Study: Women Less Likely To Be Shown Ads For High-paid Jobs On Google

An anonymous reader writes: A team of researchers from Carnegie Mellon University has found that women seeking jobs are less likely to be shown ads on Google for high-paying jobs than men. The researchers created more than 17,000 fake profiles, which were shown roughly 600,000 ads on career-finding websites (abstract). All of the profiles shared the same browsing behavior. "One experiment showed that Google displayed adverts for a career coaching service for '$200k+' executive jobs 1,852 times to the male group and only 318 times to the female group." The article notes, "Google allows users to opt out of behavioral advertising and provides a system to see why users were shown ads and to customize their ad settings. But the study suggests that there is a transparency and overt discrimination issue in the wider advertising landscape."

Comments

Im just here for the comments.

[Pubstar]

*Grabs Popcorn* It seems Feminist Friday and SJW Saturday came early this week.

Algorithm

[bondsbw]

Perhaps women are 6 times less likely to click an ad for $200k+ executive jobs. If the algorithm prioritizes ads based on past behavior of other persons, given all identifiable traits of each person, then this is very well to be expected.

And would go to show that stereotyping is not always evil, but sometimes it comes from innocently putting together past information to be more efficient today.

Re:Algorithm

[peon_a-z,A-Z,0-9$_ !]

Exactly, great point. Why would someone who is intelligent click on such an ad? I don't make $200k+, but I always assumed that clicking that link is a path to a Nigerian Prince promising that salary.

Why does Carnegie Mellon imply that women should be shown stupider ads than the present algorithm identifies?

Re:Algorithm

[phayes]

Probably even simpler: There are more ads specifically targeting women (shoes, makeup, etc) than for men making their ad pool larger and thus automatically diminishing the opportunity for ads for of high paying google to be shown.

But of course that won't stop someone with a spreadsheet & a mission from finding a correlation & implying a sinister causation.

Re:Algorithm

[XxtraLarGe]

Why does Carnegie Mellon imply that women should be shown stupider ads than the present algorithm identifies?

Because patriarchy.

Re:Algorithm

[houghi]

Or perhaps advertisers look at the revenue of those ads and act accordingly. Hence why Barbie is directed at girls and cartoys are directed at boys. Because that makes the most money.

There are whole sections of stores dedicated to girls and seperate ones to boys. There are complete stores dedicated to one or another. Beer advertisement is mainly directed to boys. Coca-Cola has different products directed at boys and girls. 5subtle, but still.)

There are insurance companies that have different rates for different genders.

We are forced to use different rooms to sit in a seperate room to shit. We have to fill out if we are a boy or a girl on almost any form. And then people wonder that advertisers also see a difference so as to maximize their expense.

No shit, sherlock.

OTOH I am going to say that I am a women if that means I get less ads trown at me.

And just to be sure: I need feminism to get rid of advertisers.

Re:Algorithm

[Anonymous Coward]

But of course that won't stop someone with a spreadsheet & a mission from finding a correlation & implying a sinister causation.

This is what happens when you let sociology/psychology students think they're engaged in "science." I don't think people attracted to social fields have the capability to investigate and analyze things with dispassionate rationality.

Re:Algorithm

[wonkey_monkey]

I don't see how what you've quoted makes any difference to the GP's point. The ad targeting has been demonstrated to be discriminatory (in the non-perjorative sense) and GP was suggesting why.

Women and men are different. Company takes advantage of this bleedin' obvious fact to make more money from its advertisers. Film at 11!

Re:Algorithm

[digsbo]

The ads that Google shows you are based on your search terms most of the time.

Except when it's not. Which in this case clearly indicates there's a profile that's made up of more than just search terms.

The search terms were identical for all profiles, male or female. The authors of the paper admit in the abstract that they don't know who is responsible for the different results, but since the only difference was the "gender" setting it is clear that at some point in the chain (Google, advertisers, recruitment companies) there is a rule that says "favour males", just like there is a rule that says "favour females" for tampon adverts.

Right, confirming that it's not just search terms. So we agree, there's a profile involved, not just search terms.

The difference between those two examples, and why one is a problem, is hopefully obvious.

It's really not obvious. Are you suggesting that advertisers shouldn't be allowed to target ads? Are you suggesting freedom to engage in advertising should be modified by rules? You're implying that. On what basis do you justify telling corporations how to spend their ad money?

Re:Algorithm

[Penguinisto]

Then prove him wrong. Show us *why* it's dumb... you cared enough to reply, now let's see your reasoning.

His theory has solid reasoning when one considers that the vast majority of advertising in other media is geared toward women, because women do the most purchasing (one count shows it at ~80% ) .

So what's your rebuttal?

Re:Algorithm

[bondsbw]

That's to be expected if the point is to maximize ad clicks.

The purpose of Google's advertisement system is not to better mankind in some way, it's to make money.

