Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[qwints]

This

As I said, the study demonstrates classism and not racism.

is markedly different from this

My criticism of the study is that the authors are concluding that racism is the only factor at play when it comes to bias against certain names. I don't think the study is rigorous enough to make such a conclusion because there isn't even an attempt to control for social class in terms of the names they used.

The latter shows you didn't read the study:

But, more interestingly for us, there is substantial between-name heterogeneity in social background. African American babies named Kenya or Jamal are affiliated with much higher mothers’ education than African American babies named Latonya or Leroy. Conversely, White babies named Carrie or Neil have lower social background than those named Emily or Geoffrey. This allows for a direct test of the social background hypothesis within our sample: are names associated with a worse social background discriminated against more? In the last row in each gender-race group, we report the rank-order correlation between callback rates and mother’s education. The social background hypothesis predicts a positive correlation. Yet, for all four categories, we find the exact opposite. The p-values indicate that we cannot reject independence at standard significance levels except in the case of African American males where we can almost reject it at the 10 percent level. In summary, this test suggests little evidence that social background drives the extent of discrimination.

 

[bedlin88]

Carrie or Neil have lower social background than those named Emily or Geoffrey

I'm not sure how they came up with that, I personally wouldn't read any lower or higher social background for any of those four names....

 

[Beelzebuddy]

I'm not sure how they came up with that, I personally wouldn't read any lower or higher social background for any of those four names....

Seconded. To my ear, at least, "Carrie" does not sound nearly as white working poor as, say, "Tammy Lynn."

A usable control would need a metric for judging class. Average family income for each name in the culture the test is being conducted in should do it, and the stats for that should be readily available.

 

[Dissolution]

I assume that surnames were included in this study. Were they regarded as relevant?

 

[shuttlt]

Personally I find it perfectly plausible that there is a difference in callback rates based on race. However, I'm curious about the comparison that they did. Is mothers education a good proxy for what ever we mean by class/background, here? I know nothing about education in California, so I have no idea.

One other concern I have is how they worked this out if, as seems plausible based on the study I linked to, white names are a far poorer indicators of class than black names. Did they do some kind of multiple regression analysis? If so, how significant is the interaction between class and race as an indicator of call back rate?

 

[qwints]

I'm not sure how they came up with that, I personally wouldn't read any lower or higher social background for any of those four names....

They explain that in the study:

We, however, directly address this alternative interpretation by examining the average social background of babies born with the names used in the experiment. We were able to obtain birth certificate data on mother's education (less than high school, high school or more) for babies born in Massachusetts between 1970 and 1986.For each first name in our experiment, we compute the fraction of babies with that name and, in that gender-race cell, whose mothers have at least completed a high school degree."

shuttIt, it's fair to suggest that their might be a difference between a mother's education level and 'class' (though it's education in Massachusetts for this data set). However the study did show a class bias (higher-income zip codes got more call backs), but the bias didn't explain the racial difference - black and white names in lower income zip codes got similarly lower levels of call backs. Of course, the study didn't (and I don't see how it could) study the employer's perceptions of the racial or economic attributes of specific applicants, but rather tried to represent those perceptions with objective standards.

@Dissolution, per n.20

We also tried to use more White-sounding last names for White applicants and more African-American-sounding last names for African-American applicants. The last names used for White applicants are: Baker, Kelly, McCarthy, Murphy, Murray, O'Brien, Ryan, Sullivan, and Walsh. The last names used for African-American applicants are: Jackson, Jones, Robinson, Washington, and Williams.

 

[shuttlt]

The data they are using to infer "background" is whether the mother had been educated to "less than high school, high school or more".

Also, I've just read the relevant sections of the study.
http://scholar.harvard.edu/mullainathan/files/emilygreg.pdf

I think the study may have a problem in relation to the argument the make on p.22 relating to the data in table 8 on p. 40. They want to find out whether the names are giving a cue to background using the proxy of mothers education. However, they aren't taking a random sample of black names. They have taken a sample of characteristically black names. We know that characteristically black names are biased towards "poorer" backgrounds. Black children who don't have steriotypically black names tend to be from "better" backgrounds. Surely you can't look at only the names that indicate poor social background to find out whether name is a cue to poor social background?

I've already linked to a study that claims to show that in the black community, particularly in women, less so in men, name is a big clue to social background.

It's late and I'm explaining this badly. Does the above make sense, or do I need to try again?

 

[Dissolution]

Thanks for that, Qwints.

