Table 1
Vignette groups.
| Baseline vignette Imagine a situation in which you are going to hire a new employee. A person applies for the job and states that they have a few years of experience in the industry and have the educational background you require. The applicant is positive, energetic, and a hard worker. | |||||
| Vignette-group | Control group | Experimental group 1 | Experimental group 2 | Experimental group 3 | Experimental group 4 |
| Baseline vignette | Baseline vignette | Baseline vignette | Baseline vignette | Baseline vignette | |
| + | + | + | + | ||
| Information about disability | Furthermore, the applicant tells you that they are a wheelchair user, | Furthermore, the applicant tells you that they are a wheelchair user, | Furthermore, the applicant tells you that they are a wheelchair user, | Furthermore, the applicant tells you that they are a wheelchair user, | |
| + | + | + | + | ||
| Additional information | which requires some adjustments in the workplace. | which requires some adjustments in the workplace, but it is possible to apply for financial compensation. | which requires a minor reorganisation of work. | which requires some adjustments in the workplace. The PES recommends hiring the applicant. | |
| Factor captured by the additional information | Disability | Financial compensation | Workload | PES recommendation | |
Table 2
Vignette groups and the likelihood of hiring the applicant. Percentages and means.
| 1 – Very likely to hire the applicant | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 – Very unlikely to hire the applicant | Total | Mean | Mean difference (to control group) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control group No disability | 44.7 | 26.8 | 15.4 | 5.9 | 7.2 | 100% | 2.04 | 0 |
| Experimental group 1 Wheelchair user, requires some adjustments | 10.2 | 12.1 | 16.8 | 14.0 | 48.9 | 100% | 3.75 | 1.71*** |
| Experimental group 2 Wheelchair user, requires some adjustments, opportunity for financial compensation | 15.6 | 15.3 | 19.7 | 10.6 | 38.9 | 100% | 3.42 | 1.38*** |
| Experimental group 3 Wheelchair user, requires reorganisation of work | 14.3 | 11.5 | 18.0 | 11.0 | 45.2 | 100% | 3.61 | 1.57*** |
| Experimental group 4 Wheelchair user, requires some adjustments, recommendation from PES | 10.5 | 15.0 | 18.0 | 14.4 | 42.2 | 100% | 3.63 | 1.59*** |
[i] * p ≤ 0.05, ** p ≤ 0.01, *** p ≤ 0.001.
Table 3
Vignette groups and the likelihood of hiring the applicant by job function and accessibility. Percentages and means.
| 1 – Very likely to hire the applicant | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 – Very unlikely to hire the applicant | Total | Mean | Mean difference | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Both having job functions and being accessible (n = 583) | Control group | 48.1 | 23.8 | 15.9 | 6.9 | 5.3 | 100% | 1.97 | 0 |
| Experimental group 1 | 25.5 | 26.5 | 26.5 | 8.8 | 12.7 | 100% | 2.57 | 0.60** | |
| Experimental group 2 | 29.9 | 29.9 | 20.5 | 6.0 | 13.7 | 100% | 2.44 | 0.46* | |
| Experimental group 3 | 34.5 | 21.0 | 21.0 | 7.6 | 16.0 | 100% | 2.50 | 0.52** | |
| Experimental group 4 | 25.0 | 28.0 | 29.0 | 7.0 | 11.0 | 100% | 2.51 | 0.54** | |
| Not having job functions or not accessible (n = 636) | Control group | 39.5 | 28.2 | 16.9 | 6.7 | 8.7 | 100% | 2.27 | 0 |
| Experimental group 1 | 1.8 | 4.5 | 6.3 | 11.7 | 75.7 | 100% | 4.55 | 2.38*** | |
| Experimental group 2 | 5.1 | 4.2 | 14.4 | 13.6 | 62.7 | 100% | 4.25 | 2.08*** | |
| Experimental group 3 | 2.7 | 2.5 | 7.3 | 10.9 | 76.4 | 100% | 4.56 | 2.39*** | |
| Experimental group 4 | 1.0 | 6.9 | 10.8 | 13.7 | 67.6 | 100% | 4.40 | 2.23*** | |
[i] * p ≤ 0.05, ** p ≤ 0.01, *** p ≤ 0.001.
