The DOI matches its Crossref record; 95 of the 95 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Meta-Analysis of Hiring Discrimination Against Muslims and Arabs
Abstract
Muslim and Arab individuals are discriminated against in almost all domains. Recently, there has been a focus on examining the treatment of these groups in the work setting. Despite the great number of primary studies examining this issue, there has not yet been a quantitative review of the research literature. To fill this gap, this meta-analysis examined the presence and magnitude of hiring discrimination against Muslim and Arab individuals. Using 46 independent effect sizes from 26 sources, we found evidence of discrimination against Muslim and Arab people in employment judgments, behaviors, and decisions across multiple countries. Moderator analyses revealed that discrimination is stronger in field settings, when actual employment decisions are made, and when experimental studies used “Arab” (vs. “Muslim”) targets. However, primary studies provide inconsistent and inaccurate distinctions between Arabs and Muslims, therefore future work should be cautious in categorizing the exact aspect of identity being studied.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“Conducting a formal meta-analysis of 26 field and lab experiments assessing discrimination against Muslims (with religion signaled) and Arabs (religion not signaled), Bartkoski et al. (2018) find discrimination against Muslims but more discrimination against Arabs.”
From Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments (2021) · cites this paper as Bartkoski et al. (2018)
Citations
Cites
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
Muller, K. (1989) · Technometrics · doi:10.1080/00401706.1989.10488618 · Cited by 99,167
An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (2000) · Organizational Identity · doi:10.1093/oso/9780199269464.003.0005 · Cited by 12,487
Social psychology of intergroup relations
Tajfel, H. (1982) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.ps.33.020182.000245 · Cited by 7,949
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878 · Cited by 7,364
Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis.
Freeman, P. R., Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1986) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2531069 · Cited by 4,784
Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2004) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/0002828042002561 · Cited by 4,504
How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta‐analytic tests of three mediators
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2008) · European Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1002/ejsp.504 · Cited by 2,819
Morris, S. B., & DeShon, R. P. (2002) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.7.1.105 · Cited by 2,502
Intergroup Threat and Outgroup Attitudes: A Meta-Analytic Review
Riek, B. M., Mania, E. W., & Gaertner, S. L. (2006) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_4 · Cited by 1,588
RACIAL DIVERSITY, BUSINESS STRATEGY, AND FIRM PERFORMANCE: A RESOURCE-BASED VIEW.
Richard, O. C. (2000) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/1556374 · Cited by 1,302
Cited by
Comparative Perspectives on Racial Discrimination in Hiring: The Rise of Field Experiments
Quillian, L., & Midtbøen, A. H. (2021) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-090420-035144 · Cited by 180
Lippens, L., Vermeiren, S., & Baert, S. (2023) · European Economic Review · doi:10.1016/j.euroecorev.2022.104315
Metadata
- Authors
- Bartkoski, T., Lynch, E., Witt, C., & Rudolph, C.
- Venue
- Personnel Assessment and Decisions
- Published
- 2018-12
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 2
- ISSN
- 2377-8822
- Cited by
- 37
- References
- 95
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
