legal environment for selection
DESCRIPTION
Myors, B., Lievens, F., Schollaert, E. et al. (2008). International Perspectives on the Legal Environment for Selection. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 206-246.TRANSCRIPT
International Perspectives on the LegalEnvironment for Selection
BRETT MYORSGriffith University
FILIP LIEVENS, EVELINESCHOLLAERT, AND GREET VAN HOYEGhent University
STEVEN F. CRONSHAWUniversity of Northern British Columbia
ANTONIO MLADINIC AND
VIVIANA RODRIGUEZPontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile
HERMAN AGUINISUniversity of Colorado Denver
DIRK D. STEINER AND
FLORENCE ROLLANDUniversite de Nice-Sophia Antipolis
HEINZ SCHULERUniversity of Hohenheim
ANDREAS FRINTRUPHR Diagnostics
IOANNIS NIKOLAOU AND
MARIA TOMPROUAthens University of Economics andBusiness
S. SUBRAMONY AND
SHABU B. RAJDefence Institute of PsychologicalResearch
SHAY TZAFRIRUniversity of Haifa
PETER BAMBERGERTechnion—Israel Institute of Technology
MARILENA BERTOLINOUniversity of Trento
MARCO MARIANIUniversity of Bologna
FRANCO FRACCAROLIUniversity of Trento
TOMOKI SEKIGUCHIOsaka University
BETTY ONYURAUniversity of Guelph
HYUCKSEUNG YANGYonsei University
NEIL ANDERSON AND
ARNE EVERSUniversity of Amsterdam
OLEKSANDR CHERNYSHENKOUniversity of Canterbury
PAUL ENGLERTOPRA Consulting Group
HENNIE J. KRIEKSHL and University of South Africa
TINA JOUBERTSHL
JESUS F. SALGADOUniversity of Santiago de Compostela
CORNELIUS J. KONIG AND
LARISSA A. THOMMENUniversitat Zurich
AICHIA CHUANGNational Taiwan University
HANDAN KEPIR SINANGILMarmara University
MAHMUT BAYAZITSabanci University
MARK COOKUniversity of Wales
WINNY SHEN AND PAUL R. SACKETTUniversity of Minnesota
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1 (2008), 206–246.Copyright ª 2008 Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 1754-9426/08
206
AbstractPerspectives from 22 countries on aspects of the legal environment for selection are presented in this article. Issuesaddressed include (a) whether there are racial/ethnic/religious subgroups viewed as ‘‘disadvantaged,’’ (b) whetherresearch documents mean differences between groups on individual difference measures relevant to job performance,(c) whether there are laws prohibiting discrimination against specific groups, (d) the evidence required to make andrefute a claim of discrimination, (e) the consequences of violation of the laws, (f) whether particular selection methodsare limited or banned, (g) whether preferential treatment of members of disadvantaged groups is permitted, and (h)whether the practice of industrial and organizational psychology has been affected by the legal environment.
In the United States, the legal context plays
a major role in how psychologists approach
selection system development. Psycholo-
gists know well the set of protected groups,
the approaches to making an a priori case of
discrimination (e.g., differential treatment
vs. adverse impact), the key court cases in-
fluencing selection, and the prohibitions
against preferential treatment (e.g., the
1991 ban on score adjustment or within-
group norming). Selection texts (e.g., Guion,
1998) and human resource management
texts (e.g., Cascio & Aguinis, 2005) give
prominent treatment to the legal context.One major theme is the growing interna-
tionalization of industrial and organiza-
tional (I–O) psychology. Psychologists from
all over the world contribute to our journals
and to our conferences. U.S. test publishers
and consulting firms establish offices all over
the world. One suggestion that surfaced in
considering topics for this journal was to
take a broader look at the legal environment
for selection, examining similarities and
differences in various countries.In response to this suggestion, the editor
(Paul Sackett) prepared a set of questions
about the legal environment for selection,
prepared model answers describing the
legal environment in the United States, and
contacted psychologists in a variety of coun-
tries, asking them to prepare a document
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Paul R. Sackett. E-mail: [email protected]: Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Elliott Hall, 75 East River Road, Minneapolis,
MN 55455Brett Myors, School of Psychology, Griffith University; Filip Lievens, Eveline Schollaert, and Greet Van Hoye,
Department of Personnel Management and Work Organizational Psychology, Ghent University; Steven F. Cron-shaw, School of Business, University of Northern British Columbia; Antonio Mladinic and Viviana Rodrıguez,Department of Psychology, Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile; Herman Aguinis, The Business School, Uni-versity of Colorado Denver; Dirk D. Steiner and Florence Rolland, Laboratoire de Psychologie Cognitive et Sociale,Universite de Nice-Sophia Antipolis; Heinz Schuler, University of Hohenheim; Andreas Frintrup, HR Diagnostics;Ioannis Nikolaou and Maria Tomprou, Department of Management Science and Technology, Athens University ofEconomics and Business; S. Subramony and Shabu B. Raj, Defence Institute of Psychological Research; Shay Tzafrir,Department of Human Services, University of Haifa; Peter Bamberger, Davidson Faculty of Industrial Engineeringand Management, Technion: Israel Institute of Technology; Marilena Bertolino, Department of Cognitive Scienceand Education, University of Trento; Marco Mariani, Department of Educational Science, University of Bologna;Franco Fraccaroli, Department of Cognitive Science and Education, University of Trento; Tomoki Sekiguchi, Grad-uate School of Economics, Osaka University; Betty Onyura (Kenya), Department of Psychology, University ofGuelph; Hyuckseung Yang, Department of Management, Yonsei University; Neil Anderson and Arne Evers, Uni-versity of Amsterdam; Oleksandr Chernyshenko, University of Canterbury; Paul Englert, OPRA Consulting Group;Hennie J. Kriek, Research and Development, SHL and Department of Industrial and Organizational Psychology,University of South Africa; Tina Joubert, SHL; Jesus F. Salgado, Departmento de Psicologia Social, University ofSantiago de Compostela; Cornelius J. Konig and Larissa A. Thommen, Psychologisches Institut, Universitat Zurich;Aichia Chuang, National Taiwan University; Handan Kepir Sinangil, Business Administration Department, Orga-nizational Behavior Division, Marmara University; Mahmut Bayazit, Department of Management, Sabanci Univer-sity; Mark Cook, University of Wales; Winny Shen and Paul R. Sackett, Department of Psychology, University ofMinnesota.
Oleksandr Chernyshenko is now at the Nanyang Business School, Nanyang Technological University,Singapore.
This research was conducted while Antonio Mladinic was on leave from the Pontificia Universidad Catolica deChile and holding a visiting appointment at the University of Texas at El Paso, and Herman Aguinis was on sabbaticalleave from the University of Colorado Denver and holding a visiting appointment at the University of Salamanca(Spain). Authors from each country contributed equally to this paper. Author names are ordered within country, withcountries listed in alphabetical order.
International perspectives 207
responding to each question and describingthe legal environment in their country. Theywere also invited to suggest additional pro-ject participants in other countries. Someinvitees declined; some initially agreed butsubsequently did not participate. The goalwas to obtain a range of perspectives by sam-pling about 20 countries, and thus, this is byno means a complete catalog of the legalenvironment around the world. Researchersand practitioners who are experts on thetopic of selection from 22 countries partici-pated: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Chile,France, Germany, Greece, India, Israel, Italy,Japan, Kenya, Korea, Netherlands, New Zea-land, South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, Tai-wan, Turkey, United Kingdom, and UnitedStates. As the list indicates, the countriescovered do broadly sample the world.
The initial plan was to keep each write-upintact, resulting in essentially 22 separatecommentaries that would be presented insequence. As the commentaries were re-ceived, it became clear that write-ups wereoften quite lengthy, and bundling themwould result in a several-hundred-page doc-ument. It also seemed more useful to thereader to organize input by issue (e.g., whatgroups are protected; is preferential treat-ment of minority group members permitted),rather than by country. Paul Sackett andWinny Shen attempted to extract and cate-gorize information from the individual com-mentaries into summary formats. In somecases, this involved extracting narrative textfrom the commentaries; in other cases,pieces of information were extracted andpresented in tabular format (e.g., one mastertable of protected groups in each country).
Contributing authors from each countryresponded to a number of questions, eightof which are addressed in this article:
1. Are there racial/ethnic/religious sub-groups such that some are viewedas ‘‘advantaged’’ and others as ‘‘disad-vantaged’’?
2. Is there research documenting meandifferences between groups identifiedabove on individual difference mea-sures relevant to job performance?
3. Are there laws prohibiting discrimina-tion against specific groups and/ormandating fair treatment of suchgroups? Which groups are protected?Which employers are covered? Whichemployment practices are covered(e.g., selection, promotion, dismissal)?
4. What is required as prima facie evi-dence of discrimination? What isrequired to refute a claim of discrimi-nation?
5. What are the consequences of viola-tion of the laws?
6. Are particular selection methods lim-ited or banned as a result of legislationor court rulings?
7. What is the legal status of preferentialtreatment of members of protectedgroups (e.g., quotas or softer forms ofpreference)?
8. How have laws and the legal environ-ment affected the practice of I–Opsychology in this country?
Each of these questions is addressed in turn.
Question 1
Are there racial/ethnic/religious subgroupssuch that some are viewed as ‘‘advan-taged’’ and others as ‘‘disadvantaged’’?
Table 1 identifies the major groups viewed asdisadvantaged in each country. This ‘‘snap-shot’’ is elaborated on in the text below,which gives a brief overview of each country’ssituation, with the intent of giving the readersome context for the situation in each country.
Australia. British colonization of Aus-tralia began in 1788, with successive wavesof state-sponsored migration, first of convictsand later of free settlers, occurring through-out the 19th century and well into the 20thcentury. White settlement gradually dis-placed the indigenous population of Aborig-inal and Torres Strait Islanders who hadoccupied the land for at least the previous40,000 years. A racially motivated immigra-tion policy in favor of Europeans, the ‘‘WhiteAustralia policy,’’ existed from Federation in1901 until 1973, although easing of the
208 B. Myors et al.
Table 1. Disadvantaged Groups Within Each Country
Country Group % of population
Australia Indigenous Australians 2.5Belgium Non-Western immigrants
Moroccan 0.8Turkish 0.4
Canada Immigrants 18.4Visible minorities 13.4First Nations peoples 2.1Francophones 15.7
Chile Recent immigrants 1.2ArgentinaPeruBoliviaEcuador
France Immigrant groups 7.4European 3.33North African 2.22Other African 0.67Asian 0.96
Germany Migrant workers/immigrantsTurkish 3.7Southern European countries
Reimmigrants (Volga-Germans) 2.8Greece Immigrants 7.0
AlbanianBulgarianGeorgianRomanians
India Within Hindu castesScheduled castes 15.06Scheduled tribes 7.51Other backward classes 43.70
Muslims 13.0Israel Palestinian Arabs 22.0
Druze 2.0Sephardic Jews 31.0
IraqIranMoroccoEthiopia
Italy Albanian 1.0Rumanian 0.9Moroccan 0.9Ukrainian 0.4Chinese
Japan North and South Korean 0.5Chinese 0.4Brazilians 0.2Philippines 0.1
(continued)
International perspectives 209
Table 1. (continued )
Country Group % of population
Kenya Foreigners 1.5AsiansEuropeans
Muslims 7.0Less populous Kenyan tribes
(Swahili, Kalenjin, Kamba, Kisii,Ameru, Embu, Maasai, Somali,Turkana, Taita, and Samburu)
51.5
Korea Foreigners 0.8Netherlands Non-Western immigrants 10.5
Turkish 2.2Moroccan 2.0Surinamese 2.0Antillean/Aruban 0.8
New Zealand Pacific peoples 6.4Maori 13.5
South Africa Black (disadvantaged majority)African 79.5Colored 8.9Indian 2.5
Spain Immigrant groups 9.25Moroccan 1.16Ecuadorian 1.01Rumanian 0.89Colombian 0.59Argentinean 0.43Bolivian 0.31Chinese 0.22Peruvian 0.21
Switzerland Immigrant groups 21.9Ex-Yugoslavia 4.7Italians 4.1Portuguese 2.5Germans 2.4
Taiwan Taiwanese aborigines 2.0Turkey Religious minorities
Alevi 20.0Christian and Jewish 0.3
Kurdish 11.0Arabic 1.5Other 1.8
ArmenianGreekJewish
United Kingdom Indian 1.78Pakistani 1.26Black Caribbean 0.95Black African 0.82Bangladeshi 0.48
(continued)
210 B. Myors et al.
policy can be traced from the end of WorldWar II. The following groups make up morethan 1% of the population (Australian Bureauof Statistics [ABS], 2007): Australian (nonin-digenous), 73.8%; United Kingdom, 5.6%;Australian (indigenous), 2.5%; New Zealand,2.2%; Italy, 1.1%. Non–English-speaking mi-grants constitute about 6% of the workforce(ABS, 2004).
White, English speakers are identified asthe majority group, with the most disadvan-taged being indigenous people. IndigenousAustralians are significantly disadvantagedon virtually all key indicators, includingunemployment and income as well as edu-cational attainment, imprisonment, and lifeexpectancy (Steering Committee for theReview of Government Service Provision,2005). The National Aboriginal and TorresStrait Islander Social Survey (Linacre, 2002)indicated that although indigenous participa-tion rates and incomes have increased since1994, the gap between indigenous and non-indigenous incomes has not reduced at all.
Belgium. In 2004, the Belgian popula-tion included 8.34% with a foreign nation-ality (General Board Employment and LaborMarket, 2006). Most of the immigrants (66%of the foreign population in 2004) originatefrom countries belonging to the EuropeanUnion (EU), with most immigrants comingfrom Italy and from Belgium’s neighboringcountries, France and the Netherlands(21%, 13%, and 12%, respectively, of thetotal foreign population in 2004). After theSecond World War, Italian immigrants wereencouraged to enter the Belgian labor mar-ket, mostly to fill manual labor jobs (e.g.,mine industries), with non-Western immi-
grants from Morocco and Turkey (9% and5%, respectively, of the total foreign popula-tion in 2004 or 0.8% and 0.4% of the totalpopulation) encouraged to enter during the1960s and 1970s to fill this same role.Usually, the Belgians are referred to as the(advantaged) majority group and the non-Western immigrants as the (disadvantaged)minority group (Okkerse & Termote, 2004).The actual proportion of these minoritygroups in the Belgian population is some-what larger, as a considerable number ofnon-Western immigrants (and their children)have been granted the Belgian nationality.
The labor force is very similar to the pop-ulation in terms of foreign nationality. In2004, 23.2% of the labor-active foreignerswere unemployed versus 8.5% of the labor-active Belgians. The unemployment rate inboth the Moroccan and the Turkish minoritygroups is high: 45% in 2004 (General BoardEmployment and Labor Market, 2006;Okkerse & Termote, 2004).
Canada. First Nations peoples (Indiansand Inuit) are the aboriginal population ofCanada. European peoples, notably of Brit-ish and French origin, began colonizing thenorthern half of North America, which isnow Canada, in the 1500s and 1600s. SinceConfederation, the establishment of Canadaas a country in 1867, federal governmentpolicies have resulted in greater immigrationthan most other countries. After arrival,immigrants become part of a multiculturalsociety that, to varying degrees, protectsand supports the language and culture ofthe home country. Canada has a low birthrate, ranking 186 out of 224 countries inthe world in 2006 in terms of births per
Table 1. (continued )
Country Group % of population
Chinese 0.41Other 2.1
United States Black/African American 12.3Hispanic/Hispanic American 12.5Native American
and Alaskan Native0.9
International perspectives 211
1,000 persons per year. The result is an agingpopulation, and most provinces in Canadahave removed the retirement age.
To maintain economic growth andincrease labor market participation, Canadaactively promotes immigration from othercountries, and presently, Canada has one ofthe highest per capita immigration rates inthe world. At present, many immigrantscome from Asia, including South Asia, andAfrica. Preference for entry is given to skilledworkers, business owners, and refugees. Atpresent, about 18% of the population of morethan 30 million is foreign born. There is con-siderable societal concern over historicalunderrepresentation of visible minorities(more than 4 million individuals), aboriginals(more than 900,000 individuals), andwomen in higher level and better-paid posi-tions across the Canadian economy. Personsfrom the aboriginal and visible minoritygroups have higher unemployment andpoverty rates than the majority population.Employment equity legislation is in placefor federal government employees. Federalemployers such as the Canadian Forces alsomonitor their workplace practices to pro-mote equal representation of Francophones,primarily from the province of Quebec, withAnglophones from the rest of Canada.
Chile. According to the 2002 census,about 4.6% of the total population identifieswith a nonnative ethnic group. Immigrantsfrom Europe (particularly Spain, Germany,Croatia, Eastern Europe) and the Middle Eastwereencouraged tomigrate to Chile in the late1800s and early 1900s. They usually settled inrural areas or in urban areas including smalltowns. The descendants of these minorityethnic groups have become more prominentand influential over time and can currently belabeled as ‘‘advantaged minority’’ groups.
More recent immigrants make up a smallpercentage of the population (1.2% accord-ing to the 2002 census); however, this is thehighest percentage of immigrants since1952. There are some estimations that thenumber of immigrants is increasing but notby a significant number. These new immi-grants are mainly from other South American
countries (Argentina, Peru, Bolivia, andEcuador). Most of them hold blue-collar,low-skill jobs; a small proportion of theseimmigrants are professionals. However, thedistribution of the more recent immigrantsby industry type does not differ substantiallyfrom the general Chilean population. Theonly exceptions are Peruvian women who,in general, work as housekeepers.
