When your resume is (not) turning you down: Modelling ethnic bias in resume screening

• Author: Eva Derous,Ann Marie Ryan
• Published date: 01 April 2019
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12217
• Date: 01 April 2019

REVIEW PAPER

When your resume is (not) turning you down:

Modelling ethnic bias in resume screening

Eva Derous

1

|Ann Marie Ryan

2

1

Department of Personnel Management,

Work and Organizational Psychology, Ghent

University, Ghent, Belgium

2

Michigan State University, East Lansing,

Michigan, USA

Correspondence

Eva Derous, Department of Personnel

Management, Work and Organizational

Psychology, Ghent University, Henri

Dunantlaan 2, Ghent 9000, Belgium.

Email: eva.derous@ugent.be

Abstract

Resume screening is the first hurdle applicants typically face

when they apply for a job. Despite the many empirical

studies showing bias at the resume‐screening stage, fairness

at this funnelling stage has not been reviewed systematically.

In this paper, a three‐stage model of biased resume screening

is presented. We first discuss relevant theoretical perspec-

tives (e.g., job market signalling and impression formation

theories) to explain why resume screening is vulnerable to

biased decision‐making and ethnic discrimination in particu-

lar. On the basis of the best available evidence, we consider

contingencies of ethnic discrimination in the applicant, the

decision‐maker, and the broader context (e.g., organisation),

as well as the effectiveness of interventions that might

counter ethnic bias in resume screening. The paper ends with

a critical agenda for further research and practice.

KEYWORDS

discrimination,diversity, ethnicity, recruitment, resume screening

1|INTRODUCTION

Despite decades of legislation and HR professionals' commitment to equal opportunities, ethnic minority members

still suffer a weaker labour market position compared with equally qualified majorities (Shen, Chanda, D'Netto, &

Monga, 2009). Human capital factors may explain some of the differences in hiring outcomes, but discrimination

has also been put forward as a possible explanation (Derous & Ryan, 2018; Hoque & Noon, 1999). Ethnic minorities,

for instance, still need to complete 50% more applications to get invited for a job interview when compared with

equally qualified ethnic majorities (Zschirnt & Ruedin, 2016).

The review paper is based on a keynote held by the first author at the 18th Conference of the European Association for Work and

Organizational Psychology, May 18, 2017, Dublin, Ireland.

Received: 9 December 2017 Revised: 19 September 2018 Accepted: 21 September 2018

DOI: 10.1111/1748-8583.12217

Hum Resour Manag J. 2019;29:113–130. © 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltdwileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hrmj 113

Resume screening, the first hurdle applicants typically face seems particularly vulnerable to hiring discrimination.

Fairness in resume screening, however, is less well investigated when compared with the number of studies on the

adverse impact of personnel selection tests (Outtz, 2010). This is remarkable for several reasons. First, resumes are

worldwide one of the most frequently used screening tools. Over 98% of North‐American companies use resume

screening as the first selection hurdle(Piotrowski & Armstrong, 2006). Second, the quantity and quality of the supply

of applicants sets limit on what subsequent HRM practices can achieve (Newman & Lyon, 2009; Thorndike, 1949).

Finally, the influentialresource‐based view of the firm (Barney, 2001) spawned severaldecades of research to illustrate

that HRM practicesare important sources of sustainablecompetitive advantage. Althoughthe HRM literature has inves-

tigated recruitmentwithin this framework, the lack of focus on this critical “entry gate”ofresume screening is surprising.

This review focuses on resume screening. Resumes

1

are applicant‐generated, annotated career summaries of job

qualifications. HR professionals are expected to screen resumes in an objective and fair way based on applicants' job‐

relevant characteristics (like work experiences or educational credentials). Resume screening, however, might be

unfair when resulting in differential treatment discrimination or differential effect discrimination (National Research

Council, 2004). Differential treatment discrimination arises when applicants are treated in an unequal way based

on characteristics related to their group membership (like screening out applicants based on ethnic‐sounding names

as appearing on resumes). Differential effect discrimination results when applicants are treated in an unequal way

based on inadequately justified, nonjob‐related factors that covary with minority characteristics.

The central aim of this paper is to review literature on ethnic bias in the resume‐screening phase so as to inform

HRM practice around this critical point of organisational entry. Below, we present a three‐stage model that integrates

theoretical perspectives to explain why resume screening is vulnerable to biased decision‐making and ethnic discrimi-

nation (Section 2). This section is followed by research findings on contingencies of discriminatory resume screening

and focuses on factors situated at three different levels (i.e., applicant information in resumes, the decision‐maker,

and the broader resume‐screening context) that may moderate biased decision‐making against ethnic minorities

(Section 3). Whereas these first two sections consider microlevel processes, we follow with a critical reflection upon

several practical HRM interventions to avert ethnic discrimination in resume screening that are also situated at different

levels of our model (i.e., the screening tool, the decision‐maker, and the resume‐screening context; Section 4). We

conclude this review with a discussion of limitations, future research opportunities, and implications for HR practice.

2|BIASED RESUME SCREENING

Despite the abundant literature on hiring discrimination, little research has considered why resume screening may be

prone to biased decision‐making. Integrating assumptions from job market signalling and impression formation theo-

ries, we present a three‐stage model on biased decision‐making in resume screening (see Figure 1, Part A). This model

states that when nonjob‐related, stigmatising applicant information is presented in resumes and job‐related,

personalised information is rather limited (Stage 1: Applicant information in resumes), decision‐makers might engage

in categorisation/Type 1 processing (Stage 2: Impression formation), which increases the risk of biased applicant

impressions/ratings and discriminatory decision‐making and—hence—may undermine workforce diversity (Stage 3:

Resume‐screening outcomes). Below, we explain each of the stages in more detail.

2.1 |Stage 1: Applicant information in resumes

The first stage represents the building block of decision‐making in resume screening, namely, applicant information in

resumes, and is based on job market signalling theory. According to this theory (Spence, 1974), hiring managers and

job seekers have partly conflicting interests and will communicate and interpret signals of the other party's unknown

characteristics (like applicants' competencies or the organisation's culture) to obtain the biggest gains (like gettingthe

best employees on board or getting hired). Typically, signalling theory in selection considers the cues job seekers use

114 DEROUS AND RYAN