Gendered ethnic discrimination
and the role of recruiter gender.
A field experiment
Anni Erlandsson
INVEST Research Flagship Centre, University of Turku, Turku, Finland
Department of Sociology, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden
Abstract
Relying on data from a large-scale field experiment in Sweden, this article studies discrimin-
ation in recruitment on the basis of gender and ethnicity combined with recruiter gender.
The study includes 5641 job applications sent in response to advertised vacancies, and the
employer callbacks to these. Gender and either a Swedish or a foreign-sounding name were
randomly assigned to the applications, and recruiter gender was documented whenever
available. Based on the callback rates, there is evidence of ethnic discrimination against
foreign-named job applicants by both male and female recruiters. Also, male applicants with
foreign-sounding names are discriminated more than female applicants with foreign-sounding
names. Thus, the results show gendered ethnic discrimination in the Swedish labor market,
and this does not appear to depend on recruiter gender in general. However, the patterns
for gendered ethnic discrimination by recruiter gender vary across occupational categories.
Keywords
Discrimination, ethnicity, field experiment, gender, labor market, recruitment
Introduction
Labor market inequality takes many forms, and different groups of individuals experience a range of chal-
lenges in the labor market. Natives generally have an advantage over immigrants in the labor market, and
there is evidence of ethnic discrimination in recruitment both internationally and from Sweden (cf. Baert,
2018). Also, men tend to have an advantage over women in the labor market (e.g. Charles, 2011). In
general, men have higher wages and hold authority positions to a greater degree compared to women
(Grönlund et al., 2017). These disparities may be partly because of differences in the work- and
family-related decisions made by men and women. Yet, it has been suggested that discriminatory
Corresponding Author:
Anni Erlandsson, INVEST Research Flagship Centre, University of Turku, Assistentinkatu 7, 20500 Turku, Finland.
Email: anni.erlandsson@sociology.su.se
Original Research Article
Acta Sociologica
1–19
© The Author(s) 2023
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/00016993231201482
journals.sagepub.com/home/asj
behavior by employers may be one possible reason for the observed gender disparities in career-related
outcomes (e.g. Blau and Kahn, 2017; Mandel and Semyonov, 2006).
While there is some evidence of gender discrimination against women in recruitment internationally
(e.g. Goldin and Rouse, 2000; González et al., 2019; Riach and Rich, 2006; Weichselbaumer, 2004),
Swedish field experiments do not find such evidence in general (Bygren et al., 2017; Bygren and
Gähler, 2021; Carlsson, 2011). Also, some recent evidence from Europe shows female applicants to
be slightly advantaged over male applicants in recruitment (Birkelund et al., 2019; Di Stasio and
Larsen, 2020). When it comes to the intersection of gender and ethnicity as regards discrimination in
recruitment, there is evidence of ethnic minority male applicants facing more discrimination than
ethnic minority female applicants in Europe (Arai et al., 2016; Dahl and Krog, 2018; Liebkind et al.,
2016; Midtbøen, 2016). Yet, not all studies find such a difference, and it may differ depending on the
type of occupation (Bursell, 2014). Moreover, a previous Swedish field experiment shows that the
gender of the recruiter together with the occupational type is important for male and female applicants’
chances of getting a positive response when applying for a job (Erlandsson, 2019).
While a lot of the field experiment literature on gender, and ethnic, discrimination has a theoretical
focus on statistical and taste-based discrimination, and occasionally on status characteristics, additional
theoretical approaches, such as homophily, in-group bias, and intersectional theories, may also be of
importance. Yet, data limitations and endogeneity often make it difficult to study in-group bias based
on gender in the real world outside the laboratory (Sandberg, 2018). Studying in-group bias related to
several discrimination dimensions, that is, gender interacted with ethnicity, can therefore be even
more difficult in practice and is related to increased theoretical complexity.
To my knowledge, there are no previous field experiments on ethnic or gendered ethnic discrimination
that focus on the gender of the recruiter, except for one that is limited in scope (Edo et al., 2019). Thus, it
is unclear what role, if any, the gender of the recruiter plays in (gendered) ethnic discrimination in the first
stage of the recruitment process, that is, in screening job applicants for vacancies. The void in this area of
research leads to the following research questions: Do male and female recruiters discriminate against job
applicants with foreign-sounding names? Does this tendency differ based on the gender of the applicant?
Are there differences in ethnic majority and ethnic minority job applicants’ chances of getting a callback,
that is, a positive response to their job applications, based on the gender of the recruiter, and based on the
gender of the applicant? Ethnicity here is signaled by typical Swedish names and foreign-sounding
names – common Arabic or Slavic names – which is a common practice in field experiments on recruit-
ment (cf. Gaddis, 2018), and may be taken as an indication of immigrant background.1
Labor market discrimination based on ethnicity and gender, and any combination of these, together
with the recruiter gender, is an important topic of study. This is not only because of the scarcity of
research on the topic, but also because of the intersection of several group identities or group character-
istics, here gender and ethnicity, may entail different, more or less strong, grounds and forms of discrim-
ination (cf. Ridgeway and Kricheli-Katz, 2013), not only as such but also when considering recruiter
gender. Moreover, if gendered ethnic discrimination differs by recruiter gender, it may have implications
for gender and ethnic segregation in the labor market, given that the proportion of female and male recrui-
ters differs between occupational categories. If recruiter gender plays a role in (gendered) ethnic discrim-
ination, it suggests that gender diversity among recruiters within a workplace is important for recruitment
outcomes.
Sweden, together with other Nordic countries, tends to be ranked high in terms of gender equality in
labor market outcomes, for example, employment rates (OECD, 2017; United Nations Development
Programme, 2016). While the Swedish institutional setting supports a dual-earner model, and the
country has a high prevalence of gender egalitarian attitudes (Edlund and Öun, 2016), the Swedish
labor market is characterized by a high degree of gender segregation (European Institute for Gender
Equality, 2017). At the same time, Sweden has received a rather high number of immigrants, at least
in comparison to its Nordic neighbors. Consequently, Sweden has a diverse population with every
fifth person being born abroad (Statistics Sweden, 2020). Many of the immigrants have arrived in
2 Acta Sociologica 0(0)
Sweden because of humanitarian reasons, often without basic education or facing trouble in transferring
their qualifications, and the employment gaps between natives and immigrants are among the largest in
the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), across the educational distribu-
tion (OECD, 2014: 5). Thus, Sweden provides an interesting context to study recruitment discrimination
based on the combination of gender and ethnicity together with recruiter gender.
Literature review
The term homophily is common in sociology when referring to the tendency of individuals to select rela-
tionships with similar others (e.g. Kandel, 1978; McPherson et al., 2001). In social psychology, the
concept of in-group favoritism (e.g. Tajfel et al., 1971) or in-group bias (Hewstone et al., 2002) is
applied to discrimination; research finds that individuals discriminate in favor of those who belong to
their in-group over individuals of other groups, and gender represents one basis for such group division
(cf. Brewer and Kramer, 1985; Hewstone et al., 2002). In line with the ideas of homophily and in-group
favoritism, male employers are expected to prefer male job applicants over female applicants while
female employers are expected to favor female applicants over males. Also, one may expect Swedish
employers, in general, assuming that most of them represent the ethnic majority,2 to favor ethnic majority
job applicants over ethnic minority applicants, that is, job applicants with a foreign-sounding name.
The economic theory of labor market discrimination is generally divided into statistical discrimination
(Arrow, 1973; Phelps, 1972) and taste-based discrimination depending on the underlying source of dis-
crimination (Becker, 1971). A main difference between these two theories is that taste-based discrimin-
ation arises from an individual’s prejudice against, or a negative “taste” for, members of a certain group,
for example, characterized by ethnicity or gender (or both), whereas statistical discrimination is based on
rationality about the average productivity of members of a certain group, such as men and women, or
foreign-born and natives when the actual productivity of the individual is unknown.3
For instance, statistical discrimination against job applicants with foreign-sounding names can arise
because of average differences in (Swedish) language skills, implying that immigrants, and workers
with foreign names, are less productive and thereby more costly to the employer than native workers,
for example, workers with typical Swedish names. Also, female workers (of childbearing age) in
general, rather than male workers, may experience statistical discrimination because of a lower product-
ivity associated with motherhood. This is possible because female workers are likely to either have chil-
dren or be perceived as being “at risk” of having children, and employers may link (potential)
motherhood to costs such as absence from work and reduced working hours.
