverage in understanding the com­plex process of attitude formation among this group. \Vhile we cannot conclu­
sively adjudicate among theories based on the results from this study, we hopethat our findings will be generative of hypotheses for further testing.

flow' Do Elnployers Think about Young Black Men'?
In talking about race, and in particular the employment problems of blackmen, employers' responses represented a range of views. 7 Some employers
emphasized the structural barriers facing African Americans, including poverty,
a lack of education, disadvantaged neighborhood contexts, and prejudice and dis­
crimination. For example, one employer from a courier company emphasized the
problems of residential segregation, discrimination, and incarceration as key bar­riers to black men's employment opportunities.
\Vell, there are of course the obvious problems of racial profiling where people don't
want to hire them. They won't tell you that and you don't really think it happens as muchin society. People think all of that segregation has ended, but it really hasn't. . . .
Another problem, as a good example in terms of hiring people that have criminal back­grounds, a lot of people are not looking to take the chance, and unfortunately the num­
ber of African American men that have been incarcerated has just, in the past few years,
been phenomenal. Anel so people don't stop to think that, let's say someone wasn't reallyinvolved in something. Maybe they just got caught up, so to speak. Some people may
just think that, well you have been in trouble anel so I don't \vant to hire you. So that is
another aspect that keeps people from hiring black men.

Another employer from a retail chain pointed to a range of factors, from racism
to a lack of education, that disadvantage black men in the labor market:
Hacism is still a huge issue in America. . . . Especially like black men have been
repressed for so many years, like due to evelY, like due to racial issues, a lot of them arevelY like limited in their, their work experience, or in their education levels, because theeducation system in New York City is terrible, like in public schools especially, like inthe inner city. and you know, in the poorer neighborhoods, so . . . there . . . is a lackof education . . . and so many people can't, you know, afford to go to college. . . . And
therefore there's so many jobs that so Jnany people are trying to compete for. . . . You
knO\v I think that that's what a lot of the problem is for, for, for especially black men in,in this city.

Downloaded from htlp:!!ann.sagepuh.Gom at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on January 15. 2009This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

BAYESIAN BIGOT?

77

Overall, more than 40 percent of employers commented on structural issues,
about 15 percent of whom emphasized these factors as their primary explanation
for the employment problems of black men.
By far, the most common explanations for black men's employment problems,
however, focused on the individual shortcomings of black men themselves. Morethan three-fourths of employers mentioned individual explanations at some pointin their discussion of black men's employment problems, \\lith well over half (60percent) emphasizing individual f~lCtors as their primary explanation. A wide
range of perceived shortcomings were identified as primary explanations forblack men's employment troubles, including concerns over work ethic, attire, andattitude, which we discuss in detail below.
Of course, we know from other research that Americans tend to give individ­
ualistic explanations for inequality in general, whether racial or otherwise(Schuman and Krysan 1999; Kluegel and Smith 1985; Jackman 1994; Bobo
2004). For example, in his analysis of General Social Survey data collected
between 2000 and 2004, Hunt (2007) finds that at least half of Americans
believed contemporary racial inequality to be caused by a "lack of motivation,"
relative to less than a third who cited discrimination as an important problem. s
To some extent, then, the distribution of responses we observe reflects a moregeneral reluctance to view inequality in structural tenDs.
At the same time, however, the content in these interviews goes beyond thestandard narrative of "pull yourself up by your bootstraps." Certainly we also
heard comments of this sort. One employer from a local restaurant chain, forexample, insisted, "If you are persistent, something will eventually pan out foryou. I am sure of it. If you really want a job, you will eventually flnd one." Thecomments we focus on in this analysiS, by contrast, go well beyond these generic
beliefs in individualism to reveal far mOre specific attributions about black men.
In asking employers to reflect on their experiences with workers from differ­
ent racial groups, we are not Simply asking them about their general beliefs
about inequality; we are asking them to draw from their expertise as enlployers
to help us better understand why the economic outcomes for some groups are
systematically better/worse than others. Given their unique vantage point, wemight expect ernployers to express attitudes about the characteristics of black
and white workers that diverge from mainstream American racial attitudes.
Because of highly segregated social networks, many white Americans' exposure
to African Americans is limited to casual observation, brief encounters, andmedia representations. Most employers, by contrast, have had extensive contact
with black workers and have had the opportunity to observe these workers per­form specific tasks and responsibilities.
Under these conditions, then, \ve might expect employers' direct experiences
to play a larger role in shaping their racial attitudes relative to other white
Americans. Previous research provides only partial insight into this question.
Bobo, Johnson, and Suh (2002), for example, find that employers' racial stereo­
types are indistinguishable from those of the general public, suggesting thatworkplace power or experience does little to shift generalized racial associations. H

Downloaded from htlp:l/ann,"agepub,Gom at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on January 15, 2009This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

78

THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMYAt the SaIne time, close-ended survey measures capture only one dimension of
attitudes, potentially overlooking some of the complexities and contradictions
embedded in employers' ideas about the characteristics of racial groups. The pre­sent study uses in-depth interviews to investigate employers' attitudes about andexperiences with black men. vVe begin with an investigation of employers' gen­eral characterizations of black men, and then explore the degree to which tflesecharacterizations are rooted in direct experiences and observations.

Lack (~f a work ethic
One of the most common themes we heard from employers centered on theperceived lack of a work ethic among black men (fully 55 percent mentioned thisissue). Some of these employers referred to a general lack of motivation to work
among African American men. Others described a desire among black men to
take advantage of the system instead of working. One employer at a retail store
said Simply, "I will tell you the truth. African Americans don't want to work" Amanager of a retail store said similarly, "They don't want to work-you can tell by
the attitude, clothing, the general body language." The owner of a dry-cleaning
store commented, "They just don't have any drive. No get up and go attitude."
Likewise, a young male employer working in a national clothing chain stated, "I
think for a lot of them they are too lazy to work so they are not going to "vork."
A human resources manager at a national retail chain, when asked what she
thinks explains the employment problems of black men, explained,
Employer (E): They are not as motivated as other races to, you know, to get out and do
more and to improve or make themselves better.... [T]hey are not as motivated ordetermined to move up or to even do anything to improve themselves.
Interviewer ([): \Vhat do you think this lack of motivation stems from?
E: I don't know how to say this but probably laziness. Just being lazy and not wanting towork.

\Vhen asked the same question, the manager of a local restaurant chain in New
York City first argued that more black men are employed than the statistics inch­
cate because many work off the books. However, the employer then refined his
initial explanation, stating, "Listen, I also think there is a degree of being lazy." Aswith many of the other employers interviewed, this manager seemed to believethat if black men were motivated to search for employment in a responsible man­ner, their employment problems would be resolved.
In several cases, employers attributed the lack of work ethic to a complex his­
tory of racism and paternalism. For example, the long-term manager of an indus­
trial supply store in the Bronx noted, "In America blacks believe the golden
opportunity is to be taken care of." Another employer who earlier had asserted
that "African Americans don't want to work" elaborated on his initial comment:
Maybe they think that this country owes them so much. Because of slavery and all of
that. They, 'they tend to forget that ~vas a couple of years ago. Instead of catd;ing up with

Downloaded from ~ltlp:!lann.sagepuh.com at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on January 15, 2009This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

BAYESIAN BlGOT?

7H

the world, they still keep that anger. . . . So African American men feel like they
deserve something. That is basically why they don't want to work. They feel that jf they
can get things for free, why not?

The manager of a national restaurant chain expressed a similar view, differentiat­
ing ben-veen black men and black women. "I think the mentality is changing. I
think [black men] are more accepting of letting the female work and they stayhome." He went on to explain,
I think, you know, a percentage of it, probably has to do with them figuring out how
to take advantage of the system. You know, with welfare or something like that. I do
think that a lot of them have the rnentality of: I'm black and the government doesn't
help. So, let lne do what I can to get from the government. Though Martin LutherKing has changed the world, a lot of them have the mentality that it is still a whiteworld.

A different employer emphasized that programs exist to help those in need ofwork but that black men elect to ignore the programs as they want "things
handed to them." The main supervisor of a national food chain explained,
The key is, I think there are great programs out there, but people don't take advantageof them. It is probably laziness. You know, there are programs. But people are lazy. A lotof people want things handed to them.

Another employer focused more specifically on negative consequences of vveH~1redependence:
Unfortunately we've bred generations of welfare-of people whose . . . careers are . . .
welfare and social agencies. And, uh, and it's unfortunate. A lot of these people just don't
have any work values.

Applying a similar line of reasoning, the young Inanagcr of a local telemarketingfirm expressed frustration with black men playing the "race card" as a way ofescaping responsibility:
I mean, I do understand that sometimes the black man is racially profiled. So jt is SOlne­
thing they are always going to deal with. This is unfortunate for thern, but I think theyshouldn't even go there with playing the race card. I mean, a lot of them are like, "Youtreat me this way because I am black," and "I can't do this and I can't do that." I justthink for a lot of them, it is that they just don't want to do things. They ,vant to smoke
weed and be a rapper.

Although this employer does see racial discrimination as a reality, he views it as
more often used as a convenient excuse for failure than a direct cause.
Underlying the employment problems of black men, according to this employer,
is more often a Simple lack of motivation and effort.
According to each of these employers, a lack of work ethic, motivation, andpersonal responsibility is pervasive among African American men, and together,

Downloaded from lillp:l/anll,sagepub,Gom at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on January 15, 2009This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

80

THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

these factors represent the primary causes of this group's employment problems.
Historical social poliCies (e.g., slavery and welfare) are seen less as explanations
for these patterns and more as convenient excuses available for African
Americans in the abdication of responsibility.

Self-presentation
A second persistent therne in the interviews was the issue of black men's self­
presentation (45 percent of employers mentioned this issue). In particular,
employers highlighted problems of unsuitable appearance, negative attitude, andinappropriate conduct among black men. Particularly for positions involving cus­
tomer service, employers expressed concern about the image projected by black
men in their attire and attitude. An employer representing a local New York City
clothing chain remarked,
Sometimes these people looking for a job, why would they have a do-rag on and jeans?
\Vhy would they? You know, just the way you present yourself, it's how you are. . . . The
black male, yes. It's just the way they cany themselves.

Another employer, the manager of a children's clothing store, when explaining
why black men have difficulty securing employment, stated,
The way they present theInselves in the store. If they corne in, and excuse the word, butthey are all thugged out, it is not somebody I want on lny sales Hoor.

Also placing Significant weight on the role of appearance in securing employ­ment, an employer representing a popular local New York City retail chain com­mented,If you go out looking for a job with caps, baggy pants and triple x t-shirts or whatever,you can't expect someone to hire yOll like that. vVhy don't you put on some decent
clothes and go look for a job? That is the mistake minorities, black and Hispanics tend
to do. They look for a job, and when they don't get hired, they automatically say it is dis­
crimination.

The manager of a retail clothing chain complained, "[Blacl< men are] usually,
like very urban looking, baggy pants, you know, just like baggy clothes, hat."
Like\\rise, an employer for a moving company said, "I think people who corne inwearing baggy pants or something like that just make a bad impression. You canbe green, orange, purple, or whatever. It doesn't matter, it isn't good."10 For these
employers, the problems of attire-and specifically the issue of baggy pants-sig­
naled a lack of profeSSionalism or an ignorance about appropriate work attire,
something they often associated with black men.
In addition to matters of appearance, employers' comments about the self­
presentation of blacl< men also emphasized issues of attitude and conduct. Blacl<
men were often perceived as having a "bael attitude" about work or relations ofDownloaded from htlp:llann,Saqepub.com at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on January 15, 2009This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

BAYESIAN BIGOT?

81

authority, or at times behaved in ways considered inappropriate for mainstream
work environments. When considering the employment problems of black men,an employer from a national clothing chain explained, "It's just the way they carrythemselves." Another described black men's tendency to present "language andthe attitude, like gangsta or street."
The manager of a large national retail chain noted that differences in the self-­
presentation and conduct of black and white men affected the way they are per­ceived by employers and customers:
I have heard people say that it is easier to deal with a white persoJl more than a black
perSOJl. I guess because they feel black people are always loud and hyper. \Vhich is true.
\Vhite people may know how to cany themselves a little better than black people. Black
people always want to make a scene and always want to be heard.

A manager of a national retail store emphaSized the distinction between qualiH­
cations and self-presentation, with the latter undermining the fonner in the caseof black men:
You know, I know a lot of black males and I know how they react to things and I know
why they don't get jobs. I kind of know why. Some of them are actually qualified for jobs
but they go in with that attitude. It is all in how they present themselves.

Several employers commented on the attitude problems they perceived among
young black men as reflecting a sense of hostility or resistance to authority. An
employer from a small, independent retail store stated, "[Black men have] thiskind of attitude that is, is umm, resentful. It is hard. It is not an attitude that isfavorable for business." An employer representing a large national clothing chain
ernphasized that black men don't present thelnselves to employers appropriately
because they have a chip on their shoulder:
I: \Vhy do you think they are not presenting thernselves in what you think is the best way?
\Vhere does this stern frorn?
E: Urn, ego and insecurity. The insecurity part is that they don't feel that they are right forthe job. They lack that confidence but yet their ego won't let then! aclrnit it so they havea chip on their shoulder.

The owner of a local garment factmy echoed some of the same concerns:[Black men] act a little more belligerent than others. There is the attitude and patternof animosity with this group. They have a chip on their shoulders. They think, man, you
are white and that is why you don't give me a job. That kind of thing. . . . The black
male will come and say I am better than this and better than that and so on. So there ismore of a macho type' of attitude with the black male. vVhen you go for a job you haveto be, besides appearing decent and trustworthy, you can't look macho or act like you are
better than other people.

Another employer at a retail store found it difficult to advise young black men
about appropriate attire because of their resistance to authority.

Downloaded from htlp:llann,sagepub,com at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on January 15, 2009This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

82

THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

I think that it is hard for these rnen because they are too proud. Especially the younger
guys, the eighteen- and nineteen-year-old black guys that corne in here, are like, "Whoare you to tell me no?" They have a real problern with authority.

These employers perceive black men to exhibit styles of dress or demeanor that
present barriers to their mainstream involvement in the labor market. Concerns
about the self-presentation of black men, ranging from baggy pants to bad atti­
tudes, were viewed as a key obstacle to employment for this group.

A threatening or criminal demeanor
A final major theme in employers' general comments about black men focusedon a perceived threatening or criminal demeanor. Extending comments aboutthe "hardness" or "animosity" of black men discussed above, roughly a third of
employers mentioned concerns of this sort. According to an employer from a
local garment factory,
I find that the great lTwjority of this minority group that you are talking about either
doesn't qualify for certain jobs because they look a little bit more, they conte on as if,
well, they are threatening.

An employer from a popular national clothing chain dismisses the racial frame
initially but ultimately reached a similar conclusion:
I don't know if I consider it on a race level. I just consider it more on approachability.
And if someone seems intimidating, you know, and which, stereot),pically might be, you
might consider like a Hispanic person or a black person more intimidating than like awhite person.!!

Other employers focused more specifically on concerns about criminality.
According to one employer from an ice cream chain, for example,
I notice here working in the store, sometimes, a group of young black males will comein. And sort of, a red flag goes up. Everything stops, and you wonder, what are they goingto do? Are they here to buy something? There is a general belief that, because of theway they dress and how they carry themselves, that they are trouble.

An employer from a retail store explained, "I mean, black males are not expected
to go out and work, because they are doing other illegal things in the neighbor­hood." Likevvise, an employer for a moving company pointed to the lure of crim­
inal activity among African Americans:
They see the drug dealer who is driving around in a Lexus, and then they see me in a
Chevv, and thev say I don't need to be a mover. I don't need to work sixty hours a week.
.
I car/go hustle~stuff on the corner and drive a Lexus.

Another explained simply, "Half of them are in jail." These employers associate
black men with danger, crime, and the criminal justice system, factors that appear
incompatible with legitimate work.

Downloaded from http://<mn.sagepub.Gom at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on January 15, 2009This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

BAYESIAN BIGOT?

Overall, then, we find birly pervasive negative attitudes about black men as agroup. While some ernployers did place more emphasis on lack of opportunity,
prejudice, or other more structural factors, the majority of employers pOinted to
specific deficiencies among black men that led them to have difficulty in the job
market. Our next set of questions seeks to investigate to what extent these nega­tive attitudes are a function of employers' direct experiences.

Are En1ployers' Perceptions Informed by Experience?
In discussing their general attitudes about black men, many employers
inevitably referred to specific observations or experiences in their own work­
place. These anecdotes point to one potential source of employers' general atti­
tudes, though they tell us little about the overall distribution of experiences. Our
next set of interview questions, then, attempted to elicit more systematic infor­
mation about employers' experiences with applicants and employees from vari­
ous racial groupS.12 In particular, we asked employers to consider the extent towhich the characteristics they had described to us were reflected in the black
applicants or employees they had encountered over the past year.
In some cases, there was clearly a link between employers' general attitudes
and their direct experiences. For example, one employer \vho had expressed neg­
ative views of blacks generally ("basically these people are lazy") went on todescribe the differences he has observed between black and white applicants.
Black people, mostly, yeah 1 can say that they come in, and "Are you hiring?" That's theirquestion, and then that's it. They don't have, they are not prepared at all. 1 give thenl anapplication and they don't show up back with it. It's like, 'Tnl taking it, but let's see what
happens, . . ." VVhite people . . . they mostly conle with resume already done, thepaper with them.

