an experimental field study of interpersonal ... - Wiley Online Library

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY 2010, 63, 881–906

AN EXPERIMENTAL FIELD STUDY OF INTERPERSONAL DISCRIMINATION TOWARD MUSLIM JOB APPLICANTS EDEN B. KING AFRA S. AHMAD Department of Psychology George Mason University

Integrating justification-suppression and stereotype content models of prejudice, this research examines religious discrimination in employment settings. In the first study, confederates dressed in either Muslimidentified or nonreligious attire, who either did or did not provide stereotype-inconsistent information, applied for retail jobs. No differences emerged with regard to interview offers between job applicants dressed in traditional Muslim attire and those in the control condition. However, interactions were shorter and rated (by confederates, observers, and na¨ıve coders) as more interpersonally negative when applicants wore Muslim attire and did not provide stereotype-inconsistent information than when applicants wore nonreligious attire. Similarly, results from a second experimental study in which participants rated fictitious Muslim or non-Muslim job applicants suggest that reactions were most negative toward Muslim applicants who did not provide stereotype-inconsistent information. Together, these findings suggest that justification-suppression and stereotype content models are complementary, and that Muslims may face challenges to employment that reflect a lack of acceptance of this religious identity.

The display of overtly discriminatory behaviors toward members of socially disadvantaged groups in the workplace has drastically reduced since the Civil Rights Act of 1964, wherein it was legislated that discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin is prohibited in employment decisions. Nevertheless, many researchers have suggested that discrimination has not been eliminated; rather, the display of prejudice has become subtler in nature (Hebl, Foster, Mannix, & Dovidio, 2002). Such covert, interpersonal behaviors present a challenge because they are difficult to identify, assess, and eradicate (Dipboye & Colella, 2005). Accordingly, scholars have urged that research consider the more subtle We are grateful to Hina Ullah, Genevieve Miller, and Laila Ahmadi for their invaluable assistance in conducting this research, as well as Linda Chrosniak, Seth Kaplan, and Jenessa Shapiro for their comments on the manuscript. Correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed to Eden B. King, 4400 University Drive, MSN 3F5, Fairfax, VA 22030; [email protected]. C 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

881

882

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY

forms of discrimination (Cleveland, Vescio, & Barnes-Farrell, 2005) as well as actions through which these pernicious behaviors may be curbed (King, Shapiro, Hebl, Singletary, & Turner, 2006). Of particular importance in the current global climate is the treatment of religious minorities, a group that is largely unexamined by organizational psychologists. Since the tragedy of September 11, 2001, members of one religious affiliation may be particularly vulnerable to experiencing discrimination: Muslim Americans. There is a paranoia and fear of Muslims who may be seen as “terrorists” and labeled as “cruel, deceitful, hot-tempered, and irrational” (American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, 2008). Preliminary survey research suggests that Muslims may be targets of workplace discrimination in the United States and Britain (Sheridan, 2006). Some Muslim women may be particularly vulnerable to discrimination because their religious affiliation is easily identifiable through their attire (i.e., hijab/headscarf; Allen & Nielsen, 2002). Although provocative, previous studies of prejudice toward Muslims are limited to broad attitudinal surveys or laboratory experiments and generally ignore the everyday workplace experiences of Muslim individuals. The purpose of this research is to examine the manifestation of discrimination toward Muslim women as well as a potential method for its reduction. Utilizing a unique experimental field research methodology, we provide the first empirical data on real-world experiences of Muslim women in job-applicant contexts. In addition, we integrate extant models of stereotype content (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2004; Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002) and biased justifications for prejudice (Crandall & Eshleman, 2003) in testing a mechanism for improving negative interpersonal encounters. Finally, we present a laboratory study to replicate and extend the initial findings. Thus, this research represents a critical first step toward understanding the workplace experiences of Muslims, as well as toward developing a unique theoretical perspective of discrimination reduction. Contemporary Discrimination

Although incidences of overtly prejudiced behaviors toward many stigmatized targets are rare in contemporary American society, subtle indicators of discrimination persist in the form of “everyday discrimination” or “microinequities” (Crosby, Bromley, & Saxe, 1980; Deitch et al., 2003; Dovidio & Gaertner, 1986; McConahay, 1983). Researchers have used a variety of techniques to assess such subtle behaviors, including measures of interpersonal nonverbal behaviors such as social distance (Word, Zanna, & Cooper, 1974), facial expressions (Ruscher, 2001), eye contact (Dovidio, Kawakami, Johnson, Johnson, & Howard, 1997; Jones & Cooper, 1971; Kleck & Nuessle, 1968), and smiling (Biernat & Vescio,

KING AND AHMAD

883

2002). These behaviors are often aligned with unconscious attitudes or implicit associations that link targets of stigma with negative words, images, and outcomes (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995; Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998). Recently, researchers have conceptualized discrimination found in organizational settings to be both formal and interpersonal in nature (Hebl et al., 2002). Formal discrimination involves behavior that is prevented by laws or organizational policies, and can include refusing to greet, help, hire, or train stigmatized customers or employees (King et al., 2006). Interpersonal discrimination can be described as biased behavior that is not illegal or required by a job that is verbal, nonverbal, or even paraverbal in nature, and can include decreased eye contact, shortened interactions, decreased smiling, and rudeness (Hebl et al., 2002). In a series of experimental field studies, Hebl and colleagues found evidence of interpersonal (but not formal) discrimination toward targets who were ostensibly gay and lesbian (Hebl et al., 2002), obese (King et al., 2006), or pregnant (Hebl, King, Glick, Singletary, & Kazama, 2007). The changing nature of discrimination, and the persistence of subtle manifestations of prejudice, can be understood through the justification-suppression model of the expression and experience of prejudice (Crandall & Eshleman, 2003). The justification-suppression model of prejudice. The justificationsuppression model suggests that genuine prejudice (a negative attitude about a group) is followed by justification or suppression factors that determine whether prejudice is expressed as discrimination (Crandall & Eshleman, 2003). In this model, prejudice is an affective state with a motivational force (Brehm, 1999; Frijda, 1986); that is, when a person interacts with the target of their prejudice they are motivated to express their prejudice. The motivational force may be enhanced or reduced through justification and suppression factors, respectively. Suppression is defined as “an externally or internally motivated attempt to reduce the expression or awareness of prejudice” (Crandall & Eshleman, 2003; p. 420). Motivators of prejudice suppression can include social norms, feelings of empathy, accountability, and even personal values (e.g., Shapiro & Neuberg, 2008). In contrast, a justification can be defined as “any psychological or social process that can serve as an opportunity to express genuine prejudice without suffering external or internal sanction” (Crandall & Eshleman, 2003; p. 425). Perceived (and often biased) justifications such as beliefs in social hierarchies, threat, and—of key importance to this study—stereotypes allow or permit actors to express prejudice without internal or external penalty. In summary, the justification-suppression model suggests that prejudiced attitudes are manifested in discriminatory behaviors to the extent that suppression factors are low or justification factors are high. The justification-suppression model specifies that