Yet, discrimination can arise from a cognitive bias functioning beyond the productivity of certain
groups (cf. Correll and Benard, 2006). Status characteristics related to gender and ethnicity can be rele-
vant in such a situation. Culturally prevailing status rankings related to the characteristics of certain
groups based on for example, gender, are often used to evaluate individual behavior and characteristics,
and according to such status beliefs, men tend to be seen as superior to, and more competent than, women
in most domains of social life (Ridgeway, 2011; Ridgeway and Smith-Lovin, 1999). A main distinction
between homophily, or in-group bias, and the status characteristics theory is that status characteristics are
beliefs possessed by everybody, in general, including the out-group members, meaning that both female
and male recruiters would rely on the same status rankings and, according to these, prefer individuals of
the superior group, for example, men over women, in recruitment. Whereas if homophily, or in-group
bias, based on gender prevailed, only male recruiters, but not female recruiters, would favor male job
applicants over female applicants. However, the context is important for the relevance and influence
of status characteristics. One may argue that in relatively gender-neutral contexts (e.g. gender-balanced
occupations) status beliefs would imply that men, in general, have a slight advantage over women, in
masculine-typed situations (e.g. male-dominated occupations) men would be expected to have an advan-
tage over women whereas, in feminine-typed situations (e.g. female-dominated occupations), men’s
advantage over women would be smaller or even reversed (Ridgeway and Correll, 2004). Also, given
Erlandsson: Gendered ethnic discrimination and the role of recruiter gender 3
that foreign-born are often concentrated in low-paid occupations, employers may even prefer some
groups of immigrants for certain low-paid jobs due to, for example, a perceived higher work commitment
and job-specific skills (Friberg and Midtbøen, 2018), one may assume more ethnic discrimination in
highly qualified occupations in comparison to less qualified occupations.
Yet, the presence of multiple simultaneous group identities or group characteristics, for example,
gender interacted with ethnicity, tends to lead to theoretical complexity. Cultural beliefs and stereotypes
related to gender and ethnicity illustrate the views of dominant groups in society and influence the expec-
tations about individuals representing different groups (Ridgeway and Kricheli-Katz, 2013). However,
intersectional theories propose somewhat competing approaches.
First, the multiple burden (cf. King, 1988) or double jeopardy approach argues that ethnic minority
women experience more discrimination, in relation to ethnic minority men as well as ethnic majority
men and women, by belonging to two subordinate groups simultaneously (Berdahl and Moore, 2006;
Nelson and Probst, 2004; for a review, see Purdie-Vaughns and Eibach, 2008).
Second, and in opposition to the first perspective, Purdie-Vaughns and Eibach (2008: 377) argue that
having several subordinate-group identities (an ethnic minority female) makes a person “invisible,” or
off-diagonal, in comparison to those with only one subordinate-group identity (an ethnic minority
male) as all of a person’s group identities will not be fully recognized. This suggests that if an ethnic
minority man is the prototype of an ethnic minority, then ethnic minority women can be affected by inter-
sectional invisibility and face less discrimination than ethnic minority men.
Third, the subordinate male target hypothesis (SMTH), derived from the social dominance theory,
states that ethnic minority men experience more discrimination than ethnic minority women because
of a greater perceived threat (Sidanius and Pratto, 2001; Sidanius and Veniegas, 2000). As the SMTH
theory builds partly on assumed competition among males, ethnic minority male applicants can be
seen as a threat by male recruiters in particular. Thus, based on SMTH, one may expect to find discrim-
ination against ethnic minority men by male recruiters in particular.
When several group identities of individuals are present at the same time, some of them are more
essentialized than others, and this can result in both obstacles and opportunities for individuals
(Ridgeway and Kricheli-Katz, 2013), depending on the context. Intersectional invisibility only takes
place in a context where subordinate identities are regarded as non-prototypical, and, therefore, in fem-
inine domains, that is, in female-dominated occupations, the prototypical person is a female
(Purdie-Vaughns and Eibach, 2008). Given that females are prototypical in female-dominated occupa-
tions (invisibility ebbing), ethnic minority women may face even greater discrimination in these contexts
as compared with occupations that are gender-neutral or male-dominated. Thus, employers’ gendered and
ethnic preferences related to workers may depend on the type of occupation or job in question (e.g.
Bursell, 2014), and the employer preferences are often related to ethnic stereotypes about the skills
and productivity of the workers (Friberg and Midtbøen, 2018).
Empirical evidence
While there is a lot of research on gender discrimination in the labor market, the evidence of gender dis-
crimination in recruitment seems to vary (Baert, 2018), depending on the country context and the occu-
pational category (Birkelund et al., 2019; Di Stasio and Larsen, 2020). Some field experiments have
detected gender discrimination against women in recruitment (e.g. González et al., 2019 [Spain];
Riach and Rich, 2006 [the UK]; Weichselbaumer, 2004 [Austria]). According to a recent overview of
field experiments on gender discrimination since 1996, female applicants are advantaged over males
in Europe, especially in female-dominated and gender-balanced occupations (Birkelund et al., 2019).
Yet, some field experiments do not show any significant gender differences in callbacks in general
(e.g., Albert et al., 2011 [Spain]; Baert, 2015 [Belgium]; Bygren et al., 2017 [Sweden]; Bygren and
Gähler, 2021 [Sweden]).
4 Acta Sociologica 0(0)
Ethnic discrimination in recruitment, that is, discrimination against job applicants with foreign-
sounding names, is well documented in research (e.g., Baert, 2018; Riach and Rich, 2002 [overviews
of several countries]; Bursell, 2014 [Sweden]; Bursell et al., 2021 [Sweden]; Carlsson and Rooth,
2007 [Sweden]; Di Stasio and Larsen, 2020 [the UK, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and
Spain]). While Carlsson and Rooth, (2007) show ethnic discrimination to be greater in more qualified
jobs, according to Bursell et al. (2021) discrimination against foreign-named job applicants appears to
be very similar in both high-skilled and low-skilled occupations.
Field experiments show evidence of gendered ethnic discrimination in various labor markets, that is,
ethnic minority male job applicants experience more discrimination than ethnic minority female appli-
cants (Andriessen et al., 20124; Arai et al., 2016; Dahl and Krog, 2018; Liebkind et al., 2016;
Midtbøen, 2016; Sidanius and Pratto, 2001). Yet, there is some inconsistency regarding this pattern
(e.g. Blommaert et al., 2014), and the level and direction of gendered ethnic discrimination appear to
vary by occupational gender composition (Bursell, 2014) as well as ethnic category (Di Stasio and
Larsen, 2020).
Only a few field experiments examine the role of recruiter (i.e. contact person) gender in recruitment
discrimination, and, to my knowledge, there is one such field experiment studying gendered ethnic dis-
crimination. Edo et al. (2019) show that female recruiters favor female job applicants over male appli-
cants and that French-named female and male recruiters discriminate against foreign-named males
over foreign-named females, in accounting jobs in Paris and its suburbs. Also, Erlandsson (2019)
shows male recruiters to contact male job applicants more often than females with identical merits, espe-
cially in gender-balanced occupations. However, some field experiments show no evidence of gender dis-
crimination by recruiter gender in Australia (including only female-dominated occupations) (Booth and
Leigh, 2010) or in Sweden, except for some indication that male recruiters favor female applicants in
male-dominated occupations (significant only at the 10% level) (Carlsson, 2011). These field experiments
differ from each other in several ways, especially when it comes to the number and types of occupations
that are included, which can partly explain the variance in findings. Moreover, while a meta-analysis of
experimental studies on employment decision-making shows nearly no general gender bias among
female evaluators, it shows a pro-male bias among male evaluators, but the findings vary by the
gender composition of the occupation (Koch et al., 2015).