Another employer who had commented earlier on dysfunctional culture affect­ing "people that corne from two or three generations that are on welfare"described the differences he observed:"Vell for my business 1 am looking for somebody that comes dressed for the interview.
If you walk in with bagt-,'Y jeans it is not even worth talking to you. This is something I
have observed with black men. I mean, veah, I definitelv have noticed that a lot of black
male applicants typically don't know ho~v to properly talk to me, or they leave messages
on the phone that aren't really what I am looking for. I mean, they just don't seem ener­
getic or like they really want this job.

An employer from a national service organization commented on her experi­
ences with black applicants who seemed to take job opportunities for granted,
not demonstrating suitable interest or seriousness of purpose.
People will call here and you will tlY to schedule them for an interview. So yOll will offer
them an interview, and they call lip asking for one. and they say things like, "Yeah, I don't
know if that time works for me." You know what I mean'? It is just not proper etiquette.

Downloaded from hUp:liann,sagepub,Gom at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on January 15, 2009This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

84

THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

vVhile we were conducting an interview with the manager of a local telemarket­
ing flrm, a black male job applicant entered the room, dressed in baggy clothing,
and asked to schedule an interview. The manager replied that the individual
would have to come back later in the week, to which the applicant stated,"Gotcha. See you then." After the applicant left, the manager stated, "Not gonna
hire him. See what I mean? Where did he learn that 'gotcha' was the right thing
to say to a potential boss? And see what I mean about attire?"
A number of the employers we spoke to reported at least some negative expe­
riences with black applicants and/or employees, ranging from comments about
individual workers to descriptions of more general patterns. Overall, among oursample of white respondents, employers were more likely to note racial differ­ence among their applicant pool (46 percent) than among their employees (34percent) .13 This suggests that employers are doing an effective job at weeding out
good employees from a more heterogeneous applicant pool. At the same time,note that more than half of employers claim not to notice racial differences in thequality of their applicants, and fully two-thirds of employers notice no racial dif­ferences among their own employees. In these cases, there is often little rela­tionship between the impressions they repOli about African Americans generally
and their own direct observations of black employees.
For example, one employer earlier emphaSized the lack of work ethic among
blacks ("just being lazy and not wanting to work") as the major f~lctor for theiremployment problems; but when asked if she had observed these problems in her'vvorkplace, she replied, "\!Vell no. . . . Of course once in a while they goof off, butthat is across the board. I don't see any differences between groups." A video store
employer ackno'vvledged that stereotypes were often quite different from reality:"There are people that say there are diHerences in work ethics of black men, but
T have no speCific thing like that that T have noticed. Absolutely not. The worst
employees have been the non people of color. They have been the worst."
An employer who earlier had alluded to the problems black men have with"presentation" and "attitude," went on to describe his employees with the fol­lmving comments:
I: Among your employees, have you noticed differences in the work performance of blacks
and whites?
E: U m, do you mean in terms of work ethic?
I: Sure.
E: They reany have a nice work ethic.
I: What about comparing whites to blacks?
E: In my experience blacks will outdo them.
I: Blacks win outdo whites?
E: Yeah, once you get the right person. Sometimes with an entry-level, they don't seem ascommitted.
I: You mean your white employees?
E: Yeah. It is like they think they are above this. I cIon't flncI this \-vith the black employees.

An employer for a retail clothing store (who had referred to blacks as being more
"intimidating" than whites) came to a similar assessment about her own employ­ees: "It's hard to compare because it's diHerent types of work that they're dOing,
Downloaded from hHp://ann,sagepub,corn at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on January 15, 2009This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

BAYESIAN BIGOT?

85

but I would say that the people who are not of Caucasian descent work a little
harder than the white kids."
In several cases, employers did acknowledge differences among workers but
accounted for them along nonracial lines. We asked an employer who had earlieremphasized the impOltance of attire for her workers:
I: Do you observe that black male applicants are more likely than white male applicants topresent themselves to you inappropriately?
E: No not really. I think it is a problem for all of them. I think just men in general.

In another case, the employer started out describing the problematic applicantsshe deals with. When we pressed her to consider whether these characteristics
were more prevalent among black men, she thought about the question and thenreframed her comments in terms of age.
' ..
E: They don't come in dressed, they don't come in and speak to you in a correct way. They
speak like they are hanging out and not looking for a job.
I: Okay, so do you notice that black rnales come in not prepared or dressed appropriately
more often than white males that are looking for jobs?
E: I think it is about the same honestly. It is more about the age. The high school kids are
the ones that don't come in dressed like they are looking for a job. As they get older you
can see the difference because they are coming in in slacks and they are coming in in a
shirt and they are speaking to you. They aren't just like, "Here is an application," andthen they walk out the door.

These employers appear to have identified a cluster of behaviors or styles ofpresentation that Signal poor performance, some of which are often associatedwith African American men, but when pressed to make sense of their observa­
tions, they focus on a different set of categories. Of course, it may be the case that
employers feel uncomfortable making racial attributions and thus retreat to a lan­
guage of gender or age out of social desirability concerns. vVe have no way of con­clUSively ruling out this possibility. At the same time, given the extremely candid
racial remarks made by these employers just moments before, we feel some reas­surance in taking these responses at face value. These comments lead us tobelieve that employers felt suffIciently at ease to speak in racial terms, and thus,
we see little reason that they "vould suddenly retreat into a more politically correct
style of discourse. In fact, we were concerned with the opposite effect, that
employers would feel some pressure to come up "'ith specific examples of poor
performance among their black employees, if only to maintain consistency with
their earlier comments. Quite the contn.uy, we found employers repeatedlyemphasizing the lack of clear distinctions between black and white applicants andemployees, even as these c()mments appear to contradict earlier statements about
the generalized characteristics of black men.
As a final example of the disconnect that often appeared between employers'
expectations and outcomes, one employer from a small retail store describes her
recent experience with a black man she had hired for a stockperson position in
her retail store:

Downloaded from rltlp:lfann.5i:'lgepub.com at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on January 15, 2009This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

86

THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

Like, last year. I had this guy come in, with a big hat and a big jacket. I don't know if he
had a criminal record, but he looked like it. But I was so desperate that I hired him.
[Laughs] He was OK. But the way he dressed. Sometimes the way they dress. It is bad. I
mean, a big hat. You try to be nice, but at the same time, I don't need a guy with a big hat.
[Laughs] I was surprised that he worked out well. He finished the season velY nicely."In this case, despite the fact that the employer viewed this man as poorly dressedand potentially criminal, he ultimately wound up being a reliable employee.
Indeed, employers frequently acknowledged that their first impressions of appli­
cants were often completely off base. Here, the employer recognized her mis­judgment, and yet, there is little sign that this experience caused her to rethink
her more general, negative impressions of black men. Earlier in the interview,
this employer had characterized black men as having attitude problems. "Sociallythere is a difference. In the neighborhood [black men] have a kind of attitude,that is, is um, resentful. It is hard. It is not an attitude that is favorable for busi­
ness." Although here (and in other comments), she insists that her own experi­
ences with black employees have been overwhelmingly positive, she retains
strong negative impressions about black men "in the neighborhood," the sourceof which remains unknown.

[E]l1~'Ployers frequently acknowledgedthat their first irnpressions of applicants were
often cornpletely off base.

Jlo\v to Explain the Gap bet\:veen ElTIployers'
Perceptions and Experience?
\Vhereas most of the employers in our sample expressed consistent negative
attitudes about black men, far fewer could identify specific patterns or experi­
ences among their own applicants or employees to fit these characterizations.
How can we account for this surprising disconnect? vVhile the results of this study
cannot provide a definitive answer, we consider several plaUSible explanations.

The salience of negative eventsFirst, it is possible that while employers' experiences with black applicants or
employees on average may be similar to those with whites, a small number ofnegative experiences may hold especially strong weight in shaping attitudes

Downloaded from http://ann.sagepub.colTl at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on January 15, 2009This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

BAYESIAN BIGOT?

87(Fiske 1998). Indeed, several of the employers in our sample referred to singularexperiences that, while not representative of their experiences more generally,
seemed to shape their associations of speciHc groups. According to one employer
from a national retail chain,
You know, evely(me has a couple of bad hires. And you remember those velY Vividly.
And who that person is can really impact. [He describes a negative experience with an
African American female enlployee.] That person just stuck in my head. That was thefirst time I had done hiring during a holiday season, which is pretty stressfill. And that
person just stuck in my head. And I could see her. It was hard to not see her in otherpeople that you meet.

According to this employer's account, one particularly negative experience with ablack employee colored the employers' ex-pectations of blacks in the future.
Where this employer also noted a number of positive experiences he had hadwith African American employees, this negative experience appeared to carryespecially strong weight.
In another case, an employer for a retail clothing store spoke about his nega­tive experiences with a few black employees at a previous company.
One of them in particular was threatening me and telling me aH:er I flred him that he
was going to wait for me outside and that he was going to get me. So that kind of thing
sometimes gives you a vengeance. So, you know, you become biased a little bit.

Again, this employer acknowledges the ways in which a particularly unpleasantencounter contributed to his biases against black men more generally. It may be
the case, then, that where employers may have had only a small number of
unusually negative experiences with African Amelicans, these incidents may be
the driving force behind generalized negative attributions. Benign or positive
eX'Periences create less salient memories, even if more prevalent overall.
At the same time, only a fe\v of the employers in the sample reported extreme
negative experiences, and more than half reported that their experiences withblack and white applicants and employees were roughly comparable. 14 vVithoutsalient negative experiences coloring attitudes, what then might explain employ­ers' persistent negative racial attitudes?

Selection and screening
A second possible explanation for the disconnect between employers' charac­terizations of black men in general and their direct experiences has to do with thevarious selection and screening procedures that weed out the most undesirable
members of the group. Indeed, recall that employers were SignifIcantly more
likely to report noticing racial differences in the characteristics of their job appli­
cants than among their employees (46 versus 34 percent), suggesting that the hir­ing process leads to a more even distribution of productivity characteristics
aniong black and white employees than exist in the general population. As one

Downloaded from http://ann.sagepub.com at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on January 15, 2009This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

88

THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

employer mentioned, "Yeah, once you get the right person . . . ," indicatingthat the selection process can yield high-quality black employees, even if there isa great deal of variation within the general population. Recognizing that employ­
ees are not picked at random, we a.<;ked employers to cornment separately on
their perceptions of the applicant pool, expecting that racial differences may be
more pronounced before the employers' active screening. The fact that morethan half of employers claim not to notice racial differences even at this stage
suggests that more remains to be explained than employer sorting.
Of course, the hiring process is not the only selection process at work.
Showing up to apply for a job itself involves a process of selection, with thesearch process requiring some degree of organization, motivation, and a com­mitment to formal work. Particularly in recent years, as we have seen increasing
numbers of young black men exit the labor force altogether (HolzCl~ Offner, andSorensen 2005), selection into labor force participation may differentiate thetypes of black men employers encounter among their applicant pool from thosein the general population.
This research does not make claims about employers' accuracy in detecting
population-level characteristics relative to those observed in the workplace.
Rather, we Simply note that for many employers, whatever sources of information
they use to infer general characteristics of black men, direct experiences withblack applicants and employees do not appear dominant.

[F]or lnany ernployers, whateversources of'infonnaUort they use to infer
general characteristics of black rnen, direct
experiences tvuh black applicants andemployees do not appear dorrt'inant.

Updating versus subtyping
A third potential explanation for the disconnect between employers' general
attitudes and their specific expeIiences draws upon the sOcial-psychological con­
cept of subtyping. Where BayeSian models of updating assume that individuals
incOlporate new information by refining their expectations in ways consistent
with their experiences, social psychological models emphasize the cognitive resis­
tance to information that is disconfirming of expectations (Fiske 1998). A wealthof experimental evidence illustrates ways in which individuals are prone to view

Downloaded from htlp:.fiarHulagepub.com at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on January 15, 2009This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

89

BAYES1AN BlGOT?

those who do not conform to stereotypes as exceptions, unrepresentative of thegroup as a whole, rather than as impetus for stereotype refinement (Taylor 1981;
vVeber and Crocker 1983). The creation of a subtype allows group stereotypes toremain intact in the face of diseonfirming information.
Figure 2 applies the theory of subtyping to the schematic model proposed ear­lier to reveal a potentially different set of processes shaping racial attitudes. Here,instead of (or in addition to) known group characteristics and prior experiences
being the predominant sources of racial attitudes, cultural stereotypes and media
imagery playa strong role in shaping group expectations. 15 Those beliefs thentranslate into hiring decisions, which in turn provide a range of direct experiences
for employers \vith black workers. But instead of positive experiences with black
employees-as many of these employers report-leading to an updating ofbeliefs about blacks in general, we see a process of subtyping. As the saying mightgo, "jHy blacks aren't like blacks in general." Employers view their own black
workers as a special subtype whose characteristics have little bearing on theirevaluations of the larger group. Correspondingly, we see no pathway linking
direct experiences with general beliefs.
Of course, this Simple model does not capture the many nuances of attitudeformation and change, which certainly contain a more diverse set of influences
and pathways than are represented here. Rather, this basic scbernatic serves torepresent one important alternative to the model proposed earlier, in which
information flowed from the general to the specific and back again in ways thatenhanced accuracy over time. Here, by contrast, an updating of expectations may
occur \\'ith respect to specific members of the group (the subtype), but little revi­sion of employers' more general attitudes is expected.
The analysis likewise does not imply that employers are necessarily wrong
in their assessments of various group characteristics. It may be the case that
employers' information about African Americans as a group is accurate andthat the various selection processes at work (with individuals seleCting into
labor market participation and employers selecting workers) simply yield Cl
more advantaged subgroup to which employers are exposed. This research
makes no claims about the relationship between employers' attitudes and the"true" characteristics of African Americans. Rather, the findings suggest that,whatever sources of information they may be drawing from in forming racial
attitudes, employers do not seem to draw heavily from their own personal
experiences.

Conclusion and Discussion
The findings of this research suggest that, while most employers expressedstrong negative views about the characteristics of African American men, fewer
than half of these employers reported observations of their own applicants or
employees consistent "rith these general perceptions. Where employers may

Downloaded from htlp:/fann.sagepub.com at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on January 15, 2009This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

90

THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMYFIGURE 2
RESILIENCE OF STEREOTYPES
Known group CharacteristiCS][ Prior personal experience
Cultural stereotypes
Media imagery

1Beliefs about blacks--....

Hiring decisions_ _....

Experience withblack employees

Subtyping

update their expectations regarding individual workers, these experiences do notseem to have noticeable effects on their attitudes about the group as a whole.
Rather, employer attitudes appear more consistent with a model of subtyping, inwhich individuals who do not confonn to a stereotn)e are viewed as exceptions
whose characteristics have little bearing on the larger group.
Employers surely receive relevant information about various groups fromsources other than direct workplace experience. They observe and interact \-vithpeople in public spaces, they read newspaper coverage and watch TV news, andthey are aware of racial inequality and have their own ideas about how and why
this inequality is generated and maintained. These sources of information surely
provide valuable complements to direct workplace experience. At the same time,
it is surprising that the experiences employers report from their own direct obser­
vations do not carry greater weight in their general attitude formation. These
results suggest that Simple contact and exposure are themselves insufficient torevise deeply embedded racial attributions.
This analysis holds potentially troubling implications for hiring behavior. vVeknow from the results of field experiments that employers consistently avoid
black workers, hiring them at roughly half the rate of equally qualified whites.
vVhere models of statistical discrimination might interpret this behavior as therational response to observed differences in the productivity of black and white
workers, the present research questions this conclusion. The majority of employ­ers who report positive experiences \\lith black workers (or no differences between
black and white workers) nevertheless maintain strong negative attitudes about
black men generally. To the extent that these attitudes shape hiring decisions, evenin the scenario of equal productivity among black and white workers, we would
expect the problems of hiring discrimination to persist well into the future.

Downloaded from htlp:/iann.sagepub.com at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on January 15, 2009This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

91

BAYESIAN BIGOT?