884


manifestations of prejudice decrease when suppression factors are enhanced or justification factors are reduced. Consistent with this, the justification-suppression model was applied toward understanding interpersonal discrimination toward obese individuals (King et al., 2006). A commonly shared belief that obese individuals are responsible for their condition (i.e., that obesity is controllable) underlies prejudice toward obese individuals (Crandall, 1994). In the language of the justification-suppression model, genuine prejudice toward obese individuals is expressed as discrimination because it is justified by a stereotypic belief that obesity is controllable. In an experimental field study, King et al. (2006) found that individuals who appeared to be obese but engaged in behavior that directly addressed justifications for prejudice (i.e., belief that obesity is a controllable condition) encountered less interpersonal discrimination than did obese individuals who did not address this justification. Specifically, individuals encountered less interpersonal discrimination when they appeared to be obese and claimed to be dieting and exercising than when they did not make such claims. Although targets of stigma should not be doubly burdened with the responsibility of reducing the discrimination they encounter, some may seek to proactively improve their experiences (Shelton, Richeson, & Salvatore, 2005) and could benefit from information regarding the efficacy of various strategies (Singletary & Hebl, 2009). This study confirmed that the justification-suppression model could explain when discrimination would be expressed toward obese targets but does not directly indicate how the justification-suppression model might be applied toward understanding other stigmatized groups. Although targeting beliefs about controllability may act to reduce justifications of prejudice toward some stigmatized targets, a broader model is needed to understand, predict, and control discrimination toward a range of stigmatized targets. We propose that the stereotype content model (Fiske et al., 2002) offers a useful framework for understanding the stereotypes that support justifications for discrimination. Stereotypes thought to justify discrimination. The justificationsuppression model explicitly predicts that stereotypes about particular groups can serve as justifications for expressing prejudice toward those groups. For example, believing that older workers are slower or less competent than younger workers may justify a discriminatory hiring decision favoring a younger applicant. Thus, examining the nature or content of stereotypes should help to clarify a primary set of justifications for prejudice expression. If specific beliefs people hold about particular groups can be identified, then the justifications that allow discrimination can be addressed. Fiske et al. (2002) argued that these beliefs about groups (i.e., the content of stereotypes) might respond to systematic principles that

KING AND AHMAD

885

are stable and predictable over time. From a functional perspective, stereotype content is derived from needs that arise in intergroup interaction. This can be considered to be an evolutionary explanation of beliefs that emerged even in the time of early humankind, when neighboring tribes evaluated each other. In these kinds of intergroup situations, it is useful to know the valence of outgroup members’ intent (positive or negative) as well as their capability to act on such intentions. The dimension of interpersonal intent is represented by beliefs about outgroup members’ warmth, whereas beliefs about outgroup members’ capabilities are captured by the dimension of perceived competence. That is, the stereotype content model suggests that beliefs about outgroup members can be classified with regard to warmth and competence. Consistent with this, cluster analysis of ratings of 25 stereotyped target groups by participants in nine diverse samples suggest that the dimensions of warmth and competence account for variability in the content of stereotypes. For example, whereas stereotypes of working women are characterized by perceptions of high competence and low warmth, stereotypes of mothers are characterized by low competence and high warmth (Cuddy et al., 2004). Integrating knowledge of the content of stereotypes with the justification-suppression model offers direction for understanding and addressing discrimination; if perceptions of incompetence justify discrimination toward mothers, then improving competence perceptions should reduce justifications for the expression of prejudice and thus ultimately reduce discrimination. This is consistent with research and theory on the role of “individuating information”; in general, individuation involves provision of information that is unique to a particular individual (see Krueger & Rothbart, 1988). In line with previous theorists (e.g., Fiske & Neuberg, 1990; Locksley, Borgida, Brekke, & Hepburn, 1980), we argue that providing particular forms of individuating information that are inconsistent with negative stereotypes may help to remove justifications for the expression of prejudice. Thus, addressing stereotypes related to a Muslim identity may reduce discrimination toward this religious minority. Prejudice and Discrimination Toward Muslim Americans

In stark contrast to a large and growing body of research on racism and sexism, discrimination toward religious minorities has been largely ignored by organizational research. Indeed, the overwhelming majority of research on intergroup relations has focused on Black-White differences (Crosby et al., 1980; Dipboye & Colella, 2005). Although many Americans are of a Judeo-Christian heritage, the most conservative estimates of the representation of Muslims suggest that over 1 million

886


individuals living in the United States are Muslim (Pew Research Center, 2007). Since the tragedy of September 11, 2001, evidence has emerged that Muslim Americans are the targets of prejudice. Muslims may be seen as terrorists and religious fanatics (Zogby International, 2007) and may be labeled as “cruel, deceitful, hot-tempered, and irrational” (American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, 2008). Indeed, people reported greater prejudice toward Arab Americans than toward African Americans, Asian Americans, or Hispanic Americans (Bushman & Bonacci, 2004). More directly pertaining to Muslims, a study by the Pew Research Center that suggested American’s views toward Muslims worsened between 2002 and 2005. Moreover, there is evidence that these negative attitudes have manifested in discrimination toward Muslims. For example, a survey of Muslims revealed that the levels of perceived subtle or indirect discrimination had risen by 82.6% and perceptions of overt discrimination have risen by 76.3% since September 11 (Sheridan, 2006). Similarly, a study of British Muslims found that religious affiliation was a stronger predictor of discrimination than race or ethnicity (Sheridan, 2006). Importantly, previous works have suggested that a major determinant of who is most vulnerable to anti-Islamic abuse may be the degree to which the individual is visibly identified as Muslim (Allen & Nielsen, 2002). It follows that women may be more likely than men to encounter discrimination on the basis of their Muslim identity because their attire (i.e., the hijab) can convey this identity visually (Allen & Nielsen, 2002). Although research examining the experiences of Muslims in the context of the workplace is scarce, the prevalence of negative beliefs about and attitudes toward Islam implies that Muslim Americans likely face unique workplace challenges. Like women and members of ethnic minority groups, Muslims are protected from formal discrimination by federal law. In addition, strong social norms of egalitarianism in contemporary American society dictate that prejudice toward disadvantaged group members should not be expressed in overt forms (Crandall, Eshleman, & O’Brien, 2002). Together, in line with the justification-suppression model (Crandall & Eshleman, 2003), these factors serve to suppress the expression of prejudice toward Muslims. Thus, we do not expect that job applicants who appear to be Muslim will encounter formal forms of discrimination. However, we anticipate that like gay (Hebl et al., 2002), obese (King et al., 2006; Shapiro, King, & Qui˜nones, 2007), and pregnant (Hebl et al., 2007) targets, Muslim job applicants will face negative interpersonal treatment. Interpersonal behaviors such as eye contact, interpersonal distance, and smiling are not subject to legislation and are less likely to be affected by efforts to suppress prejudice (see Hebl et al., 2002). Thus, we predict that,

