 

. .z.
:25. u.

. .. .
s...

:3. .
ii
1

 

v.

ash. ‘
.... . awn?

. ‘ .
n... 2 ‘
iﬁhﬁ .....m5

4%. . par;

.H
mm“

|.

maﬁa
N In 1: 3,. Hui!

‘ = 3.? a...“

“at ..
z

.I

Q

1 .9
.-

k 3

, ‘
Jm.....$....swmh

t!!! I. IIAS.
2%. n... a?
‘1
aa

A
11151.9:
1 $1.11}...
:1... E»: an.
3

i
3.14:!
53.3....

«‘4.
1...!

‘31.!!!
‘21.},

3:...
1.1;... .K

5:!
3L2... ..
.. ..

:10 A

.35.

«.1 :3
it) .2 I

 

1
t?

 

r ’3"?
’” LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

FORMAL AND INTERPERSONAL DISCRIMINATION TOWARDS
HIJABI JOB APPLICANTS

presented by

Sonia S. Ghumman

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for the

degree In Psycho EL

/%4%

Major Professor/)é/Signature

 

06/05/2009

 

Date

MSU is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

-(-.-.---.-.---v-o-u---o-.--

 

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5108 KzlProjIAccaPresICIRCIDaleDue.indd

 

FORMAL AND INTERPERSONAL DISCRIMINATION TOWARDS HIJABI JOB
APPLICANTS

By

Sonia S. Ghumman

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Psychology

2009

 

 

ABSTRACT

FORMAL AND INTERPERSONAL DISCRIMINATION TOWARDS HIJABI JOB
APPLICANTS

By
Sonia S. Ghumman

This study addresses behaviors related to discrimination that individuals who wear
religious attire encounter as applicants for employment in the sales and service-related
sectors. Building ﬁ'om previous ﬁeld studies regarding stigmatized groups in job settings
(Hebl, Foster, Marmix, & Dovidio, 2002; Hebl, King, Glick, Singletary, & Kazama,
2007; King, Shapiro, Hebl, Singletary, & Turner, 2006), confederates portrayed Hijabis
(Muslim women who wear the headscarf) and applied for jobs at local stores and
restaurants. It was hypothesized that Hijabi confederates would experience more
behaviors related to formal discrimination (i.e. no callbacks) and interpersonal
discrimination (i.e. length of interaction) than non-Hijabi confederates. Also examined
were the inﬂuences of the amount of social contact associated with the occupation (e. g.
sales representative vs. dishwasher), the intergroup contact potential of the location (6. g.
Lansing vs. Dearbom), and expectations for discrimination (stigma consciousness) of job
applicants on behaviors related to interpersonal and formal discrimination. Evidence for
both behaviors related to formal discrimination (call backs, permission to complete
application) and interpersonal discrimination (perceived interest, overall negativity) was
found for Hijabi confederates. This study presents a unique opportunity to investigate an
important topic by going beyond self-report data on attitudes towards Muslims and

exploring actual evidence of employment discrimination.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to the faculty, research assistant, ﬁiends,
and family members who helped me during the dissertation process. Their presence
throughout my graduate career has been a source of tremendous support and assistance
that has directly contributed towards the completion of this dissertation

First, I would never have been able to ﬁnish my dissertation without the guidance of
my committee members. I am especially grateful for my advisor, Ann Marie Ryan, for
her excellent guidance, patience, and encouragement throughout these last few years. Her
help in getting approval from the IRB and the daunting task of ﬁnding numerous research
assistants for this study was just a staring point in her commitment to being an amazing
advisor. I am eternally grateful for her insightful comments and the valuable feedback she
has offered not just through out the entire dissertation process, but during the different
phases of my graduate career. I would like to thank Linda Jackson for guiding my
research for the past several years and helping me to develop a strong interest in the topic
of religious discrimination in the workplace. Special thanks go to Fred Leong and
Georgia Chao, who were willing to participate in my defense committee and have
provided me with valuable insights throughout the whole process. I also offer thanks to
Rick Deshon and Alex Von Eye for helping me to understand how to approach some of
the challenging statistical aspects of my study.

I credit the 31 undergraduate volunteers and research assistants who served as
confederates, observers, and coders for this study. Without their help and interest in

participating in this research, this research study would not have been possrble.

iii

 

 

I am also blessed to have friends and colleagues at Michigan State who provided me with
encouragement and advice throughout my graduate experience. I would especially like to
thank Christopher Barnes, a colleague and a great friend, for his willingness to help and
to give his best suggestions on a topic he doesn’t quite know. He was always there
cheering me up and stood by me through the good times and bad.

I would also like acknowledge all the strong Muslim sisters in my life, who were a
source of inspiration for this study. I hope that you continue to ﬁght for your freedoms
and remain true to your identities.

I would also like to thank my parents, Ami and Abu, and my two brothers, Sarrnad
and Ahmad, for being themselves. They were always supporting me and encouraging me
with their best wishes.

Finally, funding for this dissertation was provided by the SIOP graduate student

scholarship, for which I am grateful for.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................ vii
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................ ix
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... l
STIGMATIZATION AGAINST INDIVIDUALS WHO WEAR RELIGIOUS ATTIRE ............................. 4
Stigmatization of Muslims ........................................................................................... 5
Stigmatization of Hijabis ............................................................................................. 7
NATURE OF DISCRIMINATION ............................................................................................ 8
FORMAL vs. INTERPERSONAL DISCRIMINATION ................................................................ 11
Formal Discrimination ............................................................................................... ll
Interpersonal Discrimination ..................................................................................... 15
Microaggressions ...................................................................................................... 20
MODERATORS OF BEHAVIORS RELATED TO FORMAL DISCRIMINATION AND
INTERPERSONAL DISCRIMINATION ................................................................................ 23
Social Contact ........................................................................................................... 24
Intergroup Contact ..................................................................................................... 32
Stigma Consciousness ............................................................................................... 35
SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 42
METHOD ..................................................................................................................... 44
PARTICIPANTS ................................................................................................................ 44
TRAINING ...................................................................................................................... 45
MANIPULATION OF CONDITIONS ...................................................................................... 46
Religious Attire ......................................................................................................... 46
Social Contact ........................................................................................................... 46
Intergroup Contact ..................................................................................................... 47
PROCEDURE .................................................................................................................... 49
MEASURES ..................................................................................................................... 5 I
Confederates ............................................................................................................. 51
Stigma Consciousness ............................................................................ 51
Formal Discrimination ........................................................................... 52
Interpersonal Discrimination .................................................................. 52
Situational Characteristics ...................................................................... 54
Observers .................................................................................................................. 54
Formal Discrimination ........................................................................... 55
Interpersonal Discrimination .................................................................. 55
Applicant Consistency ............................................................................ 56
Situational characteristics ....................................................................... 57
Investigator ............................................................................................................... 57
ETHICAL CONCERNS ....................................................................................................... 57
RESULTS ..................................................................................................................... 59
POST MANIPULATION CHECK ........................................................................................... 59

ESTABLISHING AGREEMENT ............................................................................................ 59

CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS ................................................................................. 61

Formal Discrimination ............................................................................................... 61
Interpersonal Discrimination ......................................................................................... 62
CORRELATIONS .............................................................................................................. 64
INITIAL ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................... 68
INTRACLASS CORRELATION COEFFICIENT VALUES ............................................................ 69
HYPOTHESES .................................................................................................................. 71
EXPLORATORY HYPOTHESES ........................................................................................... 85
DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................... 89
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS .................................................................................................. 89
THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS .......................................................................................... 95
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS .............................................................................................. 99
STRENGTH AND LIMITATIONS ........................................................................................ 101
FUTURE RESEARCH ....................................................................................................... 105
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 1 1 1
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................ 1 13
APPENDIX A: LIST OF HYPOTHESES .............................................................................. 1 13
APPENDIX B: EXPERIMENTAL SCRIPT ........................................................................... 1 14
APPENDIX C: SAMPLE PICTURES OF HIJABI AND NON-HUABI CONDITIONS .................... 120
APPENDIX D: CONFEDERATE QUESTIONNAIRE .............................................................. 121
APPENDIX E: OBSERVER QUESTIONNAIRE ..................................................................... 124
APPENDIX F: MICROAGGRESSION SCALE ........................................................................ 128
APPENDIX G: INFORMED CONSENT AND CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT ....................... 129
REFERENCES 132

 

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Agreement between Confederates and Observers ............................................. 61
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics, Reliabilities, and Correlations ....................................... 66
Table 3: ICC Values ...................................................................................................... 70

Table 4: The Relationship between Hijab, Social Contact, Intergroup Contact, Stigma
Consciousness and Callback .................................................................................. 72

Table 5: The Relationship between Hijab, Social Contact, Intergroup Contact, Stigma
Consciousness and Access to Manager .................................................................. 73

Table 6: The Relationship between Hijab, Social Contact, Intergroup Contact, Stigma
Consciousness and Job Availability ....................................................................... 74

Table 7: The Relationship between Hijab, Social Contact, Intergroup Contact, Stigma
Consciousness and Permission to Complete Application ........................................ 75

Table 8: The Relationship between Hijab, Social Contact, Intergroup Contact, Stigma
Consciousness and Permission to Leave Resume ................................................... 76

Table 9: The Relationship between Hijab, Social Contact, Intergroup Contact, Stigma
Consciousness and Interaction Length ................................................................... 78

Table 10: The Relationship between Hijab, Social Contact, Intergroup Contact, Stigma
Consciousness and Perceived Distance .................................................................. 79

Table 11: The Relationship between Hijab, Social Contact, Intergroup Contact, Stigma
Consciousness and Perceived Negativity ............................................................... 80

Table 12: The Relationship between Hijab, Social Contact, Intergroup Contact, Stigma
Consciousness and Perceived Interest ............................................................................ 81

Table 13: The Relationship between Hijab, Social Contact, Intergroup Contact, Stigma
Consciousness and Overall Negativity ................................................................... 82

Table 14: Means of Behaviors Related to Formal Discrimination and Interpersonal
Discrimination ....................................................................................................... 85

Table 15: The Inﬂuence of Hijab on Behaviors Related to Formal Discrimination (All
Controls) ............................................................................................................... 87

vii

Table 16: The Inﬂuence of Hijab on Behaviors Related to Interpersonal Discrimination
(All Controls) ........................................................................................................ 88

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Model of interpersonal and formal discrimination against Hijabis ................... 24

Figure 2: Expected interactions between religious attire and moderators on behaviors
related to formal and interpersonal discrimination .................................................. 43

ix

INTRODUCTION

Certain individuals in various religious groups don religious attire. Religious attire
refers to clothing and/ or symbols which members of various religious groups wear for
religious reasons that reveal their religious identity. For example, a man who wears a
yarmulke can readily be identiﬁed as Jewish, and a person who wears a cross can readily
be identiﬁed as Christian Religious attire may be worn by members to not only reﬂect
their faith (i.e. Star of David), but also to ﬁIlﬁll religious requirements (i.e. Muslim
headscarf). Because religious attire might be mandated by one’s faith, it is not uncommon
for certain people to ask for religious attire accommodations in the workplace. In a major
study of organizations containing 10,000 or more employees conducted by the Society of
Human Resource Management (SHRM; 2001 ), 50% of these organizations received
requests for religious attire accommodations when an employee’s religious practice
conﬂicted with the dress code.

Current assumption is that religious bias due to religious attire or religious
discrimination in itself is not prevalent in the workplace. SHRM (1999; 2001) reported
eighty seven percent of HR professionals believed that employers do not stereotype
employees on the basis of religion. Additionally, a literature search conducted using the
keywords “religious discrimination” and “workplace” on PsychINFO revealed only 5
journal articles, none which were ﬁ'om top tier journals in the ﬁeld of I/O psychology or
management. This indicates that researchers also do not consider this to be a topic of
concern.

Counter to the assumption of managers and researchers, data indicates that religious

discrimination in the workplace does occur and is of great concern. SHRM (1999; 2001)

reported that two thirds of a sample of 675 employees stated that they were concerned
about religious bias in the workplace. Legally, there have been many reports of religious
bias in the workplace. In the year 2007, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC; 2007) reported 2,541 such complaints ranging from the failure of the employer
to provide leave for religious Observances to not allowing a time and place to pray. This
statistic represents a 33% increase in the number of religious bias complaints, compared
to the decade before. Additionally, in a sample of employees who reported requesting
religious accommodations regarding their religious attire in the workplace, only 33% of
these employees were offered such accommodations (SHRM, 2001) despite legislation
which obligates employers to make accommodations for religious attire (Title V11, 1964).
This disparity between employee requests and employer accommodations
concerning religious attire is unfortunate because religious discrimination can have
several negative consequences for people who wear religious attire as well as for
organizations. Individuals who wear religious attire, as a consequence of their
stigmatized status, might not only be denied access to jobs by being differentially treated
during the recruitment and selection processes, but also might face a host of other
negative outcomes. Individuals who wear religious attire might also be subjected to
biases in performance appraisals, low pay, negative treatment from others, and lack of
opportunities for advancement as job incumbents (Stone, Stone, & Dipboye, 1992).
Additionally, there might be psychological problems such as self-limiting behaviors and
lowered self esteem (Ilgen & Youtz, 1986). One major consequence is that the
expectation to be stigmatized in the work context can lead individuals who wear religious

attire to avoid applying for jobs altogether, leading to systematic group differences in the

level and types of aspirations and accomplishments of individuals who wear religious
attire compared to the nonstigmatized individuals within the work domain (Crocker,
Major, & Steele, 1998). This in turn can have negative consequences for organizations as
well, forcing them to choose employees from a reduced pool of applicants, missing out
on potentially valuable employees. Organizations also risk losing diversity in their
workforce, which can also be a source of strength for some organizations (Williams &
O’Reilly, 1998), especially when working with international and multicultural clients.
Additionally, religious discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
and EEOC guidelines, which require employers to reasonably accommodate the religious
practices of employees or prospective employees.

In order to further examine this topic, the primary goal of this study is to utilize a
ﬁeld methodology ﬁamework to investigate the extent to which individuals who wear
religious attire encounter discrimination during the hiring process. More speciﬁcally, this
research focuses on Muslim women who wear the hijab (head scarf) as an example of one
group of people who wear religious attire. In light of the current political context and
perceptions of Islam after September 11, 2001, the hijab has become an especially salient
form of religious attire that can be used to clearly identify Muslims. Because the legal
and social norms today prevent people from showing outright differential treatment of
stigmatized individuals, traditional forms of discrimination may be masked by other
forms of discrimination and thus, it is important to also examine contemporary subtle
forms of discrimination. Accordingly, this study goes beyond measuring traditional overt
forms of discrimination against individuals who wear religious attire to more

contemporary subtle forms of discrimination.

This study begins with a discussion of how individuals who wear religious attire
are subjected to stigmatization, speciﬁcally examining the target group of this study,
Hijabis (Muslim women who wear the headscarf). This discussion is followed by
examining the nature of discrimination in the contemporary workplace today, and
highlighting the differences between formal discrimination and interpersonal
discrimination and how Hijabis encounter each of these forms in the work place. Finally,
this study addresses how certain factors (social contact required by occupation,
intergroup contact potential of the location, and an individual’s own expectations for
discrimination) play a role in the extent to which discrimination occurs against
individuals who wear religious attire.

Stigmatization against Individuals who wear Religious Attire

Stigmatized individuals are deﬁned as individuals who are rejected interpersonally,
and whose social identity is devalued (Crocker et al., 1998). Certain religious groups
have become targets of stigmatization due to the negative stereotypes afﬁliated with their
faith. For example, Christians have been stereotyped as ﬁrndamentalists, conservative,
pushy, intolerant, untrustworthy, rejecting science, antiabortionists, homophobic, anti-
Semitic, and as threats towards civil peace (Bolce & De Maio, I999; Wilcox and Jelen,
1990). Stereotypes of Muslims include religious fanatics, violent, wild (Karnalipour,
2000), nomadic, backward, and disorganized (Kenny, 1975), people who mistreat or
oppress women (Kamalipour, 2000), and menacing (Pipes, 1990). Jewish people have
been stereotyped as being disloyal, dishonest, powerﬁrl, greedy, and pushy (Wuthnow,
1982). Although stereotypes are distinct from stigrnas, stereotypes are central to the

stigmatization process as stereotypes are used as markers meant to deal with the negative

affect people feel towards stigmatized individuals and can lead to the stigmatization of
certain groups (Jones, Farina, Hastorf, Markus, Miller, & Scott, 1984). Not surprisingly,
history also lends various examples of religious stigmatization, such as the scapegoating
of Jews in Europe, and hostility towards Bosnian and Kosovar Muslims (N aimark, 2001).

Just as certain religious groups are stigmatized, people donning religious attire are
also subjected to stigmatization as these individuals can readily be identiﬁed with their
religious group. Reactions to individuals who wear religious attire can be based on the
rater’s previous perception of the religion represented by the religious attire, which might
be inﬂuenced by historical and cultural stereotypes (Chia & J ih, 1994). For example,
Chia and Jih (1994) showed that participants rated photographs of Catholic individuals in
a nun’s veil and brother’s religious robe as being less intelligent and friendly than
photographs of individuals in casually dressed attire. Wearing religious attire can also
signal that the individuals wearing the religious garb have strong afﬁliations with their
faith or may hold religious extremist views, and perceivers might be turned off by this
form of fundamentalism (Chia & Jih, 1994). This can result in even more stigmatization
of those individuals who wear religious attire than those members of the religious group
who do not wear religious attire. Previous research supports the view that highly
identiﬁed ethnic minorities experience more prejudice than their weakly identiﬁed
counterparts (Branscombe, Schmitt, & Harvey, 1999; Major, Gramzow, McCoy, Levin,
Schmader, & Sidanius, 2002; Sellers & Shelton, 2003).

Stigmatization of Muslims. One particular religious group which dons religious attire
prone to stigmatization is Muslims. Ever Since the September 11th attack on the World

Trade Center, prejudice and discrimination against Muslims in the United States has

increased dramatically (CNN News, 2001a; EEOC, 2003). For instance, Arab-looking
men have been removed ﬁ'om airplanes without just cause, out of fear they might be
terrorists. Women in headscarves have been verbally assaulted and insulted, and mosques
have been sprayed with grafﬁti and bullets (CNN News, 2001a). In a study measuring
prejudiced attitudes, people showed higher feelings of prejudice toward Arab-Americans
than towards other ethnic groups, such as Aﬁ'ican-Americans, Asian-Americans, and
Hispanic-Americans (Bushman & Bonacci, 2004). Additionally, Muslims are often
stereotyped as being aggressive, belligerent, hostile, evil, barbaric, backwards, terrorists,
religious fanatics, and uncivilized (Asani, 2003; Shaheen, 2003; Srivastava, 1987).
Discrimination against Muslims can also be observed in the work setting. Work
place discrimination against Muslims in the US. is evident in the reports given by the
Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC; 2003), which reports a 153%
increase in workplace discrimination claims by Muslims after the September 11 attacks,
while numbers for other discrimination claims from other religious groups have remained
the same. This number has risen to over a thousand in the past three years, a rather sharp
increase ﬁ'om the pre-September ll era (EEOC, 2004). The EEOC (2004) calls these
discriminatory labor practices ‘backlash discrimination.’ The largest categories of these
‘backlash discrimination’ complaints pertain to bias acted out against Muslim employees
by non-Muslim employers using harassment or discharge (Law.com, 2002). For example,
certain organizations have been accused of discriminating against Muslims employees by
calling them “terrorist,” “Taliban” and “dumb Muslim,” and writing “Osama” and
“Taliban” instead of the employees’ actual names. In other cases, employees have been

ﬁred due to their Muslim sounding names and appearance (USA Today, 2005).

Stigmatization oinjabis. Hijabis are also subjected to stigmatization because their
religious attire clearly identiﬁes them as a member of their stigmatized superordinate
Muslim group. In fact, it is possible that they are even more vulnerable to stigmatization
due to the saliency of their Muslim identity through their attire. Generally, individuals
whose stigma is visible (i.e. Hijabis) experience more discrimination than individuals
with concealable stigma (Jones et al., 1984). Accordingly, there have been reports of
numerous attacks against women who wear the headscarf (CNN, 2001b; USA Today,
2005).

Hijabis, like other Muslims, have also experienced discrimination at work.
Examples include a policewoman in Pennsylvania who was barred from wearing a hijab
on the job, by a Hijabi applicant who was denied a uniformed airline job, and by an
Arizona woman working for a rental car company who was terminated for wearing a
hijab to work (Pluralism Project, 2004).

Additionally, a community-based action research project concerning Hijabis
applying for work in Canada reported that women who wear the hijab do experience
barriers and discrimination when applying for work (WWIW, 2002). Hijabis were often
given incorrect information regarding job availability, denied jobs, asked to remove their
hijab, harassed in the workplace, and ﬁred ﬁom jobs as a result of their attire. Ninety-one
percent of the Hijabi participants of the study reported having had employers make
references about their hijab while applying for work, out of which forty percent were told
that they must take off their hijab if they wanted the job (WWIW, 2002). These Hijabis
experienced this discrimination regardless of their age, skin color, accent, mannerisms,

and education (WWIW, 2002).

Furthermore, these incidences have been exacerbated by the current international
scene, such as the banning of the hijab in public schools in France. There has also been
considerable debate regarding banning the veil in other Emopean countries with
substantial Muslim minorities. The Netherlands and Belgium have been proposing a veil
ban and the UK leader of the House of Commons, Jack Straw, has made comments
criticizing the veil, sparking a controversy within the UK regarding the right to wear the
veil (BBC News, 2006a; 2006b ). In light of the current political climate, discriminatory
practices against Hijabis being reported in the news, and the saliency of the headscarf;
using Hijabis as an example of individuals who wear religious attire in this study is ideal.
Additionally, investigating discrimination against Hijabis is practically as well as
theoretically important.

Nature of Discrimination

One means by which stigmatization is manifested is that stigmatized individuals
often become targets of discrimination (Gofﬁnan, 1963; Jones et al., 1984), which can be
deﬁned as “the unfair treatment of others based on their group membership” (Matsumoto,
2000). To be able to measure the extent to which discrimination against individuals who
wear religious attire exists in a work domain, it is necessary to have an understanding as
to why discrimination might occur against individuals who wear religious attire. Below,
using social identity theory (Tajfel, 1981) and self-categorization theory (Turner &
Oakes, 1989), I describe why Hijabis will be discriminated against.

In The Nature of Prejudice, Allport (1954) argued that humans have a propensity to
categorize others into ingroups and outgroups - categories of “us” and “them,” and to use

these categories as the means for prejudgment. Building ﬁom Allport’s categorization

process, Tajfel (1981) proposed the social identity theory. The social identity theory
suggests that prejudice and discrimination occur ﬁom the desire to preserve self esteem
by contrasting a positive ingroup identity ﬁom a devalued outgroup identity. This process
serves to maintain a positive social identity by derogating outgroups, so that one’s own
group can come to feel superior and thus, justify discrimination against outgroups.
Hence, by identifying with a favorably evaluated group, prejudice and discrimination
serves to enhance self-esteem by fostering positive associations with the ingroup and
negative associations with the outgroup.

The social identity theory (Tajfel, 1981) mainly suggests three underlying
mechanisms that individuals undergo when conﬁ'onted with others. The initial part of the
process is categorizing. By categorizing people into outgroups and ingroups, individuals
can exaggerate their ingroup similarities and outgroup differences. This is followed by
comparing one’s ingroup to that of the outgroup. Some groups will have more status than
others in terms of power and prestige, and through comparisons, one can determine the
relative standing ofone’s ingroup to the outgroup. This comparison is not solely limited
to status, but groups can also be differentiated on any valued dimensions, such as beliefs
and values. The ﬁnal process involves using one’s group status as a source of positive
self-esteem. By comparing one’s ingroup to a group of lower status, one can boost one’s
self esteem while derogating others.

Social identity theory can serve to explain why discrimination occurs against
individuals who wear religious attire. For example, when an individual who is not
Muslim comes across a Hijabi, one can identify the Hijabi as an out-group member

because the Hijabi can easily be identiﬁed as a Muslim, an already described stigmatized

 

group. As a result of this categorization, the individual can start comparing his/ her
ingroup to that of the Muslims. After establishing differences between his/ her group
from Muslims, that person can choose to use the status (or beliefs) of his/ her group
against the status (or beliefs) of the stigmatized Muslim group to inﬂate positive feelings
towards the ingroup and dero gate the Muslim outgroup by directing anger towards the
Hijabi outgroup members. One way in which this can be manifested is through
discrimination. Previous research supports this line of reasoning, as even minimal group
studies have shown that the mere categorization of people belonging to ingroups and
outgroups can result in ingroup favoritism and outgroup discrimination, even if these
groups are divided randomly (Billig & Tajfel, 1973; Tajfel, 1970; Hamilton and Troiler,
1986).

The self-categorization theory (Turner & Oakes, 1989) extends the social identity
theory by describing the cognitive details of the social categorization process proposed by
social identity theory. The main premise of self-categorization theory is that
categorization is largely a function of comparative ﬁt and normative ﬁt (Oakes, Haslam,
& Turner, 1994). Comparative ﬁt suggests that people categorize others into groups
depending on the degree to which the perceived within group differences are small
compared to the perceived between group differences. Because the Hijab is such a salient
symbol of religious identity, it distinguishes the perceiver ﬁ'om the Hijabi relatively well.
Thus, due to the high comparative ﬁt, the hijab increases the extent to which the
perceiver uses the categorization process to differentiate between the Hijabi as an
outgroup member from the perceiver, an ingroup member. Normative ﬁt suggests that

people categorize others depending on the extent to which others are perceived as

10

consistent with stereotypical and normative expectations. The normative ﬁt of Hijabis
would also be strong because one of the main stereotypes of Muslim females is that they
wear a veil (Bullock, 2002). Because Hijabis conﬁrm this stereotype by donning the
hijab, the extent to which they are categorized should be high. Overall, the self-
categorization theory suggests that Hijabis are very likely to be socially categorized by
others, which can eventually lead to discrimination.

Formal vs. Interpersonal Discrimination

To understand the extent to which Hijabis experience discrimination within the
hiring process, this study goes beyond measuring discrimination in its traditional overt
form to examining how discrimination operates today in the contemporary workplace.
Because the legal and social norms today prevent people from showing outright
differential treatment of minorities, traditional forms of discrimination may be replaced
by other forms of discrimination. For instance, discrimination may occur in subtle forms,
making discrimination even more difﬁcult to detect and to remove. Hebl, Foster, Mannix,
and Dovidio (2002) categorized two distinct forms of discrimination that exist in today’s
workplace: 1) formal discrimination and 2) interpersonal discrimination. Below, these
two forms of discrimination and the extent to which Hijabis will experience each of these
are discussed in greater detail.

Formal Discrimination. Formal discrimination, also known as overt discrimination
and old-fashioned discrimination, is marked by explicit negative behaviors towards
members of a stigmatized group, such as outright refusal to employ stigmatized
individuals (Hebl et al., 2002). Formal discrimination in the hiring process can be marked

by distinct behaviors, such as refusal to greet, help, and hire a stigmatized individual.

11

Formal discrimination has been described as “overt, unambivalent, unconﬂicted, blatant,
and conscious” (Crocker et al., 1998). Although it is believed that traditional overt forms
of discriminatory behavior are considered unacceptable in America and have been
replaced by more subtle discriminatory behavior (Hebl et al., 2002), they very much still
exist (Crocker et al., 1998). Dovidio and Gaertner (1991) estimated that approximately 20
percent of White Americans still follow old-fashion racism, in which they observe overt
discrimination, make bigoted comments, and act openly hostile towards stigmatized
individuals. This 20% is a signiﬁcant number, considering the negative impact this form
of discrimination can have on stigmatized individuals, and thus, it should not be
overlooked. Accordingly, this study argues that Hijabis will experience behaviors related
to formal discrimination during the hiring process.