France. It is widely recognized in Francetoday that racial discrimination is wide-spread, especially against people of NorthAfrican origin. This population had a majorimmigration period in France starting in the1960s following the independence of thesecountries from France. Other ethnic minori-ties are also represented by immigrationfrom other African countries, especiallythose that were former French colonies.Throughout the past decades, the geograph-ical origins of immigrants have becomemore diverse and distant. In 1962, immi-grants from Spain and Italy represented halfof the immigrants residing in France; by1999, they only represented one in six immi-grants. Inversely, the proportion of NorthAfrican immigrants doubled during thatperiod, and they now represent 30% of immi-grants. In 1999, the immigrant population(7.4% of the French population) had thefollowing composition: 45% European, 30%North African, 9% other African, and 13%Asian (Bourles & Courson, 2000).
Concerning the minority composition ofthe workforce, in France, it is rather difficultto know it exactly. In fact, one of the guidingprinciples of equality in France is the beliefthat equality is best guaranteed by not col-lecting such information. Thus, it is illegal fororganizations to keep records on the ethnicgroup membership of their employees.Recent recommendations (Fauroux, 2005)for fighting discrimination in France ques-tion this practice and suggest that it may beuseful to keep such records in order to knowbetter the potential extent of discriminationagainst various groups.
That being said, some data are availableand they indicate that immigrants repre-sent 8% of employed people. Generally,
212 B. Myors et al.
immigrants have blue-collar labor jobs: 46%of them are employed in this category com-pared to 25% of nonimmigrants. Unemploy-ment is also higher among immigrants: 18%for immigrants compared to 9% for nonim-migrants (Attal-Toubert & Lavergne, 2006).Unemployment rates vary depending onthe origin of the immigrants: For thosefrom Spain, Italy, or Portugal, unemploy-ment is low, lower even than that for nonim-migrants. On the other hand, North African,sub-Saharan African, and Turkish origin im-migrants have high rates of unemployment.For those aged from 25 to 59 years, aboutone in five is unemployed (Tavan, 2005).
Germany. In Germany, there are mainlytwo groups today regarded as disadvantagedminorities: migrant workers and reimmi-grants. Starting in the mid-1950s, migrantworkers came to Germany mainly fromsouthern European countries and Turkey tostrengthen the workforce in a rapidly grow-ing economy. Today, nearly 7.3 million ‘‘for-eigners’’ are living in Germany (with a totalpopulation of 82.4 million), not includingseveral million persons of foreign originwho were already nationalized. A high pro-portion of these persons are working in low-level jobs, have low levels of education, andlow language skills. They and their offspringare now highly overrepresented in unem-ployment rates (i.e., about 20% vs. 8%).Roughly, the same is true for reimmigrantsfrom Russia, the so-called Volga-Germans,who are treated as Germans but nonethelesslack German language skills. Minority prob-lems in Germany are not discussed in termsof race. Religion is seen as a cultural problem(especially that of Muslim integration) butnot as a problem in an occupational context.
Greece. In Greece, the migration trendsare linked to the political and financialchanges and upheavals in the wider areaof the Balkan Peninsula. Through the firsthalf of the 20th century, the migration flowwas outward, with Greek citizens migrat-ing to other countries, mainly the UnitedStates, Germany, and Australia. In the early1990s, an immense flow of immigrants
from the neighboring countries took place(Papadopoulou, 2005).
Of the total population, 93% was madeup of people of Greek origin, 7% foreigners(both EU and non-EU). Albanians constitutesome 56% of total population of immigrants,followed by Bulgarians (5%), Georgians(3%), and Romanians (3%), and their repre-sentation in the labor force approximatestheir representation in the population (58%,6.7%, and 4.2%, respectively). The interest-ing issue here is the fact that Greece isthe only EU country having one dominantimmigrant group in excessof 50% of its immi-grant population (Baldwin-Edwards, 2004).Regarding the immigrants’ main occupation,the principal employment has been in build-ing construction (around 70%), followedby agriculture (11%), industry (8%), andtourism (5%) (Baldwin-Edwards, 2004).The mean percentage of immigrant unem-ployment is lower than that of the mean ofthe country (9.2% vs. 11.0%). Illegal immi-grants are not included in these figures.
An additional issue is the phenomenon ofrepatriates. This illustrates that some immi-grant groups may be considered as advan-taged compared to others. Certain laws(1990: 2130, 2000: 2790, and 2000: 4864/8/8c) reinforce the concept of ‘‘repatriatedGreeks’’ by establishing rapid proceduresfor granting Greek citizenship and favor-able benefits to claimants from regions ofthe former Ottoman Empire and Common-wealth of Independent States (CIS, formerlythe USSR). Additionally, Greek Cypriots areconsidered an advantaged minority groupprimarily because of their privileged status.
India. As per the census of 2001, the pop-ulation of India is 1,028 million, and the totalworkforce of India is estimated to be about397 million. Though it is 16.7% of theworld’s total population, India is only 2.4%of the total geographical area of the earth(National Informatics Centre, India, 2005).There are six main religious groups in India.Although Hindus constitute around 83% ofthe population, Muslims constitute about13% Christians about 2.5%; and the restare Jains, Sikhs, Buddhists, and others. The
International perspectives 213
majority of Hindus are further divided intocastes, which are arranged in a socioreli-gious hierarchy. A caste is defined as ‘‘anendogamous and hereditary subdivision ofan ethnic unit occupying a position of supe-rior or inferior rank or social esteem in com-parison with other such sub divisions’’(Kroeber, 1937). The Brahmins are consid-ered to occupy the top place in the hierarchy,and the scheduled castes and scheduledtribes castes are given special protectionsand are eligible for affirmative action mea-sures by the Indian Constitution because oftheir historical exclusion from Hindu societywhere they were considered outcasts andallowed virtually no socioeconomic, educa-tional, or upward mobility opportunities, thebottom of the hierarchy. There are 2,399identified castes among the Hindus, of whichabout 66% are considered to be socially andeconomically backward (National Commis-sion for Backward Classes, 2005). The Indianconstitution defines backward classes asthose who have ideas of ceremonial purity,restrictions on intercaste marriage, tabooson food and drink, and social segregation.
Although 56.6% of the total employees inthe central government services are from for-ward castes, 19.0% are from backward clas-ses and 24.4% from scheduled caste/tribes(Government of India, 1980). As per the pol-icy of the Government of India, reservationfor scheduled castes/scheduled tribes indirect recruitment was provided in thefollowing percentages: scheduled castes,15%; scheduled tribes, 7.5%; and otherbackward classes, 27%. Muslims are alsoconsidered to be a disadvantaged minorityin India and are underrepresented in variousemployment sectors.
Israel. Israel is a multicultural societypopulated by three primary ethnic groups,namely, Hebrew-speaking Jews (76% ofthe population, the ‘‘majority group’’),Arabic-speaking Palestinians (22% of thepopulation), and Druze (2% of the popula-tion) (Central Bureau of Statistics [CBS],Israel, 2006). The Jews are themselves a mul-ticultural group as they are all immigrants ordecedents of immigrants from more than
100 countries of the Jewish Diaspora. Nearly20% of the Jewish population are recentimmigrants from the former Soviet Union,and 31% are immigrants or decedents ofimmigrants from Asian and African countries(e.g., Iraq, Iran, Morocco, Ethiopia, i.e.,‘‘Sephardic’’ Jews) (Leshem, 2004). Similarly,although most Palestinians are Muslim,approximately 10% are Christian (i.e.,Orthodox or Catholic).
Although the representation of Jews andArabs in the working-age population paral-lels their proportionate representation in thepopulation overall, because of low femaleArab labor force participation (LFP) ratesthe relative proportion of Jews in the work-force is greater than that of Jews in the work-ing-age population (86% for proportion ofJews in the workforce vs. 81% for proportionof Jews in working-age population). Specifi-cally, LFP rates are 60% for Jewish males and51% for Jewish females, the latter havingincreased from just under 30% in 1970(CBS, Israel, 2006). In contrast, the LFP ratesfor Palestinians are 65% for males and 22%for females (Pines, 2003). Three groups aretypically considered disadvantaged in thelabor market, namely, Palestinian Arabs,Sephardic Jews, and females. With the ma-jority of Palestinian Arabs continuing to beemployed primarily in blue-collar jobs,such as construction and manufacturing(Blumen, 2007), the pay of male salariedemployees continues to be over 20% higherthan that of females on average (Israel Min-istry of Industry and Trade, 2007) and higherunemployment rates for females and Arabsrelative to male Jews (9.5% and 12.8% vs.8.3%, respectively); concerns regardingemployment and income disparities remainmajor issues in the Israeli political landscape.
Italy. The phenomenon of immigrationinto Italy began relatively recently, after theoil crisis of 1973–1984 when England,Germany, and especially the neighboringcountry of France closed their frontiers toimmigration. This resulted in migratory flowsbeing partly ‘‘diverted’’ toward southernEurope, with Italy functioning as a transitcountry for other destinations for a number
214 B. Myors et al.
of years. Immigration into Italy continuedslowly during the 1960s–1970s with peoplecoming primarily from poor African coun-tries, looking for better working conditions.During the 1990s, a big wave of immigrants(most of them clandestine) coming fromex-Yugoslavia countries and Albania tookplace. Most of these people left their home-lands because of the military conflict, look-ing fora better life, andoverall stable workingconditions. So, the causes of immigration intoItaly are poverty, war, underdevelopment,and the availability of natural resources.
Immigrants from different countries makeup 7% of the population: 13.7% of immi-grants are from Albania, 13% from Rumania,12.2% from Morocco, 5.4% from Ukraine,and 5% from China (Bonifazi, 2007). Glob-ally, in Italy, the distribution of the immigrantpopulation that was working in 2005 wasaround 87.2% compared with 73.7% ofworking Italians. The same was true forwomen but at a lower level: 58.1% ofwomen immigrants and 50% of Italiannative women were employed. In Italy,immigrants generally do hard, badly paidjobs, which are rejected by the local popu-lation, such as working in marble quarries,building trades, tanneries, dock workers,and agricultural jobs such as grape harvest-ing and picking vegetables and fruits.
Japan. Of the total population, 98.4% arepure Japanese who speak Japanese as theirfirst language (technically the figure includesall naturalized people regardless of race),and the rest (1.6%) are foreign residents(Immigration Bureau, Japan, 2006). Northand South Koreans account for 28.7% ofJapan’s resident aliens, followed by Chinese(26.9%), Brazilians (15.0%), and Filipinos(9.3%). The number of foreign workersaccounts for 1.3% of Japan’s total workforce.North and South Korean account for 28.9%of the total foreign workers, followed byChinese (23.6%), Brazilians (18.1%), andFilipinos (8.2%) (Statistics Bureau, Japan,2006). Those foreign residents are consideredto be the disadvantaged minority in Japan.
As an island nation, the Japanese popula-tion has been ethnically homogeneous for
a long period of time. During the Japaneseoccupation of Korea from 1910 to 1945,many Koreans migrated or were forced tomigrate to Japan for work, and those whoremained to stay without being naturalizedafter the end of World War II became the larg-est foreign population group in Japan. Inrecent years, there has been an influx ofpeople from other Asian countries such asChina and the Philippines, and the numberof Central and South Americans of Japanesedescent who have immigrated to Japan withtheir families to work is also on the rise (JapanInstitute of Labor Policy and Training, 2007).
Kenya. Kenya has enjoyed relative polit-ical stability since it obtained independencefrom British rule in 1963. It is home toa diverse group of people from different lan-guage groups and ethnic backgrounds.Native Kenyans belong to more than 40 dis-tinct language groups, commonly referred toas tribes. The three largest tribal groups(Kikuyu, Luhyia, and Luo) make up approx-imately 46% of Kenya’s population. Othernative Kenyan tribes make up approximately51.5% of the population, whereas Kenyansof European and Asian origin make up about1.5% of Kenya’s population (Kenya NationalBureau of Statistics, 2003). Kenya’s popula-tion is distributed (albeit unevenly) amongeight provinces. The Rift Valley is the mostpopulous province, with a population ofmore than 7 million, whereas North Easternprovince is the least populated, with a pop-ulation of just below 1 million. With theexception of Nairobi province, which hoststhe nation’s capital, individual tribal groupstend to live within the same geographic area.
Kenya has serious problems with regardto resource distribution among its provincesand communities. Most of the extremelypoor people are to be found in northernand western Kenya, whereas the least poorare in Central, Rift Valley, and Nairobi prov-inces. North Eastern province and parts ofNyanza, Western, Coast, and Eastern prov-inces have much lower indicators of mortal-ity, health facilities, safe water, sanitation,communication, and transportation in com-parison to the rest of the country. This is in
International perspectives 215
large part a result of colonial and post-colonial policy biases that saw areas withabundant natural resources draw greatereconomic investment than others. Someprovinces are also disadvantaged by harshenvironmental conditions. Feelings of dis-crimination and social disadvantage are alsocommon among ethnic and religious groupsthat are not well represented in the politicalsphere (e.g., Muslims and Kenyans of Asianorigin). For Kenyan Muslims, their feelings ofdiscrimination are compounded by the factthat the majority of the residents in theeconomically disadvantaged North Easternprovince are Muslim.
Korea. Korean society is a representativeone that is dominated by a single racial/eth-nic group (called Han-Gook-In). Althoughthere are some other ethnic groups, the pro-portion is so small that they are not classifiedin the Population Census conducted every 5years. A phrase of ‘‘a nation composed ofa single ethnic group’’ (called Dan-Il Min-Jok-Goog-Ga) has played a significant rolein strengthening the solidarity and unityamong Korean people.
However, since 1990, inflows of foreignworkers have been gradually increasingmainly because of the lack of laborers insecond-tier labor markets. In 2005, foreignworkers including illegal residents wereestimated to be about 0.8% of the work-force. In addition, people who get marriedto foreign partners are gradually increasing.In 2005, 13.6% of newly formed familiesare multicultural and 0.4% of total familiesare multicultural (Korea National StatisticsOffice, 2006).
Netherlands. Of the total population,80.7% was made up of people from Dutchorigin, 8.7% of immigrants from other West-ern countries (Europe, North America, Oce-ania, Japan), and 10.5% of immigrants fromnon-Western countries (Africa, Turkey, Asia,Latin America). Usually, the Dutch arereferred to as the advantaged majority groupand the non-Western immigrants as the dis-advantaged minority group. The biggestminority subgroups are Turkish (2.2%),
Moroccan (2.0%), Surinamese (2.0%), andAntillean/Aruban (0.8%).
Immigrants, particularly from Turkey andMorocco, were encouraged to enter theDutch labor market during the 1960s and1970s, largely to fill blue-collar and manualjob vacancies at the same time. The immi-gration from the former Dutch colonies, Sur-inam and the Antilles/Aruba, started at aboutthe same. At first, this group consisted ofhighly educated people who came to theNetherlands for advanced education andwork in administration and health care.Later on, this changed with an increasingproportion of predominantly low-educatedpeople entering the Netherlands for blue-collar work (Tesser, Merens, & van Praag,1999). Since then, second and third genera-tions of these minority groups have becomemore prominent, especially in the large cit-ies such as Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and DenHaag. For instance, in the city of Amster-dam, 66% of the pupils in primary schoolsare of non-Western origin (Dienst Onder-zoek en Statistiek Gemeente Amsterdam,2007).
The distribution of working-age popula-tion (15–64 years) is roughly the same asthe total population, although the portionof especially the Turkish and Moroccansubgroups is somewhat lower because oflower participation of women and a higherproportion of children (CBS Statline, 2007).
New Zealand. Of the total population,62.4% are of European origin (includesthose born in New Zealand or abroad),13.5% Maori, 6.4% Pacific Peoples, 8.5%Asian, and 0.8% people from the MiddleEast, Latin America, or Africa. Usually, theEuropeans are referred to as the majoritygroup and the rest as minority groups. TheLFP rate in New Zealand has been climbingsteadily. In 2006, it was at 68.1% (75.2%males and 61.3% females). The overallunemployment rate was 3.7% in 2006. Euro-pean subgroup had the lowest unemploy-ment rate of 2.6%, followed by PacificPeoples and Asians (6.4% each), and Maori(8.6%). Although there are still some appre-ciable ethnic differences in unemployment
216 B. Myors et al.
rates, this gap has declined dramatically inthe past 10 years. Prior to 1840, New Zea-land’s economy and society were effectivelycontrolled by its indigenous people, Maori,who were of Polynesian decent and settledthe country between 950 and 1130 AD. Yet,the influx of mainly British immigrants hascreated a necessity for more formal govern-ment structures than traditional tribal laws tooversee the British populated areas of NewZealand. Great Britain prepared a treaty withMaori granting them the same rights as thoseof all British subjects in exchange for themaccepting the sovereignty of the Queen.Maori would also retain possession of theirlands and fishing areas, whereas the newColonial government would have a preemp-tive right to purchase land. This treaty, knownas Treatyof Waitangi, was signed on February6, 1840, by a large proportion of Maorichiefs. Initially, very limited legal weighthas been given to the Treaty, so Maori, beingBritish subjects, received no preferentialtreatment under the law. However, in recentyears, there has been greater recognition ofthe legal status of the Treaty, such that theParliament, for example, is now required toensure that the proposed bills are consistentwith the principles of the Treaty (e.g., consultMaori groups on decisions that may affectthem, protect Maori interests, and redresspast injustices). Maori and Pacific Peoples(recent immigrants from the Pacific Islandsof Tonga, Samoa, etc.) are underrepresentedon income and higher education statisticswhile overrepresented on crime, poor health,and employment benefits statistics. On theother hand, the Asian subgroup generallyperforms as well or better than the Europeangroup and, thus, is not commonly viewed asdisadvantaged. The data for the Middle East/Latin America/Africa subgroup are currentlytoo small to draw meaningful conclusions.
