idw – Informationsdienst Wissenschaft
Nachrichten, Termine, Experten
Nachrichten, Termine, Experten
idw - Informationsdienst
Wissenschaft
A sociological study by the University of Cologne shows that measures to compensate for social or professional disadvantages can be effective in experiments – and yet barely contribute to reducing social inequality. The decisive factor is who and how many people are actually benefitting from the measures in reality / publication in the ‘Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie’
In modern social research, sociological questions are increasingly being answered with the help of experiments. For example, whether employers discriminate in personnel selection, whether immigrants are treated less well in social situations, or whether counselling programmes help to overcome educational inequalities. However, a new study by Dr Irena Pietrzyk and Professor Dr Marita Jacob at the Department of Sociology and Social Psychology shows that findings relating to social reality can be misleading. In addition, the authors have developed an online tool that clearly shows the extent to which social inequalities between groups can, in fact, decrease – depending on how many people actually have access to a measure. The study “Why Treatment Prevalence Matters: Overcoming a Blind Spot in Experimental Inequality Research ” is published in the special issue “Erklärung und Kausalität in der Soziologie” of Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie and is already available online.
Experiments are well suited to measuring whether a measure or mechanism has a causal effect. However, experiments do not generally record how many people from different social groups are exposed to such a measure in everyday life. The researchers refer to this factor as treatment prevalence. “Whether a support programme reduces inequality depends not only on whether it works, but also on who takes part in it,” says Marita Jacob. “This has hardly been taken into account in experimental studies to date.”
The researchers illustrate their findings using three recent experimental studies. Two of them derive from international research literature, one from their own work.
A laboratory experiment conducted in Italy showed that people who are not from a migrant background did not tend to trust immigrants less than others in a game involving trust. Nevertheless, immigrants may benefit less from pro-social behaviour in everyday life at the group level because they might play a less active role within associations and civil society structures, and therefore benefit less from the willingness to help that is shown to people who engage in voluntary work.
An experimental study with fictitious applicant profiles in Germany and Italy showed that female applicants for professorships are not rated worse than their male colleagues. However, because men in science are more likely to be first authors of publications than women, structural inequality can still arise at the group level – with the result that women are appointed less frequently as professors.
In their own research, Pietrzyk and Jacob have carried out a large field study in North Rhine-Westphalia, which has shown that intensive guidance counselling increases the enrolment rate amongst pupils from less privileged families. However, even an effective programme could exacerbate inequalities if it also encourages privileged pupils to study and, in practice, primarily benefits these pupils instead. Conversely, a programme could realize its full potential if it specifically benefits those most in need of support when it comes to accessing higher education.
To help researchers and practitioners systematically analyse these relationships, Pietrzyk and Jacob have developed an interactive, freely accessible visualization tool. It allows for a simulation of how different access patterns influence social inequalities.
“The message for practical application is clear,” summarizes Irena Pietrzyk. “Anyone who wants to seriously combat inequalities must not only ask whether a measure works, but also ensure that it is benefitting the right people.”
Department of Sociology and Social Psychology, University of Cologne
Dr Irena Pietrzyk
pietrzyk@wiso.uni-koeln.de
Professor Dr Marita Jacob
jacob@wiso.uni-koeln.de
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11577-026-01068-7
http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18627890
Criteria of this press release:
Journalists, Scientists and scholars, Students, Teachers and pupils, all interested persons
Economics / business administration, Politics, Social studies, Teaching / education
transregional, national
Research results, Scientific Publications
English
You can combine search terms with and, or and/or not, e.g. Philo not logy.
You can use brackets to separate combinations from each other, e.g. (Philo not logy) or (Psycho and logy).
Coherent groups of words will be located as complete phrases if you put them into quotation marks, e.g. “Federal Republic of Germany”.
You can also use the advanced search without entering search terms. It will then follow the criteria you have selected (e.g. country or subject area).
If you have not selected any criteria in a given category, the entire category will be searched (e.g. all subject areas or all countries).
