Search results

Employment discrimination persists across global labour markets inflicting considerable social and economic costs. The existing literature tends to focus on explaining and measuring discrimination or on the measures to tackle it, overlooking the links between these areas. The paper contributes to filling this gap in order to inform policy design and empirical research on the impact of anti-discrimination policies.

The paper assesses the potential effectiveness of commonly used policy measures in tackling the types of discrimination described in the theoretical literature. The assessment is based on the underlying incentive structure of particular policies, which is matched with the behaviour of employers predicted by particular theories.

The potential effectiveness of commonly used anti-discrimination policies varies greatly depending on the source of discrimination and the target group. Some commonly used tools, such as wage subsidies are likely to have modest effects for several target groups, while employer counselling may be a more effective and cheaper alternative in many cases. Quotas may be effective against various types of discrimination, but setting them is challenging and they may yield adverse effects.

The findings call for more research on and consideration of the motives behind employment discrimination in the targeting and design of anti-discrimination measures.

The authors propose a framework to link discrimination types with measures against discrimination and potential target groups, which allows for systematically linking the literature on theories of discrimination and research on anti-discrimination.

The Blinder Oaxaca decomposition method for defining wage differentials (generally referred to as discrimination) from the wage equations of two groups has had a wide degree of application. However, the decomposition measures can very dramatically depending on the definition of the non-discriminatory wage chosen for comparison. This paper uses a form of extreme bounds analysis to define the limits on the measure of discrimination that can be obtained from these decompositions. A simple application is presented to demonstrate the use of the bootstrap to define the distributions of the discrimination measure.

Discrimination has been identified as a major stressor and influence on immigrant health. This study examined the role of perceived discrimination in relation to other factors, in particular, acculturation, in physical and mental health of immigrants and refugees. Data for US adults (18 +  years) were derived from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Mental and physical health was assessed with SF-12. Acculturation and perceived discrimination were assessed with multidimensional measures. Structural equation models were used to estimate the effects of acculturation, stressful life effects, perceived discrimination, and social support on health among immigrants and refugees. Among first-generation immigrants, discrimination in health care had a negative association with physical health while discrimination in general had a negative association with mental health. Social support had positive associations with physical and mental health and mediated the association of discrimination to health. There were no significant associations between discrimination and health among refugees, but the direction and magnitude of associations were similar to those for first-generation immigrants. Efforts aiming at reducing discrimination and enhancing integration/social support for immigrants are likely to help with maintaining and protecting immigrants’ health and well-being. Further research using larger samples of refugees and testing moderating effects of key social/psychosocial variables on immigrant health outcomes is warranted. This study used multidimensional measures of health, perceived discrimination, and acculturation to examine the pathways between key social/psychosocial factors in health of immigrants and refugees at the national level. This study included possibly the largest national sample of refugees.

This paper aims to introduce knowledge discrimination to consumer research. It also examines the antecedent effects of objective knowledge and confidence in knowledge on consumer knowledge discrimination. Research in psychology has sought to distinguish between calibration and discrimination, two related skills in probabilistic judgments. Though consumer research has sought to examine knowledge calibration, the construct of knowledge discrimination has not attracted any attention.

The paper reports on three studies which use a cross-sectional design using a structured questionnaire. The hypotheses are tested using regression. In addition, the paper also reports the results of an experimental study.

The paper finds that the objective knowledge has a positive effect on discrimination. But confidence in knowledge does not have a consistent effect on discrimination. The paper also finds that feedback improves discrimination.

The study adds a new dimension to the examination of metaknowledge and metacognitions in the consumer domain.

The study suggests some ways in which companies/government agencies can improve consumer knowledge discrimination.

Knowledge discrimination is expected to reduce consumer vulnerability and enhance consumer competence.

This is the first study to examine knowledge discrimination in the consumer domain. Prior research has observed that there could be a trade-off between calibration and discrimination. Hence, the study of knowledge discrimination can inform the study of knowledge calibration.

Since the appearance of Simon Rottenberg's seminal paper on the baseball players' labour market in the Journal of Political Economy (1956), the literature on the economics of professional team sports has increased rapidly, fuelled by major changes in the restrictive rules which had pervaded these sports, themselves a consequence of battles in the courts and the collective bargaining arena. These changes have not been limited to North America, to which most of the literature relates, but also apply to Western Europe and Australia in particular. This monograph surveys this literature covering those various parts of the world in order to draw out both theoretical and empirical aspects. However, to argue that the existence of what is now an extensive literature “justifies” such a survey on professional team sports clearly begs a number of questions. Justification can be found in at least two major aspects.

In this paper the aim is to focus on the individual distribution of gender wage discrimination in Spain and Italy, relying upon the development of Jenkins' distributional approach proposed in Del Rio et al.

The authors estimate the degree of individual discrimination for each employed woman and, relying on the decomposability properties of these estimates, assess the nature and extent of discrimination across various socio‐economic groupings.

Some mechanisms inhibit the access of highly educated women to highly rewarding occupations in Italy, especially in the public sector, but not in Spain.

The treatment of occupation and sector of activity has some impact on the results, shedding doubt on the robustness of some previous analyses of discrimination in these countries.

While no doubt the appraisal of the glass ceiling in the Italian labour market will gain extensively from further research, some prima facie evidence is found highlighting the role of appointment and promotion procedures.

