Abstract
Anonymous resume screening, as assumed, does not dissuade age discriminatory effects. Building on job market signaling theory, this study investigated whether older applicants may benefit from concealing explicitly mentioned age signals on their resumes (date of birth) or whether more implicit/subtle age cues on resumes (older-sounding names/old-fashioned extracurricular activities) may lower older applicants’ hirability ratings. An experimental study among 610 HR professionals using a mixed factorial design showed hiring discrimination of older applicants based on implicit age cues in resumes. This effect was more pronounced for older raters. Concealing one’s date of birth led to overall lower ratings. Study findings add to the limited knowledge on the effects of implicit age cues on hiring discrimination in resume screening and the usefulness of anonymous resume screening in the context of age. Implications for research and practice are discussed.
Highlights
In Western society people need to work long enough to maintain welfare levels (Administration on Aging, 2015)
The present paper focuses on age discrimination in hiring, and more in particular on resume screening, (Bal et al, 2011; Truxillo et al, 2015)
Intrigued by the ongoing debate about the usefulness of anonymous resume screening in many Western societies (e.g., Behaghel et al, 2015; Maurer, 2016), coupled with limited studies that considered AAP effectiveness and subtle mechanisms in hiring discrimination, this study investigated whether omitting explicit age cues might be beneficial to older applicants or whether more implicit/subtle age cues in resumes may still affect older job applicants’ hirability ratings
Summary
In Western society people need to work long enough to maintain welfare levels (Administration on Aging, 2015). Chronological age has no validity for predicting future job performance (Schmidt et al, 2016), correspondence audit studies consistently show that explicitly presenting one’s chronological age in a resume may decline older applicants’ job chances (Riach and Rich, 2006, 2010; Richardson et al, 2013; Neumark et al, 2016). Such ageism effects seem substantial. Ahmed et al (2012), for instance, found that younger (31 years) compared to
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call