6 ms·

After reading the headline but before reading the article the question in my mind as I clicked it was: "how would these potential employers know about someone's

by lagadu 11y ago

After reading the headline but before reading the article the question in my mind as I clicked it was: "how would these potential employers know about someone's health status?" Fortunately they explain it fairly quickly: They wear baseball caps saying "cancer survivor" and/or include that they had cancer on their resumes for no reason, other than for the study. The way I see it, had I read on a resume that someone is a cancer survivor (or any other unwarranted personal detail that's clearly being shoehorned in) I'd find it very off-putting. That alone (along with the "wear a baseball cap" thing accounts for the discrepancy in hiring, as far as I'm concerned. This isn't even fake science, this is just a piece designed to generate outrage.

pbnjay 11y ago
Actually, it's just bad reporting. I had the same thoughts as you, but I found the paper here: http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Craig_White6/publication/279631346_Selection_BIAS_Stereotypes_and_Discrimination_Related_to_Having_a_History_of_Cancer/links/559e8a0e08aeed377e57932d.pdf http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Craig_White6/publication... Control group wore plain white hats, and each participant acted as their own control by applying to one store with a cancer hat and a different with the plain hat: > In the experimental condition, confederates wore hats and provided resumes that disclosed cancer survivor status. The resumes included the following statement, “Please note: There is a gap in my employment because I was diagnosed and treated for cancer. I have been in remission for one year” and the hat had the words “Cancer Survivor” depicted across the front. In the control condition, the resume provided no extra information and participants wore a plain white hat. Finally, it is important to note that all confederates served as their own control—they entered some stores wearing the “Cancer Survivor” hat and other stores with the plain white hat. Confederate applicants remained blind to condition
- DannoHung 11y ago
  I kinda wish they'd skipped the hat thing, because the resume aspect is pretty important. Explaining a gap in your resume is a reasonable thing for people to do when applying for a job.
  - infraruby 11y ago
    > Explaining a gap in your resume is a reasonable thing for people to do when applying for a job. But why should people have to do that?
    - extra88 11y ago
      They don't have to but an employer is probably going to want to know. They can't ask about your health and you don't have to tell them but there are a number of vague ways to describe it. I'd probably go with something like "I was taking care of family health issues." I've not seen anyone address an employment gap in their cover letter but I could see someone doing so. If your resume has a notable gap and another resume is similar but doesn't, you're less likely to get an interview. With that in mind, you might explain the gap in a cover letter, especially if it can be described as a positive or you can put a positive spin on it (I'm not just talking about gaps for health reasons).
      - infraruby 11y ago
        > They don't have to but an employer is probably going to want to know. ... and so they do have to. It's regrettable, because employment history (gaps or no gaps) does not predict job performance.
        Pyxl101 11y ago
        > It's regrettable, because employment history (gaps or no gaps) does not predict job performance. Why don't you think that employment history predicts job performance? That seems to violate common sense for me. Imagine that you can hire from a pool of hundreds of candidates who are 10 years out of college, and can be classified into two groups: members of Group A have worked full time for 10 years, and members of Group B worked full time for 5 years, and have not been employed for the last 5 years. (or were employed in an entirely unrelated profession). Which group will have better average job performance? Group A of course, since its members have been working in that field for the last 5 years, instead of not working or doing an unrelated job, and also since they have double the years of work experience. They are more likely than Group B to be up to speed on latest industry knowledge. It's clear that employment history will be predictive of job performance if you believe that "years of experience" has some predictive value, since employment history affects work experience. The smaller the gap, the less impact on performance, but there's still an effect. No gap is best. I think you could also hypothesize that people with gaps in their employment history are more likely to have undesirable traits for an employer than those with no gaps. Insofar as we treat past history as predictive of future results, it seems reasonable to conclude that members of Group B are more likely to have gaps in their employment in the future than Group A. At least some members of Group B had gaps in their employment for reasons related to their own preferences, and their preferences will influence whether they work in the future, etc. Perhaps members of Group B like to travel the world, and after they save up for 5 more years, they'll travel the word for 5 years again, whereas members of Group A will work straight for another 10 more years. An employer will on average want to hire members of Group A since they represent a greater payoff on the investment of hiring them. We can rarely act with perfect information about the world, and there does not exist a study on every topic about which we'd wish to have conclusions. I believe intuitively that more total work experience correlates with better performance, and that more recent work experience does too. People with gaps are at a disadvantage on one or both measures.
