The mark of mental health problems. A field experiment on hiring discrimination before and during COVID-19

Health-related exit from employment before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in Norway: Analysis of population-wide register data 2013-2021

People with health problems experience various labor market disadvantages, such as hiring discrimination and heightened risk of firing, but the impact of deteriorating economic conditions on health-related labor market mobility remains poorly understood. The strength of the downturn/crisis will most likely make a difference. During minor downturns, when few employees are made redundant, health-related exit may occur frequently since employers prefer to keep those with good health on the payroll. However, during major economic crises, when large-scale downsizing and firm closures abound, there will be less discretionary room for employers. Thus, some mechanisms that usually are damaging for people with health problems (e.g., seniority rules and negative connotations), can be neutralized, ultimately leading to smaller health differentials in labor market outcomes. The current study used population-wide administrative register data, covering the years 2013-2021, to examine health-related exit from employment (to unemployment/social assistance) before and during the COVID-19 pandemic in Norway. The pandemic spurred a major crisis on the Norwegian labor market and led to a record-high unemployment rate of 10.6 percent in March 2020. Restricting the analytical samples to labor market insiders, linear probability models showed that previous recipients of health-related benefits had a higher unemployment likelihood in the pre-crisis year 2019. The relative importance of poor health changed non-negligibly, however, during the COVID-19 pandemic. When identical statistical analyses were run on the crisis year 2020, health-related exit from employment was dampened. Yet, this labor market equalization was not followed by smaller health differentials in work income in 2021, mainly because people with good health retained or regained decent-paying jobs when the economic conditions improved again. In conclusion, major economic crises can lead to an equalization of labor market disadvantages for people with health problems, but health-related inequalities may reemerge when the economy recovers.

Adult life-course trajectories of psychological distress and economic outcomes in midlife during the COVID-19 pandemic: evidence from the 1958 and 1970 British birth cohorts

PURPOSE

Financial adversity in times of economic recession have been shown to have an unequal effect on individuals with prior mental health problems. This study investigated the relationship between mental health groupings across the adult life-course and change in financial situation and employment status during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as the use of financial measures to mitigate the economic shock.

METHODS

Using two nationally representative British birth cohorts, the National Child Development Study (1958) n = 17,415 and 1970 British Cohort Study n = 17,198, we identified 5 different life-course trajectories of psychological distress from adolescence to midlife which were similar but not identical across the two cohorts. We explored their relation to changes in financial and employment circumstances at different stages during the pandemic from May 2020 to March 2021, applying multinomial logistic regression and controlling for numerous early life covariates, including family socio-economic status (SES). In addition, we ran modified Poisson models with robust standard errors to identify whether different mental health trajectories were supported by government and used other methods to mitigate their financial situation.

RESULTS

We found that the financial circumstances of pre-pandemic trajectories of psychological distress with differential onset, severity, and chronicity across the life-course were exacerbated by the COVID-19 economic shock. The 'stable-high' (persistent severe symptoms) and 'adult-onset' (symptoms developing in 30s, but later decreasing) groups were vulnerable to job loss. Compared to pre-pandemic trajectory groupings with no, minor, or psychological distress symptoms in early adulthood, the 'stable-high', 'midlife-onset' (symptoms developing in midlife), and 'adult-onset' trajectory groups were more likely to seek support from the UK governments economic response package. However, trajectories with pre-pandemic psychological distress were also at greater risk of reducing consumption, dis-saving, relying on increased financial help from family and friends, and also taking payment holidays (agreements with lenders to pause mortgage, credit card or loan payments for a set period) and borrowing.

CONCLUSION

This work highlights different trajectories of pre-pandemic psychological distress, compared to groups with no symptoms were more vulnerable to pandemic-related economic shock and job loss. By adopting unsustainable mitigating measures (borrowing and payment holidays) to support their financial circumstances during COVID-19, these mental health trajectories are at even more risk of lasting adverse impacts and future economic difficulties.

Mental illness stigma and employer evaluation in hiring: Stereotypes, discrimination and the role of experience

Mental illness stigma can constitute a significant barrier to entering employment. Drawing on 20 interviews with Norwegian employers, this article investigates how mental illness stigma affects employer evaluation of jobseekers who disclose a history of mental illness. It also explores how employers use accounts of their previous experience with employees with mental illness in their evaluations. Prior to the interviews, the employers received pairs of fictitious applications in which one of the candidates disclosed a history of mental illness. Thus, the interview data were paired with behavioural data on how the employers responded to mental illness disclosure in a genuine recruitment situation. The analysis reveals common stereotypes of people with mental illness as fragile and unreliable. Furthermore, discriminating and inclusive employers are juxtaposed in their approach to mental health stigma, characterised by either taboo and avoidance or empathetic dialogue. The findings indicate how negative experience is coupled with negative attitudes and behaviour and how positive experience is coupled with positive attitudes and behaviour. A central argument is that experience is something that employers play an active part in constructing by choosing to either engage or not engage in a two-way dialogue with employees struggling with mental illness.

Is disability more discriminatory in hiring than ethnicity, address or gender? Evidence from a multi-criteria correspondence experiment

In this paper, we conduct a multi-criteria correspondence test to assess the extent of discrimination in access to employment against candidates with a hearing disability and compare it to three other potential grounds for discrimination: ethnicity, place of residence and gender. From October 2019 to February 2020, we sent 2315 applications to 463 job vacancies in the Paris region in France for two occupations, administrative managers and caregiver assistants, in both the private and public sectors. We find that discrimination on the grounds of disability is similar in scope to that found on the grounds of ethnicity in the profession of administrative manager, but discrimination against the disabled candidate is half that experienced by the North African candidate in the profession of caregiver assistant. Moreover, discrimination on the grounds of disability is twice as high in the profession of caregiver assistant, a role which requires more interaction with public, as in the profession of administrative manager. We do not find any evidence of a difference in callback rates based on place of residence or gender. Finally, we cannot conclude that hiring discrimination is systematically lower in the public sector than in the private sector, nor that being eligible for a public subsidy reduces hiring discrimination against the disabled candidate.

A balancing act: The employer perspective on disability disclosure in hiring

BACKGROUND: How to disclose an impairment during the hiring process is an important question for disabled people, yet the associated employer perspective remains overlooked in the literature. OBJECTIVE: The article investigates whether, when and how employers prefer jobseekers to disclose their impairment during the recruitment process. Stigma and impression management is used as a theoretical lens to interpret employer responses. METHODS: The article uses interview data from 38 Norwegian employers paired with behavioral data from a recruitment situation. Prior to the interviews, the employers were subjected to a field experiment wherein pairs of fictitious applications were submitted for real job listings. In these, one of the applicants disclosed either a mobility impairment or a mental health condition. RESULTS: The findings show that disability disclosure is a balancing act between appearing candid and demonstrating competence and that employers favor identity management strategies that present disability in a positive and unobtrusive manner and downplay the impairment. The employers favored disclosure but expected wheelchair users to disclose their impairment earlier than people with mental health conditions. Furthermore, employers with a relational view on disability were found to be more open to hiring disabled people. CONCLUSIONS: The article illustrates how disclosure expectations can represent a significant disability penalty, thus hampering employment advancement for disabled people.