South Africa. The Employment Equity Act(EEA) in South Africa classifies the South Afri-can population into two ethnic groups–Blackand White. The Black group is then furthersubdivided into African, colored, and Indian.Africans are in the majority (79.5%), thenWhites (9.2%), colored (8.9%), and Indian
(2.5%). With regard to migration data, the2006 mid-year population estimates for SouthAfrica estimates that the large out-migrationof Whites will decline over time and theimmigration of Africans will continue.
South Africa has a long history of segrega-tion and apartheid between the differentracial groups. Blacks were forced to go to‘‘Bantu’’ schools where the educational levelwas very poor and the White governmentreserved skilled work for the Whites. Thepolicy of the Black schools was aimed todirect the Black youth to the unskilled labormarket (Rebirth, 2000). The Whites wereand still are referred to as the advantagedminority and the Blacks (African, colored,and Indian) as the disadvantaged majority.The census of 2001 shows that the largestgroup of African (36.3%) and colored(34.3%) workers was employed in elemen-tary occupations, whereas the largest groupsof White (52.6%) and Indian (38.6%) work-ers were employed in managerial positions.
The first democratic election in SouthAfrica was held in 1994 where the AfricanNational Congress and Black people emergedwith a majority victory. They embarked ona program to promote reconstruction anddevelopment for the previously disadvan-taged and attempted to integrate SouthAfrica into a rapidly changing global envi-ronment (SouthAfricaCelebratingDiversity,2007). Affirmative action, a social policythat is aimed at reducing the effects of racialdiscrimination, was introduced into thelabor market to redress the mistakes of thepast. The EEA (55 of 1998) enforces affirma-tive action and states that every employermust implement affirmation action meas-ures to achieve equity in the workplace.The quota interpretation of affirmativeaction is in the order of the day and meansthat organizations will employ certain pre-determined percentages of employees fromthe previously disadvantaged groups, withina specific time frame (Muchinsky, Kriek, &Schreuder, 2003).
Spain. The total Spanish population in2006 was 90.8% Spaniards and 9.3% immi-grants. These immigrants come from Latin
International perspectives 217
America (38.9%), EU (21.9%), Europe non-EU(16.8%), Africa (19.1%), and Asia (5.1%).The biggest immigrant subgroups are Moroc-can (12.51%), Ecuadorian (10.88%), Ruma-nian (9.6%), Colombian (6.4%), Argentinean(4.6%), Bolivian (3.34%), Chinese (2.4%),and Peruvian (2.3%). It is important to noticehere that two important immigrant sub-groups (British and German) are mostlyretired older people who are living in theMediterranean coast and the Canary Island.The number of immigrants increased byabout 50% between 2003 and 2006, notonly because of new immigrants but alsobecause of processes opened by the Spanishgovernment by which illegal immigrants canobtain permission for residence. The distri-bution in the working-age population (16–64 years) is roughly the same as the totalpopulation. The unemployment rate for themajority group was 8.55% compared with12.80% for the immigrant group. The major-ity of the unemployed immigrants are non-EU citizens (12.7% vs. 0.1%).
Switzerland. Foreigners represent 21.9%of the overall population and 25.3% of theworking-age population in Switzerland(Federal Statistical Office, 2006a). Nearlya quarter of all foreigners (23.3%) were bornin Switzerland. The four largest immigrantgroups are people from ex-Yugoslavia, Ital-ians, Portuguese, and Germans. The firstgroup has come to Switzerland compara-tively recently (mainly in the 1990s) andprobably faces the most discrimination(e.g., Krings & Olivares, 2007). Of furthernote are the extensive naturalizationrequirements and procedures. Conse-quently, compared to other European coun-tries, Switzerland shows one of the lowestnaturalization rates (2.5 per 100 foreignersliving in Switzerland; Federal StatisticalOffice, Switzerland, 2006a).
Onaverage, the non-Swiss showa consid-erably higher unemployment rate (6.4%)than the Swiss (2.8%) and have jobs thatrequire less qualification compared to jobsheld by the Swiss (Federal Statistical Office,Switzerland, 2006a). However, these state-ments must be qualified by taking into
account the countries of origin of theseimmigrants. Whereas 47% of immigrantscoming from northern or western Europework in academic jobs or at a manageriallevel, only 5% of immigrants from ex-Yugo-slavia (and 25% of the Swiss) hold such posi-tions. Similarly, unemployment is muchmore common among immigrants from ex-Yugoslavia than among immigrants fromnorthern or western Europe (Federal Statisti-cal Office, Switzerland, 2006a).
According to its Federal constitution,Switzerland has four national languages:German, French, Italian, and Rhaeto-Romanic. They are not equally distributedacross the country but make up four lan-guage areas, each of which has its own pre-dominant language. The majority of theSwiss population is German speaking(63.7%), followed by the French- andItalian-speaking Swiss (20.4% and 6.4%,respectively; Federal Statistical Office, Swit-zerland, 2006b). The minority group ofRhaeto-Romanic speakers constitutes nomore than 0.5% of the Swiss population,far less even than is accounted for by othernonnational languages (9.0%). With regardto the languages used in work settings, eachof the four languages is used as a main worklanguage in their respective language areas.There is, however, a high rate of bilingualismin the Rhaeto-Romanic area (German andRhaeto-Romanic), whereas the other lan-guage areas show a much more limited useof other national languages (Ludi & Werlen,2005). Differences can further be foundregarding unemployment rates, with figuresbeing comparatively high for French- andItalian-speaking Swiss (Federal StatisticalOffice, Switzerland, 2006b).
Taiwan. The population of Taiwan ismade up of racial subgroups of Waisheng-ren, Hoklo, Hokka, and the Taiwaneseaborigines. Among these subgroups, theaborigines, who are the indigenous peoplesin Taiwan, are considered the disadvantagedminority. However, people among the restare treated equally, and thus, no majoradvantaged majority exists among them. As
218 B. Myors et al.
such, hereafter, the aborigines are referred toas the minority and the rest the majority.
The Taiwanese aborigines are believed tohave lived on the islands for approximately8,000 years before Han Chinese immigra-tion occurred in the 1600s (Blust, 1999).They are Austronesian peoples who weretraditionally distributed over the island’scentral mountains. Today, the majority ofthe Taiwanese aborigines reside in themountains and the cities. The aborigineshave been experiencing social and eco-nomic difficulties including a low educationlevel and high unemployment rate sincethe immigration. They have been activelyseeking promotion of their economic devel-opment. In 1996, a central government orga-nization, the Council of Indigenous Peoples,was established to carry out coordinationand planning of indigenous affairs.
In 2005, 2% of the population wasmade up of the aborigines (Department ofHousehold Registration Affairs, 2005). Thepercentage of the aborigines in the work-ing-age population (2%) and the workforce(2.1%) was generally the same (Council ofIndigenous Peoples, 2005; Directorate-Gen-eral of Budget, Accounting and Statistics,2005b). In terms of the occupations held,in 2002, the majority of the aborigines wereagricultural, animal husbandry, forestry, andfishing workers (18.37%); technicians andassociate professionals (18.36%); serviceworkers and shop and market sales workers(15.98%); and production, machine opera-tors, and related workers (14.77%) (Councilof Indigenous Peoples, 2002). In 2005, theaverage monthly wage in general was35,275 New Taiwan Dollars (TWD; approx-imately 1,074 USD) and that for the aborig-ines was 31,000 TWD (approximately 944USD) (Council of Indigenous Peoples, 2005;Directorate-General of Budget, Accountingand Statistics, 2005a). The general unem-ployment rate was 4.1% and that for the abo-rigines was 4.3% (Council of IndigenousPeoples, 2005).
Turkey. In Turkey, the exact number of eth-nic and religious populations is not knownbecause of government policy and practices
emphasizing an overarching secular Turkishidentity for all citizens of the republic (infor-mation on ethnic identity is not requested inthe census). According to independent esti-mates, 85.7% of Turkish population is Turkish,the remaining includes Kurdish (11%),Arabic (1.5%), and other (Armenian, Greek,Jewish; 1.8%). There are also religious sub-groups in the country. The majority of thepopulation is Sunnı Muslim (80%). The restis Alevi (nonorthodox Shı’ı Muslim sect,20%) and Christian and Jewish (0.3%).
There is no generally accepted informa-tion regarding unemployment levels ofspecific ethnic and religious groups. Unem-ployment levels in the east and southeastregions (higher representation of Kurdish mi-nority) of the country are chronically higher(30%) than average unemployment rates(9.9% in 2006) (ATO Report, 2006), thoughthis is largely considered to be an outcome oflack of industrial infrastructureand poor inte-gration of the agricultural economy of theregion with the national economy.
Generally, Turkish and Sunnı majority areviewed as the advantaged majority, whereasall the others are considered ‘‘disadvantagedminorities’’ especially when it comes togovernmental practices. Although there ismuch circumstantial evidence (e.g., mediareports) of individuals from these groupsbeing subjected to various forms of discri-mination (legal, educational, employment),there is no available research on the matter.We believe that a reason for this could bethe sensitivity of the issue for both the stateand the people.
United Kingdom. In the 2001 census,7.9% of the U.K. population describedthemselves as belonging to an ethnic minor-ity. The principal minorities distinguishedby the census are the following: Indian(1.78%), Pakistani (1.26%), Black Caribbean(0.95%), Black African (0.82%), Bangladeshi(0.48%), and Chinese (0.41%). A consider-able proportion of minority persons fall intoless clearly defined census categories: ‘‘otherAsian,’’ ‘‘Black other,’’ ‘‘mixed,’’ or ‘‘otherethnicity,’’ totaling 2.1%. (‘‘Asian’’ in Britishusage means Indian subcontinent and
International perspectives 219
possibly Thailand, Malaysia, etc., but notChina and Japan.) Minority persons are notequally distributed through the country buttend to concentrate in certain large cities.
The non-White population of the UnitedKingdom has for the most part migrated tothe United Kingdom since 1945, exercisingthe right of Commonwealth citizens to settlein the United Kingdom. This right wasrestricted in the early 1970s, reducing theflow of immigration. It follows that a highproportion of U.K. ethnic minority personswere born in the United Kingdom. Sinceabout 1990, a number of asylum seekersfrom various countries have settled in theUnited Kingdom. Since May 2004, citizensof former communist countries that havejoined the EU have the right to live and workin the United Kingdom; it is estimated that atleast 0.5 million have come. Citizens of theIrish Republic have had the right to live andwork in the United Kingdom for many yearsand have encountered some discriminationin employment in the past.
United States. The U.S. working-age pop-ulation is 74% White, 11% Hispanic/Latino,11% Black/African American, 4% AsianAmerican, and less than 1% Native Ameri-can. The percent distribution among those inthe workforce is roughly the same (78%,12%,8%, 4%, and less than 1%, respectively).Thus, the White group is the majority groupand Black/African Americans, Hispanic/Latinos, and Native Americans are the disad-vantagedminorities. However, becauseof, onaverage, their relative high achievement oneducational measures and successful entryinto many professional and managerial fields,Asian Americans tend not to be considereda disadvantaged minority group.
The Black/African American group con-sists in substantial part of descendants ofAfricans brought to North America as slaves.This continued until the end of the U.S. CivilWar of 1861–1865, of which one outcomewas the abolition of slavery. Racial segrega-tion continued in parts of the country wellinto the 20th century with the courts uphold-ing such standards as ‘‘separate but equal’’until the middle of the 20th century. Issues
of income disparities and discrimination ineducation, housing, employment, and rep-arations remain major issues in the U.S.political landscape.
The Hispanic–American label describesa variety of cultures (e.g., Mexicans, PuertoRicans, Cubans, South Americans, CentralAmericans). Although a portion of His-panic/Latinos residing in the United Statesmay represent new immigrants from theirhome countries, many Hispanic/Latino indi-viduals are and have been U.S. residents andcitizens. It is difficult to attempt to character-ize the history of the Hispanic/Latinos asa group in the United States because ofdiverse experiences, multiple waves of entry,and large variations in educational levelsand socioeconomic status. It is projectedthat of all the minority groups, the His-panic/Latino group will have the largestnumerical increase (67 million or 187% in-crease) by 2050 in the United States (U.S.Census Bureau, 2004).
Native Americans/Alaskan natives areconsidered the indigenous peoples of theAmericas and are members or descendentsof a number of culturally (and often linguisti-cally) distinct tribes. Issues of poverty, unem-ployment, low educational attainment, andhealth and mental health issues continue toplague Native Americans/Alaskan Natives,particularly those who live on reservations.
Summary. As Table 1 and the above-mentioned text indicate, the disadvantagedgroups differ on a number of dimensions.First, the basis for disadvantaged status varies:(a) native/aboriginal people in a setting wherecolonizers became the majority group (e.g.,United States, Australia, Canada), (b) recentimmigrants (e.g., many European countries),(c) racial groups either native to or with longhistories in the country (e.g., United States,South Africa), (d) religious groups (e.g.,India), and (e) language groups (e.g., Can-ada, Switzerland). Second, the size of theminority population varies, from avery smallpercentage of the population in some coun-tries to the South African extreme of a previ-ously disadvantaged Black majority. Thesefindings illustrate that there is considerable
220 B. Myors et al.
variability from country to country in whatconstitutes a disadvantaged group.
Question 2
Is there research documenting mean dif-ferences between groups identified aboveon individual difference measures rele-vant to job performance?
Mean differences on ability and personalitymeasures are commonly examined in theUnited States, with enough data for large-scale, meta-analytic summaries. Mean dif-ferences on tests of developed abilities ofroughly 1 SD between Whites and AfricanAmericans and roughly 0.67 SD betweenWhites and Hispanics have been consis-tently reported. The largest scale summaryof this literature is a meta-analysis by Roth,Bevier, Bobko, Switzer, and Tyler (2001). Re-garding the African American–White meandifference, they report large-scale, meta-analytic mean d values of 0.99 for the SAT,1.02 for the ACT, 1.34 for the GraduateRecord Examination (GRE), 0.99 for employ-ment tests of general ability, and 1.10 formilitary tests of general ability. Regarding theHispanic-White mean difference, they reportmeta-analytic mean d values of 0.77 for theSAT, 0.56 for the ACT, 0.72 for the GRE, 0.58for employment tests of general ability, and0.85 for military tests of general ability.
This abundance of data proves to be inmarked contrast to the pattern of findings inthe countries examined here. In fact, for themajority of countries, the authors reportedfinding either no research or research withsamples so small that they refrained fromdrawing conclusions (Chile, France, Greece,Italy, Japan, Korea, Spain, Switzerland, Tur-key, and the United Kingdom). Althoughlimited, there are some data on group differ-ences in some countries.
There are some data reporting lowercognitive ability scores for Australian aborig-ines, but there is great concern that differen-ces may reflect language and culture. Theofficial position of the Australian Psycholog-ical Society (APS) is that ‘‘there are currentlyno known formal psychological tests thathave been developed specifically for use
with indigenous people and that providecurrent-day norms and measurement statis-tics for indigenous test-takers’’ (APS, 2003,p. 7). The APS advises that any research usingindigenous participants must be conductedwith great cultural sensitivity and in closepartnership with them.
Data from Taiwan also show a similartrend, with aborigines scoring lower thannon-aborigines on a number of cognitiveability tests. Data from the United Arrange-ment Commission for college entranceexaminations in Taiwan in 2006 show differ-ences on Chinese Language and Literature(d ¼ 0.63), English (d ¼ 0.48), mathematics(d¼0.66), history (d¼0.48), geography (d¼0.44), physics (d ¼ 0.45), chemistry (d ¼0.58), and biology (d ¼ 20.48). However,to the extent that Taiwanese aborigines aretypically underrepresented in higher educa-tion and have a lower level of educationalattainment (Council of Indigenous Peoples,2002), the cognitive ability differencesreported here may not accurately estimatedifferences in the populations.
Cognitive ability mean score differenceshave been reported of d ¼ 1.39 betweenTurkish/Moroccan immigrants and Dutchtest takers, and d ¼ 1.08 between Surinam-ese/Antillean and Dutch test takers, in bothcases favoring the majority group (te Nijen-huis, de Jong, Evers, & van der Flier, 2004).Language differences appear to contribute tothese findings, as higher scores are found forsecond-generation immigrants than for first-generation immigrants. Studies in Belgiumalso report mean differences of about 1 SDon cognitive tests between Belgians andTurkish and Moroccan immigrants in sam-ples of children (Fontaine, Schittekatte,Groenvynck, & De Clercq, 2006).
In South Africa, mean score differenceson cognitive tests between Black and Whitegroups are normally found to be larger thanU.S. studies and is around d ¼ 1.00 to 1.50where the Whites obtain the higher meanscores. In a study performed in a South Afri-can financial services organization, d¼ 0.99for a verbal ability, d ¼ 1.03 for a numericalability, and d¼ 1.14 for a diagrammatic abil-ity test were found (see V036 on SHL’s Web
International perspectives 221
site; SHL, 2006). In South Africa, these differ-ences are largely ascribed to the differencesin the educational level of the racial groups.In the 2001 census, it was determined that22.3% of Africans, 8.3% coloreds, 5.3%Indians, and 1.4% Whites had no schooling.
