2°07

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

STIGMA OF HIJABIS IN EMPLOYMENT SETTINGS AS A

FUNCTION OF JOB TYPE

presented by

Sonia S. Ghumman

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

MA degree in fiycholgfl

 

 

 

5/; Major Pro (sso/r’sE/Siéfiature
] l 90¢

Date

 

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

--o--o-a--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

 

m fifiztofi

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2/05 p:/CIRC/DateDue.indd-p.1

 

STIGMA OF HIJABIS IN EMPLOYMENT SETTINGS AS A
FUNCTION OF JOB TYPE

By

Sonia S. Ghumman

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Psychology

2006

ABSTRACT

STIGMA OF HIJABIS IN EMPLOYMENT SETTINGS AS A FUNCTION OF JOB
TYPE

By

Sonia S. Ghumman

This study examines the perceptions that Muslim women who don the hijab (head scarf)
have when applying for work. This study particularly focuses on whether Hijabis employ
disengagement and disidentification prior to selection procedures (not applying for work
and having low expectations to receive interviews or job offers) for certain job types
(occupations that involve high public contact and those which deal with security). This
study also investigates how certain factors (job status, stereotype internalization, group
identification) and stable individual differences (optimism, internal locus of control) can
serve as moderators for Hijabis from using disengagement/ disidenitification. Results
indicate that Hijabis are more likely to employ certain disengagement/ disidentification
tactics for high public contact occupations than low public contact occupations (having
low expectations to receive interviews or job offers), but not necessarily for security-
related occupations over non-security related occupations. Also, job status, negative

stereotype internalization, and membership self-esteem moderate this relationship.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I credit my dissertation committee (Linda Jackson, Ann Marie Ryan, and Fred Oswald)
for helping me with this accomplishment. Their training has prepared me well as a researcher and
helped me become more confident about future research endeavors.

I am especially grateful to Linda Jackson for her endless guidance, support, and
encouragement through the whole thesis process. I could have not had chosen a better mentor to
motivate me and push me to strive for better. I would also like to thank Ann Marie Ryan for
allowing me to use her website to conduct my research study and serving as a voice on my
committee. Her valuable feedback was much appreciated for the betterment of my thesis. I would
also like to thank Fred Oswald for providing me with critical advice on measurement issues
concerning my thesis as well as taking the time out to make sure I was actually doing them
correctly.

I also thank my peers for providing general encouragement and advice during my
graduate experience and their willingness to provide help when it was needed. In particular, I
would like to thank Christopher Barnes, Hannah Nguyen, Brian Kim, Gordon Schmidt, Guihyun
Park, Nao Hagiwara, and Smriti Shivpuri for being sources of friendship that have helped to
make life as a graduate student bearable. I am blessed to have the support of faculty and peers at
Michigan State.

I would also like to make a special acknowledgement for my Hijabi friends, Mazna
Ahmad, Fahima Ahmad, and Robina Iqbal, who inspired me to conduct this research through the
concerns they expressed about Islam, the Hijab, and their life as Muslim Americans. I admire
their choice to express their freedom of religion, and this thesis is a product of their struggle.

Finally, I offer my deepest thanks to Ami and Abu, who I owe all my achievements too,
and my two brothers, Ahmad and Muhammad, for all the wonderful moments in my life. They

