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

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

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.