Interesting question! We didn't pose hypotheses on field differences beforehand, so we didn't want to dig around and didn't include it in the study. We've done analyses on another topic with the data and there we didn't see patterns related to labor market tightness across occupatinal fields

...in a second step make final dichotomous decisions about who they want to invite. In addition, the format is fairly common in FS research and we wanted to validate a common FS type. That also goes for discrete choice experiments ofc, so would be great to see that addition in future studies. (2/2)

Thanks! Yes, definitely a good question for further investigation. We chose the format mostly because it appeared to us as the least "hypothetical" decision situation as also in real hiring, employers first screen all applications, attaching likelihoods and then... (1/2)

Across conditions, the FS results did not correspond well with the real-world benchmark. We conclude that researchers must exercise caution when using factorial surveys to study (hiring) behavior (4)

We varied the topic sensitivity and tested whether behavioral predictions were more successful after filtering out respondents who gave socially desirable answers or did not exert sufficient effort when answering FS vignettes. (3)

We took hiring decisions as a use case. In a field experiment, we sent out ~3000 applications to job vacancies in Germany and measured employer responses. Eight weeks later, we presented nearly identical applicant profiles to the same employers as a part of a factorial survey (2)

Ahh I didn't know that this existed. Always surprised how many of those phrases you can literally translate from German