Table 1
The design of the vignette experiment.
| Control group | Imagine a situation where you are about to hire a new employee. A person has applied for the job and tells you that she/he has relevant work experience. The applicant is positive, energetic and a hard worker. |
|---|---|
| Treatment 1 | Same as control + The person tells you that she/he fled her/his country of origin 2 years ago. |
| Treatment 2 | Same as control + The person tells you that she/he fled Iraq 2 years ago. |
| Treatment 3 | Same as control + The person tells you that she/he fled Ethiopia 2 years ago. |
| Treatment 4 | Same as control + The person tells you that she/he fled Ukraine 2 years ago. |
Table 2
Likelihood of hiring the candidate from the vignette.
| Very unlikely to hire | Unlikely to hire | Neither likely or unlikely to hire | Likely to hire | Very likely to hire | Total (n) | Mean (scale of 1–5) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 6.4% | 4.4% | 19.8% | 33.7% | 35.7% | 100% (389) | 3.88 |
| Treatment 1 (generic refugee) | 11.2% | 8.3% | 29.9% | 28.7% | 21.9% | 100% (421) | 3.42 |
| Treatment 2 (refugee from Iraq) | 16.4% | 10.3% | 26.2% | 24.4% | 22.7% | 100% (397) | 3.27 |
| Treatment 3 (refugee from Ethiopia) | 17.9% | 9.5% | 34,0% | 21.6% | 17.1% | 100% (380) | 3.11 |
| Treatment 4 (refugee from Ukraine) | 13.9% | 11.0% | 26.7% | 30.8% | 17.7% | 100% (390) | 3.27 |
Table 3
Pairwise comparison of means. Likelihood of hiring the candidate from the vignette.
| Contrast | p-value (Sidak) | 95% confidence interval (Sidak) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Generic refugee vs. control | –0.461 | 0.000 | –0.710 | –0.212 |
| Refugee from Iraq vs. control | –0.612 | 0.000 | –0.864 | –0.360 |
| Refugee from Ethiopia vs. control | –0.774 | 0.000 | –1.029 | –0.519 |
| Refugee from Ukraine vs. control | –0.605 | 0.000 | –0.858 | –0.351 |
| Refugee from Iraq vs. generic refugee | –0.151 | 0.599 | –0.399 | 0.097 |
| Refugee from Ethiopia vs. generic refugee | –0.313 | 0.005 | –0.563 | –0.062 |
| Refugee from Ukraine vs. generic refugee | –0.144 | 0.672 | –0.392 | 0.105 |
| Refugee from Ethiopia vs. refugee from Iraq | –0.162 | 0.538 | –0.416 | 0.092 |
| Refugee from Ukraine vs. refugee from Iraq | 0.007 | 1.000 | –0.245 | 0.260 |
| Refugee from Ukraine vs. refugee from Ethiopia | 0.169 | 0.480 | –0.086 | 0.424 |
Table 4
Likelihood of hiring the candidate from the vignette. Subgroup analysis including only workplaces indicating that it is not at all necessary or not very necessary to be able to understand Danish to work at the workplace.
| Very unlikely to hire | Unlikely to hire | Neither likely or unlikely to hire | Likely to hire | Very likely to hire | Total (n) | Mean | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 1.3% | 3.9% | 20.5% | 34.6% | 39.7% | 100% (78) | 4.08 |
| Treatment 1 (generic refugee) | 5.0% | 6.3% | 16.3% | 38.8% | 33.8% | 100% (80) | 3.90 |
| Treatment 2 (refugee from Iraq) | 3.8% | 8.9% | 20.3% | 29.1% | 38.0% | 100% (79) | 3.89 |
| Treatment 3 (refugee from Ethiopia) | 6.6% | 6.6% | 31.9% | 30.8% | 24.2% | 100% (91) | 3.59 |
| Treatment 4 (refugee from Ukraine) | 4.8% | 2.9% | 22.9% | 36.2% | 33.3% | 100% (105) | 3.91 |
| Total (n) | 4.4% (19) | 5.5% (24) | 22.6% (98) | 34.0% (147) | 33.5% (145) | 100% (433) | 3.87 |