Notes
1. See Armour (1997) for an extensive discussion of the logical, legal, and moral dilemmas of "rea­sonable racism."
2. Although the results of this study are indeed striking, it is impOliant to keep in mind that more than
:30 percent of Kirshenman and Neckerman's (1991) sample "either saw no difference [in the work ethic ofwhites, blacks, and Hispanics] or refused to categOlize in a straightforward way" (p. 210).
3. A similar process of updating is describcd in thc social psychological literature on stereotypechange, referred to as a "book keeping model," according to which new inf(mnation is incrementally incor­
porated into existing beliefs or attitudes about a group (Weber and Crocker 1983).
4. In this analysis, cognitive ability is obscrved to the researcher (by thc respondent's score on an Armed
Forces Qualification Test [AFQT] test measured earlier) but not by the employer at the point of hire. The
assumption is that the worker's cognitive ability becomes observable to the employer with time on the job.
,5. Roughly 80 percent of the employers in this sample were drawn from a random sample of employ­ers advertising f()[ an entry-level position in 2004 (see Pager, Western, and Bonikowski 2007). The remain­ing 20 percent were drawn through a purposivc sampling technique enabling us to better represent large
cmployers and industries underrepresented by the primary sample,
6. Note that within these industries are represented a wide range of job titles, including stockers, sales
assistants, busboys, kitchen staff, waiters, couriers, and customer service positions.
7. The vast majority of employers oHered multiple explanations within a siugle respouse series. Iu cat­egorizing employers' sentiments, we distingUish between individual and structural explauations nsing sev­
eral coding schemes. The first coding scheme takes into account the "flrst-rnention," or whatever
explanation was first proposed by the employer; the second takes into account any factor mentioned by an
employer, \vith rnost employers being coded into several categOlies; the third uses a "holistic" approach inwhich we coded the comments according to what appeared to be the employers' main point. In many
interviews, we specifically probed ernployers who repOlted multiple explanations with the question, "'What
do you think is the most important f~\Ctor?" In other cases, this coding is based on our interpretation of thetranscript. The main substantive conclusions are consistent across coding schemes, and where relevant,multiple measures are reported here.
8. An additional 10 percent cited "less inborn ability" as a major explanation, and 43 percent cited a"lack of chance for education." Respondents were allowed to choose more than one explanation, and thus,
the categories do not sum to 100 percent (Hunt 2007, 400, Table 2).
9. Bobo, Johnson, and Suh's (2002) study draws data from the Los Angeles Study of Urban Inequality
in which respondents were asked to rate members of a selies of racial groups according to a range of char­acteristics (unintelligent, prefer welfare, hard to get aloug with, poor English).
10. Note that here (and in several other interviews), the job in question requires primarily rnanual workand few customer interactions. Jobs at a cleaning company or a moving company do not typically require
profeSSional dress, and yet, fiJI' these employers, a worker's attire sends an important signal about his reli­ability and commitment to work.
11. A number of other employers emphaSized the perceptions of others about blacks as threatening or
intimidating. For example, one employer said, "I tllink a lot of white people are scared of black people forsome reason. I think they are scared of them, intimidated by them, they don't feel comfortable aroundthem." Similarly, the manager of a small restaurant expressed concern over the aggressive demeanor of
black men, stating that employers may be hesitant to call black applicants back because "immediately ablack male is perceived as being aggressive." Although these perceptions may also be highly relevant forhiring decisions, we do not include these responses here as this analysis focuses on employers' mVl1 views
about African Americans.
12, \Ve asked separately about applicants and employees, given that effective employer screening
would lead to a different distribution of characteristics among those seeking employment relative to those
who become employed.
1.3. African American employcrs appeared slightly more inclined to notice racial differences among
applicants but substantially less likely to report racial differences among employees. Immigrant cmployers
noted more racial differcnees at both stages. Note, however, that our sample of African American andimmigrant employers is small and that thesc indications must be taken as tentative.

Downloaded from htlp:ilann.sagepub.com at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on January 15, 2009This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

92

THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY

14. Even respondents who descJibed just one negative event were coded among those who had
observed racial differences.
1.5. 'vVhile we cannot measure the influence of cultural stereot}1Jes directly, several employers did
explicitly comment on the ways in which cultural representations of black men in the media affected theirperceptions of black men. According to one employer, ''I'd probably say 90 percent of the climes you seeon TV are Aflican Americans, female or male, and thafs something that's in the back of your head, you
know." Similarly, another employer commented, "We have the media sending all this negative information
about the young black male. All this negative information constantly. . . . 'vVe are getting the wrong imageof 'what they look like."

References
Altonji, Joseph G., and Charles R. Pierret. 2001. Employer learning and statistical disclimination.
Qumtedy journal of Economics 116:313-.50.
Armour, Jody David. 1997. Negmphobia and reasonable racism: The hidden costs of' being black in
A.merica. New York: New York University Press.
Arrow, Kenneth J. 1972. Models of job disclimination. In Racial discrimination in economic lift', ed.
Anthony H. Pascal, 83-102. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
- - - . 1998. 'vVhat has economics to say about racial discrimination? Journal of Economic Perspectives
12:91-100.
Bendick, Marc, Jr., Lauren Brown, and Kennington 'vVall. 1999. No foot in the door: An experimental studyof employment disclimination. journal of A.ging and Social Policy 10:.'5-23.
Bertrand, Mmianne, and Sendhil Mullainathan. 2004. Are Emily and Greg more employable thanLakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. American Economic Revieu;
94:991-1013.
Bielby, 'vVilliam, and James N. Baron. 1986. Men and women at work: Sex segregation, and statistical clis­
elimination. American journal of Sociology 91:7.59-99.
Bobo, Lawrence D. 2004. Incqualities that endure? Hacial ideology, AmeJiean politiC's. and the peculiar
role of the social sciences. In The changing terrain ofrace and ethnicity, ed. l\/Iaria Krysan and Amanda
E. Lewis, 13-42. Ne\v York: Hussell Sage Foundation.
Bobo, Lawrence D., Devon Johnson, and Susan A. Suh. 2002. Hacial attitudes and power in the workplace:
Do the haves differ from the have-nots? In Prismatic metropolis: Inequality in Los Angeles, ed.
Lawrence D. BollO, Melvin Oliver, James H. Johnson Jr., and Abel Valenzuela Jr., 491-.523. New York:
Bussell Sage Foundation.
Farber, Henry S., and Hobert Gibbons. 1996. Learning and wage dynamiCS. Quarterly Journal of
Economics 111:1007-47.
Fanner, Amy, and Dek Terrell. 1996. Discrimination, Bayesian updating of employer belief, and humancapital accumulation. Economic Inquiry 31:204-19.
Fiske, Susan. 1998. Stereotyping, prc~judice, and discrimination. In The handbook ofsocial psychology, cd.
Daniel Gilbert, Susan Fiskc, and Gardner Lindzey, 3.57-411. New York: McGraw Hill.
Fix, Michael, and Haymond J. Struyk, eds. 1993. Clear and convincing elJidencc: lJ,leasuremenf of disc rim­
ination in America. VVashington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
Holzer, Harry J., Paul Offner, and Elaine Sorensen. 200.5. Declining cmployment among young black less­cdueated men: The role of incarceration and child support..!ollmal of Policy Analysis and Management
24:3,30-33.
Hunt, Matthew 0.2007. African American, Hispanic, and white belief, about black/white inequality, 1977­
2004. American Sociological Review 72:390-41.5.
Jackman, Man 11.. 1994. The velvet glove: Paternalism and wlIflict in gendel~ clllss, and rllce relations.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Kirschenrnan, Joleen, and KatheJine Neckerrnan. 1991. \Ve'd love to hire them, but . . . : The meaningof race fiJr employers. In The urhan llnderclass, ed. ChJistopher Jencks and Paul E. Peterson, 203-34.
'vVashington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Downloaded from htlp://ann.sagepub.com at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY on January 15,2009

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

BAYESIAN BIGOT?

9:3

Kluegel, James R., and Eliot R. Smith. I 985. Belief~ about inequality: Americans' views of what is andwhat ought to be. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Moss, Philip I., and Christopher Tilly. 2001. Stories employers tell: Bace, skill, and hiring in America. New
York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Oettingel~ Gerald S. 1996. Statistical disClimination and the early career evolution of the black-white wage
gap. Journal of Labor Economics 14:52-78.
Orbuch, Terri 1,. 1997. People's accounts count: The sociology of accounts. Annual ReviC1l) of Sociology
23:455-78.

Pager, Devah. 200:3. The mark of a climinal record. American Journal of Sociology 108:9:37-75.
---.2007. Jl,4arked: Race, crime, andfinding work in an era of mass incarceration. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.
Pagel~ Devah, Bruce Western, and Bart Bonikowski. 2007. Discrimination in low \vage labor markets.
Working Paper, Oillce of Population Hesearch, pJinceton University, Princeton, NJ.
Phelps, Edmund. 1972. The statistical theory of racism and sexism. American Economic Review 62:659-61.
Hothschild, Micahel, and Joseph E. Stiglitz. 1982. A model of employment outcomes illustrating the effectof the structure of information on the level and distribution of income. EconOinic Letters 10:231-36.
Schuman, Ho\vard. and Maria Krysan. 1999. A historical note on whites' beliefs about racial inequality.
American Sociological Heview 64:847-55.
Taylor, Shelley E. 1981. A categorization approach to stereotyping. In Cognitive processes in stereotyping
and intergroup behavior, ed. D. L. Hamilton, 83-114. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Tomaskovic-Devey, Donald, and Shmyl Skaggs. 1999. An establishment-level test of the statistical dis­
crimination hypothesis. ,"Vork and Occupations 26:420-43.
Waldinger, Hoger, and Michael Lichter. 2003. How the other halfworks: Immigration and the social orga­
nization of labor. Berkeley: University of California Press.
'Neber, Hence, anel Jennifer Crocker. 1983. Cognitive processes in the revision of stercotypic beliefs.
Journal of Perwmality and Social Psychology 45 (5): 961-77.
Whatley, Warren, and Gavin "Vright. 1994. Haec, human capital, and labour markets in American history.
In Labour market evolution: The economic history of market integration, wage flexihility, and theemployment relation, ed. George Grantham and Mary MacKinnon, 270-91. London: Houtledge.
\Vilson, \VilIiam Julius. 1996. \Vhen work disappears: The world of the new urban poor. New York: Vintage
Books.

Downloaded from llttp:/iann.sagepub.cnm at PRINCETON UNIV LIBRARY On January 15, 2009This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

Walking the Talk? What Employers Say Versus What They Do
Devah Pager; Lincoln Quillian
American Sociological Review; Jun 2005; 70, 3; ABI/INFORM Global
pg.355Walking the Talk?
What Employers Say Versus What They Do
Devah Pager
Princeton University

Lincoln Quillian
Northwestern University
University ofWisconsin-Madison

This article considers the relationship between employers' attitudes toward hiring ex­
offenders and their actual hiring behavior. Using datafrom an experimental audit study
ofentry-level jobs matched with a telephone survey ofthe same employers. the authors
compare employers' willingness to hire black and white ex-offenders. as represented bothby their self-reports and by their decisions in actual hiring situations. Employers who
indicated a greater likelihood ofhiring ex-offenders in the survey were no more likely tohire an ex-offender in practice. Furthermore. although the survey results indicated nodifference in the likelihood ofhiring black versus white ex-offenders. audit results show
large differences by race. These comparisons suggest that employer surveys-even thoseusing all experimental design to control for social desirability bias-may be insufficientfor drawing conclusions about the actual level ofhiring discrimination against
stigmatized groups.

n 1930, Richard LaPiere, a Stanford profes­
sor, traveled twice across the country by carwith a young Chinese student and his wife. The
purpose of the trip, unbeknown to his travelcompanions, was to assess the reactions ofhotel
and restaurant proprietors to the presence ofChinese customers. During the course of 251
visits to hotels, auto camps, restaurants, andcafes, only once were they refused service. Six
months later, LaPiere mailed a survey to eachof the proprietors in which one ofthe questions

I

Direct all correspondence to Devah Pager,
Department of Sociology, Princeton University,
Princeton, NJ 08544 (pager@princeton.edu). Support
for this research includes grants from the National
Science Foundation (SES-O 10 1236), the National
Institute of Justice (2002-IJ-CX-0002), the Joyce
Foundation, and the Soros Foundation. The views
expressed in this document are those of the authorsand do not necessarily represent those of the grant­
ing agencies. The authors are grateful to Harry
Holzer, Michael Stoll, and Steven Raphael for shar­ing their survey instrument with us. The authors
received helpful comments and suggestions from
Bruce Western, Harry Holzer, Jeff Manza, PaulDiMaggio, Susan Fiske, and from the ASR editor
and anonymous ASR reviewers.

asked, "Will you accept members ofthe Chinese
race as guests in your establishment?" Morethan 90 percent of the respondents indicatedunequivocal refusal. The discrepancy between
these proprietors' responses to the surveys andtheir actual behavior is indeed striking: Althoughnearly none ofthe proprietors expressed a will­
ingness to accept the patronage of Chinese cus­
tomers, virtually all of them did so whenconfronted with the situation (LaPiere 1934). If
we were to make generalizations based on either
the survey results or the field study alone, wewould develop radically different views on thelevel ofracial hostility toward the Chinese at thattime in history.
LaPiere's study provides a much needed real­
ity check for researchers who rely on expressed
attitudes for insight into the nature and causes
ofdiscriminatory behavior. Unfortunately, there
have been very few efforts to provide the kindof comparison offered in LaPiere's study.
Measures from surveys often are accepted as anadequate proxy for behaviors, with little effort
to validate this assumption.
The current article seeks to make headway inthis discussion, following up on the insights
provided by LaPiere more than 70 years ago. In
this discussion, we compare the self-reported

AMERICAN SOCIOLOGiCAl REvIEW, 2005. VOL 70 (June:355-38o)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

356

AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

attitudes exhibited by a sample of Milwaukee
employers with their actual behavior in real­life employment situations. By placing ouranalysis within the context of research on dis­
crimination in contemporary labor markets wehope to underscore the degree to which method
matters in our interrogation of the social world.

RACIALATIITUDES,DISCRIMINATION, AND
CONTEMPORARY LABOR MARKETINEQUALITY
In the years since LaPiere's study, much haschanged about race relations in the contempo­
rary United States. In present times, it would be
extremely rare to find respondents willing tostate racial objections as candidly as thosereported in LaPiere's survey. Indeed, trends in
racial attitudes demonstrate steady movement
toward the endorsement of equal treatment by
race and the repudiation ofdirect discrimination.
According to surveys conducted in the 1940s
and 1950s, for example, fewer than half ofwhites believed that white students should go toschool with black students or that black andwhite job applicants should have an equalchance at getting a job. In contrast, by the 1990s,
more than 90 percent of white survey respon­dents endorsed the principle that white andblack students and job applicants should betreated equally by schools and employers(Schuman et al. 2001).
Consistent with these trends, many indicatorsof social and economic status show that African­
Americans have made great strides in approach­ing parity with whites. Blacks, for example, are
now nearly equal to whites in rates of highschool completion, and have become increas­
ingly well-represented in occupational sectors
previously dominated by whites (Farley 1997;
Mare 1995; Wilson 1978). Likewise, in thedecade after the Civil Rights Movement, andagain during the 1990s, the wage gap between
black and white workers was substantiallyreduced (Couch and Daly 2002; Harrison andBennett 1995; but see Western and Pettit forth­coming). The rapid social mobility among
blacks in the United States provides support
for the notion that the progressive trends appar­
ent in measures of racial attitudes reflect a real
shift in the opportunities now available toAfrican-Americans. In fact, these positive indi-cators have led some prominent academics toproclaim the problem of discrimination solved.
Economist James Heckman, for example, hasasserted that "most of the disparity in earnings
between blacks and whites in the labor marketof the 1990s is due to the differences in skills
they bring to the market, and not to discrimi­
nation within the labor market." He went on torefer to labor market discrimination as "theproblem of an earlier era" (Heckman 1998: 101
102). Indeed, for many observers of contem­
porary race relations, the barrier of discrimi­
nation appears to have withered away, leaving
blacks the opportunity to pursue unfettered
upward mobility.
And yet, despite the many signs of progress,
there remain important fonns ofsocial and eco­nomic inequality that continue to differentiate
the experiences of black and white Americans.
According to many indicators, blacks, and black
men in particular, continue to lag far behind their
white counterparts. Some indicators show blackmen doing steadily worse. African-Americans,for example, experience roughly double the rateof unemployment experienced by whites, withvery little sign of change over time. Likewise,
rates of joblessness among young black men
have been rising over time (Holzer, Offner, andSorensen 2005).
As a further troubling indicator, many ofthese young black men, instead of making their
way through school and into jobs, are insteadincreasingly finding themselves housed in an
expanding number of correctional facilities.
Approximately I in 3 black men will spendsome time in prison over his lifetime, as com­pared with only I in 17 white men (Bonczar
2003). Among young black high school
dropouts, this figure rises to nearly 60 percent.
Rivaling other conventional social institutions­such as military service, employment, and mar­riage, incarceration has now become a typicalevent in the life course of young disadvantagedmen (Pettit and Western 2004).
How can we explain the discrepancies
between these varied measures? On the one
hand, the progressive trends in racial attitudes
may reflect a genuine openness among white
Americans to racial integration and equality. In
this case, the continuing difficulties facing seg­ments of the black population may simply reflectthe "bumpy road" on an otherwise steady tra­jectory toward racial parity (Gans 1992).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

WHAT EMPLOYERS SAY VERSUS WHAT THEY DO

Further, white racial attitudes are not the only
barrier to black mobility. Changes in the eco­nomic structure, family composition, and crime
policy, among other factors, may each exert anexogenous influence on the black population in
ways that inhibit mobility, independent of the
racial openness of contemporary institutions.
From this perspective, continuing black disad­vantage could be explained by a reasonable lag
between changing attitudes and outcomes, aswell as by the multiple influences that shape pat­terns of racial inequality.
On the other hand, traditional survey meas­ures ofracial attitudes may not accurately reflect
the degree to which race continues to shape theopportunities available to African-Americans.
Indeed, a great deal of evidence suggests that
racial stereotypes remain firmly embedded in
the American consciousness, affecting percep­
tions of and interactions with racial minorities
even among respondents who overtly endorse
the principle of equal treatment (Devine andElliot 1995). Substantial levels ofdiscrimination
have likewise been detected by experimental
field studies, which find consistent evidenceof racial bias against black applicants in hous­ing, credit, and employment markets (Bertrand
and Mullainathan 2004; Turner, Fix, and Struyk
1991; Yinger 1995). As a further reflection of
lived experience, the large majority of blacks
continue to perceive discrimination as routine
in matters ofjobs, income, and housing (Feagin
and Sikes 1994).
Given the available information, it is difficult
to evaluate the extent to which direct discrimi­
nation plays a role in shaping the opportunities
available to blacks in contemporary society.
Surveys of racial attitudes portray one opti­
mistic picture, whereas indicators of economic
and social inequality present more mixed results.
It is only through direct comparisons of thesediffering measures that we can assess how andwhy they may project such divergent conclu­
sIOns.
In this article, we focus on the specific issue
ofemployment discrimination. Substantively, we
are interested in assessing the degree to which
employer preferences or biases influence theopportunities available to stigmatized workers.
Methodologically, we seek to assess the degree
to which choice of measurement strategy affects
our understanding of these processes. In our
analysis of survey data and behavioral out-

357

comes, we engage with LaPiere's central con­cern about the correspondence between meas­
ured attitudes and behaviors.
We begin with a review of the literature on theattitude-behavior relationship since LaPiere's
study, focusing specifically on the case of atti­
tudes toward and treatment of stigmatizedgroups. We then tum to concerns regarding theuse ofsurvey measures as proxies for measuresofdiscrimination. Finally, we discuss the resultsfrom a matched field experiment and telephonesurvey that are the basis of our empirical results.
Throughout this discussion, we seek to empha­
size that investigations of important substantive
concerns cannot be separated from a discus­
sion of the methods by which these investiga­
tions take place.