One reason why formal discrimination might still be an actual problem for Hijabis is
that their group might not be as protected from conventional social norms as are other
groups. Even though certain forms of discrimination are considered taboo in America,
such as racial, gender and even religious discrimination, not all groups are considered
off-limits from discrimination (Crocker et al., 1998). Discrimination against certain
groups might be overlooked, or might not even be categorized as discrimination. For
instance, negative attitudes towards obese people are acceptable even among individuals
who are concerned with appearing politically correct (Crandall, 1994). Similarly, in a
nationwide poll conducted by Cornell University (Media and Society Research Group,
2004), an overwhelmingly 44 percent of Americans believed that some form of
restrictions should be placed on the civil liberties of Muslim Americans, suggesting that

approximately half of the sample of American citizens in the poll believe that certain

12

forms of differential treatment against Muslims are acceptable. Furthermore, while the
media is cautious to not appear racially stereotypical against certain minorities (Dovidio
& Gaertner, 1991), Muslims and Arabs continue to be portrayed negatively as terrorists
on TV and ﬁlms (Madani, 2000; Shaheen, 1984; 2003). Additionally, in the news,
politicians have displayed mixed reactions after increased incidences of hostility towards
Muslim after the 9/11 events; while some offered empathetic sentiments, others remained
silent or even offered negative comments against Muslims (Allen & Nielson, 2002).
These negative images of Muslims portrayed in the media, by political ofﬁcials, and
public opinion suggest that negative attitudes and stereotypes towards Muslims are very
much prevalent and somewhat permissible in our society, suggesting that negative actions
taken against Hijabis might also not be subject to taboo.

Another reason why negative attitudes and behaviors against some groups are
considered more acceptable than others is the perceived controllability of one’s stigma, or
when the stigmatized individual is considered responsrble for one’s condition and has the
capability of eliminating his/ her stigma (Crocker et al., 1998; Weiner, Perry, &
Magnusson, 1988). Rejection of individuals with controllable stigma is viewed as more
permissrble than rejection of individuals with uncontrollable stigma (Rodin, Price,
Sanchez, & McElligot, 1989). This is because hostility against someone who isn’t
responsible for one’s stigma might be perceived as unjust, but animosity towards
someone who is perceived as a culprit of one’s own stigma might be considered
allowable. Accordingly, individuals with controllable stigmas are more likely to be
disliked, treated harshly, elicit anger, rejected, and less likely to be assisted or pitied than

individuals with uncontrollable stigmas (Crocker et al., 1998; Weiner et al., 1988). For

13

example, negative attitudes towards the stigma of obesity are considered acceptable
because many people believe that weight can be controlled and that obese people should
be blamed for their own circumstances (Crandall, 1994). Similarly, because most
religious attire such as the hijab can be removed, it is also likely to be perceived as a
controllable stigma. With this viewpoint, the perceiver can hold the person wearing the
Hijab as responsible for her stigma, and justify that discrimination against such an
individual is deserved.

Current data on intergroup violence against Muslims shows that Hijabis are in fact
subjected to formal discrimination. Research shows that outright expressions of
discrimination, such as verbal abuse, harassment, and aggression towards Muslims are
prevalent (Sheridan, 2007). Even though there was a rise in curiosity regarding the
Islamic religion and culture following the September 11 events, it did not necessarily
promote more peace towards Muslims (Allen & Nielson, 2002). Instead, there has been a
rise of Islamophobic activities after the September 11th events. In a study assessing
religious discrimination against Muslims pre and post September 11, Sheridan (2007)
found evidence of overt discrimination (e. g. hateﬁrl behavior) against Muslims on the
grounds of their religion. The overwhelming majority (76.3%) of Muslim participants in
the study reported that there was an increase in formal discrimination, representing a
signiﬁcant increase in formal discrimination post 9/11. A breakdown of formal
discrimination revealed that 17.8% of the participants reported experiencing violent or
life-threatening situations, 36.1% indicated experiencing hostile behavior directed against

them, and 55% reported experiencing religious-tensions within their community.

14

Overall, considering the fact that the majority of Muslim respondents indicated they
experienced formal discrimination (Sheridan, 2007), it is reasonable to expect that there
will be behaviors related to formal discrimination against Hijabis. In fact, Hijabis should
be especially likely to experience behaviors related to formal discrimination because of
the salience of their religious attire. One of the major sources of motivated abuse against
Muslims identiﬁed is one’s visible membership as a Muslim (Allen & Nielson, 2002;
Weller, F eldman, & Purdam, 2001). In fact, being visually identiﬁable as a Muslim was
found to be the most powerful antecedent to negative behaviors against Muslims, with the
hijab being the most primary visual identiﬁer (Allen & Nielson, 2002). Muslim women
were more likely to be targets of discrimination than men (Allen & Nielson, 2002),
presumably because their identity as Muslims is easily identiﬁed because of their hijab.

Accordingly, I hypothesize:

H I .' Hijabis will experience more behaviors related to formal discrimination than

non-Hijabis.

Interpersonal Discrimination. As US. law forbids religious discrimination and
requires employers to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of their employees
(Title V11, 1964), formal discrimination against stigmatized individuals has become more
susceptible to legal concerns, resulting in a decline in the incidences of overt traditional
forms of discrimination (Hebl et al., 2002). However, formal discrimination is believed to
have been replaced by more covert forms of discriminatory behavior. Even though data

show that people have become more accepting and hold positive attitudes towards

15

minorities over the past few decades, there are indications that people still hold persisting
negative feelings and subtle biases towards minorities (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1991). For
example, measures of implicit prejudice and subtle forms of discrimination such as the
Implicit Associations Test (Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwatrz, 1999), priming measures
(Dovidio, Kawakami, Johnson, Johnson, & Howard, 1997), and non verbal behaviors
such as smiling and eye contact (Biernat & Vescio, 2002; Dovidio et al., 1997) reveal that
negative attitudes towards stigmatized groups still persist.

Accordingly, it is important to study indirect forms of discrimination along with
formal discrimination to measure the true extent to which Hijabis experience
discrimination during the job application process. To address this issue, I will measure
behaviors related to interpersonal discrimination, which is described as the subtle
expression of discrimination through interpersonal nonverbal and sometimes verbal
behavior (Hebl et al., 2002). In the organization context, interpersonal discrimination is
marked by subtle discriminatory behaviors such as rudeness, and negative nonverbal
behaviors such as lack of eye contact and decreased smiling. It is important to note that
although this form of discrimination is subtle, it is not free of negative consequences that
are associated with formal discrimination (Stone et al., 1992). Subtle forms of
discrimination might become overt forms of discrimination during periods of stress and
ﬁ'ustration, leading to hostile behavior (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1991).

Interpersonal discrimination has been shown to be manifested more commonly than
formal discrimination (Hebl et al., 2002; Hebl, King, Glick, Singletary, & Kazama, 2007;
King, Shapiro, Hebl, Singletary, & Turner, 2006). One reason for the prevalence of

interpersonal discrimination over formal discrimination is that people’s attitudes have

16

changed over time. Due to the civil rights movement and the ever increasing diversity in
our media, views on minorities have shifted (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1991). For example,
Crosby, Bromey, and Saxe (1980) reported that between the period ranging ﬁ'om late
19505 to early 19603, Whites openly held negative attitudes towards Blacks. However,
Item the period of 19608 to 1980s, Whites were less likely to agree to such racial
attitudes. What is interesting to keep in mind is that during these time periods, subtle
forms of discrimination towards Blacks remained the same. For example, Whites still
displayed negative nonverbal behavior towards Blacks and were less likely to engage in
helpful behavior towards Blacks than Whites. Accordingly, interpersonal discrimination
can be seen as replacing overt forms of discriminatory behavior for various reasons, such
as social norms to not act prejudiced (Sechrist & Stangor, 2001) and the desire to appear
politically correct (Dovidio, Gaertner, Kawakami, & Hodson, 2002). Thus, our present
day social norms have suppressed traditional forms of discrimination into being
expressed in alternate ways so as to not challenge the American ideal of egalitarianism
directly.

Interpersonal discrimination can best be described by and is derived from the theory
of aversive racism (Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986). The main premise of the theory of
aversive racism is that discrimination occurs in a subtle manner and that discriminating
individuals are at odds with their subconscious racist beliefs and their self concept of
themselves as espousing egalitarian values. According to this theory, people truly hold
nonprejudiced ideals and egalitarian values of fairness and justice. However, negative
attitudes towards stigmatized individuals still are rooted in their subconscious due to their

socialization into a historically prejudiced culture of the US and motivational biases such

17

as ingroup favoritism (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1991). Because it is important to people that
their egalitarian and non prejudiced values be maintained as part of their self-concept,
aversive racists avoid racist beliefs and intentionally act in ways to afﬁrm their self-
concept, sometimes even displaying extremely positive attitudes towards stigmatized
individuals. However, because their negative attitudes still lie subconsciously towards
certain stigmatized individuals, these negative attitudes might leak out as subtle
discriminatory behavior.

The coexistence of both negative attitudes towards stigmatized individuals and the
desire to be egalitarian leads to ambivalence. This ambivalence can be manifested as
endorsing egalitarian values in certain situations, whereas ambivalence in other situations
can be manifested as negative feelings towards stigmatized individuals (Gaertner &
Dovidio, 1986). Speciﬁcally, depending on the ambiguity and clarity of appropriate
norms to follow given a situation, people will discriminate or endorse egalitarian values.
When the norms are weak, unclear, or when a person can justify negative feelings
towards another on a factor external to stigma, aversive racists will respond negatively to
stigmatized individuals. In such ambiguous situations, stigmatized individuals can be
treated in a disadvantaged manner, but the aversive racist can be free of any accusation
shattering one’s egalitarian self-concept. In the end, this serves to maintain the person’s
self-concept that he/ she is not prejudiced, even if in actuality it was prejudice that
motivated one’s behavior. However, when appropriate social norms are obvious, aversive
racists will not act in a discriminatory manner because it will directly threaten their
egalitarian self-concept of themselves. In fact, aversive racists might even act overly

positive towards stigmatized individuals in such situations (Crocker et al., 1998). For

18

example, if aversive racists become aware that they are being inﬂuenced by someone’s
stigmatized status, they will be careful to curb such behavior.

Similarly, in the context of someone applying for a job, certain norms are well
established while others remain ambiguous. Certain overt forms of discriminatory actions
such as verbal harassment and aggression are prohibited by the law and could lead to job
loss, thus managers would avoid such extreme behavior against job applicants. However,
there are no norms regarding the interpersonal nature of how managers should act
towards applicants. For example, managers are not mandated by law to speak a certain
number of words, or smile a certain amount, and stand only a certain distance away from
stigmatized individuals (Hebl et a1, 2002). Because there are no norms established for
such social interactions, managers may be inclined to interpersonal forms of
discrimination by being less friendly, less interested, and ﬁnish conversations sooner with
stigmatized individuals than they would with nonstigmatized individuals.

Previous research supports the idea that interpersonal discrimination exists in the
workplace (Hebl et al., 2002; Hebl et a1, 2007; King et al., 2006). Hebl et a1. (2002)
reported that confederate job applicants, who were portrayed as either homosexual
(stigmatized) or not (non-stigmatized), faced more behaviors related to interpersonal
discrimination when they were in a stigmatized group compared to when they were in a
non-stigmatized group. Speciﬁcally, managers spent less time interacting and said fewer
and more negative words when the confederates were portrayed as homosexual job
applicants than when they were portrayed as heterosexual job applicants. Similar results
were also found in a study investigating discrimination towards pregnant women in a

nontraditional role as job applicants (Hebl et al., 2007). Confederates in a pregnancy

19

prosthesis were subjected to more hostile interpersonal behavior compared to
confederates without a pregnancy prosthesis. Likewise, as Hijabis are also stigmatized

individuals, I propose that:

H2: Hijabis will experience more behaviors related to interpersonal discrimination

than non-Hijabis.

Microaggressions. This study will also extend the prevailing conceptualization of
interpersonal discrimination by building ﬁom the theory of racial microaggression.
Racial microaggressions are deﬁned as “brief and common place behavior indignities,
whether intentional or unintentional, which communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative
racial slights and insults” (Sue, Capodilupo, Torino, Bucceri, Holder, Nadal, & Esquin,
2007). Similar to interpersonal discrimination, racial microaggressions focus on the
subtle and unconscious forms of denigration that are expressed through gestures, looks,
and verbal or nonverbal insults (Constantine & Sue, 2007 ; Pierce, Carew, Pierce-
Gonzalez, & Willis, 1978). Because microaggressions are conceptually similar to
interpersonal discrimination and because they can also have similar several negative
consequences for their victims, resulting in impaired performance, psychological distress
and inequities between groups (Constantine & Sue, 2007; Franklin, 2004; Soldrzano,
Ceja, & Yosso, 2000; Sue, 2004), it is important to consider microaggressions when
studying behaviors related to interpersonal discrimination.

Currently, research on racial microaggression is limited and at its beginning stages.

Part of the problem in advancing the theory of microaggression lies in the difficulty in

20

detecting microaggressions (Sue, 2004). Because perpetrators of racial microaggression
are usually unaware that they acting biased or stereotyping outgroup members, it is hard
for them to be cognizant of actions that qualify as microaggressions. In fact, most
perpetrators of microaggressions remain unaware when they denigrate outgroup members
and classify their exchanges with other members from outgroups as innocuous and
inoffensive (Constantine & Sue, 2007; Franklin, 1999). As in the case of interpersonal
discrimination, this belief serves to maintain the perpetrators’ egalitarian views of
themselves (Sue, 2004). Furthermore, victims of microaggression themselves are
oftentimes unsure whether microaggression actually occurs due to the general ambiguity
of microaggressions. Even if victims feel slighted, the perpetrators’ behaviors can be
interpreted in many ways. Just as interpersonal discrimination is more prevalent in
ambiguous situation, microaggression tends to occur most when the prejudicial behavior
can be explained through other non-racial factors and not when one’s behavior would
clearly appear prejudicial, making it difﬁcult for victims to identify the perpetrator’s
actions as a form of microaggression (Sue et al., 2007).

Even though most microaggressions are hard to “identify, quantify, and rectify”
because they tend to be subtle and ambiguous in nature (Sue et al., 2007), various
research on aversive racism (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1996) and the daily presence of racism
(Sellers & Shelton, 2003) support the theory of racial microaggression. Additionally, Sue
et a1, (2007) recently proposed a taxonomy of racial microaggressions by reviewing the
literature on aversive racism and personal narratives ﬁom people who encountered
everyday racism. Speciﬁcally, Sue et al. (2007) conceptualize racial microaggression in

three forms: 1) microassault, 2) microinsult, and microinvalidation. Microassault is the

21

explicit derogation of an out-group member through a verbal or nonverbal attack
intentionally meant to hurt someone. Microassault is very similar to Hebl et al.’s (2002)
conceptualization of formal discrimination and includes name-calling, avoidant behavior,
or intentional discriminatory actions.

However, what is of most relevance from Sue et al’s (2007) taxonomy of racial
microaggression in improving the conceptualization of interpersonal discrimination are
the categories of microinsult and microinvalidation. Microinsult is the subtle
communication that conveys insensitivity and rudeness towards the stigmatized
individual’s identity. This can be in nonverbal or verbal form and the perpetrator is
generally unconscious of this form of aggression. Microinvalidation are “verbal comment
or behaviors which serve to exclude, negate, or nullify the psychological thoughts,
feelings, or experiential reality” of a minority group member (Sue et al., 2007). Like
microinsults, microinvalidation is also a generally unconscious process. Both rrricroinsult
and microinvalidation are related to Hebl et al.’s (2002) conceptualization of
interpersonal discrimination because they also represent unconscious and subtle forms of
discrimination. Also like interpersonal discrimination, microinsult and microinvalidation
are empirically supported by the work on aversive racism theory (Dovidio & Gaertner,
1996). Because these two unconscious forms of racial microaggression (microinsult and
microinvalidation) are very similar to interpersonal discrimination, they can add value to
Hebl et al.’s (2007) conceptualization of interpersonal discrimination by providing
another framework for studying the phenomenon. Additionally, these forms of racial
microaggressions are very much prevalent in everyday situations involving members

from different groups (Sue et al., 2007), and should thus be relevant in understanding

22

Hijabis’ experiences of behaviors related to interpersonal discrimination. Accordingly,
this study will also incorporate microaggression in the measurement of behaviors related
to interpersonal discrimination.
Moderators of Behaviors Related to Formal Discrimination and Interpersonal
Discrimination

Having established that Hijabis will experience more behaviors related to formal
discrimination and interpersonal discrimination than non-Hijabis as job applicants, it is
important to address conditions that will inﬂuence this effect. In the sections that follow,
I address personal and contextual moderators that can inﬂuence the relationship between
wearing religious attire and the extent to which behaviors related to formal discrimination
and interpersonal discrimination will occur. Speciﬁcally, I propose that three moderators,
contextual factors (amount of social contact required by occupation and intergroup
contact potential of the location) and the job applicants’ own expectations for
discrimination (stigma consciousness) will play a role in the extent to which behaviors
related to discrimination occurs against individuals who wear religious attire. Figure 1

presents the model based on the hypotheses to follow.

23

Figure 1. Model of interpersonal and formal discrimination against Hijabis.

 

Social Contact
Intergroup Contact
Stigma Consciousness

 

 

 

 

 

 

v Formal Discrimination
Hijabi/ Non-Hijabi Interpersonal Discrimination

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Social Contact. Formal and interpersonal discrimination against Hijabis may be
more prevalent for some types of jobs than for others. More speciﬁcally, the contextual
factors of the job will inﬂuence the extent to which the Hijabi will be discriminated
, against. Previous research supports this contention that discrimination against stigmatized
individuals in the workplace is more prevalent for some types of jobs than for others. For
example, Stewart and Perlow (2001) found that peOple evaluated Blacks less favorably
and were less conﬁdent in hiring Blacks over Whites for high status jobs. However, the
evaluators did not lack conﬁdence in hiring when making a decision of hiring Blacks
over Whites for jobs of low status.

Discriminatory practices as a ﬁrnction of job type are not limited to race, but to other
stigmas as well, such as gender and physical appearance. Evaluators rate attractive and
feminine woman more highly for feminine or neutral jobs than unattractive women, but

attractive women are rated less favorably for masculine-type jobs compared to

24

unattractive women (Cash, Gillen, & Burn, 1977). Similarly, Heilman and Sauwatari
(1979) Showed that hiring preferences were given to attractive women for clerical and
feminine positions over men and unattractive women. Concerning promotions, attractive
women were more likely to be promoted for stereotypically feminine positions, but not
for masculine positions (Heilman & Stopeck, 1985).

Religious groups have also been subjected to discrimination for certain types of jobs
more so than others. Mansouri and Perlow (2005) reported that Muslims job applicants
received low rankings and were less likely to receive job interviews for a security guard
position than non-Muslim job applicants. However, for non-security positions (shipping,
trafﬁc clerk), the difference in rankings between Muslim and non-Muslim job applicants
was not as great. This ﬁnding suggests that evaluators consider religion and job type
simultaneously when evaluating Muslim candidates for job positions. Accordingly,
because Muslims are evaluated less favorably for some types of jobs than non-Muslims,
it is expected that Hijabis will also face similar issues. Hijabis should be especially
susceptible to discrimination under certain job types because of the salience of their
Muslim identity. Previous research suggests that individuals with visible stigmas are
subjected to more negative interactions and prejudice than individuals with concealable
stigmas (Jones et a1, 1984). As a consequence, the salience of the hijab is crucial in
producing discrimination against Hijabis for certain job types.

Thus, this study proposes that one particular contextual factor of the job that will
inﬂuence behaviors related to discrimination against Hijabis is the amount of social
contact required for an occupation. It is important to consider the amount of social

contact required for the job because it affects the frequency of negative social interactions

25

that will occur between stigmatized and nonstigmatized individuals. Previous research
has shown that cross-group interactions can cause people to feel uncomfortable and
threatened due to the uncertainty of the interactions, such as how they will be perceived
by others and how they should act (Blascovich, Spencer, Quinn, & Steele, 2001; Devine,
Evett, & Vasquez-Suson, 1996; Goffman, 1963; lckes; 1984; Stephan & Stephan, 1985).
In turn, this anxiety can motivate people to avoid certain situations, making intergroup
interactions less likely to occur (Fiske & Ruscher, 1993, Stephan & Stephan, 1985). The
anxiety ﬁ'om these interactions arises from many different sources: (1) attitudinal
prejudices, (2) novelty of situation, (3) fear of appearing stereotypical towards the
stigmatized individual, and (4) physiological and cognitive changes in the body. Each of
these sources of anxiety is described below in detail.

Attitudinal prejudice is one source of anxiety in intergroup interactions. That is,
some nonstigmatized individuals inherently hold outright prejudiced beliefs towards
members of stigmatized groups. These nonstigmatized individuals might be blatantly
racist and unconcerned about acting in appropriate ways during intergroup interactions
(Crocker et a1, 1998). However, these individuals still might feel uncomfortable in
interactions with stigmatized individuals because despite their open hostility, their major
goal will be to escape these interactions.

The novelty of the situation is another reason why nonstigmatized individuals
might feel uncomfortable when interacting with stigmatized individuals. Because most
interactions are usually unstructured, people tend to rely on stereotypes and expectations
as a guide for their behavior (Stephan & Stephan, 1985). Relying on one’s stereotypes

can cause the nonstigmatized individual to become overly concerned with whether the

26

stigmatized interaction partner conﬁrms his/ her negative stereotypes (Crocker et a1,
1998). This is regardless of whether the nonstigmatized individual buys into the
stereotype or not; the stereotype simply serves as a framework for analyzing the
stigmatized individual’s behavior. Overall, familiarity helps people with their
transactions while differences disrupt these transactions (Fiske & Ruscher, 1993).

Still other nonstigmatized individuals might be cOncemed about behaving in ways
that conform to social norms and adhere to their own internalized egalitarian and
nonprejudiced value system (Carver, Glass, & Snyder, Katz, 1977; Devine, Monteith,
Zuwerink, & Elliot, 1991). As a result of this, these types of nonstigmatized individuals
may feel uncomfortable because they might become overly concerned about the
impression they give the stigmatized individual with whom they are interacting with,
such as appearing racist or inappropriate. For example, Ickes (1984) found that White
students in unstructured dyadic interracial interactions were motivated to appear
unprejudiced. Ironically, this motivation lead to self-consciousness and anxiety, which in
turn produced nonverbal behavior revealing discomfort, such as hesitant speech,
ﬁdgeting, stuttering, decreased eye contact, increased interpersonal distance, and efforts
to escape the situation (Devine et a1, 1996; Word, Zanna, & Cooper, 1974).

Finally, physiological and cognitive changes are another reason why
nonstigmatized individuals might avoid stigmatized individuals. Blascovich et al. (2001)
showed physiological evidence that nonstigmatized individuals interacting with
stigmatized individuals exhibited cardiovascular patterns associated with threat and
performed more poorly on a Speech delivery task than did those interacting with

nonstigmatized members. These physiological and behavioral effects occurred across all

27

stigma conditions, including physical, racial, and socially constructed stigmas
(Blascovich et al., 2001). Interracial dyadic interactions can also deplete cognitive
resources and impair task performance. For example, Richeson and Trawalter (2005)
showed that interracial interactions increased self-regulatory demands on nonstigmatized
individuals and led to greater strOOp test interference.

In summary, intergroup interactions can bring about intense anxiety in
nonstigmatized individuals (Schlenker & Leary, 1982). Usually, individuals might be
inclined to create a positive impression of themselves when interacting with others.
However, since these nonstigmatized individuals may have had limited experiences
interacting with outgroup members than with members ﬁ'om their own groups, this may
result in uncertainty as to what types of behaviors are appropriate when interacting with
outgroup members and whether they will be positively received (Plant & Devine, 2003).
This can cause the nonstigmatized individuals to become overly concerned about
appearing prejudiced as well as socially incompetent in such interactions. Consequently,
because they lack guidelines on how to present themselves in intergroup interactions,
nonstigmatized individuals will hold negative outcome expectations for such interactions,
which are likely to result in anxiety in intergroup interactions (Devine et al., 1996).

Since interactions between stigmatized and nonstigmatized individuals are
frequently described as uncomfortable and stressful for nonstigmatized individuals
(Devine et al., 1996; Goffman, 1963; Ickes, 1984; Stephan & Stephan, 1985), it is
reasonable to believe that nonstigmatized individuals will try to avoid them. Plant and
Devine (2003) support the contention that anxiety concerning upcoming intergroup

interactions is related to avoidance of such interactions. Ickes (1984) also found the same

28

association between anxiety and avoidance of interracial interactions, with White people
being more inclined to avoid interactions with Black people, and responding with higher
anxiety levels and lower afﬁliative behaviors towards Blacks. In addition to motivating
nonstigmatized individuals to avoid intergroup interactions all together, intergroup
anxiety has also been linked to subtle discriminatory avoidance behaviors, such as
reduced eye contact and greater distance, similar to that of interpersonal discrimination
(e.g., Devine et al., 1996; Word et al., 1974). Consequently, these behaviors inﬂuence the
quality of future intergroup interactions, by promoting negative expectations for them.

Schlenker and Leary (1982) suggest that the avoidance of intergroup interactions
can have a number of negative implications. For one, avoidance prevents the
nonstigmatized individuals ﬁom developing interpersonal skills necessary for these
intergroup interactions, which could also potentially prevent anxiety in the ﬁiture.
Additionally, avoidance inhibits any personal relationships and bonds between groups
that intergroup interactions can foster. AS a result of these implications, avoiding
intergroup interactions because of anxiety can result in a vicious cycle of persistent
anxiety towards stigmatized individuals, by never allowing for intergroup interactions to
take place, and in turn, fostering more anxiety towards the outgroup (Plant & Devine,
2003).

Related to this study, it is reasonable to expect that in the context of high social
contact occupations, employers might perceive that their customers will be required to
have a wide number of interactions with Hijabis. Simply because the nature of some
occupations requires high social contact, customers will be more in contact with Hijabis.

Some of these cross-group interactions might be particularly uncomfortable for the

29

nonstigmatized individuals, due to the anxiety that is often prevalent in the interactions
between stigmatized and nonstigmatized individuals (Plant & Devine, 2003). Therefore,
occupations that require a high degree of social contact should be perceived as involving
a greater frequency of negative interactions between Hijabis and customers, and
employers will be motivated to avoid such interactions by being more inclined to
discriminate against stigmatized Hijabi job applicants regarding such types of jobs.

Indirect support for this contention comes from research on another stigmatized
group, obese persons, during the applicant process (Puhl & Brownell, 2001). Particularly,
obese job applicants are rated as lacking professional appearance for high social contact
jobs, but not for low social contact positions (Rothblum, Miller, & Garbutt, 1988). For
example, research suggests that employers consider obese persons as unﬁt for high social
contact positions such as sales positions, but not for jobs with little face-to—face contact
such as telephone sales positions (Bellizzi & Hasty, 1998; Everett, 1990). Similarly,
when confederate job applicants wore an obesity prosthesis, they were more likely to be
recommended for system analysts positions (low social contact job) than sales positions
(Pingitoire, Dugoni, Tindale, & Spring, 1994). Customers have also been shown to hold
similar views towards stigmatized individuals (Everett, 1990), stating that they would not
prefer to be waited on in a store by obese persons (stigmatized individuals). Employers
are aware of this problem that stigmatized individuals will have with customers, and
admit avoiding having stigmatized individuals such as overweight persons call on their
customers (Everett, 1990).

Furthermore, employers might anticipate that others coworkers will also be

uncomfortable with Hijabis. Previous research suggests that not only do employers

30

negatively judge stigmatized individuals, but coworkers do as well (Jasper & Klassen,
1990; Klassen, Jasper, & Harris, 1993). For example, Jasper and Klassen (1990) found
that coworkers found obese applicants (stigmatized individuals) Signiﬁcantly less
desirable to work with, even going as far as stating obesity as the direct cause of their low
judgments. However, thin applicants were found to be the most desirable to work with
(Klassen et al., 1993).

Additionally, companies and employers both acknowledge that appearance is
important for high social contact jobs such as sales (Everett, 1990), and they are aware
that the presence of a stigmatized individual can adversely affect the store image.
Accordingly, it is plausible that an employer will be less likely to hire Hijabis in high
social contact jobs because they anticipate ﬁrture negative social interactions for
coworkers and customers interacting with stigmatized individuals (i.e. low sales, less
bonding between coworkers). Therefore, occupations that require a high degree of social
contact should be perceived as involving a greater frequency of negative interactions with
many non-stigmatized individuals, and employers will be motivated to avoid such
interactions by being more inclined to discriminatory behaviors against stigmatized job

applicants regarding such types of jobs. Thus, I hypothesize:

H3: The relationship bemieen Hijabi/ Non-Hijabi and behaviors related to formal
discrimination is moderated by social contact such that:
This relationship is accentuated when there is high social contact and

attenuated when there is low social contact.