KING AND AHMAD

887

Hypothesis 1: Job applicants will encounter more interpersonal discrimination when they appear to be Muslim than when they do not convey a religious affiliation. Stereotypes thought to justify prejudice toward Muslims. We expect that commonly experienced suppression factors such as feelings of empathy, accountability, and personal values will not eliminate interpersonal discrimination toward Muslim job applicants. Existing suppression factors are derived from strong social norms to refrain from overt expression of prejudice to many targets of prejudice (see Crandall & Eshleman, 2003; Hebl & Dovidio, 2005), including Muslim women. Attempts to reinforce or enhance suppression may ultimately backfire and lead to increases in prejudice expression (Macrae, Bodenhausen, Milne, & Jetten, 1994); subtle behaviors are unlikely to be affected by additional efforts to suppress prejudice but may instead depend on changes in the beliefs that support or justify prejudice. The justification-suppression model specifies that when suppression is enacted, the only mechanism through which to address discrimination that persists is justification. The justification-suppression model does not detail, however, the nature or dimensionality of justifications for prejudice toward stigmatized targets. We propose that the stereotype content model can inform the justification-suppression model by clarifying the content of stereotypes that serve as mechanisms that justify prejudice. That is, because the justification-suppression model poses that stereotypic beliefs can enhance the likelihood of discrimination, and because the stereotype content model points to the importance of warmth and competence perceptions, it may be that warmth and competence perceptions serve as perceptual justifications that enhance the likelihood of discrimination. Understanding the nature of stereotypes toward Muslims will therefore clarify the justifications that individuals endorse that ultimately enable their expression of prejudice. According to the research of Fiske et al. (2002, Study 2), stereotypes of Muslims are characterized by lower levels of warmth than of competence. Relative to other targets of stereotypes, Muslims were rated as less warm than Whites, Christians, women, elderly, and disabled individuals. The specific adjectives of “cruel, deceitful, hot-tempered, and irrational” that have been found to be included in beliefs about Muslims (American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, 2008) are subsumed by the general dimension of “warmth.” Individuals who are cruel, deceitful, or hot-tempered would be classified as relatively low in warmth. Additional studies of stereotype content have explored the content of stereotypes toward Arabs; although all Arabs are not Muslim and all Muslims are not Arab, perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes about these groups are overlapping (Saroglou, Lamkaddem, van Pacheterbeke, &

888


Buxant, 2008). Supporting Fiske et al.’s original findings (2002), Cuddy, Fiske, and Glick (2007) found that stereotypes about Arabs are characterized by lower levels of warmth than of competence. As Muslims are generally perceived to be competent, we propose that it is the stereotype that Muslim individuals lack warmth that likely serves as a justification mechanism for their negative interpersonal treatment (Crandall & Eshleman, 2003). It follows, then, that conveying a warm disposition will be particularly helpful in improving the interpersonal experiences of Muslims. That is, based on an integration of the justification-suppression and stereotype content models, we expect that addressing negative stereotypes about Muslims (i.e., addressing stereotypes that are believed to justify prejudice toward Muslims) will reduce discrimination. Though we do not believe prejudice reduction should be the responsibility or burden of its targets, the justification-suppression and stereotype content models suggest Muslim individuals who convey warmth may alleviate the potential negative consequences of stereotypes that Muslims are lacking warmth, thereby removing the justification for the expression of religious prejudice. Interpersonal discrimination will be greatest among job applicants who appear to be Muslim and do not convey warmth. It is under such conditions that the expression of prejudice is most likely to be justified in the minds of managers who (based on socially shared stereotypes) may perceive the applicant to be lacking warmth. Such negative interpersonal treatment is likely to be encountered least by applicants who do not appear to be Muslim but convey warmth. Formally, Hypothesis 2: The effect of a Muslim identity on interpersonal discrimination will be attenuated by warmth such that job applicants who appear to be Muslim and do not disconfirm stereotypes by conveying warmth will be more likely to experience interpersonal discrimination than applicants in any other condition. Study 1: Method Participants

Consistent with the methodology used by Hebl et al. (2002, 2007), four separate sets of individuals were involved: confederate applicants, observers, store managers, and coders. To ensure that religion rather than ethnicity was manipulated, the confederates consisted of three women from various ethnic backgrounds (1 Caucasian, 1 South Asian, 1 Middle Eastern) between the ages of 20 and 25. Observers were five individuals from various ethnic backgrounds. The third group of individuals involved

KING AND AHMAD

889

in this study was 86 store managers with whom the confederates interacted. Finally, two undergraduates who were na¨ıve to the experimental conditions listened to and coded the audiotape recordings of these interactions. Confederates applied for a sales associate position in a total of 86 retail stores. Five of the interactions had faulty equipment; analyses are based on a total of 81 interactions. Procedure

This study used a 2 (Religion: Muslim, Control) × 2 (Behavior: Warm, Control) between-subjects design. Observers and confederate volunteers underwent intensive training in the lab and in the field during which they memorized (and became comfortable with) the methodology, script, and attire. Confederates and observers learned to act in a standardized manner and to respect the confidentiality of the stores they entered and personnel with whom they interacted. The confederate and observer met at public shopping areas in the metropolitan D.C. area over multiple days to complete the study. At intervals of approximately 2 hours, the confederate alternated between wearing nonreligious (control) or Muslim-identified attire. Nonreligious attire included black shoes, pants, and shirt, whereas the Muslim attire included black shoes, a black abbaya (robe), and a black hijab (see Figure 1). The applicants also used the same black purse in all of the interactions to conceal the small tape recorder. Prior to each interaction, the observer and confederate agreed on which store to enter (drawing randomly from a list of all locations that were currently hiring) and a return meeting point. This was carefully executed to ensure that store employees would not view the confederate and observer together. The observer first entered the store and acted as if she were window shopping. After a minute, the applicant entered the retail store and followed the appropriate script. The confederate alternated between using a control script or a script involving warmth. The control script involved the applicant asking: (a) “Could I please speak to the manager?” (b) “I was wondering if you had any job openings available?” (c) “Do you have an application I can fill out?” and (d) “Can you tell me what I’d be doing if I worked here?” The same questions were used for the script conveying warmth, but an additional question was added, (e) “I’m available to start right away, but I need one day off every week to volunteer. I hope that’s OK?” Confederates were trained to answer any follow-up questions in a consistent manner across trials. Meanwhile, the observer noted whether the confederate was helped in the job-seeking process, how long it took for the employee to help them with the application process, and the quality of the help. After the interaction and completion of an

890


Figure 1: Experimental Conditions.

