Does your name affect resume callbacks? — Supported

Claim under review

“Identical resumes get different responses depending on the applicant's name.”

SupportedReviewed 2026-08-22

Short answer

This is one of the best-evidenced findings in the job-search literature, established by randomised field experiments rather than surveys. Bertrand and Mullainathan sent 4,890 fictitious resumes to newspaper advertisements in Boston and Chicago in 2001–2002 and recorded callbacks of 10.06% for white-sounding names against 6.70% for African-American-sounding names on otherwise identical resumes. Kline, Rose and Walters repeated the design at scale two decades later, sending over 83,000 applications to 108 large US employers and finding 17.8% of applications with distinctively white names received employer contact within 30 days against 15.9% for distinctively Black names. The gap is smaller in the recent study but present in both.

Evidence status

Supported

An identifiable primary source supports the claim as it is normally stated, and the claim does not overreach that source's population, period or measure.

What we found

Both studies are correspondence experiments: applications identical in every respect except a randomly assigned name, sent to real vacancies. This design isolates the effect of the name in a way no survey can.

The 2003 study covered newspaper advertisements in two cities across four clerical and sales occupation families. Callbacks were 10.06% for white-sounding names and 6.70% for African-American-sounding names.

The 2021 study covered entry-level vacancies at 108 large employers across distinct US counties, with 125 vacancies sampled per firm. Any employer contact within 30 days reached 17.8% for distinctively white names and 15.9% for distinctively Black names.

The two studies measure slightly different things. The earlier recorded a callback for an interview; the later recorded any employer contact, predominantly voicemail. The rates are therefore not directly comparable to each other, and neither is an interview rate.

Employer response by randomly assigned applicant name

Percent of researcher-submitted applications receiving a response

2003 · white-sounding name10.06

Callback for an interview.

2003 · African-American-sounding name6.7

Callback for an interview.

2021 · distinctively white name17.8

Any employer contact within 30 days.

2021 · distinctively Black name15.9

Any employer contact within 30 days.

020

The two studies count different responses over different windows, so the pairs should be compared within a study and not across the two.

Data: Bertrand and Mullainathan (NBER Working Paper 9873, 2003); Kline, Rose and Walters (BFI Working Paper 2021-94, 2021)
Evidence review: Jobsearch.ing

What was actually measured

What was measured: The proportion of researcher-submitted applications receiving an employer response, by randomly assigned applicant name.
Population: Fictitious applications to real vacancies: newspaper advertisements in Boston and Chicago (2001–2002); entry-level roles at 108 large US employers (2019–2021)
Sample: 4,890 resumes; more than 83,000 applications
Time period: 2001–2002 and 2019–2021
Numerator: Applications receiving an employer response
Denominator: Applications submitted by researchers
Unit of analysis: Researcher-submitted application

What the evidence supports

That employer response rates differ by applicant name on otherwise identical applications.
That the effect persisted across two decades, two application channels and very different employer populations.

What it does not support

An interview rate for real job seekers. Both studies used synthetic applications uniformly well matched to the postings.
A comparison between the two studies' headline rates, which count different responses over different windows.
That the size of the gap in these studies is the size of the gap in any particular labour market today.

Limitations

Correspondence experiments measure the response to an application, not the eventual hiring decision.
The 2003 study predates online application systems entirely.
The 2021 study covers only large employers with auditable application portals, and only entry-level roles.

Jobsearch.ing interpretation

Our reading, marked as ours. Take the evidence above and reject this if you read it differently.

We publish this review partly because it is the counter-example to everything else in this library: a job-search claim that is widely repeated and also thoroughly established.

It also demonstrates why denominators matter. Neither headline figure is an interview rate, and quoting either as one — which happens often — misrepresents careful work in the direction of a more dramatic conclusion.

Sources

The evidence packets behind this article. Each was read directly, at the table or section named in its details.