31

H4: The relationship between Hijabi/ Non—Hijabi and behaviors related to
interpersonal discrimination is moderated by social contact such that:
This relationship is accentuated when there is high social contact and

attenuated when there is low social contact.

Intergroup Contact. Intergroup contact, or prolonged contact between different
groups, can also inﬂuence the amount of formal and interpersonal discrimination a
stigmatized individual will experience when applying for a job. Intergroup contact has
been well established as one of the key ways to reduce intergroup prejudice (Pettigrew &
Tropp, 2006). The construct stems from Allport’s (1954) contact hypothesis, which
suggests that intergroup tensions can be reduced by bringing groups into contact with one
another. This contention has received considerable support. For example, Deutsch and
Collins (1951) found that there was a signiﬁcant difference in the amount of intergroup
prejudice between a racially desegregated housing project in New York City and a
segregated housing project in Newark, with an overwhelming 75% of White individuals
ﬁ'om New York favoring interracial housing compared to 25% ﬁ'om Newark.
Additionally, in a meta-analysis of 516 studies, Pettigrew and Tropp (2006) established
that intergroup contact generally reduces intergroup prejudice. 95% of the studies in this
meta-analysis revealed a negative relationship between intergroup contact and intergroup
prejudice, with a mean effect size between intergroup contact and intergroup prejudice of
r=-.21.

In addition to the basic premise that intergroup contact reduces prejudice, Allport

(1954) also identiﬁed four optimal conditions which are essential for intergroup contact

32

to reduce intergroup prejudice: 1) equal status of the groups in the situation, 2) intergroup
cooperation, 3) common goals, and 4) social and institutional support of greater contact.
Several longitudinal studies (Eller & Abrams, 2003; Levin, van Laar, & Sidanius, 2003)
have shown that these optimal conditions for contact do indeed reduce prejudice over
time. However, a recent meta-analysis (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006) found that although
Allport’s (1954) four optimal conditions for intergroup contact facilitate intergroup
contact in decreasing prejudice, they are not necessary.

In fact, several studies have shown that just the mere exposure to outgroup members
can increase liking of outgroup members (Harmon-Jones & Allen, 2001; Zajonc, 1968).
This general liking of outgroup members can also enhance liking towards member ﬁ'om
different outgroups (Rhodes, Halberstadt, & Brajkovich, 2001), suggesting that greater
contact with an outgroup member should enhance liking for that member, that member’s
outgroup, as well as different outgroups. For example, intergroup contact has been shown
to not only increase positive affect and reduce discrimination towards the outgroup
member one is in contact with, but has also been shown to produce positive affect
towards the whole outgroup (Herek & Capitano, 1996), as well as other outgroups
(Pettigrew, 1997).

Additionally, the effect of intergroup contact on intergroup prejudice is not just
limited to direct contact but it also extends to indirect contact. Wright, Aron,
McLaughlin-Volpe, and Ropp (1997) found that indirect intergroup contact, such as
having an ingroup ﬁ’iend who has outgroup friends, is related to reduced prejudice. In
fact, compared to direct intergroup contact, this form of vicarious indirect intergroup

contact is just as effective in reducing intergroup prejudice. Liebkind, Nystrdm,

33

Honkanummi, and Lange (2004) showed similar ﬁndings in that having a friend who has .
a foreign friend correlates with anti-group prejudice (r=.34) and, related to this study,
even anti-Muslim prejudice (r=.30).

There are many beliefs as to why intergroup contact reduces prejudice, ranging from
affective to cognitive explanations. Affectively, it is believed that inter-group contact
allows the ingroup member to develop empathy and positive emotions towards the
outgroup members while reducing negative emotions, which in turn, reduce prejudice
(Miller, Smith, & Mackie, 2004). Additionally, intergroup contact increases
understanding between outgroup and ingroup members, reducing intergroup threat and
anxiety, and as an end result, prejudice is reduced (Blascovich, Mendes, Hunter, Lickel,
& Kowai-Bell, 2001). Intergroup contact is also thought to produce positive intergroup
attitudes by increasing knowledge about the outgroup (Stephan & Stephan, 1984),
because having direct contact with an outgroup member individuates the outgroup by
making the outgroup more familiar, thereby reducing prejudice towards that outgroup
(Wilder, 1978).

As it is evidenced by numerous studies that intergroup contact reduces intergroup
prejudice, it is reasonable to expect that increased intergroup contact with Muslims will
result in lower prejudice and more positive attitudes toward members ﬁ'om the Muslim
outgroup. The underlying assumption here is that increased intergroup contact with
Muslims might lead to a greater understanding of the Muslim community, increased
positive empathy and emotions, and reduced anxiety towards Muslims. Previous research
supports this contention. Plant and Devine (2003) found that people with previous

intergroup contact exhibit less intergroup anxiety and hold positive expectations

34

regarding future interracial interactions. Accordingly, this view of Muslims will make
individuals less prejudiced towards them, and as a result, less likely to engage in
discriminatory behaviors against Muslims. Likewise, in the case of Hijabi job applicants,
employers who had high intergroup contact with Muslims in the past, would be more
inclined to be empathetic and to take the perspective of Hijabis, thereby reducing
prejudice against them. In fact, previous research shows that intergroup contact is most
effective in reducing intergroup prejudice when the positive feelings are projected to an
individual member from the stigmatized group whose outgroup membership is salient

(i.e. Hijabis) (Brown, 1995). Accordingly, I predict:

H5: The relationship between Hijabi/ Non-Hijabi and behaviors related to formal
discrimination is moderated by intergroup contact such that:
This relationship is accentuated when there is low intergroup contact and
attenuated when there is high intergroup contact.
H6: The relationship between Hijabi/ Non-Hijabi and behaviors related to
interpersonal discrimination is moderated by intergroup contact such that:
This relationship is accentuated when there is low intergroup contact and

attenuated when there is high intergroup contact.

Stigma Consciousness. Previous research suggests that individuals ﬁ'om
stigmatized groups are aware that their membership in such groups affects how people
interact with them. For example, Cohen and Swim (1995) found that women who
perceived themselves as the only women in a group expected to be more stigmatized than

women who did not perceive themselves as the sole woman in a given group. Similarly,

35

Kleck and Strenta (1980) found that when participants with cosmetically placed facial
scars interacted with confederates, they reported the scar as affecting their interactions.
These ﬁndings suggest that it is important to take account of differences in the
expectations of stigmatized individuals to be stigmatized as these expectations can
inﬂuence how stigmatized individuals will perceive certain situations. Additionally, the
extent to which a stigmatized individual expects to be stigmatized, also known as stigma
consciousness, can lead to cognitive and behavioral consequences that contribute to that
individual’s experiences of discrimination (Pinel, 1999). Accordingly, I predict that
stigma consciousness can inﬂuence the amount of discriminatory behaviors which
Hijabis will experience during the hiring process.

Stigma consciousness can be described as “an expectation of being judged on the
basis of one’s group membership” (Pinel, 1999). It is important to note that stigma
consciousness does not imply that highly stigma conscious individuals necessarily regard
the stereotypes associated with their stigmatized groups as true of their selves, and they
may even reject these stereotypes. Stigma consciousness is also distinct ﬁ'om stereotype
awareness. Mainly, stigma consciousness does not simply imply awareness of negative
stereotypes, but rather a “focus on one’s stereotyped status” or stigmatized status (Mosley
& Rosenberg, 2007). Stigma consciousness is also separate ﬁ'om one’s level of group
identiﬁcation, because it is not affected by one’s degree of attachment with one’s
stigmatized group. Rather, it is concerned solely with the expectation that others will
discriminate against them on the basis of their stigma, not their degree or extent of their
membership within a group (Crocker et al., 1998). Additionally, stigma consciousness is

different ﬁ'om the construct of stereotype threat (Steele & Aronson, 1995). Stereotype

36

threat is concerned with the threat of conﬁrming stereotypical behavior, while stigma
consciousness only concerns one’s expectation that one will be stigmatized, regardless of
whether one’s expectations match with one’s actual behavior.

Stigma consciousness can have important implications for how stigma inﬂuences
stigmatized individuals’ experiences. For example, Pinel (1999) found that women who
reported being high on stigma consciousness were more likely to perceive discrimination
both personally and towards their group. Speciﬁcally, women high in stigma
consciousness were more attentive to sexism, and perceived more sexism than women
who had low stigma consciousness. This suggests that high stigma conscious individuals
are more likely to believe that they are being evaluated on the basis of their group
membership than low stigma conscious individuals. Additionally, women who had high
stigma consciousness were more likely to recognize the persistence of even subtle forms
of discrimination, give concrete speciﬁc examples of sexism, and to believe sexism is a
recurring problem in society than women low on stigma consciousness.

Stigma consciousness has been shown to exist for various other stigmatized groups,
such as Blacks, homosexuals, and staff workers (Mosley & Rosenberg, 2007; Pinel,
1999; 2005). For these groups, stigma consciousness has also been related to higher
perceptions of discrimination and the tendency to be worried about how they are
perceived by others (Mosley & Rosenberg, 2007; Pinel, 1999; 2001; 2007). This is
unfortunate, because high stigma consciousness can have deleterious cognitive and
behavioral effects on the experiences of stigmatized individuals, which may cause

perceptions of discrimination to lead to actual discrimination.

37

Cogrritively, individuals with high stigma consciousness can show deﬁcits in
performance and anxiety. Research shows that high stigma consciousness people perform
worse in their stigmatized academic domain than low stigma conscious individuals
(Brown & Pinel, 2003). Individuals who believe that they will be stigmatized in certain
tasks often also exhibit anxiety along with the presence of low performance (Steele &
Aronson, 1995). For instance, in the case of academia, Blacks who had high expectations
to be rejected on the basis of their race were anxious in approaching their professors
regarding academic problems, and also showed a drop in their GPA (Mendoza-Demon,
Purdie, Downey, & Davis, 2002).

Behaviorally, people high on stigma consciousness avoid opportunities that might
conﬁrm stereotypes about their stigmatized groups, which ironically fails to disconﬁrm
stereotypes and perpetuates the stereotype even ﬁrrther (Pinel, 1999). For instance, there
is evidence that individuals high in stigma consciousness are more likely to avoid
situations that are stereotypical or can lead to stigmatization, which might unfortunately
conﬁrm stereotypes about their group and lead to stigmatization. Fine] (1999) found that
women avoided choosing stereotypically male topics (automobile name) in a jeopardy
game when competing against a man than when competing against a woman. Ironically,
one of the consequences of this avoidance is that it might even make stigmatized
individuals more likely to conﬁrm stereotypes (i.e. women being not good at male
dominated topics).

Another negative behavioral consequence of stigma consciousness is that the higher
people are in stigma consciousness, the more they are likely to be treated negatively by

others (Pinel, 2002). One reason for why people expecting to be stigmatized can actually

38

have their expectations come true is due to their communication of such expectancies to
others. Previous research shows that people who expected to be stigmatized against
evoke negative reactions ﬁ'om their perceivers (Curtis & Miller, 1986; Downey, Freitas,
Michaelis, & Khouri, 1998; Farina, Allen, & Saul, 1968). For example, Pinel (2002)
found that women high in stigma consciousness rated a perceived sexist male partner that
they were interacting with negatively. These negative ratings ﬁ‘om the females of the
male partner were reciprocated back to the females in which the male partner also
evaluated the females negatively, stereotypically conﬁrming the women’s belief that the
sexist male partner would not like the females.

This process is consistent with self fulﬁlling prophecy, in which a stigmatized
individual behaves in a way which ends up conﬁrming stereotypes associated with one’s
given stigma (Jussim, Palumbo, Chatman, Madon, & Smith, 2000). This is because the
stigmatized individual’s belief that others are stigrnatizing them (high stigma
consciousness) may lead that stigmatized individual to interact in such ways that
ultimately conﬁrms stereotypes associated with one’s stigma. Even when these beliefs are
not true regarding the nonstigmatized individual, the highly stigma conscious person
might interact in such a way that conﬁrms the stereotypical beliefs associated with the
stigma. For instance, individuals who perceived that others viewed them as either
mentally ill or homosexual actually elicited more rejection ﬁom their perceivers, even
though the actual perceivers were unaware of the stigmatized individual’s artiﬁcially
induced stigma status (Farina et al., 1968). This was because the stigmatized individual’s
negative behavior toward the perceiver elicited negative responses ﬁ'om the perceiver,

resulting in less conversation.

39

Stigma consciousness acting as a self fulﬁlling prophecy process can be particularly
harmful because it maintains stigmas by providing evidence that the behavior of the
stigmatized individual warrants their derogation (Jussim et al., 2000). Curtis and Miller
(1986) found direct evidence regarding how expectations to be stigmatized elicit
behaviors that cause the perceiver to act negatively towards the stigmatized individuals.
In the study, individuals who believed that they were disliked by the perceiver acted more
disagreeable, and less open and warm towards the perceiver than were individuals who
believed that the perceiver liked them. Consequently, as a result of this negative behavior,
individuals who thought they were disliked were rated less favorably by the perceiver
than individuals who thought they were liked by the perceiver. This suggests that it is the
negative expectations of highly stigma consciousness individuals that motivate them to
behave negatively towards others, which consequently results in their own negative
treatment (Pinel, 2002). In turn, this also explains why people high in stigma
consciousness are more likely to perceive discrimination than people low on stigma
consciousness.

There is no doubt that some Hijabis should be inclined to score high on stigma
consciousness. In an empirical study (Rippy & Newman, 2006) of Muslim Americans,
many Muslims reported perceptions of societal discrimination, suggesting that Muslims
have come to see themselves as being members of a stigmatized group. Generally,
individuals whose stigma is visrble (i.e. Hijabis) experience more discrimination than
individuals with concealable stigma (Jones et al., 1984). Accordingly, Hijabis should be
especially likely to believe that they will be stigmatized because their religious attire

clearly identiﬁes them as a member of the stigmatized Muslim group.

40

Consistent with the stigma consciousness research, it can be expected that these
Hijabis who have high expectations to be stigmatized by others, will also be more likely
to experience behaviors related to discrimination when applying for jobs than Hijabis
who are low on stigma consciousness. This is because one of the key features of stigma
consciousness is being overly concerned with how one is viewed by others (Pinel, 1999).
As a result, highly stigma conscious Hijabis will be more vigilant to stigma and may be
distracted with such thoughts, and in turn interact negatively in their interactions with the
employer. Consequently, the highly stigma conscious Hijabis will be perceived more
unfavorably by the employer than low stigma conscious Hijabis. As an end result, the
employer will be inclined to reciprocate the negative attitudes back towards the highly

stigma conscious Hijabis than low stigma conscious Hijabis. Thus, I predict:

H7: The relationship between Hijabi/ Non-Hijabi and behaviors related to formal
discrimination is moderated by stigma consciousness such that:
This relationship is accentuated when the job applicant has high stigma
consciousness and attenuated when the job applicant has low stigma
consciousness.
H8: The relationship between Hijabi/ Non-Hijabi and behaviors related to
interpersonal discrimination is moderated by applicant stigma consciousness
such that:
This relationship is accentuated when the job applicant has high stigma
consciousness and attenuated when the job applicant has low stigma

consciousness.

41

Summary

Figure 2 below shows how each of the three moderators proposed above are expected
to inﬂuence the relationship between religious attire (Hijabi/ non-Hijabi) and behaviors
related to formal discrimination and interpersonal discrimination. In summary, high
social contact occupations and high stigma consciousness job applicants are each
predicted to be positively associated with behaviors related to formal discrimination and
interpersonal discrimination towards individuals who wear religious attire. In contrast,
high intergroup contact is predicted to be negatively associated with behaviors related to
formal discrimination and interpersonal discrimination that individuals who wear

religious attire will experience. See Appendix A for the 1111] list of hypotheses.

42

 

 

2:? Sean:—

 

 

 

EAE ESESZ
m w.
a m
m. A
o m
u m
m. .
m m.
mmocmsosmcoo «Ewum 33 u m
«one—80 msopwcouﬁ :wE .I I I I I w. W.
88.80 300m 33 m. u
325528.80 «Baum swam W.
88:00 9.838:— 33 n
8330 308 ﬁg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.aehesstcﬁh
Neaoaamabmaﬁ use EEQS 3233 .4333an :0 ESEOVOE 35c Shae GEES? «Enigma E38383 hmuocmxm .N 2de

43

METHOD
Participants

Participating employees included 49 male and 63 female employees (69 White, 16
Black, 12 Arab, 5 Asian, 3 Latino, 2 South Asian, and 4 other) ﬁ'om a total of 72 retail
stores and 40 restaurants in or in the vicinity of two shopping malls. For the role of the
confederate participants, fourteen female undergraduates students (ages 19-22) ﬁ'om a
Midwestern university volunteered to act as job applicants. To make sure that the results
would generalize to a wide variety of Muslim women, women ﬁ‘om several different
ethnic backgrounds were chosen (6 South Asian women, 1 Middle Eastern woman, 2
Black women, and 5 Caucasian women). All confederates were also American citizens
with English being their primary language, controlling for nationality and accents. Each
confederate job applicant engaged in eight interactions each as job applicants by applying
for jobs at eight different stores or restaurants, yielding a total of 112 trials. The
confederate job applicant was important to ensure experimental control, so that all factors
other than the manipulation were controlled for by using the same applicants in all
conditions. Additionally, religious attire was able to be manipulated when using
confederates, whereas it could not be manipulated with actual Hijabis, who are unable to
remove their hijab in the public due to religious restrictions.

An additional fourteen female undergraduate students (ages 18-21; 1 multiracial
woman, 2 Asian women, 11 Caucasian women) served as interaction observers for the
confederate trials. Each observer was paired with one of the confederate applicants and
acted as the observer for all of the confederate applicant’s eight trials. These observers

were used to ensure that ratings given by the confederate applicants were not a result of

44

confederate bias. In a related ﬁeld study, Hebl et al. (2007) found that observers agreed

with blind coders independently listening to an audio recording of the confederate job
applicant-employer interaction (rwg values ranging ﬁom .73 to .85), justifying the use of

observers as an additional source of data. All the confederates and observers remained
blind to the hypotheses of this study, but it is likely that they might have guessed the
study’s purpose (Kleck & Strenta, 1980).
Training

In addition to having an observer present, to further reduce experiment bias, both the
confederates and the observers received extensive training in which they were taught to
act in a normal and appropriate manner through out the trials and to follow a standardized
script (see Appendix B). During training, both confederates and observers were trained to
be professional throughout the study, to act as much to a scripted standardized manner of
a job applicant (confederate role) or being a customer (observer role), and to respect the
anonymity of stores/ restaurants and employees they interacted with. Confederates
practiced giving verbal scripts, how to enter/ leave stores and restaurants, and participated
in mock observations with the experimenter. Confederates were also given standardized
answers to memorize to anticipated questions regarding their religion, their appearance or
the headscarf speciﬁcally (See Appendix B). Observers were trained regarding how to
enter stores/ restaurants and to act discreetly as customers while observing the
confederate, what to do if they are unable to watch confederates, and also participated in
mock observations with the experimenter. Additionally, confederates learned how to
wear the hijab and were required to wear it in a public place for three hours to ensure that

they felt comfortable with the hijab before participating in the actual trials.

45

Manipulation of Conditions

Religious Attire. For half of the trials, the applicants were assigned to a Hijabi
condition and for the other half of the trials, the applicants were assigned to a non-Hijabi
condition. In the Hijabi condition, the confederate wore a hijab (plain black headscarf),
while no hijab was worn in the control condition. As there are several different ways to
wear the hijab, all applicants wore the hijab in a simple traditional way in which the hijab
covered the hair, ears, neck and chest. A manipulation check supported that others
recognized the headscarf manipulation as Muslim. 70 participants were randomly shown
a picture of one of two different women wearing a headscarf. An overwhelming 96.8%
and 94.8% percent of the participants identiﬁed the two women wearing the headscarf as
Muslim, respectively. To standardize all of the interactions, in both the Hijabi and non-
Hijabi conditions, all applicants dressed similarly in long-sleeve collared shirts with black
dress pants and a black purse. See Appendix C for sample pictures of the job applicants.

Social Contact. For half of the trials, confederate job applicants applied for high
social contact occupations (sales representative, waitress), while the other half involved
applying for low social contact occupations (cook, stockperson). The investigator told the
confederate which speciﬁc occupation to apply for depending on the social contact
condition for each trial (see Appendix B for script). The low and high social contact
occupations that were used for this study were chosen based on 149 undergraduates’
responses to an online questionnaire rating the amount of social contact required for 7
occupations on a 1 (low) to 7 (high) scale. From the results, occupations were selected
that were not only low in social contact (cook: M =3.5 6; stockperson: M =2.5 7) or high in

social contact (sales representative: M =6. 1 3; waitress: M =6.3 7), but jobs that were

46

similar in job status and jobs that would be commonly available at stores and restaurants,
the target locations for data collection. Additionally, only occupations in which
qualiﬁcations were not a major determinant in getting the job were chosen, as described
in O*NET (2007). The low social contact conditions were signiﬁcantly different ﬁ'om the
high social contact conditions on social contact (t[593] = -30.84, p < .001), yielding a
strong comparison between the low and high conditions.

Intergroup Contact. The demographic proportion of Muslims within a given location
was used as a proxy for inter-group contact. Previous research suggests that living in a
diverse neighborhood is ideal for allowing for more opportunities for intergroup contact
(Liebkind et al., 2004). Individuals ﬁ'om diverse or urban areas are more likely to be
placed in the same organizations, neighborhoods, and schools, due to the prevalence of
other groups (Curtis, Timbers, & Jackson, 1967). As a result of these common
memberships, individuals ﬁom different groups have increased contact with one another
and also form personal relationships (i.e. work colleague, neighbor) (Curtis et al., 1967).
Likewise, it is reasonable to expect that living in a neighborhood which has a high
proportion of Muslims would result in a greater amount of intergroup contact with that
group.

Thus, for high and low intergroup contact conditions, two cities in Michigan were
chosen that differ substantially in their demographic proportion of Muslims: Lansing and
Dearborn. In the US. Census Bureau Report (2000), Dearbom was listed as having the
second largest Arab population of 29,181, representing 30% of the population in
Dearborn. Although there is no count on how many Muslims reside in Lansing, a recent

web search (Bestplaces.net, 2008a) indicates that only 1.29% of the Lansing population

47

afﬁliates with Islam. Additionally, in a Google maps search for Islamic center/ mosques
in both of these cities, Lansing only had one Islamic center compared to ﬁve such
organizations located in Dearbom, one of which happens to be the largest mosque in
USA. It is clear from these statistics that Dearbom does have a relatively larger
proportion of Muslims compared to that of Lansing, making these two cities ideal for
representing low and high intergroup contact. Consequently, for half of the trials,
confederate job applicants applied for jobs in Lansing (low intergroup contact), and for
the other half of the trials, confederates applied for jobs in Dearborn (high intergroup
contact). ‘

It should be noted that all the conditions were counterbalanced, in that each
confederate took part in each of the 2 x 2 x 2 conditions (religious attire x social contact x
intergroup contact). The order was counterbalanced for intergroup contact in that half of
all the interactions started in Dearbom and then moved to the Lansing location, while the
other half of the interactions started in Lansing and moved to the Dearbom location. The
order was counterbalanced for religious attire condition in that for the ﬁrst trial, half of
the applicants wore the headscarf in their ﬁrst trial and alternated between no headscarf
and headscarf afterwards, the other half of the applicants started with the headscarf off
and alternated between headscarf and no headscarf afterwards. The order was also
counterbalanced for the social contact condition in that for the ﬁrst trial, half of the
applicants applied to a low social contact job and alternated between high and low social
contact jobs afterwards, while the other half of the applicants started with a high social

contact job and alternated between low and high social contact jobs afterwards.

48

Procedure

After training had been completed, the confederate/ observer pairs were assigned to
eight different service sectors (stores, restaurants) in or in the vicinity of Dearbom or
Lansing malls. The retail stores selected were balanced out by merchandise sold and both
the restaurants and stores chosen for the study were matched to be of similar typical
clientele. The experimenter set up a designated place to meet in the mall area so as to
provide a home base station for the confederate-observer teams to begin and end each of
their interactions and to designate the store or restaurant which the confederate-observer
team was to be assigned to. Each confederate and observer was paired up as a team and
visited the same store or restaurant separately. The confederate-observer pairs each
participated in eight trials, either in a Hijabi/ non-Hijabi condition, low/ high social
contact condition, and low/ high intergroup contact contact, yielding a 2 x 2 x 2 repeated
within subjects design. The stores/ restaurants visited were chosen randomly to be in a
Hijabi or non-Hijabi condition. Furthermore, these stores/ restaurant were not
prescreened for job openings, so there was a possibility that these some of these stores/
restaurants may have not been hiring. Depending on the social contact condition for the
trial, the experimenter told the confederate which speciﬁc occupation to apply for and
what religious attire condition the confederate would be in. Furthermore, half of the trials
took place in a high intergroup contact location (Dearbom), and the remaining half of the
trials took place in a low intergroup contact location (Lansing).

Upon the assignment of stores or restaurants to the confederate-observer team, the
observers entered the store/ restaurant two minutes prior to the confederate and either

busied themselves with merchandise, looked through menus, or waited in the waiting area

49

(restaurants) so as to appear unacquainted with the confederate. The observers were
trained to decline help if offered by employees. The confederate job applicants entered
the stores or restaurants and directly approached a store employee. Upon entering the
stores, confederate applicants asked to speak to the manager, or the person in charge and

asked three standard questions (See Appendix B for actual experiment script): 1) “Do you

have a job position open for a sales representative‘?”, 2) “Could I ﬁll out a job
application?, ” 3) “Can I leave a copy of my resume?,” and 4) “What sort of things
would I be doing if I worked here?” Meanwhile, the observers wore a stopwatch to time
the length of the interaction between the confederate applicant and the store employee/
manager. From the time that the confederates started speaking with the employee to the
end of the whole interaction, the observers timed the length of that interaction in seconds
with the stop watch

After each interaction, the confederate applicants returned to the home base station to
ﬁll out the confederate measures, in response to their interactions (see Appendix D for
actual questions). After the confederates left, the observers waited approximately 2
minutes before leaving, so as to appear unacquainted with the confederates. The
observers also returned to the home base station to ﬁll out the observer measure (see
Appendix E for actual questions), which was primarily identical to the confederates’
measure. It should be noted that during each of the interactions and until all of the trials
were complete, the confederates and observers were required to not talk to each other, so

as to not bias their responses.

 

1 Positions differed depending on the social contact condition (high, low) and the type of service sector
(store, restaurant) the confederate applied to. Positions included cook, waitress, sales person, and

stockperson.

50

Measures

Confederates and observers completed separate measures. Although many of the
measures for confederates and observers overlap (e. g. formal discrimination,
interpersonal discrimination, situational characteristics), and many of the confederate and
observer responses for these measures were later averaged for the analyses (justiﬁcation
described later on in results section), they are discussed separately below in greater detail
because of slight differences between the measures. See Appendix D and E for the actual
questionnaires used for the confederate and observers, respectively.
Confederates

Stigma Consciousness. A modiﬁed form of the Stigma Consciousness Questionnaire
(SCQ) was used to measure the confederate applicant’s expectations to be discriminated
against by others (Pinel, 1999). The modiﬁed SCQ is a 6-item measure assessing the
extent to which individuals expect to be discriminated against as a result of their attire.
Item scale responses range ﬂour 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), with higher
scores reﬂecting greater expectations to be stigmatized. The SCQ had a Cronbach’s alpha
of .92. This measure was completed prior to each of the confederate applicant trials to
assess how much the confederate applicants expected to be stigmatized for each of their
trials.

It should be noted that even though the participants in this study were acting as
Hijabis and the headscarf was not a permanent symbol of their identity, they can develop
stigma consciousness levels similar to individuals who actually belong to the Hijabi
group. Previous research shows that even artiﬁcially induced stigmas can increase the

individuals’ expectations to be stigmatized (Farina et al., 1968; Kleck & Strenta, 1980).

51

For instance, people who were under the impression that others thought they had
epilepsy, a hideous facial scar, or allergies were more likely to believe that they will be
stigmatized. Thus, the acquired identity of a Hijabi was relevant in this study.

