Netherlands Institute for Human Rights
LITERATURE STUDY
The right person in the right place
The role of stereotypes in access to the labour market
July 2013
1
SUMMARY
The employment rate of ethnic minority groups, people with a disability, the elderly,
young people and women are still lagging behind the rates of other groups. This
discrepancy is partially caused by objective factors, such as education, language
proficiency, work experience, costs, administrative expenses and so on. But the different
employment rates cannot only be clarified by these factors. Research has shown that
even with equivalent CVs, older job seekers (55+), people of non-Western origin, people
with a disability and women (in some jobs) actually have less chances of getting a job.
Discrimination based on age, ethnicity, disability or gender unmistakably plays a part in
this situation.
Stereotypes and discrimination
Discrimination often appears to originate from stereotyping. Negative stereotypes of
groups results in employers preferring candidates from other groups, as is shown by
several recent studies. It turns out that prejudice not involving intent and in which often subconscious - stereotypes play a major part is difficult to recognize and
acknowledge. This partly explains why employers take so few measures to combat
discrimination at the entrance to the labour market, although they say they find
discrimination-free access to the labour market important. Not taking measures to
combat discrimination is a problem, as it obstructs the realization of important human
rights for all groups of people, namely the right to protection from discrimination and
(equal) right to labour.
Moreover, by ratifying treaties such as the United Nations Convention on the Elimination
of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the International Convention
on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), the Netherlands has the
explicit obligation to combat the stereotyping of women and ethnic minorities and in the
long term also of people with a disability (see the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons
with Disabilities - CRPD). The government is obligated to take measures to reduce
stereotyping.
Research and training aimed at reducing stereotypes
In order to contribute to the combating of discrimination at the entrance to the labour
market based on group stereotypes (‘women are caring’, ‘the elderly are slow’), the
Netherlands Institute for Human Rights has conducted a literature study. In the study,
important social knowledge from various scientific disciplines was collected about the
origin and usefulness of stereotypes, about their functioning, their changeability as well
as the negative effects of stereotyping, including discrimination (on both assessors and
assessees). The Netherlands Institute for Human Rights will communicate the findings in
the form of a practical training for professional personnel selectors (recruiters,
intermediaries and HR officials). This training may contribute to the recognition of
stereotyping processes and to reduce the influence of stereotyping on the recruitment
and selection process.
The innovative aspect of this study is that recent scientific insights into stereotyping
related to different groups - usually women and ethnic groups, people with a disability
and the elderly (55+) - have been brought together in one place.
The mechanisms studied, which work in the same manner for all groups, are illustrated
with examples of the various groups. Another new aspect is that scientific insights about
stereotyping are linked to concrete measures that organisations can take to realise a
discrimination-free access to labour. The objective of the study is to bridge the gap
between scientific insights and the implementation of those insights by prospective
professionals in the area of staff policy and Human Resource Management.
2
Discouraging stereotyping is effective
Limiting the negative influence of stereotyping in recruitment and selection processes is
on the one hand and firstly in the interest of the group of people being negatively
stereotyped. Their chances of work are likely to become fairer if and when they are
assessed on the basis of their competences instead of on group stereotypes.
On the other hand, combating the effects of stereotyping is also in the interest of
employers. This research has shown, among other things, that highly suitable female
candidates are overlooked if recruiters view the position as being stereotypically male,
such as for the positions of manager or full professor, and if recruiters have a
stereotypical image of women. On the whole, stereotypical expectations result in an
underestimation of the actual competences of applicants from the disadvantaged groups
and, reversely, they lead to an overrating of the actual competences of applicants from
groups given undue preference. In other words, both employers and applicants benefit
from a reduction of the effect of stereotypes in selection procedures.
Stereotyping is useful, but not in recruitment and selection processes
Stereotypes are formed in the course of a long-term process comprising experiences and
images people are confronted with in a certain period of time. Therefore, stereotypes
are deeply ingrained in our cognitive structures. General stereotypes are useful and
indispensable in our observations, because they help us with structuring information
quickly and because they allow us to get an overall impression of a person. However, one
of the characteristics of stereotypes is that they are usually negative when they concern
‘other’ groups. Another characteristic is that they are very persistent; stereotypes are
difficult to change.