- vpribish 11y ago
  That makes much more sense, thanks for digging in. I'd think that the applicants with 'cancer survivor' emblazoned on their hat could come across as making an appeal for sympathy and that is out of place in that setting illustrating poor judgement beyond wearing a hat indoors. Their discussion on the perception that cancer survivors are 'warm' but less 'competent' makes me think they undermined their study since they made a confounding incompetent-but-warm action. A better control might have had an animal charity hat and spent time volunteering.
- niccaluim 11y ago
  This is bananas. I'm a cancer survivor and I've administered hundreds of job interviews; I guarantee a large part of the difference in callbacks, if not the whole difference, is down to the combination of resumes and hats. Explaining a gap on your resume, great. Wearing a hat with "CANCER SURVIVOR" on it to an interview, ok, a little unusual, but whatever. Doing both? That's weird—not because it has anything to do with cancer, but because the applicant is putting so much energy into driving home an irrelevant point. I'd feel the same way if you explained a gap by saying you volunteered at a sloth rescue in South America (which would be awesome) and wore a hat with "SLOTH VOLUNTEER" on it (which, combined with the gap explanation, would be a bit much). It just screams "I have no idea who I am so I've constructed a fragile identity around this one aspect of my life."
  - g8gggu89 11y ago
    This sounds like the people who need to announce that they are trans everywhere.
    - ch4s3 11y ago
      >need to announce Really? Are they announcing, or just being themselves. I guess in a certain way we all "announce" who we want to be perceived as in public.
      - g8gggu89 11y ago
        Yes announcing, when it's at the top of their profile for whatever website profile/tech talk/whatever they have.
    - astrodust 11y ago
      Or vegetarian. Or pet owners. Or gamers.
      - mazeway 11y ago
        Or hackers.
baldfat 11y ago
I would say that interviewers actually try to get any information they can. Like what was the biggest struggle you over came? How will we know your dependable and you'll come to work with sniffles? Since your greatest strength can be your biggest weakness, "What is your greatest strength and how did you use it your life?" I have hired dozens of people and whenever it was with someone else they figured they needed every bit of information to make sure they don't get in trouble with highers a dud. I must have stopped questions a bunch of times when it was personal information that my co-worker was asking.
- Kluny 11y ago
  Let me translate that. "I have hired dozens of people. Whenever I worked with a co-worker during the hiring process, the co-worker figured they needed every bit of information about the applicant to make sure they wouldn't get in trouble for hiring a dud. I stopped applicants from answering my co-worker's questions a bunch of times when it was personal information that my co-worker was asking, because certain question are illegal to ask during the hiring process." Am I close?
  - baldfat 11y ago
    Close = I wasn't comfortable for the applicant. Trust me I never got a thank you for the interviewee. I feel that they would have answered the question 100% of the time. I also made sure that we didn't do the "dumb question" to see how they handle that. EXAMPLE from my interview "If you had to remove one state from American what state would it be and why?" My answer (North Dakota because most people don't even know it exist) They laughed and said it was the best answer they got form my group.
vdaniuk 11y ago
>is a cancer survivor (or any other unwarranted personal detail that's clearly being shoehorned in) I'd find it very off-putting I would think that cancer survivor has a significantly more developed sense of awareness and mindfulness. Surviving * is a deeply profound experience that changes people. I don't understand why that would be off-putting to you.
- vpribish 11y ago
  read the paper (well, skim it) - you might be interested to see your interpretation is a very common perceptual bias. They claim that this is harmful since it decreases perceived competence (as if these traits are somehow in a zero-sum tradeoff). Be that as it may, the thing that some might find off-putting is not 'surviving cancer' but appearing to be using that to gain sympathy points in a job application.
  - vdaniuk 11y ago
    I've found only mention of increased perception of "warmth" vs decreased "competence", is that it? Still, I hold a belief that those traits in fact increase competence and I don't mind people trying to gain sympathy points in job application.
    - vpribish 11y ago
      Yup, that was it (pbnjay linked the paper above).
richmarr 11y ago
> This isn't even fake science, this is just a piece designed to generate outrage. It's quite a cognitive leap from "I think there's a methodology flaw" to "this is just a piece designed to generate outrage". Note that this flaw is discussed in the 'limitations' section of the paper.
jakejake 11y ago
Anybody who walks in pushing some personal agenda tends to be a bit of a red flag. The article doesn't really take that into account. It's a shame because it would be interesting to know how it would have turned out had they not wore the hats. Or maybe the control group could have taken a year off to go skydiving on the resume and worn a hat that said "I love skydiving"