Re:Algorithm

[grahamsz]

I can't offer you anything more than an anecdote, but i work for an apparel brand and generally women buy far more than men. I'd even guess that women buy more men's clothes than men.

In targeting ads it's generally a good strategy for us to buy ads that just target female buyers because the roi is significantly better. Not sure if that factors into other decisions, but I expect that might have some impact on it.

Re:Algorithm

[penandpaper]

Or perhaps advertisers look at the revenue of those ads and act accordingly.

...it's not a good thing.

Why is it not a good thing? You mean, ads follow market forces which is made up of individuals that act on their own accord and interests? How in the hell is that not a good thing? individuals may act against their own interests... but are you going to be the good dictator and ensure that everybody does what is best for them?

Re:Algorithm

[dj245]

The ads that Google shows you are based on your search terms most of the time.

Except when it's not. Which in this case clearly indicates there's a profile that's made up of more than just search terms.

The search terms were identical for all profiles, male or female. The authors of the paper admit in the abstract that they don't know who is responsible for the different results, but since the only difference was the "gender" setting it is clear that at some point in the chain (Google, advertisers, recruitment companies) there is a rule that says "favour males", just like there is a rule that says "favour females" for tampon adverts.

Right, confirming that it's not just search terms. So we agree, there's a profile involved, not just search terms.

The difference between those two examples, and why one is a problem, is hopefully obvious.

It's really not obvious. Are you suggesting that advertisers shouldn't be allowed to target ads? Are you suggesting freedom to engage in advertising should be modified by rules? You're implying that. On what basis do you justify telling corporations how to spend their ad money?

Google generally shows ads that they think you want to see. They learn from feedback- which links you click and which you scroll by immediately. They aggregate that data, then slice it and dice it into different personas (or profiles). I am sure they have categories which all people fall into 2 broad categories, and they have a separate profile for every user. All their data mining and AI research result in a weird reflection of humanity. If that results in women not seeing certain ads, I can only conclude that that is because women generally don't want to see them, or prefer to see other types of ads instead. Perhaps the majority of women prefer to see ads for jobs with more schedule flexibility. That would be a reasonable conclusion since only women can carry fetuses to term, and doing so requires some amount of schedule flexibility. More than 50% of women have children, and determining who does and does not want children is probably not easy- even people with very strong opinions on the matter (like myself 10 years ago) do change their mind suddenly, for a variety of reasons which may defy profiling.

Re:Algorithm

[AmiMoJo]

"Deemed harmful" deemed harmful. Minutes spent watching TV is an order of magnitude more important than the ads one sees. You're just taking a position where you feel comfortable outlawing behavior. There's absolutely nothing objective about it.

You are confusing me with society and the laws it creates through its elected government and judiciary. For example, society considers stabbing people harmful, so it is illegal in most cases. If you want more of a grey area, dumping industrial waste is harmful to society in general, so it is illegal. Exceeding the speed limit, even if you don't harm anyone directly, is deemed harmful by society and is also illegal/discouraged.

Like it or not, society makes these kinds of judgements and enforces them, even if you personally disagree.

So while of course you are welcome to disagree, the point (which I went on to explain in more detail) is that the current rules and current position of society is that this sort of thing is a problem.

Re:Algorithm

[amicusNYCL]

Women purchase the vast majority of consumer products, including half of "traditional male" products. So, it would make sense that the majority of ads would also be targeted at women. If the majority of ads are targeted at women, then the chance of any one woman seeing a particular ad is reduced compared to the chance that a man would see the same ad (assuming, of course, that the ad in question targets both men and women).

Also, I'm not sure what "LMOL" means, but your reply was one of the dumbest ever. If you don't have anything intelligent to add, just keep your mouth shut instead of letting everyone know that you have nothing intelligent to say.

Re:Algorithm

[amicusNYCL]

Oh goody! Does this mean there's nothing wrong with targeting African Americans with watermelon and fried chicken ads?

Do you see a problem with that? Do you think that we need a law saying that if you are advertising watermelons then you are required to target all races equally, or do you think that you're searching for a problem that doesn't exist and that such a thing is a stupid place to waste anyone's time legislating?

Another example would be vacant apartment advertisements targeted towards white. Not much different than placing an ad in Craigslist with a "whites preferred" disclaimer.

Actually there's quite a bit of difference. If you are running an apartment complex, and you notice that 85% of your residents are single white males between the ages of 20 and 29 making less than $40,000 per year, then are you being racist if you put out an ad for your apartments that targets single white males between the ages of 20 and 29 making less than $40,000 per year? Is it sexist? Saying "whites preferred" is overtly racist. Advertising to the group of people who already use your product or service is not racist. It's like you're saying that you have an ethical problem that a sportswear company would target athletes with their advertising.

Re:Algorithm

[digsbo]

You are confusing me with society and the laws it creates through its elected government and judiciary.