can finally stop asking, “When are you going to be done ?”.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. vi
LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ x
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
Discrimination Against Muslims ........................................................................................ l
Hijabis As Stigmatized Individuals .................................................................................... 5
Disengagernent and Disidentification ................................................................................. 6
Discrimination As a Function of Job Type ......................................................................... 8
Job Status as a Moderator ................................................................................................. 11
Stereotype Internalization ................................................................................................. 13
Hijabis and Group Identification ...................................................................................... 15
Optimism and Locus of Control ....................................................................................... 18
METHOD ......................................................................................................................... 22
Partcipants ......................................................................................................................... 22
Pilot Testing ...................................................................................................................... 23
Procedure .......................................................................................................................... 24
Measures ........................................................................................................................... 25
Debriefing ......................................................................................................................... 28
RESULTS ......................................................................................................................... 29
Reliability of Measures ..................................................................................................... 29
Demographics ................................................................................................................... 33
Manipulation Check .......................................................................................................... 40
Hypothesis 1 ...................................................................................................................... 42
Hypothesis 2 ...................................................................................................................... 45
Hypothesis 3 ...................................................................................................................... 50
Hypothesis 4 ...................................................................................................................... 54
Hypothesis 5 ...................................................................................................................... 59
Hypothesis 6 ...................................................................................................................... 62
Hypothesis 7 ...................................................................................................................... 63
Hypothesis 8 ...................................................................................................................... 69
Hypothesis 9 ...................................................................................................................... 76
Hypothesis 10.... ................................................................................................................ 77
Hypothesis ll .................................................................................................................... 79
Hypothesis 12 .................................................................................................................... 80
Qualitative Findings .......................................................................................................... 82
DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................... 88
Findings ............................................................................................................................. 89
Limitations .............. - .......................................................................................................... 98

iv

Implications and Future Research Directions ................................................................. 104

APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ 109
Appendix A: Measures ................................................................................................... 1 10
Appendix B: Online Study Protocol ............................................................................... 118
Appendix C: Job Ads ...................................................................................................... 129
Appendix D: Informed Consent ...................................................................................... 140
Appendix E: Debriefing Form ........................................................................................ 141
Appendix F: Recruitment Letters and Emails ................................................................. 142
Appendix G: Summary of Anlyses ................................................................................. 144
Appendix H: Analyses Conducted Using the Original Pilot Study Design .................... 147
Appendix 1: Select Responses for the Open-Ended Questions ....................................... 162
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 168

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics: Job Status, Public Contact, & Gender Composition of

Occupations .............................................................................................................. 24
Table 2: Experiemental Experimental Design: IV ’3, Moderators, and Dv’s .................... 25
Table 3: Descriptive Statistics, Reliability, and Correlations of Measures ...................... 32
Table 4: Sample Size by Occupation and Religious Attire ............................................... 34
Table 5: Mean Hijabi/ Non Hijabi Differences in Demographics ................................... 34
Table 6: Descriptive Results for Participant ..................................................................... 35
Table 7: Mean Hijabi/ Non Hijabi Differences in Scales ................................................ 39
Table 8: Job Status and Public Contact Ratings of Occupations ...................................... 41
Table 9: Descriptive Statistics: Job Status, Public Contact, & Gender Composition of

Occupations .............................................................................................................. 41
Table 10: Religious Attire by Public Contact MANOVA ................................................ 44
Table 11: Religious Attire by Public Contact Effect Sizes ............................................... 45
Table 12: Religious Attire by Security Condition MANOVA ......................................... 47
Table 13: Religious Attire by Security Condition Effect Sizes ........................................ 48
Table 14: Religious Attire by Security Condition MANOVA ......................................... 49
Table 15: Religious Attire by Security Condition Effect Sizes ........................................ 50

Table 16: Effects of Public Contact and Job Status on Apply, Interest, and Job Offers .. 53

Table 17: Effects of Public Contact and Negative Stereotype Intemalization on Applying
and Receiving Job Interest and Job Offers ............................................................... 57

Table 18: Effects of Public Contact and Conservative Stereotype Intemalization on
Applying and Receiving Job Interest and Job Offers ............................................... 58

Table 19: Effects of Security Condition and Negative Stereotype Intemalization on
Applying and Receiving Job Interest and Job Offers ............................................... 60

vi

 

Table 20: Effects of Security Condition and Conservative Stereotype Intemalization on
Applying and Receiving Job Interest and Job Offers ............................................... 61