by lagadu 11y ago

pbnjay 11y ago

Actually, it's just bad reporting. I had the same thoughts as you, but I found the paper here: http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Craig_White6/publication/279631346_Selection_BIAS_Stereotypes_and_Discrimination_Related_to_Having_a_History_of_Cancer/links/559e8a0e08aeed377e57932d.pdf http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Craig_White6/publication... Control group wore plain white hats, and each participant acted as their own control by applying to one store with a cancer hat and a different with the plain hat: > In the experimental condition, confederates wore hats and provided resumes that disclosed cancer survivor status. The resumes included the following statement, “Please note: There is a gap in my employment because I was diagnosed and treated for cancer. I have been in remission for one year” and the hat had the words “Cancer Survivor” depicted across the front. In the control condition, the resume provided no extra information and participants wore a plain white hat. Finally, it is important to note that all confederates served as their own control—they entered some stores wearing the “Cancer Survivor” hat and other stores with the plain white hat. Confederate applicants remained blind to condition

DannoHung 11y ago
I kinda wish they'd skipped the hat thing, because the resume aspect is pretty important. Explaining a gap in your resume is a reasonable thing for people to do when applying for a job.
- infraruby 11y ago
  > Explaining a gap in your resume is a reasonable thing for people to do when applying for a job. But why should people have to do that?
  - extra88 11y ago
    They don't have to but an employer is probably going to want to know. They can't ask about your health and you don't have to tell them but there are a number of vague ways to describe it. I'd probably go with something like "I was taking care of family health issues." I've not seen anyone address an employment gap in their cover letter but I could see someone doing so. If your resume has a notable gap and another resume is similar but doesn't, you're less likely to get an interview. With that in mind, you might explain the gap in a cover letter, especially if it can be described as a positive or you can put a positive spin on it (I'm not just talking about gaps for health reasons).
    - infraruby 11y ago
      > They don't have to but an employer is probably going to want to know. ... and so they do have to. It's regrettable, because employment history (gaps or no gaps) does not predict job performance.
      - Pyxl101 11y ago
        > It's regrettable, because employment history (gaps or no gaps) does not predict job performance. Why don't you think that employment history predicts job performance? That seems to violate common sense for me. Imagine that you can hire from a pool of hundreds of candidates who are 10 years out of college, and can be classified into two groups: members of Group A have worked full time for 10 years, and members of Group B worked full time for 5 years, and have not been employed for the last 5 years. (or were employed in an entirely unrelated profession). Which group will have better average job performance? Group A of course, since its members have been working in that field for the last 5 years, instead of not working or doing an unrelated job, and also since they have double the years of work experience. They are more likely than Group B to be up to speed on latest industry knowledge. It's clear that employment history will be predictive of job performance if you believe that "years of experience" has some predictive value, since employment history affects work experience. The smaller the gap, the less impact on performance, but there's still an effect. No gap is best. I think you could also hypothesize that people with gaps in their employment history are more likely to have undesirable traits for an employer than those with no gaps. Insofar as we treat past history as predictive of future results, it seems reasonable to conclude that members of Group B are more likely to have gaps in their employment in the future than Group A. At least some members of Group B had gaps in their employment for reasons related to their own preferences, and their preferences will influence whether they work in the future, etc. Perhaps members of Group B like to travel the world, and after they save up for 5 more years, they'll travel the word for 5 years again, whereas members of Group A will work straight for another 10 more years. An employer will on average want to hire members of Group A since they represent a greater payoff on the investment of hiring them. We can rarely act with perfect information about the world, and there does not exist a study on every topic about which we'd wish to have conclusions. I believe intuitively that more total work experience correlates with better performance, and that more recent work experience does too. People with gaps are at a disadvantage on one or both measures.
vpribish 11y ago
That makes much more sense, thanks for digging in. I'd think that the applicants with 'cancer survivor' emblazoned on their hat could come across as making an appeal for sympathy and that is out of place in that setting illustrating poor judgement beyond wearing a hat indoors. Their discussion on the perception that cancer survivors are 'warm' but less 'competent' makes me think they undermined their study since they made a confounding incompetent-but-warm action. A better control might have had an animal charity hat and spent time volunteering.
niccaluim 11y ago
This is bananas. I'm a cancer survivor and I've administered hundreds of job interviews; I guarantee a large part of the difference in callbacks, if not the whole difference, is down to the combination of resumes and hats. Explaining a gap on your resume, great. Wearing a hat with "CANCER SURVIVOR" on it to an interview, ok, a little unusual, but whatever. Doing both? That's weird—not because it has anything to do with cancer, but because the applicant is putting so much energy into driving home an irrelevant point. I'd feel the same way if you explained a gap by saying you volunteered at a sloth rescue in South America (which would be awesome) and wore a hat with "SLOTH VOLUNTEER" on it (which, combined with the gap explanation, would be a bit much). It just screams "I have no idea who I am so I've constructed a fragile identity around this one aspect of my life."
- g8gggu89 11y ago
  This sounds like the people who need to announce that they are trans everywhere.
  - ch4s3 11y ago
    >need to announce Really? Are they announcing, or just being themselves. I guess in a certain way we all "announce" who we want to be perceived as in public.
    - g8gggu89 11y ago
      Yes announcing, when it's at the top of their profile for whatever website profile/tech talk/whatever they have.
  - astrodust 11y ago
    Or vegetarian. Or pet owners. Or gamers.
    - mazeway 11y ago
      Or hackers.