Expectations
Based on the statistical discrimination theory, status characteristics theory, theories about homophily and
in-group favoritism, as well as in line with previous research using field experiments (e.g. Baert, 2018; Di
Stasio and Larsen, 2020), discrimination against ethnic minority applicants, that is, applicants with
foreign-sounding names, can be assumed to take place. While previous studies on the role of the recruiter
gender are few, and the results differ, theories about a (potential) gender difference in the tendency to
engage in ethnic discrimination are scarce. Yet, if most female and male recruiters are native Swedes,
one may assume homophily (or an in-group bias) on the basis of ethnicity to prevail among both male
and female recruiters, and to result in both male and female recruiters contacting ethnic minority appli-
cants less often than ethnic majority applicants. In addition, statistical discrimination against ethnic
minority applicants can be expected to take place because of differences in average productivity, regard-
less of recruiter gender. Also, according to the status characteristics theory, one would expect individuals
from the dominant group, that is, ethnic majority applicants, to be favored over the minority applicants by
both male and female recruiters. Therefore, I will test Hypothesis 1 that there is discrimination against
ethnic minority applicants over ethnic majority applicants by both female and male recruiters.
However, on the one hand, according to the double jeopardy perspective, one would theoretically
expect ethnic minority women to experience more discrimination than ethnic minority men. Yet, on
the other hand, based on the SMTH one can expect the opposite, that is, that ethnic minority males
face more discrimination than ethnic minority females. But regarding gendered ethnic discrimination
Erlandsson: Gendered ethnic discrimination and the role of recruiter gender 5
and recruiter gender, the SMTH suggests (ethnic majority) male recruiters in particular discriminate
against ethnic minority men over ethnic minority women, as the theory builds partly on assumed com-
petition among males. Also, the intersectional invisibility approach (Purdie-Vaughns and Eibach,
2008) suggests that ethnic minority women are affected by intersectional invisibility and will thereby
experience less discrimination than ethnic minority men, from both male and female recruiters. In add-
ition, one may assume gender-based homophily and in-group favoritism to prevail among female recrui-
ters. Therefore, I will test Hypothesis 2 that there is more discrimination against ethnic minority male
applicants than against ethnic minority female applicants by both female and male recruiters.
The theories outlined above suggest somewhat different, and more complex, mechanisms and out-
comes regarding gendered ethnic discrimination based on the occupational type combined with recruiter
gender. While homophily, and in-group favoritism, would result in discrimination against members of the
out-group, regardless of the occupational type, based on the status characteristics theory and intersec-
tional invisibility, gendered ethnic discrimination is likely to differ by the gender composition and quali-
fication level of the occupation. Thus, rather than formulating several explicit (and contradictory)
hypotheses regarding different types of occupations, an exploratory approach is applied here by exam-
ining gendered ethnic discrimination and recruiter gender in a number of occupational categories that
vary in terms of qualification level and occupational gender composition.
Data and method
A correspondence test was performed in the Swedish labor market in order to study potential discrimin-
ation in recruitment. Fictitious applications were submitted to advertised vacancies, and the subsequent
employer responses, that is, callbacks, were observed. The applications in this design are nearly identical
within occupations, yet they differ in that they indicate the different group identities based on gender and
ethnicity, that is, foreign background, as signaled by applicant names. Importantly, the method is subject
to ethical concerns, mainly due to a lack of informed consent, as it is not possible to inform the employers
about the study.
Experimental design
The data used for this study come from a correspondence test conducted between October 2013 and
August 2020.5 The data used here include 5641 fictitious job applications and the employer callbacks
to these applications. The jobs were primarily located in and near the three largest cities in Sweden,
that is, Stockholm (including the Mälardalen area), Gothenburg, and Malmö. The vacancies were
found on the largest database for job search in Sweden, that is, the Swedish Employment Agency’s
website. Information from the job advertisement, such as the gender of the contact person (indicated
by a name), was documented when available. Vacancies that accepted applications through email or
as website uploads, without requiring a social security number or filling out the applicant’s qualifications
in an online form, were chosen.6
This study only includes job applications for vacancies with information about the gender of the
recruiter, that is, the contact person or employer. The gender of the recruiter is based firstly on the
name of the person who contacted the (fictitious) applicant, and secondly, if there is no such information,
for example, no employer response is received, it is based on the name of the contact person stated in the
advertisement.7 According to the data collected, recruiter gender tends to be the same in the job adver-
tisement as for the person who contacted the applicant.8 There are few exceptions to this (about 2% of the
applications included here). This fact indicates that a potential problem with the study design does not
seem to be an issue here, that is, employers do not seem to have routines where male recruiters
contact male applicants and female recruiters contact female applicants. Moreover, the callback contents
suggest that the person listed in the job announcement tends to be active in the recruitment decisions and
6 Acta Sociologica 0(0)
is often the same person who responds to the applicant, for example, “I have read your application and
would like to meet you” is an example of a typical phrase included in a callback.
The study includes vacancies in 20 occupations (which were combined into 17 analytical categories)
that vary as regards gender and immigrant composition, sector, and educational qualifications (see
Bursell, 2014). The occupations are also relatively representative of the Swedish labor market; applica-
tions were submitted to 14 of the 30 most common occupations, while seven of the occupations belong to
the 10 most common occupations in Sweden.
One application is submitted for each vacancy by email or via a website (depending on the instructions
in the job announcement). This method, in contrast to submitting more than one application to each job
opening, permits the use of identical applications, rather than simply using applicants with equivalent
qualifications, saves time and work for the employer (which is ethically a benefit), and limits the risk
of detection. In addition, the method of using only one application avoids the risk of spillover effects
(cf. Phillips, 2019). Gender, ethnicity, and some other characteristics9 are randomized in the applications.
Gender is indicated by the name of the applicant, that is, either a distinctive female or male name. Age is
held constant at 31 years in order for the applicants to be old enough to have higher education and some
work experience while still not having reached too senior a position. All applicants hold occupation-
specific educational qualifications and an employment background from Sweden.
Majority ethnicity, that is, a native Swede, is signaled by a set of typical Swedish names whereas
minority ethnicity (indicating immigrant background) is signaled by common Arabic names and
Slavic names, that is, the latter refers to typical names for individuals from the region of former
Yugoslavia (presently known as Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo, Northern Macedonia, Serbia and Slovenia).
These groups represent some of the largest groups of the foreign-born population in Sweden
(Statistics Sweden, 2020),10 and can be regarded as visible ethnic minority groups, meaning individuals
who can by their appearance be distinguished from the ethnic majority. Employment gaps exist between
individuals with these backgrounds (i.e. here indicated by Arabic- and Slavic-sounding names) and
“native” Swedes, yet the gaps are generally greater for those originating from the Middle East (le
Grand and Szulkin, 2002; Lundborg, 2013).
Each application includes an application letter and a simple resume, both matched to the occupation
(see the Online Appendix in Bygren et al., 2017). These reveal the applicant’s personal details, that is,
name, date of birth, phone number, email address, and postal address. The resume presents previous
jobs, education, language skills (all applicants have Swedish as a mother tongue), and computer skills.
The application letter includes a biography with information about, for example, prior work experience
and qualifications. Each fictitious applicant has a unique email address and a telephone number connected
to a voicemail (following a few ring signals, a recording with the applicant’s name and a request to leave a
message is played). Here, a callback is a positive response from the employer by email or phone (auto-
matic replies were ignored), such as a job offer, invitation to an interview, or a request for more infor-
mation or to contact the recruiter, which suggests interest in the applicant.11 If a callback is made, the
employer is promptly told that the applicant no longer has any interest in the job.
In order to examine discrimination in different types of occupations based on occupational gender
composition (Statistics Sweden, 2012), three categories are created for the analysis. Occupations in
which the proportion of women is higher than 60% are categorized as female-dominated occupations,
that is, store personnel/cashier, financial assistant, preschool teacher, elementary school teacher,
cleaner, accountant, receptionist, nurse, and assistant nurse. Occupations in which the proportion of
men is higher than 60% are categorized as male-dominated, and these include carpenter, driver, sales-
person, computer science engineer/programmer, and engineer in machine technology/industrial eco-
nomics/electronics. The remaining occupations, that is, high school teacher, chef, and auditor, in
which the proportion of women is 40% to 60% are categorized as gender-balanced occupations.