Limited data report lower scores for Arabsthan for Jews in Israel (Zeidner, 1986), forCanadian aboriginals than for Whites, forNew Zealand Maori than for Whites (Cher-nyshenko, 2005; Guenole, Englert, & Taylor,2003), and differences between individualsin various provinces in Kenya (Kinyungu,2006). Data on personality measures areeven more limited than for cognitive ability,with authors reporting personality data fromonly two countries: a large-scale study ofBlack–White differences in South Africa(Kriek, 2006), showing small differences,and several studies of Dutch-immigrant dif-ferences in the Netherlands, showing muchlarger differences (te Nijenhuis, van der Flier,&vanLeeuwen,1997,2003;vanLeest, 1997).
Overall, several findings of interestemerge. First, it is clear that gathering dataand reporting mean differences by group aregenerally far more common in the UnitedStates than in virtually all the countries con-tributing to this report. This is likely the resultof the legal scrutiny to which tests are held inthe United States. The Uniform Guidelineson Employee Selection Procedures useadverse impact computations as the basisfor a prima facie case of discrimination,and thus, adverse impact resulting from testuse is routinely examined, with mean differ-ences between groups and the method of testuse (e.g., a high or a low cutoff) functioningas key determinants of adverse impact. Sec-ond, even though data tend to be moresparse than in the United States, group differ-ences are studied and observed in avariety ofsettings involving a variety of different typesof disadvantaged groups (e.g., immigrantgroups in Belgium and the Netherlands;native peoples in Australia, New Zealand,and Canada; tribal and provincial differen-ces in Kenya; the native Black population inSouth Africa; Arab groups in Israel). Third, asin the United States, there is interest not onlyin whether there are group differences but
also in understanding the basis for these dif-ferences. Language, culture, and differencesin educational access and attainment areseen as key concerns in understanding differ-ences in test scores across groups.
In the United States, disparate impact isthe basis for a prima facie case of discrimi-nation. The implicit assumption is that vari-ous groups are expected to obtain similarmean scores absent bias in the measure.Our data suggest that many European coun-tries target certain groups as immigrants tomeet specific labor shortages. Thus, immi-grants might have higher or lower abilities,depending on whether a country tried toattract high-skilled people (e.g., recentimmigrants into Switzerland from northernand western Europe) or tried to attract peoplewith low skills (e.g., Turkish immigrants toGermany). In other words, even if one has ageneral expectation of no group differencesat the population level, a finding of differen-ces between locals and immigrants would beexpected, given this targeted immigration.
Question 3
Are there laws prohibiting discriminationagainst specific groups and/or mandatingfair treatment of such groups? Whichgroups are protected? Which employersare covered? Which employment practi-ces are covered (e.g., selection, promo-tion, dismissal)?
Table 2 presents summary informationaddressing the above-mentioned questionsfor each country. A number of findingsemerge. First, there is some basis for legalprotections for members of specified groupsin all countries. The bases for these protec-tions vary widely. In many cases, thenational constitution provides general, or attimes specific, protections. This may be seenas analogous to the 5th and 14th amend-ments to the United States Constitution,which, respectively, state that ‘‘no personshall . be deprived of life, liberty, or prop-erty without due process of law,’’ and that‘‘no state shall . deny to any person withinits protection the equal protection of thelaws.’’ In virtually all cases, however, there
222 B. Myors et al.
Tab
le2.International
Lawsan
dPractices
Countr
yLa
wEm
plo
yers
cove
red
Emplo
ymen
tpra
ctic
esco
vere
d
Aust
rali
aThe
Cri
mes
Act
1914
All
emplo
yers
.EO
WW
of
1999
refe
rsto
org
aniz
atio
ns
of
1001
.
All
stag
esof
the
emplo
ymen
tre
lati
onsh
ipin
cludin
gbut
not
lim
ited
tore
cruit
men
t,se
lect
ion,
term
inat
ion,
trai
nin
g,an
dpro
moti
on.
Rac
ial
Dis
crim
inat
ion
Act
1975
Sex
Dis
crim
inat
ion
Act
1984
Hum
anR
ights
and
Equal
Opport
unity
Com
mis
sion
Act
1986
Dis
abil
ity
Dis
crim
inat
ion
Act
1992
Work
pla
ceR
elat
ions
Act
1996
Equal
Opport
unit
yfo
rW
om
enin
the
Work
pla
ceA
ct1999
Age
Dis
crim
inat
ion
Act
2004
Bel
gium
Bel
gian
Const
ituti
on
of
1994,
Art
icle
10,
11,
191
All
emplo
yers
.M
ost
emplo
ymen
tpra
ctic
esin
cludin
gse
lect
ion
and
appoin
tmen
t,pro
moti
ons,
emplo
ymen
topport
unit
ies,
labor
condit
ions,
dis
mis
sal,
and
wag
es.
Law
Equal
ity
of
Men
-Wom
enof
1978
Anti
dis
crim
inat
ion
Law
of
2003
Can
ada
Can
adia
nH
um
anR
ights
Code
of
1985
Feder
algo
vern
men
tdep
artm
ents
,cr
ow
nco
rpora
tions,
and
oth
erfe
der
ally
regu
late
dag
enci
esan
dorg
aniz
atio
ns.
Most
emplo
ymen
tpra
ctic
esin
cludin
gse
lect
ion,
per
form
ance
appra
isal
,te
rmin
atio
n,
and
com
pen
sati
on.
Sect
ion
15
of
the
Char
ter
of
Rig
hts
and
Free
dom
s(1
982)
Feder
alEm
plo
ymen
tEq
uit
yA
ct(2
004)
Feder
alC
ontr
acto
rsPro
gram
Pay
equit
yle
gisl
atio
n(f
eder
alan
dso
me
pro
vince
s)C
hil
eC
onst
ituti
on,
Chap
ter
3(R
ights
and
Duti
es),
Art
icle
19,
N�
16
(Fre
edom
of
Work
and
Its
Pro
tect
ion)
and
Work
Code,
Art
icle
2�
(2002)
All
emplo
yers
.The
Const
ituti
on
esta
bli
shes
the
gener
alnondis
crim
inat
ion
pri
nci
ple
bas
edon
race
,co
lor,
sex,
age,
mar
ital
stat
us,
unio
nm
ember
ship
stat
us,
reli
gion,
poli
tica
lopin
ions,
nat
ional
ity,
and
nat
ional
or
soci
alori
gin.
Star
ting
on
Mar
ch2008,
anew
law
wil
lta
keef
fect
(Law
#20087).
This
new
law
def
ines
dis
crim
inat
ion
asan
yac
tion
that
isag
ainst
the
equal
opport
unit
yfo
ral
lw
ork
ers.
Anew
regu
lati
on
wil
lsp
ecif
yth
epra
ctic
esth
atar
eco
vere
dby
the
law
.
(continued
)
International perspectives 223
Tab
le2.
(continued
)
Countr
yLa
wEm
plo
yers
cove
red
Emplo
ymen
tpra
ctic
esco
vere
d
Fran
ceFr
ench
Const
ituti
on
of
1958
All
emplo
yers
.M
any
emplo
ymen
tpra
ctic
esin
cludin
gse
lect
ion,
acce
ssto
trai
nin
g,pay
,la
y-off
s,tr
ansf
ers,
and
job
clas
sifi
cati
on.
Inte
rnat
ional
conve
nti
on
of
the
Unit
edN
atio
ns
(1965)
rati
fied
in1971
Inte
rnat
ional
conve
nti
on
of
the
Inte
rnat
ional
Labor
Org
aniz
atio
n(1
958)
ratifi
edin
1981
‘‘The
law
conce
rnin
gth
efi
ght
agai
nst
raci
sm’’
of
1972
‘‘The
law
conce
rnin
gw
ork
er’s
liber
ties
inorg
aniz
atio
ns’’
of
1982
Trea
tyof
Am
ster
dam
of
1997
L.122-4
5fr
om
Labor
Law
225-1
and
225-2
from
the
Pen
alC
ode
Ger
man
yA
llge
mei
nes
Gle
ichbeh
andlu
ngs
gese
tz:
Gen
eral
Equal
Opport
unit
yLa
wA
llem
plo
yers
,ex
cept
tenden
cyorg
aniz
atio
ns
(e.g
.,re
ligi
ous
org
aniz
atio
ns)
.
All
stag
esof
the
emplo
ymen
tre
lati
onsh
ipin
cludin
gpla
cing
ajo
bad
,hir
ing
and
sele
ctio
n,
def
init
ion
of
pay
men
t,per
form
ance
appra
isal
and
pro
moti
on,
job-r
elat
edtr
ainin
gan
djo
bco
unse
ling,
corp
ora
tehea
lth
serv
ices
,des
ign
of
work
ing
condit
ions,
soci
alse
rvic
es,
and
dis
mis
sal.
Gre
ece
Gre
ekLa
w3304
of
2005,
Equal
Trea
tmen
tA
llem
plo
yers
.C
ondit
ions
for
acce
ssto
emplo
ymen
t,to
self
-em
plo
ymen
t,or
toocc
upat
ion,
incl
udin
gse
lect
ion
crit
eria
and
recr
uit
men
tco
ndit
ions,
pro
moti
on,
acce
ssto
all
types
and
toal
lle
vels
of
voca
tional
guid
ance
,vo
cati
onal
trai
nin
g,ad
vance
dvo
cati
onal
trai
nin
gan
dre
trai
nin
g,in
cludin
gpra
ctic
alw
ork
exper
ience
,em
plo
ymen
tan
dw
ork
ing
condit
ions,
dis
mis
sals
,pay
,m
ember
ship
of,
and
invo
lvem
enti
n,a
norg
aniz
atio
nofw
ork
ers
orem
plo
yers
,or
any
org
aniz
atio
nw
hose
mem
ber
sca
rry
on
apar
ticu
lar
pro
fess
ion,
incl
udin
gth
eben
efit
spro
vided
for
by
such
org
aniz
atio
ns,
soci
alpro
tect
ion,
incl
udin
gso
cial
insu
rance
and
sanit
ary
reli
ef,
soci
alpro
visi
ons,
educa
tion,
acce
ssto
dis
posa
lan
dto
pro
visi
on
of
ben
efit
s,w
hic
har
epro
vided
topubli
c,in
cludin
ghousi
ng.
Gre
ekLa
w3488
of
2006,
on
Equal
Trea
tmen
tbet
wee
npeo
ple
inth
ela
bor
mar
ket
(continued
)
224 B. Myors et al.
Tab
le2.
(continued
)
Countr
yLa
wEm
plo
yers
cove
red
Emplo
ymen
tpra
ctic
esco
vere
d
India
India
nC
onst
ituti
on
Gove
rnm
ent
enti
ties
,publi
c-se
ctor
org
aniz
atio
ns,
and
org
aniz
atio
ns
rece
ivin
ggo
vern
men
tfu
ndin
g.
Sele
ctio
n.
Pre
viousl
ypro
moti
on.
Art
icle
15.
Pro
hib
itio
nof
dis
crim
inat
ion
on
grounds
of
reli
gion,
race
,ca
ste,
sex,
or
pla
ceof
bir
thA
rtic
le16.
Equal
ity
of
opport
unit
yin
mat
ters
of
publi
cem
plo
ymen
tA
rtic
le39
Art
icle
46
Art
icle
335
Isra
elB
asic
Law
on
Hum
anD
ignit
yan
dLi
ber
tyC
om
pen
sati
on,
staf
fing,
condit
ions
of
emplo
ymen
t,pro
moti
on,
trai
nin
gan
ddev
elopm
ent,
dis
mis
sal,
seve
rance
pay
,an
dre
tire
men
tben
efit
s.B
asic
Law
on
the
Free
dom
of
Occ
upat
ion
Wom
en’s
Equal
Rig
hts
Law
of
1951
Equal
Pay
Law
of
1996
All
emplo
yers
.Eq
ual
Emplo
ymen
tO
pport
unit
yof
1988
All
emplo
yers
,61
.It
aly
Ital
ian
Const
ituti
on
of
1948,
Art
icle
3A
llem
plo
yers
.R
ecru
itm
ent,
sele
ctio
n,
pro
moti
on,
emplo
ymen
tag
enci
es,
outp
lace
men
tpro
cedure
s,tr
ainin
g,an
dw
ork
ing
condit
ions.
Legi
slat
ive
Dec
ree
216
of
2003
Japan
Labour
Stan
dar
ds
Law
of
1947
All
emplo
yers
.W
ages
,w
ork
ing
hours
,an
doth
erw
ork
ing
condit
ions.
Law
on
Secu
ring
Equal
Opport
unit
yan
dTr
eatm
ent
bet
wee
nM
enan
dW
om
enin
Emplo
ymen
tof
1972
All
emplo
yers
.R
ecru
itm
ent
and
hir
ing,
assi
gnm
ent,
pro
moti
on,
dem
oti
on,
trai
nin
g,fr
inge
ben
efit
s,ch
ange
injo
bty
pe
and
emplo
ymen
tst
atus,
enco
ura
gem
ent
of
reti
rem
ent,
man
dat
ory
reti
rem
ent
age,
dis
mis
sal
and
renew
alof
emplo
ymen
tco
ntr
act.
Law
for
Emplo
ymen
tPro
moti
on,
etc.
,of
the
Dis
able
dof
1960
All
emplo
yers
.R
ecru
itm
ent
and
hir
ing.
Law
Conce
rnin
gSt
abil
izat
ion
of
Emplo
ymen
tof
Old
erPer
sons
of
1971
All
emplo
yers
.M
andat
ory
reti
rem
ent.
Ken
yaK
enya
nC
onst
ituti
on
Chap
ter
5,
Sect
ion
82
HIV
and
AID
SPre
venti
on
and
Contr
ol
Act
14
(continued
)
International perspectives 225
Tab
le2.
(continued
)
Countr
yLa
wEm
plo
yers
cove
red
Emplo
ymen
tpra
ctic
esco
vere
d
The
Per
sons
Wit
hD
isab
ilit
ies
Act
14
of
2003
All
emplo
ymen
tpra
ctic
es.
Kore
aN
atio
nal
Hum
anR
ights
Com
mis
sion
Act
of
2001
Not
spec
ifie
dR
ecru
itm
ent,
hir
ing,
trai
nin
g,pla
cem
ent,
pro
moti
on,
com
pen
sati
on,
loan
s,m
andat
ory
reti
rem
ent
age,
reti
rem
ent,
and
dis
mis
sal.
Equal
Emplo
ymen
tA
ctof
1987
All
emplo
yers
.Em
plo
yers
of
5001
work
ers
for
affi
rmat
ive
acti
on
clau
se.
Rec
ruit
men
t,se
lect
ion,
com
pen
sati
on,
educa
tion
and
trai
nin
g,jo
bpla
cem
ent,
pro
moti
ons,
sett
ing
am
andat
ory
reti
rem
ent
age,
reti
rem
ent,
and
dis
mis
sal.
The
Act
of
Emplo
ymen
tPro
moti
on
and
Voca
tional
Reh
abil
itat
ion
for
the
Dis
able
dof
1990
Emplo
yers
wit
h501
work
ers.
Gove
rnm
ent
emplo
yees
.
Hir
ing,
pro
moti
on,
tran
sfer
,ed
uca
tion,
and
trai
nin
g.
The
Age
dEm
plo
ymen
tPro
moti
on
Act
of
1991
Emplo
yers
wit
h3001
emplo
yers
.R
ecru
itm
ent,
hir
ing,
dis
mis
sal.
The
Bas
icEm
plo
ymen
tPoli
cyA
ctN
ot
spec
ifie
d.
Rec
ruit
men
t,hir
ing.
Net
her
lands
Const
ituti
on,
Art
icle
1of
2003
All
emplo
yers
(bes
ides
reli
gious,
phil
oso
phic
al,
or
poli
tica
lorg
aniz
atio
ns)
.
Rec
ruit
men
t,se
lect
ion,
emplo
ymen
tag
enci
es,
dis
mis
sal,
labor
agre
emen
ts,ed
uca
tion
bef
ore
and
duri
ng
emplo
ymen
t,pro
moti
on,
and
work
ing
condit
ions.
Gen
eral
Law
Equal
Trea
tmen
tof
1994
New
Zea
land
Hum
anR
ights
Act
of
1993
All
emplo
yers
.R
efusa
lof
emplo
ymen
t,le
ssfa
vora
ble
emplo
ymen
t,co
ndit
ions
of
work
,super
annuat
ion,f
ringe
ben
efit
s,tr
ainin
g,pro
moti
on,t
ransf
er,
term
inat
ion,
reti
rem
ent,
and
resi
gnat
ion.
South
Afr
ica
Const
ituti
on
of
the
Rep
ubli
cof
South
Afr
ica
of
1996
All
emplo
yers
exce
pt
the
Nat
ional
Def
ense
Forc
e,N
atio
nal
Inte
llig
ence
Age
ncy
,an
dSo
uth
Afr
ican
Secr
etSe
rvic
e.
