ESRA 2025 Preliminary Program

Monday 14 July    Tuesday 15 July    Wednesday 16 July    Thursday 17 July    Friday 18 July   

All time references are in CEST

Measuring Discrimination: Methodological Challenges and Insights 2
Session Organisers	Mr Kien Tran (German Centre for Integration and Migration Research) Mrs Almuth Lietz (German Centre for Integration and Migration Research) Mrs Zaza Zindel (German Centre for Integration and Migration Research)
Time	Tuesday 15 July, 11:00 - 12:00
Room	Ruppert 111

Discrimination based on race, ethnicity, and other characteristics remains a pervasive issue in many societies, contributing to deep-rooted social inequalities. The empirical study of discrimination, especially among racialized and marginalized groups, offers crucial insights into these inequalities but also presents significant methodological challenges. This session will focus on the empirical investigation of discrimination, with a special emphasis on racialized and marginalized populations. The goal is to bring together papers that explore new advancements in survey research related to discrimination reporting.
Survey research is a key catalyst for investigating discrimination empirically. The measurement of discrimination experiences has evolved over time, reflecting shifts in societal attitudes and methodological advancements. How vulnerable group membership is defined and operationalized can influence the prevalence of reported discrimination experiences. Whether individuals are categorized based on self-identification, external perception, or other criteria can significantly affect estimates of discrimination prevalence. Longitudinal trends in discrimination and the development of new techniques for capturing these experiences are critical for understanding how discrimination evolves over time. Experimental designs that simulate discriminatory contexts offer valuable insights into implicit and explicit biases. Furthermore, exploring the relationship between self-reported reasons for discrimination (e.g., race, gender, religion) and individuals' self-identification with vulnerable groups can reveal important discrepancies between perceived and actual experiences of discrimination. These dynamics provide a deeper understanding of how individuals interpret and frame their experiences within broader social contexts.
Relevant topics for this session include, but are not limited to:
• Methodological advances in measuring discrimination, including implicit measures, data-linkage procedures, or comparisons of survey instruments assessing discriminatory experiences.
• Experimental designs simulating discriminatory contexts.
• The influence of operationalization of key characteristics, such as vulnerable group membership and self-identification, on reported discrimination.
• Longitudinal studies of discrimination: trends over time, shifts in prevalence, changes in forms of discrimination.

Keywords: discrimination, racialized groups, measurement, operationalization, racialized categorizations

Papers

Measuring discrimination experiences: A Comparison of Standardized Survey Instruments with Data from a Qualitative Diary Study

Mr Jonas Koehler (DeZIM-Institute) - Presenting Author

The operationalization and measurement of discrimination experiences pose a non-trivial challenge in social sciences. Standardized survey instruments, in particular, face critique from qualitative research for reducing complex and intertwined dimensions into a handful of metric variables. To address the topic empirically, a mixed-method design was conducted, combining standardized survey instruments with manually coded data from a qualitative diary study. The analysis of the differing methodologies addresses the question of how standardized and qualitative approaches can both be valid, yet still lead to fundamentally different distributions of discrimination experiences.
Traditionally, surveys rely on standardized single-item indicators or established scales, such as the Perceived Discrimination Scale used in this study. While this provides a time-efficient method to generate metric values for each participant, it offers only a reductionist and aggregated understanding of the multifaceted phenomenon. This is especially true for subtle forms, such as non-verbal discrimination and microaggressions.
Qualitative diary studies follow a different approach, allowing for time-sensitive, granular, and nuanced data collection of everyday experiences (Swim et al., 2003). To systematically analyze and compare the entries, which reflect the participants often ambiguous and fuzzy perception of social reality, the open-text data was manually coded and quantified for this study.
The analyzed data includes 82 participants, surveyed online in the autumn/winter of 2020. The convenience sample was recruited for a project focusing on the experiences of people of Asian origin during the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany. All participants completed the standardized survey as well as the two-week diary study, enabling intra-person comparisons.

MIND.set - Integrating cognitive tests of implicit racial bias into online surveys

Dr Elli Zey (German Centre for Integration and Migration Research) - Presenting Author
Ms Judith Ehmeir (German Centre for Integration and Migration Research)
Dr Iniobong Essien (Leuphana Universität Lüneburg)
Dr Stefanie Hechler (German Centre for Integration and Migration Research)
Dr Susanne Veit (German Centre for Integration and Migration Research)

Survey data on racism and discrimination are often influenced by social desirability bias. Therefore, indirect measures of stereotypes and bias provide a complementary picture by providing insights into the cognitive processes and behavioral tendencies involved. As indirect measures, cognitive tests measure bias by analyzing reaction times, behavior under time pressure, priming effects, and memory effects instead of explicit responses, which are mostly used in surveys. MIND.set provides easy access to create and administer these tests to measure implicit (racial) bias and implement them in online surveys. The platform currently includes five established cognitive tests: Implicit Association Test (IAT), Affect Misattribution Procedure (AMP), First Person Shooter Task (ST), Avoidance Task (AT), and Source Monitoring Paradigm (SMP). The platform prioritizes accessibility in several ways: The platform is free for researchers, from students to professors, and the browser-based application requires no additional software downloads. The versatile and user-friendly interface requires no additional programming skills, allowing researchers to create and monitor tests and download data using a click-based GUI (general user interface). We support users with step-by-step instruction manuals for test creation, a media pool for managing stimulus material, and pre-written commented analysis scripts in R for easy data interpretation. MIND.set is also designed so that participants can access and take the tests via computers or mobile devices such as smartphones. We provide code snippets for seamless integration into various survey systems (e.g. SoSci Survey, Lime Survey, EFS, Unipark), but all tests can also be accessed directly via a standalone link. By addressing the challenges of remote testing with indirect measures and providing comprehensive resources, MIND.set improves the accessibility, reliability and scalability of cognitive tests in online surveys.