Table 21: Effects of Security Condition and Negative Stereotype Intemalization on
Applying and Receiving Job Interest and Job Offers ............................................... 61

Table 22: Effects of Security Condition and Conservative Stereotype Intemalization on
Applying and Receiving Job Interest and Job Offers ............................................... 62

Table 23: Mean Hijabi/ Nonhijabi Differences on the Collective Self Esteem Scale ..... 63

Table 24: Effects of Public Contact and Membership Self Esteem on Applying and
Receiving Job Interest and Job Offers ...................................................................... 66

Table 25: Effects of Public Contact and Public Self Esteem on Applying and Receiving
Job Interest and Job Offers ....................................................................................... 67

Table 26: Effects of Public Contact and Conservative Private Self Esteem on Applying
and Receiving Job Interest and Job Offers ............................................................... 68

Table 27: Effects of Public Contact and Importance to Identity on Applying and
Receiving Job Interest and Job Offers ...................................................................... 68

Table 28: Effects of Security Condition and Membership Self Esteem on Applying and
Receiving Job Interest and Job Offers ...................................................................... 70

Table 29: Effects of Security Condition and Public Self Esteem on Applying and
Receiving Job Interest and Job Offers ...................................................................... 71

Table 30: Effects of Security Condition and Private Self Esteem on Applying and
Receiving Job Interest and Job Offers ...................................................................... 71

Table 31: Effects of Security Condition and Importance to Identity on Applying and
Receiving Job Interest and Job Offers ...................................................................... 72

Table 32: Effects of Security Condition and Membership Self Esteem on Applying and
Receiving Job Interest and Job Offers ...................................................................... 72

Table 33: Effects of Security Condition and Public Self Esteem on Applying and
Receiving Job Interest and Job Offers ...................................................................... 73

Table 34: Effects of Security Condition and Private Self Esteem on Applying and
Receiving Job Interest and Job Offers ...................................................................... 73

Table 35: Effects of Security Condition and Importance to Identity on Applying and
Receiving Job Interest and Job Offers ...................................................................... 74

vii

Table 36: Effects of Public Contact and Optimism on Applying and Receiving Job

Interest and Job Offers .............................................................................................. 76
Table 37: Effects of Security Condition and Optimism on Applying and Receiving Job
Interest and Job Offers .............................................................................................. 78
Table 38: Effects of Security Condition and Optimism on Applying and Receiving Job
Interest and Job Offers .............................................................................................. 78
Table 39: Effects of Public Contact and Locus of Control on Applying and Receiving Job
Interest and Job Offers .............................................................................................. 80
Table 40: Effects of Security Condition and Locus of Control on Applying and Receiving
Job Interest and Job Offers ....................................................................................... 81
Table 41: Effects of Security Condition and Locus of Control on Applying and Receiving
Job Interest and Job Offers ....................................................................................... 82
Table 42: Religious Attire by Public Contact MANOVA .............................................. 148
Table 43: Religious Attire by Public Contact Effect Sizes ............................................. 149

Table 44: Effects of Public Contact and Job Status on Apply, Interest, and Job Offers 150

Table 45: Effects of Public Contact and Negative Stereotype Intemalization on Applying
and Receiving Job Interest and Job Offers ............................................................. 152

Table 46: Effects of Public Contact and Conservative Stereotype Intemalization on
Applying and Receiving Job Interest and Job Offers ............................................. 153

Table 47: Effects of Public Contact and Membership Self Esteem on Applying and
Receiving Job Interest and Job Offers .................................................................... 155

Table 48: Effects of Public Contact and Public Self Esteem on Applying and Receiving
Job Interest and Job Offers ..................................................................................... 156

Table 49: Effects of Public Contact and Conservative Private Self Esteem on Applying
and Receiving Job Interest and Job Offers ............................................................. 157

Table 50: Effects of Public Contact and Importance to Identity on Applying and
Receiving Job Interest and Job Offers .................................................................... 158