I don't think so. I did happily give my opinions on those laws, but in my criticism I'm directly addressing this statement you made:

The authors of the paper admit in the abstract that they don't know who is responsible for the different results, but since the only difference was the "gender" setting it is clear that at some point in the chain (Google, advertisers, recruitment companies) there is a rule that says "favour males", just like there is a rule that says "favour females" for tampon adverts.

The difference between those two examples, and why one is a problem, is hopefully obvious.

Nowhere do you establish that one of those cases is a problem, nor its obviousness.

First, you have to establish that there are laws on the books in the jurisdiction of the study (USA) to say it's a "problem" on a quantitative level. You only claim it "might" be a problem in Europe. Nothing obvious here.

Second is methodology - you don't know why this is happening. If an automated algorithm generally associates a characteristic with a derived characteristic, you have to justify a basis for mandating that there are some things that are permissible for a computer to learn (men don't use tampons), and others that aren't (women don't apply for roughneck jobs). You don't come close to establishing that anywhere in the thread. And that opens a whole other can of worms that the PC types never like to look at - which is data that establishes choice by protected group members as a factor in undesirable results.

Re:Algorithm

[Darinbob]

"Earn $200K a year by doing nothing!" Is it a scam, or an ad from the back of the Economist?

Re:Algorithm

[Darinbob]

"LMOL" == Laugh My Out Loud?

Re:Algorithm

[bondsbw]

So, my career potential should be limited because people of my gender weren't sufficiently interested in high-paying jobs?

No, your career potential is limited because you are relying on Google to advertise a job to you instead of searching for it yourself.

Re:Algorithm

[Vitriol Angst]

I'm a dude, on a Mac, using plugins to control JavaScript and social networking. My advertisements are 90% for some Mac cleansing product that is 10% worse than paying for a virus.

So not only am I not being targeted by high paying jobs, I'm being profiled as an idiot. I'm tempted to burn my digital jock strap.

Re:Algorithm

[KGIII]

Licking My Own Leg. On the internet nobody knows you are a dog.

Newest Study:

[Mocko]

Women Less Likely To Be Shown Ads For Shitty Jobs On Google
In an obvious policy of sexism, female's browsers were less likely to be sent openings or training for plumbing, roofing and landscape services.

No explanation was given by press time.

Re:Newest Study:

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, yes, it's literally a shitty job, in the sense that there is actual shit involved.

Re:Newest Study:

[Anonymous Coward]

A job can still pay well and otherwise be shitty. A person can make even more working on an oil rig in unbearable conditions, but most aren't going to rate the job satisfaction as highly as being a park ranger, being a vet tech, or any other number of jobs.

Plumbers make as much as they do precisely because few want to do it and it takes a reasonable bit of knowledge to do without mucking things up even worse.

Google doesn't target ads

[Overzeetop]

Google isn't really "choosing" who gets served ads as much as advertisers do. They ask for specific demographics, and the Google engine matches users to those demographics. If you want to serve your ads to males between 35 and 50 with an estimated gross income above $150k. It's not detailed *how* they made sure the browsing was identical.

I'd be curious what the results would be if you set up the profiles and surfed, but had only female subjects running "male" profiles and visa versa.

Re:Google doesn't target ads

[KermodeBear]

His point still stands.

Advertisers are buying ad impressions for certain demographics. The advertisers are buying more ads for these jobs that target males.

It isn't Google doing this - they're just offering the advertising tools. It's the purchasers of the ads that are causing this to happen.

This is not complex.

Re:Google doesn't target ads

[Theaetetus]

His point still stands.

Advertisers are buying ad impressions for certain demographics. The advertisers are buying more ads for these jobs that target males.

It isn't Google doing this - they're just offering the advertising tools. It's the purchasers of the ads that are causing this to happen.

This is not complex.

OTOH, Google is allowing advertisers to target males in their employment ads, which is illegal under the Civil Rights Act. It's no different than if someone said "I want you to show this employment ads, but only to whites." If you say, "sure, no problem," then you're culpable too.

Focused advertising based on detected trends

[gurps_npc]

The article said browsing behavior was identical, but I doubt google was magically detecting women.

At some point the women told Google their gender. Why? What moron thinks Google needs to know their gender?

But once you give Google (or Facebook, or Yahoo, or basically anyone...) information like gender, then I guarantee you they will correlate it with other people.

What this means is that somewhere in Google's algorithm they have found that people that claim to be women (this is the internet after all), are less likely to click on ads for high paying jobs.

So Google wisely decides to show them less such ads.

Do not blame Google for basing their ads on what they know about you and ALSO what they know about people like you.

Do blame yourself for telling Google that much about you.

Screwing employers

[mwvdlee]

Employers typically pay for the number of profiles on a site, either directly or indirectly.
CMU is screwing with employers by creating 17k fake profiles.