The (in)visible hand: do workers discriminate against employers?
Last registered on May 04, 2020

Pre-Trial

Trial Information
General Information
Title
The (in)visible hand: do workers discriminate against employers?
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0005792
Initial registration date
May 04, 2020
Last updated
May 04, 2020 1:58 PM EDT
Location(s)
Region
Primary Investigator
Affiliation
Hofstra University
Other Primary Investigator(s)
PI Affiliation
University of Mannheim
PI Affiliation
Indiana University
Additional Trial Information
Status
Completed
Start date
2016-09-11
End date
2020-04-27
Secondary IDs
Abstract
Do employees discriminate against potential employers? We implement a random- ized experiment in an online labor market that is pro-typical for a set-up where employees have the opportunity to discriminate against employers to answer this research question. In our experiment, workers make labor-supply decisions after we randomly expose them to signals about the race and sex of the potential em- ployer. Investigating average effects for the full sample of workers, we find evidence of discrimination on the quantity and quality of work (conditional on working), but not on the general willingness to work in our labor task. Upon completing the experiment, workers fill out a survey in which they report whether they discerned the signals regarding race and sex of the employer. The survey responses reveal an interesting pattern of heterogeneity: subjects who discerned the treatment sig- nals were more likely to work for the minority employer, while those who did not discern the signal were less likely to work for the minority employer. The latter result suggests that discriminating employees try to conceal their behavior ex-post. An additional survey with randomized components among online workers suggests that our results are not driven by statistical discrimination.
External Link(s)
Registration Citation
Citation
Doerrenberg, Philipp, Denvil Duncan and Danyang Li. 2020. "The (in)visible hand: do workers discriminate against employers?." AEA RCT Registry. May 04. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.5792-1.0.
Experimental Details
Interventions
Intervention(s)
We recruited subjects from Amazon Mechanical Turk (mTurk) to complete a survey about a topic unrelated to our discrimination study. Upon completion of this survey, subjects are randomly assigned to one of five groups and offered an opportunity to complete an additional bonus task where they are paid a piece rate to transcribe information from gasoline receipts. The announcement of the additional bonus task features a photograph of a hand holding a gasoline receipt. We signal the employer’s race and sex by randomly varying the presence and characteristics (gender and race) of the hand in the photograph across groups. After being exposed to the treatment photograph, subjects are asked if they wish to complete the bonus task. Subjects who respond yes are allowed to transcribe up to 40 gasoline receipts.
Intervention Start Date
2017-12-08
Intervention End Date
2019-02-20
Primary Outcomes
Primary Outcomes (end points)
1. Subjects' decision to work for the bonus task or not
2. The number of receipts subjects choose to transcribe
3. The share of accurate entries across all transcribed receipts
Primary Outcomes (explanation)
Secondary Outcomes
Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)
Experimental Design
Experimental Design
We signal race and sex of the potential employer by showing subjects a picture of a hand holding a receipt. We have five treatment groups:
i) Black-Female (BF): Subjects see receipts held by a female hand with black skin and nail polish.
ii) Black-Male (BM): Subjects see receipts held by a male hand with black skin (no nail polish).
iii) White-Female (WF): Subjects see receipts held by a female hand with white skin and nail polish.
iv) White-Male (WM): Subjects see receipts held by a male hand with white skin (no nail polish).
v) Control: Subjects see receipts that do not include a hand.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
The randomization process is computerized through Qualtrics. Subjects who opted in the bonus task were randomly assigned to one of the five treatment groups.
Randomization Unit
individual
Was the treatment clustered?
No
Experiment Characteristics
Sample size: planned number of clusters
2500 individuals
Sample size: planned number of observations
2500 individuals
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
500 individuals per treatment group
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARDS (IRBs)
IRB Name
Hofstra Unversity
IRB Approval Date
2017-04-24
IRB Approval Number
N/A
IRB Name
Indiana University/IU Health
IRB Approval Date
2017-07-17
IRB Approval Number
20256096
Post-Trial
Post Trial Information
Study Withdrawal
Intervention
Is the intervention completed?
Yes
Intervention Completion Date
February 20, 2019, 12:00 AM +00:00
Is data collection complete?
Yes
Data Collection Completion Date
February 20, 2019, 12:00 AM +00:00
Final Sample Size: Number of Clusters (Unit of Randomization)
Was attrition correlated with treatment status?
Final Sample Size: Total Number of Observations
2500 individuals
Final Sample Size (or Number of Clusters) by Treatment Arms
500 individuals per treatment group
Data Publication
Data Publication
Is public data available?
No
Program Files
Program Files
Reports, Papers & Other Materials
Relevant Paper(s)
REPORTS & OTHER MATERIALS