KING AND AHMAD

891

application, the confederate and observer separately left the store and completed questionnaires regarding the experience. Confederates later tracked (and declined) all callbacks for job offers. In addition to evaluating the interaction itself, observers evaluated the applicant confederate’s behavioral consistency by indicating the degree to which the confederate behaved similarly across trials; specifically, observers noted, “With respect to other trials, how consistent is the applicant’s behavior?” In line with their training, confederates were rated as being highly consistent (M = 5.01, SD = 1.02 on a 6-point scale). Manipulation Checks

We collected additional data to support the manipulations of Muslim religion and warmth. Sixty-three participants (15% male, median age 20) guessed the religious affiliation of a standardized photograph target (from Minear & Park, 2004) who was either Caucasian or Middle Eastern and who did or did not wear a hijab. Within-race photos were identical to maximize control; a hijab was superimposed over the image. Supporting the manipulation, the overwhelming majority of participants viewing a Caucasian (75%) or Middle Eastern (79%) target wearing a hijab guessed that the target was Muslim. Participants responded that they could not guess the religious affiliation of Caucasian (50%) and Middle Eastern (100%) targets who did not wear a hijab, χ 2 = 1.18, p < .05. An additional 39 participants (6% male, median age 20) were asked to imagine that they were a manager in a retail store. They read either the “warmth” or “control” script and evaluated the target with regard to six items that represented the dimensions of warmth and competence (Fiske et al., 2002): warmth was assessed through agreement (1–7 response scale) that the applicant was warm, friendly, and sincere (α = .90); and competence was assessed with the adjectives of competent, capable, and confident (α = .76). Supporting the intended manipulation, ratings of applicant warmth were higher in the “warm” condition (M = 6.06, SD = 1.02) than in the control condition (M = 5.10, SD = 1.15), t(36) = 2.71, p < .05. Competence ratings did not differ across conditions (t = 2.01, p > .10). Measures of Formal Discrimination

All measures in this study were adapted from previous studies (e.g., Hebl et al., 2002, 2007; King et al., 2006). The confederate indicated whether or not they were (a) greeted, (b) recommended a position, (c) thanked, and (d) offered an interview or job.

892


Measures of Interpersonal Discrimination

Confederates and observers used a 7-point Likert-type scale anchored by 0 = not at all, 3 = moderately, and 6 = very much, to indicate the manager’s behavior with regard to (a) enthusiasm, (b) distance, (c) nodding and affirmative gestures, (d) smiling, (e) helpfulness, (f) attempts to end the interaction, (g) eye contact, (h) how annoyed, (i) fear, (j) nervousness, (k) rudeness, (l) hostility, (m) overall positivity, and (n) overall negativity. Higher scores indicated more negative treatment. Separate composites of interpersonal discrimination were created of the applicant’s ratings (α = .87) and observer’s ratings (α = .87); these were highly consistent (ICC = .83). Two na¨ıve coders of the audiotapes also evaluated the interactions on all of the aforementioned dimensions with the exception of those that were visual in nature (i.e., eye contact, interpersonal distance). Because each coder’s ratings were internally consistent (α = .90, for Coder 1; α = .92, for Coder 2), and there was a high overall consistency across coders (α = .93, ICC = .76), an average composite of the two ratings was computed. Finally, the length of the interaction (in seconds) served as an indictor of interpersonal discrimination. Control Variables

Although confederates served as their own controls experimentally, there were several elements of the context that were measured to control for potential confounds. Observers indicated the degree to which each store was (a) crowded, (b) upscale, and (c) security-conscious using a 7-point Likert-type scale anchored by 0 = not at all, 3 = moderately, and 6 = very much. In addition, the gender of the manager was noted to control for any effects of ingroup favoritism. Study 1: Results Formal Discrimination

Chi-square tests were conducted on each of the measures of formal discrimination yielding no significant differences across experimental conditions. In 28 out of 40 (70%) interactions, applicants wearing nonreligious attire were greeted by an employee versus 21 out of 41 (51%) times for applicants wearing Muslim-identified attire, χ 2 (1) = 2.99, p = .08. In 15 out of 40 (38%) interactions the applicants wearing nonreligious attire were recommended a position, whereas in only 8 out of 39 (21%) interactions applicants wearing Muslim attire were recommended a position, χ 2 (1) = 2.76, p = .14. In 18 out of 39 (46%) interactions, the applicant wearing

KING AND AHMAD

893

TABLE 1 Estimated Means of Dependent Variables Across Experimental Conditions in Study 1 DV

Control M (SE)

Warmth M (SE)

1.24a,b (.18) 1.98 (.19) 1.48a (.18) 1.98 (.19) 1.88a (.22) 2.11 (.22) 486.52 (70.73) 363.62 (71.24)

1.55a (.17) 1.90 (.17) 1.45a (.18) 1.89 (.17) 1.60a (.20) 1.65 (.20) 638.82a,b (60.93) 468.12 (62.54)

Religion Applicant Observer Coders∗ Length∗

∗

Control Muslim Control Muslim Control Muslim Control Muslim

Notes. ∗ Denotes comparison between Muslim-Control condition and other cells is significant, p < .05. a Denotes comparison to Muslim-Control condition and specific cell is significant, p < .05. b Denotes comparison to Muslim-Warm condition and specific cell is significant, p < .05.

nonreligious attire was thanked versus 21 of 39 (54%) interactions where the applicant wearing Muslim attire, χ 2 (1) = .46, p > .10. Similarly, 14 of 40 (35%) nonreligiously identified applicants received job callbacks compared to 10 out of 41 (24%) of Muslim-identified applicants, χ 2 (1) = 1.09, p > .10. The results suggest that employees did not differentiate between applicants who did and did not appear to be Muslim on these indicators of formal discrimination. Similarly, no differences on these variables emerged across the warmth conditions. Interpersonal Discrimination

Separate ANCOVAs were conducted for applicant, observer, and coder ratings, as well as the length of the interaction, with religion and behavioral strategy as independent variables and store crowdedness, security, cost, and manager gender as covariates (see Table 1). A graphical depiction of the average interpersonal discrimination reported by applicants, observers, and coders is provided in Figure 2. Analyses including confederate as an independent variable were also conducted but yielded no significant effects and thus are not included. Applicant. The ANCOVA on applicant ratings of interpersonal discrimination revealed a significant main effect of religion from the applicant perspective, F(1, 71) = 9.79, p < .01, partial η2 = .12. Supporting Hypothesis 1, interpersonal discrimination perceived by applicant was higher