I think that I may have noticed one flaw in their thinking.
They picked names that were chosen by mothers with no way of knowing how those names would be perceived by the employers, most of whom would presumably be from an older generation.
The white surnames were all rather Irish and the African-American ones look pretty British to me, which might offer up a completely different set of biases.

Not convinced by some of the names in the African-American section, either.
Jamal, Kareem, Rasheed and Hakim may all be more likely to be chosen by black parents than white, but they're also all Arabic.
This may display some bias on behalf of the employers, but it's not necessarily the one that the study was meant to reflect.

 

[qwints]

It's also worth remembering that this study takes place in the context of other studies also finding statistical discrimination in the US employment market.

See "The Use of Field Experiments for Studies of Employment Discrimination: Contributions, Critiques, and Directions for the Future." (2007) for an overview.

Specific studies finding similar results:

Race at Work: A Field Experiment of Discrimination in Low-Wage Labor Markets (2008) (Testers in New York found equally qualified black testers were much less likely to be hired)

"Walking the Talk? What Employers Say Versus What They Do" (finding employers were less likely to hire black ex-offenders rather than white ex-offenders)

Aversive Racism and Selection Decisions (College students in a study showed racial discrimination in simulated hiring decisions for marginal candidates)

 

[qwints]

However, they aren't taking a random sample of black names. They have taken a sample of characteristically black names. We know that characteristically black names are biased towards "poorer" backgrounds. Black children who don't have steriotypically black names tend to be from "better" backgrounds. Surely you can't look at only the names that indicate poor social background to find out whether name is a cue to poor social background?

If that was the case, you'd think there would be a difference between the names that had higher "class" and lower "class". Using the proxy they did (mother's education), there was no such relationship. Remember the study chose names that were highly prevalent among blacks but not among whites. Employers didn't show a preference for "more educated mother" over "less educated mother."

Not convinced by some of the names in the African-American section, either.
Jamal, Kareem, Rasheed and Hakim may all be more likely to be chosen by black parents than white, but they're also all Arabic.
This may display some bias on behalf of the employers, but it's not necessarily the one that the study was meant to reflect.

They worked from census data, and tested the names by surveying residents of the relevant city, but it is true that they picked names that black people and not whit people had, not names that only black people had.

 

[colander]

Thanks for that, Qwints.

I think that I may have noticed one flaw in their thinking.
They picked names that were chosen by mothers with no way of knowing how those names would be perceived by the employers, most of whom would presumably be from an older generation.
The white surnames were all rather Irish and the African-American ones look pretty British to me, which might offer up a completely different set of biases.

If they'd done the study in Europe, that might be relevant. In America? Not so much. An American would not particularly associate any of those black surnames with British people. On the contrary, most of them call to mind the images of famous American historical figures like Andrew Jackson, Jackie Robinson and George Washington.

Not convinced by some of the names in the African-American section, either.
Jamal, Kareem, Rasheed and Hakim may all be more likely to be chosen by black parents than white, but they're also all Arabic.
This may display some bias on behalf of the employers, but it's not necessarily the one that the study was meant to reflect.

You forget that they paired those first names with stereotypically black surnames. Naming conventions in America being what they are, I can assure you that people who see the names Hakim Washington or Kareem Jackson will immediately suppose that person to be black.

 

[Humes fork]

For what it's worth, Watson's response. . From reading both, it seems pretty reasonable to conclude that one woman was disappointed that Watson and company didn't approach her daughters at a conference.

Interesting. And after reading Mayhew's reply, it does seem to me that Watson indeed has the stronger case here. I mean, I can see why the woman was disappointed, but I can also understand Watson's reasoning.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

They explain that in the study:

If you think about it, that doesn't solve the problem at all.

Suppose I do a study and discover that as a matter of fact people called Marmaduke tend to come from lower-class families, but that they experience no discrimination based on their name. Does that prove that people do not discriminate based on class, or does it just mean that most people are not aware of the fact that Marmadukes tend to be lower-class?

Testing the actual socio-economic status of Marmadukes is a poor proxy for testing the perceived socio-economic status of Marmadukes.

 

[shuttlt]

If that was the case, you'd think there would be a difference between the names that had higher "class" and lower "class". Using the proxy they did (mother's education), there was no such relationship. Remember the study chose names that were highly prevalent among blacks but not among whites. Employers didn't show a preference for "more educated mother" over "less educated mother."