baldfat 11y ago

I would say that interviewers actually try to get any information they can. Like what was the biggest struggle you over came? How will we know your dependable and you'll come to work with sniffles? Since your greatest strength can be your biggest weakness, "What is your greatest strength and how did you use it your life?" I have hired dozens of people and whenever it was with someone else they figured they needed every bit of information to make sure they don't get in trouble with highers a dud. I must have stopped questions a bunch of times when it was personal information that my co-worker was asking.

Kluny 11y ago
Let me translate that. "I have hired dozens of people. Whenever I worked with a co-worker during the hiring process, the co-worker figured they needed every bit of information about the applicant to make sure they wouldn't get in trouble for hiring a dud. I stopped applicants from answering my co-worker's questions a bunch of times when it was personal information that my co-worker was asking, because certain question are illegal to ask during the hiring process." Am I close?
- baldfat 11y ago
  Close = I wasn't comfortable for the applicant. Trust me I never got a thank you for the interviewee. I feel that they would have answered the question 100% of the time. I also made sure that we didn't do the "dumb question" to see how they handle that. EXAMPLE from my interview "If you had to remove one state from American what state would it be and why?" My answer (North Dakota because most people don't even know it exist) They laughed and said it was the best answer they got form my group.

vdaniuk 11y ago

>is a cancer survivor (or any other unwarranted personal detail that's clearly being shoehorned in) I'd find it very off-putting I would think that cancer survivor has a significantly more developed sense of awareness and mindfulness. Surviving * is a deeply profound experience that changes people. I don't understand why that would be off-putting to you.

vpribish 11y ago
read the paper (well, skim it) - you might be interested to see your interpretation is a very common perceptual bias. They claim that this is harmful since it decreases perceived competence (as if these traits are somehow in a zero-sum tradeoff). Be that as it may, the thing that some might find off-putting is not 'surviving cancer' but appearing to be using that to gain sympathy points in a job application.
- vdaniuk 11y ago
  I've found only mention of increased perception of "warmth" vs decreased "competence", is that it? Still, I hold a belief that those traits in fact increase competence and I don't mind people trying to gain sympathy points in job application.
  - vpribish 11y ago
    Yup, that was it (pbnjay linked the paper above).

richmarr 11y ago

> This isn't even fake science, this is just a piece designed to generate outrage. It's quite a cognitive leap from "I think there's a methodology flaw" to "this is just a piece designed to generate outrage". Note that this flaw is discussed in the 'limitations' section of the paper.

jakejake 11y ago

Anybody who walks in pushing some personal agenda tends to be a bit of a red flag. The article doesn't really take that into account. It's a shame because it would be interesting to know how it would have turned out had they not wore the hats. Or maybe the control group could have taken a year off to go skydiving on the resume and worn a hat that said "I love skydiving"