Algorithmic Bias? An Empirical Study of Apparent Gender-Based Discrimination in the Display of STEM Career Ads

References

• Altonji JG, Arcidiacono P, Maurel A (2015) The analysis of field choice in college and graduate school: Determinants and wage effects. NBER Working Paper No. 21655, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Arrow K (1973) The theory of discrimination. Discrimination Labor Markets 3(10):3–33.Google Scholar
• Athey S, Gans JS (2010) The impact of targeting technology on advertising markets and media competition. Amer. Econom. Rev. 100(2):608–613.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Athey S, Nekipelov D (2010) A structural model of sponsored search advertising auctions. Working paper, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
• Becker GS (1993) Nobel lecture: The economic way of looking at behavior. J. Political Econom. 101(3):385–409.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Becker GS (2010) The Economics of Discrimination (University of Chicago Press, Chicago).Google Scholar
• Bertrand M, Duflo E (2017) Field experiments on discrimination. Duflo E, Banerjee A, Handbook of Field Experiments, vol. 1 (North Holland, Amsterdam), Handb. Econom. Field Exp. 1:309–393.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brown C, Corcoran M (1997) Sex-based differences in school content and the male-female wage gap. J. Labor Econom. 15(3):431–465.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cheryan S, Siy JO, Vichayapai M, Drury BJ, Kim S (2011) Do female and male role models who embody STEM stereotypes hinder women’s anticipated success in STEM? Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 2(6):656–664.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cowgill B (2017) Automating judgement and decision-making: Theory and evidence from résumé screening. Working paper, Columbia University, New York.Google Scholar
• Datta A, Tschantz MC, Datta A (2015) Automated experiments on ad privacy settings. Proc. Privacy Enhancing Tech. 2015(1):92–112.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Diekman AB, Brown ER, Johnston AM, Clark EK (2010) Seeking congruity between goals and roles: A new look at why women opt out of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers. Psych. Sci. 21(8):1051–1057.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Edelman B, Luca M, Svirsky D (2017) Racial discrimination in the sharing economy: Evidence from a field experiment. Amer. Econom. J. Appl. Econom. 9(2):1–22.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Edelman BG, Luca M (2014) Digital discrimination: The case of Airbnb.com. Working Paper No. 14-054, Harvard Business School, Boston.Google Scholar
• Facebook Business (2015) Showing relevance scores for ads on Facebook. Accessed July 1 2017, https://www.facebook.com/business/news/relevance-score.Google Scholar
• Flath D, Leonard EW (1979) A comparison of two logit models in the analysis of qualitative marketing data. J. Marketing Res. 16(4):533–538.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ge Y, Knittel CR, MacKenzie D, Zoepf S (2016) Racial and gender discrimination in transportation network companies. NBER Working Paper No. 22776, Cambridge, MA.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ghosh A, McAfee RP, Papineni K, Vassilvitskii S (2009) Bidding for representative allocations for display advertising. WINE, vol. 5929 (Springer-Verlag, London), 208–219.Google Scholar
• Goldfarb A, Tucker C (2011) Search engine advertising: Channel substitution when pricing ads to context. Management Sci. 57(3):458–470.Link, Google Scholar
• Goldin C (2014) A grand gender convergence: Its last chapter. Amer. Econom. Rev. 104(4):1091–1119.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gunderson M (1989) Male-female wage differentials and policy responses. J. Econom. Lit. 27(1):46–72.Google Scholar
• Kleinberg J, Lakkaraju H, Leskovec J, Ludwig J, Mullainathan S (2017) Human decisions and machine predictions. NBER Working Paper No. 23180, Cambridge, MA.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lambrecht A, Tucker C, Wiertz C (2018) Advertising to early trend propagators: Evidence from Twitter. Marketing Sci. 37(2):177–199.Link, Google Scholar
• Mullainathan S, Spiess J (2017) Machine learning: An applied econometric approach. J. Econom. Perspect. 31(2):87–106.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Oaxaca R (1973) Male-female wage differentials in urban labor markets. Internat. Econom. Rev. 14(3):693–709.Crossref, Google Scholar
• O’Neil C (2016) Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy (Crown Publishing Group, New York).Google Scholar
• Pope DG, Sydnor JR (2011) What’s in a picture? Evidence of discrimination fromprosper.com. J. Human Resources 46(1):53–92.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Scott Morton F, Zettelmeyer F, Silva-Risso J (2003) Consumer information and discrimination: Does the internet affect the pricing of new cars to women and minorities? Quant. Marketing Econom. 1(1):65–92.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shapiro JR, Williams AM (2012) The role of stereotype threats in undermining girls’ and women’s performance and interest in STEM fields. Sex Roles 66(3-4):175–183.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Shaw M (2012) The state of social media. Presentation, OMI Social Media Summit, February 24, Online Marketing Institute, London. https://www.comscore.com/Insights/Presentations-and-Whitepapers/2012/The-State-of-Social-Media?cs_edgescape_cc=US.Google Scholar
• Silverstein MJ, Sayre K (2009) The female economy. Harvard Bus. Rev. 87(9):46–53.Google Scholar
• Sweeney L (2013) Discrimination in online ad delivery. ACM Queue 11(3), 10:10–10:29.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Swire P (2014) Lessons from fair lending law for fair marketing and big data. White paper, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta.Google Scholar
• Tucker C (2014a) Social Advertising: How Advertising That Explicitly Promotes Social Influence Can Backfire (Mimeo, MIT, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Tucker C (2014b) Social networks, personalized advertising, and privacy controls. J. Marketing Res. 51(5):546–562.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vermeren I (2015) Men vs. women: Who is more active on social media? Brandwatch (January 28), https://www.brandwatch.com/blog/men-vs-women-active-social-media/.Google Scholar
• Williams WM, Ceci SJ (2015) National hiring experiments reveal 2:1 faculty preference for women on STEM tenure track. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 112(17):5360–5365.Crossref, Google Scholar