ATTITUDES AND BEHAVIORSUNDERSTANDINGS OF mE
AITITUDE-BEHAVIOR RELATIONSHIP

Attitude questions are frequently asked because
they are believed to be illuminating about one
or more behaviors of interest. One of the mostcommon uses of attitude research is to assess
prejudices, stereotypes, and other measures ofsocial distance with the goal of gaining insightabout the nature of discriminatory behavior(National Research Council 2004). Attitude
questions have been widely used as tools to
assist in understanding the basis of behaviors
such as discrimination in employment (Bobo,
Johnson, and Suh 2000), residential mobility
related to white flight (Farley et al. 1994, Krysan
2002), and the influence ofrace on voting pat­terns (Sniderman and Piazza 1993).
Because ofthe difficulty of gathering data on
discrimination in natural settings, many sub­stantive sociological studies of discrimination
rely on easier-to-gather surveyor interview datain the place of behavioral measures. Some stud­ies focus on attitudinal indicators alone, leav­ing the connection to behavior implicit. Others
ask respondents about past behavior or antici­
pated behavior in response to hypothetical sit­uations. A wide range of survey scales andspecific survey techniques have been devel­
oped to measure specific forms of prejudice
and discrimination (National Research Council,
2004, chapter 8).
As one important example, a survey tech­nique that has become increasingly popular for

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

358

AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

assessing situational discrimination involves
use of the vignette question, which elicits reac­
tions from respondents about fairly detailed
hypothetical scenarios (Sniderman and Grob
1996). An influential early example of thevignette method was developed by Reynolds
Farley and colleagues for a better understand­ing of the attitudinal sources of racial segrega­tion (Farley, Bianchi, and Colosanto 1979;
Farley et aJ. 1978; Farley et al. 1994). With
Farley's approach, respondents are asked toexpress the level of discomfort they would expe­
rience living in hypothetical neighborhoods ofvarying racial compositions, and to estimate
the likelihood that they would move out of suchneighborhoods. Farley's innovative technique
has become widely used in subsequent research,in part because it is easily combined with exper­
imental survey techniques (discussed in thenext section) (Emerson, Yancey, and Chai 200 I;
Krysan 2002).
A key assumption of vignette studies is thatreported hypothetical behavior is an accurate
proxy for the behavior that would be observed
if the respondent actually encountered the sit­uation. In the case of vignette studies that
attempt to illuminate the process of white flight,

ly by survey questions or interviews, then theseshould have at least some power to predict over­all patterns of behavior toward the attitude
object.
Despite the clarity and intuitive appeal ofthis model, what is most striking about past
investigations of the attitude-behavior rela­tionship is the wide range of correlations report­
ed across different studies. Both Deutscher(1966) and Wicker (1969), for example, review
a number of studies that find virtually no rela­tionship between attitudes and behaviors.
Schuman and Johnson (1976) also discusses anumber of notable studies in which a zero or
negative correlation between attitudes andbehaviors was found. In their review, however,they conclude that a majority of research on
the attitude-behavior relationship finds a mod­erate positive relationship. With examples foreach extreme, their article reports correlations
close to zero among attitude-behavior assess­ments of racial bias and transient economictransactions, while demonstrating correlations
exceeding .85 among studies of voting behav­
ior. Most others are shown to fall somewhere in
between (Schuman and Johnson 1976).
This literature supports the conclusion that nofor example, the assumption is that respondents

simple formula can describe the attitude--behav­

who say they would feel discomfort or would
move is highly related to the behavior ofmov­
ing out (or not moving in) that would occur if
the respondent actually lived in the hypotheti­
cal neighborhood. Although a perfect atti­
tude-behavior correspondence is not required,these studies make the assumption that the two
are related. An almost complete separation
between attitudes and corresponding behaviors
would undermine the rationale behind most
attitudinal studies.
The expectation of attitude-behavior corre­
spondence results naturally from the view thathuman action is the product of conscious men­tal states. Several psychologists, most notably
Fishbein and Ajzen (1975), have formally mod­eled the relationship between these components
to describe the formation of attitudes and theirsubsequent influence on behavior. In theirmodel, feelings or beliefs about an object giverise to positive or negative evaluations of theobject. These evaluations then influence behav­
ioral intentions, which ultimately influence
behavior (Ajzen 200 I; Fishbein and Ajzen
1975). If attitudes can be measured successful-iar relationship. Rather, tremendous variation
exists in the measurement of attitudes and theirassociated behaviors, and assumptions about
their correspondence should be reviewed withcaution.
ATTITUDES AND BEHA VIOR TOWARDSTIGMATIZED GROUPS

Despite the appeal of using attitudinal measures
as proxies for behavior, particularly for hard-to­measure behaviors such as discrimination, anumber of factors complicate the relationshipbetween verbal expressions on surveys and actu­
al behaviors directed toward members of stig­
matized groups. First, social surveys have long
been plagued by the problem of social desir­ability, or the phenomenon that respondents
seek to give socially appropriate answers toquestions, even if this involves distorting thetruth (Bradburn 1983). In the contemporary
United States, the norms of racial equality are
so strong that survey respondents are unlikely
to feel comfortable expressing negative opinions
about members of other racial groups (Crandall

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

WHAT EMPLOYERS SAY VERSUS WHAT THEY DO

1994). When asked questions about race orother sensitive issues, respondents may be ledby these pressures to shift their opinions subtly(or in some cases not so subtly) in the directionof answers they perceive to be the most social­ly acceptable. To the extent that real-world dis­
crimination continues, this has the effect ofbiasing survey results in the direction of polit­
ically correct, nonprejudicial responses, and of
weakening the relationship between measured
attitudes and behavior.
Researchers have adopted creative techniques
to minimize the problem of social desirability
bias, using experimental survey designs to avoid
direct group comparisons. These methods buildon the split-ballot survey design, in which ran­
domly chosen subsamples of a survey areprimed with one of several variants of a survey
question to assess responses to a particulargroup or condition (Sniderman and Grob
1996). I For instance, Schuman and Bobo (1988)
used a split-ballot design in which half the sam­ple was asked about objections to a Japanesefamily moving into their neighborhood, while
the other half was asked about objections to a
black family moving into their neighborhood.
Had each respondent been asked about both ablack and a Japanese family on the same survey,
they may have biased their responses towardsimilar evaluations ofthe two groups, consistent
with norms ofequal treatment. Through statis­
tical comparisons across the two groups, split­
ballot studies are thought to produce valid
population-level estimates of the importanceof race for the question of interest while reduc­ing concerns about social desirability bias thatarise from direct racial comparisons. Experi­mental survey designs have clear advantages
for the measurement of sensitive topics, andtheir results have indeed shown a greater inci­
dence of prejudice than those from traditional
survey designs (Schuman 1995; Schuman and
Bobo 1988).

I As the name implies, split-ballot designs com­monly use two experimental groups. More recent
work has taken advantage ofcomputer-assisted tele­phone interviewing to extend this design to include
many more variations in survey questions, including
variation across multiple dimensions (see Sniderman
and Grab 1996 for a review).

359

We view social desirability bias, then, as aproblem that has received substantial attention
in the research literature, with some promisingdevelopments. Nevertheless, to our knowledge,
no research has provided a behavioral validationof experimental survey results. We have little
concrete evidence, therefore, with which toevaluate when and to what degree experimen­
tal survey measures are in fact accurate prox­
ies for behavior.
A second problem in using attitudinal meas­ures as proxy assessments for discriminatory
behavior concerns the emphasis of this methodon consciously held beliefs or feelings. With theuse of such measures, subjects are typically
prompted for their attitudes in ways that allow
for some degree of conscious deliberation.
However, a growing literature in psychology
has documented the existence and influence of
implicit attitudes toward stigmatized groups
that may influence judgments and actions with­out conscious awareness (Devine 1989). The
intrapsychic processes that promote discrimi­
nation are likely to be more strongly activatedin the context of a live interaction than in the
abstract context of a survey question (Fiske
2004). Discrimination resulting from these inter­action-triggered implicit stereotypes would nec­
essarily remain undetected in survey responses,
even those using an experimental design.
Creating a similar problem, some measured
forms ofdiscrimination may be perceptible onlyin the context of direct interaction. Social psy­chological evidence suggests that whites com­monly experience heightened levels of social
discomfort in the presence of blacks, at times
leading to behaviors that are in effect discrim­
inatory despite (accurately reported) nonpreju­
dicial attitudes (Poskocil 1977). For instance,
Word, Zanna, and Cooper (1974) show thatwhite subjects conducting mock interviews withtrained black applicants make more speecherrors, ask fewer questions, and terminate inter­views more quickly than with similar white
applicants (see also Dovidio, Kawakami, andGaertner 2002). Again, because these forms of
discomfort are activated only by direct social
contact-not by questions about hypotheticalsituations or prejudicial attitudes-these alter­nate psychological sources of discriminatory
behaviors are unlikely to be captured by ques­
tions on survey instruments.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

360

AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

Finally, discriminatory action often is strong­
ly influenced by situational factors, further
reducing the extent of attitude-behavior corre­
spondence. Complex decisions about wherediscrimination may be expressed are influenced
by a combination ofprevailing social norms aswell as context-specific considerations (Merton
1949). In hiring, for instance, employers must
balance their need for employees, the applicant
pool, and other situational contingencies togeth­
er with their taste for applicants along several
dimensions. These situational factors can some­times overwhelm the influence of prejudice indiscriminatory action, resulting in a low corre­
spondence between the two.
Indeed, it is notable, for example, that
LaPiere's (1934) study found higher levels of
racial bias apparent in the survey responses
than in the field situation. Similar studies by
Kutner, Wilkins, and Yarrow (1952) and Saenger
and Gilbert (l950)-but focused on discrimi­
nation against blacks rather than the Chinese­report similarly counterintuitive results. Thesefindings are especially remarkable in light ofthe
contemporary literature on social desirability
bias, which overwhelmingly assumes that sur­vey reports will tend to underestimate theamount of discrimination that will occur. We
believe the direction of the discrepancy between
self-reports and behavior in these three studies
most likely results from the importance of sit­uational factors (Ajzen 1991). In the context ofthese studies, open discrimination likely would
have involved some direct interpersonal con­
frontation. Unlike the decision not to call some­one back for a job interview (a relatively passive
form of discrimination), the refusal of service,or other more active forms of discriminatory
treatment, can impose significant social costs. 2
In LaPiere's investigation, for example, the dis­
criminator risked creating an uncomfortableinterpersonal situation, possibly resulting in ascene. In certain cases, then, behaviors may beconstrained in ways that verbal expressions are

2 Laboratory studies have found that whites behave
more aggressively toward blacks than toward otherwhites, but only when the consequences to the aggres­sor are low, such as when acting under conditions ofanonymity, or in situations with limited possibility ofretaliation or punishment (Crosby et al. 1980).

not, again leading to a lower correspondence
between the two.
The historical evolution of strong norms
against openly racist statements makes it lesslikely that contemporary field studies wouldfind nearly as high a level of openly expressed
prejudice as found in the aforementioned threestudies (Schuman et al. 200 I). And more recent,if indirect, comparisons of attitudes and behav­
iors usually have found stronger signs of racial
discrimination in behaviors than in self-reportsof behavioral intentions (Crosby, Bromley, andSaxe 1980). At the same time, it remains plau­
sible that situational factors could still result inhigher levels of stated than actual discrimina­tion in certain cases, depending on the context
and the attitudinal instrument.
The complexities involved in the relation­
ship between attitudes and behaviors toward
stigmatized groups emphasize the need for care­
ful assessments of our measurement tools. The
links between these measured attitudes andobserved behaviors require systematic evalua­tion. Unfortunately, despite the frequent use ofverbal expressions to draw conclusions about
behaviors, very few studies directly calibrate
survey responses with corresponding behav­
ioral assessments.
ExPUCIT STUDIES OF
PREJUDICE-DISCRIMINATIONCORRESPONDENCE

Whereas the sociological literature on the atti­
tude-behavior relationship is small, the recent
literature on the specific attitude-behavior caseof prejudice and discrimination (in sociology)
is virtually nonexistent. 3 Indeed, we turned
instead to research in psychology for guidancein these matters. Social psychologist Susan
Fiske (2004), in a recent, comprehensive meta­
analysis, examine 54 studies containing empir­
ical investigations of prejudice-discrimination
correspondence. Consistent with the findings
from the attitude-behavior literature more gen­erally, Fiske finds wide variation in the rela­tionship between prejudice and discrimination

3 Prejudice refers to negative judgments or opin­
ions about a group (attitudes). Discrimination refers
to unfavorable treatment directed toward members ofa group (behavior).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

WHAT EMPLOYERS SAY VERSUS WHAT THEY DO

across studies, with correlations ranging from-.38 to .69, with a mean of .26. Her results thus
support a general association between preju­
dice and discrimination, albeit at low averagelevels and with great variability across situations(see also Schutz and Six 1996).
The Fiske (2004) review, primarily featur­ing the work of psychologists, shows that soci­ologists have largely abandoned the study of
prejudice-discrimination correspondence since
the mid-1970s. Of the 10 articles in sociology
journals included in the Fiske review, the mostrecent was published in 1973. This is not
because sociologists have stopped using attitu­
dinal measures and survey items to study dis­
crimination against marginalized groups, as
demonstrated by reviews such as those of
Krysan (1999) and Schuman et al. (200 I).
Rather, sociologists have done little recent workto validate the assumption that these attitudinalmeasures are associated with discrimination.
Krysan's (1999) review, for instance, notes theissue ofattitude-behavior correspondence, butdoes not cite any recent studies on the topic.
Instead, Krysan points to the similar trend direc­
tions for racial attitude items and corresponding
behavioral indicators from unrelated samples
and studies (Krysan 1999: 139). Evidence of
this sort does support a correspondence ofatti­
tude and behavior toward stigmatized groups,
but only weakly so because a similar trend direc­
tion of indicators over time provides only very
general evidence of meaningful correspondence.
In contrast to sociologists, among psycholo­
gists, the correspondence ofattitudes and behav­
ior toward stigmatized groups continues to be
the subject of considerable research.
Psychological research of this type has provid­
ed several important insights into the corre­
spondence between different types of attitudes
and behaviors, pointing to, for example, vary­
ing relationships between explicit/conscious
attitudes, implicit/unconscious attitudes, andvarious forms ofbehavior (Dovidio et al. 2002).
From a sociological standpoint, however, thesestudies have some important limitations, mostnotably those arising from a reliance on behav­
ioral measures obtained in laboratory settings.
For instance, the studies Fiske (2004) reviews
use outcome behaviors such as ratings of per­ceived friendliness in interaction with a mockinterviewer, subtle behavioral measures suchas the number of blinks and the length of eye

361

contact, or the results ofrole-playing situations.
These outcomes often are far removed from theactual decisions made in their social contexts­
to hire, to rent, or to move, to name a few-thatare most relevant to understanding the behav­
ioral processes that produce disadvantage
among members of stigmatized groups.
For our purposes, the most relevant studies
comparing prejudice and discrimination arethose that assess these factors in realistic social
settings, focusing on forms of discriminationthat produce meaningful social disparities.
Unfortunately, the three studies that fit thisdescription each were conducted more than 50
years ago (Kutner et al. 1952; LaPiere 1934;
Saenger and Gilbert 1950). We have very few
means by which to assess the correspondence
between contemporary racial attitudes and theincidence of discrimination.
EMPLOYER A1TITUDES AND HIRING DECISIONSThe current study provides an opportunity toinvestigate these processes in a contemporary
context. Bringing together a unique combination
ofdata, we present a direct comparison of self­
reported attitudes and corresponding behavior
in the context ofa real-world setting with impor­tant implications for inequality. The substantive
focus of this study is on employers' willing­ness to hire blacks and/or ex-offenders for an
entry-level position in their company. In bothcases, the sensitive topics under investigation
lead us to question the use of employer reports
alone. By calibrating the estimates we received
from surveys with behavioral measures from anexperimental audit study, we are able to gain
insight into the consistency between these two
important indicators of group preference.
Measures of attitudes come in many forms,
ranging from abstract statements of feelings(e.g., "I don't like members of group X") tomore concrete statements of intended action(e.g., "I would not hire members of group X").
The latter, referred to as behavioral intentions,are considered the form of attitude that should
most closely correspond to observed behavior,because of their conceptualization in terms ofspecific measurable action (Fishbein 1967;
Fishbein and Ajzen 1975; Schuman and Johnson
1976). Thus a weak relation between behav­
ioral intentions and behavior suggests an even
weaker relation between the behavior and more

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

362

AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

general attitudinal measures. In the current
study, we rely on the behavioral intentions
expressed by employers as an indicator oftheirattitudes about blacks and ex-offenders.
Comparing what employers said they would do
in a hypothetical hiring situation with what we
observed them doing in a real hiring situation
forms the basis of our current investigation.