A remarkable institutional divide characterises Spain and Italy in the domain of gender wage discrimination. Powerful political pressure along the lines of gender quotas for public employment has long been in place in Spain, while nothing of the kind has existed in Italy.

This paper discusses the factors to consider when designing studies to measure hiring discrimination against transgender job applicants.

The paper builds on academic literature related to hiring discrimination and transgender employment to build a detailed discussion of the numerous factors and issues inherent in hiring discrimination against transgender job applicants. By isolating and describing a number of relevant considerations, the paper aims to act as a guide for future studies to build upon.

Three types of hiring discrimination studies are discussed: correspondence tests, in-person experiments and student cohort experiments. Three main categories of factors relevant to an experiment’s design are then discussed: the legal context, industry/role factors and transgender population-specific factors. A flow-chart detailing the research design decision-making process is provided.

The discussion within this paper will act as a reference and a guide for researchers seeking to address the dearth of empirical studies in the literature. The list is not exhaustive; while a number of factors relevant to transgender-specific studies are identified, there may be more that could affect an experiment's design.

Hiring discrimination against transgender people has been recorded in many surveys, but there is little empirical measurement of this discrimination. To the author's knowledge, this paper is the first to examine the experimental design decisions related to transgender hiring discrimination. In doing so, it provides contributions for two primary audiences: those researching transgender employment issues but who have never conducted a study measuring hiring discrimination; and those who have previously conducted studies on hiring discrimination, but have not done so with reference to transgender job applicants.

The essay is addressed to practitioners in research management and from academic leadership. It describes which measures can contribute to creating an inclusive climate for research teams and preventing and effectively dealing with discrimination. The practical recommendations consider the policy and organizational levels, as well as the individual perspective of research managers. Following a series of basic recommendations, six lessons learned are formulated, derived from the contributions to the edited collection on “Diversity and Discrimination in Research Organizations.”

Discrimination and bullying contribute to mental ill-health in the workplace. At face value, they would seem linked but are often dealt with by different legislations. Workplace studies generally focus on bullying and population studies on discrimination. The authors aimed to evaluate the prevalence and relationship of discrimination and bullying in a male-dominated workforce, associated factors and relative impact on mental ill-health.

An online cohort survey was conducted amongst employees of an Australian mining company, measuring discrimination, bullying, demographics and workplace and health factors over two months. Cross-sectional and prospective analyses assessed the prevalence of each, their association and their effects on depression and anxiety.

A total of 580 employees (82% male) participated. There was no association between workplace bullying (n = 56, 9.7%) and discrimination (n = 160, 27.6%). Discrimination, but not bullying, was associated with higher depression, anxiety and suicidal ideation and lower well-being and resilience. After controlling for demographic, workplace and health and well-being factors, depression had the main effect on discrimination ß = 0.39, p = 0.003. Discrimination predicted an increase in depression scores at follow-up F (1, 129) = 4.88, p = 0.029.

In this male-dominated industry, discrimination was more prevalent than bullying. Discrimination, but not bullying, was associated with poorer mental health both cross sectionally and prospectively. Supporting the need to assess and manage discrimination and bullying in the workplace independently and the need for interventions to reduce a broader range of adverse interpersonal behaviours.

Purpose: Previous research identified a measurement gap in the individual assessment of social misconduct in the workplace related to gender. This gap implies that women respond to comparable self-reported acts of bullying or sexual discrimination slightly more often than men with the self-labeling as “bullied” or “sexually discriminated and/or harassed.” This study tests this hypothesis for women and men in the scientific workplace and explores patterns of gender-related differences in self-reporting behavior.

Basic design: The hypotheses on the connection between gender and the threshold for self-labeling as having been bullied or sexually discriminated against were tested based on a sample from a large German research organization. The sample includes 5,831 responses on bullying and 6,987 on sexual discrimination (coverage of 24.5 resp. 29.4 percentage of all employees). Due to a large number of cases and the associated high statistical power, this sample for the first time allows a detailed analysis of the “gender-related measurement gap.” The research questions formulated in this study were addressed using two hierarchical regression models to predict the mean values of persons who self-labeled as having been bullied or sexually discriminated against. The status of the respondents as scientific or non-scientific employees was included as a control variable.

Results: According to a self-labeling approach, women reported both bullying and sexual discrimination more frequently. This difference between women and men disappeared for sexual discrimination when, in addition to the gender of a person, self-reported behavioral items were considered in the prediction of self-labeling. For bullying, the difference between the two genders remained even in this extended prediction. No statistically significant relationship was found between the frequency of self-reported items and the effect size of their interaction with gender for either bullying or sexual discrimination. When comparing bullying and sexual discrimination, it should be emphasized that, on average, women report experiencing a larger number of different behavioral items than men.

Interpretation and relevance: The results of the study support the current state of research. However, they also show how volatile the measurement instruments for bullying and sexual discrimination are. For example, the gender-related measurement gap is considerably influenced by single items in the Negative Acts Questionnaire and Sexual Experience Questionnaire. The results suggest that women are generally more likely than men to report having experienced bullying and sexual discrimination. While an unexplained “gender gap” in the understanding of bullying was found for bullying, this was not the case for sexual discrimination.