skip to main content
10.1145/2998181.2998327acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescscwConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article
Public Access

Bias in Online Freelance Marketplaces: Evidence from TaskRabbit and Fiverr

Published:25 February 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

Online freelancing marketplaces have grown quickly in recent years. In theory, these sites offer workers the ability to earn money without the obligations and potential social biases associated with traditional employment frameworks. In this paper, we study whether two prominent online freelance marketplaces - TaskRabbit and Fiverr - are impacted by racial and gender bias. From these two platforms, we collect 13,500 worker profiles and gather information about workers' gender, race, customer reviews, ratings, and positions in search rankings. In both marketplaces, we find evidence of bias: we find that gender and race are significantly correlated with worker evaluations, which could harm the employment opportunities afforded to the workers. We hope that our study fuels more research on the presence and implications of discrimination in online environments.

References

  1. Aleo, M., and Svirsky, P. Foreclosure fallout: The banking industry's attack on disparate impact race discrimination claims under the fair housing act and the equal credit opportunity act. BU Pub. Int. LJ 18 (2008).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Altonji, J. G., and Blank, R. M. Chapter 48 race and gender in the labor market. In Handbook of Labor Economics, vol. 3, Part C. Elsevier, 1999, pp. 3143--3259.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Arias, E., Heron, M., Tejada-Vera, B., et al. National vital statistics reports. National Vital Statistics Reports 61, 9 (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Ayres, I., Banaji, M., and Jolls, C. Race effects on eBay. The RAND Journal of Economics 46, 4 (2015), 891--917.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Bashir, M. A., Arshad, S., Robertson, W., and Wilson, C. Tracing information flows between ad exchanges using retargeted ads. In Proceedings of Usenix Security (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Berger, J., Fisek, M. H., Norman, R. Z., and Zelditch Jr, M. Status characteristics and interaction: An expectation states approach. NY: Elsevier, 1977.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Berger, J., Rosenholtz, S. J., and Zelditch, M. Status organizing processes. Annual review of sociology (1980), 479--508.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Bertrand, M., and Mullainathan, S. Are emily and greg more employable than lakisha and jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. American Economic Review 94, 4 (2004), 991--1013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Bird, S., Klein, E., and Loper, E. Natural Language Processing with Python, 1st ed. O'Reilly Media, Inc., 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Bolton, G., Greiner, B., and Ockenfels, A. Engineering trust: Reciprocity in the production of reputation information. Management Science 59, 2 (2013), 265--285. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Brashears, M. E. Sex, society, and association: A cross-national examination of status construction theory. Social Psychology Quarterly 71, 1 (2008), 7--85.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Carlsson, M., and Rooth, D.-O. Evidence of ethnic discrimination in the swedish labor market using experimental data. Labour Economics 14, 4 (2007), 716--729. European Association of Labour Economists 18th annual conference CERGE-EI, Prague, Czech Republic 21-23 September 2006.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Che, Y. K., and Horner, J. Optimal Design for Social Learning. Levine's Bibliography 786969000000001075, UCLA Department of Economics, Sept. 2015.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Chen, L., Mislove, A., and Wilson, C. Peeking beneath the hood of uber. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM Conference on Internet Measurement (2015). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Chen, L., Mislove, A., and Wilson, C. An Empirical Analysis of Algorithmic Pricing on Amazon Marketplace. In Proceedings of the 25th International World Wide Web Conference (May 2016). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Cohen, E. G. Expectation states and interracial interaction in school settings. Annual Review of Sociology 8, 1 (1982), 209--235.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Correll, S. J. Gender and the career choice process: The role of biased self-assessments1. American journal of Sociology 106, 6 (2001), 1691--1730.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Craswell, N., Zoeter, O., Taylor, M., and Ramsey, B. An experimental comparison of click position-bias models. In Proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining (2008). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Dai, W., Jin, G. Z., Lee, J., and Luca, M. Optimal aggregation of consumer ratings: An application to yelp.com. Working Paper 18567, National Bureau of Economic Research, November 2012.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Datta, A., Tschantz, M. C., and Datta, A. Automated experiments on ad privacy settings: A tale of opacity, choice, and discrimination. In In Proceedings of the 15th Privacy Enhancing Technologies Symposium (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. David G. Wagner, J. B. Gender and interpersonal task behaviors: Status expectation accounts. Sociological Perspectives 40, 1 (1997), 1--32.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Dovidio, J. F., and Gaertner, S. L. Aversive racism and selection decisions: 1989 and 1999. Psychological Science 11, 4 (2000), 315--319.