Incl
udes
,but
isnot
lim
ited
to,
recr
uit
men
tpro
cedure
s,ad
vert
isin
g,se
lect
ion
crit
eria
,ap
poin
tmen
tan
dap
poin
tmen
tpro
cess
,jo
bcl
assi
fica
tion
and
grad
ing,
rem
uner
atio
n,
emplo
ymen
tben
efit
s,te
rms
and
condit
ions
of
emplo
ymen
t,jo
bas
sign
men
ts,
work
ing
envi
ronm
enta
nd
faci
liti
es,t
rain
ing
and
dev
elopm
ent,
per
form
ance
eval
uat
ion
syst
ems,
pro
moti
on,
tran
sfer
,dem
oti
on,
dis
cipli
nar
ym
easu
reoth
erth
andis
mis
sal,
and
dis
mis
sal.
Labour
Rel
atio
ns
Act
66
of
1995
Emplo
ymen
tEq
uit
yA
ct55
of
1998
(continued
)
226 B. Myors et al.
Tab
le2.
(continued
)
Countr
yLa
wEm
plo
yers
cove
red
Emplo
ymen
tpra
ctic
esco
vere
d
Spai
nSp
anis
hC
onst
ituti
on,
Art
icle
14
of
1978
All
emplo
yers
.R
ecru
itm
ent,
sele
ctio
n,pro
moti
on,co
mpen
sati
on,tr
ainin
g,te
mpora
lem
plo
ymen
tco
mpan
ies,
emplo
ymen
tag
enci
es,
dis
mis
sal,
labor
agre
emen
ts,
coll
ective
bar
gain
ing,
educa
tion
bef
ore
and
duri
ng
emplo
ymen
t,hea
lth
pro
gram
s,an
dw
ork
ing
condit
ions.
Law
of
Work
er’s
Stat
ute
of
1980,
2005,
Art
icle
4.2
y17
Org
anic
Law
for
Effe
ctiv
eEq
ual
ity
bet
wee
nW
om
enan
dM
enof
2007.
Art
icle
1,
3,
4,
5,
6La
wof
Bas
icSt
atute
of
Publi
cEm
plo
yee
of
2005,
Art
icle
14.i
Swit
zerl
and
Bundes
verf
assu
ng
of
1999
(Sw
iss
Feder
alC
onst
ituti
on)
Bundes
gese
tzuber
die
Bes
eiti
gung
von
Ben
achte
ilig
unge
nvo
nM
ensc
hen
mit
Beh
inder
unge
nof
2002
(Fed
eral
Law
forth
eEq
ual
Trea
tmen
tof
Peo
ple
Wit
hD
isab
ilit
ies)
Publi
cem
plo
yers
.In
cludes
pre
emplo
ymen
t(p
arti
cula
rly)
,duri
ng,
and
post
emplo
ymen
tpra
ctic
es.
Bundes
gese
tzuber
die
Gle
ichst
ellu
ng
von
Man
nund
Frau
of
1995
(Fed
eral
Law
for
the
Equal
Trea
tmen
tof
Men
and
Wom
en)
All
emplo
yers
.In
cludes
pre
emplo
ymen
t,duri
ng,
and
post
emplo
ymen
tpra
ctic
es(i
.e.,
recr
uit
men
t,se
xual
har
assm
ent,
earn
ings
,pro
moti
ons)
.
Schw
eize
risc
hes
Ziv
ilge
setz
buch
of
1907
(Sw
iss
Civ
ilC
ode)
Bundes
gese
tzbet
reff
end
die
Erga
nzu
ng
des
Schw
eize
risc
hen
All
emplo
yers
.Pro
tect
ion
of
emplo
yee
per
sonal
ity
and
per
sonal
dat
ath
rough
out
all
stag
esof
the
emplo
ymen
tpro
cess
.
(continued
)
International perspectives 227
Tab
le2.
(continued
)
Countr
yLa
wEm
plo
yers
cove
red
Emplo
ymen
tpra
ctic
esco
vere
d
Taiw
anA
rtic
le5
of
the
Emplo
ymen
tSe
rvic
esA
ctof
1992
All
emplo
yers
.St
affi
ng.
Gen
der
Equal
ity
inEm
plo
ymen
tLa
wof
2002
All
emplo
yers
.R
ecru
itm
ent,
sele
ctio
n,
pro
moti
on,
job
allo
cati
on,
per
form
ance
eval
uat
ion,
pro
moti
on,
trai
nin
g,co
mpen
sati
on,
ben
efit
s,re
tire
men
t,dis
mis
sal,
quit
.Eq
ual
Emplo
ymen
tO
pport
unit
yfo
rA
bori
gines
Act
of
2001
Publi
can
dpri
vate
emplo
yers
who
are
gove
rnm
ent
contr
acto
rsw
ith
dom
esti
cem
plo
yees
of
1001
.
Staf
fing.
Turk
eyR
epubli
cof
Turk
eyC
onst
ituti
on
of
1982,
Art
icle
10,
Art
icle
49,
Art
icle
50,
Art
icle
70
All
emplo
yers
.A
rtic
le70
spec
ific
ally
cove
rsse
lect
ion
for
publi
cin
stit
uti
ons.
Oth
erpra
ctic
esar
eim
pli
citl
yco
vere
din
cludin
gpay
,pro
moti
on
and
dis
mis
sal
inoth
erar
ticl
es.
Labor
Law
,A
rtic
le5
of
2003
All
emplo
yers
(exc
ept
sea
tran
sport
atio
n,
air
tran
sport
,ag
ricu
ltura
lan
dfo
rest
ryw
ith
less
than
50
emplo
yees
,hom
ese
rvic
es,
inte
rnsh
ips,
pro
fess
ional
athle
tes,
rehab
ilit
atio
nw
ork
ers,
busi
nes
ses
wit
hth
ree
work
ers,
han
dm
ade
art
jobs
done
athom
e,jo
urn
alis
ts).
Per
form
ance
appra
isal
,pay
,pro
moti
on,
and
term
inat
ion
pra
ctic
esar
eim
pli
citl
yco
vere
d.
Sele
ctio
nis
not
cove
red
bec
ause
the
law
only
cove
rspri
vate
sect
or
emplo
yees
who
are
alre
ady
emplo
yed.
UN
’sC
onve
nti
on
on
the
Elim
inat
ion
of
All
Sort
sof
Dis
crim
inat
ion
Aga
inst
Wom
enA
rtic
le11
All
emplo
yers
.A
llem
plo
ymen
tpra
ctic
esin
cludin
gse
lect
ion,
pro
moti
on,
term
inat
ion,
pay
,per
form
ance
appra
isal
,ac
cess
totr
ainin
g,an
dtr
eatm
ent
gener
ally
.Pri
me
Min
iste
r’s
Off
ice
Cir
cula
rof
2004
Publi
cem
plo
yers
.Se
lect
ion.
(continued
)
228 B. Myors et al.
Tab
le2.
(continued
)
Countr
yLa
wEm
plo
yers
cove
red
Emplo
ymen
tpra
ctic
esco
vere
d
Unit
edK
ingd
om
Rac
eR
elat
ions
Act
of
1976
All
emplo
yers
,tr
ade
unio
ns
pro
fess
ional
bodie
s,an
dem
plo
ymen
tag
enci
es.
All
emplo
ymen
tpra
ctic
es:
sele
ctio
n,
pro
moti
on,
term
inat
ion,
pay
,per
form
ance
appra
isal
,ac
cess
totr
ainin
g,an
dtr
eatm
ent
gener
ally
.
Sex
Dis
crim
inat
ion
Act
of
1975
All
emplo
yers
,tr
ade
unio
ns
pro
fess
ional
bodie
s,an
dem
plo
ymen
tag
enci
es.
Emplo
ymen
tEq
ual
ity
(Age
)R
egula
tions
2006
All
ages
,yo
ung
and
old
.
Equal
Pay
Act
of
1970
Dis
abil
ity
Dis
crim
inat
ion
Act
1995
Euro
pea
nC
om
munit
yD
irec
tive
sU
nit
edSt
ates
Civ
ilR
ights
Act
of
1964,
Titl
eV
II(a
men
ded
1972,
1991)
All
publi
can
dpri
vate
emplo
yers
wit
h15
or
more
emplo
yees
.
Ran
geof
emplo
ymen
tdec
isio
ns
incl
udin
ghir
ing,
com
pen
sati
on,
term
s,co
ndit
ions,
and
pri
vile
ges
of
emplo
ymen
t.A
geD
iscr
imin
atio
nA
ct(1
967)
Pri
vate
emplo
yers
wit
h20
or
more
emplo
yees
,st
ate
and
loca
lgo
vern
men
ts.
Pro
hib
its
dis
crim
inat
ion
agai
nst
indiv
idual
s40
year
sor
old
er.
Am
eric
ans
Wit
hD
isab
ilit
ies
Act
(AD
A)
of
1990
and
Reh
abil
itat
ion
Act
(RA
)of
1973
AD
Aco
vers
pri
vate
emplo
yers
,st
ate
and
loca
lgo
vern
men
ts;
RA
cove
rsfe
der
algo
vern
men
t.V
irtu
ally
all
emplo
yers
.
Pro
hib
its
dis
crim
inat
ion
agai
nst
indiv
idual
sw
ith
dis
abil
itie
sin
the
full
range
of
emplo
ymen
tdec
isio
ns.
Equal
Pay
Act
(1963)
Pro
hib
its
dis
crim
inat
ion
agai
nst
wom
enin
pay
dec
isio
ns.
Note.EO
WW
¼Eq
ual
Opport
unit
yfo
rW
om
enin
the
Work
pla
ce.
International perspectives 229
are also specific laws defining specified pro-tected classes, specific covered employmentpractices, and specifying which employersare covered. The intent here is to identifythe major contemporary federal laws andgovernment decrees, and as such is nota complete record of all historical employ-ment regulations. For example, in the UnitedStates, a specialist can rightly note that CivilRights Acts of 1866 and 1871 are still reliedupon on occasion, though these are notlisted in the table. Also, a number of statesand cities have additional statutes, offeringprotection to groups beyond those coveredby federal law.
Second, the protections offered are gen-erally quite sweeping in terms of the typesof employers covered. In most cases, allemployers are covered. Some laws are re-stricted to government employees, and insome cases, coverage is restricted to largeremployers, with the coverage thresholdvarying quite widely for some statutes (e.g.,more than 6 employees in Israel, 15 in theUnited States, 100 in Taiwan, 300 in Korea).
Third, it is typical for a broad range ofemployment practices to be included.Employee selection is specifically includedin all countries, except Chile, which has theleast developed set of employment rightsregulations of the countries examined hereand which has yet to specify a set of coveredemployment practices. However, Chile doesprohibit discrimination based on race, color,sex, age, marital status, union membership,status, religion, political opinions, national-ity, and national or social origin in its Con-stitution but does not specify which specificemployment practices are covered.
Fourth, there is both considerable com-monality and considerable variation in theclasses, which receive protection in eachcountry. Table 3 identifies the most commonprotected classes and indicates whetherthose classes are covered in each of the con-tributing countries. The classes covered inU.S. Civil Rights law emerge as widely andcommonly covered across countries: race,color, religion, gender, national origin, age,and disability status. Three categories notprotected by federal statute in the United
States are protected in a majority of coun-tries: political opinion, sexual orientation,and marital/family status. A number of pro-tected classes are covered in only a smallnumber of countries or are unique to a smallnumber of countries; Table 4 identifies theseless common protected classes. Examplesinclude language, physical appearance,union membership, socioeconomic status,and HIV status.
Question 4
What is required as prima facie evidenceof discrimination? What is required torefute a claim of discrimination?
In the vast majority of countries, both direct(e.g., differential treatment) and indirect (e.g.,disparate impact) prima facie evidence ofdiscrimination are acknowledged. In India,disparate impact is necessary but not suffi-cient to prove a case of discrimination; under-representation must be shown to be becauseof historical social or religious discriminationtoward a particular group. Only two coun-tries require evidence of the intent to discrim-inate, Taiwan and Turkey, thus ruling outa disparate impact theory of discrimination.
However, although disparate impact evi-dence can be used as evidence in most coun-tries, highly specific evidentiary rules used inthe United States (e.g., the four-fifth rule andtests of the statistical significance of the dif-ference between passing rates for variousgroups) are generally not in use (Canada isan exception, as cases using the four-fifthrule in the United States have been used tomake a case for a similar standard). Com-mentators note that in most cases, there arefew or no cases involving disparate treat-ment challenges to predictors commonlyused by psychologists, and thus, there isnot the extensive case law that has devel-oped in the United States. Recall that thefour-fifths rule in the United States derivesfrom guidelines issued by enforcementagencies and the use of significance testingderives from case law; neither the concept ofdisparate impact nor the mechanisms foridentifying its presence is contained in stat-ute. Absent a history of challenges resulting
230 B. Myors et al.
in case law, it is not surprising to see the lack
of specificity as to evidentiary standards.A similar lack of specificity applies to the
question of what is required to refute a claim
of discrimination. Table 5 summarizes infor-
mation across countries. In general, there is
some version of the shifting burden of proof
model in countries where disparate impact
evidence is permissible. After a prima facie
showing, the burden to justify the use of the
employment practice shifts to the employer
in all countries except Switzerland, where
the burden of showing that the practice is
not job related is only partially reduced or
remains with the plaintiff. There is a general
notion that the employer should present evi-
dence to support the job relatedness of the
employment practice in question, but rarely
is the required form of such evidence speci-
fied. The identification of validity evidence
as a mechanism for establishing job related-
ness is rare.
Question 5
What are the consequences of violation
of the laws?
Table 5 summarizes possible consequences
of violation in each participating country.
There is considerable variation in the array
of possible remedies. As a point of reference,
note that in the United States, the focus is on
compensatory or ‘‘make-whole’’ remedies,
with punitive damages reserved for instan-
ces of intentional discrimination. Similarly,
make-whole remedies are part of the land-
scape in all countries for which information
could be obtained. Several countries also
provide fines and punitive damages (e.g.,
Switzerland, Turkey), and several include
Table 3. Most Common Protected Classes
Country
Common protected classes
Race Sex
National/ethnicorigin Color Age Religion Disability
Politicalopinion
Sexualorientation
Marital/familystatus
Australia X X X X X X XBelgium X X X X X X X X X XCanada X X X X X X X X XChile X X X X X X X XFrance X X X X X X X X XGermany X X X X X XGreece X X X X XIndia X XIsrael X X X X X X X XItaly X X X X X X XJapan X X X X X XKenya X X X X X X XKorea X X X X X X X X X XNetherlands X X X X X X X X XNew Zealand X X X X X X X X X XSouth Africa X X X X X X X X X XSpain X X X X X X X X XSwitzerland X X X X X X XTaiwan X X X X X X XTurkey X X X X XUnited Kingdom X X X X X X XUnited States X X X X X X X
International perspectives 231
imprisonment as a possible consequence
(e.g., Belgium, France, Greece).
Question 6
Are particular selection methods limited
or banned as a result of legislation or court
rulings?
There are relatively few restrictions on spe-
cific selection methods. As a point of refer-
ence, U.S. law regulates the use of the
polygraph, prohibiting its use for most pri-
vate employers; several other countries
restrict polygraph use as well (e.g., Ger-
many, Israel, Turkey). The only selection
method specifically mentioned in U.S. law
is the reference in the Tower amendment to
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to the
permissibility of professionally developed
ability tests, provided that such tests are not
designed, intended, or used to discriminate.
Additional instances reported of restrictions
on specific selection methods in participat-
ing countries include a prohibition against
comprehensive personality assessment inSwitzerland and a restriction on the use of
certain Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory (MMPI) and California Psycholog-
ical Inventory (CPI) items in Spain.The most strikingly different approach to
regulating selection practices is found in
South Africa. Rather than the common
approach of a presumptive right of an
employer to use a particular method absent
a successful challenge by a plaintiff, South
African law puts the burden immediately on
the employer. According to the EEA of 1998,
psychological testing and other similar
assessments are prohibited unless the test isproven to be scientifically valid and reliable,
Table 4. Other Protected Classes by Country
Country Other protected classes
Australia Breastfeeding, family or career responsibilities, irrelevant criminal record,physical features, potential pregnancy, trade union or employer associationactivity, sexual harassment, and pregnancy and transgender status
Belgium Union membership, membership of other organizations, health, and any otherpersonal characteristic
Chile Union membership statusFrance Moral principles, genetic characteristics, union activities or activities in a
‘‘mutuelle,’’ physical appearance, family name, and healthGermany Philosophy of life and sexual harassmentIndia Scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, and other backward classesIsrael Personal status and military serviceItaly Personal and social conditions and languageJapan Social statusKenya Tribe, local connection, and HIV/AIDS statusKorea Social status, region of birth, appearance, criminal record after punishment has
been served, academic background, medical history, pregnancy, andphysical conditions (e.g., appearance, height, weight)
Netherlands Philosophy of life, chronic disease, full-/part-time work, and type of contractNew Zealand Ethical belief, employment status, and sexual and racial harassmentSouth Africa HIV status, conscience, belief, culture, birth, pregnancy, and languageSpain Social condition and membership to a labor unionSwitzerland Socioeconomic status, way of life, and languageTaiwan Thought, provincial origin, appearance, facial features, union membership,
status, and languageTurkey Philosophical belief, sect, and languageUnited Kingdom Persons who have undergone gender reassignment or intend toUnited States Pregnancy
232 B. Myors et al.
Tab
le5.Eviden
ceNeeded
toRefuteaDiscrim
inationClaim
,Consequen
cesofV
iolation,andPermissibilityofP
referentialT
reatmen
tbyCountry
Countr
yEv
iden
cenee
ded
tore
fute
acl
aim
Conse
quen
ces
of
viola
tion
Per
mis
sibil
ity
of
pre
fere
nti
altr
eatm
ent
Aust
rali
aIn
her
ent
requir
emen
tsof
the
job,
exis
tence
of
spec
ial
mea
sure
sto
elim
inat
edis
crim
inat
ion,
occ
upat
ional
requir
emen
ts,
acti
ons
requir
edby
law
,em
plo
ymen
tw
ithin
smal
lorg
aniz
atio
ns,
consi
sten
tbel
iefs
(e.g
.,re
ligi
ous
org
aniz
atio
ns
or
educa
tional
inst
itute
s).The
stat
ute
sm
ake
no
refe
rence
toth
epsy
cholo
gica
lco
nce
ptofva
lidit
ynor
has
itar
isen
inca
sela
w.