Table 51: Effects of Public Contact and Optimism on Applying and Receiving Job
Interest and Job Offers ............................................................................................ 160

viii

Table 52: Effects of Public Contact and Locus of Control on Applying and Receiving Job
Interest and Job Offers ............................................................................................ 161

ix

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Interaction between public contact and job status on expectations to receive
interviews (interest) for Hijabis. ............................................................................... 52

Figure 2: Interaction between public contact and stereotype internalization to apply
(apply) for Hijabis ..................................................................................................... 58

Figure 3: Interaction between public contact and membership self esteem on
expectations to receive interviews or calls back for the job (interest) for Hijabis... 67

Figure 4: Interaction between security condition and importance to identity on intentions
to apply for the job (apply) for Hijabis ..................................................................... 75

Figure 5: Interaction between public contact and job status on intentions to apply (apply)
for Hijabis ............................................................................................................... 150

Figure 6: Interaction between public contact and stereotype internalization to apply
(apply) for Hijabis ................................................................................................... 153

Figure 7: Interaction between public contact and membership self esteem on expectations
to receive interviews or calls back for the job (interest) for Hijabis ....................... 155

Figure 8: Interaction between public contact and private self esteem on expectations to
receive interviews or calls back for the job (interest) for Hijabis ........................... 157

Figure 9: Interaction between public contact and importance to identity on expectations to
receive interviews or calls back for the job (interest) for Hijabis ........................... 159

INTRODUCTION

According to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, employment discrimination
based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin is prohibited (Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, 2001 ). Any form of these types of discrimination is illegal in
all areas of employment; including recruitment, hiring, and promotion. But despite this
law, thousands of complaints are reported every year alleging violation of these codes.
One of these forms of discrimination is that of religion. Although Title VII requires an
employer to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of employees or prospective
employees, there are still a vast number of religious-based complaints filed every year.
Last year alone, there were 2,466 such complaints (Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, 2005) ranging fiom the failure of the employer to provide leave for
religious Observances to not allowing a time and place to pray.

Another example of an employer’s failure to accommodate religious practices is by
not letting employees wear religious attire (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,
2005). The primary focus of this research is to examine some of the perceptions that
minorities who wear religious attire or more specifically, Muslim women who wear the
hijab (head scarf), hold during job selection procedures. This study addresses Hijabis’
(Muslim women who wear the Hijab) likelihood to apply for and to expect to receive
work compared to non-Hijabis for certain job types (occupations that involve high public
contact and those which deal with security).

Discrimination against Muslims
Before explaining the dilemma that Hijabis face in the workplace, it is necessary to

understand the issues concerning their general group, Muslims. There are many

psychological explanations as to why Muslims have become targets of discrimination.
Social categorization theory suggests that people have a tendency to place others into
ingroups and outgroups - categories of “us” and “them” (Oakes, Haslam, & Turner,
1994). As a result of this social categorization process, prejudice and discrimination
might occur. 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 (Taj fel, 1981). Feelings of prejudice
can also be created when the ingroup perceives threats from the ougroup, such as when
its resources are threatened. To cope with this threat, ingroup bias occurs. This involves
the inflation of positive feelings towards the ingroup and derogation of the outgroup by
directing anger, fear, and anxiety towards outgroup members. This is especially likely
when groups are in competition for limited resources or are under some type of external
threat (Crocker et al., 1987).

The September 11th attack is a prime example of a direct threat to Americans that is
attributed to Muslims. Many Americans lost their sense of personal security and safety
when thousands of lives were taken and the American sense of invulnerability was
destroyed. To respond to this threat, prejudice and discrimination against Muslims in the
United States have increased dramatically ever since the September 11, 2001 attacks. For
instance, Arab-looking men have been removed from airplanes without just cause, out of
fear they might be terrorists. Women in headscarves, indicative of religious affiliation,
have been verbally assaulted and insulted, and mosques have been sprayed with graffiti
and bullets (CNN News, 2001). In a recent study measuring prejudiced attitudes, people

showed higher feelings of prejudice toward Arab-Americans than towards any other

ethnic group, including Afi'ican-Americans, Asian-Americans, and Hispanic-Americans
(Bushman & Bonacci, 2004).