Formal Discrimination. Following the precedent established by Hebl et al. (2002),
this study utilized four measures of behaviors related to formal discrimination on a yes/
no scale depending on whether the confederate applicants I) gained direct access to the
manager, 2) were told a job is available, 3) were given the opportunity to ﬁll an
application form, and 4) received callbacks. For the call back measure, the applicants
were given a 6-week period in which the confederates reported back to the investigator of
any stores/ restaurants calling them back for interviews or job offers. These items for
measuring formal discrimination were generated from similar ﬁeld studies measuring
formal discrimination against homosexual job applicants, pregnant job applicants, and
obese customers (Hebl et al., 2002; 2007; King et al., 2006). Additionally, other measures
of formal discrimination were created and used in which confederate applicants also
reported whether the manager greeted the applicant, thanked the applicant, recommended
another job to the applicant if original was not available, gave permission to the applicant
to leave a resume, and made any negative references to the applicant regarding attire.

Interpersonal Discrimination. Behaviors related to interpersonal discrimination
were measured by ﬁve separate categories: 1) average distance ﬁ'om applicant and
manager, 2) perceived negativity of the manager, 3) perceived employer interest, 4)
overall negativity, and 5) microaggression. The items for all the ﬁrst four subscales were
generated from similar ﬁeld studies measuring interpersonal discrimination against

homosexual job applicants, pregnant job applicants, and obese customers (Hebl et al.,

52

2002; 2007; King et al., 2006). To measure average distance, observers reported the
average perceived distance between the employee and confederate applicant on a range
ﬁ'om less than one foot to a range of greater than 8 feet. Perceived negativity measured
the extent to which the confederate applicant found the employer to be helpful,
standofﬁsh, nervous, motivated to end the conversation prematurely, focused on attire,
avoiding eye contact, and hostile. Perceived employer interest measured the extent to
which the confederate applicant believed that the store employer would be interested in
the applicant as a job candidate and perceived the applicant as a qualiﬁed job applicant.
Overall negativity measured the extent to how negative and positive the overall
interaction was. Both of these scales are on a 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much) scale.

In addition to measuring behaviors related to interpersonal discrimination through
measures used by similar ﬁeld studies (Hebl et al., 2002; 2007; King et al., 2006),
interpersonal behaviors of discrimination was also observed through the
microaggressions framework (Sue et al., 2007). Speciﬁcally, confederates were asked to
what extent they experienced microinsults and microinvalidation during their
interactions. Currently, research studying racial microaggression is mostly based on
qualitative data spanning long-term interactions (Constantine & Sue, 2007 ; Soldrzano,
Ceja, & Yosso, 2000; Sue et al., 2007), and there is no empirically valid scale for racial
microaggression. Although Constantine and Sue (2007) created a racial microaggression
checklist for White supervisors working with Black supervisees, most items ﬁ'om this
checklist concern long-term, day to day interactions and were thus inappropriate to use in
this study. However, one item was adopted from the racial microaggression checklist

concerning whether the employer avoided discussing the applicant’s attire.

53

Nine additional behavioral items were created using Sue et al.’s (2007)
categorization of microaggression into microinsults and microinvalidation (See Appendix
F for microaggression scale). These items were developed based on the 9 themes that Sue
et al. (2007) identiﬁed under microinsults and microinvalidation: ascription of
intelligence, second class citizen, pathologizing cultural values, color blindness, alien in
own land, denial of individual racism, myth of meritocracy, and environmental
microaggression. Item scale responses range from a 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much) scale.

Situational Characteristics. In addition to the measures above, the confederates were
asked to identify how crowded and upscale the stores or restaurants were on a 1 (not at
all) to a 5 (very much) scale. It is possible that these characteristics could be related to the
dependent variables because these situational characteristics may lead to differences in
employer interactions with the Hijabis. For example, brevity might be more likely to
occur in a crowded store, in which the employer has to attend to many other customers.
Additionally, excellent customer service (extending to job applicants) might be a higher
priority for upscale stores/ restaurants than lower scale stores/ restaurants. The gender
and ethnicity of the managers and the diversity of the employees and customers were also
recorded in case they accounted for any differences in employer interactions with the
confederates. All of these variables were recorded in the case that if they were related to
the dependent variables, they could be used as controls.

Observers

The interpersonal discrimination and formal discrimination scales used by the

observers were almost identical to the interpersonal discrimination and formal

discrimination scales used by the confederates, with the main exception being the scale

54

referent was the confederate job applicant, not the self. Additionally, the observers lacked
the call back measure for formal discrimination but had an additional measure for
interpersonal discrimination (interaction length). The items for both the formal and
interpersonal discrimination measures were also similar to those that were used to
measure interpersonal and formal discrimination in similar ﬁeld studies on homosexual
job applicants, pregnant job applicants, and obese customers (Hebl et al., 2002; 2007;
King et a1, 2006). For this study, there was no instance in which the observers failed to
witness the entire interaction, but there were instances in which the observers missed
certain parts of the interactions.

Formal Discrimination. Behaviors related to formal discrimination were measured
by three separate questions on a yes/ no scale depending on whether the confederate
applicant was 1) told a job is available, 2) gained direct access to the manager, and 3)
given the opportunity to ﬁll an application form and to leave a resume. Additionally,
other measures of behaviors related to formal discrimination were created and used in
which observers also reported whether the manager greeted the applicant, thanked the
applicant, recommended another job to the applicant if the original was not available,
gave permission to the applicant to leave a resume, and made any negative references to
the applicant regarding their attire. An additional “could not observe” response option
was also included in case the observer was unable to observe due to the setting. Because
the measures for formal discrimination were dichotomous, no reliability coefﬁcients are
available.

Interpersonal Discrimination. Behaviors related to interpersonal discrimination

were measured by six separate measures: 1) average distance between confederate and

55

employee, 2) length of confederate-employee interaction, 3) perceived negativity of the
manager, 4) perceived employer interest, 5) overall negativity, and 6) microaggression.
To measure average distance, observers reported the average perceived distance between
the employee and confederate applicant on a range from less than one foot to a range of
greater than 8 feet. To measure whether interactions were shorter for stigmatized
applicants compared to non-stigmatized applicants, observers recorded the full length of
the interactions in seconds through the use of a stop watch. Perceived negativity
measured the extent to which the observer found the employer to be helpful, standofﬁsh,
nervous, motivated to end the conversation prematurely, focused on attire, avoided eye
contact, and hostile towards the confederate applicant. Perceived employer interest
measured the extent to which the observers believed the store employer would be
interested in the confederate applicant as a job candidate and if the employer perceived
the candidate as a qualiﬁed job applicant. Overall negativity measured how negative and
positive the overall interaction was. Microaggression measured the extent to which
confederates experienced microinsults and microinvalidation during their interactions.
These last four scales were on a 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much) scale with an additional
“could not observe” response option in the case in which the observer was unable to
observe due to the setting (i.e. too loud).

Applicant Consistency. To ensure that the applicants were not acting differently
across trials, four items on a 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much) scale were used asking how
relaxed, nervous, attentive, ﬁ'iendly, and consistent in behaviors the applicants were for

each trial. The scale had a Cronbach’s alpha of a=.78.

56

Situational Characteristics. In addition to the measure above, the observers were
asked to identify how crowded and upscale the stores or restaurants were on a 1 (not at
all) to a 5 (very much) scale. The observers also noted the gender and perceived ethnicity
of the managers and the diversity of the employees and customers were also recorded.
These variables were recorded in the case that if they were related to the dependent
variables, they could be used as controls.

Investigator
In addition to the measures above, the investigator also noted the trial number of the

interactions and location type (whether the interaction took place in a store or restaurant
setting). These variables were recorded in the case that if they were related to the
dependent variables, they could be used as controls. The date of the interaction and time
of the interaction were also recorded for tracking purposes to help match up callbacks to
ratings.
Ethical Concerns

Great consideration was given to the ethics of this study. Although the store/ restaurant
employees were unaware of the nature of the study, the study was conducted in an ethical
manner. First, this study followed the precedent of similar ﬁeld studies that have been
approved by IRBs from different universities (Hebl et al., 2002; 2007; King et al., 2006).
Likewise, this study had also received approval from Michigan State University’s IRB
committee. Second, the design of this study was such that the participants (job
employees) did not encounter anything that is unusual at work. Individuals applying for
jobs and having customers is a common occurrence in the public domain. Third, to

obtain the data necessary for this study, it was impractical to reveal the true nature of the

57

study. Previous research has acknowledged that people’s discriminatory behavior is
subjected to social desirability bias (Crosby, Bromley, & Saxe, 1980; Krysan, 1998;
Phillips & Clancy, 1972). Thus, if the employees were aware that they were involved in
a study about discrimination, they would be less likely to act as they naturally would
have, compromising the validity of the study. Fourth, I felt that if I were to disclose to the
employees that they were participating in a study on discrimination, this would have
yielded more potential harm than if they were unaware of the study. It would have been
psychologically harmful for some of these employees to know that they act in
discriminatory ways. Realizing that one has negative biases and attitudes towards certain
groups can lead to inconsistencies with one’s notions of social norms and values of
tolerance. This might shatter one’s self image as a tolerant person (Van Dijk, 2002).
Finally, confederates provided actual information regarding themselves (names, phone
numbers, and references) and the confederates had the option to accept any job offers
they were offered. Observers were also allowed to purchase merchandise or service, if
they so desired.

In addition, the confederates and observers were trained to be sensitive to the ethical
concerns of the study while interacting with the employees. Speciﬁcally, confederates
and observers were required to complete an informed consent to ensure that they clearly
understood the goals of the study. Included in this informed consent, participants signed a
conﬁdentiality agreement in which the participants agreed not to share the names of the
stores/ restaurants, the names of the managers/ employees, and the data that they
provided in the survey with any party other than the investigator of the study. See

Appendix G for informed consent and conﬁdentiality agreement.

58

RESULTS
Post Manipulation Check
To assess whether there were any differences in the perception of confederates as
Muslims, pictures of all of the confederates were taken with and without a Hijab and used
as stimuli for a post manipulation check study. In this study, 50 participants rated the 14
confederates each through rating 14 different stimulus pictures. Seven of these stimulus
pictures were of 7 confederates wearing the hijab and 7 of the stimulus pictures were of 7
confederates not wearing the hijab (no confederate appeared more than once in a picture).
An additional 51 participants rated another 14 different stimulus pictures, in which these
stimuli pictures were of the confederates in their opposite conditions (confederates who
were wearing a hijab in the previous condition were now shown without a hijab, and vice
versa). Each participant was asked to identify the religious afﬁliation of the person in the
picture. The responses for this data were later dummy coded into 0 or 1, being identiﬁed
as Muslim or not Muslim. The pictures of the confederates shown were also dummy
coded 0 and l, for confederates wearing the hijab and confederates not wearing the hijab.
A t-test was conducted to see if there were any signiﬁcant differences in being
identiﬁed as a Muslim across Hijabi and non-Hijabi conditions. There was a signiﬁcant
difference in being identiﬁed as a Muslim, t(l401) = -5.99, p < .01, with confederates in
the Hijabi photos (M=0.44, SD=.47) being more likely to be identiﬁed as Muslim than
confederates in the non-Hijabi photos (M=0.61, SD=.49), as expected.
Establishing Agreement

To establish agreement between confederates and observers on their ratings on

continuous measures, r,,1g values were calculated using equations provided by James,

59

Demaree, and Wolf (1 984). There was high interrater agreement between confederate and

observers on perceived distance (n,g =.97), perceived negativity (r,,.g=.97), perceived
interest (rwg=.82), overall negativity measures (ng =.97), microaggression (n,g =.93),
how crowded the location was (rwg =.80), how upscale the location was (rwg =.80), and

the diversity of the employees (ng =.80). Because the statistical index of agreement for

the perceived negativity scale and the perceived interest scale were both above the .70
rule-of-thumb required to justify aggregation of ratings (Klein et al., 2000), the
confederates and observers ratings were averaged for these scales.

To establish agreement between confederates and observers on their ratings on
dichotomous measures, Kappa values were calculated. As a rule of thumb values of
Kappa from 0.40 to 0.59 are considered moderate, 0.60 to 0.79 good, and 0.80
outstanding (Landis & Koch, 1977). There was good agreement for access to manager (k
= 0.68), job availability (k = 0.65), permission to complete application (k = 0.98),
permission to leave resume (k = 0.77), manager race (k = 0.84), and manager gender (k =
0.96). Because these measures had good agreement, the responses on these scales were
not averaged and only confederate responses for the formal discrimination measures and
manger’s race and ethnicity were used in the ﬁrture analysis. These measures were not
averaged so as to preserve the dichotomous nature of these variables and because
observers were sometimes unable to ﬁll out measures because they could not hear or see
the interaction well. Additionally, there was only inadequate to moderate agreement for
recommend another position (k = 0. 46), thanked applicant (k = 0.48) and greeted

applicant (k = 0.33), and thus these scales were dropped ﬁ'om all subsequent analyses.

60

See Table l for rag values for all of the continuous scales and kappa values for all the

dichotomous variables.

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1:

Agreement between Confederates and Observers
Scale Agreement
Access to manager 0.68I
Job availability 0.65l
Recommend other position 0.46l
Permission to complete

application 0.98I
Leave resume 0. 77 '
Greeted Applicant 0.33'
Thanked Applicant 0.481
Distance 0.962
Perceived Negativity 0.972
Perceived Interest 0.822
Overall Negativity 0.872
Microaggression 0.932
Controls

Location-Crowded 0.802
Location-Upscale 0.802
Diversity of Employees 0.702
Diversity of Customers 0.642
Manger Race 0.84l
Manger Gender 0.96l

 

Note: 1 Kappa values for dichotomous variables. 2 ng values for continuous
variables.

Confirmatory Factor analysis.

Formal Discrimination. As mentioned above, three measures of behaviors related to
formal discrimination (greeted applicant, thanked applicant, recommend other position)
were dropped ﬁ'om the study due to the low agreement on these measures between the
confederates and observers (k =.33, k =.48, and k =.46, respectively). An additional

measure (made negative attire references) was also removed because there was almost no

61

variance in this measure. Because of good agreement on the remaining measures of
formal discrimination (kappa values ranged ﬁ'om .65 to .98), the responses on behaviors
related to formal discrimination from confederates and observers for each of these
measures were averaged for the purpose of the CFA. A conﬁrmatory factor analysis was
run using the ﬁve remaining dimensions to conﬁrm that these ﬁve factors (access to the
manager, job availability, completed job application, permission to complete resume,
callback) should be considered separately, because they were used separately and
described as conceptually distinct in Hebl et al.’s (2000; 2007) study. Results indicate

that the 5-dimensional model of behaviors related to formal discrimination was a good ﬁt
(x2 (4, N: 110) = 1.48, a CFI of 0.99, and an RMSEA of .00). Because all of the

measures for behaviors related to formal discrimination were single item measures, no
reliability coefﬁcients are available.

Interpersonal Discrimination. Because of good agreement between confederates and
observers on all of the six measures of behaviors related to interpersonal discrimination
(ng values ranged from .82 to .96), responses on all of the interpersonal discrimination
items from confederates and observers were averaged. However, three of the
microaggression scale items (pathologizing cultural values, criminalizing status, alien in
own land) were dropped from the study due to zero or almost zero variance. A
conﬁrmatory factor analysis was conducted to examine whether a six dimensional model
of behaviors related to interpersonal discrimination (microaggression, interaction length,
perceived distance, perceived negativity, perceived interest, overall negativity) was a

good model. This model proved to be a bad ﬁt ()6 (227, N= 111) = 623.60, a CF] of 0.73,

and an RMSEA of. 126). A second model was run treating microaggression and

62

behaviors related to interpersonal discrimination as two separate latent constructs, with
behaviors related to interpersonal discrimination as having ﬁve ﬁrst order constructs

(interaction length, perceived distance, perceived negativity, perceived interest, overall
negativity). This model also proved to be bad ﬁt ()8 (225, N= 111) = 634.47, a CFI of

0.81, and an RMSEA of .129). Because many of the factor loadings of the
microaggression scale items were problematic in the previous two models,
microaggression was dropped from the model. Furthermore, nricroaggression was
removed as both a dimension of behaviors related to interpersonal discrimination and
further removed ﬁom this study altogether because of its poor psychometric properties
which was reﬂected by the poor loading of its items in the ﬁrst two models and a very
low alpha ( a=.28). Next, a ﬁve dimensional model of behaviors related to interpersonal
discrimination (interaction length, perceived distance, perceived negativity, perceived
interest, overall negativity) was run. This model had a poor ﬁt ()6 (102, N= 111) =

386.91, a CF] of0.79, and an RMSEA of.159).

A ﬁnal ﬁve dimensional model of behaviors related to interpersonal discrimination
(interaction length, perceived distance, perceived negativity, perceived interest, overall
negativity) was run after examining the previous three models, which suggested that two
items from the perceived negativity scale (focused on attire, nodded and made afﬁrmative
gestures) were not loading signiﬁcantly on the perceived negativity scale, and therefore
should be removed from the model. Additionally, interaction length and perceived
interest were allowed to correlate because the modiﬁcation indices of the previous
models suggested it and conceptually it made sense that the longer the interaction length,

the more likely the applicant would perceive that the manager as being interested. Results

63

of this model suggested a good ﬁt: (x2 (66, N: 111) = 106.90, a CFI of 0.97, and an

RMSEA of .05). Thus, this ﬁve dimensional model of behaviors related to interpersonal
discrimination was retained for future analyses of behaviors related to interpersonal
discrimination. The perceived negativity, perceived interest scale, and overall negativity
scale had a Cronbach’s alpha of .82, .87, and .72, respectively. The remaining two
measures of behaviors related to interpersonal discrimination were single item measures
(interaction length, perceived distance), so no reliability coefﬁcients are available.
Correlations
The correlations, means, standard deviations, and internal consistency reliabilities

for all of the variables are reported in Table 2. Wearing the hijab was correlated with
stigma consciousness, permission to complete job application, perceived negativity, and
perceived interest. Interaction length, perceived negativity, perceived interest, and overall
negativity were correlated with one another and to several measures of behaviors related
to fOrmal discrimination (job availability, permission to complete job application). The
actual religion of the confederates (Muslim or not Muslim) was signiﬁcantly correlated
with stigma consciousness. The social contact of the location was correlated with the
diversity of employees and customers. The intergroup contact of the location was
negatively correlated with manager’s race (White)2.

These correlations were also used to decide which of the variables (situational
characteristics, manager race, and gender) could be used as controls in future analyses,

depending on these variables’ correlations with the dependent variables. Because there

 

2 It should be noted that because there were relatively only a small proportion of con federates and
managers who belonged to different minority race categories, all minority race categories were lumped
together and dichotomous race variables (White vs. non-White) for manager and applicant race were
created to reduce the likelihood of sampling error.

64

were too many potential control variables (7) that were correlated with at least one or
more dependent Variables, to avoid using up too many degrees of ﬁeedom in the
analyses, these variables were used as controls on a per analysis basis, in which they were
only controlled for when they were related to the dependent variable of interest in the

analysis.

65

.mstomno 98 88.63.88 .20 8222282 owe-2622 no BQmNASb 2 2222 35 o 88 2:22:26 83 032.8 >2

8.8 e

222822288 0.8 82225» a... .movq 222 22285228 0.8 m32e> .2. ”2222628 0.2223 888 .28 225228 222222 0222 28 0.8 22220508 3223222 22222 H.802

 

 

 

8. 8.- 8. 8.- 8. 8. 8.- 8.- :8.-:8. 22. 8. :8. 22 8.8 28 85823-228 288-8
:8: 8.- 8. 2. .2. 8.- 8.- 8. 8. 8. 8. 8. 8. 22 8.8 8.8 282228 222.828.222-88
2.2.- 8. 8.-...2..- 8. :8; :8. 2.2.- 8.- 8. 8. 8. 8. 22 8.8 8.8 28868888
8.- 8.- 8. 8. 2.- 2. 2.- 2. 8.- 2.- 2. 8. 2. 22 8.8 8.8 N2.282.87222.85.8
.8. 8. :8. 2. :8. :8. 2. 2.- 8. 8.- 2. 2. :8.- 22 8.8 8.8 N2802£8>2aena-8
2.- 8.- 8.- 8. :8.- 8. :8.- 2. 8.- 2.- .2. 8.- ...8. 22 8.8 2.8 ”28228728382828
8. 8.- 22. 8. 2.- 8. 22.- 8. 8. 2. 2. 8.- 8.- 22 8.8 8.8 Nagasaeseaena-cm
:8. 8. .82. :8. :8. :8. 2. 8.- 8.- 8. 8. 2. 8.- 22 8.88 8.82” 288-2888222282
:8. 2. .28. .8. :8. .8. 8.- 2.2.- 2.2.- 2. 2. .8. 8.- 222 8.8 8.8 82:82 282382328282
:8. 8. .8. .28. :8. :8. 22. 8. 8.- 2. 2.- :8. 8.- 82 28 8.8 8228228... 20228838282882
8. 2.- 2. 8. 8. 22. 8.- 2. 2. 2.- 8. 8.- 22.- 22 8.8 8.8 222222338872
:8. 8.- 8.- 8. 8. 22. 8. 8.- :8. 8. 2.- 22. 8.- 22 28 8.8 88822 3888.2
2. 8.- 8. 8. 8. 8. 8. 8. 8. 8.- 8.- 2. 2.- 22 8.8 8.8 20am 226-2
2 2. 8. 8. 2. :28. 8. 8.- 8. 8. 8.- 8. 8.- 222 8.8 8.8 222223 882888222
2 8.- 8.- 8. 8. 2. 2. 8.- 2.- 22. 8.- 2.- 222 8.8 8.8 828088822

2 :8. 2. :8. 8.- 2. :8: 8. .8. 8. 2.- 22 8.2 28 Naaao2aao2o2en>522

2 .8. :8. 2.- 2. 2.- 2.- :8. 8. 8.- 22 8.2 2.8 ”8.202282802228392

_ NA. «acm- No. we: we. 2. 2. not N: wwd mvd «0382323280an

2 8.- ...28. 2.- 8.- :8. 8.- 2.- 22 2.2 8.8 NSesoanaaaon-m

2 8.- 2.- 22.- 2. 8. .8.- 22 28 8.8 can-seams 23282.2 82283;

2 8. 8. 8. 8. 8. 22 8.8 8.2. 2882.72 2.22:8

22.2 8. :8.- 8. 8.- 222 8.8 8.8 2882888822238

2 :2... $2. 8. NS 83 36 28222222822234

2 1.5.- 8. N22 36 end 2833 .33— 25222290.-..”

2 8 N: mwd ondm owe. 2SO=QQ<IN

2 22 8.8 8.8 8.22-2
22222amsamvm~2zem§2 a222a2a>

 

 

 

2823288 as. 82222282282 82223.2- 82:83

N 822.8

66

83.20220 28 38.83.2228 .20 8222282 own-226 no 288228.865 2 228 35 o 0250 228286 83 052.8 >2

.2o.v228

 

“502%....58 08 mo=2a> I. .82-v.2 8 228022258 08 m32a> ._ 22282622 0.8223 888 20.2 225922. 2288 0222 no 08 22222-22000 2222222222292 8222?. $26?
no

 

 

. 8. 8. 8. 8. 8. 2. 2. 8. 8.- 8.- 8.- 8.- 22 8.8 8m 828028228. 8.88
2 8. 2. 2.- 8. 8. 8.- 2.2.-..8- 8. 8. 2.- 22 88 8.8 28280836222288
2 2.- 8.- .8.- 8. 2.- 8.- .28.- 8. 8. 2. 22 8.8 8.8 8580 2.2888
282 ..8.-..8. .2. .8.- 2.- .8828.- 2.- 2.- 22 88 8.8 88228022233088

Aha-v :8.- w—.. :wv.:am.:mm.:o¢. ©2- 3wm. N: :5 ohm ~2§3=2Uo>2oeom-mm

Amwg .NN. {ﬂu-.2.- .immr 9mm... 22.- 2.- N: wmd w—d ~b$u&023>2oouom-2~

2 8.- 8.- 8.- 8.- 8.- 8.- 22 8.8 8.8 8.85.222 8.28.8-8

2 .8...8. .28. 2. .8. 22 8.8... 2.8... 288-2882222222

2 :8. 8.- 8. 2. 222 8.8 8.22 28822 3823823228222

2 .8. .8. 2. 82 $8 8.8 822822222..- 2022288982322252- 2

2 .2. :8. 22 88 8.8 22222.82 82-2

2 2. 22 2.8 88 588.223.03.82

2 22 8.8 8.8 v2822 226.22

222 28 8.8 232223 8322588222

222 8.8 8.8 2o2vﬁo5852-2

22 8.2 28 «$82808 282,222 -22

22 8.2 2.8 88.82.2880 2295.2

22 8.22 28 N.2..2.....222.2_o22_§.-2.o

22 2.2 8.8 8883898882- 22

22 28 8.8 22535828 292 25 888-2 - 8

22 8.8 8.2. 282822.58

222 8.8 88 283.288.8228.? m

22 28 8.22 28228228022223-2-

22 28 8.8 22222222 882280228... 1..

22 8.8 8.8 888022.238

22 8.8 8.22 22822-2

8 8 8 8 8 2m 8 2 2 2 2 2 2.2 72 mm 82.2 o22§>

 

 

 

.9882 N 0228.2.

67

Initial Analysis

To ensure that the confederatee’ behavior was standardized across conditions, t—tests
were conducted to see if there were any signiﬁcant differences in their behaviors
(relaxed, nervous, interested, and friendly) across Hijabi and non-Hijabi conditions.
There was no signiﬁcant difference in applicant consistency, t(109) = .763, ns, between
Hijabi (M=3.93, SD=.63) and non-Hijabi condition (M=4.03, SD=.63).

To ensure that the confederates’ level of stigma consciousness was state-like and
changed for confederates across the Hijabi and non-Hijabi conditions, t-tests were
conducted to see if there were any signiﬁcant differences in stigma consciousness across
Hijabi and non-Hijabi conditions. There was a signiﬁcant difference in stigma
consciousness, t(l 10) = - 3.69, p < .01, 'with confederates in the Hijabi condition
(M=2.80, SD=.83) reporting higher levels of stigma consciousness than when in the non-
Hijabi condition (M=2.18, SD=.97), as expected. In addition, a t-test was conducted to
determine if confederates wearing the hijab exhibited more stigma consciousness if they
were of the Muslim faith compared to non-Muslim confederates. There was no
signiﬁcant difference in stigma consciousness, t(54) = -1.12, ns, between Muslim
confederates wearing the hijab (M=3.00, SD=.55) and non-Muslim confederates wearing
the hijab (M=2.73, SD=.91). Finally, a t-test was conducted to determine if confederates
exhibited more stigma consciousness if they were non-minority (White) compared to
minority confederates (dummy coded O and 1 for White and non-White, respectively).
There was no signiﬁcant difference in stigma consciousness, t(110)= -1.12, ns, between
non-minority confederates (M=2.41, SD=.95) and minority confederates (M=2.63,

SD=.96).

68

Intraclass Correlation Coefficient Values

Although all the hypotheses in this study are at the observation level of analysis, the
observations are nested within confederates. This nesting might violate the assumption of
non-independence of observations. Thus, to see if there was any clustering within the
data such that the observations and confederates were not independent, interclass
correlation coefﬁcients were calculated (see Table 3). Several of the dependant variables
(callback, permission to leave resume, distance) had signiﬁcant intraclass correlation
coefﬁcient (ICC) values, indicating clustering within the data such that the observation
data were not independent. For these variables, it was necessary to use hierarchical linear
modeling (HLM; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002) to account for the non-independence of
observations. For the remaining variables, the non-signiﬁcant ICC values indicated that
there was no signiﬁcant clustering in the data and therefore either regression or HLM
would be appropriate. However, HLM was employed for all the analyses, because it is
actually a more conservative test than would be a typical regression analysis.
Additionally, because some of variables did require HLM, using HLM for all dependant

variables standardized all of the analyses,

69

Table 3:

 

 

ICC Values
Scale ICC (I) ICC (2)

Call back 0.015 0.179
Access to manager 0. 065 0.495
Job availability -0.032 -0.781
Permission to complete app 0.026 0.274
Leave resume 0. 08 7 0.5 73
Interaction Length 0.016 0.188
Distance 0.292 0.853
Perceived Negativity -0.013 -0.221
Perceived Interest 0.000 0.005
Overall Negativity 0.028 0.284

 

Note: ICC values in bold are signiﬁcant at p<.05, values
in bold-italics are signiﬁcant at p<.01.

