Equal opportunity clauses and hiring of young scholars

Last registered on March 19, 2024


Trial Information

General Information

Equal opportunity clauses and hiring of young scholars
Initial registration date
March 19, 2024

Initial registration date is when the trial was registered.

It corresponds to when the registration was submitted to the Registry to be reviewed for publication.

First published
March 19, 2024, 5:39 PM EDT

First published corresponds to when the trial was first made public on the Registry after being reviewed.


There is information in this trial unavailable to the public. Use the button below to request access.

Request Information

Primary Investigator


Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation

Additional Trial Information

In development
Start date
End date
Secondary IDs
J16, C93
Prior work
This trial does not extend or rely on any prior RCTs.
Equal opportunity clauses are intended to set leveled playing field for minority candidates, among others women. In this study we explore diversity in the implementation of equal opportunity clauses across academic institutions. We conduct a field experiment to test whether different formulations affect the outcomes of minority candidates, especially in the context of gender composition and level of qualifications of the pool of candidates.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Smyk, Magdalena and Lucas van der Velde. 2024. "Equal opportunity clauses and hiring of young scholars." AEA RCT Registry. March 19. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.13220-1.0
Experimental Details


We ask subjects to help us evaluate a fairness of the recruitment process in scientific institution. Each subject will be randomly matched with the cases from one of the two institutions that differs in the equal opportunity clause. The experimental task will require evaluation of the set of anonymized CV's of candidates that participated in one of the recent recruitment processes. The subjects will be informed about the exact content equal opportunity clause of the institution, and subsequently will be provided with the set of candidates and questions on the evaluation of the quality of each candidate and the ranking.
Intervention Start Date
Intervention End Date

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
We ask participants to evaluate candidates with three questions: general rate of each candidate on a scale from 0 to 100 points, ranking of the pool of candidates, and whether it would be a mistake not to invite each candidate for an interview.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
This is the field experiment design. The treatments (equal opportunity clauses, gender composition of candidates, and presence of brilliant candidate(s)) are provided between subjects. The experimental survey is distributed via e-mails.
Experimental Design Details
Not available
Randomization Method
The randomization will be provided by the computer.
Randomization Unit
The randomization will be provided at the individual level.
Was the treatment clustered?

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
The sample will be clustered by eight different fields of study.
Sample size: planned number of observations
The invitations to take part in the study will be send to around 60 thousands of academics. We assume that the response rate will be around 10-15%, so the minimum sample size will be equal to 6 thousand observations.
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
Taking into account two clauses treatments and eight set of candidates treatments the sample size by the treatment arm will cover around 375 subjects.
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
IRB Approval Date
IRB Approval Number