Discrimination against Muslims can also be observed in the work setting. These
days, when employers recognize job applicants as Muslims, either by an Islamic name or
by their Arabic appearance, they may immediately identify them as an outgroup.
Muslims, as an outgroup, may then be automatically associated with terrorists, triggering
the perception of threat (Bushman & Bonacci, 2004). In order to protect their self esteem
from this threat and regain a sense of control, employers may discriminate against
Muslims (outgroup) and thus engage in unfair hiring tactics (discrimination).

Work place discrimination against Muslims is evident in the reports of the US.
Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC). In the period alone between
September 11 attacks and May 7, 2002, EEOC (2003) reports that 497 claims were filed
alleging workplace discrimination on the basis of being Muslim. The number for this
same period in the prior year was 193, yielding a difference that represents a rise of 153
percent, while numbers for other religions have held steady during that same time fi'arne.
This number has risen to over a thousand in the past three years, a rather sharp increase
fi'om the pre-September ll era (Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, 2004). The
EEOC calls these discriminatory labor practices ‘backlash discrimination.’ The largest
categories of these ‘backlash discrimination’ complaints usually pertain to bias acted out
against Muslim employees by non-Muslim employers using harassment or discharge
(Law.com, 2002). To give some examples of backlash discrimination, the following are

questions posted on the EEOC website by Muslim workers concerning discrimination

they have faced in the aftermath of 9/11 (Equal Opportunity Employment Commission,

2002)

“I am a South Asian woman from Bangladesh. I applied for a job at a bakery and
had a phone interview with the manager. She seemed to like me a lot and she
offered me the job over the phone. When I came in to work the first day, she
appeared to be startled by my appearance. I have dark skin and wear a hijab. She
brusquely stated that she had found someone "better suited to the job" and sent me
home. I don't know what to do about this.”

“I am an Arab American man and have been a salesman at a large car retailer for
five years. After September 11, my coworkers stopped talking to me, and there
has been a lot of tension. One coworker started calling me names like "camel
jockey" and "the local terrorist." I used to have a good relationship with my
coworkers and enjoyed my job, but now I dread coming to work each day. What
can I do about my situation?”

In addition, other lawsuits that have been filed include one against the New York

Plaza hotel and the Fairnount Hotel management for discriminating against Muslims,

Arab, and South Asian employees by calling them “terrorist,” “ taliban” and “dumb
Muslim,” and writing “Osama” and “Taliban” instead of the employees’ actual names on
key holders. In another case, a seafood restaurant fired their general store manager after
speculating that the manager’s Egyptian name and appearance were the reason for the
restaurants decline in earnings since 9/11 (USA Today, 2005). These reports represent
just a few of the claims that have been filed alleging backlash discrimination.

Despite these reports, there is still a dearth of research examining prejudice and
discrimination towards Muslims in the employment context in the United States today.
Even fewer studies have addressed issues of Muslim women and their occupational
status. This study serves to partially fill that void by addressing the perceptions of

Muslim women who don the hijab in the employment arena.

Hijabis as Stigmatized Individuals

Hijabis can be readily identified as a stigmatized group. Stigrnatized individuals are
defined as individuals who are rejected interpersonally, and whose social identity is
devalued (Crocker, Major, & Steele, 1998). This is because Hijabis can easily be
identified as Muslims, already described above as a stigmatized outgroup in the US.
today. Being categorized as an outgroup, Hijabis are subjected to the same sorts of
negative stereotypes as other Muslims. Even though Muslim females are stereotypically
seen as docile, submissive, sexually chaste, religiously conservative, exotic, and
oppressed (Cole & Ahmadi, 2003), while Muslim males are stereotypically seen as being
aggressive, belligerent, and hostile (Srivastava, 1987), it should be noted that Muslim
women are not free of the common Muslim stereotypes, as Muslims in general are
portrayed as evil, barbaric, backwards, terrorists, religious fanatics, and uncivilized
(Asani, 2003; Shaheen, 2003). There is no research that has quantitatively attempted to
separate the stereotypes but as a result of these stereotypes, Hijabis also become targets
of discriminatory practices.