To test all of the hypotheses, two major sets of HLM analyses were conducted, one
for each of the DVs: behaviors related to formal discrimination and behaviors related to
interpersonal discrimination. It is important to note that behaviors related to formal
discrimination had 5 distinct measures and behaviors related to interpersonal
discrimination also had 5 distinct measures (as supported by the CF A analyses), all of
which required their own separate HLM analyses. In model 1 of the HLM analyses,
relevant control variables were entered. In model 2 of the HLM analyses, the control
variables and the main effect (hijab) were entered. In model 3, the control variables, the
main effect, and moderators were entered (social contacts, intergroup contact, stigma
consciousness) were entered. In model 4 of the HLM analyses, the control variables,
main effect, moderators, and their interactions were entered. These models estimated the
between-individual and between-observation effects of religious attire on behaviors
related to formal and interpersonal discrimination. At Level 1, the models included
observation level data. At Level 2, data was examined at the person level to control for

non-independence of observations within individuals. Signiﬁcant main effects for hijab

70

were viewed as support for Hypothesis 1-2. Signiﬁcant interactions were viewed as
support for Hypotheses 3-8.
Hypotheses

Hypothesis I predicted that Hijabis would experience more behaviors related to
formal discrimination compared to non-Hijabis. The results of the test of this hypothesis
are shown in Table 4—83. There was a signiﬁcant main effect of intergroup contact on
permission to complete job application (B = -2.06, p < .01). Primarily consistent with this
hypothesis, Hijabis were marginally less likely to be given permission to complete a job
application than non-Hijabis (B = -0.81, p = 0.08). However, the main effects for job
availability (B = -0.45, p = ns), access to manager (B = -0.51, p = ns), permission to leave
resume (B = 0.29, p = ns), and to receive callback (B = -1.36, p = us) were not

signiﬁcant.

 

3 The control variables entered for these ﬁve dependant variables of formal discrimination are different in
each table because only the variables related to the dependant variable of interest were used as controls.
There was no control variable entered for the callback dependant variable.

71

Table 4
The Rel

(al’r'hzt‘.
_,___

Null.)

Sup

Stet

 

Table 4
The Relationship between Hijab, Social Contact, Intergroup Contact, Stigma Consciousness and

 

 

 

 

Callback
DV
Call Back
EstimateI t value

Null Model

Intercept ([30) .2. 46 -6.46
Step 1

Intercept (50) -1.97 4.49

Hijab (Br) -l.36 -1.64
Step 2

Social Contact (6;) 0.79 1.09

Intergroup Contact (ﬁ3) -0.78 -1.07

Stigma Consciousness (B4) -0.09 -0.09
Step 3

Hijab x Social Contact 085) 1.03 0.60

Hijab x Intergroup Contact (Bo) -1 . 10 -0.64

Hijab x Stigma Consciousness (37) -0.48 -0.53

 

NOTE: Values in italics are marginally signiﬁcant p<.10, values in bold are signiﬁcant at p<.05,
values in bold-italics are signiﬁcant at p<.01.

1All Beta estimates are at entry.

72

Table 5

The Relationship between Hijab, Social Contact. Intergroup Contact, Stigma Consciousness and
Access to Manager

 

 

 

 

DV
Access to Manager
Estimatel t value

Null Model

Intercept ([30) 1.46 4.71
Step 1

Intercept (60) 0.55 1.29

Manager Race-White (161) 1.84 3.34
Step 2

Hijab (162) -051 -095
Step 3

Social Contact 083) 0.64 1.13

Intergroup Contact (ﬂ4) 0.90 1.45

Stigma Consciousness (,85) -0.08 -022
Step 4

Hijab x Social Contact (166) -1.23 -l.08

Hijab x Intergroup Contact (B7) -0.34 -031

Hijab x Stigma Consciousness $8) -0.36 -0.56

 

NOTE: Values in italics are marginally signiﬁcant p<.10, values in bold are signiﬁcant at p<.05, values
in bold-italics are signiﬁcant at p<.01.

lAll Beta estimates are at entry.

73

Table 6
The Relationship between Hijab, Social Contact, Intergroup Contact, Stigma Consciousness and Job

Availability

 

 

 

 

DV
Job Availability
Estimatel t value

Null Model

Intercept (50) -0.26 -133
Step 1

Intercept (ﬁg) -004 -0. 14

Hijab ([31) -045 -1.15
Step 2

Social Contact (52) 0.29 0.75

Intergroup Contact (53) 0.22 0.56

Stigma Consciousness (34) -0.06 -0.27
Step 3

Hijab x Social Contact ([35) -002 -002

Hijab x Intergroup Contact (ﬁo) 0.48 0.61

Hijab x Stigma Consciousness (57) 0.5] 1.17

 

NOTE: Values in italics are marginally signiﬁcant p<. 10, values in bold are signiﬁcant at p<.05,
values in bold-italics are signiﬁcant at p<.01.

l .
All Beta estimates are at entry.

74

Table 7

The Relationship between Hijab, Social Contact, Intergroup Contact, Stigma Consciousness and
Permission to Complete Application

 

DV

 

 

Permission to Complete Application

 

 

Estimatel t value

Null Model

Intercept (30) 0.36 1.57
Step 1

Intercept (30) .3. 69 -3.62

Location-Crowded (31) 0.17 0.58

Location-Upscale (32) 0.56 2.03

Diversity of Employee (33) 0.34 1.06

Diversity ofCustomer (34) 0.21 0.59

Manager Race-White (,35) 1.77 3.32
Step 2

Hijab (37) -0.81 -l.72
Swp3

Social Contact (33) -054 -092

Intergroup Contact (59) -2. 06 -3 .43

Stigma Consciousness (.810) 0.03 0.09
Step 4

Hijab x Social Contact (311) -0.04 -004

Hijab x Intergroup Contact (312) -042 -039

Hijab x Stigma Consciousness (313) 0.28 0.50

 

NOTE: Values in italics are marginally signiﬁcant p<.10, values in bold are signiﬁcant at p< .05,
values in bold-italics are signiﬁcant at p<.01.

l .
All Beta estimates are at entry.

75

Table 8

The Relationship between Hijab, Social Contact, Intergroup Contact, Stigma Consciousness and
Remission to Leave Resume
DV

 

Permission to Leave Resume

 

 

Estimatel t value

Null Model

Intercept (30) 2.01 5.02
Step 1

Intercept (30) -209 -1.61

Location-Crowded (31) 0.29 0.59

Location-Upscale (32) 0. 73 1.73

Diversity of Employee (,83) 0.42 0.92

Diversity of Customer (34) 0.13 0.25

Manager Race-White (35) 1.61 2.17
Step 2

Hijab (37) 0.29 0.40
Smp3

Social Contact (33) 0.18 0.24

Intergroup Contact (39) -l.03 -l.18

Stigma Consciousness (310) 0.32 0.63
Smp4

Hijab x Social Contact (311) -094 -0.61

Hijab x Intergroup Contact (6 12) -1.76 -l.09

Hijab x Stigma Consciousness (B 13) 0.55 0.67

 

NOTE: Values in italics are marginally signiﬁcant p<.10, values in bold are signiﬁcant at p<.05,
values in bold-italics are signiﬁcant at p<.01.

1 .
All Beta estlmates are at entry.

76

 

Hypothesis 2 predicted that Hijabis would experience more behaviors related to

interpersonal discrimination compared to non-Hijabis. The results of the test of this

hypothesis are shown in Table 9-134. There was a signiﬁcant main effect of social
contact on overall negativity (B = -2.06, p = .04). The hypothesis was partially supported,
Hijabis experienced signiﬁcantly less perceived interest (B = -0.36, p < .01) and more
overall negativity (B = 0.18, p =0.05) than non-Hijabis. However, the main effects for
Hijab for interaction length (B = -29.12, p = ns), perceived distance (B = -0.04, p = ns)

and perceived negativity (B = 0.10, p = ns) were not signiﬁcant.

 

4 The control variables entered for these ﬁve dependant variables of interpersonal discrimination are
different in each table because only the variables related to the dependant variable of interest were used as
controls. There was no control variable entered for the perceived distance dependant variable.

77

Table 9

The Relationship between Hijab, Social Contact, Intergroup Contact, Stigma Consciousness and
Interaction length

 

 

 

 

DV
Interaction Length
(seconds)
EstimateI I value
Null Model
Intercept (30) 36 7. 78 9.44
Step 1
Intercept (30) - 189.22 -1.57
Location-Crowded (31) 56.60 1.45
Location-Upscale (32) 75.41 2.01
Diversity of Employee (33) 79. 77 1.89
Diversity of Customer (B4) -26.39 -0.57
Manager Race-White (35) 197.25 2.66
Step 2
Hijab (38) -2912 -045
Step 3
Social Contact ([39) 43.21 0.59
Intergroup Contact (310) -62.78 -090
Stigma Consciousness (311) 70.23 1.75
Step 4
Hijab x Social Contact (312) 98.67 0.77
Hijab x Intergroup Contact (313) -l67.30 -l.29
Hijab x Stigma Consciousness (314) -189.22 -1.57

 

 

NOTE: Values in italics are marginally signiﬁcant p<.10, values in bold are signiﬁcant at p<.05,
values in bold-italics are signiﬁcant at p<.01.

l .
All Beta estrmates are at entry.

78

Table 10

The Relationship between Hijab, Social Contact, Intergroup Contact, Stigma Consciousness and
Perceived Distance

DV

 

Perceived Distance

 

, 1
Estimate t value

 

Null Model
Intercept (30) 2.07 39.57
Step 1
Intercept (30) 2.09 37.25
Hijab (31) -004 -O.89
Step 2
Social Contact (32) 0.00 0.00
Intergroup Contact (53) 0.02 0.45
Stigma Consciousness (34) -0.01 -033
Step 3
Hijab x Social Contact (35) -004 -050
Hijab x Intergroup Contact (36) 0.07 0.86
Hijab x Stigma Consciousness (37) -005 -100

 

NOTE: Values in italics are marginally signiﬁcant p<.10, values in bold are signiﬁcant at p<.05,
values in bold-italics are signiﬁcant at p<.01.

1 .
All Beta estimates are at entry.

79

Table 11

The Relationship between Hijab, Social Contact, Intergroup Contact, Stigma Consciousness and
Perceived Negativity

 

 

 

 

DV
Perceived Negativity
Estimate t value
Null Model
Intercept (50) 2. I 8 65.36
Step 1
Intercept (30) 2.49 -0.08
Location Type (Store or Restaurant) (181) -0.17 -2.49
Location-Upscale (32) -0.08 -2. 15
Step 2
Hijab ([33) 0.10 1.50
Step 3
Social Contact (34) -012 -1.64
Intergroup Contact (35) 0.09 1.47
Stigma Consciousness (66) -0.01 -0.28
Step 4
Hijab x Social Contact (37) -0.01 -004
Hijab x Intergroup Contact (38) 0.05 0.41
Hijab x Stigma Consciousness (,89) -0.05 -0.71

 

NOTE. Values in italics are marginally signiﬁcant p<. 10, values in bold are signiﬁcant at p<.05,
values in bold-italics are signiﬁcant at p<.01. '

l .
All Beta estrrnates are at entry.

80

Table 12

The Relationship between Hijab, Social Contact, Intergroup Contact, Stigma Consciousness and
Perceived Interest

DV

 

Perceived Interest
1
Estimate t value

 

 

Null Model
Intercept (30) 2. 70 36.91
Step 1
Intercept (30) 1.61 6.40
Location-Crowded (31) 0.05 0.67
Location-Upscale (52) 0.21 2.64
Diversity of Customer (33) 0.12 1.51
Manager Race-White (B4) 0.22 1.38
Step 2
Hijab (36) -0.36 -2.67
Step 3
Social Contact (37) 0.09 0.62
Intergroup Contact (ﬁg) -0.21 -1.41
Stigma Consciousness (,89) 0.10 1.31
Step 4
Hijab x Social Contact (310) 0.15 0.57
Hijab x Intergroup Contact ([311) -0. 13 -0.50
Hijab x Stigma Consciousness (3 12) 0. 28 1.93

 

NOTE: Values in italics are marginally signiﬁcant p<.10, values in bold are signiﬁcant at p< .05,
values in bold-italics are signiﬁcant at p<.01.

lAll Beta estimates are at why

81

Table 13

The Relationship between Hijab, Social Contact, Intergroup Contact, Stigma Consciousness and
Overall Negativity

 

 

 

DV
Overall Negativity
Estimatel t value
Null Model
Intercept (30) 2.35 40.18
Step 1
Intercept (30) 2.26 29.65
Hijab (31) 0.18 1.82
Step 2
Social Contact (32) .020 ' -205
Intergroup Contact (ﬁ3) 0.14 1.50
Stigma Consciousness (B4) -0.04 -0.66
Step 3
Hijab x Social Contact (35) 0.22 1.14
Hijab x Intergroup Contact (Bo) 0.16 0.82
Hijab x Stigma Consciousness (ﬁ7) 0.04 0.36

 

NOTE: Values in italics are marginally signiﬁcant p<. 10, values in bold are signiﬁcant at p<.05,
values in bold-italics are signiﬁcant at p<.01.

l .
All Beta estimates are at entry.

Hypothesis 3 predicted that social contact would moderate the relationship between
Hijab and behaviors related to formal discrimination such that this relationship is
accentuated when there is high social contact and attenuated when there is low social
contact. The results of the test of this hypothesis are shown in Table 4-8. There were no
signiﬁcant interactions for callbacks (B = 1.03, p = ns), access to manager (B = -1.23, p =
ns), job availability (B = -0.02, p = ns), permission to complete job applications (B = -
0.04, p = ns), and permission to leave resume (B = -0.95, p = ns). Hypothesis 3 was not

supported.

82

Hypothesis 4 predicted that social contact would moderate the relationship between
Hijab and behaviors related to interpersonal discrimination such that this relationship is
accentuated when there is high social contact and attenuated when there is low social
contact. The results of the test of this hypothesis are shown in Table 9-13. This
hypothesis was not supported, as there were no signiﬁcant interactions for interaction
length (B = 98.67, p = ns), perceived distance (B = -0.04, p = ns), perceived negativity (B
= -0. 01, p = ns), perceived interest (B = 0.15, p = ns), and overall negativity (B = 0.22, p
= ns).

Hypothesis 5 predicted that intergroup contact would moderate the relationship
between Hijab and behaviors related to interpersonal discrimination such that this
relationship is accentuated when there is low intergroup contact and attenuated when
there is high intergroup contact. The results of the test of this hypothesis are shown in
Table 4-8. There were no Signiﬁcant interactions for callbacks (B = -1.10, p = ns), access
to manager (B = -0.34, p = ns), job availability (B = 0.48, p = ns), permission to complete
job applications (B = -0.42, p = ns), and permission to leave resume (B = -1.76, p = ns).
Hypothesis 5 was not supported.

Hypothesis 6 predicted that intergroup contact would moderate the relationship
between Hijab and behaviors related to interpersonal discrimination such that this
relationship is accentuated when there is low intergroup contact and attenuated when
there is high intergroup contact. The results of the test of this hypothesis are shown in
Table 9-13. This hypothesis was not supported, as there were no signiﬁcant interactions

for interaction length (B = -167.30, p = ns), perceived distance (B = 0.07, p = ns),

83

perceived negativity (B = 0. 05, p = ns), perceived interest (B = -_0.13, p = ns), and overall
negativity (B = 0.16, p = ns).

Hypothesis 7 predicted that stigma consciousness would moderate the relationship
between Hijab and behaviors related to formal discrimination such that this relationship is
accentuated when there is high stigma consciousness and attenuated when there is low
stigma consciousness. The results of the test of this hypothesis are Shown in Table 4-8.
There were no signiﬁcant interactions for callbacks (B = -0.48, p = ns), access to
manager (B = -0.36, p = ns), job availability (B = 0.51, p = ns), permission to complete
job applications (B = 0.28, p = ns), and permission to leave resume (B = 0.55, p = ns).
Hypothesis 7 was not supported.

Hypothesis 8 predicted that stigma consciousness would moderate the relationship
between Hijab and behaviors related to formal discrimination such that this relationship is
accentuated when there is high stigma consciousness and attenuated when there is low
stigma consciousness. The results of the test of this hypothesis are shown in Table 9-13.
This hypothesis was not supported, as there were no signiﬁcant interactions for
interaction length (B = -72.7 3, p = ns), perceived distance (B = -0.05, p = ns), perceived
negativity (B = -0. 05, p = ns), perceived interest (B = 0.28, p = ns), and overall
negativity (B = 0.04, p = ns).

Table 14 shows the means and frequencies (where applicable) of all of the
dependent variables in this study. Although none of these differences were Signiﬁcant
(with the exception of perceived interest and overall negativity), Hijabi confederate
applicants received fewer callbacks, got less access to manager, were less likely to be told

a job was available or be recommended another job, and were given less permission to

84

complete a job application (marginally signiﬁcant) than non-Hijabi confederate
applicants. Hijabi confederate applicants, on average, also experienced shorter
interactions with managers and experienced higher perceived negativity from managers

than non-Hijabi confederate applicants.

 

 

 

 

Table 14
Means of Behaviors Related to Formal Discrimination and Interpersonal Discrimination
Religious Attire

No Hi jab Hijab Total
Formal Discriminationl ‘
Call Back 0.13 (n=7) 0.04(n=2) 0.08 (n=9)
Access to Manager 0.84 (n=47) 0.77 (n=43) 0.8 (n=90)
Job Availability 0.49 (n=27) 0.38 (n=21) 0.44 (n=48)
Permission to Complete Application 0.69 (11:37) 0-49 (n=27) 0-59 (9:54)
Permission to Leave Resume 0.87 (n=48 0.86 (n=48) 0.87 (n=96)
Interpersonal Discrimination
Interaction Length (seconds) 398.70 336.86 367.78
Perceived Distance 2.09 2.05 2.07
Perceived Negativity 2.10 2.25 2.18
Perceived Intaest 2.92 2.48 2.70
Overall Negativity 2.26 2.44 2.35

 

 

 

NOTE: rThe frequency of yes responses for the formal discrimination measures are provided in the
parentheses.

Exploratory Analyses

Because many of the hypotheses were not supported or only partially supported,
exploratory HLM analyses were conducted focusing solely on ﬁnding a Signiﬁcant main
effect of the hijab on behaviors related to formal discrimination and behaviors related to
interpersonal discrimination. Because several variables were not controlled for in the
previous analyses, to account for as much noise as possible and to make the effect more
detectable, all of the control variables were included in the exploratory analyses. These

exploratory analyses were performed entirely used hierarchical linear modeling (HLM;

85

Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002) to account for non-independence of observations within
individuals. At Level 1, the models included observation level data. At Level 2, data was
examined at the person level. In model 1 of the HLM analyses, all of the control variables
(trial number, location type, location crowdedness, location-upscale, diversity of
employees, diversity of customers, manger’s gender, and manger’s race) were entered. In
model 2 of the HLM analyses, the control variables, and the main effect (hijab) were
entered. The results of the test are shown in Table 15 and 16 (only signiﬁcant ﬁndings are
discussed below).

For the inﬂuence of hijab on formal discrimination Hijabis were signiﬁcantly less
likely to receive callbacks than non-Hijabis (B = -1.80, p = 0.04) and marginally less
likely to be given permission to complete job applications (B = -0.82, p = 0.10), lending
more support for hypothesis 1. For the inﬂuence of hijab on interpersonal discrimination,
Hijabis experienced Signiﬁcantly less perceived interest (B = -0.33, p = 0.02) than non-

Hijabis, lending more support for hypothesis 2.

86

$28 a Pa 38838 Sum =<_

.58 a some»: as assess a saws wove ca Eocene ea 23 E as? .2 .vo Became Engage ca 82% E as; $02

 

 

 

 

m3 :4 me. _- as- :.7 8.0. R0. who- as. 22-
$1.— 24. mm.m A: and 3.0 001m mu .~ 94.— mm;
mm.~ 05.0 2.0 00.0 no.7 3.0- 3.0. who- 30. 000-
«~10 3.0 3.0 0N0 N0; :0 2.7 04.0- :0 3.0
0: 004 a: .940 34.7 070. 3.0 50 34.0 2.0
veto. mm." a: 2.10 2; 30 no.0. No.0- 3.0. 2.0.
050 9.0 00.0 3.0 m: .0 v0.0 n00 0N0 mad. 3.0-
>2 .. mm. 7 40.0 0m.0 V0.0. 90. no.0 3.0 000 8.0
m0.~- as. 2.0- No.0. ~04 000 wwd. 50.0- 3.0 3.0
of. 05m- 00. m- 00.? 007 _m. 7 m: 02 mm.m- v0.07
~06 SN 52 000 9.7 0N0- :6. 3: $4.0. 3&1
2:55 Wag—cam 2:9» . Wynn—3m 93...: .82:qu 2:9: Mann—em.— o=_a>. Wan—Eu”.—
2553— 9:84 :euaum—mmt. ale—23¢ sen humane—Z B 833.. zoom :0
2 2:8:th 829.80
S Exam—Eek
>9

ES can:
«new

3&0 355.08% 80832
1&0 5266 50822

GQV 58930.3 30039
Ava ooze—08m? mum—9,5
Avg 2883-83801—
AMQV 30330.89“ 03

Ammo 09¢. :26 co.—

0% 38:2 a:

$5 3088:—
_e2m

6&0 E088:—
1—32 :52

 

39389 3.0 neteﬁﬁtcﬁQ Batch 8 Essex nasgaem 2e acute 82950: e:

m _ 035.

87

5.08 an 9:... 83:88 Sum =<
_

.S.va 30:85sz 08 3:53:80 5 83g .m0.va “a 0585:»? an 23 E 8:0? .0_.vm EmoEEwmm 33539: 08 8.030 E 3:73 .NmQZ

 

 

 

 

w: m 3 m3- nn? mi 25 w:- 3? «a? :2 _- A2% 9%:
a 35
2.? 8.? a: ”:0 m2- 8? $6 85 NS p.34 Aw% 2238mm swag:
8.? 8.? Rd 30 S? 3.? 3.? 8.? 3.? .22? A5% 850 $232
8. _- 8.? w? m _ .o «m. _- 8.? :3 mod 8.? win- A8% 58230 00 bar-55
v2 35 0 S. 5.? $0 85 _~._ 35 w _ .N 8.3 Am% 8335 .6 £830
9.. _- 8.? am a... 3. _- 3.? m _ . _- 8.? 8.. :8 0% 0383-8383
of mod 8.0 2:. a... 3.0 R? .8? of 3.8 0% 8380.853
a. _- 2 .? ”: 2d 3. _- 2.? Ed :3 :4 33 AN% 25- 8:83
M5; 8.0 a? - 3? 2: .86 :.o So 8.? 82:- :% 88:2 3:.
3: RN OS MS as: 3% m3: g.~ mm. _- 24.2- 3% “8225
a 03m
w _ .2. a.“ 3.3 E a 3.3 53 3% SN #5 E «3 3% EEE
.332 .32
05—ﬂ> u Huang-mama 0=—¢> u usagmm 05—Q> u quﬂﬁ—mumm 0=—¢> « uuuﬂgmnﬂ 0:—¢> a Mona—untam—
Nmrﬁamwz =auo>o “mo-.35 cutoouom Hﬁuammz «2:35 323.5.— Ame—S83
3299.0.— 5954 55228:—
>0

 

«ﬁe-0:00 =3 retuﬁﬁtuﬂQ Nata-$935 S 033me EoEcﬁm =0 03.0m\o 9835.05 2R

3 2an

88

Discussion
Summary of Findings
The purpose of this dissertation was to identify and provide evidence for the
different types of behaviors related to discrimination that Hijabis encounter in the work
domain. Although many behaviors related to formal and interpersonal discrimination
were not found, this study did reveal partial evidence for behaviors related to both
interpersonal and formal discrimination against Hijabis applying for work.

In terms of experiencing behaviors related to formal discrimination, Hijabis were ,
marginally less likely to be given permission to complete job applications compared to
non-Hijabis. Exploratory analyses ﬁirther reveal that in terms of behaviors related to
formal discrimination, Hijabis were signiﬁcantly less likely to get callbacks than non-
Hijabis. This is in line with reports that Islamophobic activities such as verbal abuse,
harassment, and aggression towards Muslims are on a rise (Sheridan, 2007). There are
several reasons why certain behaviors related to formal discrimination still exist against
Hijabis. One reason is that discrimination against some groups might be more tolerable
than towards other groups. For example, some people still consider negative attitudes
towards obese people acceptable (Crandall, 1994). Similarly, certain forms of differential
treatment against Muslims might be considered acceptable, as suggested by the prevalent
negative attitudes and stereotypes towards Muslims today. Additionally, discrimination
of individuals with controllable stigma is viewed as more acceptable than discrimination
of individuals with uncontrollable stigma (Rodin, Price, Sanchez, & McElligot, 1989).
Similarly, people may perceive the Hijab as a controllable stigma since it can be

removed, and thereby justify discriminatory behaviors against women who wear the

89

hijab. In fact, Allen & Nielson (2002) identiﬁed the most powerful antecedent of negative
behaviors against Muslims as being visually identiﬁable as a Muslim.

In terms of behaviors related to interpersonal discrimination, Hijabi job applicants
experienced signiﬁcantly less perceived interest and more overall negativity from the
managers than non-Hijabi job applicants. This is in alignment with previous research, in
which homosexual job applicants (stigmatized group) perceived that the employers were
not interested in them as candidates compared to heterosexual job applicants (Hebl et al.,
2002). Interpersonal discrimination is believed to be prevalent because, unlike formal
discrimination in which there are legal norms for acceptable behaviors during job
interactions (i.e. cursing), there are no legal norms for how to interact with job applicants
(Hebl et al., 2002). Consequently, managers’ negative biases against stigmatized groups
are often reﬂected in them being more negative and less interested in stigmatized job
applicants.

Although certain forms of behaviors related to formal and interpersonal
discrimination were found in the original or the exploratory analyses, the majority of
behaviors related to formal discrimination (access to manager, job availability,
permission to leave resume) and behaviors related to interpersonal discrimination
(interaction length, perceived negativity, perceived distance) that were used in this study
did not yield any signiﬁcant differences between Hijabis and non-Hijabis. Because many
of these effects were in the right direction (Hijabis experienced shorter interaction length,
higher perceived negativity, were less likely to get access to manager, be told a job was
available), it is possible that the main effects for these dependent variable did exist but

they were too small, and more trials were needed to get these signiﬁcant effects. For

90

 

example, with the current sample size of 112 trials, to detect a main effect with an effect
size of 0.15 at an alpha 0.05, this study has a power of .98. To detect an interaction effect
with an effect size of 0.15 at an alpha 0.05, this study has a power of .84. However, to
detect an effect size that is much smaller than 0.15, a larger sample size would be
required than is currently available in this study.

The economy could have also played a factor in explaining the numerous null
ﬁndings. The state in which this study was conducted, Michigan, currently has an
unemployment rate of 12.9% (US. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2009). It is possible that
given the high unemployment rate and the current state of the economy, there are fewer
jobs available for the confederates in general. So, managers are not just telling Hijabis
that there aren’t any jobs available, but the managers are also telling the same thing to
non-Hijabis too, because there just really are not that many positions open for job
applicants. For instance, out of a 112 trials conducted in this study, only 9 of these trials
resulted in a callback, reﬂecting a low job availability rate. It is important to consider this
low job availability rate because it lowers the base rate for all the conditions. When there
is a low base rate, it is harder to detect the effects, which can serve to explain some of the
null ﬁndings.

It is also possible that the low base rate for callback is related to mangers being less
concerned about hiring young employees such as our confederates (19—22 year-olds)

because of their likelihood for high turnover for such jobs (Cotton & Tuttle, 1986). Many

 

managers might perceive that young people work in mall and restaurant settings as
simply a means of making money to get through college (or other expenses) and are not

serious about pursuing such jobs for a lifetime careers, and may only want to work part-

91

time or at odd hours due to their inﬂexible class schedules (Gakovic & Tetrick, 2003).
Consequently, managers may be less interested in younger employees because they do
not view such employees as long-term or good investments, regardless of whether these
employees wear the headscarf or not. Additionally, managers in these service and sales-
related occupations might have also been less likely to show interpersonal discrimination
in general because the social skill requirements of such positions require the managers to
be polite and courteous in their day-to-day work interactions (Pettijohn, Pettijohn, &
Taylor, 2007). Managers may transfer these forms of helpful behaviors not just towards
their customers, but also employees in general, thereby reducing their overall likelihood
of engaging in behaviors related to discrimination.