894


Figure 2: Average of Applicant, Observer, and Coder Ratings of Interpersonal Discrimination Across Conditions.

for applicants wearing Muslim attire compared to applicants wearing nonreligious attire. Neither the main effect of warmth (F = .60) nor the interaction of strategy and religion (F = .81) were significant. However, as a direct test of Hypothesis 2, a one-tailed planned comparison of ratings in the Muslim-control condition to the ratings in the other conditions suggested that Muslim applicants who did not describe a volunteer experience encountered more interpersonal discrimination than did applicants who did not appear to be Muslim or conveyed warmth (F(1, 80) = 2.55, p < .05, partial η2 = .03). Observer. An ANCOVA on observer ratings of interpersonal discrimination revealed a main effect of religion, F(1, 71) = 5.71, p < .05, partial η2 = .07. Observers noted higher levels of interpersonal discrimination when applicants wore Muslim attire than when they did not. Neither the main effect of warmth (F = .12) nor the interaction of warmth and religion (F = .02) were significant. Similarly, the comparison between the conditions of Muslim-control and the average across the other three conditions was not statistically significant (F(1, 80) = 1.03, p > .10, partial η2 = .01). However, observers noted more interpersonal discrimination in the Muslim-control condition than in the non-Muslim-control condition (F(1, 40) = 5.49, p < .05, partial η2 = .10). Observers also indicated more interpersonal discrimination in the Muslim-control condition than in the non-Muslim-warm condition (F(1, 36) = 6.64, p < .05, partial η2 = .18).

KING AND AHMAD

895

This suggests that observers perceived more discrimination for applicants who appeared to be Muslim and did not express warmth than applicants who did not appear to be Muslim (regardless of whether they expressed warmth). Coder. An ANCOVA on coder ratings of interpersonal discrimination did not yield a significant effect of religion (F = .43); na¨ıve coding of audiotapes suggests that applicant experiences while wearing Muslim attire were not significantly different from those without religious attire. A significant effect of warmth emerged such that applicants who claimed to volunteer encountered less discrimination than applicants who did not describe such an experience, F(1, 69) = 3.21, p < .05, partial η2 = .05. A planned comparison suggested that applicants encountered more interpersonal discrimination when they wore Muslim attire and did not describe a volunteering obligation than when they did not appear to be Muslim or conveyed warmth, F(1, 80) = 2.65, p < .05, partial η2 = .04. Length of interaction. An ANCOVA on the length of the interaction between the applicant and the manager revealed significant main effects of religion (F(1, 61) = 4.64, p < .05, partial η2 = .07) and warmth (F(1, 61) = 3.92, p < .05, partial η2 = .06). Confirming the predictions, applicants engaged in shorter interactions when they wore Muslim attire than when they did not wear religious attire. Interactions were longer when applicants mentioned a volunteer experience than when they did not. The interaction between religion and warmth was not significant (F = .12), but a planned comparison revealed that interactions were shorter when applicants wore Muslim attire and did not discuss volunteering than when they did not wear religious attire or conveyed warmth, F(1, 69) = 4.39, p < .05, partial η2 = .07. Study 1: Discussion

The results of Study 1 suggest that women in Muslim attire, particularly those who do not provide information to counteract stereotypes about their religious identity, face obstacles to employment. The interpersonal nature of discrimination experienced by applicants who appeared to be Muslim (as indicated by confederate ratings, audiotape codings, and interaction length but not observer ratings) is similar to that encountered by gay (Hebl et al., 2002), obese (King et al., 2006), and pregnant (Hebl et al., 2007) individuals, highlighting the need for greater attention to the experiences of religious minorities in the context of work. In addition, the results suggest that addressing the content of stereotypes can help to reduce justifications for prejudice; stereotype content and justification-suppression models can be considered complementary.

896


Levels of formal discrimination were comparable (i.e., did not differ significantly) across the experimental conditions. Consistent with previous research (e.g., Hebl et al., 2002) and strong social norms to appear egalitarian (e.g., Crandall et al., 2002), applicants were equally likely to be greeted, recommended a position, thanked, and offered an interview or job regardless of whether they appeared to be Muslim. Despite similar treatment with regard to formal behaviors, confederate applicants and observers (but not coders) rated interactions more negatively when they wore a hijab and abayya than when their clothing did not convey a particular religion. According to confederates and coders, when applicants appeared to be Muslim, they encountered more negative interpersonal behavior (e.g., rudeness, hostility) than when they did not appear to be Muslim. In addition, store managers spent less time interacting with confederate applicants when they appeared to be Muslim than when they did not. Although the overall levels of discrimination were low (means approximately 2 on a 0–6 scale), these findings suggest that women who indicate a Muslim religion by wearing a hijaab face subtle, interpersonal discrimination much like that experienced by many other stigmatized groups (e.g., Hebl et al., 2002; King et al., 2006). Importantly, the degree of interpersonal discrimination encountered by Muslim applicants was influenced by whether or not they described a volunteer experience. Based on an integration of research and theory on the content of stereotypes (Fiske et al., 2002) with the justificationsuppression model of prejudice (Crandall & Eshleman, 2003), we argued that discrimination would be greatest toward Muslim applicants who did not address negative stereotypes. Planned comparisons on indicators of interpersonal discrimination (applicant and coder ratings and the interaction length) suggest that applicants encountered more negative interpersonal treatment when they appeared to be Muslim and did not convey warmth than in the other conditions. These effects seemed to be driven by differences in comparisons to the non-Muslim conditions; it seems that Muslim applicants who did not discuss volunteering encountered worse treatment than non-Muslim applicants. Thus, this study provides preliminary evidence that stereotypes that Muslims lack warmth may enhance justifications for prejudice and that Muslims who counteract such stereotypes by emphasizing warmth may be treated similarly to non-Muslims. The methods of Study 1 have unique strengths, including experimental control and ecological validity. However, the results must be interpreted in light of several limitations. First, the pattern of means across conditions that appeared for confederates and coders did not hold for observers. It is possible that observers had access to fewer auditory cues than these sources or that observers of discrimination have different standards for interpreting behaviors than do its targets. Future research might use less