Table 4
Experimental groups and the likelihood of hiring the applicant by financial attitude. Percentages and means.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total | Mean | Mean difference | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Think disabled employees are less productive (n = 371) | Experimental group 1 | 6.2 | 7.2 | 14.4 | 10.3 | 61.9 | 100% | 4.14 | 0 |
| Experimental group 2 | 9.0 | 5.0 | 10.0 | 13.0 | 63.0 | 100% | 4.16 | 0.02 | |
| Experimental group 3 | 6.3 | 5.2 | 10.4 | 10.4 | 67.7 | 100% | 4.28 | 0.14 | |
| Experimental group 4 | 3.8 | 15.4 | 10.3 | 9.0 | 61.5 | 100% | 4.09 | –0.06 | |
| Think disabled employees involve additional costs (n = 729) | Experimental group 1 (intercept) | 7.0 | 11.8 | 16.0 | 14.4 | 50.8 | 100% | 3.90 | 0 |
| Experimental group 2 | 13.3 | 14.9 | 16.4 | 10.3 | 45.1 | 100% | 3.59 | –0.31 | |
| Experimental group 3 | 9.0 | 10.6 | 16.9 | 12.2 | 51.3 | 100% | 3.86 | –0.04 | |
| Experimental group 4 | 8.9 | 12.0 | 18.4 | 14.6 | 46.2 | 100% | 3.77 | –0.13 | |
| Think financial schemes promote hiring applicants with disabilities (n = 308) | Experimental group 1 (intercept) | 8.5 | 11.0 | 23.2 | 17.1 | 40.2 | 100% | 3.70 | 0 |
| Experimental group 2 | 9.3 | 17.3 | 22.7 | 18.7 | 32.0 | 100% | 3.47 | –0.23 | |
| Experimental group 3 | 21.2 | 15.8 | 15.8 | 15.8 | 31.6 | 100% | 3.21 | –0.49 | |
| Experimental group 4 | 5.3 | 18.7 | 25.3 | 13.3 | 37.3 | 100% | 3.59 | –0.11 | |
| No knowledge about compensation schemes (n = 958) | Experimental group 1 (intercept) | 6.7 | 10.0 | 18.0 | 14.2 | 51.0 | 100% | 3.93 | 0 |
| Experimental group 2 | 14.1 | 14.5 | 20.6 | 11.8 | 38.9 | 100% | 3.47 | –0.46** | |
| Experimental group 3 | 13.1 | 10.8 | 16.3 | 12.4 | 47.4 | 100% | 3.70 | –0.23 | |
| Experimental group 4 | 10.2 | 11.7 | 18.9 | 15.0 | 44.2 | 100% | 3.71 | –0.22 |
[i] * p ≤ 0.05, ** p ≤ 0.01, *** p ≤ 0.001.
Note: The number of respondents (n) does not include the control group.
Table 5
Experimental groups and the likelihood of hiring the applicant by adaptability attitude. Percentages and means.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total | Mean | Mean difference | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Do think employees with a disability are difficult to reassign to new tasks (n = 743) | Experimental group 1 | 8.2 | 9.9 | 13.7 | 14.8 | 53.3 | 100 | 3.95 | 0 |
| Experimental group 2 | 13.1 | 13.6 | 17.7 | 11.6 | 43.9 | 100 | 3.61 | –0.36 | |
| Experimental group 3 | 10.8 | 10.8 | 17.2 | 15.3 | 45.8 | 100 | 3.74 | –0.20 | |
| Experimental group 4 | 5.6 | 11.9 | 21.9 | 12.5 | 48.1 | 100 | 3.91 | –0.09 | |
[i] * p ≤ 0.05, ** p ≤ 0.01, *** p ≤ 0.001.
Note: The number of respondents (n) does not include the control group.
Table 6
Experimental groups and the likelihood of hiring the applicant by social responsibility attitudes. Percentages and means.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total | Mean | Mean difference | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Have a CSR strategy (n = 265) | Experimental group 1 | 12.3 | 15.4 | 26.2 | 16.9 | 29.2 | 100% | 3.35 | 0 |
| Experimental group 2 | 23.3 | 23.3 | 11.0 | 8.2 | 34.2 | 100% | 3.07 | –0.29 | |
| Experimental group 3 | 23.8 | 12.7 | 20.6 | 12.7 | 30.2 | 100% | 3.13 | –0.23 | |
| Experimental group 4 | 6.3 | 32.8 | 18.8 | 10.9 | 31.3 | 100% | 3.28 | 0.07 | |
| Feel social responsibility to hire applicant with a disability (n = 949) | Experimental group 1 | 11.5 | 13.8 | 18.8 | 14.2 | 41.7 | 100% | 3.61 | 0 |
| Experimental group 2 | 16.9 | 18.5 | 19.3 | 10.6 | 34.6 | 100% | 3.28 | –0.34 | |
| Experimental group 3 | 17.9 | 13.0 | 17.6 | 12.2 | 39.3 | 100% | 3.42 | –0.19 | |
| Experimental group 4 | 10.7 | 18.1 | 20.5 | 12.1 | 38.6 | 100% | 3.50 | –0.11 |
[i] * p ≤ 0.05, ** p ≤ 0.01, *** p ≤ 0.001.
Note: The number of respondents (n) does not include the control group.
Table 7
Vignette groups and the likelihood of hiring the applicant by prior experience. Percentages and means.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | Total | Mean | Mean difference | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Have experience (n = 344) | Experimental group 1 | 14.6 | 19.5 | 18.3 | 13.4 | 34.1 | 100% | 3.32 | 0 |
| Experimental group 2 | 20.0 | 15.8 | 26.3 | 8.4 | 29.5 | 100% | 3.12 | –0.21 | |
| Experimental group 3 | 24.2 | 13.2 | 25.3 | 12.1 | 25.3 | 100% | 3.01 | –0.32 | |
| Experimental group 4 | 15.8 | 26.3 | 17.1 | 9.2 | 31.6 | 100% | 3.15 | –0.19 | |
| Have no experience (n = 932) | Experimental group 1 | 9.1 | 7.7 | 15.0 | 15.0 | 53.2 | 100% | 3.96 | 0 |
| Experimental group 2 | 13.9 | 14.7 | 16.7 | 10.8 | 43.8 | 100% | 3.56 | –0.40* | |
| Experimental group 3 | 11.2 | 9.2 | 14.9 | 11.2 | 53.4 | 100% | 3.86 | –0.09 | |
| Experimental group 4 | 7.1 | 11.3 | 18.4 | 15.6 | 47.6 | 100% | 3.85 | –0.10 |
[i] * p ≤ 0.05, ** p ≤ 0.01, *** p ≤ 0.001.
Note: The number of respondents (n) does not include the control group.