Another explanation for the null ﬁndings might be that the measurement of some
of the dependent variables might have been problematic. For example, the inability to
ﬁnd an effect for interaction length might have been a result of using a stopwatch for
timing the length of the interaction. The stopwatch recorded time from beginning to end
of interaction, but the stopwatch did not account for the time it would take to wait for
manager to ﬁnd an application, to deal with other customers present, and the amount of
time required to ﬁll out an application, which varied store to store.

There was no signiﬁcant moderator effect for social contact on behaviors related to
formal discrimination and behaviors related to interpersonal discrimination. One
possibility for the null interaction effects of social contact could be due to the type of
occupations which the confederates applied for. According to 0*Net (2009), jobs such as
stockpersons (stock clerks) require physical exertion involving lifting and handling heavy

objects. Research shows such occupations that require physical activities are considered

92

 

to be masculine jobs (Anker, 1998). Because one of the low contact jobs (stockperson)
could have been perceived as gender speciﬁc for males, the suitability of the applicant for
the job may have been confounded with the gender of applicant. To examine this
possibility, exploratory analyses were run after removing all the trials that had a
stockperson job and the analyses revealed that there was a signiﬁcant interaction between
the hijab and social contact on permission to complete application (B = -l .43, p = 0.03),
but there was no signiﬁcant interactions between hijab and social contact on the
remaining dependant variables.

In addition, there was no signiﬁcant moderator effect for intergroup contact on
behaviors related to formal discrimination and behaviors related to interpersonal
discrimination. Although, inter-group contact has been well established as one of the key
ways to reduce intergroup prejudice (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006), Allport’s (1954)
intergroup contact theory suggests that four conditions are still essential for intergroup
contact to reduce intergroup prejudice: 1) equal status of the groups in the situation, 2)
intergroup cooperation, 3) common goals, and 4) social and institutional support of
greater contact. It is possible that one or more of these conditions are not being met in the
high intergroup contact location (Dearbom) used in this study. For example, there is no
reason to suspect that there is actually any high order institutional force that is prompting
employers to have greater contact with Hijabis. Similarly, even though there is a
substantial Muslim population in Dearborn, this does not necessarily suggest that there is
increased cooperation between these different groups. In fact, some research studies have
shown that interracial housing did not signiﬁcantly alter racial attitudes (Bradburn,

Sudman, & Gockel, 1971; Zuel & Humphrey 1971 ), despite expectations that it would.

93

Finally, there were no signiﬁcant interactions between stigma consciousness and
hijab on behaviors related to formal discrimination and behaviors related to interpersonal
discrimination. This is surprising since previous studies suggest that people high on
stigma consciousness are more likely to perceive discrimination and experience actual
discrimination (Mosley & Rosenberg, 2007; Pine], 1999). This is because of the self
fulﬁlling nature of stigma consciousness, in which the individual high in stigma
consciousness, expecting stigma, acts in a way that ultimately conﬁrm stereotypes
associated with one’s stigma, thereby warranting stigma against one self (Jussim et al.,
2000).

One possibility for the lack of ﬁnding is that the stigma consciousness of the
confederate job applicants was artiﬁcial and induced, because some of the participants
were not Muslim and none of the participants were actually Hijabis. However, it should
be noted that although stigma consciousness levels reﬂect individual differences, they can
also change depending on the situation (Pinel, Warner, & Chua, 2005). Speciﬁcally, Pinel
(2002) distinguished between trait-like stigma consciousnesses (dispositional) from state-
like stigma consciousness (situationally induced). People with dispositional stigma
consciousness chronically expect that they will be stigmatized as a result of their group
membership whereas situational induced stigma consciousness can be manipulated even
when people have low dispositional stigma (Pinel, 2002). For example, Pinel (2004)
situationally manipulated stigma consciousness in women by asking women with
dispositionally low levels of stigma consciousness to reﬂect upon times when their group
was stereotyped after having them read a list of examples of men discriminating against

women. Compared to women who were not situationally induced, these women reported

94

 

higher levels of stigma consciousness after the manipulation. This study also revealed L-
state-like levels of stigma consciousness, in which the confederates’ level of stigma
consciousness ﬂuctuated, depended on which condition they were in. In general, when
confederates were in the Hijabi condition, they reported higher levels of stigma
consciousness than when these same confederates were in the non-Hijabi condition.
Another possibility why stigma consciousness was not a signiﬁcant moderator

could be that although stigma consciousness levels of our confederates did change
through conditions, as evidenced through signiﬁcant mean differences between Hijabis
and non-Hijabi confederate applicants, confederate job applicants were still trained to be
consistent throughout the interactions. It is possible that the self fulﬁlling nature of
stigma consciousness becomes more diminished if the stigmatized individuals are trained
to interact in a standardized manner throughout all their trials, thereby, reducing the
differences in the experiences of behaviors related to discrimination between Hijabis and
non-Hijabis confederate applicants. Additionally, it is important to note that another issue
in this study is that the confederate-employer interactions were relatively short (M=
367.78 second) and the effects of stigma consciousness may have been greater in longer
or ongoing interactions.
Theoretical implications

This study contributes to the literature by improving how discrimination is measured
in organizations. Traditionally, organization studies tend to only focus on the
measurement of formal discrimination. The measurement of formal discrimination can be
misleading in determining the extent to which discrimination occurs in organizations, as

formal discrimination is less likely to occur due to legal reasons (Gaertner & Dovidio,

95

 

1986). However, lack of formal discrimination does not mean that discrimination itself no .
longer exists in organizations. In fact, discrimination is more likely to be manifested as
interpersonal discrimination (Hebl et al., 2002; 2006, King et al., 2006) but fails to go
noticed because traditionally it is not measured in organizational studies. Also, it is
difficult to measure interpersonal discrimination since it is difficult to detect due to its
subtle nature. This study is among the few studies (Hebl et al, 2002; 2006; King et al.,
2006) that evaluate discrimination in the organization in the forms of behaviors related to
both interpersonal and formal discrimination. This study contributes to the literature by
showing that certain behaviors related to interpersonal discrimination exist (low
perceived interest, more overall negativity) and should be studied when measuring
discrimination in organizations. Interpersonal discrimination has several negative
consequences for stigmatized individuals, and can lead to stress, ﬁ'ustration, and hostile
behavior (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1991 ). Thus, it is important to consider such indirect
forms of discrimination along with behaviors related to formal discrimination to
understand the degree to which stigmatized individuals experience discrimination during
the application process.

Additionally, the ﬁndings of this study extend the literature by identifying
stigmatized individuals who are still subjected to certain forms of behaviors related to
formal discrimination (less likely to be given permission to complete job application, low
callbacks). Although research on contemporary forms of discrimination in the workplace
tends to draw from modern racism theory by McConahay (1986), aversive racism theory
by Gaertner and Dovidio, (1986), and ambivalent racism by Katz and Haas (1988), to

suggest that formal discrimination is being masked by interpersonal discrimination, my

96

 

ﬁndings indicate that for certain stigmatized groups (Hijabis), this is not the case. The
ﬁnding that certain forms of behaviors related to formal discrimination still exist for
certain stigmatized group is conceptually and empirically important to the topic of
understanding contemporary forms of discrimination in the workplace. The ﬁnding
highlights the importance of continuing to study and to measure behaviors related to
overt forms of discrimination alongside with behaviors related to more contemporary
subtle forms of discrimination.

This study’s ﬁnding also warrants ﬁrture research to identify the speciﬁc reasons
why certain stigmatized groups are still subjected to overt forms of discrimination. One
explanation for why Hijabis might be formally discriminated against is because of the
threat they might pose. According to the terror management theory (TMT; Greenberg,
Pyszczynski, & Solomon 1986), stigmatized individuals who induce mortality salience
and challenge culture worldviews experience derogation ﬁ'om non-stigmatized
individuals. It is possible that because Hijabis, as Muslims, are strongly tied with
September 11th attacks and other terrorist activities and they represent an Islamic culture
which threatens Western ideals (Gabriel, 2007), they pose a direct threat to many
Americans. Consequently, Hijabis are more likely to be formally discriminated against
than other groups whose immediate threats are not so apparent. Terror management
theory is but one theory that helps explain circumstances under which behaviors related
to formal discrimination can still occur against certain stigmatized groups, and ﬁrture
research warrants further investigation of this topic.

This study also contributes to the literature by extending the current research on

interpersonal and formal discrimination by looking at moderators that can inﬂuence the

97

extent to which these forms of discriminatory behaviors occur. Very few studies (King et
al., 2006) have looked at the boundary conditions around formal and interpersonal
discrimination. Accordingly, this study examined speciﬁc factors (social contact,
intergroup contact, and stigma consciousness) that were expected to inﬂuence the degree
to which subtle forms of discriminatory behaviors occur as well as overt forms of
discriminatory behaviors. Although, no signiﬁcant interactions were found between the
moderators and hijab on the dependant variables in this study, the study does highlight
the need for looking for additional important moderators which were not examined in this
study, such as situational context (i.e. job status, gender ratio of job). Future ﬁndings of
such signiﬁcant moderators of behaviors related to formal and interpersonal
discrimination can be useful in identifying discrimination-reduction strategies.

Finally, this research also extends the research on interpersonal discrimination by
integrating the racial microaggression framework. Primarily, the research on
interpersonal discrimination relies on the theory of aversive racism (Dovidio & Gaertner,
1998) or modern racism theory (McConahay, 1986). This study is the ﬁrst study to date
which examines behaviors related to interpersonal discrimination by integrating it with a
racial microaggression framework. In general, the microaggression ﬁamework represents
another way of examining interpersonal discrimination because of its greater focus on the
verbal behaviors than the traditional measures of interpersonal discrimination, which tend
to focus more heavily on nonverbal behaviors (Hebl et al., 2002). In general,
microaggressions tend to be very much in tuned with what exactly is being said, in which
conversations or remarks made by the non-stigmatized status individuals to stigmatized

status individuals are deconstructed to uncover the main motive behind statements.

98

 

Previous measures used for interpersonal discrimination (Hebl et al., 2002; 2007)
certainly also take into account verbal communication, but they focus mostly on subtle
nonverbal behaviors (eye contact, distance, rudeness, overall negativity). By including
the microaggression scale as a measure of interpersonal discrimination, interpersonal
discrimination can be measured through a more verbal lens, while other measures (i.e.
distance, eye contact) of interpersonal discrimination are measured mostly through
nonverbal lens. However, it is important to note that because microaggression does have
a focus on verbal communication and what exactly is being said, microaggressions might
also be harder to detect in shorter interactions, where verbal communication might be
limited to a few words. Regardless, I suspect there is great value to be added by using the
microaggression framework in measuring interpersonal discrimination. Even though the
measure of microaggression did not prove to be useful due to its poor psychometric
properties, in ﬁrture research, a better measure of microaggression could prove to be
useﬁil for examining interpersonal discriminatory behaviors in the work context.
Practical Implications

The ﬁndings of this study are also of practical value to recruitment agencies,
organizations, and Hijabis. According to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin is
prohibited. However, the ﬁndings ﬁ'om the original and exploratory analyses suggest that
some organizations still employ unfair hiring tactics against certain protected stigmatized
groups. Such practices can result in fairly substantial adverse impact against certain
stigmatized groups. Consequently, such cases of adverse impact increase the risk at

which organizations become vulnerable to undesirable lawsuits and legal implications.

99

Thus, organizations need to make clear to their employees of the legal rights of
individuals who apply for work so as to not violate the law, and train them on both the
formal and interpersonal aspects of the hiring process so as to avoid behaviors related to
formal and interpersonal discrimination.

Both behaviors related to formal and interpersonal discrimination can also serve as
negative cues for what the applicants might expect should they be hired, and thus might
inﬂuence their job acceptance behavior. Previous research suggests that if applicants
suspect intolerance of diversity, they are less likely to trust and feel comfortable in such
organizations (Purdie-Vaughns, Steele, Davies, Dithnann, & Crosby, 2008). In extreme
cases, suspecting intolerance, such persons might not even choose to apply. For many
organizations, this can mean a reduced selection pool of valuable applicants to choose
from. In addition to reducing the number of potential applicants, organizations will also
lose out on a diverse labor force that can be a potential source of strength for some
organizations since many organizations value diversity within the workplace.

The ﬁndings also make salient and document the difﬁculties which Hijabis undergo
while applying for work. My ﬁndings suggest that Hijabis are subjected to certain forms
of behaviors related to both formal and interpersonal discrimination during the hiring
process. These forms of discriminatory behaviors have several negative consequences for
stigmatized individuals. Discrimination has been shown to negatively affect personal
well—being, lowered self esteem, and increase stress, anxiety, and depression (Deitch et
al., 1996; Jackson et al., 1996; Kessler, Mickelson, & Williams, 1999; Sanchez & Brock,
1996). A far worse consequence of discrimination is that Hijabis may come to not apply

for work altogether. Previous research suggests that minorities who expect to be

100

stigmatized against go as far as to avoid such situations (Mendoza-Benton, Downey,
Purdie, Davis, & Pietrzak, 2002; Pinel, 1999). As a result, fewer Hijabis will be present
in the work arena, leading to systematic group differences in the occupational attainment
of Hijabis.
Strengths and Limitations

There are many strengths of this study. The fact that this study was a ﬁeld
experiment provides great ecological validity to the ﬁndings. Indeed, this study goes
beyond self report data on discrimination and negative attitudes towards Hijabis and
provides actual evidence of employment discrimination of such groups. The ﬁeld
experiment design of this study aids the generalizability of these ﬁndings. Additionally,
according to the American Religious Identity Survey (City University of New York, the
Graduate Center, 2001), American Muslims belong to variety of different racial and
ethnic groups, including Whites, Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics. Because confederates
selected in this study were from various ethnic backgrounds, it makes the sample more
representative of the actual population of interest and the ﬁndings also generalize to a
wide variety of Muslim women who wear the headscarf.

Another strength of this study was the analysis technique utilized. HLM is a more
sophisticated technique than that which has been used in previous research examining
this topic (Hebl et al., 2002; 2007). By using HLM, this study takes into account the non-
independence of observations that are nested within individuals.

Another major strength of this study is represented by the sample of the study.
Although previous studies have examined Muslims and Hijabis in general (Klink &

Wagner, 1999; Rippy & Newman, 2006; Sheridan, 2007), these groups are very much

101

 

underrepresented in the management and applied psychology literatures. Because of the ,
numerous accounts of workplace discrimination against Hijabis (Pluralism Project,

2004), it has become increasingly important to empirically study this sample.

Consequently, this study is unique in that it systematically measures behaviors related to

discrimination against Hijabis in the actual work context.

However, it is important to acknowledge the limitations of this study. Because the
confederates wore the headscarf and observers saw the confederates in the headscarf, this
might evoke the concern that the participants suspected the nature of the study. Although
it might have been more effective to deal with this concern by audio taping the
interaction and having blind coders rate the interactions, a method employed in previous
research (Hebl e al., 200; 2007), third party audio taping laws in the state of Michigan
prevented this practice (Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539d). In addition to the law, the use of
third party audio taping may also be questioned ethically. However, there is little reason
to suspect that the there is confederate bias. Behaviors related to formal discrimination
were measured objectively (yes/ no questions) by both observers and confederates and
were found to be present. Additionally, to reduce confederate bias, both the confederates
and observers were restricted from talking to each other during the interaction so as to not

inﬂuence each others results. However, their interrater agreement on the behaviors
related to the interpersonal measures of discrimination was good, with rug values ranging

from .82 to as high as .97. Furthermore, Hebl et al. (2007) found that observers agreed

with blind coders independently listening to an audio recording of the confederate job

applicant-employer interaction (rwg values ranging from .73 to .85), which suggests that

102

 

 

the use of blind coders would not have signiﬁcantly altered the results of the current .
study.

Another limitation in this study is the possibility of experiment wise error. In total,
40 independent tests were conducted across the eight hypotheses in this study. Across 40
tests, the sampling error rate would be 2 signiﬁcant tests on average, and this study also
yielded 2 signiﬁcant results for the original analyses (not including exploratory analyses).
Thus, it is important to acknowledge sampling error as a potential alternative explanation
for the main effect of Hijab on overall negativity and perceived interest. However, it is
important to note that the p value of the main effect of hijab on perceived interest
(p=.000) is so low that it makes it unlikely to be due to chance alone The experiment
wise error is more of a concern for the main effect of Hijab on perceived overall
negativity because the p value was .046. Still, one can never be sure which effects are due
to sampling error and which are not. Nevertheless, the possibility of experiment wise
error is still a limitation of this study.

Another limitation of this study was the inability to detect differences in interaction
length, which previous studies in the past have (Hebl et al., 2002; 2007). One explanation
for this had to do with the manner in which time had been measured. Although previous
research was able to audiotape their interactions and later measure the exact amount of

time the interaction took and how many words were spoken, legal restrictions on third
party audio taping prevented recording the interaction (Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.539d).

Instead, in this study, the observers had to use the stopwatch from start to ﬁnish of the

full interaction so as to not appear conspicuous. Such a measure of the interaction does

103

not account for interruptions between interactions due to other customers present and the
length of the application, which varied by stores and restaurant.

It is also important to note that the cities (Dearbom and Lansing) used for this study
may have been weak proxies for measuring interpersonal contact. Although Dearbom and
Lansing have comparatively different proportion of Muslims, this does not necessarily
mean that the city with the greater proportion of Muslims (Dearbom) would have more
frequent intergroup contact than the city with the smaller proportion of Muslims
(Lansing). This is because the study does not take into account that these two cities might
have additional regional differences that may preclude intergroup contact. For example, it
is possible that having a high proportion of Muslims in Dearbom actually causes more
conﬂict than cooperation between Muslims and non-Muslims due to greater competition
for limited resources (i.e. jobs) in that area. In fact, there have been accounts of Muslim
women ﬁling discrimination at a McDonald’s in Dearborn on the basis of their religion
(Fox News, 2008). Similarly, ﬁrture studies should also consider several other factors
regarding regional differences that might inﬂuence intergroup contact between groups,
such as xenophobia, rural vs. urban locations, and overall diversity of the city. These
regional characteristics are important to consider in ﬁrture studies because they may
promote or preclude intergroup contact between groups. For example, cities where locals
are xenophobic, would on average be less welcoming and less likely to interact with
foreigners, despite the presence of foreigners in these locations. Similarly, the overall
diversity in a location is also important to study. A location that has a high percentage of
one minority (i.e. Arabs) does not necessarily suggest that there will other minorities (i.e.

Blacks, Asians) present as well, limiting the overall diversity of a location.

104

A ﬁnal limitation of this study is the generalizability of this study’s ﬁnding as
pertaining solely to women of the Muslim faith. Speciﬁcally, it is important to consider
what might be perceived as “atypical” in appearance for Muslims. While Muslim women
are of several different ethnicities, due to the media and familiarity, Muslims might come
to be associated with a few races more so than others. For example, many people believe
that Arabs are Muslims (Cainkar, 2002), and might come to believe that any Arab they
encounter is of the Muslim faith. However, associating a White woman with a Muslim
faith would be rarer in America, even though there are certainly White Muslim Women
both in America and throughout the world. However, because of the atypicality of
associating a White woman and Muslim or vice versa, seeing a White Hijabi might seem
astereotypic to some people, who might expect only Arab women to wear the headscarf.
It is possible that this atypicality/ astereotypicality might drive some people to treat the
Hijabis confederate applicants differentially for that reason alone, and not necessarily
because of the person’s religion per se. Thus behaviors related to formal and
interpersonal discrimination against the group might not necessarily be directed against
the headscarf; but more so against the astereotypicality of the person. Because it was not
possrble to ask manager’s themselves regarding if they engaged in discriminatory
behaviors and what their discrimination behaviors were directed against, there is no way
to be certain of whether astereotypicality of some of the confederate job applicants
inﬂuenced the dependent variables in this study. However, non-signiﬁcant correlations
between White applicants and behaviors related to formal and interpersonal
discrimination suggest that this did not play an important role in this dissertation.

Future research

105

 

Although this study provides evidence for certain forms of behaviors related to
formal and interpersonal discrimination against Hijabis, it does not address the
underlying causes of discriminatory behaviors against such individuals. For example,
discrimination could have been a result of anti-Muslim sentiments. Terror management
theory (Greenberg et al., 1986) would argue that discrimination could be the result of
induced mortality salience in the presence of Muslims or having one’s cultural
worldviews challenged by Muslims. However, it might not necessarily be anti-Muslim
sentiments. Discrimination could also have been a byproduct of xenophobia that might
exists against Hijabis, who might come from various different countries, backgrounds,
etc. It is important to tease all these factors out for future studies and uncover the real
underlying processes involved in these different forms of discrimination. Future studies
should possibly manipulate factors such as nationality and accent to account for the
inﬂuence of xenophobia on discrimination. One such way of doing so might be to have
confederates ﬁ'om various different nationalities to apply for jobs with or without the
hijab. An interaction between nationality and hijab or a simple main effect for nationality
may provide evidence of xenophobia.

On a similar note, it is also important for future studies to consider how gender
intersects with religious attire to inﬂuence behaviors related to discrimination. Social
dominance theory would suggest that there would be a difference in discrimination based
on the gender of the target because outgroup males are more likely to be targets of
discrimination than outgroup females because males engage in intrasexual competition
directed against males, which should be evolutionary beneﬁcial to maintain one’s own

resources and exploit the resources of outgroup males by resisting against them, but not

106

outgroup females (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999; Sidanius & Veniegas, 2000). This theory is
very strongly tied to evolutionary perspective, which suggests that because females invest
a lot of time and energy in raising their young, they tend to select mates who have enough
social and economic resources to provide for them and their young (Buss, 1996).
Therefore, males who are in control of such resources are most successful in reproducing
and consequently, men compete with other men for such resources, more so than they
would compete with women. There has been considerable evidence that supports the
subordinate-male target hypothesis. For example, the discrepancy in pay between
minority women and White women is less compared to the discrepancy in pay between
minority men and White men (Bowen & Bok, 1998; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Minority
men are also more likely to be targets of discrimination than minority women in both
housing sector as well as in criminal sentencing practices (Hood & Cordovil, 1992;
Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Accordingly, it is possible that male Muslims in traditional
religious attire might actually be subjected to even more behaviors related to
discrimination than the females in traditional Muslim attire.

Future research concerning theoretical advancement of this study’s ﬁndings should
also examine the generalizability of these ﬁndings to other stigmatized groups. Research
should identify and examine other stigmatized groups that might also be subjected to
behaviors related to formal discrimination and interpersonal discrimination, such as
Arabs in general (who are not Muslim but are perceived to be Muslim). Additionally, it
would be interesting to see if other religious groups who don religious attire perceived to

Islamic (i.e. Sikh men who wear the turban) are also subjected to the same forms of

107

discrimination as Hijabis, due to their resemblance to Muslims, even if this association is
incorrect.

Looking at a broader range of religious identiﬁers which are not associated with
Arabs or Islam (i.e. yarmulkes) might also provide a broader framing for this study. It is
possible that, like Hijabis, impressions of individuals who wear other forms of religious
identiﬁers (cross necklaces, yarmulkes, Hindu tilaks, etc.) might also be grounded in
various negative stereotypes pertaining to the religious group to which the individual
belongs to (Chia & J ih, 1994). It is possible that wearing a religious identiﬁer can serve
as a signal to employers that the individual wearing the religious identiﬁer highly
identiﬁes with his/ her faith, and employers might react negatively to this high degree of
identiﬁcation as research does show that highly identiﬁed stigmatized groups are judged
more negatively than their weakly identiﬁed counterparts (Branscombe et al, 1999;
Sellers & Shelton, 2003). Going beyond religious identiﬁers, ﬁxture studies can also
examine if individuals who wear the Hijab or other forms of religious identiﬁers are
perceived as deviants and are thus subjected to discriminatory practices. For example,
previous research has shown that job applicants who have tattoos, piercings, and extreme
hairstyles are perceived as being deviant and are often judged negatively in job
interviews (Swanger, 2006), which have even led to job terminations (Brennan, Davis, &
Rostow, 2005).

Future research should also examine similar and additional moderators of the
relationship between religious attire and behaviors related to both formal and
interpersonal discrimination. Although this study was unable to ﬁnd much support for

social contact of occupation as a moderator, this topic should be re-examined using only

108

jobs that cannot be confounded with gender linkage. Future research should also be
conducted investigating intergroup contact as a moderator again, but measure intergroup
contact directly rather than use location as a proxy, and also take into account whether
intergroup contact ﬁts Allport’s (1954) four optimal conditions for successful intergroup
contact to occur. .

Speciﬁcally, situational moderators that were not examined in this study warrant
ﬁrrther examination. Previous research suggests that discrimination against stigmatized
individuals in the workplace is more prevalent for some types of jobs than for others. For
example, Stewart and Perlow (2001) found that people evaluated Blacks less favorably
and were less conﬁdent in hiring Blacks over Whites for high status jobs. This line of
research suggests that occupational stereotypes inﬂuence how minorities are judged for
particular jobs. In general, people classify occupations in a highly stereotyped manner,
which is usually dominated by two orthongonal dimensions: job prestige and gender-type
(Gottfredson, 1981). These two dimensions along with others (e.g., Holland's six
personality types, values) are important because individuals match dimensions of the job
to the individual pursuing the occupation. For example, a woman working as a bricklayer
(stereotypically male job), would be considered stereotypically inconsistent and would
not be welcome. Likewise, it is important for future studies focusing on behaviors related
to interpersonal and formal discrimination to account for occupational stereotypes. It is
expected that Hijabis will not be welcome in jobs whose values, gender-type, and
prestige are inconsistent with individuals’ stereotypes of Hijabis (i.e. Hijabi women

working at a liquor store).

109

 

Future studies on discrimination should also try to clarify the distinction between
interpersonal and formal discrimination and how they can be measured because currently
there are no predeﬁned set of behaviors for formal discrimination and interpersonal
discrimination. Although Hebl et a1. (2002) suggests the major difference between formal
discrimination and interpersonal discrimination is that one form of discrimination is overt
and conscious, while the other form of discrimination is subtle and unconscious, the
behaviors related to both formal and interpersonal discrimination are not that easy to
distinguish apart because oftentimes it is not possible to know if the stigmatized person is
acting intentionally or unintentionally. A well-labeled guideline for deﬁning behaviors
related to formal and interpersonal discrimination is necessary as more researchers begin
to explore these two forms of discrimination.

Perhaps one way to distinguish behaviors related to formal and interpersonal
discrimination is based on whether they violate any laws. Behaviors related to
interpersonal discrimination should not be subjected to the law because they are not
protected but behaviors related to formal discrimination are protected by the law and can
result in legal prosecutions. For example, if you reﬁise to hire some one because of his/
her minority status, this would be considered formal discrimination because you are
violating the law. However, if you avoid making eye contact with someone because of
his/ her minority status, this would be considered interpersonal discrimination, because
there really are no legal guidelines about such behaviors. Furthermore, researchers should
consider relabeling interpersonal discrimination to “informal discrimination,” because
“interpersonal” implies that there is an interaction between two people, even though

certain interpersonal behaviors might not necessarily involve direct interactions between

110

two individuals ( e. g. distance). The study of formal and interpersonal discrimination is
still at its beginning stages and future researchers need to address some of the criticisms
regarding the distinction between formal and interpersonal discrimination.

Another possible ﬁrture direction to take regarding research on behaviors related to
formal and interpersonal discrimination is to investigate from the employer’s perspective.
Although legal and ethical concerns prevented the researcher of this study from pursuing
the underlying beliefs and values inherent in the employer’s discriminatory behaviors, the
employer’s perspective should be further explored. Speciﬁcally, ﬁiture research needs to
be conducted to examine the process by which employers come to use unfair hiring
tactics against certain stigmatized groups, disregarding legal concerns. Negative
stereotypes of the potential employee’s group are but one cause. Other causes, such as
health and safety issues (requirements of a different dress code), and the use of
organizational dress as a symbol of person-organization ﬁt should also be considered. For
example, organizational dress may also serves as a symbol that reﬂects core values and
beliefs of an organization (Rafaeli & Pratt, 1993), which may have important effects on
the image that outsiders may have of an organization. Conceivably, having Hijabi
employees may be perceived by employers as portraying a negative image of the
company, which may explain in part discriminatory hiring practices. Thus, future
research on religious attire in the workplace should consider the roots of the cause of the
discrimination.

