Author
Listed:
- Mariña Fernández-Reino
- Martí Rovira
Abstract
Ethnic minority job-seekers may have incentives to include or omit photographs from résumés depending on the social norms regarding this practice and the extent to which their outward appearances diverge from the majority group. To investigate minorities’ incentives to engage in a specific type of résumé whitening––omitting photographs to avoid discrimination based on phenotypical traits or religious attire––we draw on data from an audit field experiment conducted between 2016 and 2018 in the Netherlands and Germany. Our analysis highlights the challenges for anticipating discrimination (and, thus, deciding to engage in résumé whitening) since it is difficult to predict employers’ true preferences with respect to the inclusion of photographs. In the Netherlands, unveiled Turkish women were better off submitting their picture rather than omitting it, but the premium associated with the inclusion of photographs disappeared if they wore the Muslim headscarf. For unveiled Moroccan women, there was no discernible advantage or disadvantage associated with the inclusion of pictures in job applications. In contrast, in the German context, minority women with high prototypical appearance (brown phenotype or wearing the Muslim headscarf) would have incentives to omit their photographs from job applications, particularly if they wore the Muslim headscarf. For Moroccan and Turkish men in the two countries, the inclusion of pictures with different phenotypes does not affect employers’ responses. To conclude, we explore the advantages and disadvantages of blind recruitment policies (i.e. omitting all ethnic identifying cues from résumés, including photographs and names) in the European context.
Suggested Citation
Mariña Fernández-Reino & Martí Rovira, 2024.
"Do ethnic minorities have incentives to omit photographs from résumés? Experimental evidence from Germany and the Netherlands,"
Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 40(3), pages 579-591.
Handle:
RePEc:oup:oxford:v:40:y:2024:i:3:p:579-591.
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:oxford:v:40:y:2024:i:3:p:579-591.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/oxrep .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.