|
Field
Last Published
|
Before
May 06, 2022 01:06 AM
|
After
May 11, 2022 01:02 AM
|
|
Field
Primary Outcomes (End Points)
|
Before
The main variable of interest is the individual hiring and estimation decisions between majority and minority candidates across the experimental treatments
Secondary outcome variables are the in-group differences in hiring and estimation decisions across different treatments to understand the nature of spillover effects of an AA policy.
|
After
Overall effect: The main variable of interest is how a soft affirmative action (soft AA) policy impacts the percentage of candidates being hired of the type that is the target of the policy.
|
|
Field
Primary Outcomes (Explanation)
|
Before
Hiring decisions: 1) percentage % of minorities candidates being hired 2) probability of a candidate being hired, controlled by ethic type, scores(rank), age(different from the employer's age). We compare these two outcome variables in different treatments.
Estimation decisions: 1) mean estimated scores for majority candidates and minorities candidates in different treatments 2) Multiplier, measured by (estimated scores/given scores) -1 (given scores is the score of Task B - please see the section of experiment design). We will compare the average value of the multiplier among the majority candidates and minority candidates in four treatments. 3) For each treatment, we will run a linear regression on estimated scores_it (i for an individual candidate, t for the session) = a0+a1*minority_it +b1*Task B's score_it +b2*Task B's score_it*minority_it (b2*scores_it*lucky_it in treatment (4))+b3*age+eit. b2 captures the ethnic/priority difference in the impact of given scores on estimated scores (signal effects). Therefore, we can capture the signal effects via b2. If b2 is negative and different from 0 under AA policy minority (3) and AA policy lucky(4), the signal effect is significant, and the positive productivity signals of a minority/affirmed candidate are less effective than that of a majority/unaffirmed candidate. The predicted scores by using the regression will be considered as "expected task C scores" based on the given information.
|
After
We will compare the percentage (%) of hired candidates that are minorities in the Baseline Type (2) and Soft AA minority (3) interventions. Similarly, we will compare the percentage of hired candidates that are “lucky” in the Baseline (1) and Soft AA Lucky (4) treatments. The difference in these treatment effects (the percent of hired that are minority in (3) vs. (2) vs. the percentage of the hired that are “lucky” in (4) vs (1)) will identify the role that minority status plays in the impact of a Soft AA policy.
|
|
Field
Secondary Outcomes (End Points)
|
Before
1) Hypothesis 1: Behaviour story (Large unfairness impact – hired less but estimated same).
- In the hiring decision: The negative spillover effect is much larger in the soft AA policy minority(3) than in the soft AA policy lucky(4).
- In the estimation decision: Expect no difference in soft AA policy minority(3) and in the soft AA policy lucky(4).
2) Hypothesis 2: Rational story (Small unfairness impact – hired more or indifferent but estimated less) within Soft AA minority(3).
- In the hiring decision: Exposure and frequency effects (positive spillover) dominate the signal effects (negative spillover).
- In the estimation decision: Signal effects (negative spillover) dominate the exposure effects (positive spillover).
|
After
1) Exposure Effect: How the soft AA policy increases the number of candidates of the targeted type in the candidate pool.
2) Signal Effect: How the soft AA policy impacts the estimation of scores of the targeted type as compared to the untargeted type.
3) Fairness Effect: How does the soft AA policy impact the willingness to hire targeted groups vs. non-targeted groups controlling for expected scores.
4) Token Effect: How the soft AA policy impacts the likelihood that a member of the targeted group is hired given they are selected from the candidate pool to be interviewed.
Hypothesis (estimated outcomes):
1) Hypothesis 1: Behaviour story (Large unfairness impact – hired less but estimated same).
- In the hiring decision: The negative spillover effect is much larger in the soft AA policy minority(3) than in the soft AA policy lucky(4).
- In the estimation decision: Expect no difference in soft AA policy minority(3) and in the soft AA policy lucky(4).