KING AND AHMAD

897

subjective rating scales with behavioral anchors to increase consistency across rating sources. Second, this study focused on Muslim women and thus the results cannot necessarily generalize to the experience of Muslim men (or to Muslim women who do not wear a hijaab and abayaa). Although a Muslim identity may be more clearly and directly observable in women than in men, it is important to examine the experiences of men who reveal that they are Muslim. Indeed, results from an experimental study of job applicants who wore Muslim identifiers suggest that Muslim men were rated more negatively than Muslim women (Ghumann & Jackson, 2008). Third, the study focused on retail jobs and thus may not generalize to other types of jobs. A survey of American Muslim women suggested that discrimination toward Muslim individuals may be more likely in contexts characterized by high public contact (like the retail industry) than in jobs in which visible cues regarding religion are less important (Ghumman & Jackson, 2010), and a separate experiment suggests discrimination toward Muslims is more likely in high-status than low-status jobs (Ghumman & Jackson, 2008). Thus, it is important to consider whether interpersonal discrimination emerges in higher-status jobs with more flexible public contact. Last, confederates and observers could not be blind to the experimental conditions, and the data may therefore be susceptible to the effects of expectancy confirmation. It is possible that the inconsistency in the effects of the independent variables across raters may be due to the fact that applicants and observers were aware of their religion and warmth conditions, and even the coders likely noticed the warmth manipulation. We argue that the particular pattern that emerged in the planned comparisons was consistent across raters and would be difficult to explain through behavioral confirmation, but recognize that replication of the findings in a na¨ıve sample would bolster the interpretation of findings. To address these limitations, we conducted a second experimental study of reactions to fictitious Muslim and non-Muslim male and female applicants for a consulting position who do or do not appear warm. We anticipate that the pattern of results will confirm our initial findings and hypotheses and provide evidence of their generalizability. That is, given Ghumman and Jackson’s (2008) finding that Muslims face discrimination in high-status jobs, we anticipate that discrimination will occur when applicants for consulting positions appear to be Muslim. Although Ghumman and Jackson (2008) found that men pictured in Muslim attire were rated more negatively than women in Muslim attire, it is possible that that written, rather than visual, cues of religious affiliation will yield similar effects for men and women. Given that Fiske et al. (2002) found that Muslims as a whole (rather than men and women separately) are perceived to lack warmth, the same stereotypes may justify discrimination toward Muslim men and women. Consistent with the justification-suppression

898


model (Crandall & Eshleman, 2003) and Hypothesis 2, we expect that male and female Muslim applicants will encounter more positive reactions when they describe an aspect of their behavior that reflects warmth than when they do not provide this stereotype-inconsistent information. Study 2: Method Participants

A total of 139 undergraduate students from a large public institution (115 women, 24 men) participated in this study in exchange for course credit. Of these students, 61% were working in a job for pay off campus and 23% had held a job in which they participated in selection decisions. The median age was 20, and ranged from 18 to 32. Many participants indicated that they are Caucasian (46.8%), as well as African American (12.9%), Asian (21.6%), and Hispanic (10.1%). An additional 56 students began the experiment but either did not complete all items or responded incorrectly to one of the three manipulation check questions and were therefore removed from analyses. Procedure

This study used a 2 (Target Religion: Muslim, Control) × 2 (Target Behavior: Warm, Control) × 2 (Target Gender: Male, Female) betweensubjects design. After registering via an online experiment management system and indicating consent to participate in a study on “Job Application Situations,” participants took the role of a human resource professional in a consulting company whose “job is to evaluate job applicants based on their resumes to determine whether or not they should be invited for an interview for a mid-level consultant position.” Each participant was randomly assigned to evaluate one resume that represented one of the eight experimental conditions. The resumes were designed to reflect moderate-to-high competence and were identical with the exception of applicant’s name and professional affiliations. A Muslim religious identity was manipulated by inserting a traditional Muslim name (“Muhammed Azzam” or “Fatimah Azzam”) in combination with a Muslim professional affiliation (“President of the Association of Muslim MBAs”). The Control condition resumes included traditional Caucasian names (“Matthew Akers” or “Francine Akers”) and a generic professional affiliation (“President of the Association of North Carolina MBAs”). The appearance of warmth was manipulated through an additional professional affiliation; resumes in the Warm condition indicated that the applicant was a “Big Brothers, Big Sisters Volunteer,” whereas

KING AND AHMAD

899

resumes in the Control condition indicated “Society of Organizational Consultants Member.” After reading the appropriate resume, participants evaluated the applicant and indicated their expected behavior toward the applicant. Finally, participants provided information about their demographic background and completed three separate manipulation checks. Participant employment status and participant gender were recorded for consideration as covariates to ensure that variability due to experience in work settings and due to inter gender biases could be controlled. Measures

Participants indicated their reactions to the target job applicant using a 7-point Likert-type scale anchored with 1 = not at all and 7 = very much. These items were adapted from the scales used in Study 1 to assess interpersonal and formal behaviors, as well as the positivity of reactions to the applicant. Examination of the positivity of reactions to the applicant will provide evidence regarding evaluative perceptions of the applicant that supplements the likely behavioral reactions indicated by the discrimination measures. Interpersonal discrimination. Participants indicated the likelihood that they would engage in five behaviors toward the applicant, including how rudely and with how much hostility they would act toward the applicant, as well as how much they would help the applicant (reverse coded). The internal consistency of these items was .83. Higher levels indicate more interpersonal discrimination. Positive interpersonal evaluation. Participants indicated the extent to which eight separate adjectives (e.g., friendly, trustworthy, easy to work with, good-natured) characterized the applicant. The internal consistency of these items was .91. Higher levels indicate more positive evaluations. Formal discrimination. This scale included four items reflecting tangible markers of formal organizational outcomes, including likelihood of interviewing, hiring, promotion, and financial bonus. The internal consistency of these items was .87. Lower levels indicate more discrimination. Study 2: Results

Consistent with the analytic procedures used in Study 1, ANCOVAs were conducted with target religion, behavior, and gender as independent variables; participant gender and employment status as covariates; and interpersonal discrimination, positive interpersonal evaluations, and formal discrimination as dependent variables. The relevant estimated marginal means are reported in Table 2.

900

PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY TABLE 2 Estimated Means of Dependent Variables Across Experimental Conditions in Study 2 Control M (SE)

DV

Warmth M (SE)

Religion Interpersonal discrimination∗ Positive evaluation∗ Formal discrimination

Control Muslim Control Muslim Control Muslim

2.35 2.80b 5.00 4.66b 4.80 4.44

(.17) (.22) (.16) (.20) (.20) (.26)

2.41b (.22) 2.09a (.16) 4.87b (.20) 5.22a (.15) 4.58 (.25) 4.92 (.18)

Notes. ∗ Denotes comparison between Muslim-Control condition and other cells is significant, p < .05. a Denotes comparison to Muslim-Control condition and specific cell is significant, p < .05. b Denotes comparison to Muslim-Warm condition and specific cell is significant, p < .05.