METHODSIn the first stage of the study, employers'
responses to job applicants were measured inreal employment settings using an experimen­
tal audit methodology. Between June andDecember of 2001, matched pairs of youngmen (testers) were sent to apply for a total of350
entry-level job openings in the Milwaukee met­
ropolitan area. 4 The two white testers (one witha fictional criminal record and one without)applied for one set ofrandomly selected jobs (n= 150), and the two black testers (using profiles
identical to those of the white pair) applied fora second set ofjobs (n = 200). 5 The preferencesof employers were measured based on the num­
ber of call-backs to each of the applicants, as
registered by four independent voice mail boxes.
Additional voice mail boxes were set up forcalls to references listed on the testers' resumes.

4 Jobs were randomly selected from ads placed in
the Sunday classified section of the Milwaukee
Journal Sentinel and on Jobnet, a state-sponsoredInternet job site. Entry-levels jobs are defined as
those requiring no more than a high school degree andlimited work experience. Testers were 23-year-old col­lege students from Milwaukee chosen for their effec­
tive styles of self-presentation and for theircomparability in terms of physical and interperson­
al attributes.
5 The tester pair rotated which member presented
himself as the ex-offender for each successive weekof employment searches, such that each tester servedin the criminal record condition for an equal numberof cases. By varying which member of the pair pre­sented himself as having a criminal record, unob­
served differences within the pairs ofapplicants wereeffectively controlled. The criminal record used in allcases was a felony drug conviction. Although themore general term "ex-offenders" is used in reference
to this group, it is important to note that the rela­tionship between attitudes and behaviors may differ
for individuals convicted of different crimes.

For a more detailed discussion of the research
design, see Pager (2003).
The findings of the audit showed large andsignificant effects of both race and criminal
record on employment opportunities. Call-backs
were received by 34 percent of whites with nocriminal record, 17 percent of whites with crim­
inal records, 14 percent of blacks without crim­
inal records, and 5 percent of blacks withcriminal records (Pager 2003). Thus, overall,
blacks and ex-offenders were one-half to one­
third as likely to be considered by employers,
with black ex-offenders suffering the greatest
disadvantage.
The second stage of the study provided
employers with the opportunity to express theirhiring preferences verbally in the context of atelephone survey. Several months after com­pletion of the audit study, each of the 350
employers was called by interviewers from theMichigan State Survey Research Center andasked to participate in a telephone survey about
employers' hiring preferences and practices (seePager [2002] for more detailed discussion of thesurvey instrument and results). Calls weredirected to the person in charge of hiring foreach establishment. The final survey sample
included 199 respondents, representing a 58
percent response rate (Appendix A).
During the course of this survey, employers
were read a vignette describing ajob applicant
with characteristics designed to match closely
the profile of the testers in the audit study.
Employers who had been audited by whitetesters were read a vignette in which the hypo­thetical applicant was white, and employers
who had been audited by black testers wereread a vignette in which the applicant was black.
In this way, the survey design mirrored the split­
ballot procedures used by Sniderman and Piazza(1993) and Schuman and Bobo (1988), avoid­ing direct racial comparisons within the same
survey.
The wording of the vignette was as follows:
Chad is a 23-year-old [black/white] male. He fin­ished high school and has steady work experiencein entry-level jobs. He has good references andinteracts well with people. About a year ago, Chad
was convicted of a drug felony and served 12months in prison. Chad was released last monthand is now looking for ajob. How likely would you
be to hire Chad for an entry-level opening in yourcompany?

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

WHAT EMPLOYERS SAY VERSUS WHAT THEY DO

Employers were asked to rate their likelihood ofhiring this applicant with the following range of
responses: very likely, somewhat likely, some­what unlikely, and very unlikely.
The vignette presented in the survey was
designed to correspond closely to the profile ofthe testers in the audit study. Chad, the hypo­thetical applicant, was presented with levels of
education, experience, and personal qualifica­
tions similar to those on the resumes presented
by the testers. The type of crime was identical,
although the prison sentence in the vignette (12months) was shorter than that reported in theaudit study (18 months). 6 Thus the vignette
aimed to measure employers' self-reports con­cerning how they would respond to such an
applicant, whereas the audit measured how they
actually did respond to an applicant with almost
identical characteristics. The parallel scenariosof the vignette and audit should maximize thecorrespondence between the two measures(Schuman and Johnson 1976).
In the current study, the primary outcome ofinterest represents the employers' willingness tohire an applicant depending on his race andcriminal background. As described earlier, in thesurvey, employers were asked to report how
likely they would be to hire the applicant
described in the vignette. In the actual employ­ment situations, by contrast, we measured thenumber of employers who responded positive­
ly to testers after they had submitted their appli­
cation. In most cases, this simply involved theemployer inviting the tester to come in for aninterview, although in a few cases, the applicant
was offered the job on the spot. As we later dis­cuss, the behavioral indicator should thus pro­vide a highly inclusive measure of"willingness
to hire," given that a call-back represents only
an initial step in the hiring process.

RESULTSIn the following section, we examine the rela­tionship between the survey results and theaudit study. Initially, we compare the level ofwillingness to hire blacks and ex-offenders indi­cated by the audit results and the survey. We thenexamine the association between the two meas-

6 The length of sentence was varied moderately
between survey and audit to avoid arousing suspicion.

363

ures, considering whether employers who indi­cated high willingness to hire ex-offenders in thesurvey called back testers in the criminal record
condition at higher rates than those who indi­cated low willingness to hire in the survey. In
each ofthese comparisons, we seek to assess thedegree to which what employers say is accu­
rately reflected in what they do.
Figure I presents the key results from bothdata sources. The first two columns represent thepercentage ofemployers who reported that theywould be "very likely" or "somewhat likely" tohire the hypothetical applicant, depending onwhether he was presented as white or black.
We include the "somewhat likely" group here
to correspond to our behavioral measure, which
is a call-back rather than an actual hire (seediscussion below).
The second two columns represent resultsfrom the audit study, illustrating the percentage
of call-backs received by each group. In theaudit study, call-backs also can be considereda measure of"willingness to hire," given that thisrepresents a first cut in the hiring process.
Although a call-back is by no means a guaran­tee of employment, given that employers typi­cally call back several applicants before
selecting their preferred hire, it does indicate afavorable initial review.
The results ofthe two outcomes, however, areanything but comparable. As Figure I shows,
employers reported a far greater willingness tohire drug offenders in the survey than was foundin the audit. In the survey, more than 60 percentof the employers said they were somewhat orvery likely to hire a drug offender irrespectiveof the applicant's race. In the audit, by contrast,
only 17 perce:nt of white and 5 percent of black
applicants with drug felonies actually received
a call-back. 7
The dispaJities apparent in these results are
extremely consequential for our understandingof the social world. In the survey data, employ-

7 Call-back rates include all the employers from theaudit study, even those who did not complete thesurvey. Including only respondents captured in both
samples produces even more disparate results. Call­back rates for white and black ex-offenders in theoverlapping sample are 14 and 3 percent, respec­tively, demonstrating an even greater distance fromthe survey results.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

364

AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

70.0'1'0 ..---.-.-....- ...- - - - - - - - - - - - . - . -...- - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,
61.9%

61,7%

60Jl%

50.0%

r: 40Jl'%

'"5)

0-

E 30.(J Pit,

w

..
200'%
10.0'%OJI%

White(survey)n = 63Black(survey)
n

94

White

Black
(audit)n 200(audit)n = 150.Juh Applicants with Criminal Records hy Race

Very likely (survey)~ Somewhat likely (survey)•

Call-backs (audit)

Figure 1. Expressed Willingness to Hire a Drug Offender According to Employer Survey and Audit]\iote: Survey results include employers who said they were "very likely" or "somewhat likely" to hire the hypo­thetical applicant (With "very" at bottom of columns). Audit results represent the percentage of call-backs fix
each group. Differences between within-race comparisons of survey and audit results arc significant on the basis
ora two-sample test of proportions (p < .05)

crs' responses present a view of openness toblacks or applicants with drug felonies that is
far greater than the reality measured in actual
hiring situations. Accepting the survey results
as an accurate indicator of the opportunities
available to blacks and ex-offenders wouldgrossly understate the barriers to employment
they face.
Although the results of this initial compari­son are compelling, there remain several pos­sible objections to equating the findings fromour survey measure with those from the audit
study. First, collapsing the categories of "very"and "somewhat" into one category may artifi­
cially exaggerate the distance between survey
and audit results. Indeed, if we look only at the"very likely" category, the discrepancy is far lessstriking. There is a literature on the meaning ofvague quantifiers that attempts to offer greater
precision to our understanding of these terms(Pace and Friedlander, 1982; Schaeffer, 1991).
Lichtenstein and Newman (1967), for exam­
ple, report that respondents assigned a mean
probability of .87 to the phrase "very likely" anda mean probability of .59 to the phrase "some­what likely." Whatever the exact probabilities towhich these terms correspond, this literature
indicates that such phrases imply a greater like­lihood of hire than not. Remember that employ­ers with greater reservations about the applicant
also had the option of "somewhat unlikely" toindicate their ambivalence.
Whereas the survey asked employers to rate
their likelihood of hiring the applicant, the audit
merely measured whether the applicant was
invited back for an interview or not. Althougha call-back may represent a necessary condition
to the decision to hire, it is by no means suffi­
cient. In fact, according to the survey results,
employers reported interviewing an average ofeight applicants for the last noncollege job they
had filled. Furthermore, employers on averagereported interviewing 55 percent of the appli­
cants that applied (Pager, 2002). Although theseself-reported estimates may be inflated, they
provide some evidence that the interview stage
is far from synonymous with a hire. Rather, acall-back may in fact represent a fairly low barof approval.
Thus, despite the different metrics on which
our measures are based, we believe they provide
roughly comparable indications of interest in the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

WHAT EMPLOYERS SAY VERSUS WHAT TIlEY DO

applicant, corresponding to a moderately favor­
able review. In the results presented later, we
provide an analysis of individual-level correla­tions that should be unaffected by these con­cerns.
A second possible objection to this compar­
ison is that the very framing of the vignette
item may artificially exaggerate the difference
between survey and audit results. When con­sidering a hypothetical applicant, employers do
not have to take into account alternative possi­
bilities among the applicant pool. Thus the
hypothetical applicant may exceed the mini­
mum threshold for acceptability even ifin actu­
ality there tend to be other applicants who are
better qualified. By contrast, the tester in theaudit study is competing with a pool of realapplicants of varying quality. To the extent that
real applicants provide better qualifications thandoes the tester's profile, the tester will receive
few call-backs for reasons unrelated to race or
criminal record.
An alternative way of presenting the infor­
mation that addresses this concern is to ealcu­
late the likelihood that a tester with a criminal
record will reeeive a call-back relative to awhite tester without a criminal record. White
testers without criminal records in this case rep­resent a kind of baseline, presenting a given setof qualifications common among all testers,
but without the handicaps of minority status ora criminal record. Employers who made call­backs to white testers without criminal records
signaled that this level of education and expe­
rience was sufficiently desirable to make thefirst cut. Relative to this baseline, we can assess
the proportion of blacks and whites with crim­
inal records who received caB-backs, thereby
reducing the effect of employer nonresponses
attributable to extraneous factors. 8

8 Similarly, we can consider the proportion of
employers who reported that they were likely to hire
an ex-offender (61 .9 or 61 .7 percent) as relative to an
implicit baseline of 100 percent for a hypotheticalapplicant similar to the one described in the vignette,
but without a criminal record. To the extent that some
employers would report it not likely that they would
hire such an applicant (if, for example, they hire
only applicants with college experience), the ratio of
the self-reported likelihoods of hiring an ex-offend­
er relative to a nonoffender would be even larger, thus

365

Figure 2 displays the results of this procedure,
comparing the likelihood of hire based on thesurvey and audit results with audit results recal­
culated as a ratio of the percentage of testers in
the offender condition who received call-backs
to the percentage ofwhite testers with identicalqualifications but no criminal background who
received call-backs. Overall, 34 percent of white
applicants with no criminal records, and with thegiven set of human capital characteristics pre­sented by all testers, received call-backs. This
group serves as our baseline (denominator) for
calculating the relative call-back rates for theother groups. Only 17 percent of white testers
with identical characteristics plus a criminal
record received call-backs, indicating that whitetesters with a criminal record were 50 percent
as likely to receive call-backs as those withouta criminal record (Figure 2). Black ex-offend­
ers were the least likely to continue in theemployment process--only 5 percent received
call-backs-indicating that they were just lessthan 15 percent as likely to receive a call-backas a similar white tester without a criminal
record.
The differences between self-reports andbehaviors in this comparison, although small­er, remain consistent when call-back frequen­cy is judged relative to that for white non­offenders. In the case of white ex-offenders,the distance between the survey and audit results
has narrowed substantially, although it remains
marginally significant statistically. The case forblack applicants, on the other hand, maintains
a clear and dramatic difference. Even relative tocontemporaneous call-back rates for whitetesters, the call-back rate for black ex-offend­ers (14.7) remains far short of the survey esti­mates of hiring likelihoods (61.7). For black
ex-offenders, the survey and audit measuresprovide dramatically different indications ofwillingness to hire.
Whatever measure is used, two main findings
remain clear: First, whereas the survey respons­es present a rather benign view of the employ­ment barriers facing ex-offenders, the audit
results tell a very different story. Employers
indicate a high level of willingness to hire drug
offenders, but in actual employment situations,rendering the contrast between the self-reports andbehavioral outcomes even greater.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

366

AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW
70.0'X,-r---------------------~---------___,

61.7%

61.9%

6o.0%tli==
50.0'%

20.0%)

10.0%
O.()'X, +-_-ESS9__-r-__White(survey)n ~ 63Black(survey)
n 94

White
(audit)
n 150

Black
(audit)n 200.Job Applicants with Criminal Records by Race

~ Very likely (survey)~ Somewhat likely (survey)•

Call-backs (audit).Figure 2. Expressed Willingness to Hire a Drug Offender According to Employcr Survey and Recalibrated Audit

Note: Survey results include employers who said they were "very lik<.~ly" or "somewhat likely" to hire the hypo­thetical applicant (with "very" at bottom of columns). Audit results represent the ratio of the percentage of call­backs tor each group to the percentage orcall-backs f()[ white nonoffenders. Dit1erences in within-raceand significant
comparisons of survey lmd audit results are marginally significant for whit(~ applicants (1' <f()f blnck npplicants (p < .05) on the basis of a two-sample fest of proportions.

.06)

they are less than half as likely even to callback such applicants relative to those without
criminal records. This result underscores theimportance of using great caution in relying on
employers' self-reports as an accurate reflectionof behavior.
Second, the degree to which race is a factor
in hiring decisions is virtually undetectable inthe survey results, in sharp contrast to what we
find in the audit study. Table 1 shows the rela­tive risk of receiving a call-back for white andblack applicants in the survey and audit. In thesurvey, although separate employers were asked
the vignette in which the hypothetical appli­
cant was white or black, the estimates of hiring
likelihoods for both applicants were virtually
identicaJ.9 By contrast, actual behavioral meas-ures in the audit show that white ex-offenders
are more than three times as likely to receive
consideration from employers as black ex­
offenders. 10 These results suggest that employ­er surveys, even those with split-ballot designs,
do not always provide an effective way to gauge
the degree to which sensitive characteristics
such as race affect actual employment oppor­
tunities. Later, we discuss the methodologicaland theoretical processes that might accountfor these differences.
Finally, we tum to the issue of individual-levelconsistency between survey reports and audit
results. Even if the levels of openness to hiring
ex-offenders are inconsistent between survey
and audit, it remains possible that a correlation
exists between the two: Employers who indicate

9 Even if we were to restrict our attention to the"very likely" category, the black-white ratio (1.5) still
would vastly understate the degree of racial dispar­
ity apparent in the audit.

