[VeryVito]

This "study" seems flawed in so many ways (or the article describing it doesn't do it justice).

According to the article, the people who did not get a job were the ones who "indicated on their resumes they were cancer survivors AND WORE A HAT that read 'cancer survivor' when applying for a job."

NEWS FLASH: Wearing a novelty baseball cap to a job interview may not be the best idea -- cancer or not.

[sixtypoundhound]

Yeah, I call "rigged science" on this one. Wearing any clothing other than professional apparel would bias an interview outcome regardless of the cause.

The control either should have involved people wearing hats for another cause and/or they should have had a resume-mention only group in the test.

Point of fact, I would not be suprised if discrimination exists. But no need to rig the test.

[daenz]

> NEWS FLASH: Wearing a novelty baseball cap to a job interview may not be the best idea -- cancer or not.

> In the control condition, the resume provided no extra information and participants wore a plain white hat. Finally, it is important to note that all confederates served as their own control—they entered some stores wearing the “Cancer Survivor” hat and other stores with the plain white hat.

[cmyr]

At the very least the control group's hats should say "Control Group" on the front.

[daenz]

No text is the least biased. "Control Group" looks like a joke hat.

[pbnjay]

> or the article describing it doesn't do it justice

Yup, total linkbait writing here. I was able to find more info: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10533808