In the legal arena, a variety of cases concerning Hijabis’ right to wear religious
attire in the workplace have already been seen: by a policewoman in Pennsylvania who
was barred from wearing hijab on the job, by an 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).

In a community-based action research study done of Hij abis applying for work in
Canada, it was shown that women who wear the hijab do experience barriers and

discrimination when applying for work within the manufacturing, sales and service

sectors (WW IW, 2002). Hijabis were often given incorrect information regarding job
availability, denied jobs, asked to remove their hij ab, harassed in the workplace, and fired
from 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 hij ab while applying
for work, out of which forty percent were told that they must take off their hijab if they
wanted the job (WW IW , 2002). In addition, 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. France has passed a
law which bans religious symbols and clothing including not only Muslim head scarves,
but also Jewish skullcaps, Sikh turbans, and large Christian crosses in public schools. For
many Hijabis this situation, along with post 9/11 attitudes and the current discriminatory
practices being used against them, has come as a sign that their right to wear hijab is
under attack and is not acceptable in the public domain. Consequently, it is possible to
believe that Hijabis may now tend to View themselves as stigmatized.
Disidentification and Disengagement

One way in which Hijabis can cope with their stigma is explained by

disengagement and disidentification (Crocker, Major, & Steele, 1998; Tesser, 1999).
Disengagement and disidentification are traditionally treated as synonomous constructs
(Osborne, 1995, 1997; Griffin, 2002), but are described separately as processes here to
give a deeper understanding of the construct. In the process of disengagement,
stigmatized individuals disengage their self-esteem from the Opinion of others. This

process usually occurs when stigmatized individuals become aware of their devalued

social identity in a particular context, or when they perceive that others are prejudiced
against them (Tesser, 1999).

Disengagement is followed by disidentification, a process by which the disengaged
individual reduces the degree to which his or her sense of worth is associated with a
particular domain by removing himself or herself from that domain. Another negative
consequence of disengagement is the weakening of the stigmatized individual’s
motivation to achieve in the particular context in which their social identity is devalued —
such as the employment context. This lack of motivation to achieve in a particular
domain results in the belief that certain goals are unattainable, and in the interest of
preserving stigmatized individuals’ self-esteem, these goals become devalued.

In terms of attributions that preserve self-esteem, there is a dual purpose here:
when a stigmatized individual does not reach his or her goal (of employment or
otherwise), that individual can rationalize that (a) the goal was not valuable anyway and
(b) they purposefully did not take actions that would have increased the likelihood of
obtaining the goal. This sort of thinking and subsequent behavior can lead to systematic
group differences in the level and types of aspirations and accomplishments of
stigmatized individuals compared to the nonstigmatized in that domain, even when such
individuals’ native abilities and potential do not support these differences (Crocker,
Major, & Steele, 1998).

Although there is no conclusive evidence that hijabis have disidentified with the
employment context, due to the lack of research and information available concerning
this matter, the disengagement and disidentification hypothesis ties in well with the

experiences of Hijabis. Being aware of the negative workplace experiences of fellow

