AN EXPERIMENTAL FIELD STUDY OF INTERPERSONAL DISCRIMINATION TOWARD MUSLIM JOB APPLICANTS
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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
Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes
Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.102.1.4 · Cited by 6,682 · see citing works
Divergent effects of activating thoughts of God on self-regulation.
Laurin, K., Kay, A. C., & Fitzsimons, G. M. (2012) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0025971 · Cited by 185 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Leading diversity: Towards a theory of functional leadership in diverse teams.
Homan, A. C., Gündemir, S., Buengeler, C., & van Kleef, G. A. (2020) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/apl0000482 · Cited by 180 · see citing works
- 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