National Bureau of Economic Research
Peer-reviewed · Tier 1 · Sample
4,890 résumés · Boston and Chicago newspaper ads · 2001–2002
Marianne Bertrand, Sendhil Mullainathan
Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination
Supports
Identical résumés received callbacks at 10.06% with white-sounding names and 6.70% with African-American-sounding names.
Does not
Current application volumes or channels; the study predates online application systems.
Evidence details
Supports (full)
Identical résumés received callbacks at 10.06% when carrying a white-sounding name and 6.70% when carrying an African-American-sounding name. The same résumés produced an 11.88% callback rate in Boston and 8.61% in Chicago.
Does not support (full)
Newspaper advertisements in two cities, in four clerical and sales occupation families, more than two decades ago and before online application systems existed. It does not describe current application volumes, channels, or rates.
Measure
Rate
Counts
Résumés receiving a callback divided by Fictitious résumés sent in response to advertisements
Unit
Researcher-submitted résumés
Population
Fictitious résumés answering newspaper help-wanted advertisements in sales, administrative support, clerical and customer service categories
Geography
Boston and Chicago, United States
Period
Boston, July 2001 to January 2002; Chicago, July 2001 to May 2002
Sample
4,890 observations
Method
Randomised correspondence experiment. Roughly four résumés were sent per advertisement — two of higher and two of lower quality — with names randomly assigned. A callback was recorded as employer contact for an interview.
Found at
Table 1, rows 'All sent resumes', 'Boston' and 'Chicago'
Version read
NBER Working Paper 9873, July 2003
Notes
Published in the American Economic Review in 2004. The working paper's Table 1 gives 10.06% and 6.70%; its own narrative text says 10.08%, and the published version is commonly cited with slightly different figures again. The Table 1 values from the version read are used here.
Record
Published Jul 1, 2003 · Accessed Aug 21, 2026
Becker Friedman Institute, University of Chicago
Peer-reviewed · Tier 1 · Sample
83,000 applications · 108 large US employers · 2019–2021
Patrick M. Kline, Evan K. Rose, Christopher R. Walters
Systemic Discrimination Among Large U.S. Employers
Supports
17.8% of applications with distinctively white names and 15.9% with distinctively Black names received employer contact within 30 days.
Does not
An interview rate: contact counts voicemails and emails of any kind, from synthetic applications.
Evidence details
Supports (full)
Across more than 83,000 fictitious applications to entry-level vacancies at 108 large United States employers, 17.8% of applications with distinctively white names and 15.9% with distinctively Black names received some form of employer contact within 30 days.
Does not support (full)
Contact is not an interview: it counts voicemails and emails of any kind, including requests for information. The applications were synthetic and uniformly well matched to the postings, so this does not describe what real job seekers experience. Restricted to entry-level roles at very large employers with easily audited application portals.
Measure
Rate
Counts
Applications receiving any employer contact divided by Fictitious applications submitted by the researchers
Unit
Researcher-submitted applications
Window
30 days after each application
Population
Fictitious entry-level applications to 108 large employers, 125 vacancies sampled per firm across distinct United States counties
Geography
United States, nationwide across distinct counties
Period
October 2019 to 2021, paused March to August 2020 for the COVID-19 pandemic; 13 months of fielded data across five waves
Sample
83,000 observations
Method
Randomised correspondence experiment. Applicant characteristics were randomly assigned across otherwise matched applications. Contact was measured as any employer contact within 30 days, predominantly by voicemail with a substantial minority by email.
Found at
Table 1, bottom panel, row 'Any contact in 30 days'
Version read
BFI Working Paper 2021-94, revised August 2021
Notes
Later published in the Quarterly Journal of Economics (2022). The figures here were read from the August 2021 working paper; the version of record has not been checked against them.
Record
Published Aug 1, 2021 · Accessed Aug 21, 2026

Cite this

If you are citing the underlying figure, cite the original source — not this page. This review is a secondary analysis, and citing it in place of the primary source would repeat the mistake it documents.

Cite this review for the analysis: the source trail, the evidence status, and what the evidence does and does not support.

Use this graphic

Static HTML with the attribution built in — no script, no iframe and nothing that phones home. The data credit names whoever produced the figures; we are credited only for the review.

<figure class="jobsearching-evidence">
  <blockquote cite="https://jobsearch.ing/claims/identical-resumes-get-different-callbacks/">
    <p>Employer response by randomly assigned applicant name — Percent of researcher-submitted applications receiving a response</p>
    <ul>
  <li>2003 · white-sounding name: <strong>10.06</strong></li>
  <li>2003 · African-American-sounding name: <strong>6.7</strong></li>
  <li>2021 · distinctively white name: <strong>17.8</strong></li>
  <li>2021 · distinctively Black name: <strong>15.9</strong></li>
    </ul>
  </blockquote>
  <figcaption>
    Data: Bertrand and Mullainathan (NBER Working Paper 9873, 2003); Kline, Rose and Walters (BFI Working Paper 2021-94, 2021).
    Evidence review: <a href="https://jobsearch.ing/claims/identical-resumes-get-different-callbacks/">Jobsearch.ing</a>.
  </figcaption>
</figure>

First published: 2026-08-22
Last updated: 2026-08-22
Evidence last checked: 2026-08-22
Reviewed by: Maid Dizdarevic

How evidence statuses are defined, and what each one commits us to, is set out in the methodology.