Responses to the Islamic headscarf in everyday interactions depend on sex and locale: A field experiment in the metros of Brussels, Paris, and Vienna on helping and involvement behaviors

Abstract

The Islamic headscarf has been in the middle of heated debates in European society, yet little is known about its influence on day-to-day interactions. The aim of this randomized field experiment (n = 840) is to explore how the generally negative views that surround the hijab in Europe manifest in the behavior that people direct to hijab-wearing women in everyday situations. Using a helping scenario and videotapes of the resulting interactions, we measured whether passengers offered assistance and also various details of behavior that indicate interpersonal involvement. We predicted that in interaction with the covered confederate less help would be offered, that women's level of nonverbal involvement would increase but men's decrease, and that responses would be stronger in Paris, intermediate in Brussels, and weaker in Vienna. We analyzed the data using Generalized Linear Models estimated with Bayesian inference. While the headscarf does not produce concluding differences in "overt" helping, it does affect "subtle" cues of interpersonal involvement. In response to the hijab, women across sites increase, but men in Paris decrease, the level of involvement that they show with their nonverbal behavior.

Fig 1. Planned model on helping, central posterior intervals.

From left to right, the first column gives the heading of different groups of parameters. The second column specifies the individual parameters, where “Bru” stands for “Brussels”, “Par” for “Paris”, “Vie” for “Vienna, “f” for “female passengers” and “m” for “male passengers”. The quantities on the right-hand side of the plot specify the number of observations on which the estimation of the corresponding parameter directly relies; the first number refers to the sample size of the hijab group, the second number to that of the control group. The x-axis represents the difference between the control and the hijab conditions. Within the plot area, the dashed vertical line in the middle indicates the location of the value 0, which signifies no difference between the control and the hijab conditions. The horizontal segments represent the central 95% posterior intervals of the parameters. The bolder section of the segment corresponds to the central 90% posterior interval and the solid point indicates the median of the distribution. Our decision rule is to reject the null hypothesis of no effect of the hijab if the 95% or 90% posterior interval of a given parameter excludes the value zero. In graphical terms this implies that the thin (95%, alpha = 0.05) or bold (90%, alpha = 0.10) segment representing the parameter does not intersect the dashed vertical line. The differences in color are only meant to facilitate reading.

Fig 2. Planned model on distance, central posterior intervals.

Fig 3. Planned model on eye contact, central posterior intervals.

Fig 4. Planned model on speech duration, central posterior intervals.

Fig 5. Post hoc model on the probability that the passenger fails to move.

Fig 6. Post hoc model on distance with failure to move included as a control predictor.

Fig 7. Post hoc model on helping with distance, eye contact, and speech rate controlled.

The plot reports the central posterior intervals of the parameters estimating the slopes of the involvement outcomes (distance, eye contact, speech duration), treated as predictors of the probability of helping. The segments estimate the change in the probability of helping that is associated with a 10-unit change in distance (cm), gaze rate or speech rate (percentual points).