Cited by 192Social and Intergroup PsychologyNames, Identity, and Discrimination ResearchRacial and Ethnic Identity Research

AN EXPERIMENTAL FIELD STUDY OF INTERPERSONAL DISCRIMINATION TOWARD MUSLIM JOB APPLICANTS

KING, EDEN B., AHMAD, AFRA S.·2010·Personnel Psychology

Abstract

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 Muslim‐identified 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 naïve 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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01199.x

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Leaders could detect less friendly communication, discomfort, and heated emotional arguments in teams that experience intergroup bias.

    “In addition to observing these nonverbal processes, leaders could detect less friendly communication, discomfort, and heated emotional arguments in teams that experience intergroup bias (Dovidio et al., 2002;Homan, Van Kleef, & Sanchez-Burks, 2016;King & Ahmad, 2010;Thatcher, Jehn, & Zanutto, 2003;Zellmer-Bruhn, Maloney, Bhappu, & Salvador, 2008).”

    From Leading diversity: Towards a theory of functional leadership in diverse teams. (2020) · cites this paper as King & Ahmad, 2010

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
KING, E. B., & AHMAD, A. S.
Affiliations
George Mason University (US)
Corresponding author
KING, EDEN B.
Venue
Personnel Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-11-03
Volume
63
Issue
4
Pages
881-906
ISSN
  • 0031-5826 (ISSN-L)
  • 1744-6570
OpenAlex
W2010399750
Cited by
192
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 5
FWCI
25.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Personnel Psychology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Names, Identity, and Discrimination Research
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Racial and Ethnic Identity Research
Keywords
religious discrimination, employment discrimination, stereotype content model, religious dress, confederates, job interviews, retail employment, prejudice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review