IOThis result is calculated as a ratio of the call-backrate for white drug offenders (25/150) relative to thecall-back rate for black drug offenders (10/200).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

WHAT EMPLOYERS SAY VERSUS WHAT THEY DO

367

of the Influence of Racc on

Table 1.

to HireRelative

Audit

3.33

1.00

White vs. Black (White/Black)
95%CI

Note: The difference in white/black ratios between the survey and audit is statistically s.ignificant at p < .00 I(Mantel~Haenszel test, X2 "" 12.01, 1 df).

Table 2.

Individual-level

between~elt-n~oclrts and Behavioral Outcomes

Audit Results(for Testers Presenting Drug Felony)
Results

No Call-Back

Call-Back

56

4(6.7 %)

Likely to Hire Drug OffenderNo(93.3 %)
Yes

89

7

(92.7 %)

(7.3 %,)

Difference of Percentages(95% Cl)

0.6%(-8.6%, 8.8%).012

Correlation (Kendall's Tau-b)

Note: This table includes all employers who responded to the survey. Call-backs in the right column above
represent calls to the tester in the criminal record condition only.

willingness to hire ex-offenders may be more
likely to hire an ex-offender than employers
who do not indicate such willingness, even iftheoverall openness to hiring ex-offenders is strong­ly overstated in the survey results. This final
analysis allows us to compare the survey
responses with the audit outcomes at an indi­vidual rather than an aggregate level. The resultsof this cross-tabulation are presented inTable 2. 11 Consistent with the results reported
earlier, we find that the survey responses havevery little connection to the actual behaviors
exhibited by these employers.

Among those who reported a favorable like­lihood of hiring an applicant with a prior drug
conviction in the survey, 7.3 percent made calls
to the tester with the criminal record in the audit
study, relative to 6.7 percent of those express­
ing an unfavorable likelihood. This difference
is in the expected direction, but is only slight­ly greater than zero (0.6 percent), and far too
small to reach statistical significance. Likewise,correlational measures for ordinal data, suchas Kendall's Tau-b, show nearly zero association
between survey and audit. 12 Considering thepossibility that our relatively small sample size

II The percentage of call-backs is lower than for
the aggregate comparisons because of survey non­response. A full breakdown of survey responses(including all four survey response categories) byaudit results is presented in Appendix B. Given thesmall sample sizes in this final comparison, a further
breakdown by race of the tester would be impossi­
ble. Analyses, therefore, include all call-backs totesters in the criminal record condition regardless ofrace.

12 The individual-level comparison further allows
us to reconsider the practice of combining "very" and"somewhat" likely responses into a single category.
To investigate this question, we recalculated Kendall's
Tau-b between the audit call-backs and the vignette
question using the four survey answers, with sepa­
rate "very" and "somewhat" categories. Instead of
producing stronger results, this coefficient is not sta­tistically significant, and the negative sign is oppo­
site that expected (Tau-b "" -.0391).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

368

AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

limits the reliability of these estimates, we cal­culate confidence intervals allowing us to assess
the potential relationship that would obtain ifwe
had used a larger sample. A 95 percent confi­
dence interval for the difference in percentages
includes a range from -8.6 to 8.8 percent, indi­
cating that we are 95 percent confident that
employers who indicate "yes" are no more than
8.8 percentage points more likely to make acall-back than employers who indicate "no."13
A difference of 8.8 percentage points for mak­ing a call-back still is a fairly low level of cor·
relational consistency. 14 We can thus be fairly
confident that, given this pattern of results, evena much larger sample would be unlikely to pro­
duce a substantial relationship between survey
and audit results.
These results cast strong doubt on the accu­racy of survey data for indicating relative like­lihoods of hiring. Individuals who report ahigher likelihood of hiring an ex-offender are
only trivially more likely to do so. Confirming
the aggregate findings described earlier, theindividual-level associations presented here
appear to be no better at establishing a rela­tionship between attitudes and behaviors.
Nevertheless, several limitations ofthis analy­
sis must temper its conclusions. In the follow­
ing discussion, we consider possible threats tothe validity of our findings caused by meas­
urement error or study design. In the first case,we consider the possibility for error in the sur­vey or audit results, either of which could leadto a weakened correlation between the two.

13 This confidence interval is calculated using the"plus 4" method of Agresti and CaITo (2000). The
Agresti and Caffo method has the advantage of pro­viding accurate (and slightly conservative) intervals
even when the count of successes or failures is very
smalL By contrast, the methods in standard intro­
ductory statistics books usually require at least fivesuccesses and failures for each group.
14 Similarly, the upper limit of the 95 percent con­fidence interval for Kendall's Tau-b suggests thatthe degree of correlational consistency in a large
sample probably would be quite low (below .167).
The confidence interval for Kendall's Tau-b is asymp­
totic, and thus should be regarded with more caution
than the confidence interval for the proportion, whichis computed by a method with good small-sample
properties.

In the case of the survey, the most plausible
source of measurement error arises from thosecases in which the survey respondent was dif­ferent from the individual who reviewed thetesters' applications. To the extent that hiring
practices vary within firms depending on theindividual manager or human resource officer,
the consistency between survey and audit results
will be attenuated. Although recent evidence
suggests that labor market discrimination typ­ically operates at the level of the firm rather thanthe level of individual discriminatory actors,15
this possibility remains a potential source ofmeasurement error. Nevertheless, although
within-firm heterogeneity may indeed affectthe individual-level consistency in measures ofattitudes and behavior, there should be no effecton the average level of support for hiring ex­
offenders in the aggregate (as presented in
Figures I and 2). In cases wherein respondents
differ, there is little reason to believe that the hir­ing agent would be systematically more or lesslikely to consider hiring ex-offenders than would
the survey respondent. 16
In the audit study, measurement error also
may pose a problem. Because each employer
was visited only once, we have only one data
point with which to assess their hiring tenden­cies. Given the many factors at play in any given
hiring situation (e.g., the urgency with which theposition must be filled, the number and quali-

15 Recent studies have found that firm-level vari­ables such as the presence of a human resource appa­
ratus, the use of applicant tests, and affirmative action
policies have far more influence on the racial com­position of a company than the individual charac­
teristics ofhiring managers or owners (Holzer 1996;
Holzer and Neumark 2000).
16 One might also question whether possible
changes in the economic climate at the time of eachmeasurement may be responsible for some of thedisparity. The unemployment rate in Milwaukee aver­aged 4.8 percent during the time of the audit, where­
as in the 2 months during which the survey wasadministered, it had risen to nearly 6 percent (Bureauof Labor Statistics 2002). Given that employers'
openness to less desirable workers increases in thecontext of tight labor markets (Freeman and Rodgers
1999), we would rather expect more favorable
responses from employers during the period of theaudit study relative to the period of survey data col­lection.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

WHAT EMPLOYERS SAY VERSUS WHAT THEY DO

ty of other applicants), any single data point rep­resenting an employer's treatment of an ex­
offender may be subject to the measurement
error of circumstance. I? Nevertheless, thealmost complete absence ofassociation between
survey and audit measures leads us to question
random error as a sufficient explanation. If thehiring process tends to be so complex as to defy
any straightforward relationship between the
abstract intentions of employers and their ulti­
mate decisions, this would imply more than asimple problem of measurement. Indeed, we
later discuss the complexity of hiring decisions
as one of our hypothesized explanations for thediscrepancy between outcomes.
More systematic forms of error can creep
into an audit design if the experimental proce­dures are somehow compromised. Of primaryconcern are the potential biases that can becaused by the performance of testers, either
because ofpoor matching or because of testers'
self-fulfilling expectations (Heckman and
Seligman 1993). Fortunately, a rather direct test
ofthis hypothesis is possible. One would expectthat if differences in testers' personalities or
behavior shaped the outcomes (above andbeyond any effects of race or criminal condi­tion), we should see stronger results among
those cases in which the testers had the oppor­
tunity to interact with employers. Applications
submitted with little or no personal contact
should be far less affected by such concerns.
Analyzing the outcomes for these two kinds oftests, we find no evidence of tester bias. In fact,
the main effects of both race and criminal back­ground are substantially attenuated among those
who did have personal contact with the employ­er (Pager 2003). This suggests that instead of
exaggerating negative stereotypes, the appeal­ing characteristics of these testers actually
worked to reduce the measured effects, thus
biasing the results in a direction consistent withthe survey responses. It is unlikely then thatthese various sources of error can account forthe significant disconnect between the survey
and audit results.

17 As in the case of the survey, measurement error
in the audit results will attenuate individual-levelassociations, as presented in Table 2, but should notaffect the aggregate comparisons presented in Figures
1 and 2.

369

A final limitation of the comparison provid­
ed earlier is its reliance on a single survey item.
Flaws in the survey design or peculiarities of thequestion wording could lead to anomalous pat­terns of responses. Fortunately, an additional
item was included in the survey that allows for
similar comparisons to be drawn. Whereas thevignette most strongly paralleled the audit sit­uation-including a match of the applicant's
race-the second item also probed employers'
willingness to consider hiring ex-offenders, inthis case focusing on a generic applicant witha criminal record. The exact wording of thisitem was "Next, I am going to list several types
ofapplicants. Please tell me ifyou would accept
each type for the [most recent noncollege] posi­tion ... an applicant who has a criminal record?"
As described earlier, we compare those who
answered that they "definitely" or "probably"
will hire with those who answered "definitely"or "probably" not in relation to the audit out­
comes. 18 The correlation between this measure
and the audit results is again very small. The cor­
relation coefficient from Kendall's Tau-b is.0003 (95 percent confidence interval, -.154 to.155). Again, our tests for significance in thiscase cannot reject the hypothesis of no rela­tionship.
The various aforementioned limitations mustcertainly temper our conclusions. Nevertheless,the almost total lack of correlation between thesurvey and audit results is troubling. If thesefindings are an accurate assessment of the levelof consistency for these and related measures,
then studies that use similar survey items todraw conclusions about characteristics or cir­
cumstances associated with discrimination may
come to strongly misleading conclusions.
On the basis of several methods for assess­ing the attitude-behavior relationship, all com­
parisons tell a similar story: it is difficult to get

18 In the original survey, 25 percent of the respon­dents gave the response "it depends." As a conser­
vative estimate, these respondents were treated as"willing to hire," producing a stronger correlation
than when they are excluded from the analysis. In fact,
the association of survey and audit becomes slight­
ly negative when this category is excluded. (By con­trast, the correlation coefficient from Kendall's Tau-b
for this survey item and the original vignette item was.55).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

370

AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEWan accurate picture of actual hiring outcomesbased on responses to the employer survey usedin this study. Employers generally express agreater likelihood of hiring applicants withcriminal records, and a far greater likelihood in
the case of black applicants, than we see in
actuality. Furthermore, employers who indicate
greater willingness to hire an ex-offender in
response to a survey question seem to be only
slightly more likely actually to offer an interview
to such an applicant. Both in terms of making
aggregate- and individual-level predictions, ourevidence points to weak correspondence
between survey results and actual hiring out­
comes.

AITITUDES AND BEHAVIORS:WHY DO THEY DIFFER?
Why might employers' survey responses pres­ent results so discrepant from their actual behav­
ior? Several theoretical explanations could be
used to account for this incongruity. In this sec­tion, we provide a discussion of these explana­tions, considering the range of underlying
processes that may give rise to differing out­
comes.
SOCIAL DESlRABIUTY
AND COMPENSATORY ESTIMATIONAs discussed earlier, efforts to measure atti­
tudes about sensitive topics are complicated by
the problems of social desirability bias.
According to this perspective, respondents may
conceal their true feelings about blacks or ex­
offenders in answering survey questions. If thisis the case, the discrepancy between self-reports
and behaviors should be viewed as the difference
between false and true measures of a respon­
dent's attitudes. Although social desirability
pressures certainly result in some distortion ofsurvey results, we do not believe that this canaccount fully for the differences between
expressed willingness to hire ex-offenders andthe actual employment outcomes based on
applicants' criminal record. In fact, at otherpoints in the survey, respondents expressedstrong opposition to considering applicants withcriminal records other than drug felonies: near­ly 70 percent of employers expressed an unwill­
ingness to hire an applicant who had been
convicted of a property crime, and more than 75

percent were self-described as unwilling to hire
an applicant who had been convicted of a vio­
lent crime (Pager, 2002; see also Holzer,
Raphael, and Stoll 2003).19 It therefore seems
unlikely that social (or legal) pressures to accept
ex-offenders whitewashed employer respons­es. High levels of acceptance were reported
only for the applicant described as a drug felon.
Social desirability bias may be a greater con­cern in the measurement of racial preferencesfrom the survey results, which is where we findthe largest disparities between expressed atti­
tudes and observed behaviors. To preempt thisconcern in the current study, we used a split-bal­
lot format in which each employer responded toonly one hypothetical (black or white) candidate.
It remains possible, however, that social desir­ability bias is a problem if, even in the absenceof direct comparisons by race, employers areaware that the race of the hypothetical applicant
has been specified and therefore make con­scious or unconscious efforts to compensate
verbally for any negative reactions they may
have to a black applicant. If respondents do infact suppress negative reactions to race-specif­
ic targets, even when no racial comparison isprovided, this calls into question the effective­
ness of split-ballot survey designs as a strategy
for measuring underlying racial prejudice. Any
self-reported attitude toward a black target may
in fact be distorted by the respondent's own
compensatory estimation procedure.
ABSrnACT VERSUS SPECIFIC CONSIDERATIONS

A second possible explanation for the discrep­
ancy between measured attitudes and behav­
iors in this study relates to differences in thecriteria used to evaluate a hypothetical versus anactual job candidate. It is plausible that theaffirmative responses ofemployers considelingthe acceptability of a hypothetical applicant

19 Questions about specific crime types followed
the presentation of the initial vignette described ear­lier. Employers were asked to report the likelihood
ofhiring Chad if, instead of a drug crime, he had been
convicted of a property crime, such as burglary, orof a violent crime, such as assault. Response cate­gories for property/violent offenders were "very like­ly" (10/7 percent), "somewhat likely" (21/ 17 percent),"somewhat unlikely" (32/29 percent), and "veryunlikely" (37/47 percent).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

WHAT EMPLOYERS SAY VERSUS WHAT THEY DO

indicate their genuine willingness to consider
hiring an applicant with a criminal record in the
abstract. In these general terms, apart from theminority of employers who categorically reject
all applicants with criminal records, a prior con­viction is not typically grounds for immediate
disqualification. Rather, ifthe applicant's over­all characteristics exceed a minimum thresholdof employability, the respondent is likely toindicate a willingness to hire.
By contrast, in actual employment situations,the applicant's characteristics are judged not
only according to some minimum threshold,but also relative to the pool of available appli­
cants, and to the specific requirements ofajob.
!n this case, many more contingencies are atplay, and the presence of a criminal record may
become a salient criterion by which to weed
out less-qualified applicants. 2o Even if theemployer genuinely believes that she or hewould hire the applicant described in the abstract
vignette, when confronted with the situation inreal life, the contingencies of the hiring process
may render hypothetical scenarios irrelevant.
Recognizing this potential disconnect, wemade efforts to calibrate the behavioral respons­es to a concrete indicator ofemployability at thatplace and time. In this case, the white nonof­
fender, our baseline in Figure 2, serves thisfunction by providing assurance that this levelof qualification was sufficient to elicit a call­back during that particular hiring process.
Despite this adjustment, the willingness to hire
expressed in the survey appears to be muchhigher than in the audit.
Even if differences between the exact vignette
and the audit situations can explain some ofthe discrepancies between survey and audit
measures of overall willingness to hire, this

20 Indeed, in response to the second more generalsurvey question discussed earlier, when employers
were asked about their willingness to hire a genericapplicant with a criminal record (with no additional
information provided), a large fraction of employers
refused the forced-choice response categories, insist­ing instead that "it depends"--Qn the crime, on thelength oftime since the conviction, on the type ofjob,
and numerous other considerations. In this case, then,the employers themselves acknowledged that any
estimation given in the abstract would have very lit­
tle bearing on how they might respond in making an
actual hiring decision.