Split-Ballot Experiment on Positive and Negative Framing of Statements About Religious Acceptance in Surveys

Dr Jozef Zagrapan (Institute for Sociology of the Slovak Academy of Sciences) - Presenting Author

Surveys, commonly used to assess public opinions and attitudes, are often presumed to capture the authentic values of the measured concepts. Nevertheless, a substantial body of research challenges this assumption by highlighting the impact of question characteristics on respondents. The influence of question framing on survey responses is a well-established phenomenon, as evidenced by research demonstrating that the decision to phrase questions positively or negatively shapes the answers. This study tests these assumptions and contributes to the existing body of knowledge by examining how framing the statements in positive or negative terms in the Slovak language may impact survey outcomes.

As part of a larger survey (N = 1325), we conducted a split-ballot experiment involving two statements on religion framed both positively and negatively. Respondents provided feedback on a five-point scale, ranging from 'definitely agree' to 'definitely disagree.' In the first scenario, the sole distinction in the statement lay in the inclusion of the word 'not.' Respondents were asked to agree or disagree with the statement 'All religious groups existing in Slovakia should have equal rights' in the positive variant and 'Not all religious groups existing in Slovakia should have equal rights' in the negative variant. In the second case, respondents expressed their agreement or disagreement with the statement 'We need to respect all religions' in the positive version and 'Some religions we do not need to respect' in the negative version. The results reveal differences between framing in both instances. In the negative versions, positive answers (definitely agree + rather agree) prevail in both cases. Moreover, positive answers in negative variants are chosen more frequently than negative answers in the positive variants. Additionally, the middle option ('do not agree nor disagree') is selected less often in negatively framed statements.

From Self-Perception to Structural Evidence: Investigating Discrimination through Surveys and Field Experiments

Mrs Zaza Zindel (German Centre for Integration and Migration Research) - Presenting Author
Mrs Stefanie Hechler (Freie Universität Berlin)
Mrs Elisabeth Zick (German Centre for Integration and Migration Research)
Mr Long Nguyen (German Centre for Integration and Migration Research)

The reliability of self-reported discrimination experiences has long been debated, as such reports depend on individuals’ awareness, interpretation, and willingness to disclose discriminatory incidents. While self-reports capture personal perceptions, they may not fully reflect the structural racism embedded in societal systems. Complementary methods, such as field experiments, provide objective insights by directly observing discriminatory practices in real-world contexts. Unlike surveys, experiments reveal how discrimination unfolds in practice, bridging the gap between perceived and actual experiences. Combining these approaches offers a comprehensive view of discrimination by aligning personal accounts with observable inequalities.

This study uses a combined approach to examine the relationship between self-reported discrimination and observed discriminatory practices in Germany’s housing market. Drawing on data from the NaDiRa.panel 2024, a probability-based online panel, and a field experiment involving over 10,000 standardized rental applications, we analyze racial discrimination against individuals with non-German names. The experiment manipulated applicant names to signal ethnic backgrounds, providing evidence of differential treatment by landlords.

By integrating self-reported survey data with experimental findings, the study explores the extent to which personal accounts align with structural inequalities in the housing market. This multi-dimensional approach not only advances understanding of racism in Germany but also demonstrates the methodological strength of combining self-reports and field experiments to study discrimination.

Beyond Labels: How Categorization Affects the Statistical Identification of Racism and Discrimination

Mrs Leonie Fuchs (German Center for Integration and Migration Research (DeZIM) )
Mr Kien Tran (German Center for Integration and Migration Research (DeZIM) ) - Presenting Author

Quantitative empirical research on racism and discrimination typically focuses on analyzing groups and group differences. However, the various possibilities for categorization are discussed intensely and controversially.

Using data from the NaDiRa.panel (n > 20,000), various dimensions of differentiation can be contrasted comparatively. Especially for the Muslim group, we have multiple bases for categorization, such as self-identification, external perception, religious affiliation, and country of origin.

Focusing on several experiences of racism and discrimination, this contribution aims to provide insights into how the choice of categorization influences the visibility of such experiences. In this context, we discuss the overall advantages and disadvantages of the different categorizations. Further, on the basis of descriptive and inferential statistical analyses, we address the following points:

On the one hand, the question arises as to whether racism and discrimination are underestimated when country of origin or religious affiliation are taken into account because certain characteristics relevant to racism (e.g., skin color, ethnicity) may be partially ignored. On the other hand, it is an open question whether the use of self-identification or external perception of identity may lead to an overestimation of experienced racism and discrimination due to potential endogeneity problems (reverse causality). Lastly, this results in a discussion about the differences and convergences between these categories in terms of their underlying relationship in measuring racism and discrimination.

Thus, this study contributes to the predominantly theoretical debate on appropriate categorizations for the statistical identification of racism and discrimination in Germany using empirical comparisons.