Furthermore, the following occupations are defined as highly qualified occupations in the analysis:
accountant, auditor, computer specialist, engineer, nurse, preschool teacher as well as elementary
and high school teacher.12
Erlandsson: Gendered ethnic discrimination and the role of recruiter gender 7
Results
The sample has a total callback rate of 36.7%. This means that 36.7% of the submitted job applications
resulted in a callback, that is, a positive response from the employer. The callback rate is calculated by
dividing the number of positive callbacks by the total number of applications sent.
Table 1 presents the number of job applications, the proportion of recruiters and job applicants, and the
callback rates for the different categories. In line with most previous studies on ethnic discrimination in
recruitment (cf. Baert, 2018), job applicants with foreign-sounding names receive fewer callbacks than
applicants with Swedish-sounding names, the callback rates being 44.0% for Swedish-named applicants
and 29.4% for foreign-named applicants, yielding a difference of 14.6 percentage points. This difference
is statistically significant (p < 0.001) and can be taken as evidence of ethnic discrimination in the Swedish
labor market.
Both male and female recruiters engage in ethnic discrimination by contacting Swedish-named appli-
cants more often than applicants with foreign-sounding names, and these differences are statistically sig-
nificant (p < 0.001). Thus, Hypothesis 1, that both female and male recruiters discriminate against ethnic
minority applicants over ethnic majority applicants, is supported. The callback ratios that are presented in
Table 1 indicate that there appears practically no overall difference in the level or direction of ethnic dis-
crimination between male recruiters (a ratio of 1.50) and female recruiters (a ratio of 1.51).
In addition to this, there are clear patterns of different levels of ethnic discrimination toward male and
female job applicants. For male applicants, the callback ratio is 1.66 overall, compared to 1.37 for female
applicants. In other words, for every 10 job applications sent by a Swedish-named male applicant, a
foreign-named male applicant would have to send close to 17 applications to achieve a similar
number of callbacks. For female candidates, the difference is smaller: for every 10 job applications
sent by a Swedish-named female applicant, a foreign-named female applicant would have to send
close to 14 applications to achieve a similar expected number of callbacks. Thus, I find patterns of gen-
dered ethnic discrimination consistent with the previous literature (e.g. Arai et al., 2016; Dahl and Krog,
2018; Liebkind et al., 2016; Midtbøen, 2016), and support for Hypothesis 2. Finally, these patterns of
gendered ethnic discrimination do not seem to depend on recruiter gender.
Figure 1 visualizes the callback rates by applicant gender and recruiter gender, which are displayed in
Table 1, but confidence intervals are also shown. The figure portrays the gendered pattern in ethnic
Table 1. Callback rates by job applicant’s ethnicity (i.e. a foreign or a Swedish name) and gender, and recruiter’s
gender.
Callback rate Ratio Difference
Number
of jobs All
Swedish name
(N= 3233)
Foreign name
(N= 2408)
Swedish versus
foreign
Swedish-
foreign
Aggregated results 5641 36.67 43.98 29.36 1.50*** 14.6***
Woman 2857 37.86 43.71 32.00 1.37*** 11.7***
Man 2784 35.50 44.27 26.72 1.66*** 17.5***
Female recruiter 2682 38.87 46.76 30.97 1.51*** 15.8***
Female recruiter×
woman
1315 41.93 48.72 35.14 1.39*** 13.6***
Female recruiter×man 1367 35.95 44.83 27.08 1.66*** 17.7***
Male recruiter 2959 34.70 41.59 27.80 1.50*** 13.8***
Male recruiter×
woman
1542 34.39 39.63 29.16 1.36*** 10.5***
Male recruiter×man 1417 35.05 43.76 26.35 1.66*** 17.4***
*p< 0.05, **p< 0.01, ***p<0.001.
8 Acta Sociologica 0(0)
discrimination in line with the SMTH and the intersectional invisibility approach: the ethnic gap in call-
backs is somewhat larger among men than women. Also, foreign-named men have the lowest callback
rate regardless of recruiter gender. Moreover, Figure 1 illustrates a slight own-gender bias in callback
rates for Swedish-named applicants, yet the difference is statistically significant only at a 10% level
for male recruiters and it does not reach statistical significance for female recruiters.
Theoretically, the occupational context is expected to be important for discrimination outcomes.
While there are too few observations for certain occupations to allow for a meaningful analysis of
occupation-specific discrimination patterns, I run separate analyses for female and male recruiters
based on the qualification level of the occupation, that is, whether post-secondary education tends to
be required in the occupation or not. Figure 2 visualizes the callback rates for male and female recruiters
separately by the qualification level of the occupation. In Figure 2, the ethnic gaps appear largest among
men in highly qualified occupations.
Figure 3 illustrates the callback rates for female and male recruiters separately by the occupational
gender composition. Figure 3 shows clear variation in the ethnic gaps in callbacks among men and
women, respectively, by recruiter gender and the occupational gender composition.
To further assess the gendered differences in ethnic discrimination, that is, whether there is ethnic
discrimination and, if so, does it differ between male and female applicants, as well as to control
whether the results are due to sampling variation in occupation and other job-related characteristics
(e.g. a time period when the job application was submitted and whether an external recruitment or
personnel agency was involved), I run a linear probability regression (Table 2). The models include
a variable “Foreign name” to measure ethnic discrimination, a variable “Man” to measure gender
discrimination, and an interaction term “Foreign name*Man” to measure gendered ethnic discrimin-
ation. Model 1 reconfirms Hypothesis 1 regarding ethnic discrimination that was discussed above.
Also, Model 1 is in line with Hypothesis 2, that there is more (ethnic) discrimination against men
with foreign-sounding names than women with foreign-sounding names by both male and female
recruiters.
Yet, in Models 2 and 3, the estimation regarding the interaction effect of gender and foreign name on
applicants’ callbacks, among male and female recruiters, respectively, does not reach statistical signifi-
cance at the 5% level here (possibly due to a smaller sample size), that is, the precision of the estimate
decreases considerably while the size of the effect remains when controls are added in the model.
However, it can be noted that in Model 3 the coefficient for “Foreign name*Man” for male recruiters
Figure 1. Callback rates by recruiter gender and job applicant gender and ethnicity (i.e. a foreign or a
Swedish name). Ninety-five percent confidence intervals.
Erlandsson: Gendered ethnic discrimination and the role of recruiter gender 9
is statistically significant at the 10% level. Thus, the effect of recruiter gender on gendered ethnic discrim-
ination seems to be somewhat moderated by other occupational, and job-related, factors.
Figure 2. Callback rates for combinations of recruiter gender and job applicant gender and ethnicity
(i.e. a foreign or a Swedish name), by the qualification level of occupation. Ninety-five percent
confidence intervals.
Figure 3. Callback rates for combinations of recruiter gender and job applicant gender and ethnicity
(i.e., a foreign or a Swedish-sounding name), by the gender composition of occupation. Ninety-five
percent confidence intervals.
10 Acta Sociologica 0(0)
T
ab
le
2.
R
eg
re
ss
io
n
of
ca
llb
ac
ks
(d
ic
ho
to
m
ou
s)
on
th
e
ge
nd
er
of
re
cr
ui
te
r,
et
hn
ic
ity
(i.
e.
a
Sw
ed
is
h
or
a
fo
re
ig
n
na
m
e)
,a
nd
ge
nd
er
of
jo
b
ap
pl
ic
an
t.
A
ll
H
ig
hl
y
qu
al
ifi
ed
oc
cu
pa
tio
ns
Le
ss
qu
al
ifi
ed
oc
cu
pa
tio
ns
M
od
el
1
al
l
M
od
el
2
fe
m
al
e
re
cr
ui
te
rs
M
od
el
3
m
al
e
re
cr
ui
te
rs
M
od
el
4
fe
m
al
e
re
cr
ui
te
rs
M
od
el
5
m
al
e
re
cr
ui
te
rs
M
od
el
6
fe
m
al
e
re
cr
ui
te
rs
M
od
el
7
m
al
e
re
cr
ui
te
rs
Fo
re
ig
n
na
m
e
−
0.
10
6*
**
−
0.
12
6*
**
−
0.
08
8*
**
−
0.
10
2*
−
0.
17
4*
**
−
0.
14
6*
**
−
0.
05
5*
(0
.0
18
)
(0
.0
26
)
(0
.0
24
)
(0
.0
40
)
(0
.0
51
)
(0
.0
35
)
(0
.0
27
)
M
an
0.
00
2
−
0.
03
1
0.
02
8
−
0.
00
1
−
0.
01
4
−
0.
05
5
0.
04
6
(0
.0
16
)
(0
.0
24
)
(0
.0
22
)
(0
.0
36
)
(0
.0
41
)
(0
.0
33
)
(0
.0
27
)
Fo
re
ig
n
na
m
e
×
m
an
−
0.
05
9*
−
0.
05
1
−
0.
06
0
−
0.
10
3*
0.
00
1
−
0.
00
1
−
0.
08
4*
(0
.0
24
)
(0
.0
35
)
(0
.0
33
)
(0
.0
52
)
(0
.0
68
)
(0
.0
46
)
(0
.0
38
)
C
on
st
an
t
0.
47
7*
**
0.
52
7*
**
0.
43
4*
**
0.
66
1*
**
0.
64
4*
**
0.
37
8*
**
0.
33
3*
**
(0
.0
15
)
(0
.0
22
)
(0
.0
20
)
(0
.0
29
)
(0
.0
33
)
(0
.0
33
)
(0
.0
26
)
R-
sq
ua
re
d
0.
13
0
0.
14
7
0.
11
2
0.
09
5
0.
07
6
0.
06
7
0.
05
6
N
56
41
26
82
29
59
13
28
87
0
13
54
20
89
Fe
m
al
e-
do
m
in
at
ed
oc
cu
pa
tio
ns
M
al
e-
do
m
in
at
ed
oc
cu
pa
tio
ns
G
en
de
r-
ba
la
nc
ed
oc
cu
pa
tio
ns
M
od
el
8
fe
m
al
e
re
cr
ui
te
rs
M
od
el
9
m
al
e
re
cr
ui
te
rs
M
od
el
10
fe
m
al
e
re
cr
ui
te
rs
M
od
el
11
m
al
e
re
cr
ui
te
rs
M
od
el
12
fe
m
al
e
re
cr
ui
te
rs
M
od
el
13
m
al
e
re
cr
ui
te
rs
Fo
re
ig
n
na
m
e
−
0.
11
9*
**
−
0.
17
1*
**
−
0.
14
4*
−
0.
02
5
−
0.
13
1
−
0.
11
9*
(0
.0
31
)
(0
.0
37
)
(0
.0
58
)
(0
.0
36
)
(0
.0
93
)
(0
.0
57
)
M
an
−
0.
04
1
−
0.
01
0
−
0.
01
3
0.
03
9
−
0.
00
4
0.
06
8
(0
.0
28
)
(0
.0
35
)
(0
.0
56
)
(0
.0
34
)
(0
.0
86
)
(0
.0
55
)
Fo
re
ig
n
na
m
e
×
m
an
−
0.
04
4
0.
03
1
−
0.
06
3
−
0.
12
5*
−
0.
09
6
−
0.
04
5
(0
.0
41
)
(0
.0
52
)
(0
.0
79
)
(0
.0
50
)
(0
.1
25
)
(0
.0
81
)
C
on
st
an
t
0.
53
6*
**
0.
40
0*
**
0.
47
4*
**
0.
46
2*
**
0.
48
4*
**
0.
40
7*
**
(0
.0
24
)
(0
.0
29
)
(0
.0
57
)
(0
.0
35
)
(0
.0
78
)
(0
.0
44
)
R-
sq
ua
re
d
0.
17
5
0.
21
7
0.
09
1
0.
06
1
0.
05
1
0.
04
4
N
18
64
98
7
58
8
14
36
23
0
53
6
*p
<
0.
05
,*
*p
<
0.
01
,*
**
p
<
0.
00
1.
N
ot
e:
Se
pa
ra
te
m
od
el
s
by
re
cr
ui
te
r
ge
nd
er
,o
cc
up
at
io
na
lg
en
de
r
co
m
po
si
tio
n,
an
d
th
e
qu
al
ifi
ca
tio
n
le
ve
lo
ft
he
oc
cu
pa
tio
n.
Li
ne
ar
pr
ob
ab
ili
ty
m
od
el
es
tim
at
es
w
ith
ro
bu
st
st
an
da
rd
er
ro
rs
in
pa
re
nt
he
se
s.
T
he
co
ef
fi
ci
en
ts
in
al
lm
od
el
s
ar
e
co
nd
iti
on
al
on
th
e
fo
llo
w
in
g
(in
di
ca
to
r)
co
nt
ro
lv
ar
ia
bl
es
:o
cc
up
at
io
n,
tim
e
pe
ri
od
,a
nd
ex
te
rn
al
re
cr
ui
te
r.
A
ll
es
tim
at
ed
co
ef
fi
ci
en
ts
ar
e
in
cl
ud
ed
in
A
pp
en
di
x
A
.
Erlandsson: Gendered ethnic discrimination and the role of recruiter gender 11
Models 4 and 7 show that, when controls are included, foreign-named men appear to experience stat-
istically significant gendered ethnic discrimination not only by female recruiters in highly qualified occu-
pations but also by male recruiters in less qualified occupations. When it comes to gendered ethnic
discrimination in occupational categories based on the occupational gender composition (Model 8 to
13), the coefficient for the interaction of foreign names and applicant gender is statistically significant
only in one model. This is the case in Model 11, confirming a clear negative and statistically significant
effect of being a foreign-named man on the callbacks among male recruiters in male-dominated
occupations.
Conclusion
The results presented here show, in line with most of the previous research from Europe (e.g. Arai et al.,
2016; Dahl and Krog, 2018; Liebkind et al., 2016; Midtbøen, 2016), that foreign-named male job appli-
cants face more recruitment discrimination than foreign-named female applicants. Also, recruiter gender
does not seem to matter for the direction of ethnic discrimination. Both male and female recruiters dis-
criminate against job applicants with a foreign-sounding name over Swedish-named applicants, and this
tendency is stronger for male applicants.
Moreover, female recruiters discriminate against foreign-named male applicants over foreign-named
female applicants especially in highly qualified occupations, whereas male recruiters discriminate against
foreign-named males over foreign-named females in less qualified occupations and male-dominated
occupations in particular. These findings highlight the importance of intersectionality, and how the
group characteristics, or group identities based on gender and ethnicity (i.e. a foreign-sounding name),
and the combinations of these, form a base for differential treatment of job applicants, both by male
and female recruiters in different occupational contexts.
While there is no support for the multiple burden theory that ethnic minority women, in general, would
face more discrimination than ethnic minority men, the foreign-named men seem to be subordinate male
targets although this varies by the occupational category in combination with the gender of the recruiter.
Thus, the results lend some support to the theoretical approach that having the double subordinate status
of a female minority can, through intersectional invisibility, protect foreign-named women from the
strongest discrimination, while the occupational context matters. At the same time, the findings
suggest that status characteristics related to ethnic minority males together with occupational context
play a role in discrimination outcomes among female and male recruiters.
The results presented here show, in line with the SMTH and most previous research, that ethnic minor-
ity men in particular are subject to discrimination. This appears to be a pattern, although the explorative
approach indicates gendered ethnic discrimination against foreign-named men to be stronger in male-
dominated and less qualified occupations by male recruiters and in highly qualified occupations by
female recruiters. This discrimination pattern calls for future research to address the mechanisms
behind the discrimination against foreign-named men.
There are limitations to this study. One is that discrimination may also take place later in the recruit-
ment process, that is, in the final hiring decisions which are not studied here. Almost 90% of the discrim-
ination against ethnic minority applicants appears to occur at this early stage, rather than later in the
recruitment process (Allasino et al., 2004; Attström, 2007; Cediey and Foroni, 2008). However, in a
recent meta-study, Quillian et al. (2020) argue that this is due to most applicants of any race or ethnicity
being dropped at the first stage where callback rates are typically low—thereby resulting in few applicants
at risk of discrimination at the later stage—and show ethnic and racial discrimination to be greater later at
the job offer stage than in callbacks at the early stage. Thus, while the method used here is superior to
other methods in detecting labor market discrimination, it may not accurately measure the extent of dis-
crimination in the labor market at large. Also, in Sweden, permanent workers generally have a relatively
high employment protection, that is, stronger than the OECD average (OECD, 2021), which is likely to
increase the pressure on recruiters in their recruitment decisions, in comparison to other contexts.
12 Acta Sociologica 0(0)
Moreover, one cannot know with certainty who makes the recruitment decisions. Although, based on
the content of the employer responses, it is likely that the person who contacts the applicant, or is men-
tioned in the job advertisement, is involved in the hiring decision. Moreover, because of gender segre-
gation in the labor market, the proportion of female and male recruiters is likely to differ by the type
of occupation. As shown here, the patterns for gendered ethnic discrimination among male and female
recruiters differ depending on the occupational gender composition and the qualification level of the
occupation. Thus, the discrimination patterns are also likely to vary between specific occupations.
Because of data limitations, separate occupations cannot be studied here in a meaningful way. Yet, it
would be interesting to study occupation-specific discrimination patterns on this topic in future research.
To conclude, the findings presented here show evidence of widespread discrimination against foreign-
named men in the Swedish labor market. The results suggest that while gender diversity among recruiters
appears not to be crucial for gendered ethnic discrimination in general, it plays a varying role in recruit-
ment outcomes, that is, who gets a chance to proceed in the recruitment process, depending on the occu-
pational context. Finally, the results hint that female recruiters may contribute to the vertical ethnic
segregation of foreign-named men by discriminating against them in highly qualified occupations.
Acknowledgements
Valuable comments from Magnus Bygren, Michael Gähler, Lynn Prince Cooke, Karin Halldén, Edvard Nergård
Larsen, Charlotta Magnusson, and Magnus Nermo as well as three anonymous reviewers are greatly appreciated.
Funding
The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article: This research was supported by the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare (Forte
grant 2012-0587); and by the Strategic Research Council (SRC, established within the Academy of Finland), FLUX
consortium (decision number 345130).
ORCID iD
Anni Erlandsson https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9104-5049
Notes
1. Although ethnicity and immigrant background are not the same, for the sake of simplicity, I use these concepts
as synonyms in this paper.
2. Recruiter ethnicity is not measured here.
3. Discrimination based on erroneous estimates, that is, when the relative average productivity of a group of indi-
viduals is incorrectly estimated by employers, is referred to as error discrimination by England (1992). While
error discrimination is sometimes considered as a type of statistical discrimination (Bielby and Baron, 1986;
Blau, 1984), England (1992) argues that it differs from statistical discrimination in which the assumed
average productivity of a group of individuals is estimated correctly while in error discrimination it is incor-
rectly estimated.
4. Here the interaction effect of gender and ethnicity is statistically significant only at the 10% level, which can be
taken as an indication of gendered ethnic discrimination.
5. The data cover two time periods: October 2013–June 2015 and February 2017–August 2020.
6. Because of these restrictions, the number of vacancies advertised by recruitment agencies and public sector
employers were limited as these often demand a social security number through a web-based system.
7. A total of 2188 observations were excluded due to the lack of information on the gender of the contact person.
8. The results follow a very similar pattern as those presented later in this article even if one uses information about
recruiter gender only from the job advertisement.
Erlandsson: Gendered ethnic discrimination and the role of recruiter gender 13
9. Other applicant-related characteristics, for example, parenthood, that are not the focus of this study are varied
randomly. Because of differences in the primary aims of the research projects for which the data were collected,
there is also some variation regarding the applicant characteristics (e.g. the proportion of foreign-named appli-
cants vs. Swedish-named applicants) between the two time periods of data collection. For the same reason, the
two ethnic minority groups are not distinguished in the data, except for a subsample of the data, and therefore no
separate analyses are done for the two ethnic minority groups, that is, Arabic and Slavic.
10. For the foreign-born in Sweden in 2020, among the most common origin countries are Syria, Finland, Iraq, Iran,
Poland, Afghanistan, and the former Yugoslavian region (Statistics Sweden, 2020).
11. The strictness of the callback measure, that is, whether a callback is defined strictly as an invitation to an inter-
view or as any type of positive response, appears not to be related to the levels of recruitment discrimination
(Lippens et al., 2023).
12. Driver and carpenter are only included for the period 2017–2020 whereas auditor is only included for
2013–2015.
References
Albert R, Escot L and Fernández-Cornejo JA (2011) A field experiment to study sex and age discrimin-
ation in the Madrid labour market. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 22(2):
351–375.
Allasino E, Reyneri E, Venturini A, et al. (2004) Labour Market Discrimination Against Migrant
Workers in Italy. International Migrations Papers 67. Geneva: International Labour Office.
Andriessen I, Nievers E, Dagevos J, et al. (2012) Ethnic discrimination in the Dutch labor market: Its
relationship with job characteristics and multiple group membership. Work and Occupations 39(3):
237–269.
Arai M, Bursell M and Nekby L (2016) The reverse gender gap in ethnic discrimination: Employer
stereotypes of men and women with Arabic names. International Migration Review 50(2): 385–412.
Arrow K (1973) The theory of discrimination. In: Ashenfelter O and Rees A (eds) Discrimination in
Labor Markets. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 3–42.
Attström K (2007) Discrimination against Native Swedes of Immigrant Origin in Access to Employment.
International Migrations Papers 86E. Geneva: International Labour Office.
Baert S (2015) Field experimental evidence on gender discrimination in hiring: Biased as Heckman and
Siegelman predicted? Economics: The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal 9(25): 1–11.
Baert S (2018) Hiring discrimination: An overview of (almost) all correspondence experiments since
2005. In: Gaddis SM (ed.) Audit Studies: Behind the Scenes with Theory, Method, and Nuance.
Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 63–77.
Becker G (1971) The Economics of Discrimination. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Berdahl J and Moore C (2006) Workplace harassment: Double jeopardy for minority women. Journal of
Applied Psychology 91: 426–436.
Bielby W and Baron J (1986) Men and women at work: Sex segregation and statistical discrimination.
American Journal of Sociology 91: 759–799.
Birkelund GE, Janz A and Larsen EN (2019) Do males experience hiring discrimination in female-
dominated occupations? An overview of field experiments since 1996. GEMM working paper.
Available at: https://gemm2020.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Gender-Discrimination-a-summary-
1.pdf
Blau FD (1984) Occupational segregation and labor market discrimination. In: Reskin BF (ed.) Sex
Segregation in the Workplace: Trends, Explanations, Remedies. Washington, D.C: National
Academy Press, 117–143.
14 Acta Sociologica 0(0)
Blau FD and Kahn LM (2017) The gender wage gap: Extent, trends, and explanations. Journal of
Economic Literature 55(3): 789–865.
Blommaert L, Coenders M and van Tubergen F (2014) Discrimination of Arabic-named applicants in The
Netherlands: An internet-based field experiment examining different phases in online recruitment pro-
cedures. Social Forces 92: 957–982.
Booth A and Leigh A (2010) Do employers discriminate by gender? A field experiment in female-
dominated occupations. Economics Letters 107(2): 236–238.
Brewer MB and Kramer RM (1985) The psychology of intergroup attitudes and behavior. Annual Review
of Psychology 36(1): 219–243.
Bursell M (2014) The multiple burdens of foreign-named men—evidence from a field experiment on
gendered ethnic hiring discrimination in Sweden. European Sociological Review 30(3): 399–409.
Bursell M, Bygren M and Gähler M (2021) Does employer discrimination contribute to the subordinate
labor market inclusion of individuals of a foreign background? Social Science Research 98: 102582.
Bygren M, Erlandsson A and Gähler M (2017) Do employers prefer fathers? Evidence from a field
experiment testing the gender by parenthood interaction effect on callbacks to job applications.
European Sociological Review 33(3): 337–348.
Bygren M and Gähler M (2021) Are women discriminated against in countries with extensive family pol-
icies? A piece of the ‘welfare state paradox’ puzzle from Sweden. Social Politics: International
Studies in Gender, State & Society 28(4): 921–947.
Carlsson M (2011) Does hiring discrimination cause gender segregation in the Swedish labor market?
Feminist Economics 17: 71–102.
Carlsson M and Rooth D-O (2007) Evidence of ethnic discrimination in the Swedish labor market using
experimental data. Labour Economics 14: 716–729.
Cediey E and Foroni F (2008) Discrimination in Access to Employment on Grounds of Foreign Origin in
France. International migration papers 85E. Geneva: International Labour Office.
Charles M (2011) A world of difference: International trends in women’s economic status. Annual
Review of Sociology 37: 355–371.
Correll SJ and Benard S (2006) Biased estimators? Comparing status and statistical theories of gender
discrimination. Advances in Group Processes 23: 89–116.
Dahl M and Krog N (2018) Experimental evidence of discrimination in the labour market: Intersec-
tions between ethnicity, gender, and socio-economic status. European Sociological Review 34(4):
402–417.
Di Stasio V and Larsen EN (2020) The racialized and gendered workplace: Applying an intersectional
lens to a field experiment on hiring discrimination in five European labor markets. Social
Psychology Quarterly 83(3): 229–250.
Edlund J and Öun I (2016) Who should work and who should care? Attitudes towards the desirable
division of labour between mothers and fathers in five European countries. Acta Sociologica 59(2):
151–169.
Edo A, Jacquemet N and Yannelis C (2019) Language skills and homophilous hiring discrimination:
Evidence from gender and racially differentiated applications. Review of Economics of the
Household 17(1): 349–376.
England P (1992) Comparable Worth: Theories and Evidence. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
Erlandsson A (2019) Do men favor men in recruitment? A field experiment in the Swedish labor market.
Work and Occupations 46(3): 239–264.
European Institute for Gender Equality (2017) Gender Equality Index 2017. Measuring Gender Equality
in the European Union 2005–2015. Vilnius: European Institute for Gender Equality.
Erlandsson: Gendered ethnic discrimination and the role of recruiter gender 15
Friberg JH and Midtbøen AH (2018) Ethnicity as skill: Immigrant employment hierarchies in Norwegian
low-wage labour markets. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 44(9): 1463–1478.
Gaddis SM (2018) An introduction to audit studies in the social sciences. In: Gaddis SM (ed.) Audit
Studies: Behind the Scenes with Theory, Method, and Nuance. Cham, Switzerland: Springer, 3–44.
Goldin C and Rouse C (2000) Orchestrating impartiality: The impact of “blind” auditions on female
musicians. American Economic Review 90(4): 715–741.
González MJ, Cortina C and Rodríguez J (2019) The role of gender stereotypes in hiring: A field experi-
ment. European Sociological Review 35(2): 187–204.
Grönlund A, Halldén K and Magnusson C (2017) A Scandinavian success story? Women’s labour
market outcomes in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden. Acta Sociologica 60(2): 97–119.
Hewstone M, Rubin M andWillis H (2002) Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology 53(1): 575–604.
Kandel DB (1978) Homophily, selection, and socialization in adolescent friendships. American Journal
of Sociology 84(2): 427–436.
King DK (1988) Multiple jeopardy, multiple consciousness: The context of a black feminist ideology.
Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 14(1): 42–72.
Koch AJ, D’Mello SD and Sackett PR (2015) A meta-analysis of gender stereotypes and bias in experi-
mental simulations of employment decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology 100(1): 128.
Le Grand C and Szulkin R (2002) Permanent disadvantage or gradual integration: Explaining the immi-
grant–native earnings gap in Sweden. Labour (Committee on Canadian Labour History) 16(1): 37–64.
Liebkind K, Larja L and Brylka A (2016) Ethnic and gender discrimination in recruitment: Experimental
evidence from Finland. Journal of Social and Political Psychology 4: 403–426.
Lippens L, Vermeiren S and Baert S (2023) The state of hiring discrimination: A meta-analysis of
(almost) all recent correspondence experiments. European Economic Review 151: 104315.
Lundborg P (2013) Refugees’ employment integration in Sweden: Cultural distance and labor market
performance. Review of International Economics 21(2): 219–232.
Mandel H and Semyonov M (2006) A welfare state paradox: State interventions and women’s employ-
ment opportunities in 22 countries. American Journal of Sociology 111: 1910–1949.
McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L and Cook JM (2001) Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks.
Annual Review of Sociology 27(1): 415–444.
Midtbøen AH (2016) Discrimination of the second generation: Evidence from a field experiment in
Norway. Journal of International Migration and Integration 17: 253–272.
Nelson NL and Probst TM (2004) Multiple minority individuals: Multiplying the risk of workplace har-
assment and discrimination. In: Chin JL (ed.) The Psychology of Prejudice and Discrimination:
Ethnicity and Multiracial Identity. Westport, CT: Praeger, 193–217.
OECD (2014) Finding the Way: A Discussion of the Swedish Migrant Integration System. Paris: OECD
publishing.
OECD (2017) OECD Employment Outlook 2017. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
OECD (2021) OECD Economic Surveys: Sweden 2021. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Phelps ES (1972) The statistical theory of racism and sexism. American Economic Review 62(4):
659–661.
Phillips DC (2019) Do comparisons of fictional applicants measure discrimination when search external-
ities are present? Evidence from existing experiments. The Economic Journal 129(621): 2240–2264.
Purdie-Vaughns V and Eibach RP (2008) Intersectional invisibility: The distinctive advantages and dis-
advantages of multiple subordinate-group identities. Sex Roles 59(5–6): 377–391.
Quillian L, Lee JJ and Oliver M (2020) Evidence from field experiments in hiring shows substantial add-
itional racial discrimination after the callback. Social Forces 99(2): 732–759.
16 Acta Sociologica 0(0)
Riach PA and Rich J (2002) Field experiments of discrimination in the market place. The Economic
Journal 112(483): F480–F518.
Riach PA and Rich J (2006) An experimental investigation of sexual discrimination in hiring in the
English labor market. Advances in Economic Analysis and Policy 5(2): 1–20.
Ridgeway C (2011) Framed by Gender: How Gender Inequality Persists in the Modern World.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Ridgeway C and Smith-Lovin L (1999) The gender system and interaction. Annual Review of Sociology
25: 191–216.
Ridgeway CL and Correll SJ (2004) Unpacking the gender system: A theoretical perspective on gender
beliefs and social relations. Gender & Society 18(4): 510–531.
Ridgeway CL and Kricheli-Katz T (2013) Intersecting cultural beliefs in social relations: Gender, race,
and class binds and freedoms. Gender & Society 27(3): 294–318.
Sandberg A (2018) Competing identities: A field study of in-group bias among professional evaluators.
The Economic Journal 128(613): 2131–2159.
Sidanius J and Pratto F (2001) Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and
Oppression. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Sidanius J and Veniegas RC (2000) Gender and race discrimination: The interactive nature of disadvan-
tage. In: Oskamp S (ed.) Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination. The Claremont Symposium on
Applied Social Psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 47–69.
Statistics Sweden (2012) Yrkesstrukturen i Sverige 2012 [The occupational structure in Sweden 2012].
Statistiskt meddelande AM 33 SM 1401. SCB.
Statistics Sweden (2020) Utrikes födda i Sverige [The foreign-born in Sweden]. Available at: https://
www.scb.se/hitta-statistik/sverige-i-siffror/manniskorna-i-sverige/utrikes-fodda (accessed 1 July
2021).
Tajfel H, Billig MG, Bundy RP, et al. (1971) Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European
Journal of Social Psychology 1(2): 149–178.
United Nations Development Programme (2016) Human Development Report 2016. Human
Development for Everyone. New York, NY: United Nations Development Programme.
Weichselbaumer D (2004) Is it sex or personality? The impact of sex stereotypes on discrimination in
applicant selection. Eastern Economic Journal 30(2): 159–186.
Author biography
Anni Erlandsson is a Senior Researcher at the INVEST Research Flagship Centre, University of Turku, Finland, and
affiliated with the Department of Sociology, the Demography Unit, Stockholm University. She has previously
worked at the Swedish Institute for Social Research (SOFI), Stockholm University. Her main research interests
include family sociology and labor market inequality. Her work appears in European Sociological Review, Work
and Occupations, and Population Research and Policy Review.
Erlandsson: Gendered ethnic discrimination and the role of recruiter gender 17
T
ab
le
A
1.
R
eg
re
ss
io
n
of
ca
llb
ac
ks
(d
ic
ho
to
m
ou
s)
on
th
e
ge
nd
er
of
re
cr
ui
te
r,
et
hn
ic
ity
(i.
e.
a
Sw
ed
is
h
or
a
fo
re
ig
n
na
m
e)
,a
nd
ge
nd
er
of
jo
b
ap
pl
ic
an
t.
A
ll
H
ig
hl
y
qu
al
ifi
ed
oc
cu
pa
tio
ns
Le
ss
qu
al
ifi
ed
oc
cu
pa
tio
ns
M
od
el
1
M
od
el
2
fe
m
al
e
re
cr
ui
te
rs
M
od
el
3
m
al
e
re
cr
ui
te
rs
M
od
el
4
fe
m
al
e
re
cr
ui
te
rs
M
od
el
5
m
al
e
re
cr
ui
te
rs
M
od
el
6
fe
m
al
e
re
cr
ui
te
rs
M
od
el
7
m
al
e
re
cr
ui
te
rs
Fo
re
ig
n
na
m
e
−
0.
10
6*
**
−
0.
12
6*
**
−
0.
08
8*
**
−
0.
10
2*
−
0.
17
4*
**
−
0.
14
6*
**
−
0.
05
5*
(0
.0
18
)
(0
.0
26
)
(0
.0
24
)
(0
.0
40
)
(0
.0
51
)
(0
.0
35
)
(0
.0
27
)
M
an
0.
00
2
−
0.
03
1
0.
02
8
−
0.
00
1
−
0.
01
4
−
0.
05
5
0.
04
6
(0
.0
16
)
(0
.0
24
)
(0
.0
22
)
(0
.0
36
)
(0
.0
41
)
(0
.0
33
)
(0
.0
27
)
Fo
re
ig
n
na
m
e
×
M
an
−
0.
05
9*
−
0.
05
1
−
0.
06
0
−
0.
10
3*
0.
00
1
−
0.
00
1
−
0.
08
4*
(0
.0
24
)
(0
.0
35
)
(0
.0
33
)
(0
.0
52
)
(0
.0
68
)
(0
.0
46
)
(0
.0
38
)
Ye
ar
s
20
17
–
20
20
(r
ef
:
20
13
–
20
15
)
−
0.
07
3*
**
−
0.
08
1*
**
−
0.
06
5*
*
−
0.
11
7*
**
−
0.
08
6*
−
0.
03
3
−
0.
04
3
(0
.0
15
)
(0
.0
22
)
(0
.0
21
)
(0
.0
31
)
(0
.0
37
)
(0
.0
31
)
(0
.0
26
)
Ex
te
rn
al
re
cr
ui
te
r
0.
12
3*
**
0.
11
6*
**
0.
12
8*
*
0.
15
6*
**
0.
07
5
0.
04
5
0.
19
9*
**
(0
.0
25
)
(0
.0
32
)
(0
.0
40
)
(0
.0
41
)
(0
.0
53
)
(0
.0
51
)
(0
.0
60
)
C
on
st
an
t
0.
47
7*
**
0.
52
7*
**
0.
43
4*
**
0.
66
1*
**
0.
64
4*
**
0.
37
8*
**
0.
33
3*
**
(0
.0
15
)
(0
.0
22
)
(0
.0
20
)
(0
.0
29
)
(0
.0
33
)
(0
.0
33
)
(0
.0
26
)
R-
sq
ua
re
d
0.
13
0
0.
14
7
0.
11
2
0.
09
5
0.
07
6
0.
06
7
0.
05
6
N
56
41
26
82
29
59
13
28
87
0
13
54
20
89 (c
on
tin
ue
d)
(c
on
tin
ue
d)
A
p
p
en
d
ix
A
18 Acta Sociologica 0(0)
T
ab
le
A
1.
(c
on
tin
ue
d)
A
ll
H
ig
hl
y
qu
al
ifi
ed
oc
cu
pa
tio
ns
Le
ss
qu
al
ifi
ed
oc
cu
pa
tio
ns
M
od
el
1
M
od
el
2
fe
m
al
e
re
cr
ui
te
rs
M
od
el
3
m
al
e
re
cr
ui
te
rs
M
od
el
4
fe
m
al
e
re
cr
ui
te
rs
M
od
el
5
m
al
e
re
cr
ui
te
rs
M
od
el
6
fe
m
al
e
re
cr
ui
te
rs
M
od
el
7
m
al
e
re
cr
ui
te
rs
(c
on
tin
ue
d)
Fe
m
al
e-
do
m
in
at
ed
oc
cu
pa
tio
ns
M
al
e-
do
m
in
at
ed
oc
cu
pa
tio
ns
G
en
de
r-
ba
la
nc
ed
oc
cu
pa
tio
ns
M
od
el
8
fe
m
al
e
re
cr
ui
te
rs
M
od
el
9
m
al
e
re
cr
ui
te
rs
M
od
el
10
fe
m
al
e
re
cr
ui
te
rs
M
od
el
11
m
al
e
re
cr
ui
te
rs
M
od
el
12
fe
m
al
e
re
cr
ui
te
rs
M
od
el
13
m
al
e
re
cr
ui
te
rs
Fo
re
ig
n
na
m
e
−
0.
11
9*
**
−
0.
17
1*
**
−
0.
14
4*
−
0.
02
5
−
0.
13
1
−
0.
11
9*
(0
.0
31
)
(0
.0
37
)
(0
.0
58
)
(0
.0
36
)
(0
.0
93
)
(0
.0
57
)
M
an
−
0.
04
1
−
0.
01
0
−
0.
01
3
0.
03
9
−
0.
00
4
0.
06
8
(0
.0
28
)
(0
.0
35
)
(0
.0
56
)
(0
.0
34
)
(0
.0
86
)
(0
.0
55
)
Fo
re
ig
n
na
m
e
×
m
an
−
0.
04
4
0.
03
1
−
0.
06
3
−
0.
12
5*
−
0.
09
6
−
0.
04
5
(0
.0
41
)
(0
.0
52
)
(0
.0
79
)
(0
.0
50
)
(0
.1
25
)
(0
.0
81
)
Ye
ar
s
20
17
–
20
20
(r
ef
:2
01
3–
20
15
)
−
0.
11
0*
**
−
0.
06
1*
0.
03
2
−
0.
06
7
−
0.
04
3
−
0.
04
8
(0
.0
25
)
(0
.0
31
)
(0
.0
57
)
(0
.0
37
)
(0
.0
88
)
(0
.0
47
)
Ex
te
rn
al
re
cr
ui
te
r
0.
11
1*
*
0.
12
5
0.
16
7*
*
0.
12
7*
−
0.
02
8
0.
15
0
(0
.0
41
)
(0
.0
69
)
(0
.0
54
)
(0
.0
53
)
(0
.1
32
)
(0
.1
28
)
C
on
st
an
t
0.
53
6*
**
0.
40
0*
**
0.
47
4*
**
0.
46
2*
**
0.
48
4*
**
0.
40
7*
**
(0
.0
24
)
(0
.0
29
)
(0
.0
57
)
(0
.0
35
)
(0
.0
78
)
(0
.0
44
)
R-
sq
ua
re
d
0.
17
5
0.
21
7
0.
09
1
0.
06
1
0.
05
1
0.
04
4
N
18
64
98
7
58
8
14
36
23
0
53
6
*p
<
0.
05
,*
*p
<
0.
01
,*
**
p
<
0.
00
1.
N
ot
e:
Li
ne
ar
pr
ob
ab
ili
ty
m
od
el
es
tim
at
es
w
ith
ro
bu
st
st
an
da
rd
er
ro
rs
in
pa
re
nt
he
se
s.
Erlandsson: Gendered ethnic discrimination and the role of recruiter gender 19