371

explanation cannot account for the consider­able difference in race effects detected by thesecomparisons. In the survey, black and white
applicants appear equally likely to receive offers,
whereas in the audit, there is a large gap infavor ofwhite applicants. An investigator using
these survey data alone would be strongly mis­
led about the role of race in shaping actual hir­ing decisions.
THE INTENSITY OF PRIMING

A third perspective on the discrepancy between
self-reports and behaviors proposes that thepriming ofcharacteristics during a phone inter­view may not elicit the same intensity of
response as the in-person presentation of thesame characteristics. Hearing a description ofa hypothetical black ex-offender is quite dif­ferent from seeing a young black man approach
one's business in search of employment. The live
interaction may trigger feelings offear, anxiety,or threat in ways that a recited vignette does not(Poskocil 1977). These feelings may then influ­
ence employment decisions in ways that cannot
be fully replicated in hypothetical scenarios insurveys.
Similarly, social psychological evidence sug­gests that racial stereotypes exert many of theireffects indirectly, by coloring the evaluation of
ambiguous information (Darley and Gross
1983). When employers are evaluating appli­
cants, for example, an energetic, outgoing,
young white applicant may be viewed as moti­
vated and eager to work, whereas a similarly
energetic, outgoing, young black male may beseen as a hustler or a "player." Even relatively
straightforward cues can be interpreted in vast­
ly different ways, depending on the context ofthe situation or the characteristics of the actor(Sagar and Schofield 1980). Again, these sorts
of distortions would most likely operate duringin-person evaluations. The vignette, by con­trast, leaves less room for distorted interpreta­
tions, because according to the explicit
description, the hypothetical candidate "hasgood references and interacts well with peo­ple." This class of explanations suggests that dis­
criminatory behavior in the employment of
ex-offenders, especially African-Americans,
may have a basis in sources other than con­sciously believed attitudes toward these groups.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

372

AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEWIn the article discussed earlier, LaPiere (1934)
reinforces the view that surveys may elicit a
different set of considerations than do concrete
experiences. According to LaPiere, survey
responses constitute "verbalized reaction[s] toa symbolic situation," or reactions to a highly
abstracted representation of reality (p. 231).
According to this viewpoint, survey responses
do tell us something meaningful about the atti­
tudes of respondents, but we have no way ofanticipating the degree to which these expressed
attitudes will be reflected in any particular setof behaviors. Certainly, it is difficult to antici­
pate how any individual, including oneself, may
react to a situation previously encountered only
in hypothetical terms. In the case of hiring deci­
sions about individuals with stigmatizing char­acteristics, our results suggest that very little canbe implied from these self-reports of employ­ers for the accurate prediction of employmentoutcomes.
It is not possible using the current data todemonstrate conclusively which underlying
process may have generated the observed dis­
crepancies. In fact, it is highly plausible that
more than one process may have been at work
simultaneously. What these results do demon­
strate, however, is that employers' expressed
willingness in the survey taps into a set ofprocesses very different from those measured
through our behavioral study. Although theseprocesses may be related to a common under­
lying disposition, the correspondence between
the two can be quite weak. It is important that
researchers recognize these limitations before
drawing inferences about behavior from theself-reports of survey respondents.
REmINKlNG THE ROLE OF ATTITUDES

What can we conclude from these results regard­
ing the usefulness of data on attitudes? Should
we disregard all employers' self-reports?
Certainly, it would be premature to advise sucha radical stance. In fact, despite the large dis­
crepancies between the self-reports and behav­
iors measured in the current study, we believethat survey results remain useful, even if theycannot be viewed as an alternative procedure to
the measurement of actual discrimination.
Even in cases in which expressed attitudes
have little relationship to measured discrimi­
nation, survey data can nevertheless tell us

something useful about how employers think
about important hiring issues. Responses to thesurvey suggest, for instance, that many employ­ers who discriminate against blacks do not nec­
essarily do so because of a principled belief
that black employees should not be hired. In fact,
we think it likely that many employers gen­uinely believe their own responses to surveys,
professing the value of equal opportunity, while
simultaneously justifying their behavior in hir­ing situations on grounds other than race (e.g.,assumptions about the family/social/educational
backgrounds of black applicants; see
Kirschenman and Neckerman 1991). In thiscase, the difference between employers' self­
reports and their actual behavior represents ameaningful discrepancy between two legitimate
realities. The resolution of these differences
represents an important focus of sociologicalinvestigation in its own right. Although low cor­
relations between attitudes and associatedbehaviors often are viewed as a purely method­
ological test ofsurvey questions, in many cases,
these discrepancies actually may provide clues
toward a better substantive understanding of
the cognitive-emotional basis for action.
Furthermore, it remains possible that survey
research may provide a better proxy for behav­
ior in situations that are less complex and sub­ject to fewer contextual influences than hiring.
Action in any real social situation is the resultof many factors other than the actor's attitude
toward the object, including norms, perceived
consequences of the action, and implicit or
unconscious attitudes toward the object. The
many complex influences on hiring decisions
make these situations exactly the sort for whichsurvey measures are least likely to be an effec­
tive substitute. Indeed., the three "classic" stud­ies that found very weak associations between
expressed behavioral intentions and behaviors
all were studies of discrimination in social sit­uations (Kutner et a1. 1952; LaPiere 1934;
Saenger and Gilbert 1950). We believe it pos­sible that survey responses may provide a much
more effective proxy for behavior in other con­texts, such as those that involve voting (Traugott
and Katosh 1979), signing of a petition(Brannon et al. 1973), or patterns of consumer
behavior (Day et al. 1991), in which the link
between behavioral intentions and actual behav­
ior is less subject to contextual influences apartfrom the respondent's attitude or intention.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

WHAT EMPLOYERS SAY VERSUS WHAT THEY DO

Finally, we have focused on only a few of themany survey techniques that have been devel­
oped to measure prejudice and discrimination.
Though our measure of behavioral intentions
was designed to offer the closest match to theaudit context, it remains possible that othermore abstracted measures of racial bias may infact correlate more closely with measures ofdis­
crimination. There is an extensive literature that
attempts to investigate modern or subtle formsof racial attitudes using survey questions(National Research Council 2004, chapter 8),
and certain ofthese alternative approaches could
prove more effective at capturing behavioral
outcomes than what we found in this study.
Three sociological approaches that we believe
to be especially promising place their respectiveemphasis on stereotype measurement, past
behavior, and in-depth interviews. The first ofthese, group stereotype measurement, has along history in the social sciences, with researchdemonstrating a persistence of racialized attri­
butions across numerous dimensions (Devine
and Elliot 1995). As a recent example,
researchers have developed a series of scales
measuring respondents' images of different
racial groups along a wide range of social andpsychological characteristics (Bobo and Kluegel
1997; Smith 1991). Survey techniques such asthese have shown respondents to rate blacks asworse or inferior relative to other groups on
dimensions such as criminality and intelligence,suggesting that traditional measures of racial
attitudes may be missing a great deal ofunder­
lying racial bias.
A second approach, used extensively by
Harry Holzer and colleagues, asks employers tofocus on the last worker hired, thereby ground­ing responses in a concrete recent experience(Holzer 1996; Holzer, Raphael, and Stoll 2003).
By focusing on a completed action, Holzer isable to avoid the ambiguities of hypotheticaIs or
general statements; and by focusing on actual
outcomes, he is able to document "revealed
preferences" rather than expressed ones.
Likewise, Holzer's format calls for race to beassessed only as one incidental characteristic ina larger series ofquestions concerning the recent
employee, thereby reducing the social desir­ability bias often triggered when the subject ofrace is highlighted. Whereas recall or motiva­
tional biases emerge as concerns in the report­
ing of prior experiences (Bradburn, Rips, and373

Shevell 1987), this particular approach focus­
es on a well-defined event that leaves less roomfor error-prone estimation.
Finally, some data suggest that in-depth in­person interviews may be more effective in elic­iting candid discussions about sensitive hiring
issues than other modes of interviews(Kirschenman and Neckerman 1991; Moss andTilly 2003; Wilson 1996). In-depth interviews
offer the opportunity for respondents to dis­cuss the complexities and, at times, the incon­
sistencies in their views of various groups,
thereby going beyond the more generalized
assessments expressed in traditional survey
items. Likewise, the opportunity for rapport­
building in the in-person interview context may
reduce social desirability pressures, making
respondents feel at greater ease in expressing
counter-normative beliefs. 21
Although each of these represents a promis­
ing approach, our results caution against theunreflective assumption that the results of any
method are necessarily good proxies for behav­
ior. None of these techniques has yet been sub­jected to direct assessments by comparison of
their responses with corresponding behavioral
measures, a step we view as necessary for under­
standing the relation of these measures to behav­
ioral outcomes. LaPiere's (1934) warning, that
hypothetical scenarios often cannot convey theexperience ofconcrete situations, deserves to betaken more seriously by current generations ofsurvey and interview researchers.

CONCLUSION
LaPiere (1934) showed a striking inconsisten­cy in the way hotel and restaurant proprietors
reacted to Chinese customers in person, as com­pared with how they responded in surveys. The
current study notes a similar discrepancy
between employers' self-reported likelihood ofhiring a particular applicant and their actual
hiring behaviors when faced with a nearly iden­
tical candidate. We found an especially large androbust disparity between the reported likeli­
hood of employers hiring black ex-offenders
and actual rates of hiring. The low correlation
between expressed and observed hiring out-

21 For a critique, see National Research Council(2004), p. 175.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

374

AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

comes presents an epistemological worry: ourassessments ofthe degree of disadvantage facedby black ex-offenders would be substantially
underestimated on the basis ofthe survey results
alone. Moreover, we found little correlation
between greater expressed likelihood of hiring
ex-offenders in the survey and actual increased
rates of call-backs for ex-offenders in real hir­ing situations. Given that most research on hir­ing preferences and practices comes from theself-reports of employers themselves (Downing
1984; Holzer 1996; Husley 1990; Jensen and
Giegold 1976; Waldinger and Lichter 2003;
Wilson 1996), these results indeed have serious
implications.
In terms of the methods used to measure dis­
crimination, these findings suggest that sociol­
ogists may need to reevaluate what is learned
from studies that use vignettes of hypotheticalsituations to study behaviors toward stigma­
tized groups. Although we believe that thesevignette studies often do tell us about respon­dents' abstract beliefs, in some cases these
beliefs may have relatively little influence on the
behavior ofinterest. Feelings and evaluations in
a concrete social situation may be very differ­ent from those in the abstracted situation ofthesurvey, but the two often are treated as nearly
identical. An important next step in evaluating
the contribution of survey measures for under­
standing behaviors of interest is to relate these
items to actual behavior.
More broadly, these results suggest the lim­
its ofsurvey questions alone for understanding
the changing nature of racial inequality. Survey
questions indicating a liberalizing ofracial atti­
tudes among white Americans have been citedwidely as evidence supporting the declining
significance of race in American society. But if
the items analyzed in this study have any bear­ing on survey responses more generally, we
have reason to question that changing public
opinion on matters of race has any necessary
correspondence to the incidence of discrimina­tion. Rather, our results support the perspectivethat there has been a growing gap between theprincipled statements and beliefs of white
Americans in favor of racial equality and theirconcrete actions. 22 Survey questions provide

22 This perspective has also found support from cer­tain well-designed surveys that manage to capture

one important perspective on American race
relations, but they must be combined with otherinformation for a complete picture.
Fortunately, methods to improve our under­
standing of the prejudice-discrimination rela­tionship are readily available and feasible foreven small groups of researchers. The compar­
ison of survey measures and behavioral indica­
tors does not require an unprecedented level ofresources. Even for pedagogical purposes, soci­ology teachers could readily incorporate thedual design within a two-semester timetable.
Whereas audit studies of labor markets can hequite involved, numerous other everyday social
settings provide countless opportunities for
implementing small-scale experiments: search­
ing for an apartment, shopping, hailing a taxi,
passing security checkpoints, and the like (foran example of a classroom application of theaudit methodology, see Massey and Lundy
2001). Moreover, the investigation ofprejudice
and discrimination could be usefully applied
to many other groups: Asians, Latinos, Muslims,
women with criminal records, gays and les­bians, to name just a few.
For creative sociology teachers, then, a sin­gle class could readily achieve a paired audit
study and telephone survey with sufficient sam­ple sizes for meaningful comparisons. Bothsubstantively and methodologically, the pair­ing ofsurvey and audit research can yield impor­tant insights for the study of contemporary
discrimination.
It is not the case that employers' thoughts
and beliefs can tell us nothing about important
employment issues. In fact, in many cases, sur­veys and other methods of eliciting employer
opinions can provide useful information about
attitudes and beliefs. In other cases, surveys
may provide a very close reflection of actual
employer behaviors. What this research empha­
sizes, however, is the importance of testing one's
assumptions and providing external validationof key results. In the case of employers' behav­
ior with respect to hiring black ex-offenders, thesurvey results presented here are far off base.
The correspondence between self-reports andrespondents' contradictory or competing bel iefs
(Bobo, Kluegel, and Smith 1997; Kinder and Sears
1981 ).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

WHAT EMPLOYERS SAY VERSUS WHAT THEY DO

behaviors with respect to other important hiring
outcomes has yet to be established.
Deva" Pager is an Assistant Professor ofSociology
at Princeton University. Her research focuses on
institutions affecting racial stratification, including
education, labor markets, and the criminaljustice sys­tem. Continuing her work using experimental field
methods, she currently is investigating discrimination
in low-wage labor markets in New York City (withBruce Western). Her recent publications include "TheMark of a Criminal Record," published in theAmerican Journal ofSociology (March 2003), and"The Structure of Disadvantage: Individual andOccupational Determinants ofthe Black-White Wage
Gap," published in the American Sociological Review(August 2001) (coauthored with Eric Grodsky).
Lincoln Quillian is Associate Professor ofSociology
at Northwestern University and the University of
Wisconsin-Madison. His researchfocuses on inequal­
ity, racial attitudes, and urban population distribu­
tion. His current research projects include studies
investigating the role ofstereotypically biased eval­uations in the creation of racial inequality and theconsequences ofspatial income segregationfor social
stratification.

APPENDIX ASURVEY DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATIONThe baseline survey instrument was developed
by Harty Holzer and his colleagues. 23 It includes
questions about the company such as size, indus­
try, employee turnover, and racial composition;questions about hiring procedures such as theuse of interviews, personality or aptitude tests,
and background checks; questions about thelast worker hired for a position not requiring acollege degree including age, race, and sex of
the worker, recrnitment method, wage, and pro­motion opportunities; and questions concerning
the employer's attitudes about various kinds ofapplicants including welfare recipients, appli­
cants with long spells out of tho labor market,
unstable work histories, or crimina! records. In

23 The first version of this survey was developed
for the Multi-City Study of Urban Inequality
Employer Survey (Holzer 1996). Holzer, Stoll, andRaphael (2002) later modified the initial instrument
to focus more closely on applicants with criminal
records. The instrument used for the current study was
further modified to reflect the priorities of thisresearch project.

375

addition, several survey items were added tomirror the audit study more closely (as describedearlier).
TIle survey was administered by the Michigan
State Survey Center. The final survey sample
included 199 respondents, representing a 58
percent response rate. Response rates were cal­culated according to the basic formula (I + P)/(1 + P + R), where 1 equals the number of com­pleted interviews, P equals the number of par­tial interviews, and R represents the number ofrefused eligible numbers (Groves and Lyberg,1988). Behveen the time of the audit and that of
the survey, two companies had declared bank­ruptcy, and an additional two had nonful1ctiol1­
ing numbers. These firms were dropped fromthe survey sample and excluded from thedenominator for calculations of response rates.
Typical response rates for academic tele­phone surveys range from 50 to 80 percent.
The current survey falls toward the lower end
ofthe range of acceptable response rates as theresult ofseveral possible factors. Response rates
for surveys of top m,magement and organiza­
tional representatives typically lag behind thoseofemployees or the general population (Baruch
1999). Likewise, there has been increasing
resistance ofbusinesses to part.icipation in sur­veys, given the proliferation of market researchfirms and academics seeking employer partici­
pation for the growing number ofstudies involv­
ing businesses (Remington 1992). There has
been a notable downward trajectory in the
response rates from business surveys over the
past 25 years (Baruch 1999; Cox et al. 1995),
with increasing numbers ofrefiJsals citing thatparticipation was against company p~licy(Fenton-O'Creevy 1996, cited in Baruch 1999).
Even among the general population, Curtin,
Presser, and Singer (2000) reported that themunber of calls required to complete an aver­age interview and the proportion of interviews
requiring refusal conversion doubled between
1979 and 1996. The inundation oftelemarketers(and, to a lesser extent, survey research) matchedby the technological advances of caller-ID andprivacy managers has made it increasingly dif..
ficult to recruit survey respondents for aca­
demic reseaTch (Remington 19(2).
To assess the possible bias that may result
from selective participation, two comparison
tests were made. The first test compared basic
characteristics of employers who responded to

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

376

AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

the survey with the characteristics of those eli­gible for participation but refused. On the basisof industry, location, and call-back rates, the twogroups were very similar, although some dif­ferences in occupational distribution were appar­
ent: employers for restaurant jobs were the most
likely to respond to the survey, whereas employ­ers for lahorer or service positions were the!east likely. This difference probably has to dowith the accessibility ofemployers in locally nm
restaurants, as compared with those in decen­
tralized f~lctories, warehouses, or companies.
In an effort to account for this overrepresenta­
tion, key outcomes are recalculated using
weights to achieve the sample distribution ofthe
audit study (available upon request). A reweight­
ing ofthe survey sample to match the distribu­
tion of the audit sample produced only a slightchange in the mcan likelihood (from .62 to .60).
It is unlikcly, therefore, that differential response
rates of employers aeross industries have anyofTable A.!.

cffcct on the survcy outcomes or on the differ­ences between survey responses and observed
behavior.
Even without these adjustments, however,the distribution of responses on key attitude
items closely match that tor a previous sampleof Milwaukee employers. In a second test of
sample bias, basic employer characteristics fromthc current samplc were compared with an iden­
tical set of questions asked of a more represen­tative samplc of Milwaukee employers in 1999
(Holzer and Stoll 2001). Although the earlier
Milwaukee survey included a broader geo­
graphic area and oversampled large firms, thegencral attitudes expressed by employers inboth samples were strikingly similar (Table AI).
The consistcncy ofthesc findings provides somereassurance that the current sample can serve asa useful gauge for the priorities and concerns of
employers in the broader Milwaukee metro­
politan area.