Due to their general and over-simplified nature, stereotypes are not suitable to be used
in an adequate assessment of a person. This is particularly true in recruitment and
selection processes, in which a good estimation of a person’s — true — competences for
adequate fulfilment of a particular position. Furthermore, many stereotypes are proved
to be false when they are compared to the average score of a group on a particular
characteristic. The assertion that ‘stereotypes have an element of truth in them’ is not
necessarily true for every situation.
Discrimination resulting from implicit stereotypes
There is a difference between explicit stereotypes of groups, of which people are
generally aware, and implicit stereotypes, which originate from subconsciously
associating groups with negative characteristics. For example, the link between ‘women’
and ‘not so ambitious’. The difference between implicit and explicit stereotypes seems
to increase as the taboo stereotype related to a particular group increases. This may
happen when people are afraid of expressing their explicit stereotypes — on account of
the taboo — or when they even fear to admit to themselves that they have explicit
stereotypes. Therefore, applicants from groups of which the stereotypes are taboo will
be rejected in a more covert, subtle manner. The subconscious nature of such implicit
stereotypes also means that people who are convinced that they themselves do not
stereotype actually do think in stereotypes. Research into stereotypes in recruitment
and selection processes has shown that implicit stereotyping also has a negative
influence on applicants from disadvantaged groups. Where explicit stereotypes both
influence the assessment and the selection of applicants, implicit stereotypes only
influence the latter process. The subconscious nature of implicit stereotypes results in
assessors not acknowledging that they are more likely to discriminate with the result that
they are not inclined to change this.
3
The functioning and effects of stereotypes
The research has revealed a number of significant findings, both for people who have to
assess groups and for groups that are subject to assessment.
Assessors: There are various theories that describe the origin and functioning of
stereotypes. For example, according to the social identity theory, the characteristics of
one’s own ‘in-group’ are generally viewed as more positive than the characteristics of
the ‘out–group’ (In-group Favouritism). This can be explained by the fact that people
need a positive social identity. This mechanism explains why stereotypes about other
groups often have negative connotations. The division into ‘own’ and ‘other’ groups,
which takes on the form of ‘us versus them’ thinking, has far-reaching consequences for
the perception of people. For instance, people appear to be inclined to view the ‘ingroup’ as more complex and heterogeneous, and the ‘out-group’ as more homogeneous
(Out-group Homogenization Effect). Furthermore, observations may not always be
objective; signs about a person that deviate slightly from the stereotypical image are
viewed according to the stereotype (Assimilation Mechanism). If a person deviates too
much from the group stereotype, this does not lead to an adjustment of this stereotype.
Instead, people subconsciously create a sub-category of deviating persons, for instance
‘career women’ as a sub-category of ‘women’ and ‘highly-skilled, integrated migrants’ as
a sub-category of ‘migrants’. The result is that the general stereotype of women
(‘caring, working part-time’) and migrants (‘poorly trained, not integrated, not
emancipated’) remains intact (Subtyping Mechanism).
Not only the final decision of the selector to hire or not hire an applicant is influenced by
stereotyping. Stereotyping also influences the motivation and performance of applicants.
Both the perception of ‘hard’ competences and character traits and ‘soft skills’ is
different for applicants from disadvantaged or privileged groups. It is especially
important for professional recruiters to realise that job interviews with ethnic minorities
are conducted differently due to stereotyping. For instance, the interviews are shorter,
other questions are asked, and the non-verbal attitude is different. This makes the
physical distance between interviewers and applicants from certain ethnic groups larger
than applicants from other groups, which appears to make applicants feel uneasy and
nervous.
Assessees/Disadvantaged groups: The motivation and intellectual performance of
women, ethnic minority groups and the elderly are negatively influenced by stereotypical
expectations regarding these groups. Members of these groups often do not perform as
well as they could when in the course of a test or job interview, they are confronted
with the fact that they belong to a disadvantaged group, or with the fact that
stereotypes exist of that group. These applicants also appear to do worse in tests, such
as assessments, when they have been confronted beforehand with stereotypes about
their group. This mechanism creates an interaction between stereotyping and forms of
conduct on the part of the assessors and assessees respectively, which confirms existing
stereotypes and sometimes even enhances them (Stereotype Threat Mechanism, Selffulfilling Prophecy).
Measures to reduce the influence of stereotypes
Our research shows that stereotypes are very persistent and therefore hard to change,
particularly in the short term. Yet, it also shows that organisations can take measures to
reduce the influence of stereotypes on recruitment and selection processes. A minimum
requirement for initiating such measures is that the leaders of the organisation must
emphasise the importance of a discrimination-free access to the labour market, as a
moral and statutory standard and out of self-interest. This should be done without
4
suggesting that discrimination is not present at all in that organisation, because this may
lead to adverse effects.
