The Disability Employment Puzzle: A Field Experiment on Employer Hiring Behavior

Last registered on September 02, 2015

Pre-Trial

Trial Information

General Information

Title
The Disability Employment Puzzle: A Field Experiment on Employer Hiring Behavior
RCT ID
AEARCTR-0000830
Initial registration date
September 02, 2015

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
September 02, 2015, 6:18 PM EDT

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

Locations

Region

Primary Investigator

Affiliation
Rutgers University

Other Primary Investigator(s)

PI Affiliation
Rutgers University
PI Affiliation
Rutgers University
PI Affiliation
Syracuse University
PI Affiliation
Rutgers University
PI Affiliation
Rutgers University

Additional Trial Information

Status
Completed
Start date
2013-06-01
End date
2013-08-31
Secondary IDs
Abstract
People with disabilities have low employment and wage levels, and some studies suggest employer discrimination is a contributing factor. Following the method of Bertrand and Mullainathan (2003), new evidence is presented from a field experiment that sent applications in response to 6,016 advertised accounting positions from well-qualified fictional applicants, with one-third of cover letters disclosing that the applicant has a spinal cord injury, one-third disclosing the presence of Asperger’s Syndrome, and one-third not mentioning disability. These specific disabilities were chosen because they would not be expected to limit productivity in accounting, helping rule out productivity-based explanations for any differences in employer responses. Half of the resumes portrayed a novice accountant, and half portrayed an experienced one. The fictional applicants with disabilities received 26% fewer expressions of employer interest than those without disabilities, with little difference between the two types of disability. The disability gap was concentrated among more experienced applicants, and among private companies with fewer than 15 employees that are not covered by the ADA, although comparable state statutes cover about half of them. Comparisons above and below disability law coverage thresholds point to a possible positive effect of the ADA on employer responses to applicants with disabilities, but no clear effects of state laws. The overall pattern of findings is consistent with the idea that disability discrimination continues to impede employment prospects of people with disabilities, and more attention needs to be paid to employer behavior and the demand side of the labor market for people with disabilities.
External Link(s)

Registration Citation

Citation
Adya, Meera et al. 2015. "The Disability Employment Puzzle: A Field Experiment on Employer Hiring Behavior." AEA RCT Registry. September 02. https://doi.org/10.1257/rct.830-1.0
Former Citation
Adya, Meera et al. 2015. "The Disability Employment Puzzle: A Field Experiment on Employer Hiring Behavior." AEA RCT Registry. September 02. https://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/830/history/5175
Experimental Details

Interventions

Intervention(s)
We sent job applications in response to 6,016 advertised accounting positions from well-qualified fictional applicants, with one-third of cover letters disclosing that the applicant has a spinal cord injury, one-third disclosing the presence of Asperger’s Syndrome, and one-third not mentioning disability. These specific disabilities were chosen because they would not be expected to limit productivity in accounting, helping rule out productivity-based explanations for any differences in employer responses. Half of the resumes portrayed a novice accountant, and half portrayed an experienced one.
Intervention Start Date
2013-06-01
Intervention End Date
2013-08-31

Primary Outcomes

Primary Outcomes (end points)
Employer response to job applications by disability status, including both callbacks for interviews and any other expression of active employer interest.
Primary Outcomes (explanation)

Secondary Outcomes

Secondary Outcomes (end points)
Secondary Outcomes (explanation)

Experimental Design

Experimental Design
Comparisons are made by disability status of the applications, both overall and within the novice and experienced applications. In addition, to assess the effects of anti-discrimination laws, comparisons are made above and below the employment coverage thresholds for the Americans with Disabilities Act and state disability discrimination laws.
Experimental Design Details
Randomization Method
Disability status was randomly rotated through applications by computer assignment.
Randomization Unit
Individual job applications
Was the treatment clustered?
No

Experiment Characteristics

Sample size: planned number of clusters
6016 employers
Sample size: planned number of observations
6016 applications
Sample size (or number of clusters) by treatment arms
2052 job applications did not mention disability
2019 job applications disclosed a spinal cord injury in the cover letter
1945 job applications disclosed Asperger's Syndrome in the cover letter
Minimum detectable effect size for main outcomes (accounting for sample design and clustering)
IRB

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs)

IRB Name
Rutgers University Institutional Review Board
IRB Approval Date
2013-03-31
IRB Approval Number
#E13-606

Post-Trial

Post Trial Information

Study Withdrawal

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

Request Information

Intervention

Is the intervention completed?
No
Data Collection Complete
Data Publication

Data Publication

Is public data available?
No

Program Files

Program Files
Reports, Papers & Other Materials

Relevant Paper(s)

Reports & Other Materials