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Edelman, B. G., Luca, M., and Svirsky, D. Racial discrimination in the sharing economy: Evidence from a field experiment, 2015. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2701902.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Einav, L., Farronato, C., Levin, J. D., and Sundaresan, N. Sales mechanisms in online markets: What happened to internet auctions? Working Paper 19021, National Bureau of Economic Research, May 2013.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Eslami, M., Aleyasen, A., Karahalios, K., Hamilton, K., and Sandvig, C. Feedvis: A path for exploring news feed curation algorithms. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference Companion on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (2015). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Fradkin, A., Grewal, E., Holtz, D., and Pearson, M. Bias and reciprocity in online reviews: Evidence from field experiments on airbnb. In Proceedings of the Sixteenth ACM Conference on Economics and Computation (2015). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Gorham, B. W. News media's relationship with stereotyping: The linguistic intergroup bias in response to crime news. Journal of communication 56, 2 (2006), 289--308.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Guha, S., Cheng, B., and Francis, P. Challenges in measuring online advertising systems. In Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Conference on Internet Measurement (2010). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Hannak, A., Sapiezyński, P., Kakhki, A. M., Krishnamurthy, B., Lazer, D., Mislove, A., and Wilson, C. Measuring Personalization of Web Search. In Proceedings of the 22nd International World Wide Web Conference (May 2013). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Hannak, A., Soeller, G., Lazer, D., Mislove, A., and Wilson, C. Measuring price discrimination and steering on e-commerce web sites. In Proceedings of the 2014 ACM Conference on Internet Measurement (2014). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Hopcroft, R. L. Is gender still a status characteristic? Current Research in Social Psychology 7, 20 (2002), 339--346.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Hoque, F. How the rising gig economy is reshaping businesses. Fast Company, Sept. 2015. https://www.fastcompany.com/3051315/the-future-ofwork/the-gig-economy-is-going-global-heres-why-andwhat-it-means.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Intuit. Intuit 2020 report. http://http-download.intuit.com/http.intuit/CMO/intuit/futureofsmallbusiness/intuit_2020_report.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Kliman-Silver, C., Hannak, A., Lazer, D., Wilson, C., and Mislove, A. Location, location, location: The impact of geolocation on web search personalization. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM Conference on Internet Measurement (2015). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Kricheli-Katz, T., and Regev, T. How many cents on the dollar? women and men in product markets. Science Advances 2, 2 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Laumeister, G. The Next Big Thing In E-Commerce: Online Labor Marketplaces. Forbes, 2014. http://www.forbes.com/sites/groupthink/2014/10/21/the-nextbig-thing-in-e-commerce-online-labor-marketplaces/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Lécuyer, M., Ducoffe, G., Lan, F., Papancea, A., Petsios, T., Spahn, R., Chaintreau, A., and Geambasu, R. Xray: Enhancing the web's transparency with differential correlation. In Proceedings of the 23rd USENIX Conference on Security Symposium (2014). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Lee, M. K., Kusbit, D., Metsky, E., and Dabbish, L. Working with machines: The impact of algorithmic and data-driven management on human workers. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2015). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Lemkau, J. P. Personality and background characteristics of women in male-dominated occupations: A review. Psychology of Women Quarterly 4, 2 (1979), 221--240.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Maass, A., Salvi, D., Arcuri, L., and Semin, G. R. Language use in intergroup contexts: the linguistic intergroup bias. Journal of personality and social psychology 57, 6 (1989), 981.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Martha Foschi, Larissa Lai, K. S. Gender and double standards in the assessment of job applicants. Social Psychology Quarterly 57, 4 (1994), 326--339.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Mikians, J., Gyarmati, L., Erramilli, V., and Laoutaris, N. Detecting price and search discrimination on the internet. In Proceedings of the 11th ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks (2012). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Mikians, J., Gyarmati, L., Erramilli, V., and Laoutaris, N. Crowd-assisted search for price discrimination in e-commerce: First results. In Proceedings of the Ninth ACM Conference on Emerging Networking Experiments and Technologies (2013). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Morton, F., Zettelmeyer, F., and Silva-Risso, J. Consumer information and discrimination: Does the internet affect the pricing of new cars to women and minorities? Quantitative Marketing and Economics 1, 1 (2003), 65--92.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., and Handelsman, J. Science faculty's subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109, 41 (2012), 16474--16479.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. Musthag, M., and Ganesan, D. Labor dynamics in a mobile micro-task market. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2013). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Otterbacher, J. Linguistic bias in collaboratively produced biographies: Crowdsourcing social stereotypes? In Proceedings of the 9th International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Richardson, M. Predicting clicks: Estimating the click-through rate for new ads. In Proceedings of the 16th International World Wide Web Conference (2007). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Ridgeway, C. L. Framed by gender - how gender inequality persists in the modern world. Oxford University Press (2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Ridgeway, C. L. Why status matters for inequality. American Sociological Review 79, 1 (2014), 1--16.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  51. Sandvig, C., Hamilton, K., Karahalios, K., and Langbort, C. Auditing algorithms: Research methods for detecting discrimination on internet platforms. In Proceedings of "Data and Discrimination: Converting Critical Concerns into Productive Inquiry", a preconference at the 64th Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Schmader, T. Gender identification moderates stereotype threat effects on women's math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 38, 2 (2002), 194--201.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  53. Soeller, G., Karahalios, K., Sandvig, C., and Wilson, C. MapWatch: Detecting and Monitoring International Border Personalization on Online Maps. In Proceedings of the 25th International World Wide Web Conference (May 2016). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Steele, Claude M.; Aronson, J. Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of african americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69, 5 (1995), 797--811.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  55. Sundararajan, A. The 'gig economy' is coming. what will it mean for work? The Guardian, July 2015. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/26/will-we-get-by-gig-economy.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Support, T. Are your taskers screened and background checked? TaskRabbit, May 2016. https://support.taskrabbit.com/hc/en-us/articles/204411630Are-your-Taskers-screened-and-background-checked-.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Sweeney, L. Discrimination in online ad delivery, 2013. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2208240.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. Teodoro, R., Ozturk, P., Naaman, M., Mason, W., and Lindqvist, J. The motivations and experiences of the on-demand mobile workforce. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and; Social Computing (2014). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. Thebault-Spieker, J., Terveen, L. G., and Hecht, B. Avoiding the south side and the suburbs: The geography of mobile crowdsourcing markets. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (2015). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  60. Todisco, M. Share and share alike? considering racial discrimination in the nascent room-sharing economy. Stanford Law Review Online 67 (2015), 121--129.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Wagner, C., Garcia, D., Jadidi, M., and Strohmaier, M. It's a man's wikipedia? assessing gender inequality in an online encyclopedia. CoRR abs/1501.06307 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. Wagner, C., Garcia, D., Jadidi, M., and Strohmaier, M. It's a man's wikipedia? assessing gender inequality in an online encyclopedia. In In Proceedings of the 9th Annual International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. Wang, G., Mohanlal, M., Wilson, C., Wang, X., Metzger, M., Zheng, H., and Zhao, B. Y. Social turing tests: Crowdsourcing sybil detection. In In Proceedings of the 20th Annual Network & Distributed System Security Symposium (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. Wilson, T., Wiebe, J., and Hoffmann, P. Recognizing contextual polarity in phrase-level sentiment analysis. In Proceedings of the conference on human language technology and empirical methods in natural language processing (2005). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  65. Zyskowski, K., Morris, M. R., Bigham, J. P., Gray, M. L., and Kane, S. K. Accessible crowdwork?: Understanding the value in and challenge of microtask employment for people with disabilities. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (2015). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Bias in Online Freelance Marketplaces: Evidence from TaskRabbit and Fiverr

          Recommendations

          Comments

          Login options

          Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

          Sign in
          • Published in

            cover image ACM Conferences
            CSCW '17: Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing
            February 2017
            2556 pages
            ISBN:9781450343350
            DOI:10.1145/2998181

            Copyright © 2017 ACM

            Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

            Publisher

            Association for Computing Machinery

            New York, NY, United States

            Publication History

            • Published: 25 February 2017

            Permissions

            Request permissions about this article.

            Request Permissions

            Check for updates

            Qualifiers

            • research-article

            Acceptance Rates

            CSCW '17 Paper Acceptance Rate183of530submissions,35%Overall Acceptance Rate2,235of8,521submissions,26%

            Upcoming Conference

            CSCW '24

          PDF Format

          View or Download as a PDF file.

          PDF

          eReader

          View online with eReader.

          eReader