Conclusion
Going beyond self report data on negative attitudes and discriminations towards

Muslims, this study provides evidence for certain forms of behaviors related to both

111

 

formal and interpersonal discrimination for one stigmatized group, Hijabis. Although
previous research suggests that formal discrimination is being masked by more subtle
forms of discrimination (Hebl e at, 2002; 2007), this study reveals that certain form of
behaviors related to formal discrimination are not as uncommon as some researchers have
suggested. These ﬁndings highlight the need for researchers to continue to examine not
just the different forms of contemporary discrimination employed in work settings, but
also to acknowledge that one perspective of discrimination does not necessarily apply to
all stigmatized groups. These ﬁndings also make salient the importance of considering

underrepresented stigmatized groups (i.e. Hijabis) in research.

112

 

APPENDIX A
List of Hymtheses

Hypothesis 1: Hijabis will experience more behaviors related to formal discrimination
than non-Hijabis.

Hypothesis 2: Hijabis will experience more behaviors related to interpersonal
discrimination than non-Hijabis.

Hypothesis 3: The relationship between Hijabi/ Non-Hijabi and behaviors related to
formal discrimination is moderated by social contact such that: This relationship
is accentuated when there is high social contact and attenuated when there is low
social contact.

Hypothesis 4: The relationship between Hijabi/ Non-Hijabi and behaviors related to
interpersonal discrimination is moderated by social contact such that: This
relationship is accentuated when there is high social contact and attenuated when
there is low social contact.

Hypothesis 5: The relationship between Hijabi/ Non-Hijabi and behaviors related to
formal discrimination is moderated by intergroup contact such that: This
relationship is accentuated when there is low intergroup contact and attenuated
when there is high intergroup contact.

Hypothesis 6: The relationship between Hijabi/ Non-Hijabi and behaviors related to
interpersonal discrimination is moderated by intergroup contact such that: This
relationship is accentuated when there is low intergroup contact and attenuated
when there is high intergroup contact.

Hypothesis 7: The relationship between Hijabi/ Non-Hijabi and behaviors related to
formal discrimination is moderated by stigma consciousness such that: This
relationship is accentuated when the job applicant has high stigma consciousness
and attenuated when the job applicant has low stigma consciousness.

Hypothesis 8: The relationship between Hijabi/ Non-Hijabi and behaviors related to
interpersonal discrimination is moderated by applicant stigma consciousness such
that: This relationship is accentuated when the job applicant has high stigma
consciousness and attenuated when the job applicant has low stigma
consciousness.

113

 

APPENDIX B
Egerimental Script

The observer enters the store/ restaurant ﬁrst and tries to look around in a store (or sit in the
waiting area in a restaurant). If someone asks the observer if she needs help, the observer says
“no thank you ” or “I ’m waiting for a friend” and continues to look around (merchandise or
menu) or wait in the waiting area (restaurant).

Two minutes later, the confederate enters the store and goes to the cash register or reception
desk and interacts with the person behind the register or reception desk. The conversation
should go as following, with the confederate trying to follow the script as closely as possible:

Confederate: Hi, could I please speak to the manager?

Depending on whether the manager is accessible or not, the confederate will utilize one of the
following scripts in the next two pages:

During this job application process, the confederate might get a chance to ﬁll out a job
application form. The confederate should complete this application form honestly and
accurately. If the confederate feels they are unable to be honest on any component of the
application form, they should leave that part blank. Once they have completed the application,
the confederate should immediately proceed to the designated area and ﬁll out the survey. The
observer should also leave the store about 2 minutes after the confederate and also proceed to
the designated area and fill out the survey.

114

 

 

.099. 09:95 _ .. 058 8 use; . .2; .080 0:. =0.
00> 000 >030 £9. :05 9 030.00 E._ .00> 0.00;?

  

3008.300 00...... 5:0.
000002.000 05 5.3 08000.
>E .0 >000 0 200.0 8.0 . :00.

.0005 00> 5.3 05000. >8 >08
0 0>00. .00.. _ .. 05:. 00> 00 .20..

.

. 00:00:30
. .200 00> 0.0.... 8.. 0 E... 28 0:0... 2%. 580..

<

.000 0:80 002.000 0 0000 c. >03>c0
00002.30 :0 .00 .E _ 0. 00:: 00> 00 .8030... 02..
>

 

. ...... 30: En: 030.00 80> >00 9.0.. >200 03 Show.

£18820... 0 0. 0:200. 00 0.... so .02.

.099. 09:03 . .. 00.00 00 0.003 . 0...; .0000 0:.
=0. 00> :00 >030 30.. t0.» 0. 030.00 E.. 00> 0.00;?

.=o_.8__&0 05:... 0:0.
.0803300 05 5.; 858.
>8 .0 >08 0 20000 00.0 _ :00.

.0005 00> 5.3 05000. >E .0 >08
0 9,02 as. . c. 2.2 00> 8 .00.

.

.. 00.002300

.. .. . .00 00> 00:. 00> 0 0:... 300 0.00: >000 . Show.

8:00.000 .05
.0. .00 .E :00 _ 00:00:30 :0 0>0c 00> 00 000.0.

.. .00 03 00>.
.7

 

.0080 0000.000

.Iﬁlmmo .03 >00 00: 00> t. 00:00:03 003. 0:0...

ammgeg.
800000200-

 

115

_| .

.0200 00000; _ 0. 00.00 00 0.00; _ .00; 5000 0:. =2
00> 000 >030 0.00 0000 0. 0.00.00 5.. 00> 0.000?

 

000000000 0000 .0000
0000000000 0.0 5.3 08000. .0005 00> 5.2, 08000.. >E >000

>0. 00 >08 0 00000 00.0 _ 000. 0 0>00_ .00. _ 0. 00.2 00> 00 .00.

. .0...

.500 00> 20:. 00000500000058? >000.

<

00000000. 05 Q 0 030 :00 00> 00 .00 00000 000.000 0
0000 0. >0>>>00 000000000 00 50 =0 . 0 0000 00> 00 £0390 oz.

.. ...... >0 0: Eat 03000000
08:00 000: 0.: «0.00 Eon . Show 050 B: E. r

.. {030000.000 0 .0. 000.00. 00 as 0.0.5 :00 .02..

.0000 00.00; _ 0. 00.00 00 0.00; _ .003 .0000 00..
.0. 00> 000 >030 .000 00.0 3 0.00090 0... 00> 0.005.

>

00000. 0 00. ..0
.00M0000_.00_0M05 0.0..” 00:”00. .0005 00> 5.3 0.0000. >E 00 >08
>0. 00.000 0 00000 .020 _ 000. 0 0>00. 00. _ 0. 00.5 00> 00 .00.

a 200.000.0000

. .. . .00 00> 0.01. 00> 0 000 E00 .900 .000 . >50.

<

00000000. 50> B 020 0.000 00> 00 000.000 005
00.. 50 =0 :00 . 000000000 00 0.00 00> 00 .0020.

.. .Ob 9‘: «ES \ do?

47

 

.0500 800.000.000.599 >00 000

00> 0. 0000000? 003 . 000 .00_ 0 000 >000 9 000003 ..

 

00.20% 003%.
000.800.0000-

116

 

03.33%3333 33333 3.33 {M33 3 3k. 30.3.13 333523

33.: 35% 3.333333 33.33 3.330. «Mi 3 353%.? 33 30.3333 33 3.3 33.330533 30.30.33 33.333033 33333 3.330. 33% 3 3.x.M3.5%%3 0.333.333

0.30. 35h 33.33%3333 33333 3.330. 333 3 3.x. b%%3 3.3 3033.3 3» 33 033333333 33.3%.3 3.3 0.33.33.30.3% 33%.333.\% 333.33%3333333330 3.3 3K>.~%%3
3...: 3333.330 3.3 333333.332 0.3 33.23% 30.33333 33 3.3% 333330.. 333.333 3.3 3.3 .33 33.3.303%383§3 33.333333 3M3: 3333.3 3::

.3333 030.3%..33 030.3% 0333330. 3330.30.33 03.033333 33330 3.330. .033 3.3
«0.030.033 430.3% 0,333.0 03.3.33.» 93.333333 33333 3.330 .33 33333.. u3.3.~0.3% .3\.>.~%%3 33 33.33% 3.00.3 33.333333 3.3 33.3.3 33...: 33.0.3032... 3:0

117

Additionally, it is possible that the employee/ manager might ask you questions that are not
covered in the standardized script. Below are some questions that might come up, and how you
should address them. It is important that you remain honest, without revealing that you are part
of a research study.

What is your religion?
I’m sorry. I would not feel comfortable talking about that in an interview.

What race/ ethnicity are you?
I’m sorry. I would not feel comfortable talking about that in an interview.

What are you wearing on your head (headscarf)?
I am wearing a Muslim headscarf.

Why are you wearing that on your head (headscarf)?
I choose to wear it. It is a Muslim headscarf.

Would you be willing to remove/ take off that headscarf to work here?
I’m sorry. I would not feel comfortable talking about that in an interview.

Is that (headscarf) a religious requirement?
Yes, it is a religious requirement for Muslim women.

Why do you want this job? [What interests you about this job?
I am looking for work. I need to save up money for . Additionally, I feel I have all
the qualiﬁcations necessary to do this job well and I can gain more work experience.

 

Why do you want to work here? / Why should I hire you?
I feel that I would be an asset to this company. I have all the qualiﬁcations necessary to do this
job well and I can gain more work experience.

What are your availabilities?
I’ve got a ﬂexible schedule. I can work anywhere from hours/ week.

How many hours/ what days can you work?

 

 

I can work anywhere from hours/ week. I can work on

Tell me about yourself?

My name is . I am an undergraduate major at MSU. I’m in my
year in college. My past work experiences include . I am

 

looking for work. I need to save up money for

 

118

Observer Role:
Enter the store approximately two minutes before the confederate.

Kindly decline all offers for help by saying that you are just looking and/or waiting for a
friend (restaurant).

Situate yourself so that you will have a good view of the confederate when she enters the
store/ restaurant, but be in the background so to speak. . .it should NOT be obvious to
other store personnel that you are in any way whatsoever associated with the customer.

Begin looking through merchandise/ menu.

As soon as the confederate approaches the manager/ salesperson, start your stopwatch.
Stop your stopwatch as soon as the conversation ends.

Continue looking through merchandise/ menu while the “applicant” is in the store, and
remain in the store/ restaurant for approximately 2 minute aﬁer the customer leaves.

Finally, proceed directly to the central location.

****IF AT ANY TIME YOU BECOME UNCOMFORTABLE IN THE INTERACTIONS,
PLEASE REMOVE YOURSELF FROM THE SITUATION. YOU CAN SAY, “THANK
YOU FOR YOUR TIME”, “I FORGOT ABOUT AN APPOINTMENT I HAVE TO GET
TO”, OR ANY OTHER STATEMENT THAT ALLOWS YOU TO EXTRACT
YOURSELF FROM THE SITUATION. WEDIATELY FIND THE PRINCIPAL
INVESTIGATOR (SONIA GHUMMAN) AND DISCUSS THE SITUATION.

****IF THE CONFEDERATE IS ASKED TO GO TO A DIFFERENT LOCATION
WITHIN THE STORE/ RESTAURANT (OFFICE), DO NOT FOLLOW THE
CONFEDERATE UNLESS CUSTOMERS ARE ALSO ALLOWED IN THAT ROOM
AND IT WILL NOT BE ATYPICAL OF YOU BEING THERE. OTHERWISE, REMAIN
WHERE YOU ARE AND ANSWER “COULD NOT OBSERVE” FOR QUESTIONS IN
THE SURVEY PERTAINING TO INTERACTION OBSERVATIONS YOU WERE
UNABLE TO WATCH. DO NOT EXIT THE TRIAL UNTIL 2 MINUTES AFI‘ ER THE
CONFEDERATE HAS LEFI'.****

119

APPENDIX C

Sam 1e Pictures of Hi'abi and Non-Hi'abi Conditions

 

 

120

 

OZ mm> @053 Sex mew—03w?— 038 80:03.0.— 0>3auoa has 803 .m:

 

 

OZ mm; 26% :55 63:08 05 e5 .2
oz mm; 2% .8.» swans 2: an .3
02 mm; won—=00.— .3?» 0.30. 8 bmqstoqno 5 a0w so.» BO .2
OZ mm; mane.— EﬁaoE—na an a 8 bmqstommo 5 Em so» BO .2
we?» 8 “go—0:08:88.“
828m 25 as .23 .8: .:
~30»
02 mm; 8 .528.— Eouehu 0 308882 00.8380 Emma—06 05 BO .3
ea be; have: .5» 2e 802mg hogan a; .o
02 mm; @0321: 09$ .2... 3:9... .3025 :9» a3. 05 005 28 so» 20>? .m
02 mm; Tswana:— 05 8 $000.. .0» so.» 29 .5
.EQQNMZQEUVMEZN MFR EVE
gab—ME
n v m m _ .08 2038 $00 twang: 05 Be: 08255 Hoe 0020 05% >2 .0
.08 2038
w v m N _ H00 :5 swung: 05 3o: 08255 “on :5 “.886 EL .33 0E. .m
m a. m N _ 2% E e0 £3 05 8 393.. 3 =5 _ 30:3 is a a.
w v m N _ 0:08 be me 282 E $22309 be =n “8885
:5 Emma—we 05 00:— _00.« _ cow—~38 05 at? weuombuﬁ :0; .m
m e m N _ .08 00:— 306 93 :0803 me
329008000 3 @0303 05 E? 053209 >8 85 BE?» Ho: an H .N
w v m N g saw—8&3 08 80am do: :5 so 022 _ 0090 05 Scam 8990205 .—
00uw< 00em85\00._w< 00%35 EQHmm MZQE Enummkm NSRSE ~59“ ESQ
38% 5532 38% al.—5.8mm

 

ﬁned—050:0 0umu0e0mcoo

D XHQZmEmam

121

 

w v
m w
w v
m w
w v
n v
m e
w v
w v
m w
w v
w v
w v
w v
.2 <

E028 h8>
Wu w 5.6

MM

MMM

MMMMMM

E£3080m

dmé

N _
N _
N _
N _
N _
N _
N _
N _
N a
N _
N _
N a
N _
N _

8352

082

8N EN

weoﬁmoa 05 .8.“ 280:8?

605—5... 0 no :0.» he :55 Smudge 08 30 00080 :53 0 H
$5338 5..

00 :0» 8 3000.005 0: 0. .8230 bm0§8 05 20 8080 :33 0 H
$000238 08 003 0.50%: 30£ 48000» 5

000308008 05 003 0.5.8.— 30£ 40.88% 5

50.500 .80.» :0 600.508 00w058 05 003 8080 :33 0 H

~00.»

£0.50 950888 0£ 00 30:0: 8000 890808 05 20 .0080 :53 0 H
e00» 00830. .202... 0>0£0£ 003008 05 20 8080 023 0 H

~00.» 0839 0:000.— 8000 008808 05 20 82x0 233 0 H
Nam—0.8880...—

56000005 0:. 0:0 00 he 003.008 05 0:0 82x0 885 0 H

~00» £05 00:08 003808 05 0:0 «03:00 0h. £008 303

2530: twang: 05 003 0580 :23 0 H

$0?qu 0£0 003 26:03 30m

$08000» 0>308§¢ 0050 00.2: .8 no: twang: 20 £008 30m
N30» 00 0:80 bw0§8 05 20 £008 30m

000» 80¢ 0830 803808 05 20 main 8a 30m

Am

6m
.mm
.mm
.mm

em
.2
.v~

.mm
.mm
.2...
.3.
d—
.w—

.5

EQNWQ mkaQREN $0.3. «Q ENDVZE MIR EVE

122

 

 

 

200 as 8 088050 02 .00

308— 0.009 0002 £80m 0000.00
£004 080005 3005 82>) 000m0008 05 .00 5.0850 08 003 0055 .50
0080& 202 0003008 05 .«0 000:0» 05 003 0055 .00
.vqumm mmmwg MEN SSSENQ
m 0 m N _ 0000800000 08 0003 000030 30m .3.
m 0 m N _ 00008—080 05 0003 000020 30m .00
m 0 m N _ 080800000 \00000 05 003 0.0008. 30: .20
m 0 m N _ 080.8800.— 00000 08 003 00030.00 30: .N0
£008 >00> 00£3080m :0 .0 002 .EQNMMSES Emmx \mesm. St E E
.0000 >8
m 0 m N _ w8800000 0000mm >00 m80000000 00 w800000_0 0008030 00w0008 2F .3
.00.. 0:0
w v m N £ w830w 8 380000 0003 00000000000 05 000002080 00m0008 00:. .00
w v m N £ 0200.0 338000.06 0£ 00: 0303 ~ 005 0000080 00m0008 2: .3
m 0 m N _ .0800 >8 :0 00808800 00M0008 2F .wm
m 0 m N £ 803:0.— >8 830 00.0008 00w0q08 BF Sm
n v m N _ .0008 00 80 _00.£ 08 0008 8050000.. \0020 05 .00 000800800 00:. 6m
m 0 m N _ 000300 0 003 _ .2 00 08 000008 00w0808 2F .mm
w v m N £ 0003380 300200.:
800 “500$? on 0303 0020> >8 005 00:08 003008 2:. .3.
m 0 m N _ 800000 00000— 0 00 08 000008 Bw0008 0E. .mm
m 0. m N _ £00008. 0£ 0303 £0“ 05 00 0000000 >8 005 00:98 00m0008 0£H .Nm
02:: 00> 3030050 :0 00 82 .0300208050005 0000 0:50

123

El DECIDED

DD

D
0>..00£0

.00 00.00

 

 

 

OZ mmtw
02 mm?
OZ mg
02 mg
02 mg
02 mm>
02 mg
02 mm;

WQZQDMM QZV MEZDNE >2 qumm ZQRD ENNZN mmt RD @0943 MEN 309$ MWVSR

00.0.0 0.0.0.0000 :00 0.0 w8000w0. 0008 00000003.. 03050.. >00 0.03
00.800083 0.0 0805 .0m0008 0.0 05

00.800880 05 .00..» .0w0008 05 05

008000.. 0 02.0— 0. 88800.80 00 .0» 0.8000080 08 05
0800.. 80000850 8. E.— 0. b.8833 :0 .0w 0.8000080 0£. 05

xo'rx'odm'o'

0800000080 0.0 0. 0000088000.. 000.000 03. 003 .0£3 .00 .2

00000000800

0... 0. 000.00.— 820.50 0 00088000.. 0088800000008 08 05 .m

0.8 >800 >=0_.8_ 2000000000 0£. E0 0000.000 800.000 .055 .0
0030-88

a: .5. 00:0... .80.... 20 €— 20 .20 22 20.08080 20 33 .0
00000.88 0... 0. 000000 .0» 800000.800 0.0 05 .N

.EOHNNZQRU SNEN E E E

 

0008000000 00800.5

m wand/mam...

”08.. 88.0000...— .—

>AZO EPA—MO.—

124

 

 

 

 

 

 

DE] DUDE] DUE] DECIDE]

030000
000 0800

D

030000
a: 280

WWWWV‘J
00000

WWW
000

minnow
Vt???

m
m

02 <
8008 80>

V?

