4.3 Article

Same religion, different treatment. The role of origin country characteristics in employers' decisions to hire Muslims

期刊

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/1369183X.2023.2286212

关键词

Employer discrimination; anti-Muslim prejudice; symbolic threat; security threat; correspondence test

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Using data from a cross-nationally harmonised correspondence test, this study examines how employers in five European labor markets respond to applications received from Muslim job seekers with ancestry from different origin countries. The findings suggest that callback rates for Muslims are lower when the origin country has higher levels of authoritarianism and gender inequality. The association between authoritarianism and callbacks is particularly significant for men, indicating that Muslim men face greater exclusion from employment opportunities.
Using data from a cross-nationally harmonised correspondence test, we examined how employers in five European labour markets (Britain, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Spain) respond to applications received from Muslim job seekers with ancestry from 22 different countries of origin. Drawing on the interdisciplinary literature on anti-Muslim prejudice, we expected that callbacks would depend on characteristics of applicants' origin countries that could signal cultural value incompatibility and political and military oppression, thus triggering perceptions of symbolic and security threats, respectively. The results point to lower callback rates for Muslims, the higher the level of authoritarianism and gender inequality in their origin country. Results for authoritarianism are especially robust across different operationalizations of threat and model specifications. We also find that the association between authoritarianism and callbacks was only statistically significant for men, indicating that Muslim men are especially at risk of exclusion from employment opportunities.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据