2) Hypothesis 2: Rational story (Small unfairness impact – hired more or indifferent but estimated less) within Soft AA minority(3).
- In the hiring decision: Exposure and frequency effects (positive spillover) dominate the signal effects (negative spillover).
- In the estimation decision: Signal effects (negative spillover) dominate the exposure effects (positive spillover).
|
|
Field
Secondary Outcomes (Explanation)
|
Before
1) Exposure effects:
- Hiring: The percentage of advantaged candidates in each treatment. We expect the percentage of minority candidates is higher in the AA minority treatments than in the Baseline type treatments while the percentage of lucky candidates is higher in the AA lucky treatments than in the Baseline treatments.
2) Singal effects:
- The difference in average scores of Task A between advantaged groups and disadvantaged groups. We expect the difference should be positive and significant in AA minority treatments (majority-minority) and in AA lucky treatments (unlucky - lucky) while the difference should be close to zero in Baseline treatments and Baseline type treatments.
- The difference in estimated scores between the disadvantaged group and advantaged group should be significantly greater in the AA minority and AA lucky treatments.
- The contribution of Task B's scores to the estimated scores should be smaller in AA minority and AA lucky treatments. This is because TaskB's score is less effective in the context of Affirmative action policy.
3) Fairness effects: The answer to the first question in the post-experimental survey. We expect participants will perceive the pre-screen is less fair in AA minority treatments and in AA lucky treatments than in Baseline treatments and Baseline type treatments.
4) Overall effects:
- The percentage of a minority candidate (who pass the pre-screen process) being hired: There are more minority candidates passing the pre-screen process but the percentage of a minority candidates being hired will be lower in AA minority treatments. In addition, there are more lucky candidates passing the pre-screen process but the percentage of a lucky candidate being hired will be lower in AA lucky treatments.
- The probability of an advantaged candidate being hired, holding all other factors constant. The probability of a minority candidate being hired should be significantly smaller in the AA minority treatments than in Baseline type treatments while the probability of a lucky candidate being hired should be significantly smaller in the AA lucky treatments than in Baseline treatments.
|
After
1) Exposure effects:
- Hiring: The percent of advantaged candidates in each treatment. We expect the percent of minority candidates is higher in the AA minority treatments than in the Baseline type treatments while the percent of lucky candidates is higher in the AA lucky treatments than in the Baseline treatments.
2) Singal effects:
- The difference in average scores of Task A between advantaged groups and disadvantaged groups. We expect the difference should be positive and significant in AA minority treatments (majority-minority) and in AA lucky treatments (unlucky - lucky) while the difference should be close to zero in Baseline treatments and Baseline type treatments.
- The difference in estimated scores between the disadvantaged group and advantaged group should be significantly greater in the AA minority and AA lucky treatments.
- The contribution of Task B's scores to the estimated scores should be smaller in AA minority and AA lucky treatments. This is because TaskB's score is less effective in the context of Affirmative action policy.
3) Fairness effects:
- The answer to the first question in the post-experimental survey. We expect participants will perceive the pre-screen is less fair in AA minority treatments and in AA lucky treatments than in Baseline treatments and Baseline type treatments.
- We will compare the percent of candidates hired that are minorities in the Baseline Type (2) and Soft AA minority (3) interventions. Similarly, we will compare the percent of candidates hired that are “lucky” in the Baseline (1) and Soft AA Lucky (4) treatments. We expect the percent of minority hired is higher in the AA minority treatments than in the Baseline type treatments while the percent of lucky hired is higher in the AA lucky treatments than in the Baseline treatments, if fairness effects is significant.
4) Token Effects: We will compare the percentage of minority candidates who are selected to be interviewed by the pre-screen process that are hired in the Baseline Type (2) and Soft AA minority (3) interventions. Similarly, we will compare the percentage of “lucky” candidates who are selected to be interviewed by the pre-screen process that are hired in the Baseline (1) and Soft AA lucky (4) interventions.
|