Interpersonal discrimination. The ANCOVA on interpersonal discrimination did not reveal a significant main effect of religion (F(1, 137) = .12, p > .10) or warmth (F(1, 137) = 2.89, p = .10). Indeed, the only significant effect that emerged was a two-way interaction between religion and behavior, F(1, 137) = 4.01, p < .05. Consistent with Hypothesis 2, a planned comparison of ratings in the Muslim-control condition to the ratings in the other conditions suggested that Muslim applicants who did not describe a volunteer experience encountered more interpersonal discrimination than did applicants who did not appear to be Muslim or conveyed warmth (F(1, 137) = 5.32, p < .05, η2 = .05). Positive interpersonal evaluation. The ANCOVA on positive interpersonal evaluations yielded a similar pattern of results. There was no significant main effect of religion (F(1, 137) = .02, p > .10) or warmth (F(1, 137) = 1.46, p > .10), but a significant two-way interaction between religion and behavior did emerge, F(1, 137) = 3.70, p = .05. In support of Hypothesis 2, a one-tailed planned comparison of ratings in the Muslim-control condition to the ratings in the other conditions suggested that Muslim applicants who did not describe a volunteer experience encountered less positive evaluations than did applicants who did not appear to be Muslim or conveyed warmth (F(1, 137) = 2.93, p < .05, η2 = .07). Formal discrimination. In contrast to the results for interpersonal discrimination and positive interpersonal evaluations, no significant main effects or interactions emerged from an ANCOVA on formal discrimination (ps > .10). In addition, the planned comparison between formal discrimination toward applicants in the Muslim-control condition and all

KING AND AHMAD

901

other conditions provided no evidence of difference (F(1, 137) = .49, p > .10). Study 2: Discussion

The results of Study 2 support and extend the conclusions of Study 1. Consistent with Study 1, participants indicated that they would enact more negative behaviors toward Muslim job applicants who did not indicate a volunteer experience than toward non-Muslim applicants and Muslim applicants who were volunteers. Parallel findings emerged for positive interpersonal evaluations; applicants who conveyed warmth or were nonMuslim were seen as friendlier and more sincere. Taken together, these effects support the explanation that stereotypes of Muslims as lacking warmth serve to justify discrimination and that addressing these stereotypes can improve interpersonal encounters. Also in line with the findings of Study 1, there was no evidence of difference with regard to formal indicators of discrimination, suggesting that prejudice toward Muslims is manifested in subtle and interpersonal behaviors. Study 2 not only replicates the findings of Study 1 but also provides evidence of generalizability of interpersonal discrimination toward Muslim men and women who apply to professional jobs. Whereas Study 1 focused on reactions to Muslim women, the results of Study 2 suggest that the effect of stereotypes toward Muslim applicants can be extended to men. In addition, consideration of the professional job of consulting in Study 2 suggests that the discrimination evident in Study 1 is not necessarily limited to jobs in retail settings. Although the results of Studies 1 and 2 are generally consistent and supportive of our expectations, it is important to note a point of distinction between the findings. We anticipated that there would be more positive reactions to non-Muslim applicants compared to Muslim applicants (Hypothesis 1), or in other words, that there would be a main effect of religion on the indicators of interpersonal reactions. The results of Study 1 generally supported this expectation, but the results of Study 2 revealed no such effect. In evaluations of resumes, there does not seem to be an overall preference for non-Muslim applicants. Instead, discrimination (or favoring of non-Muslim to Muslim applicants) only occurred toward Muslim applicants who did not contradict stereotypes by indicating a volunteer experience. This discrepancy in the findings could be due to differences in the experimental designs; the effect of a face-to-face, visual cue of religious identity (i.e., the hijaab and abayya) may be stronger than the effect of a professional affiliation (i.e., the Association of Muslim MBAs). It is also possible that internal and external motivations to appear egalitarian are more effective suppressors (Crandall & Eshleman, 2003) of

902


prejudice in written evaluations than in face-to-face interactions; the subtle behaviors of focus in Study 1 may be less easily controlled by effortful processing than the evaluations required in Study 2. Similarly, social desirability concerns likely affect the tendency of individuals to indicate that they would respond negatively to a Muslim target. Nevertheless, the two studies converge in demonstrating that Muslim applicants who do not contradict stereotypes encounter more negative reactions than nonMuslim applicants and applicants who provide stereotype-inconsistent information.

General Discussion

The findings reported here have important implications for theory and research. First, we articulate the manner in which research on stereotype content supplements ideas about the factors that attenuate or exacerbate discrimination; we proposed and found support for the notion that the justification-suppression model can be informed by the stereotype content model. This integration is a constructive extension of the justification suppression model by identifying a framework for studying central elements of justifications for prejudice. In addition to this general contribution, this research might also stimulate new attention to the experiences of a wide range of stigmatized targets in the workplace. Although organizational scholars have tended to focus primarily on the experiences of women and ethnic minorities (Dipboye & Colella, 2005), this research points to religious minorities as legally protected but potentially vulnerable targets of prejudice. In addition to these theoretical considerations, there are definite practical implications of this research. Practitioners must be vigilant in recognizing and addressing religious discrimination. The predominance of Christianity in American culture may lead to a disenfranchisement of critical workers and create contexts in which subtly negative interpersonal treatment toward religious minorities is tolerated. Although Muslims make a small portion of the U.S. population (roughly .8%), Muslims comprise 23% of the world population (Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, 2009). Companies that operate in international markets may need to be particularly sensitive to the stereotypes American workers hold and may enact toward Muslims, as the customers, clients, and communities they serve will include many Muslims. Diversity management efforts such as training, mentoring, or development programs must include attention not only to gender and race but also to religious diversity. Religious minorities (and members of other stigmatized groups) might also gain insight from these findings, which suggest that emphasizing aspects of one’s self that

KING AND AHMAD

903

contradict negative stereotypes may help to improve negative workplace experiences. These conclusions should be interpreted, and future research designed, with respect to several limitations of this research. First, although the pattern of findings was generally consistent across laboratory and experimental field settings, the effect sizes were small. This is consistent with the majority of research on subtle manifestations of prejudice (e.g., Hebl et al., 2002; King et al., 2006; Singletary & Hebl, 2009) and suggests that social norms and legislation are restricting or suppressing overt forms of discrimination. It is important to note, however, that even small amounts of bias in employment decisions can accumulate over time and create substantial differences in the careers of advantaged and disadvantaged group members (Martell, Lane, & Emrich, 1996). Second, this research does not address the experiences of other religious minorities who may experience similar reactions. Future research should consider the experiences of workers who subscribe to other faiths such as Hasidic Judaism, Buddhism, Sikhism, or Paganism. Third, although describing a volunteer commitment was an ecologically valid component of the experimental script and resume evaluation, it may not represent a strong or direct enough strategy for addressing perceptions that Muslims lack warmth. Thus, it is important that future research assesses discrimination toward Muslim men and women in a range of jobs and considers additional methods for measuring and addressing stereotypes that are thought to justify prejudice toward Muslims. Overall, this study clarifies the challenges encountered by Muslim individuals in selection contexts and highlights the need to understand and reduce discrimination toward religious minorities. Despite claims to recognize and respect a wide range of religious affiliations, Muslims may not be fully accepted in contemporary American society. In addition, this research clarifies that contemporary theories of stereotyping are complementary and are useful when considered in conjunction. The precarious nature of global intergroup relations and the increasing diversity of the American workforce necessitate attention to issues of religious diversity at work. REFERENCES Allen C, Nielsen JS. (2002). Summary report on Islamophobia in the EU after 11 September 2001. Vienna, Austria: European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. (2008). Report on hate crimes and discrimination against Arab Americans. Retrieved from www.adc.org/PDF/hcr07.pdf Biernat M, Vescio TK. (2002). She swings, she hits, she’s great, she’s benched: Implications of gender-based shifting standards for judgment and behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 66–77. Brehm JW. (1999). The intensity of emotion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 2–22.