Attitudes and Characteristics across Two Milwaukee

2002

Variable

Holzer and Stoll 2001

Employees (n)66.95

180.47

Vacancies (n)Minority-owned Companies (%»

4.48
S.40

7.79
8.41

Unionized Ernploy(~es ('v,,)

9.30

15.19
20,00

Industry
Manuf:lCturing (%)

12.43

Retail trade (%)

49.72

21.00

Services (%)

21.47

39.00

Other industry ('Y<,)

16.38

20.00

Definitely/probably would (OAl)

97.40

96.62

Definitely/probably not (%J)

2.60

3.37

Definitely/probably ,vould (%)

98.80

97.23

Definitely/probably not (%.)

1.20

2,77

Definitely/probably would (%)

49.20

49.20

Definitely/probably not (%)

50.80

50.80

70.90

80,15

29.00

19.86

6CL50

67.49

39.50

3251

Hire Welfilre Recipient

Hire Applicant with OED

Hire Applicant with Criminal Record

Hire Applicant Unemployed> I year
Definitely/probably would ('X,)
Definitely/probably not (",1,)
Hire Applie<\llt with Unstable Work History
Definitely/probably \vould ('%)
notNote: GED

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

WHAT EMPLOYERS SAY VERSUS WHAT THEY DO

377

APPENDIXB
Table Bl. Comparison of Employers' Self.Reports and Behavioral Outcomes for Overlapping Sample
Audit Results
Results
Likely to Hire Drug 01Tender
Very Unlikely

Somewhat Unlikely

Somewhat Likely

Very Likely

Call·BackI

31(96.9 %)

(3,1 %)

25(88.3 %)

(10,7 %)

3

69

5

(93,2 %)

(6.8 <}I,)

20

2
I

Note: N

199 respondents. Data shown as number of respondents with percent in parentheses.

REFERENCES
Agresti, Alan and Brian Caffo. 2000. "Simple andEffective Confidence Intervals for Proportions
and Differences of Proportions Result from Adding
Two Successes and Two Failures." American
Statistician 54:280-88.
Ajzen, leek. 1991. "The Theory of Planned Behavior,"
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes 50: 179-211 ,- - - . 200!. "The Nature and Operation of
Attitudes." Annual Review of Psychology
52:27-58.
Baruch, Yehuda. 1999. "Response Rate in Academic
Studies-A Comparative Analysis." Human
Relations 52:421-38.
Bertrand, Marianne and Sendhil Mullainathan. 2004.
"Are Emily and Greg More Employable thanLakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor
Market Discrimination." American Economic
Review 94:991-1013.
Bobo, Lawrence, Devon Johnson, and Susan A. Suh.
2000. "Racial Attitudes and Power in the
Workplace: Do the Haves Differ from the Have­
Nots?" Pp. 491-522 in Prismatic Metropolis:
Inequality in Los Angeles, edited by Lawrence
Bobo, Melvin Oliver, James Johnson Jr., and Abel
Valcnzuela Jr. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Bobo, Lawrence and James Kluegel. 1997. "Status,
Ideology, and Dimensions of Whites' Racial
Bclicfs and Attitudes: Progress and Stagnation."Pp. 93-120 in Racial Attitudes in the I990s:
Continuity and Change, edited by Steven A Tuchand Jack K. Martin. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Bobo, L., 1. R. Kluegcl, and R. A. Smith. 1997.
"Laissez Faire Racism: The Crystallization of a
.Kinder, Gentler' Anti-Black Ideology." Pp. 15-42

in Racial Attitudes in the I990s: Continuity andChange, edited by S. Tuch and J. Martin. Westport,
CT: Praeger.
Bonczar, Thomas P. 2003. "Prevalence ofImprisonment in the US. Population, 1974-200 I."
Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report.
Washingon, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, NCJ
197976.
Bradburn, N. M. 1983. "Response Effects."
Pp. 289-328 in Handbook of Survey Research,edited by P. Rossi, J. Wright, and A. Anderson. New
York: Academic Press.
Bradburn, Norman M., Lance J. Rips, and Steven K.
Shevell. 1987. "Answering Autobiographical
Questions: The Impact of Memory and Inferenceon Surveys." Science 236: 157-61.
Brannon, Robert, Gary Cyphers, Sharlene Hesse,
Susan Hesselbart, Roberta Keane, Howard
Schuman, Tomas Viccaro, and Diana Wright. 1973.
"Attitude and Action: A Field Experiment Jointed
to a General Population Survey." American
Sociological Review 38:625-36.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2002. Local Area
Unemployment Statistics. (Online Public Data
Query). Retrieved March 1,2003 (http://www,blr,
gov/lan/home.htm).
Couch, Kenneth and Mary C. Daly. 2002.
"Black-White Wage Inequality in the 1990s: A
Decade of Progress." Economic Inquily 40:31-41.
Cox, Brenda G., David A. Binder, B. Nanjamma
Chinnappa, Anders Christianson, Michael J.
Colledge, and Phillip S. Kott. 1995. Business
Survey Methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Crandall, C. S. 1994. "Prejudice against Fat People:
Ideology and Self-Interest" Journal o(Personality
and Social Psychology 66:882-94.
Crosby, Faye, Stephanie Bromley, and Leonard Saxe,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

378

AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW

1980. "Recent Unobtrusive Studies of Black andWhite Discrimination and Prejudice: A Literature
Review." Psychological Bulletin 87:546-63.
Curtin, Richard, Stanley Presser, and Eleanor Singer.
2000. "The Effects of Response Rate Changes on
the Index of Consumer Sentiment." Public Opinion
Quarterly 64:413-28.
Darley, 1. M. and P. H. Gross. 1983. "A Hypothesis­
Confirming Bias in Labeling Effects." Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 44:20-33.
Day, Dianne, Boon Gan, Philip Gendall, and Don
Esslemont. 1991. "Predicting Purchase Behaviour."Marketing Bulletin 2: 18-30.
Deutscher, Irwin. 1966. "Words and Deeds: Social
Science and Social Policy." Social Problems
13:235-54.
Devine, Patricia. 1989. "Stereotypes and Prejudice:
Their Automatic and Controlled Components."
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
56:5-18.
Devine, P. G. and A. 1. Elliot. 1995. "Are Racial
Stereotypes Really Fading? The Princeton Trilogy
Revisited." Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin 21: 1139-50.
Dovidio, John, Kerry Kawakami, and Samuel
Gaertner. 2002. "Implicit and Explicit Prejudice
and Interracial Interaction." Journal ofPersonality
and Social Psychology 82:62-68.
Downing, David. 1984. "Employer Bias toward theHiring and Placement of Male Ex-Offenders."
Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Education,
Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL.
Emerson, Michael, George Yancey, and Karen Chai.
2001. "Does Race Matter in Residential
Segregation? Exploring the Preferences of WhiteAmericans." American Sociological Review
66:922-35.
Farley, Reynolds. 1997. "Racial Trends andDifferences in the United States 30 Years After the
Civil Rights Decade." Social Science Research
26:235-62.
Farley, Reynolds, Suzanne Bianchi, and Diane
Colasanto. 1979. "Barriers to the Racial Integrationof Neighborhoods: The Detroit Case." Annals of
the American Association ofPolitical and Social
Sciences 441 :97-113.
Farley, Reynolds, Howard Schuman, Suzanne
Bianchi, Diane Colasanto, and Shirley Hatchett.
1978. "Chocolate City, Vanilla Suburbs: Will theTrend toward Racially Separate Communities
Continue?" Social Science Research 7:319-44.
Farley, Reynolds, Charlotte Steeh, Maria Krysan,
Tara Jackson, and Keith Reeves. 1994.
"Stereotypes and Segregation: Neighborhoods inthe Detroit Area." American Journal ofSociology
100:750-80.
Feagin, 1. and M. Sykes. 1994. Living with Racism,
the Black Middle Class Experience. Boston, MA:
Beacon Press.

Fishbein, M. 1967. "Attitude and the Prediction of
Behavior." Pp. 477-492 in Readings in Attitude
Theory and Measurement, edited by M. Fishbein.
New York: Wiley.
Fishbein, M. and 1. Ajzen. 1975. Belief, Attitude,
Intention, and Behavior. Reading, MA: Addison­
Wesley.
Fiske, Susan. 2004. "Predicting Discrimination: A
Meta-Analysis of the Racial Attitude-Behavior
Literature." Working Paper. Department of
Psychology, Princeton University.
Freeman, Richard B., and William M. Rodgers III.
1999. "Area Economic Conditions and the Labor
Market Outcomes of Young Men in the 1990s
Expansion." Working Paper No. 7073, Cambridge,
MA:NBER.
Gans, Herbert. 1992. "Second-Generation Decline:
Scenarios for the Economic and Ethnic Futures of
the Post- I 965 American Immigrants." Ethnic andRacial Studies 15: 173-192.
Groves, Robert M. and Lars E. Lyberg. 1988. "An
Overview of Nonresponse Issues in Telephone
Surveys." Pp. 191-212 in Telephone Survey
Methodology, edited by Robert M. Groves, Paul P.
Biemer, Lars E. Lyberg, James T. Massey, William
L. Nicholls II, and Joseph Waksberg. New York:
Wiley.
Harrison, R. and C. Bennett. 1995. "Racial and Ethnic
Diversity." Pp. 141-210 in State of the Union,
America in the 1990s, vol. 2, Social Trends i990
Monograph Series, edited by R. Farley. New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.
Heckman, James. 1998. "Detecting Discrimination."
The Journal ofEconomic Perspectives 12: 101­
116.
Heckman, James and Peter Seligman. 1993. "TheUrban Institute Audit Studies: Their Methods andFindings." Pp. 187-258 in Clear and Convincing
Evidence: Measurement of Discrimination in
America, edited by Michael Fix and Raymond 1.
Struyk. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
Holzer, Harry. 1996. What Employers Want: Job
Prospects for Less-Educated Workers. New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.
Holzer, Harry and David Neumark. 2000. "WhatDoes Affirmative Action Do?" industrial andLabor Relations Review 53: 240-71.
Holzer, Harry, Steven Raphael, and Michael Stoll.
2003. "Employer Demand for Ex-Offenders:Recent Evidence from Los Angeles." Discussion
Paper No. 1268-03, Institute for Research on
Poverty, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.
Holzer, Harry, Paul Offner and Elaine Sorensen.
2005. "What Explains the Continuing Decline inLabor Force Activity among Young Black Men?"Labor History 46: 37~55.
Holzer, Harry and Michael Stoll. 2001. Employers
and Welfare Recipients: The Effects of Welfare

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

WHAT EMPLOYERS SAY VERSUS WHAT THEY DO

Reform in the Workplace. San Francisco, CA:
Public Policy Institute of California.
Husley, Lonnie Freeman. 1990. "Attitudes of
Employers with Respect to Hiring Released
Prisoners." Ph.D. dissertation, Department ofIndustrial Education, Texas A&M University, TX.
Jensen, W. and W. C. Giegold. 1976. "Finding Jobs
for Ex-Offenders: A Study of Employers'
Attitudes." American Business Law Journal
14:195-225.
Kinder, D. and D. O. Sears. 1981. "Prejudice andPolitics: Symbolic Racism Versus Racial Threats
to the Good Life." Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology 40:414-31.
Kirschenman, Joleen and Katherine Neckerman.
1991. '" We'd Love to Hire Them, but ...': The
Meaning of Race for Employers." Pp. 203-232 in
The Urban Undercfass, edited by Christopher
Jencks and P. Peterson. Washington, DC:
Brookings Institute.
Krysan, Maria. 1999. "Prejudice, Politics, and Public
Opinion: Understanding the Sources of Racial
Policy Attitudes." Annual Review of Sociology
26:135-68.
- - . 2002. "Whites Who Say They'd Flee: Who
Are They, and Why Would They Leave?"
Demography 39:675-96.
Kutner, Bernard, Carol Wilkins, and Penny Rechtman
Yarrow. 1952. "Verbal Attitudes and Overt
Behavior Involving Racial Prejudice." Journal of
Ahnormal Social Psychology 47:649-52.
LaPiere, Richard T. 1934. "Attitudes vs Actions."
Social Forces 13:230-37.
Lichtenstein, Sarah and 1. Robert Newman. 1967.
"Empirical Scaling of Common Verbal Phrases
Associated with Numerical Probabilities."
Psychonomic Science 9:563-64.
Mare, R. D. 1995. "Changes in Educational
Attainment and School Enrollment." Pp.155-213
in State o{the Union: America in the 1990s, vol.
I, Economic Trends, edited by R. Farley. New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.
Massey, Douglas and Garvey Lundy. 2001. "Use ofBlack English and Racial Discrimination in Urban
Housing Markets: New Methods and Findings."
Urhan Affairs Review 36:452-69.
Merton, Robert K. 1949. "Discrimination and theAmerican Creed." Pp. 99-126 in Discriminationand the National Wet/are, edited by Robert M.
MacIver. New York: Harper and Row.
Moss, Philip and Chris Tilly. 2003. Stories Employers
Tell: Race, Skill, and Hiring in America. New
York: Russell Sage Foundation.
National Research Council. 2004. Measuring Racial
Discrimination. Panel on Methods for Assessing
Discrimination, Committee on National Statistics,
Division of Behavior and Social Sciences andEducation, edited by Rebecca M. Blank, Marilyn

379

Dabady, and Constance F. Citro. Washington, DC:
The National Academies Press.
Pace, C. Robert and Jack Friedlander. 1982. "TheMeaning of Response Categories: How Often Is'Occasionally,' 'Often,' and 'Very Often"'?
Research in Higher Education 17:267-81.
Pager, Devah. 2003. "The Mark of a Criminal
Record." American Journal of Sociology
108:937-75.
- - - . 2002. "The Mark of a Criminal Record."
Doctoral dissertation. Department of Sociology,
University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Pettit, Becky and Bruce Western. 2004. "Mass
Imprisonment and the Life Course: Race and Class
Inequality in U.S. Incarceration." American
Sociological Review 69: 151-69.
Poskocil, A. 1977. "Encounters Between Blacks andWhite Liberals: The Collision of Stereotypes."
Social Forces 55:715-27.
Remington, Todd D. 1992. "Telemarketing and
Declining Survey Response Rates." Journal ofAdvertising Research 32:6-7.
Saenger, Gerhart and Emily Gilbert. 1950. "Custom
Reactions to the Integration of Negro Sales
Personnel." International Journal ofOpinion and
Attitude Research 4:57-76.
Sagar, H. and 1. W. Schofield. 1980. "Racial and
Behavioral Cues in Black and White Children's
Perception fo Ambiguously Aggressive Acts."
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
39:590-98.
Schaeffer, Nora Cate. 1991. "Hardly Ever orConstantly? Group Comparisons Using Vague
Quantifiers." Public Opinion Quarterly
55:395-423.
Schuman, Howard. 1995. "Attitudes." Pp. 68-89 inSociological Perspectives on Social Psychology,
edited by Karen Cook, Gary Fine, and James
House. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Schuman, Howard and Lawrence Bobo. 1988.
"Survey-Based Experiments on White Racial
Attitudes toward Residential Integration."
American Journal ofSociology 94:273~99.
Schuman, Howard and Michael P. Johnson. 1976.
"Attitudes and Behaviors." A nnual Review ofSociology 2:161-207.
Schuman, Howard, Charlottee Steeh, Lawrence Bobo,and Maria Krysan. 200 I. Racial Attitudes in
America: Trends and Interpretations. Rev. ed.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Schutz, Heidi and Bernd Six. 1996. "Ilow strong is
the Relationship Between Prejudice andDiscrimination? A Meta-Analytic Answer."International Journal of Intercultural Relations
20: 441-·62.
Smith, Tom W. 1991. Ethnic Images: General Social
Survey Technical Report. 19. Chicago, IL: National
Opinion Research Center, University of Chicago.
Sniderman, Paul M. and Douglas B. Grob. 1996.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

380

AMERICAN SOCIOLOGICAL REVIEW"Innovation in Experimental Design in Attitude
Surveys." Annual Review ofSociology 22:377-99.
Sniderman, Paul M. and Thomas Piazza. 1993. The
Scar ofRace. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Pressof Harvard University Press.
Traugott, Michael W. and John P. Katosh. 1979.
"Response Validity in Surveys ofVoting Behavior."
Public Opinion Quarterly 43:359-77.
Turner, Margery, Michael Fix, and Raymond Struyk.
1991. Opportunities Denied, Opportunities
Diminished: Racial Discrimination in Hiring.
Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
Waldinger, Roger and Michael Lichter. 2003. How the
Other Half Works: Immigration and the Social
Organization of Labor. Berkeley, CA: The
University of California Press.
Western, Bruce and Becky Pettit. Forthcoming.
"Black-White Wage Inequality, Employment

Rates, and Incarceration." American Journal of
Sociology.
Wicker, A. W. 1969. "Attitudes versus Actions: The
Relationship of Verbal and Overt Behavioral
Responses to Attitude Objects." Journal ofSocial
Issues 25:41-78.
Wilson, William Julius. 1978. The Declining
Significance ofRace. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
- - - . 1996. When Work Disappears: The World
ofthe New Urban Poor. New York: Vintage Books.
Word, C. 0., M. P. Zanna, and 1. Cooper. 1974. "The
Nonverbal Mediation of Self-Fulfilling Prophecies
in Interracial Interactions." Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology 10: 109-20.
Yinger, John. 1995. Closed Doors, Opportunities
Lost. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has notbeen published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s)and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.