Inju
nct
ion
tost
op
the
act,
awar
dof
dam
ages
,ord
erto
the
org
aniz
atio
nto
redre
ssth
esi
tuat
ion,
vari
atio
nor
cance
llat
ion
of
aco
ntr
act
or
agre
emen
tth
atvi
ola
tes
the
law
.
Wit
hin
-gro
up
norm
ing
isnot
ban
ned
and
isuse
dby
som
epsy
cholo
gica
lte
ster
sas
am
eans
of
com
ply
ing
wit
hle
gisl
atio
n(M
yors
,2003).
Targ
ets
may
be
use
din
som
eEE
Opla
ns
but
expli
cit
quota
sar
eav
oid
ed.
Bel
gium
Stat
isti
caldat
aor
pra
ctic
alte
sts
can
be
use
das
evid
ence
.M
edia
tion
or
bin
din
gju
dgm
ent
from
civi
lco
urt
.Im
pri
sonm
ent
and/o
rfi
nes
.Pre
fere
ntial
trea
tmen
tis
per
mitte
dto
rem
edy
ahis
tori
caldis
crim
inat
ion
agai
nst
agr
oup.
Quota
sar
eper
mitte
dbutse
ldom
use
d.
Som
eorg
aniz
atio
nsal
souse
targ
etnum
ber
s.C
anad
aThe
emplo
yer
must
dem
onst
rate
that
the
emplo
ymen
tpoli
cy,
pra
ctic
e,or
pro
cedure
that
isch
alle
nge
dis
abona
fide
occ
upat
ional
requir
emen
t.Tr
ibunal
san
dco
urt
sar
equit
eli
ber
alin
the
evid
ence
that
they
wil
lac
cept
from
emplo
yers
indef
ense
of
thei
rem
plo
ymen
tpra
ctic
es.
Empir
ical
and
stat
isti
cal
evid
ence
gener
ated
by
I–O
psy
cholo
gist
s(e
.g.,
loca
lva
lidat
ion
studie
s)m
aybe
use
ful
indef
endin
gem
plo
ymen
tpra
ctic
es,butco
urt
san
dtr
ibunal
soft
enla
ckth
eso
phis
tica
tion
tom
ake
full
use
of
such
det
aile
dan
dco
mple
xte
chnic
alin
form
atio
n.
Fines
,pay
men
tfo
rlo
stw
ages
,re
inst
atem
ent,
and
ord
erin
gof
spec
ial
pro
gram
s.
Pre
fere
nti
altr
eatm
ent
per
mit
ted
(mai
nly
inth
epubli
cse
ctor)
.
Chil
eU
ncl
ear,
unle
ssfo
rse
xual
har
assm
ent
or
unio
niz
atio
nsu
its.
Empir
ical
evid
ence
not
requir
ed.
Unkn
ow
n.
Curr
entl
y,se
xual
har
assm
ent
suit
sm
ayre
sult
inm
onet
ary
com
pen
sati
on
and
up
to3
year
sim
pri
sonm
ent.
Gove
rnm
enthas
enac
ted
anin
form
alquota
forw
om
enin
min
iste
rposi
tions;
how
ever
,th
ishas
not
cross
edove
rin
toth
epri
vate
sect
or.
(continued
)
International perspectives 233
Tab
le5.
(continued
)
Countr
yEv
iden
cenee
ded
tore
fute
acl
aim
Conse
quen
ces
of
viola
tion
Per
mis
sibil
ity
of
pre
fere
nti
altr
eatm
ent
Fran
ceV
ague.
Emplo
yer
should
pre
sent
any
info
rmat
ion
show
ing
the
dec
isio
nis
legi
tim
ate,
nondis
crim
inat
ory
,an
dbas
edon
obje
ctiv
ein
form
atio
n.
Thre
eye
ars
impri
sonm
ent
and/o
ra
fine
for
convi
ctio
nin
acr
imin
alco
urt
.D
iscr
imin
atory
act
isan
null
edin
aci
vil
court
and
poss
ibly
finan
cial
com
pen
sati
on.
Consi
der
able
dis
cuss
ion
aboutth
is;politi-
cally,
pre
fere
ntial
trea
tmen
tis
seen
asundes
irab
le.H
ow
ever
,th
ere
are
settin
gsw
her
eit
isuse
d.W
hen
par
ties
pre
sentlist
sofca
ndid
ates
for
regi
onal
and
senat
ori
alel
ections,
they
are
requir
edto
hav
eeq
ual
num
ber
ofm
enan
dw
om
en.A
lso,t
her
ear
equota
sin
one
settin
g:at
leas
t6%
ofw
ork
-fo
rce
nee
ds
tobe
han
dic
apped
for
org
ani-
zations
with
more
than
20
emplo
yees
.G
erm
any
Nee
ds
tobe
bas
edon
job
requir
emen
ts.
Emplo
yee
has
righ
tto
refu
seto
work
whil
eon
pay
roll
.C
ansu
eem
plo
yers
for
dam
ages
.
No
form
aliz
atio
n,
but
publi
cau
thori
ties
togi
vepre
fere
nce
tow
om
enan
dhan
dic
apped
per
sons.
Gre
ece
Emplo
yer
must
show
that
ther
ehas
bee
nno
bre
ach
of
the
pri
nci
ple
of
equal
trea
tmen
t.The
emplo
yer
who
infr
inge
sth
ela
ws
about
equal
trea
tmen
ton
the
grounds
of
raci
alor
ethnic
ori
gin,
reli
gion
or
bel
ief,
dis
abil
ity,
age
or
sex
ispunis
hed
by
impri
sonm
ento
f6m
onth
sto
up
to3
year
san
dto
geth
erw
ith
apen
alty
of1
,000
toup
to5,0
00
euro
s.
Pre
fere
nti
altr
eatm
ent
topre
vent
or
com
pen
sate
for
dis
adva
nta
ges
linke
dto
any
of
the
pro
tect
edcl
asse
s.
India
At
the
dis
cret
ion
of
the
judge
.Pre
fere
nti
altr
eatm
ent
inth
efo
rmof
are
laxa
tion
of
qual
ifyi
ng
score
sfo
rpro
tect
edgr
oups
inex
tern
alre
cruit
men
tis
per
mit
ted;
how
ever
,a
com
mon
stan
dar
dis
requir
edfo
rpro
moti
on.
Not
all
mem
ber
sof
pro
tect
edgr
oups
are
equal
lyel
igib
le,
also
dep
enden
ton
soci
al/e
conom
icst
atus.
Gove
rnm
ent
posi
tions
also
use
quota
s.
(continued
)
234 B. Myors et al.
Tab
le5.
(continued
)
Countr
yEv
iden
cenee
ded
tore
fute
acl
aim
Conse
quen
ces
of
viola
tion
Per
mis
sibil
ity
of
pre
fere
nti
altr
eatm
ent
Isra
elEv
iden
ceof
test
reli
abil
ity
and
vali
dit
y,w
hic
hca
nbe
bas
edon
vali
dit
yge
ner
aliz
atio
n.
Inad
dit
ion,
the
Nat
ional
Labor
Court
rece
ntl
yru
led
that
emplo
yers
seek
ing
topro
veth
eir
innoce
nce
wil
lbe
subje
ctto
less
seve
rete
sts
ofs
elec
tion
vali
dit
yto
the
exte
ntt
hat
they
are
accu
sed
ofd
iscr
imin
atin
gag
ainst
inte
rnal
(as
oppose
dto
exte
rnal
candid
ates
);th
elo
gic
bei
ng
that
emplo
yers
typic
ally
hav
efa
rgr
eate
rin
form
atio
nupon
whic
hto
bas
ea
sele
ctio
ndec
isio
nw
hen
choosi
ng
among
inte
rnal
candid
ates
.
Smal
lfi
nes
.H
irin
g,re
inst
atem
ent,
or
care
erad
vance
men
tofp
lain
tiff
,pay
men
tofb
ack
wag
es.
Pre
fere
nti
altr
eatm
ent
isre
quir
edby
publi
corg
aniz
atio
ns
and
stat
e-ow
ned
ente
rpri
ses
for
both
wom
enan
dm
inori
ties
.Pre
fere
nti
altr
eatm
ent
isper
mit
ted
inth
epri
vate
sect
or.
Ital
yV
alid
ity
evid
ence
not
reques
ted.
Evid
ence
tore
fute
acl
aim
iscu
rren
tly
uncl
ear.
Unkn
ow
n.
Pre
fere
nti
altr
eatm
entper
mit
ted
for
wom
en.
Japan
Adm
inis
trat
ive
advi
ce.
Pre
fere
ntial
trea
tmen
tper
mitte
dan
dsu
pport
edby
the
gove
rnm
ent.
Quota
sre
quir
edfo
rdis
able
d.
Ken
yaM
ust
show
that
dec
isio
ns
wer
ebas
edon
appli
cant
apti
tudes
and
abil
itie
s.Em
pir
ical
vali
dit
yev
iden
cenot
requir
ed.
Rem
edy
by
foll
ow
ing
reco
mm
endat
ions
of
Min
istr
yof
Hea
lth,
Labour,
and
Wel
fare
.Poss
ible
publi
can
nounce
men
tof
viola
tion.C
ivil
fine
ofm
axim
um
200,0
00
yen
(2,4
00
USD
).
Dif
fere
nt
cuto
ffsc
ore
sar
ese
tfo
rm
ember
sfr
om
dif
fere
nte
thnic
groups
toen
sure
that
som
em
ember
sfr
om
each
group
wil
lbe
sele
cted
.Ther
ear
ere
quir
edquota
sof5%
inboth
the
pri
vate
and
the
publi
cse
ctor
for
dis
able
din
div
idual
s.K
ore
aSh
ow
job
rela
tednes
sbut
spec
ific
met
hod
uncl
ear.
Nat
ional
Hum
ans
Rig
ht
Com
mis
sion
wil
lm
ake
abin
din
gco
nci
liat
ion
reso
luti
on.
Fines
.
Quota
sre
quir
edfo
rdis
able
d.
Pre
fere
nti
altr
eatm
ent
for
wom
en,
though
firm
sw
ith
more
than
50%
wom
enin
work
forc
ear
eex
empt.
(continued
)
International perspectives 235
Tab
le5.
(continued
)
Countr
yEv
iden
cenee
ded
tore
fute
acl
aim
Conse
quen
ces
of
viola
tion
Per
mis
sibil
ity
of
pre
fere
nti
altr
eatm
ent
Net
her
lands
Gen
eral
ly,
no
vali
dit
yev
iden
ceis
reques
ted
asth
eva
lidit
yof
com
mon
psy
cholo
gica
lte
sts,
such
aste
sts
for
cogn
itiv
eab
ilit
ies,
per
sonal
ity
inve
nto
ries
,an
das
sess
men
tce
nte
rex
erci
ses,
ista
ken
for
gran
ted.
Most
clai
ms
conce
rndir
ect
dis
crim
inat
ion
or
trea
tmen
tdis
crim
inat
ion
(Com
mis
sie
Gel
ijke
Beh
andel
ing,
2006).
Exce
pti
ons
are
clea
r-cu
tca
ses
of
indir
ect
dis
crim
inat
ion
inw
hic
hin
appro
pri
ate
job
requir
emen
tsw
ere
set.
Nonbin
din
gju
dgm
ent
by
the
Com
mis
sion
ofE
qual
Trea
tmen
tand
poss
ibly
judgm
ent
refe
rral
toa
civi
lco
urt
.
Pre
fere
nti
altr
eatm
ent
isper
mit
ted
for
wom
enan
det
hnic
min
ori
ties
(does
not
hav
eto
be
equal
lyqual
ifie
d).
New
Zea
land
Uncl
ear,
asfe
wca
ses
mak
eit
toco
urt
.Gen
uin
eocc
upat
ional
char
acte
rist
ics.
Apolo
gy,
pay
men
tor
com
pen
sati
on,
assu
rance
that
the
dis
crim
inat
ory
act
wil
lnot
be
repea
ted,
or
refe
rral
toa
Hum
anR
ights
Trib
unal
for
furt
her
judgm
ent.
This
iscu
rren
tly
bei
ng
explo
red.P
refe
renti
altr
eatm
ent
appea
rsto
be
per
mit
ted
(and
may
be
soon
appli
edto
the
Mao
ripopula
tion).
South
Afr
ica
Both
qual
itat
ive
and
empir
ical
dat
aca
nbe
bro
ugh
tto
bea
rto
support
vali
dit
y.Fi
nes
.Poss
ible
cance
llat
ion
of
gove
rnm
ent
contr
acts
.Pre
fere
nti
altr
eatm
ent
isper
mit
ted
and
appli
ed.
Rac
ial
quota
sar
ele
gal
and
pra
ctic
edby
man
yla
rge
emplo
yers
.The
pra
ctic
alim
pli
cati
on
for
this
isth
atit
isle
gal
inSo
uth
Afr
ican
conte
xtto
use
race
norm
ing,
or
wit
hin
-gro
up
top
dow
nse
lect
ion
stra
tegi
es,
inord
erto
addre
ssaf
firm
ativ
eac
tion
nee
ds
oforg
aniz
atio
ns.
Spai
nR
ecen
tla
ws
may
lead
togr
eate
rfo
cus
on
empir
ical
evid
ence
;up
unti
lnow
,va
lidit
yof
test
sw
asta
ken
for
gran
ted.
Com
pen
sati
on,r
ejec
tion
oft
he
dec
isio
nan
dsu
bse
quen
tap
pli
cati
on
of
the
court
dec
isio
n,
repet
itio
nof
the
sele
ctio
npro
cess
wit
hnew
pro
cedure
s.
Pre
fere
nti
altr
eatm
ent
for
wom
enin
som
eca
ses.
Swit
zerl
and
Empir
ical
evid
ence
not
gener
ally
pre
sente
dor
requir
ed.
Court
sca
naw
ard
dam
ages
incl
udin
gpay
men
tof
ow
edea
rnin
gsan
dpay
men
tof
com
pen
sati
on
and
sati
sfac
tion.
Pre
fere
nce
isper
mit
ted
but
not
requir
ed.
(continued
)
236 B. Myors et al.
Tab
le5.
(continued
)
Countr
yEv
iden
cenee
ded
tore
fute
acl
aim
Conse
quen
ces
of
viola
tion
Per
mis
sibil
ity
of
pre
fere
nti
altr
eatm
ent
Taiw
anPro
vide
evid
ence
of
job
rela
tednes
s.Fi
nes
.Q
uota
sre
quir
edfo
rab
ori
gines
(at
leas
t1%
of
pri
vate
org
aniz
atio
ns’
work
forc
e).
Turk
eyR
einst
atem
ent,
bac
kpay
,an
d/o
rm
onet
ary
dam
ages
.Pre
fere
nti
altr
eatm
ent
isnot
requir
edor
per
mit
ted
and
isac
tual
lyfo
rbid
den
.U
nit
edK
ingd
om
Show
that
requir
emen
tis
just
ifie
d.
The
emplo
yer
can
show
that
they
took
all
‘‘rea
sonab
le’’
step
sto
pre
ventdis
crim
inat
ion.
No
impac
tcas
esin
volv
ing
test
shav
ere
ached
the
stag
eofa
court
dec
isio
n,s
oth
ere
isas
yet
no
requir
emen
tof
vali
dit
yev
iden
ce.
Court
has
dis
cret
ion.
Com
pen
sati
on
toth
epla
inti
ff.
Form
alin
vest
igat
ion
by
gove
rnin
gbodie
sth
atca
nre
com
men
dch
ange
sin
pro
cedure
s.
Pre
fere
nti
altr
eatm
ent
isnot
per
mit
ted,
but
‘‘posi
tive
acti
on’’
such
asen
coura
ging
cert
ain
groups
toap
ply
oroff
erin
gtr
ainin
gto
thes
egr
oups.
Unit
edSt
ates
Job
rela
tednes
s(l
arge
lyth
rough
vali
dit
yst
udie
s).
Upon
afi
ndin
gof
dis
crim
inat
ion,
aju
dge
can
spec
ify
mak
e-w
hole
rem
edie
s,su
chas
bac
kpay
,hir
ing,
or
rein
stat
emen
t.Ther
ear
eno
punit
ive
dam
ages
,ab
sent
afi
ndin
gof
inte
nti
onal
dis
crim
inat
ion.
