Research

In recent years, perceptions of discrimination have risen sharply, even as legal protections against discrimination have expanded. Previous research has investigated explanations focused on ethno-racial discrimination, such as the integration paradox, overlooking the idea that different grounds for discrimination might correlate. This paper examines an alternative explanation of why reports of discrimination are increasing. Using a survey experiment, we test how exposure to news articles about either ingroup or outgroup discrimination affects minority individuals’ reports of ethno-racial and gender discrimination, and whether these reports lead to increased support for anti-discrimination policies. We hypothesize two competing patterns: a spillover effect, where increased salience of one type of discrimination heightens perceptions of discrimination on other grounds, and a switching effect, where information about a specific type of discrimination diverts attention toward that ground alone. Participants (minority men and women) read an article about discrimination against women in the workplace, discrimination against ethnic minorities in hiring, or a neutral control (phosphane on Venus). Following the intervention, we measure their discrimination perceptions, allowing respondents to mention multiple grounds for discrimination. Results show that minority men report increased discrimination in both treatment conditions, i.e., when exposed to information about in- and outgroup discrimination, while women’s reports remain unchanged. Exposure to discrimination news does not increase support for anti-discrimination policies targeting either ethno-racial or gender equality. Our results highlight both commonalities and differences in discrimination perceptions based on different grounds. In the conclusion, we reflect on the implications of our results for other grounds of discrimination.

In many immigration societies, researchers and policymakers continue to assess migrant “integration” through so-called objective indicators such as length of residence, country of birth, or educational attainment. However, a growing body of research highlights the limitations of focusing solely on these socio-structural measures and the concept of “integration” as an evaluative lens in general. Such approaches not only risk reinforcing systemic inequalities but also overlook migrants’ own perspectives and experiences with discrimination and inclusion. Research on the so-called integration paradox underscores these limitations. Counterintuitively, migrants with a higher socio-economic position often report stronger feelings of social exclusion and a weaker sense of belonging to their country of residence. This disconnect between migrants’ embeddedness in societal structures and their experiences of recognition raises important questions about how integration is often conceptualized. Although evidence of this paradox has been documented across diverse migration societies, the underlying mechanisms driving it and its broader consequences remain underexplored. After organizing a workshop on the topic of the integration paradox at Utrecht University in June 2025, we are working on panels on the integration paradox at the IMISCOE conference 2026, a podcast to be aired by the BiB, and a Special Issue.