Furthermore, it specifically helps to make assessors become more aware of the
stereotypes they subconsciously and unintentionally have. This helps them with
recognising their own stereotypes and increases their motivation to not only take
intuitive decisions. Additionally, each step in the application procedure can be adjusted
to limit the possible influence of stereotypes. This may include adopting a procedure in
which the requirements have been formulated as concretely as possible beforehand, and
which are clearly related to the position, also or particularly for higher positions.
Adhering to a fixed format for job interviews also helps to limit the influence of
prejudices, as does accountability for the decision-making process, preferably under the
guidance of a person who was not involved in the procedure. Furthermore, it is necessary
to think about the influence stereotypes are allowed to have in ‘new’ recruitment and
selection procedures, such as speed dating, group interviews, video interviews, and so
on, but also recruitment and selection via LinkedIn without an official vacancy and the
like. However, in implementing said measures, it is important to take account of the
context. For instance, the recruitment and selection process for higher and lower
positions may differ in certain aspects.
5
CONTENTS LITERATURE STUDY
Acknowledgement 2
Contents 4
Summary 5
1. Introduction 9
1.1 Research questions 11
1.2 Objective and definition of the research, accountability for research method 12
1.3 Definitions 13
2. The importance of discrimination-free access to work 15
2.1 The interests of employees in discrimination-free recruitment and selection 15
2.1.1 Discrimination on the grounds of Ethnicity 16
2.1.2 Discrimination on the grounds of Gender (women) 17
2.1.3 Discrimination on the grounds of Disability 20
2.1.4 Discrimination of the grounds of Age 22
2.2 The interests of employers in discrimination-free recruitment and selection 23
3. Introduction to the theory 25
4. Theory: The origin of stereotypes 27
4.1 Usefulness and necessity of using stereotypes 27
4.2 The need for a positive social identity. Categorization into groups
(‘ingroup’ versus ‘outgroup’) 28
4.2.1 The positive assessment of in-groups 30
4.2.2 Connection between group identification and positive assessment of the ‘in-group’
33
4.2.3 Effect of homogenization 34
4.3 The role theory 35
5. Theory: The effect of stereotypes 36
5.1 Automatic activation of stereotypes 36
5.2 Which stereotypes are activated? 36
5.3 Result of activation: assimilation and contrast 37
6. Theory: Continued existence, confirmation and reinforcement of stereotypes 39
6.1 Self-fulfilling Prophecy 39
6.2 Stereotype Threat 40
6.3 Subtyping 41
6.4 Faulty/Irrelevant information 42
7. Theory: Changes in stereotypes 44
7.1 The Conversion model 44
7.2 The Contact Hypothesis 45
7.3 The Bookkeeping model 46
8. Theory: The accuracy of stereotypes 47
8.1 Average assessment of disadvantaged groups 47
8.2 Accuracy of stereotyping in assessing individuals 48
6
9. Effects of stereotypes in actual HR practice 50
9.1 Effect on assessors 50
9.1.1 Effect on perception and actions 50
9.1.2 Effects on assessment of applicants 52
9.2 Effects on persons subject to stereotyping in actual practice 55
9.2.1 Effects of stereotyping on self-image and performances 56
9.2.2 Effects of stereotyping in the long term 58
10. Changes in stereotypes in actual HR practice: perspectives for realising
discrimination-free recruitment and selection for organisations 59
10.1 Minimum requirements 59
10.2 Structure of the application procedure 59
10.2.1 Drawing up the profile and the vacancy 61
10.2.2 Recruitment: risks and opportunities 62
10.2.3 Selection 62
10.3 Establishing contact and acquiring experience with disadvantaged groups
beforehand 66
10.4 The organisation’s values 68
10.5 Target figures/quotas 69
10.6 Training of companies and organisations 70
11. Conclusions 73
References 77
Bibliography 78
This publication is sponsored by the PROGRESS programme, the Programme for Employment and
Social Solidarity of the European Union.
For more information, see: ec.europa.eu/progress.
The contents of this publication is the responsibility of the Netherlands Institute
for Human Rights and cannot be interpreted as the viewpoint of the European
Commission in any way.
7