1991
amen
dm
ents
toTi
tle
VII
ofC
ivil
Rig
hts
Act
pro
hib
itpre
fere
nti
altr
eatm
ent,
spec
ific
ally
inth
efo
rmofa
dju
stin
gsc
ore
sor
usi
ng
separ
ate
norm
sfo
rm
inori
tygr
oup
mem
ber
s.Pre
fere
nti
altr
eatm
ent
isper
mit
ted
afte
ra
findin
gofdis
crim
inat
ion
aspar
tof
aju
dic
iall
yord
ered
rem
edy.
Note.EE
O¼
Equal
Emplo
ymen
tO
pport
unit
y.
International perspectives 237
can be applied fairly to all employees; and isnot biased against any employee or group.The Society for Industrial and Organiza-tional Psychology in South Africa (SIOPSA)published Guidelines for the Validation andUse of Assessment Procedures for theWork-place during 2005 to provide guidelines forpractitioners in the field of I–O psychologyto ensure that their assessment instrumentsand practices comply with the scientificrequirements and international best practi-ces (SIOPSA, 2005). These guidelines werelargely based on the American Society forIndustrial and Organizational Psychology(SIOP) guidelines.
Question 7
What is the legal status of preferentialtreatment of members of minority groups(e.g., quotas or softer forms of preference)?
To set the stage, note that the term ‘‘affirma-tive action’’ is used in a variety of contexts,only some of which involve preferentialtreatment for protected groups. Some formsof affirmative action involve outreach effortsto publicize openings and to encourageapplications from members of protectedgroups. However, there is no preferentialtreatment given once an individual is in theapplicant pool. Approaches involving pref-erential treatment fall into two main classes:(a) those which set differing standards forprotected and nonprotected groups withoutsetting aside a specified number or propor-tion of openings for members of protectedgroups (e.g., using different cutoff scores,using within-group norming) and (b) quotaapproaches that set aside a fixed number orproportion of openings for members of pro-tected groups.
Table 5 summarizes the status of prefer-ential treatment in the participating coun-tries. Preferential treatment is a domain inwhich the United States emerges as a clearoutlier. Preferential treatment in terms of dif-fering score cutoffs or separate norming oftests within group is prohibited by the U.S.Civil Rights Act of 1991, and the use of quo-tas is restricted to very limited settings, suchas a court-ordered remedy following a find-
ing of discrimination. In contrast, in only twocountries do commentators report a prohibi-tion against minority preference (Turkey andthe United Kingdom). The types of prefer-ence permitted, and the settings in which itis used, do vary widely. The status of quotasvaries from prohibited (Australia), to permit-ted but rarely used (Belgium), to permittedand widely used (South Africa), to used ingovernment sectors (backward classes inIndia and women in Chile), to required forcertain groups (e.g., aborigines in Taiwan,individuals with disabilities in France, Japan,Kenya, Korea). Several commentators notethat applying lower standards to protectedgroups (e.g., different cutoffs or within-group norming) is used (Australia, India,South Africa). In India, lower qualifyingscores for protected groups are permittedfor external selection but not for promotion.
Question 8
How have laws and the legal environ-ment affected the practice of I–O psychol-ogy in this country?
Below are brief observations from eachcountry regarding the nature of selectionpractices and the role of the legal environ-ment in driving these practices.
Australia. I–O psychological practicessuch as job analysis, empirical validation,and criterion development have not beendirectly affected by the legal environment.Employers have not shied away from partic-ular tests but are very mindful of job rele-vance and fairness. Controversial methodslike polygraphs, drug and genetic testing,and graphology are not used. Best practiceis promoted more through the impact ofinternational firms operating within Aus-tralia, trade journals and local managementschools, and I–Oprogramspromotingfindingsfrom the international research literature.Note that trade unions have historically beenstrong. Unions have typically emphasizedworkplace equity and diversity and havebeen suspicious of any I–O practices seento mainly advantage management, suchas psychological testing and performance
238 B. Myors et al.
appraisal while being supportive of practices
like training, which were seen to be in linewith both worker and management interests.
Belgium. As a result of the quasi-legalframework in Belgium, employers are free
to use any method of their choice. In practice,good public relations and social concerns
over fairness weigh heavily in companies’concerns and have led most larger organiza-tions toward using popular and mainstream
predictors generally (interviews, cognitivetests, personality inventories, work samples,
and so forth).
Canada. Human rights and employmentequity legislation have had a pervasive ef-fect on the practice of I–O psychology inCanada. These legal trends have led at least
some employers, especially in the largestorganizations such as public service and
the military, to formalize and standardizetheir employment practices to a greater ex-tent with the help of I–O psychologists and
other human resource management profes-sionals. This trend will likely continue over
at least the next few decades.
Chile. Prior to March 2008, there wereno laws concerning workers’ rights beforethey are hired. At that point, a new law took
effect (Law #20087). This new law definesdiscrimination as any action that is against
the equal opportunity for all workers. A newregulation will specify the practices that arecovered by the law. However, because of the
new law concerning workers rights, thedemands from workers for fairer procedures
and theorganizations’requests formoreeffec-tive and efficient systems, I–O psychology is
slowly but steadily giving more importanceto practices such as job analysis, criteriondevelopment, empirical validation, and the
general evaluation of all selection methodsand procedures. Most companies use multi-
ple predictors (interviews, personality, intelli-gence tests). The interview is typically givenmore importance. The use of projective
techniques such as Rorschach or ThematicApperception Test (TAT) is quite common.
France. Concerns of discrimination andexplicit efforts to combat it have only re-cently received a great deal of attention inFrance, notably with the creation in 2004 ofthe HALDE (‘‘Haute Autorite de Lutte contreles Discriminations et pour l’Egalite’’: HighAuthority for the Fight against Discrimina-tions and for Equality). Manyof the suggestedmeasures, including using job analysis and‘‘relevant’’ selection methods, have only re-cently been publicized in these efforts, andpsychologists do not appear to have playeda major role in these efforts, although it is clearthat our competencies have an importantpotential contribution for these questions.
Germany. In the 1970s and 1980s, therewas strong opposition to personnel selec-tion. These reservations are still present,but in general, attitudes are continuouslyshifting toward empirical selection proce-dures. The ‘‘Allgemeines Gleichbehand-lungsgesetz’’ influenced many companiesand corporations to reflect on their standardsof job advertisements and personnel selec-tion. Since the law has been in place, manytraining programs are offered to help compa-nies protect themselves from discriminationand its corresponding lawsuits. Human re-source departments are more precisely for-mulating their hiring standards (e.g., by jobanalysis) and are beginning to more widelyuse psychological preemployment testing(e.g., via Internet resources) rather than appli-cation materials provided by the applicants.
Greece. The profession of I–O psychol-ogy in Greece is still in its infant stage. Asa result, there are only a few practitionersand academics in the field. Most of thepractitioners work in human resourcesdepartments of large private, local, and mul-tinational firms. As a result, the legal envi-ronment has not really taken any steps inrelation to various I–O practices. Recruit-ment and selection procedures have onlyrecently started becoming more ‘‘objective,’’and more advanced recruitment and selec-tion tools and methods (e.g., psychometrictesting, assessment centers) have recentlybeen introduced in the private sector. Thevast majority of firms employ fewer than
International perspectives 239
100 people. Therefore, most employers stillprefer the use of more traditional techniques,such as references.
India. The field of I–O psychology is stillnot fully developed in India. Psychologicalassessment as a part of personnel selection isnot widely practiced. It is still an emergingfield, and as such, laws do not contain anyguideline to the tools and techniques of I–Opsychology. Psychological assessment asa part of personnel selection has been inpractice mainly in the armed forces. But inother areas, this has been a recent develop-ment. Even though psychometric testing hasbeen recently introduced in recruitment/selection in various private-sector enter-prises, the tests that are used are sometimesnot properly validated. Test selection is notoften done after a proper job analysis. Selec-tion tests mainly assess knowledge and skilland not cognitive abilities and personality.
Israel. Though the legal environmentstemming from the enactment of the EqualEmployment Opportunity (EEO) Law in1988 (and its amendments in 1992 and1995) has had an important effect on HRpractice in Israel, it is difficult to attributethe advances in the practice of I–O psychol-ogy strictly to such legal changes. Indeed,given the fact that until recently, the burdenof proof was primarily with the plaintiff, andthe fact that penalties were and remain quitelow, the legal environment has providedemployers with little incentive to transformoften-discriminatory HR practices. Althoughvarious I–O practices (e.g., job analysis,empirical validation) have become far morecommon in Israeli enterprises in recentyears, it is likely that much of this change isinstitutional in nature, with such practicesadopted from the growing number of high-technology American firms operating inIsrael, most of which enact such practicesin their Israeli subsidiaries as part of a global,commitment-oriented HR strategy (Bam-berger & Meshulam, 2000).
Italy. To date, a strong legislative frame-work for antidiscrimination has not devel-
oped. There is a laissez-faire politicalattitude toward all minority groups (andwomen) regarding the work context. Practi-tioners in I–O psychology must follow anethical code based on Italian legislation con-cerning workers and legislative decrees onpositive action regarding women at work;direct and indirect discrimination; and theuse of privacy data in selection, training pro-cesses, and work context.
Japan. The legal environment regardingthe equal employment opportunities is stillin progress in Japan. Also, in general, it ishighly costly and time consuming for victimsof discrimination to file lawsuits in Japan.Thus, the number of cases regarding thediscrimination in selection is relatively small.These situations have not promoted per-ceived legal risk for employers and the useof more rigorous selection techniques devel-oped in I–O psychology (e.g., job analysis,empirical validation, criterion development).
Kenya. The practice of I–O psychology inKenya is most evident in the methods used byconsulting firms. Nairobi is home to severalglobal consulting companies that are calledin by large companies to apply their meth-odologies to human resource management.With regard to selection, this largely involvesthe administration of psychological assess-ment tests. The concerns of managers inemploying any method that seemingly favorsa given group would be political rather thanlegal. The weak employment legislation inKenya clearly biases the legal climate infavor of employers. As in other developingcountries, unemployment is a huge problemin Kenya. The supply of labor far exceeds thedemand. As such employers usually haveseveral well-qualified candidates vying fora single position.
Korea. It would be fair to say that the legalenvironment has not affected the practice ofI–O psychology in Korea much. Complianceto the discrimination laws especially in theselection phase does not seem to be ofmajor concern to employers in Korea. It isnot difficult to find items in applicationforms that are designed to inquire personal
240 B. Myors et al.
characteristics of applicants that are thoughtto be directly relevant to discriminatorydecisions (e.g., age, gender, photo, parents’position, academic backgrounds, religion).The insensitivity of employers to discrimina-tion might come from their perception thatthe costs they have to bear because of theirgetting involved in discrimination are not bigenough compared to what they have toinvest in developing sophisticated I–O prac-tices related to selection.
Netherlands. The Netherlands providesan unusual paradox of a comparatively weakstructure of protective legislation for minor-ity groups during selection, a notably protec-tionist set of employment laws for all onceemployed (i.e., regardless of ethnic origin,gender, marital status, disability, sexual ori-entation, or other factors), and an espousednational culture of openness and tolerancepolitically and socially. As a small country,social regulation and conformity pressureplay a far larger role in employer behaviorand concerns over fairness in selection.Legal precedent thus takes second priorityto social conformity in Dutch recruiterbehavior, it can be argued, and a climateof espoused tolerance, openness, and ex-pressed social inclusiveness prevails butis not backed by a developed legislativeframework for antidiscrimination. Fears overpotential problems posthiring because of theextremely protectionist framework of legalrights for those in employment have ratherled to notably cautious practices in em-ployee selection.
New Zealand. At this point, there is littlein the law that has had an impact on I–Opsychology. Job analysis is rarely conducted,andcompetencymodelingasapseudomeas-ure of job validation is highly prevalent inNew Zealand. Despite rhetoric to assistMaori, conducting research showing thatselection procedures were unbiased is cur-rently not required. Criterion validity studiesinside organizations are also rare, mainlybecause more than 90% of New Zealandcompanies have less than 20 employees.We believe, however, that this situation will
eventually change as the number of discrim-ination cases grows.
South Africa. We find that South Africanantidiscrimination legislation, to a large ex-tent, followed U.S. legislation trends. Therehas also been, over the years, a strong U.S.academic influence in I–O psychology inSouth Africa. It is thus no surprise that theSouth African I–O psychologist finds verysimilar challenges to the U.S. psychologistregarding fairness in the workplace. Wehave also seen typical U.S. and internationalbest practice in terms of ensuring fairness inthe workplace implemented in South Africa.Job analysis and the need to be able to dem-onstrate job relatedness in decision criteriameant that U.S. best practice in the design ofselection and decision making systems hada major influence in the practice of SouthAfrican I–O psychologists. The principle ofjob analysis has also been adopted in theCodes of Best Practice as issued by the min-ister of labor. The adoption of the AmericanSIOP Guidelines for the validation and usewith minor changes by the SIOPSA isanother indication of the strong influenceof the United States on South African think-ing about fairness in the workplace.
Spain. Until very recently, employmentdiscrimination was not a problem for the pri-vate and public organizations in Spain. Forthis reason, personnel selection practicesremained stable for many years. In the past5 years, because of the strong immigrationand the new laws protecting specific groups,the organizations are conscious of this prob-lem. However, like the Netherlands, in gen-eral terms, there is a comparatively weakstructure of protective legislation for minor-ity groups during selection, a notably protec-tionist set of employment laws for all onceemployed (i.e., regardless of ethnic origin,gender, marital status, disability, sexual ori-entation, or other factors), and an espousednational culture of openness and tolerancepolitically and socially.
Switzerland. The writers’ impression isthat the legal environment has had onlymarginal effects on the practice of I–O
International perspectives 241
psychology in Switzerland. This may bemainly because of the fact that legal codesare not very specific to the issues in questionand are rarely enforced. Lawsuits concerningdiscrimination within the scope of the selec-tion process are extremely rare and are thusnot perceived as a risk by employers. How-ever, employers have become more sensitiveto issues of equal opportunities and equaltreatment of men and women and peoplewith disabilities since the remittal of the Fed-eral Law for the Equal Treatment of Men andWomen and the Federal Law for the EqualTreatment of People with Disabilities andthe proliferation of respective law suits.
Taiwan. Taiwanese employers and em-ployees are not as aware of the legal con-cerns of selection systems as Westerncountries, and thus, laws have not affectedthe practice of I–O psychology. In relation toselection methods used, although there existcommonly used tools such as cognitive abil-ity tests, personality tests, interviews, testson job-required skills (e.g., Japanese profi-ciency, physical ability), and physical exam-inations, a small portion of employers useones that are believed by their chief execu-tives such as physiognomy, horoscope, andgraphology. These latter sets of individualtools are less conventional to North Ameri-can multinational companies in Taiwan andthus are rarely adopted by them.
Turkey. Selection is done primarily basedon employee referrals, nepotism, personalnetworks, resumes, and unstructured andsemistructured interviews. Resumes usuallyinclude a photo of the applicant. Only somelarge companies and multinational compa-nies use tests for selection. Most of these testsare not validated for the particular job con-text that they are used. In Turkey, state-regulated physical and psychological testsfor employment can be used by psychologistsonly under the supervision of a psychiatristemployed in psychotechnic laboratories orcenters. Various physical and psychologicaltests have been used since the 1950s.
United Kingdom. Prior to the legislationoutlined above, employers never had to
explain or justify selection decisions. Thelaw has made more—but not yet all—em-ployers aware of the need to conduct somesort of job analysis, or at least to have someidea of what they are looking for. Employershave become aware of the need to be moresystematic and to keep better records. Virtu-ally, all large employers track applicantsthrough the selection process by genderand ethnicity. Virtually all large employershave codes of conduct for selection and foravoiding discrimination in the workplace.Virtually all large employers provide train-ing in selection or interviewing and oftenrequire staff to complete this before gettinginvolved in selection. Some of the very larg-est employers conduct their own validationresearch (but generally were doing this beforeany fair employment laws were enacted).Psychological testing has increased in pop-ularity, but from a previously very low levelof use. Some employers do seem wary oftests, especially personality tests, but proba-bly more through conservatism or fear of badpublicity than because of equal opportuni-ties concerns.
United States. The legal environmentresulting from the Civil Rights Act of 1964has had a large effect on I–O psychology.The full range of I–O practices related toselection (job analysis, criterion develop-ment, test development, validation) havebeen scrutinized and refined within the pro-fession, and employers are more aware ofthe need for sound and legally defensibleselection systems. There is extensive researchon subgroup differences on various types ofpredictors, on methods of detecting bias andon issues related to ways of using test infor-mation (e.g., setting cutoff scores, creatingcomposite of predictors, sequencing predic-tors), on methods of establishing job related-ness, and on estimating the utility of selectionsystems. It seems safe to say that the fieldwould be quite different today were it notfor fair employment legislation.
Summary. In only a few countries (Can-ada, South Africa, United States) is the legalenvironment seen as having a large effect onI–O psychology. It is common to see reports of
242 B. Myors et al.
increased use of the tools and techniques ofI–O psychology, but the driving forces aremore commonly the presence of multina-tional and consulting firms that import I–Otechniques into the country. In a great manycountries, I–O is a small but growing field,which is beginning to influence selectionpractice but is not the driver of changes inselection practice.
Discussion
Below we offer 30 broad summary state-ments about the patterns emerging from thenarratives from the various countries.
Disadvantaged Groups
1. Disadvantaged groups could bedivided into four main groups: immi-grants or foreign residents, religiousminorities, racial/ethnic minorities,and language group minorities (speakdifferent primary language).