904


Bushman BJ, Bonacci AM. (2004). You’ve got mail: Using email to examine the effect of prejudiced attitudes on discrimination against Arabs. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 753–759. Cleveland JN, Vescio TK, Barnes-Farrell JL. (2005). Gender discrimination in organizations. In Dipboye RL, Colella A (Eds.), Discrimination at work: The psychological and organizational bases (pp. 149–176). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Crandall CS. (1994). Prejudice against fat people: Ideology and self-interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 882–894. Crandall CS, Eshleman A. (2003). A justification–suppression model of the expression and experience of prejudice. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 414–446. Crandall CS, Eshleman A, O’Brien LO. (2002). Social norms and the expression of prejudice: The struggle for internalization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 359–378. Crosby F, Bromley S, Saxe L. (1980). Recent unobtrusive studies of Black and White discrimination and prejudice: A literature review. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 546– 563. Cuddy A, Fiske S, Glick P. (2007). The BIAS map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 631– 648. Cuddy AJC, Fiske ST, Glick P. (2004). When professionals become mothers, warmth doesn’t cut the ice. Journal of Social Issues, 60, 701–718. Deitch B, Barsky A, Butz R, Brief AP, Bradley J, Chan S. (2003). Subtle yet significant: Investigating the existence and consequences of everyday racism in the workplace. Human Relations, 56, 1299–1327. Dipboye RL, Colella A. (2005). The dilemmas of workplace discrimination. In Dipboye RL, Colella A (Eds.), Discrimination at work: The psychological and organizational bases (pp. 425–462). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Dovidio JF, Gaertner SL. (1986). Prejudice, discrimination, and racism. New York: Academic Press. Dovidio JF, Kawakami K, Johnson C, Johnson B, Howard A. (1997). On the nature of prejudice: Automatic and controlled processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 510–540. Fiske ST, Cuddy A, Glick P, Xu J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902. Fiske ST, Neuberg SL. (1990). A continuum of impression formation, from categorybased to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation of attention and interpretation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 1– 68. Frijda NH. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Ghumann S, Jackson L. (2008). Between a cross and a hard place: Religious identifiers and employability. Journal of Workplace Rights, 13, 259–279. Ghumann S, Jackson L. (2010). The downside of religious attire. The Muslim headscarf and expectations of obtaining employment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 4–23. doi: 10.1002/job.601. Greenwald AG, Banaji MR. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 4–27. Greenwald AG, McGhee DE, Schwartz JLK. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464–1480. Hebl MR, Dovidio JF. (2005). Placing the “social” back in the examination of social stigma. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 156–182.

KING AND AHMAD

905

Hebl MR, Foster JB, Mannix LM, Dovidio JF. (2002). Formal and interpersonal discrimination: A field study of bias towards homosexual applicants. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 815–825. Hebl MR, King EB, Glick P, Singletary S, Kazama ST. (2007). Hostile and benevolent reactions toward pregnant women: Complementary interpersonal punishments and rewards that maintain traditional roles. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1499– 1511. Jones RA, Cooper J. (1971). Mediation of experimenter effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 20, 70–74. King E, Shapiro JL, Hebl M, Singletary S, Turner S. (2006). The stigma of obesity in customer service: A mechanism for remediation and bottom-line consequences of interpersonal discrimination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 579– 593. Kleck RE, Nuessle W. (1968). Congruence between the indicative and communicative functions of eye contact in interpersonal relations. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 7, 241–246. Krueger J, Rothbart M. (1988). Use of categorical and individuating information in making inferences about personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 866–875. Locksley A, Borgida E, Brekke N, Hepburn C. (1980). Sex stereotypes and social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 821–831. Macrae CN, Bodenhausen GV, Milne AB, Jetten J. (1994). Out of mind but back in sight: Stereotypes on the rebound. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 808–817. Martell RF, Lane DM, Emrich C. (1996). Male-female differences: A computer simulation. American Psychologist, 51, 157–158. McConahay JB. (1983). Modern racism and modern discrimination: The effects of race, racial attitudes, and context on simulated hiring decisions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 551–558. Minear M, Park DC. (2004). A lifespan database of adult facial stimuli. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36, 630–633. Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life (2009). Views of Muslim-Americans hold steady after London bombings. Retrieved from http://pewforum.org/Muslim/Views-ofMuslim-Americans-Hold-Steady-After-London-Bombings.aspx Pew Research Center. (2007). Muslim Americans: Middle class and mostly mainstream. Retrieved from http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf Ruscher JB. (2001). Prejudiced communication: A social psychological perspective. New York: Guilford. Saroglou V, Lamkaddem B, van Pacheterbeke M, Buxant C. (2008). Host society’s dislike of the Islamic veil: The role of subtle prejudice, values, and religion. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33, 419–428. Shapiro J, King EB,Qui˜nones M. (2007). Expectations of obese trainees: How stigmatized trainee characteristics influence training effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 239–249. Shelton JN, Richeson JA, Salvatore J. (2005). Expecting to be a target of prejudice: Implications for inter-ethnic interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1198–1202. Sheridan LP. (2006). Islamophobia pre-and post-September 11th , 2001. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 317–336. Singletary SL, Hebl MR. (2009). Compensatory strategies for reducing interpersonal discrimination: Effectiveness of acknowledgments, increased positivity, and individuating information. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 797–805.

906


Shapiro JR, Neuberg SL. (2008). When do the stigmatized stigmatize? The ironic effects of being accountable to (perceived) majority group prejudice-expression norms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 877– 898. Word CO, Zanna MP, Cooper J. (1974). The nonverbal mediation of self-fulfilling prophecies in interracial interaction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 109– 120. Zogby International. (2007). Report card on American prejudice. Retrieved from http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1341