Abstract Discrimination in hiring screening decisions against Black men, Black women, and White women compared to White men has been well-documented in social science research, yet a fundamental aspect of the hiring process—the extent to which job applicants meet the job requirements—has not been clearly integrated into our understanding of hiring discrimination. In this paper, we develop an intersectional framework that conceptualizes applicant-job requirement matching as a form of “proof” that the applicant meets the evaluative standard for the job, and that the burden of proof is unequally distributed across job applicants’ combined gender and racial statuses. White men applicants, who align with the abstract evaluative standard for professional positions, benefit from assumed abilities even without evidence of matching job requirements, whereas Black men, Black women, and White women applicants must match job requirements to “prove” that they meet screening standards. We test this theory empirically with two original experimental studies: a nationally representative survey experiment and a correspondence audit study of accountants. We find that stereotyping and hiring screening discrimination varies across the applicant-job requirement match: discrimination is heightened when job applicants do not meet the requirements, and reduced when matched to requirements. The burden of proof through matching requirements therefore falls to Black men, Black women, and White women—and we find that Black women applicants experience unique outcomes due to their “intersectional invisibility.” This article contributes to our understanding of hiring discrimination and gender and racial inequality in the labor market.
Chavez et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: