INTERGROUP DISCRIMINATION TOWARDS MIGRANTS IN LABOR MARKET HIRING DECISIONS

Öz

This article deals with two fundamental global issues the world has been deeply engaged in; the worldwide refugee/migration surge, and as its potential outcome, racial/ethnic discrimination across multiple contexts, such as employment, housing, education, welfare, healthcare, and civil rights. Ethnicity triggered by Similarity and Realistic Threat stimulated by conflict and competition has been used to analyze the causality with two criterion variables; Hiring Intention and subsequently Ranking. Ethnic cognition for Turks and perceived realistic threat for migrants were the determining constructs. The online self-reporting survey was conducted using Qualtrics with 232 participants (166 women, 66 men). Purpose: This study aims to understand the extent of intergroup discrimination responsible for consequences on labor market selection processes, by analyzing the hiring and selection challenges the migrants - Syrians (nearly 3,7 million, 2023) and Uzbeks (nearly 60 thousand, 2022) likely to encounter when competing with Turkish candidates. We aim to reveal the determinants of bias related to ethnic exclusionism driven by ethnic similarities and perceived threat and moderated by job status. The study also digs out the attitude of women in general, but particularly those who are stigmatized by gender will demonstrate their attitudes when applicants' ethnicities are so salient as a discriminatory stimulant. Method: The questionnaire has listed two job postings for each high and low-status job vacancy, and equally qualified CVs of Turks, Syrians, and Uzbeks relating to postings. The questionnaire has been available online in two different time frames, the first between March 12th and May 27th and the second phase between August 2nd and September 17th, 2023. These dates have coincided with a very notable part of the sociopolitical and sociopsychological period when the Syrian migrant issue was at its climax. Findings: Analysis indicated that; Ethnic Identity overall, had demonstrated a stronger predictor than Realistic Threat, especially when Turkish candidates were rated, and Realistic Threat emerged as a stronger predictor on migrant candidates' selection assessments where Ethnic Identity has also predicted to some extent; All the estimations in all cases indicating a dominant bias for Turkish candidates and discriminate against the migrants; Job status did not moderate any decision; Gender was not effective in controlling discriminations. Women who have experienced gender discrimination have scored stronger ethnic bias favoring Turks, and stronger realistic threat against minorities, designating Syrians as stigmatized outgroups; and Uzbeks face much lighter form of discrimination than Syrians, supporting the "Prejudice Distribution Account" arguments. Originality: This project is novel in that; it is the first in Turkiye, to explore the hiring considerations when migrants compete with Turkish applicants, taking into account ethnicity coupled with anxiety and conflict constructs, moderated by job status. It is original in that it compares the raters' gender differentiations in attitudes toward the assessment of candidates having ethnic diversities. It is a rare, possibly only example of exploring the attitudes of people who have experienced discrimination, particularly women who experienced gender discrimination, predicting entitative arguments to the literature, given the conceptual framework.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ethnic Discrimination
• Job Suitability
• Integrated Threat
• Discrimination in Hiring

İŞGÜCÜ PİYASASI İŞE ALMA KARARLARINDA GÖÇMENLERE ve MÜLTECİLERE YÖNELİK GRUPLAR ARASI AYRIMCILIK

Öz

Bu makale, günümüz dünyasının derinden meşgul olduğu iki temel sorununu ele almaktadır; artan mülteci/göç dalgası ve bunun doğal sonucu olarak istihdam, barınma, eğitim, refah, sağlık ve sivil haklar gibi çoklu bağlamda etnik ayrımcılıklar. Benzerlik güdüsüyle tetiklenen Etnisite ve gruplar arası çatışma ve rekabet nedeniyle uyarılan Gerçekçi Tehdit, iki bağımlı değişkenle nedenselliği kurularak incelenmiştir; İşe Alma Niyeti ve işe alım Sıralaması. Türk adaylar için etnik biliş, göçmenler için ise algılanan gerçekçi tehdit belirleyici faktörlerdir. Toplam 232 katılımcıdan (166 kadın, 66 erkek) yanıtları çevrimiçi metodla toplanmıştır. Amaç: Bu çalışma, göçmenlerin - Suriyeliler (yaklaşık 3,7 milyon, 2023), Özbekler (yaklaşık 60 bin, 2022) - Türk adaylarla rekabet ederken karşılaşabilecekleri işe alım ve seçim zorluklarını analiz ederek, gruplar arası ayrımcılığın işgücü piyasası seçim süreçleri üzerinde ne ölçüde sonuçları olabileceğini anlamayı hedeflemiştir. Etnik benzerlikler ve algılanan tehdit tarafından yordamlanan ve görev pozisyonu tarafından yönlendirilen etnik dışlayıcılıkla ilgili önyargıların belirleyicilerini ortaya çıkarmayı amaçlıyoruz. Çalışma ayrıca, genel olarak kadınların ve özellikle cinsiyetçi yaklaşımlara uğramış kadınların, adayların etnik kökenlerinin ayrımcı bir uyarıcı olarak bu kadar belirgin olduğu durumlarda, tutumlarına açıklık getirecektir. Yöntem: Çevrimiçi ankette yüksek ve düşük statülü iki ayrı iş ilanı ve bunlara ilişkin Türk, Suriyeli ve Özbeklerin eşit nitelikteki özgeçmişleri listelenmiştir ve bu bilgilerle seçim yapılması istenmiştir. İkinci bölümde ise katılımcıların etnik eğilim ve korku algıları test edilmiştir. Bulgular: Analizler sonucu; Etnik Kimlik, özellikle Türk adaylar değerlendirildiğinde Gerçekçi Tehditten daha güçlü bir yordayıcı olarak ortaya çıkmıştır. Göçmen adayların değerlendirilmelerinde ise Gerçekçi Tehdit, Etnik Kimliğin de bir dereceye kadar etkisinin olmasına karşın, daha güçlü bir faktör olarak ortaya çıkmıştır; Tüm analizler, her durumda Türk adayların kayırıldığını, göçmenlere karşı ise olumsuz Ayrımcılık sergilendiğini işaret etmektedir; Görev statüsü herhangi bir kararı etkilememiştir. Cinsiyet, ayrımcılıkları kontrol etmede etkili olmamıştır. Cinsiyet ayrımcılığına uğramış kadın katılımcılar kararlarında, Türkler açısından daha güçlü etnik önyargı, göçmenler açısından ise daha güçlü gerçekçi tehdit algısı sergilemişlerdir, Suriyelileri damgalanmış dış grup olarak belirlemişler ve Özbekler Suriyelilerden çok daha hafif ayrımcılıkla karşı karşıya kalarak "Önyargı Dağılımı Hesabı" argümanlarını desteklemişlerdir. Özgünlük: Bu proje, göçmenlerin Türk adaylarla rekabetlerinde, etnisite ile kaygı ve çatışma faktörlerini, iş pozisyonlarının etkilerini de kapsayarak, işe alım süreçleri bağlamında araştıran ilk proje olması bakımından önemlidir. Etnisiteleri farklı adayların değerlendirilmesinde, cinsiyet farklılıklarının yordamlamaya etkilerinin değerlendirilmesi bakımından da özgündür. Ayrımcılık mağduru olan katılımcıların, özellikle de mağdur kadınların, etnisitenin öne çıktığı koşullarda, tutumların yordamlanıp, literatüre etkili argümanlar ürettiği az sayıdaki, muhtemelen de tek örnektir. Kaynakça: Bagozzi, P. R., & Yi, Y. (2012). Specification, Evaluation, and Interpretation of Structural Equation Models. Academy of Marketing Science, 40, 8-34. Broverman, I. K., Vogel, S. R., Broverman, D. M., Clarkson, F. E.,&Rosenkrantz, P. S. (1972). Sex-role stereotypes: A current appraisal. Journal of Social Issues, 28, 59–78. Brown, T., Sellers, S., Brown, K., & Jackson, J. (1999). Race, ethnicity, and culture in the sociology of mental health. Handbook of sociology of mental health (pp. 167- 182). Byrne, B. M. (2016). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge. Chen, C. C., (2019). Human resources management and industrial relations in multinational corporations in and from China: Challenges and new insights. Human Resources Management, 58: 455-472. Ceobanu, A. M., & Escandell, X. (2010). Comparative analyses of public attitudes toward immigrants and immigration using multinational survey data: A review of theories and research. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102651 Crisp, J. R., Hewstone, M. (2007). Multiple Social Categorization. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Volume 39, 2007, Pages 163-254

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Etnik Ayrımcılık
• İşe Uygunluk
• Bütünleşik Tehdit
• İşe Almada Ayrımcılık

Kaynakça

1. Bagozzi, P. R., & Yi, Y. (2012). Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40(1), 8-34.
2. Broverman, I. K., Vogel, S. R., Broverman, D. M., Clarkson, F. E., & Rosenkrantz, P. S. (1972). Sex-role stereotypes: A current appraisal. Journal of Social Issues, 28(2), 59–78.
3. Brown, T., Sellers, S., Brown, K., & Jackson, J. (1999). Race, ethnicity, and culture in the sociology of mental health. In C. S. Aneshensel & J. C. Phelan (Eds.), Handbook of the sociology of mental health (pp. 167-182). New York, NY: Springer.
4. Byrne, B. M. (2016). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming(3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
5. Chen, C. C. (2019). Human resources management and industrial relations in multinational corporations in and from China: Challenges and new insights. Human Resources Management, 58(3), 455-472.
6. Ceobanu, A. M., & Escandell, X. (2010). Comparative analyses of public attitudes toward immigrants and immigration using multinational survey data: A review of theories and research. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102651.
7. Crisp, J. R., & Hewstone, M. (2007). Multiple social categorization. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 163-254.
8. Crocker, J., Major, B., & Steele, C. (1998). Social stigma. In S. Fiske, D. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 504–553). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

9. Derous, E., Ryan, A. M., & Nguyen, H. H. (2009). Multiple categorizations in resume screening: Examining effects on hiring discrimination against Arab applicants in field and lab settings. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33, 544–570.
10. Devine, P. G., & Elliot, A. J. (1995). Are racial stereotypes really fading? The Princeton trilogy revisited. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(11), 1139-1150.
11. DiTomaso, N. (2015). Racism and discrimination versus advantage and favoritism: Bias for versus bias against. Research in Organizational Behavior, 35, 57-77.
12. Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
13. Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878–902. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878.
14. Franklin, A. J., & Boyd-Franklin, N. (2000). Invisibility syndrome: A clinical model towards understanding the effects of racism upon African American males. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 70(1), 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0087691
15. González, K. V., Verkuyten, M., Weesie, J., & Poppe, E. (2008). Prejudice towards Muslims in the Netherlands: Testing integrated threat theory. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47(4), 667–685.
16. Gottfredson, L. S. (1988). Reconsidering fairness: A matter of ethical and social priorities. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 33(3), 293-319.
17. Greenwald, A. G., & Pettigrew, T. F. (2014). With malice toward none and charity for some: Ingroup favoritism enables discrimination. American Psychologist, 69(7), 669–684.
18. Herek, G. M. (2002). Gender gaps in public opinion about lesbians and gay men. Public Opinion Quarterly, 66(1), 40–66.
19. Higgins, E. T. (1996). Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 133–168). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Higgins, E. T., & King, G. (1981). Accessibility of social constructs: Information-processing consequences of individual and contextual variability. In N. Cantor & J. F. Kihlstrom (Eds.), Personality, cognition, and social interaction (pp. 69-121). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
20. Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, G. J. (2005). Culture and organizations—Software of the mind: Intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
21. Hughes, M., & Tuch, S. A. (2003). Gender differences in whites' racial attitudes: Are women's attitudes really more favorable? Social Psychology Quarterly, 66(4), 348–401.
22. Islam, M. R., & Hewstone, M. (1993). Dimensions of contact as predictors of intergroup anxiety, perceived out-group variability, and out-group attitude: An integrative model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19(6), 700-710. Islam, M. R., & Jahjah, M. (2001). Predictors of young Australians' attitudes toward Aboriginals, Asians, and Arabs. Social Behavior and Personality, 29(6), 569-580.
23. Kaiser, C. R., & Wilkins, C. L. (2010). Group identification and prejudice: Theoretical and empirical advances and implications. Journal of Social Issues, 66(3), 461–476.
24. Kauff, M., & Wagner, U. (2012). Valuable therefore not threatening: The influence of diversity beliefs on discrimination against immigrants. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(6), 714–721. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611435942.
25. Kaufman, R. (2001). Race and labor market segmentation. In I. Berg & A. L. Kalleberg (Eds.), Sourcebook of labor markets (pp. 645-668). New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
26. Kenrick, D. T., Griskevicius, V., Neuberg, S. L., & Schaller, M. (2010). Renovating the pyramid of needs: Contemporary extensions built upon ancient foundations. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(3), 292–314.
27. Malhotra, N. K., Margalit, Y., & Mo, C. H. (2013). Economic explanations for opposition to immigration: Distinguishing between prevalence and conditional impact. American Journal of Political Science, 57(2), 391–410. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12012
28. McIntyre, S., Moberg, D. J., & Posner, B. Z. (1980). Preferential treatment in preselection decisions according to sex and race. Academy of Management Journal, 23(4), 738–749.
29. McRae, M. B. (1991). Sex and race bias in employment decisions: Black women considered. Journal of Employment Counseling, 28(2), 91–98.
30. Nierman, A. J., Thompson, S. C., Bryan, A., & Mahaffey, A. L. (2007). Gender role beliefs and attitudes toward lesbians and gay men in Chile and the U.S. Sex Roles, 57(1-2), 61–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9197-1 Niles, F. S. (1998). Individualism-collectivism revisited. Cross-Cultural Research, 32(4), 315-341.
31. O’Leary, R., Gazley, B., McGuire, M., & Bingham, L. B. (2009). Public managers in collaboration. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
32. Olzak, S. (1992). The dynamics of ethnic competition and conflict. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Paşa, S. F., Kabasakal, H., & Bodur, M. (2001). Society, organisations, and leadership in Turkey. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50(4), 559–589.
33. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta‐analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(6), 922-934.
34. Pfeffer, J. (1983). Organizational demography. Research in Organizational Behavior, 5, 299–357.
35. Phinney, J. S. (1992). The multigroup ethnic identity measure: A new scale for use with diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7(2), 156–176.
36. Quillian, L. (1995). Prejudice as a response to perceived group threat: Population composition and anti-immigrant and racial prejudice in Europe. American Sociological Review, 60(4), 586–611.
37. Scheepers, P., Gijsberts, M., & Coenders, M. (2002). Ethnic exclusionism in European countries. European Sociological Review, 18(1), 17-34.
38. Sherif, M. (1966). In common predicament: Social psychology of intergroup conflict and cooperation. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
39. Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave experiment. Norman, OK: University Book Exchange.
40. Sniderman, P. M., Hagendoorn, L., & Prior, M. (2004). Predispositional factors and situational triggers: Exclusionary reactions to immigrant minorities. American Political Science Review, 98(1), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1017/S000305540400098X
41. Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1993). Cognition and affect in stereotyping: Parallel interactive networks. In D. M. Mackie & D. L. Hamilton (Eds.), Affect, cognition and stereotyping: Interactive processes in group perception(pp. 111-136). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
42. Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1996). Predicting prejudice. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20(3-4), 409–426.
43. Stephan, W. G., Stephan, C. W., & Gudykunst, W. B. (1999). Anxiety in intergroup relations: A comparison of anxiety/uncertainty management theory and integrated threat theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23(4), 613–628.
44. Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., & Bachman, G. (1999). Prejudice toward immigrants. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29(11), 2221–2237. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb00107.x
45. Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2000). An integrated threat theory of prejudice. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 23-45). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
46. Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behavior. Social Science Information, 13(2), 65–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/053901847401300204
47. Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2), 149–178. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420010202
48. Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
49. Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33(1), 1-39.
50. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
51. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
52. Tomaskovic-Devey, D. (1993). Gender and racial inequality at work: The sources and consequences of job segregation. Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.
53. Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group & Organization Studies, 2(4), 419–427. https://doi.org/10.1177/105960117700200404.
54. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
55. Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 15-40). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
56. Van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 1008–1022. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1008
57. Vaughn-Cooke, D. (1983). Blacks in labor markets: A historical assessment. Urban League Review, 7(2), 8-18. Williams, D. R., & Williams-Morris, R. (2000). Racism and mental health: The African American experience. Ethnicity & Health, 5(3-4), 243-268. https://doi.org/10.1080/713667453
58. Wyer, R. S., & Srull, T. K. (1981). Category accessibility: Some theoretical and empirical issues concerning the processing of social stimulus information. In E. T. Higgins, C. P. Herman, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Social cognition: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 1, pp. 161-197). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.