02
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
00:3080m

NNN NNNNN

NNNN

N

mg

—1

~~~~

0
0

.0 0 “oz

082

Waw 00.0 090 0m-~ EN

00808800 05 00: .00 .0—

00088808 00.;

000000080 20 0000 8000—000 05 8000 0808800 0x08 00w0008 05 05
08280

06 00.0 005—000 00 800.0000 05 300, 080008 05 000 8080 0003 0 H
0803—000 00.0 000 8 000000008 0.. 00 8000 00w0008 20 000 8080 0003 0 .0
0000000080 000 003 020800 300 ._00000m 5

00000000080 05 003 0050000 300 400008 5

00.58 0.8—00:00.. 05 00 0000000 8000 00w0008 20 000 8080 0003 0 0.
08000000

000 503 80000080 00 00 000?.00 8000 00w0008 05 000 8080 0003 0 .0
08002000 000 00 00m0008 05 003 0000 3000

08000000 05 000300 0:000.— 8000 00m0008 05 000 8080 00:3 0 0.
08000—0000 05

0003 0.0888000 0000000080 05 000 00 000 000000 05 000 8080 0003 0 0.
0800:000 05 .005 000800 000 00.08 00w0008 08 000 8080 0003 0 0.
08002000 05 00 00w0008 000 003 800.00 30E

08002000 05 00 00w0008 0.0 003 0:800: 30:

0800:000

05 00 0000000» 0288.050 0050 00.08 00 000 00m0008 0.0 000 0008 30:
08000000 0.0 00 0:80 00w0008 05 000 0008 30:

08002000 000 800.0 00000 00w0008 20 0008000 000 0803 0030 00.— Box

.0N

.cm

.2
.0m
.mm
.mm
40

.oN
.0—
.M:

.00
.00.
.m—
.0—

.2
.m—

.:

EQQMQ NNNQQKEM ”500.0% 20 KNOVZE $0.0 HE

125

CID DEICI DUE] Cl E]

030030 :008 000>

000 00000

MMM

MMM

00:3080m

NNN

N

00:00 900000000000
05 88000000 000000 000 80080000 00 800000000 00000000 00w0008 0:0.
.80 05 0:000 5

380000 0003 000000000000 00:0 800000.800 0:0 00 000008080 00m0008 0:0.

0000000 3308000000 0: 80 0803 800000.800 05 00:0 00000000 00w0008 0:0.

.0080 0.00000000000 05 00 00808800 00w0008 0:0.

80%:00 900000000000 0:0 80:0 0008000 00w0008 0:0.

000—0

.00 0:0 .000 300000.800 2: 0008 800000000 0080 0:0 .00 80:08:00 0:0.
80300 0 003 0:0 .0_ 00 00000000000 0:0 0008b 00w0008 0:0.

00000—080 300000000

800.: 8000,0000 0: 0803 0020> 300000000000 20 005 00:00: 00w0008 0:0.
800000 00000— 0 00 8000000000 0:0 00000.0 00w0008 0:0.

:000000

0: 0803 :0... 05 00 0000000 300000000000 20 00:0 00:00: 00m0008 0:0.

.0m

.0m
.mm
.0m
.mm

.mm
.3.

dm
.0m

.5.

.§QQNNZQRU§§~ 3.0.0 H050

126

 

 

 

 

33 I .0... I 0.. 250
00...: 02 I 2...: I 080 200
0.55 I 0000000000 I ”03 0 .00....
0580. I .8880 I ”0.0 00.
202.30.02— mEH 0.30 .300 0.02 on
0.00.00 00:0 00 0808800 00¢. .00
308— 0.000 00000. :80m 0074
U :8... 0000000: 0.005 00:? 000w0008 0:0 .00 000008—00 0.0 003 00:05 .w0
E 000800 202 000m0008 0:0 .00 00000” 0.0 003 0:3 .00
$008.03 «000.23% E MMEOmMQ
D m 0 m N 0 0000800000 0:0 0003 0000.300 30: .00
D m 0 m N _ 000000—080 0:. 0003 0000.000 30: .m0
D m 0 m N 0 0800000000 0020 0:0 003 0.0000: 30:: .00
D m 0 m N 0 0800000000 \00000 0:.. 003 0003000 302 .m0
0300.00 :008 .kaqmm .0255 000.00% 035.00. @000 E 0.2
000 0800 000> 00:3080m :0 00 002
D m 0 m N 0 0000080: 0.800.800 0:0 00 800000000 30: .205 00:00 00 0000000 :55 .N0
D m 0 m N 0 0000000080 0:0 m00000 800:000 0.0 003 0280000 30: .00
D m 0 m N 0 0000000008 0:0 w880 000000 800:000 0:0 000 000300.. 30: 60
U m 0 m N 0 0000000008 0:0 w00000 800:000 0:0 003 0000.00 30: .00.
D m 0. 0. N . 08085... 2.. 05.30 052.0% 2.. a; 0.08.00 30.. .00
038:0 00: < 00:3080m :0 00 002 000403 0020030000 E ENQMEZQO 0000 .N0 02
000 0.000 2008 000> \0002

127

 

.0._ 0

>E 00.0.0008 00:00. >00 00.009000 .0 00.000020 000.020 53.090 0.”...
.00.. 0.... 9.0.00 0. .0000000 0.02. 000000.000... .00.. 005002005 .03.an 0... ..
00.00.. 2.005.000 0n .0: 0.303 _ .0... 0000000 0.6.00.0 0.. ..

0.0.0 >0. :0 00.:0EE8 .98.an 0......

00.9.0. >0. .0000 00.50... 03.0.0.0 0;...

000.0 E .00 .00. 0... 000... €050.00. 0.0.0 0.... .0 0.0000086 00....

....0.>00 0 002. . .. 00 0... 00.00.. 5.0.90.0 0:...

.000>0.0E0

.000...00.. 0.0... 0.0.00.0 00 0.302. 00:.0> >0. .0... 00:9... 098.080 0;...
000.00 .0000. 0 00 0:. 00.00.. 5.6.00.0 00....

.0003: 00 0.302. 00.. 0... .0 0000000 >0. .0... 00:9... .0>0.0:.0 0;...

 

000000.... .200

50.8.5... .o 50.2
80.00. 030.20.... .0 0.80

000. :30 0. 00:4.

000.000.3020....
20.000.00.35

00.0.0 00.~._00.E..0
00:_0>

.9350 00.000.05.00
000% 80.0.0080m
00:09:00.. .0 02.000040

uonepnewromw

 

 

unsugomgw

 

suogsemﬁﬁeonm w 800069323

 

EO:

 

0.00m 00.000Ww000002

m van—750.000.

00.00....

128

APPENDIX G

Informed Consentﬁ and Conﬁdentiality Agreement
INFORMED CONSENT FORM FOR OBSERVERS AND CONFEDERATES
Project Title: Job Application Process

Primary Researchers: Sonia Ghumman & Dr. Ann Marie Ryan, Professor of Psychology

Description and Explanation of Procedure: The purpose of this study is to examine the job
application process. If you agree to participate, you will be required to attend one training session
for two hours at the Psychology Building and one training session for one hour at the mall with
Sonia Ghumman and a confederate or observer. The purpose of the ﬁrst session is to allow you to
practice and become familiar with the methodology and script. For those individuals who agree to
participate, we will walk through mock trials in which the confederate and observers follow the
scripts provided. We will also discuss potential unexpected scenarios and appropriate responses,
including a scenario in which the retail employee or other individual expresses negative behavior
by becoming loud and abusive. In such an instance, we will ask you to remove yourself from the
situation and immediately contact the principal investigators. The second training session will
take place in the actual mall setting (in a store or restaurant that will not be included in the actual
experiment) to allow you to gain ﬁrst hand experience to practice the script and ensure reliability
for further trials. All the interactions will be monitored to ensure that the script is followed, and to
ensure that information about the study is not conveyed. For confederates, part of the training
process will also require them to wear the headscarf in a public place (coffee shop, library, etc.)
where they don’t know people for 3 hours to become more comfortable wearing the attire.

In the study, you will be asked to enter approximately 10-15 retail stores/ restaurants wearing
either traditional (i.e., a headscarf) or non-traditional Muslim attire. Next, you will be asked to
follow a script that directs you to interact with a store/ restaurant manager and to apply for a job.
Before and after each interaction, you will be asked to complete a brief paper and pencil
questionnaire about the experiences you expect to encounter and actually encounter. Before you
enter each store, another researcher will enter the store to observe your behavior. In each case,
you will also be asked to start and stop a stop-timer that will time the length of your verbal
exchanges. Each interaction should take less than 15 minutes.

Risks: It is not anticipated, but you may encounter some negative reactions that take the form of
interpersonal hostility and rudeness. In other words, when you engage in the interactions, you
may experience some discomfort, anxiety, frustration, annoyance, or anger. We do not anticipate
that you will experience any overtly or severely negative interactions. However, given these
potential risks, it is critical that you are aware that participation or withdrawal ﬁ'om this study will
not have any negative consequences for you or any party, nor will it impact your class standing in
anyway. You should also be aware that psychological support services are available on the MSU
campus at the MSU Psychological Clinic (517-355-9564; Olds Hall, Room 5) and the MSU
Counseling Center (517- 355-8270; Student Services Building, Room 207).

Beneﬁts: You will gain experience in ﬁeld studies as well as learn more about how psychological
research is done. Your participation will contribute to the scientiﬁc knowledge about the job
application process.

129

Participation: Individuals who are at least 18 years of age may participate. Participation is this
study is completely voluntary. You may choose not to participate at all or you may refuse to
answer certain questions should you object to them. Furthermore, you may discontinue the
experiment at any time. If you decide not to participate or if you withdraw from the study, there is
no penalty or loss of beneﬁts to which you are otherwise entitled There are no costs to you or any

other party.

Conﬁdentiality: Responses on all of these items on the questionnaire will be completely
conﬁdential. You will not be asked to provide your name or any information that can be used to
identify you. However, in order to connect the different parts of your survey data, we will need to
create an ID number that will be associated with your survey responses. The information gathered
in this study will be combined with the data of all of the other participants in the study for any
analyses so that even your responses cannot be identiﬁed. The data will only be accessible by the
primary (Dr. Ann Marie Ryan) and secondary (Sonia Ghumman) investigators in the study, and
will be stored in a password protected computer. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum
extent allowable by law.

Contact: If you have any questions or concerns regarding this study, please contact the
investigator (Sonia Ghumman), 346 Psychology Research Bldg., MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824;
516-376-5006 or email (ghummans@msu.edu). If you have questions or concerns regarding your
rights as a study participant, or are dissatisﬁed at any time with any aspect of this study, you may
contact — anonymously, if you wish —Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Chair of the University Committee
on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) by phone: (517) 355-2180, fax: (517) 432-
4503, e-mail: ucrihs@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.

Consent:

l have read the above points and agree to participate in this study.

 

 

 

Print Full Name Signature Date

130

CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT FOR OBSE_RVER_S AND CONFE_DERATE§

As noted in the informed consent statement, I have agreed to participate in this research exercise
by acting as an observer or a confederate applying for jobs in retail stores and restaurants. I also
agree to the following elements regarding conﬁdentiality of this research:

1. I recognize that by participating in this research project I will be exposed to certain
conﬁdential materials and information which include store/ restaurant names, manager/
employee names, and information that you provide in your surveys.

2. I agree not to discuss the nature or substance of this project nor discuss or talk about any of
the materials or other information (store/ restaurant names, manager/ employee names, self-
reported data) I am exposed to with anyone other than the designated researchers, Ann Marie
Ryan /Sonia Ghumman.

3. I agree also to refer all inquiries ﬁ'om outside parties to the supervisor of this project, Sonia
Ghumman, and to return any and all project materials I may receive at the conclusion of the
project.

I further agree to uphold this obligation even aﬁer the completion of my current participation. By
signature, I agree as to act as a research assistant and confederate or observer in accordance with
the above stated terms and conditions.

Signature

 

Printed Name

 

Date

 

131

REFERENCES

Allen, C., & Nielsen, J. S. (2002). Summary report on Islamophobia in the EU after 11
September 2001. Vienna, Austria: European Monitoring Centre on Racism and
Xenophobia.

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Anker, R. (1998). Gender and jobs: Sex segregation of occupations in the world. Geneva:
International Labour Ofﬁce. Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS).

Asani, A S. (2003). "So that you may know one another": A Muslim American reﬂects
on pluralism and Islam. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science
Islam: Enduring myths and changing realities, 588, 40-51.

BBC News. (2006a). The Islamic veil across Europe. Retrieved January 23, 2007 from
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/54l4098.stm>.

 

BBC News. (2006b). Shaw’s veil comments spark anger. Retrieved January 23, 2007
ﬁ'om <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/5410472.stm>.

Bellizzi, J.A., & Hasty, R.W. (1998). Territory assignment decisions and supervising
unethical selling behavior: the effects of obesity and gender as moderated by job-related
factors. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 18, 35-49.

Bestplaces.net. (2008a). Lansing, Michigan Religion. Retrieved January 20, 2008
from < http://www.bestplgces.net/zip-code/Zip_Code_48912_L2_1nsing_MI-RELIGION-
74891200100.asnx>.

Bestplaces.net. (2008b). Dearborn, Michigan Religion. Retrieved January 20, 2008
from < http://wwwbestplgces.net/city/Dearborn_MI-RELIGION-52621000100.aspx>.

Biernat, M., & Vescio, T. K. (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.

Billig, M., & Tajfel, H. (1973). Social categorization and similarity in intergroup
behavior. European Journal of Social Psycholog, 3, 27-52.

Blascovich, J., Mendes, W.B., Hunter, S.B., Lickel, B., & Kowai-Bell, N. (2001).
Perceiver threat in social interactions with stigmatized others. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 253—267.

Blascovich, J., Spencer, S. J., Quinn, D., & Steele, C. (2001). African Americans and
high blood pressure: The role of stereotype threat. Psychological Science, 12(3), 225-229.

Bolce, L., & De Maio, G. (1999). The Anti-Christian Fundamentalist Factor in
Contemporary Politics. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 63 (4), 508-542.

132

 

Bowen, W. G., & Bok, D. (1998). The Shape of the river: Long-term consequences of
considering race in college and university admissions. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
University Press.

Bradburn, N., Sudrnan S., Gockel G. L. (1971). Side by Side: Integrated Neighborhoods
in America. Chicago: Quadrangle Books.

Branscombe, N. R., Schmitt, M. T., & Harvey, R. D. (1999). Perceiving pervasive
discrimination among African Americans: Implications for group identiﬁcation and well-
being. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 77, 135-149.

Brennan, A. M., Davis, R. D., & Rostow, C. D. (2005). An investigation of biographical
information as a predictor of employment termination among law enforcement oﬁ‘icers.
Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 20, 1-7.

Brown, R. (1995). Prejudice: Its social psychology. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Brown, R. P., & Pinel, E. C. (2003). Stigma on my mind: Individual differences in the
experience of stereotype threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 626-633.

Bullock, K. (2002). Rethinking Muslim women and the veil: Challenging historical and
modern stereotypes. London: International Institute of Islamic Thought.

Bushman, B.J., & Bonnaci, AM. (2004). You’ve got mail: Using e-mail to examine the
effect of prejudiced attitudes on discrimination against Arabs. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 40, 753-759.

Buss, D. M. (1996). Sexual conﬂict: Can evolutionary and feminist perspectives converge? In D.
M. Buss & N. Malamuth (Eds), Sex, power. conﬂict: Evolutionary and feminist
perspectives (pp. 296-318). New York: Oxford University Press.

Cainkar, L. (2002). No longer invisible: Arab and Muslim exclusion aﬂer September 11. Middle
East Report, 224, 22—29.

Carver, C.S., Glass, D.C., Snyder, M.L., & Katz, 1. (1977). Favorable evaluations of
stigmatized others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 3, 232-235.

Cash, T. F., Gillen, B., & Burn, D. S. (1977). Sexism and “beautysm” in personnel
consultant decision-making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 301-311.

Chia, E.K. & Jih, CS. (1994). The effects of stereotyping on impression formation:
Cross-cultural perspectives on viewing religious persons. The Journal of Psychology, 128

(5), 559-565.

City University of New York, the Graduate Center. (2001). American Religious
Identiﬁcation Survey. Retrieved April 4, 2009 From
<h®z//www.gc.cuny.edu/studies/aris_index. htm>.

Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 20006 et seq.

I33

CNN News. (2001a). Arab passengers removed ﬁ'om ﬂights. Retrieved July 23, 2005
From<http://archives.cnn.com/ 200 1/TRAVEL/NEWS/O9/21 /passenger.removed/index.ht
m_l>-

CNN News. (2001b). Arab-Americans concerned about treatment. Retrieved July 23,
2005 ﬁ'om <http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/ 10/24/rec.arab.americans>.

Cohen, L. L. & Swim, J .K. (1995). The differential impact of gender ratios on women
and men: Tokenism, self-conﬁdence and expectations. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 21, 876-884.

Crandall, C. S. (1994) Prejudice against fat people: ideology and self-interest. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 882—894.

Crocker, J., Major, B., & Steele, C. (1998). Social stigma. In D. T. Gilbert & S. T. Fiske
(Eds), The handbook of social psychology, Vol. 2 (pp. 504-553). Boston: McGraw Hill.

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.

Curtis, R. C., & Miller, K. (1986). Believing another likes or dislikes you: Behaviors
making the beliefs come true. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 284—
290.

Curtis, R. F., Timbers, D.M., & Jackson, ER (1967). Prejudice and Urban Social
Participation. American Journal of Sociology, 73, 235-44.

Deitch, E. A., Barsky, A., Butz, R.M., Chan, 8., Brief, A. R., & Bradley, J. C. (2003). Subtle yet
signiﬁcant: The existence and impact of everyday racial discrimination in the workplace.
Human Relations, 56, 1299-1324.

Deutsch, M., & Collins, M. E., (1951). Interracial housing: A psychological evaluation of
a social experiment. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Devine, P. G., Monteith, M. J., Zuwerink, J. R., & Elliott, A. J. (1991). Prejudice with
and without compunction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 817-830 .

Devine, P.G., Evett, S.R., & Vasquez-Suson, K. (1996). Exploring the interpersonal
dynamics of intergroup contact. In R. Sorrentino & E.T. Higgins (Eds.). Handbook of
motivation and cognition: The interpersonal context (Vol. 3), pp. 423-464. New York:
The Guilford Press.

Dovidio, J. F ., & Gaertner, S. L. (1991). Changes in the expression and assessment of
racial prejudice. In H. J. Knopke, R. J. Norrell, & R. W. Rogers (Eds), Opening doors:
Perspectives on race relations in contemporary America (pp.119-148). Tuscaloosa, AL:
University of Alabama Press.

134

Dovidio, J. F ., & Gaertner, S. L. (1998). On the nature of contemporary prejudice: the causes,
consequences, and challenges of Aversive Racism. In J. L. Eberhardt, & S. T. F iske
(Eds), Confronting Racism: the problem and the responses (pp. 3-32). California: SAGE
Publications.

Dovidio, J. F ., Gaertner, S. L., Kawakami, K., & Hodson, G. (2002). Why can’t we just
get along? Interpersonal biases and interracial distrust. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic
Minority Psychology, 8, 88—102.

Dovidio, J. F ., 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.

Downey, G., Freitas, A, Michaelis, B., & Khouri, H. (1998). The self-fulﬁlling prophecy
in close relationships: Rejection sensitivity and rejection by romantic partners. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 545—560.

Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (2003). Muslim/Arab employment
discrimination charges since 9/11. Retrieved on November 22, 2004 from

<hgpzl/www.eeoc.gov/origin/z-stats.html>.

Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (2004). EEOC sues Plaza hotel and
F airrnont hotel and resorts for post-9/11 backlash discrimination. Retrieved on
November 22, 2004 from <http://www.eeoc.gov/press/9-30-03b.html>.

Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (2007). Religious Discrimination.
Retrieved April 4, 2007 fiom <_http://www.eeoc. govM/religion.ht1nl>.

Eller, A., & Abrams, D. (2003). Gringos in Mexico: Cross-sectional and longitudinal
effects of language school-promoted contact on intergroup bias. Group Processes and
Intergroup Relations, 6, 55-75.

Everett, M. (1990). Let an overweight person call on your best customers? Fat chance.
Sales and Marketing Management, 142, 66-70.

Farina, A., Allen, J. G., & Saul, B. B. (1968). The role of the stigmatized person in
affecting social relationships. Journal of Personality, 36, 169-182.

F iske, S. T., & Ruscher, J. B. (1993). Negative interdependence and prejudice: Whence the affect? In D.
M. Mackie & D. L. Hamilton (Eds), Affect, cognition, and stereotyping: Interactive processes
in group perception (pp. 239-268). New York: Academic Press.

Fox News (2008). Two Muslim women suing Mcdonalds over claims they weren’t hired because
of their headscarves. Retrieved on May 3, 2009 from
<_http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,392361,00.html>.

Gabriel, M. A. (2007). Culture Clash: Islam 's War on the West. Florida: Charisma House.

Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1986). The aversive form of racism. In: J .F . Dovidio

and S.L. Gaertner (Eds), Prejudice, Discrimination and Racism: Theory and Research,
(pp. 61-89). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

135

Gakovic, A. & Tetrick, L. E. (2003). Perceived organizational support and work status: A
comparison of the employment relationships of part-time and full-time employees
attending university classes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 649-666.

Goffman E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood
Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall.

Greenberg, J ., Pyszczynski, T., & Solomon, S. (1986). The causes and consequences of a need for
self-esteem: A terror management theory. In R.F. Baumeister (Ed), Public self and
private self (pp. 189-212). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Hamilton, D. L., & Troiler, T. K. (1986). Stereotypes and stereotyping: An overview of
the cognitive approach. In J. E Dovidio, & S.L. Gaertner (Eds), Prejudice,
discrimination, and racism (pp. 127-163). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Harmon-Jones, E., & Allen, J. J. B. (2001). The role of affect in the mere exposure effect:
Evidence from psychophysiological and individual differences approaches. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 889-898.

Hebl, M., Foster, J .M., Mannix, L. M., & Dovidio, J. F. (2002). Formal and interpersonal
discrimination: A ﬁeld study examination of applicant bias. Personality and Social
Psychological Bulletin, 28, 815-825.

Hebl, M. R., King, E. B., Glick, P., Singletary, S., & Kazama, S. (2007). Hostile and
benevolent behaviors toward pregnant women: Complementary interpersonal

punishments and rewards that maintain traditional roles. Journal of Applied Psychology,
92, 1499-1511.

Heilman, M., & Saruwatari L. (1979). When beauty is beastly: The effects of appearance
and sex on evaluations of job applicants for managerial and non-managerial jobs.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23, 360-372.

Heilrnan, M., & Stopeck, M. (1985). Being attractive, advantage or disadvantage?
Performance based evaluations and recommended personnel actions as a function of
appearance, sex, and job type. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,

35, 202-215.

Herek, G. M., & Capitanio, J. P. (1996). Some of my best friends: Inter-group contact,
concealable stigma, and heterosexuals’ attitudes towards gay men and lesbians.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 412 424.

Hood, R., & Cordovil, G. (1992). Race and sentencing: A study in the Crown Court. A report for
the Commission for Racial Equality. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Ickes, W. (1984). Compositions in black and white: Determinants of interaction in
interracial dyads. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4 7, 330—341.

Ilgen, D. R. and Youtz, M. A. (1986). Factors Affecting the Evaluation and Development
of Minorities in Organizations. In K. Rowland and G. Ferris (Eds), Research in

Personnel and Human Resource Management: A Research Annual (pp. 307-337).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

136

Jackson, J. S., Brown, T. N., Williams, D. R., Torres, M., Sellers, S. L., & Brown, K. (1996).
Racism and the physical and mental health status of African Americans: a thirteen year
national panel study. Ethnicity and Disease, 6, 132-147.

James, L. R., Demaree, R. G. & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability
with and without response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85-98.

Jasper, C. R, Klassen, M. L. (1990). Perceptions of salespersons’ appearance and
evaluation of job performance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 71, 563-566.

Jones, E.E., Farina, A, Hastorf, A H., Markus, H., Miller, D.T., & Scott, R. A.
(1984). Social Stigma: The psychology of marked relationships. New York: Freeman.

Kamalipour, Y. R. (2000). The TV terrorist: Media images of Middle Easterners.
Global Dialogue, 88-96.

Kenny, L. M. (1975). The Middle East in Canadian social science textbook. In Baha
Abu-Laban & Faith Zeadey, (Eds.). Arabs in America: Myths and realities (pp. 133-147).
Wilmette, IL: Medina University Press Intl.

Kessler, R. C., Mickelson, K. D., & Williams, D. (1999). The prevalence, distribution, and mental
health correlates of perceived discrimination in the United States. Journal of Health and
Social Behavior, 40, 208-230.

Klassen, M. L., Jasper, C. R., 85 Harris, R. J. (1993). The role of physical appearance in
managerial decisions. Journal of Business and Psychology, 8, 181-198.

King, E. B., Shapiro, J. L., Hebl, M., Singletary, S., & Turner, S. (2006). The stigma of
obesity in customer service: A mechanism of remediation and bottom-line consequences
of discrimination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 579-593.

Kleck, R E., & Strenta, A (1980). Perceptions of the Impact of Negatively Valued
Physical Characteristics on Social Interaction. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 39: 861-873.

Klein, K.J., Bliese, P., Dansereau, F., Gavin, Grifﬁn, Hofmann, D.A., James, L.,
Kozlowski, S.W.J., Williams, L., & Yammarino, F. (2000). An integrative perspective
on multi-level analysis. In K]. Klein & S.W.J. Kozlowski (Eds), Multilevel theory,
research, and methods in organizations (SIOP Frontiers Series). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.

Krysan, M. (1998). Privacy and the expression of white racial attitudes: A comparison
across three contexts. Public Opinion Quarterly, 62, 506—44.

Law.com (2002). Post- Sept. 11 ‘Backlash’ proves difﬁcult to quantify. Retrieved on
January 16, 2006 from <http://www.l_:_1w.com/isp/article.jsp?id=I022954315284>.

Levin, S., van Laar, C., & Sidanius, J. (2003). The effects of ingroup and outgroup

friendship on ethnic attitudes in college: A longitudinal study. Group Processes &
Intergroup Relations, 6, 76-92.

137

 

Liebkind, K., Nystrom, S., Honkanummi, E. & Lange, A. (2004). Group size, group
status and dimensions of contact as predictors of intergroup attitudes. Group Processes &
Intergroup Relations, 7(2), 145-159.

Madani, A. O. (2000). Depiction of Arabs and Muslims in the United States’ news media.
Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 60, 9-B,
4965.

Major, B., Gramzow, R., McCoy, S., Levin, S., Schmader, T., Sidanius, J. (2002).
Attributions to discrimination: The role of group status and legitimizing ideology.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 82, 269-282.

Mansouri, K. Y. & Perlow, RP. (2005, August). Religion and Job Type Effects on
Discrimination in Employment Settings. In B. Demarr (Chair), Diversity and Human
Resources: Selection, Referral, and Under-representation. Symposium conducted at the
annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Honolulu, HI.

Matsurnoto, D. (2000). Culture and psychology: People around the world (2nd ed.).
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson.

McConahay, J .B. (1986). Modern racism, ambivalence, and the Modern Racism Scale. In J .F.
Dovidio 8L S.L. Gaertner (Eds), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 99-125).
Orlando: Academic Press.

Media and Society Research Group. (2004). MSRG special report: Restrictions on civil
liberties, views of Islam, and Muslim Americans. Ithaca, NY: Author.

Mendoza-Demon, R., Purdie, V., Downey, G., & Davis, A. (2002). Sensitivity to status-based
rejection: Implications for African-American students' college experience. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 896-918.

Mendoza-Demon, R., Purdie, V., Downey, G., & Davis, A. (2002). Sensitivity to status-
based rejection: Implications for African-American students' college experience. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 896-918

Mich. Comp. Laws § 750.53%.

Miller, D. A, Smith, E. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2004). Effects of intergroup contact and
political predispositions on prejudice: Role of intergroup emotions. Group Processes &

Intergroup Relations, 7, 221-237.

Naimark, N. M. (2001). Fires of hatred: Ethnic cleansing in twentieth-century Europe.
Cambridge, MA & London: Harvard University Press.

0*NET (2007). Browse by 0*Net Descriptor. Retrieved on January 17, 2007 from
<http://online.onetcenter.org/ﬁnd/descriptor/browse/Skills/2.B.1/#cur>.

0*NET (2009). Summary Report for: 43-508l.01 — Stock Clerks, Sales Floor. Retrieved on April
9, 2009 from 5 http://online. onetcenter.org/link/summary/43-5081.01>.

138

Oakes, P.J., Haslam, SJ. and Turner, J .C. (1994). Stereotyping and social reality.
Oxford: Blackwell.

Mosley, T.M. , & Rosenberg, J. (2007) Stigma consciousness and perceived stereotype
threat and their effects on academic performance. The University of Alabama McNair
Journal, 85-114.

Pettigrew, T. F. (1997). Generalized intergroup contact effects on prejudice. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 173-185.

Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751-783.

Pettijohn, C. E., Pettijohn, L. S. , & Taylor, A J. (2007). Does Salesperson Perception of the
Importance of Sales Skills Improve Sales Performance, Customer Orientation, Job

Satisfaction, and Organizational Commitment and Reduce Turnover? Journal of Personal
Selling & Sales Management, 27, 5-88.

Phillips, D. L., and K. J. Clancy. (1972). Some effects of “social desirability” in survey
studies. American Journal of Sociology, 7 7, 921—40.

Pinel, E. C. (1999). Stigma consciousness: The psychological legacy of social
stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 114-128.

Pinel, E. C. (2002). Stigma consciousness in intergroup contexts: The power of
conviction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 178-185.

Pinel, E. C., & Paulin, N. (2005). Stigma consciousness at work. Basic and Applied
Social Psychology, 27, 345-352.

Pingitoire, R., Dugoni, R., Tindale, S., & Spring, B. (1994). Bias against overweight job
applicants in a simulated employment interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 909-
917.

Pipes, D. (1990). The Muslims are coming! The Muslims are coming! National Review,
28-31.

Plant, E. A, & Devine, P. G. (2003). Antecedents and implications of intergroup anxiety.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 790-801.

The Pluralism Project (2004). Religious Diversity and the Workplace. Retrieved on
January 16, 2006 from <http://www.pluralism.org/research/proﬁles/display.
p11p?proﬁle=73543>.

Puhl, R., & Brownell, K. D. (2001). Bias, discrimination, and obesity. Obesity Research, 9, 788-
805.

Purdie-Vaughns, V.; Steele, C.M.; Davies, P.G.; Ditlmann, R.; Crosby, JR. (2008). Social

identity contingencies: How diversity cues signal threat or safety for African Americans
in mainstream institutions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 615-630.

139

 

Rafaeli, A. & Pratt, M. J. (1993). Tailored meaning: On the meaning and impact of
organizational dress. Academy of Management Review, 18, 32-55.

Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A S. (2002). Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data
Analysis Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rhodes, G., Halberstadt, J., & Brajkovich, G. (2001). Generalization of mere exposure
effects to averaged composite faces. Social Cognition, 19, 57-70.

Richeson, J .A, & Trawalter, S. (2005). Why do interracial interactions impair executive
function? A resource depletion account. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
88, 934-947.

Rippy, A. & Newman, E. (2006). Perceived religious discrimination and its relationship
to anxiety and paranoia among Muslim Americans. Journal of Muslim Mental Health, 1,
5-20.

Rodin, M., Price, J., Sanchez, F. and McElligot, E. (1989). Derogation, exclusion and
unfair treatment of those with social ﬂaws: controllability of minority status. Personality
and Social PsychologyBulletin, 15, 439-451.

Rothblum, E. D., Miller, C. T., & Garbutt, B. (1988). Stereotypes of obese female job
applicants. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 7, 277-283.

Sanchez, J. I. & Brock, P. 1996. Outcomes of perceived discrimination among Hispanic
employees: Is diversity management a luxury or a necessity? Academy of Management
Journal, 39, 704-719.

Schlenker, B. R., & Leary, M. R. (1982). Social anxiety and self-presentation: A
conceptualization and model. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 641-669.

Sechrist, G. B., & Stangor, C. (2001). Perceived consensus inﬂuences intergroup
behavior and stereotype accessibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80,
645-654.

Sellers, R.M., & Shelton, J .N. (2003). The role of racial identity in perceived racial
discrimination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1079-1092.

Shaheen, J. (1984). The T VArab. Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green State University
Popular Press.

Shaheen, J. G. (2003). Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood viliﬁes a people. Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science Islam: Enduring myths and changing
realities, 588, 171-193.

Sheridan, L. (2006). Islamophobia pre and post September 11th 2001. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 21, 317-336.

Sidanius, J. & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of hierarchy and
oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.

140

 

Sidanius, J. & Veniegas, R. C. (2000). Gender and race discrimination: The interactive
nature of disadvantage. In S. Oskamp, (Ed), Reducing prejudice and discrimination: 'T he
C Iaremont Symposium on Applied Social Psychology, (pp. 47-69). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Society of Human Resource Management. (1999). Religious bias in the workplace: an
employee perspective. Alexandria, VA; Society of Human Resource Management.

Society of Human Resource Management. (2001). Religion in the workplace survey.
Alexandria, VA; Society of Human Resource Management.

Srivastava, R. S. (1987). A comparative study of awareness and expression of male and
female sex trait stereotypes among majority and minority communities. Perspectives in
Psychological Researches, 10(2), 57-68.

Steele, C. M. & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test
performance of African-Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69(5),
797-811.

Stephan, W. G., 8L Stephan, C. W. (1985). Intergroup anxiety. Journal of Social Issues, 41, 157—
175.

Stewart L. D., & Perlow, R. (2001). Applicant race, job status, and racial attitude as
predictors of employment discrimination. Journal of Business and Psychology, 16, 259-
275.

Stone, E. F., Stone, D. L., & Dipboye, R. L. (1992). Stigrnas in organizations: Race,
handicaps, and physical unattractiveness. In K. Kelley (Ed), Issues, theory, and research
in industrial/organizational psychology (pp. 385—457). New York: Elsevier.

Swanger, N. (2006). Visible Body Modiﬁcation (VBM): Evidence from Human Resource
Managers and Recruiters and the Effects on Employment. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 25, 154-158.

Taj fel, H. (1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223, 96-
102.

Taj fel, H., (1981). Human groups and social categories:Studies in social psychology.
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Turner, J .C. and Oakes, P.J., (1989). Self-categorization theory and social inﬂuence. In P.
B. Paulus (Ed), The psychology of group inﬂuence (pp. 233—275). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.

US. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2009). Databases, tables, and calculators by subject. Retrieved
on May 3, 2009 from
<http://d_a_t_a.bls.gov/PDO/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?da_ta_tool=latest_numbers&series
_id=LASST26000003>.

US. Census Bureau (2000). The Arab Populaion: 2000. Retrieved on January 8, 2008
from < http://www.cen§us.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-23.pdf>.

141

Van Dijk, T. A. (2002). Denying Racism: Elite Discourse and Racism. In P. Essed and T.
Goldberg (Eds), Race Critical Theories (pp. 307-324). Oxford: Blackwell.

Weiner, B., Perry, R., & Magnusson, J. (1988). An attributional analysis of reactions to
stigmas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 738-748.

Weller, P., Feldman, A, & Purdam, K. (2001). Religious discrimination in England and
Wales. Home Ofﬁce Research Study 220. London: HMSO.

Wilcox, c. & Jelen. TC, (1990). Evangelicals and Political Tolerance. American Politics
Quarterly, 18, 25-46.

Wilder, D. (1978). Reduction of intergroup discrimination through individuation of the
outgroup. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36 (12), 1361—1374.

Williams, K. Y., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations:
A review of 40 years of research. In B. Staw & R. Sutton (Eds), Research in
Organizational Behavior (Vol. 20, pp. 77-140). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Word, C.O., Zanna, M.P., & Cooper, J. (1974). The Nonverbal Mediation of Self-
Fulﬁlling Prophecies in Interracial Interaction. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 10, 109-120.

Wright, S. C., Aron, A, McLaughlin-Volpe, T., & Ropp, S. A. (1997). The extended
contact effect: Knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 73-90.

Wuthnow, R. (1982). Anti-Semitism and Stereotyping. In AG. Miller (Ed), In the Eye of
The Beholder: Contemporary Issues in Stereotyping. New York: Praeger.

Women Working With Immigrant Women (2002). No Hijab is permitted here: A
study on the experiences of Muslim women wearing hijab applying for work in the
manufacturing, sales and services sectors. Retrieved on January 16, 2006 from
<http://www.settlemeﬂ.org>.

Zajonc , R. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 9, 1-27.

Zuel, C .R., Humphrey, CR. (1971). The integration of black residents in suburban
neighborhoods. Social Problems, 18, 462-474.

142

”lll'lllllﬂlllﬁllﬂlﬂllllllllﬂllllllf