2. ManyEuropean (especiallyEU)nationshave disadvantaged groups who areimmigrants or foreign workers. Thegroups that are disadvantaged areusually eastern European or African.
3. Many Asian countries also have dis-advantaged groups who are immi-grants or foreign workers.
4. Many of the racial/ethnic minoritiesare indigenous people (e.g., Aus-tralia, Canada, New Zealand, Tai-wan, and United States).
5. Most disadvantaged groups are a rela-tively small proportion of the popula-tion, most below the 20% ‘‘breakingpoint’’ specified in research on token-ism (Kanter, 1977).
6. Disadvantaged groups can constitutethe majority of the population (e.g.,South Africa).
Subgroup Mean Differences
7. Very few countries have researchexploring potential mean differencesin cognitive ability, personality, or
job performance. In terms of cogni-tive ability, findings usually favor theadvantaged group and/or men.
8. Mean differences between local andimmigrant populations are affectedby immigration policies. Targetingeither high-skill or low-skill immi-grants can affect the magnitude anddirection of mean differences.
Discrimination Laws
9. Every country has a law or a directivethat prevents discrimination on thebasis of sex or race/ethnic originand many other personal character-istics and beliefs.
10. Most discrimination cases seem to besettled by special commissions and/or courts rather than by juries (whichdo not exist in several countries).
11. In many countries, few actual casesare actually filed and/or brought totrial, not because discrimination doesnot occur but because workers do notunderstand their rights, are not used toprotecting these rights (collectivisticorientation, etc.), or do not see muchbenefit in going to court.
12. Punishment is usually rather light(e.g., minimal to moderate fine or re-instatement, payment of back wages).
13. Concerns about privacy are veryprominent in Europe. Many Europeancountries are so concerned that dataon race or gender are not collected.
Making and Refuting a Claimof Discrimination
14. For many countries, though there arelaws in place, there is very little clar-ity about how to establish discrimi-nation and/or what kind of evidenceis required.
15. Intent to discriminate is not requiredin most countries (exceptions areTaiwan, Turkey, and India).
16. Most discrimination cases are han-dled on a ‘‘case-by-case’’ basisand are based on treating peopledifferently on the basis of group
International perspectives 243
membership (direct discrimination)rather than on a procedure or test thatsystematically disadvantages a group(indirect discrimination). In mostcountries surveyed, both are illegal.
17. Few actual cases outside the UnitedStates challenging the adverseimpact or discriminatory nature offormal tests (cognitive ability or per-sonality) exist, and therefore, mostcountries do not really use validityevidence to refute discrimination.
18. Most countries do not require valid-ity evidence. In many places, theempirical validity of formal tests(e.g., cognitive ability, personality)is implicitly assumed.
19. Most countries do not use relevantworkforce comparisons as a basisfor discrimination, though this infor-mation is sometimes taken underconsideration in certain countries.
20. The evidence to refute a claim of dis-crimination is usually some qualita-tive evidence of job relatedness orbona fide occupational requirement.
Minority Preference
21. Minority preference is permitted(and even recommended) in mostcountries. This is more likely to betrue for women or those with disabil-ities than for racial groups.
22. It is more common for governmententities than for private-sector firmsto engage in practices involving pref-erential treatment.
23. Forms of affirmative action vary,ranging from active recruitment andtraining of women or racial groupsthat have been traditionally disad-vantaged to lower standards for thesegroups.
24. Quotas are relatively rare but presentin a number of countries, such asIndia (lower castes), Taiwan (aborig-ines), Korea and France (handicap),and South Africa (race and gender).
25. Explicitly forbidding preferentialtreatment is rare (e.g., Turkey).
Specific I–O Tools and Impact on I–O
26. Generally, tools of the I–O psychol-ogy field are not explicitly referencedin laws or in common legal practices(exceptions include South Africa,Switzerland, and the United Kingdom).
27. Generally, although firms are free touse whatever selection methods theydesire, large firms tend to be aware ofsocial and business pressures foreffective selection.
28. The selection method that is mostlimited/banned is the polygraph.
29. Selection practice tends to be in-fluenced more by the presence ofmultinational corporations and con-sulting firms than by legal pressures(with the exception of United states,Canada, and South Africa).
30. I–O psychology is a relatively newfield in many countries with limitedbut growing influence.
We anticipate the response of ‘‘but I work incountry X, and am bound by one set of laws.What value is there in information aboutother countries?’’ We have a number ofresponses. First, more and more of us do orsoon will engage in practice that extendsacross national boundaries. Second, thereis value in extending one’s frameworkbeyond the national setting with which oneis most familiar. Discovering that the sameissue is treated differently elsewhere breaksthe mold of viewing a certain set of circum-stances inevitable. Third, documentingthese differences sets the stages for compar-ative research asking questions about whycertain variations are found. For example,why is preferential treatment not generallypermitted and held in such negative popularopinion in the United States and not in manyother countries? Why are some groups pro-tected in some countries but not others?Fourth, research on various aspects of selec-tion systems is often implicitly viewed withone country’s legal environment in mind. Ajournal reviewer may reject a manuscript onthe grounds that it examines a practice ora technique not legally permitted in thereviewer’s country. The recognition that this
244 B. Myors et al.
practice is permitted in other settings maylead to a different assessment of the valueof that research.
In conclusion, we hope that this compila-tion of information about perspectives froma wide range of countries is useful to stu-dents, researchers, and practitioners aroundthe globe. We encourage international col-laborations on other issues of interest to I–Opsychologists and hope this project providesa useful model.
References
ATO Report (Ankara Ticaret Odas�Raporu, Report of theAnkara Chamber of Trade). (2006). _Isxsizligin veGocxun Cografyas� [The geography of unemploy-ment and migration]. Ankara, Turkey: Ankara Cham-ber of Trade.
Attal-Toubert, K., & Lavergne, H. (2006). Premiers resul-tats de l’enquete sur l‘emploi 2005 [Initial resultsfrom the 2005 employment survey] (INSEE PremiereNo. 1070). Paris: INSEE. Retrieved April 15, 2007,www.insee.fr/fr/ffc/ipweb/ip1070/ip1070.pdf
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2004). Labour force sta-tus and other characteristics of migrants. Canberra,Australia: Author.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2007). Year bookAustralia, 2007. Canberra, Australia: Author.
Australian Psychological Society. (2003).Guidelines forthe provision of psychological services for, and theconduct of psychological research with, Aboriginaland Torres Strait Islander people of Australia.Melbourne, Australia: Author.
Baldwin-Edwards, M. (2004). Statistical data on immi-grants in Greece: An analytical study of availabledata and recommendations for conformity withEU standards. Athens, Greece: Migration PolicyInstitute & Mediterranean Migration Observatory,UEHR, Panteion University.
Bamberger, P., & Meshulam, I. (2000). Human resourcestrategy: formulation, implementation and impact.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Blumen, O. (2007). The performative landscape ofgoing-to-work: On the edge of Jewish ultraorthodoxneighbourhood. Environment and Planning D:Society and Space, 25, 803–831.
Blust, R. (1999). Subgrouping, circularity and extinc-tion: Some issues in Austronesian comparative lin-guistics. In E. Zeitoun & P. J. K. Li (Eds.), Selectedpapers from the Eighth International Conferenceon Austronesian Linguistics (pp. 31–94). Taipei,R.O.C. (Taiwan): Academia Sinica.
Bonifazi, C. (2007). L’immigrazione straniera in Italia. Ilmulino: Studi e ricerche.
Bourles, L., & Courson, J.-P. (2000). Recensement de lapopulation 1999 [1999 census of the population](INSEE Premiere No. 749). Paris: INSEE. RetrievedApril 15,2007,www.insee.fr/fr/ffc/docs_ffc/IP749.pdf
Cascio, W. F., & Aguinis, H. (2005).Applied psychologyin human resource management (6th ed.). UpperSaddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
CBS Statline. (2007). Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek.Retrieved June 8, 2007, http://Statline.cbs.nl
Central Bureau of Statistic, Israel. (2006). Statisticalabstract of Israel. No. 57. Jerusalem: Author.
Chernyshenko, O. S. (2005). Report on psychometricevaluation of the general reasoning test (GRT2) fortheNewZealand Police:Measurement equivalenceacross ethnic and gender groups. Auckland, NewZealand: OPRA Consulting Group.
Commissie Gelijke Behandeling (2006). Gelijkebehandeling: Informatie voor werkgever. RetrievedApril 15, 2007, www.swz.nl.
Commissie Gelijke Behandeling (2006). Gelijkebehandeling: Oordelen en commentaar [Equaltreatment: Verdicts and comments]. Oisterwijk,the Netherlands: Wolf Legal Publishers.
Council of Indigenous Peoples. (2002). Yearbook ofTaiwanese aborigines statistics. R.O.C. Taipei,Taiwan: Executive Yuan.
Council of Indigenous Peoples. (2005). Aborigines em-ployment report. R.O.C. Taipei, Taiwan: ExecutiveYuan.
Department of Household Registration Affairs. (2005).Statistical yearbook of Interior. R.O.C. Taipei,Taiwan: Ministry of the Interior.
Dienst Onderzoek en Statistiek Gemeente Amsterdam.(2007). Amsterdam in cijfers 2006 [Amsterdam infigures 2006]. Retrieved June 8, 2007, www.os.amsterdam.nl
Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statis-tics. (2005a). Labor force utilization report. R.O.C.Taipei, Taiwan: Executive Yuan.
Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statis-tics. (2005b). Monthly bulletin of manpower statis-tics. R.O.C. Taipei, Taiwan: Executive Yuan.
Fauroux, R. (2005). La lutte contre les discriminationsethniques dans le domaine de l‘emploi [The fightagainst ethnic discrimination in employment]. LaDocumentation Francxaise. Retrieved October 10,2005, http://lesrapports.ladocumentationfrancaise.fr/BRP/054000466/0000.pdf
Federal Statistical Office, Switzerland. (2006a).Auslan-derinnen und Auslander in der Schweiz: Bericht2006 [Foreigners in Switzerland: Report 2006].Neuchatel, Switzerland: Author.
Federal Statistical Office, Switzerland. (2006b). Statisti-cal data on Switzerland 2006. Neuchatel, Switzer-land: Author.
Fontaine, J. R. J., Schittekatte, M., Groenvynck, H., & DeClercq, S. (2006). Acculturation and intelligenceamong Turkish and Moroccan adolescents in Bel-gium. Unpublished manuscript, Ghent University,Belgium.
General Board Employment and Labor Market. (2006).The immigration in Belgium: Numbers, flows andlabor market. Brussels, Belgium: Federal Govern-ment Agency Employment, Labor and IndustrialRelations.
Government of India. (1980). Report of the backwardclasses Commission. Delhi, India: Government ofIndia Press.
Grieco, E. M., & Cassidy, R. C. (2001). Overview ofrace and Hispanic origin: 2000. Retrieved May 12,2007, www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-1.pdf-2001-04-02.
Guenole, N., Englert, P., & Taylor, P. (2003). Ethnicgroup differences in cognitive ability test scores
International perspectives 245
within a New Zealand applicant sample. New Zea-land Journal of Psychology, 23, 39–54.
Guion, R. M. (1998). Assessment, measurement, andprediction for personnel decisions. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
Immigration Bureau, Japan. (2006). Statistics on num-ber of foreign residents [in Japanese]. RetrievedJune 5, 2007, www.moj.go.jp/PRESS/070516-1.pdf
Israel Ministry of Industry and Trade. (2007). Women inthe world of work—25 facts Israeli working women[in Hebrew]. Retrieved March 3, 2007, www.moital.gov.il
Japan Institute of Labor Policy and Training. (2007).Labor situation in Japan and analysis 2006/2007.Retrieved June 5, 2007, http://www.jil.go.jp/english/laborinfo/library/documents/Labor2006_2007.pdf
Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corpora-tion. New York: Basic Books.
Kenya National Bureau of Statistics. (2003). 1998/1999Integrated labour force survey. Nairobi, Kenya:Ministry of Planning and National Development.
Kinyungu, C. (2006). KCPE: Public schools feel theheat. Retrieved January 31, 2007, www.eastandard.net/archives/cl/hm_news/news.php?articleid=1143963072
Korea National Statistics Office. (2006). Social Statisti-cal Survey. Korea: National Statistics Office.
Kriek, H. J. (2006, May). Personality assessment: Groupdifferences, language proficiency and fairness. Pre-sented at the Society of Industrial and Organiza-tional Psychology Conference, Dallas, TX.
Krings, F., & Olivares, J. (2007). At the doorstep to em-ployment: Discrimination against immigrants as afunction of applicant ethnicity, job type, and raters’prejudice. International Journal of Psychology, 42,406–417.
Kroeber, A. L. (1937). Caste. In E. R. A. Seligman (Ed.),Encyclopedia of the Social SciencesVol. 3 (pp. 254–257). New York: Macmillan Company.
Leshem, E. (2004). Israel as a multicultural state at theturn of the twenty-first century. In E. Leshem & DoritRoer-Strier (Eds.), Cultural diversity: A challenge tohuman services (pp. 13–111). Jerusalem: TheHebrew University Magnes Press.
Linacre, S. (2002).National Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander Social Survey. Canberra, Australia: Austra-lian Bureau of Statistics.
Ludi, G., & Werlen, I. (2005). Sprachenlandschaft in derSchweiz [Languages in Switzerland]. Neuchatel,Switzerland: Federal Statistical Office.
Muchinsky, P. M., Kriek, H. J., & Schreuder, D. (2003). Per-sonnel psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Myors, B. (2003). Within-Group Norming: Just BecauseIt’s Illegal in America, Doesn’t MeanWeCan’t Do ItHere. Paper presented at the 5th Australian Confer-ence on Industrial/Organisational Psychology, Mel-bourne, Australia.
National Commission for Backward Classes. (2005).Annual report 2003-2004. Retrieved November13, 2007, http://ncbc.nic.in/html/annual.pdf
National Informatics Centre, India. (2005). Demo-graphic background. Retrieved April 9, 2007,http://india.gov.in/knowindia/population.php
Okkerse, L., & Termote, A. (2004). How foreign is for-eign in the labor market? On foreign laborers in Bel-gium. Brussels, Belgium: National Institute of Statistics.
Papadopoulou, D. (2005). A study of employment strat-egies of fragile social groups–Socially margined,individuals with special needs, women and eco-nomic immigrants. Athens, Greece: VocationalTraining Center of Labour Institute of GeneralConfederation of Greek Workers. RetrievedJuly 22, 2007, www.inegsee.gr/
Pines, A. M. (2003). Occupational burnout: A cross-cultural Jewish-Arab perspective and its implica-tions for career counseling. Career DevelopmentInternational, 8, 97–106.
Rebirth. (2000). Apartheid South Africa: Bantu educa-tion. Retrieved August 28, 2007, http://rebirth.co.za/apartheid_segregation_bantu_education3.htm
Roth, P. L., Bevier, C. A., Bobko, P., Switzer, F. S., & Tyler,P. (2001). Ethnic group differences in cognitive abil-ity in employment and educational settings: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 54, 297–330.
SHL. (2006). Validity study V036. Retrieved June 7,2007, www.shl.co.za
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychologyin South Africa. (2005). Guidelines for the valida-tion and use of assessment procedures for the work-place. Retrieved June 7, 2007, www.siopsa.org.za/
South Africa celebrating diversity. (2007). RetrievedJune 7, 2007, www.south-africa.org.za/history
Statistics Bureau, Japan. (2006). Results from 2005 pop-ulation census [in Japanese]. Retrieved June 5, 2007,www.stat.go.jp/data/kokusei/2005/kekkagai.htm
Steering Committee for the Review of GovernmentService Provision. (2005). Overcoming indigenousdisadvantage: Key indicators 2005. Canberra,Australia: Commonwealth of Australia.
Tavan, C. (2005). Les immigres en France: une situationqui evolue [Immigrants in France: A situation whichevolves]. INSEE Premiere No. 1042. Paris: INSEE.Retrieved April 15, 2007, www.insee.fr/fr/ffc/docs_ffc/IP1042.pdf
te Nijenhuis, J., de Jong, M., Evers, A., & van der Flier, H.(2004). Are cognitive differences between immi-grant and majority groups diminishing? EuropeanJournal of Personality, 18, 405–434.
te Nijenhuis, J., van der Flier, H., & van Leeuwen, L.(1997). Comparability of personality test scores forimmigrants and majority group members: SomeDutch findings. Personality and Individual Differen-ces, 23, 849–859.
te Nijenhuis, J., van der Flier, H., & van Leeuwen, L.(2003). The use of a test for neuroticism, extra-version, and rigidity for Dutch immigrant jobapplicants. Applied Psychology: An InternationalReview, 52, 630–647.
Tesser, P. T. M., Merens, J. G. F., & van Praag, C. S.(1999). Rapportage minderheden 1999 [Reportminorities 1999]. Den Haag: Sociaal en CultureelPlanbureau.
U.S. Census Bureau (2004). Projected population of theUnited States, by Race and Hispanic Origin: 2000-2050. Retrieved April 9, 2008, www.census.gov/ipc/www/usinterimproj
van Leest, P. F. (1997). Persoonlijkheidsmeting bijallochtonen [Assessment of personality forethnic minorities]. Lisse, The Netherlands: Swets &Zeitlinger.
Zeidner, M. (1986). Are scholastic aptitude tests in Israelbiased toward Arab student candidates? HigherEducation, 15, 507–522.
246 B. Myors et al.