In research on fatherhood premiums and motherhood penalties in career-related outcomes, employers’ discriminatory behaviours are often argued to constitute a possible explanation for observed gender gaps. However, there is as yet no conclusive evidence of such discrimination. Utilizing a field experiment design, we test (i) whether job applicants are subject to recruitment discrimination on the basis of their gender and parenthood status, and (ii) whether discrimination by gender and parenthood is conditional on the qualifications required by the job applied for. We applied for 2,144 jobs in the Swedish labour market, randomly assigning gender and parenthood status to fictitious job applicants. Based on the rate of callbacks, we do not find that employers practise systematic recruitment discrimination on the basis of the job applicants’ gender or parental status, neither in relation to less qualified nor more highly qualified jobs.

Utilizing a field experiment design, this article examines whether discrimination based on any combination of job applicant gender and recruiter gender occurs in the first stage of the recruitment process, that is, selecting applicants to be contacted. This study includes 1,643 job applications in the Swedish labor market. Overall, based on the callbacks received, male recruiters, unlike female recruiters, are found to contact male applicants more often than female applicants. The results show a pro-male bias by male recruiters in gender-mixed occupations, whereas no significant gender differences in callbacks by recruiter gender are found in male- and female-dominated occupations.

Discriminatory practices by employers have been suggested as one possible cause for the observed gender disparities in labor market outcomes. While U.S.-based laboratory experiments show a clear motherhood penalty in recruitment, European laboratory experiments on the topic are lacking. The purpose of this paper is to study recruitment discrimination based on gender and parenthood in a laboratory setting in Sweden. We conducted a laboratory experiment with 228 human relations or business students enrolled at Stockholm University, i.e., potential future recruiters, to study potential gender bias in the evaluation of (fictitious) job candidates and how recruitment decisions are made. The results show a statistically significant gender bias in job applicant ratings in favor of female applicants. Thus, female job applicants are more often than male applicants rated as the top candidate, regardless of their parental status. Contrary to previous U.S.-based laboratory experiments, we find no motherhood penalty in the applicant ratings. Moreover, there is a statistically significant pro-female bias in applicant ratings made by female evaluators individually as well as all-female evaluation groups.

Relying on data from a large-scale field experiment in Sweden, this article studies discrimination in recruitment on the basis of gender and ethnicity combined with recruiter gender. This study includes 5,641 job applications sent in response to advertised vacancies, and the employer callbacks to these. Gender and either a Swedish or a foreign-sounding name were randomly assigned to the applications, and recruiter gender was documented whenever available. Based on the callback rates, there is evidence of ethnic discrimination against foreign-named job applicants by both male and female recruiters in the Swedish labor market. Also, the results show evidence of gendered ethnic discrimination, i.e., male applicants with foreign-sounding names receive considerably fewer callbacks than female applicants with foreign-sounding names. Female recruiters favor foreign-named female applicants over foreign-named male applicants, particularly in highly qualified occupations. Also, male recruiters appear to prefer foreign-named females over foreign-named males in male-dominated occupations.