I disagree. I think that the employers here were unable to tell the education level of the mothers from this. From what I can see, the main cue to social background carried in a black persons name is whether they are given a "black" name, or a "non-black" name. This study can't distinguish the blackness of the name from the social information carried in having a black name. If you want to claim that employers can't get much social information based on a candidate being named Kareem rather than Hakim, sure. What it can't do though is tell you whether one can reasonably infer information about education level of the mother, or background, from a "black" name as opposed to someone being black.

I think the study I linked to earlier says you absolutely can infer information about somebodies background from them having a "black" name.

 

[squealpiggy]

Well, upon being given the conclusion that "black" names are considered of a lower class by people of all ethnicities the first word that goes through my head is "why?". And, if it's the case that these names are thought of as of a lower class because it's only families in lower classes that give their children these names, then again the first thing that occurs to me is the word "why?".

That is an important question, but it isn't one that is addressed by the study which only explores prejudice against certain names.

This



is markedly different from this



The latter shows you didn't read the study:

I did and I disagree with their classification of names like Carrie and Neil as particularly lower class names. I still think that the authors set out with a conclusion in mind and designed the study accordingly.

The data they are using to infer "background" is whether the mother had been educated to "less than high school, high school or more".

Also, I've just read the relevant sections of the study.
http://scholar.harvard.edu/mullainathan/files/emilygreg.pdf

I think the study may have a problem in relation to the argument the make on p.22 relating to the data in table 8 on p. 40. They want to find out whether the names are giving a cue to background using the proxy of mothers education. However, they aren't taking a random sample of black names. They have taken a sample of characteristically black names. We know that characteristically black names are biased towards "poorer" backgrounds. Black children who don't have steriotypically black names tend to be from "better" backgrounds. Surely you can't look at only the names that indicate poor social background to find out whether name is a cue to poor social background?

I've already linked to a study that claims to show that in the black community, particularly in women, less so in men, name is a big clue to social background.

It's late and I'm explaining this badly. Does the above make sense, or do I need to try again?

This is pretty clear. There is a link between distinctively black names and lower social class as typified by single teenage mothers with low levels of income and education who live in economically depressed neighbourhoods. Thus I don't believe that the study authors have done enough (anything at all really) to eliminate class bias as a factor in their study.

 

[shuttlt]

Suggestion for an improved study. Non-racially indicative first name. Racially indicative surname. That might remove some of the social cues?

 

[blutoski]

This is pretty clear. There is a link between distinctively black names and lower social class as typified by single teenage mothers with low levels of income and education who live in economically depressed neighbourhoods. Thus I don't believe that the study authors have done enough (anything at all really) to eliminate class bias as a factor in their study.

It's a little more complicated when there is an intersection, but this is not an unusual challenge - it's addressed with multiple regression analysis. We could review their stats to see if they used an accepted approach.

 

[qwints]

Testing the actual socio-economic status of Marmadukes is a poor proxy for testing the perceived socio-economic status of Marmadukes.

Good point, and that's certainly a limitation of the study. However, it's worth pointing out that employers erroneously perceiving black names as low socio-economic status is, in fact, racist. In addition, the study's authors aren't saying socio-economic discrimination doesn't exist. In fact, they find such discrimination via the different responses for different zip codes.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

That is an important question, but it isn't one that is addressed by the study which only explores prejudice against certain names.

I know. All I'm saying is that, even if everything that's being said about the results being indicative of classism are true, then I think that looking a little deeper will unveil racism at the root in any case.

It's funny, but I changed my name by deed poll recently. And I've changed it from a very white British name to a childhood nickname which was a made-up word, but which sounds foreign and a google search of which turns up a few hits from Southern Asia. And one of the things that made me think twice about changing my name was the fact that on a CB I would no longer seem as white British as I previously did, and that therefore I may not be as likely to get a call back if at any time in the future I leave my current job and look for a new one. Obviously, I decided that I didn't care because I did it anyway, but it is something I thought about.

I did and I disagree with their classification of names like Carrie and Neil as particularly lower class names.

FWIW, I'd class both as middle-class names, although the US may be different.

 

[shuttlt]

It's a little more complicated when there is an intersection, but this is not an unusual challenge - it's addressed with multiple regression analysis. We could review their stats to see if they used an accepted approach.

I think they'd have a problem, certainly with the existing data set. We've got a study that says the naming habits of white people carries significantly less social information than the names of black people. We have another study that has a bunch of white names that may well carry little information about the background of the holder. You probably want a cluster of strongly high status names in there and a cluster of strongly low status names. All we have is a a bunch of blah white names whose mothers education level all look excellent when compared with all of the black mothers. With the black names, you only have the "low status" ones.

I think you'd struggle to seperate the effects of the variables here.