Muslims and of their own past (WWIW, 2002), Hijabis may believe that employers are
biased against them. As a result, Hij abis may anticipate negative outcomes for themselves
in the employment context. These negative expectations may lead to psychological
disengagement and eventually to disidentification with this context. Thus, for example,
Hijabis might decide not to apply for work in a particular domain (disidentification) in
order to protect their self esteem from the fear of rejection during hiring practices
(disengagement). Consequently, there will be fewer Hijabis working in that domain.
Because of the self-fulfilling nature by which discrimination and blocked opportunities in
a particular domain produce decreased motivation to achieve in that domain, even fewer
Hijabis will be represented in the workforce. In the long run, this situation might
eventually come to be misconstrued as reflecting a lack of ability and interest among
Hijabis and continue to perpetuate the stereotype of Muslims, rather than being the result
of perceived discrimination against Hijabis by Hij abis.
Discrimination as a Function of Job Type

The author of this study suspects that discrimination against Hijabis may be more
acute for some types of jobs than for others. Previous research shows that workplace
discrimination differs for certain people as a function of job type. For gender, Cash,
Gillen, and Burn (197 7) found that evaluators tend to rate attractive or more feminine
women more favorably for female-type and neutral jobs than unattractive women.
However, raters judged attractive women less favorably for traditional male jobs than
unattractive women. In another study, it was shown that attractive women were more
likely than either men or unattractive women to be hired for clerical positions but not for

masculine type positions that required decision making or managerial skills (Heilman &

Sauwatari, 1979). Similarly, attractive women were not considered fit for promotions to
masculine positions, but were more likely to be considered for promotions for clerical or
feminine positions (Heilman & Stopeck, 1985).

Discriminatory practices have also been found between job type and race. Stewart
and Perlow (2001) found that evaluators who had negative attitudes toward Blacks had
less confidence in their decision to hire Blacks than Whites for high status jobs,
compared to evaluators with positive attitudes toward Blacks. However, this lack of
confidence was not apparent when the evaluators were making decisions to hire Blacks
over Whites in low status jobs.

The same reasoning can be applied to understand discrimination against religious
groups. In one of the very few studies dealing with religious based discrimination against
Muslims in an employment setting, Muslim applicants were among the lowest ranked
applicants for a security guard position and were less likely than non-Muslim applicants
to receive invitations to interviews for the position (Mansouri & Perlow, 2005). This
degree of difference in the evaluators’ judgments of Muslims and non-Muslims was not
as large for a non-security position (shipping, receiving and traffic clerk) as it was for the
security-related job (security guard). This finding suggests that evaluators consider
religion and job type as factors when evaluating candidates for job positions.

Mansouri and Perlow (2005) also found that evaluators selectively applied
information when evaluating Muslims that they didn’t apply while considering non-
Muslim applicants. For example, evaluators judged Muslims as less trustworthy than

non—Muslims but did not consider trustworthiness to the same extent that they did for

Muslim applicants when evaluating non-Muslim job applicants. This selective application
of information illustrates discrimination based on religious membership.

Based on these findings, it can be expected that Muslims might be disadvantaged
compared to non-Muslims when they apply for certain job types. This is even more so for
Hijabis, whose identity as Muslims is more salient than other Muslims, as their religious
attire is a dead giveaway as to the faith they possess, making them even more susceptible
to stereotypes associated with Muslims. Jones and colleagues (1984) found that
individuals with concealable stigma face less prejudice and have fewer negative
interactions than those with nonconcealable stigrnas. Thus, the visibility of the hij ab plays
a central role in producing the negative social interactions that Hij abis must endure, even
more so than other Muslims.

It is believed that certain work domains, those which involve high public contact,
will be considered by Hijabis as occupations in which they are more likely to experience
discrimination than other job types. Knowing this, Hijabis might try to reduce their risk
of disappointment by being less likely to pursue certain job types (disidentification).
Thus, this study proposes that Hijabis will be more likely to disengage and disidentify for
occupations which require high public contact.

HYPOTHESIS 1:

Hijabis will have lower intentions than non-Hijabis (a) to apply for and have

lower expectations of (b) receiving interviews or (c) getting job oflers for

occupations that require high public contact, than occupations that require low

public contact.

10

Similarly in line with Mansouri and Perlow’ s (2005) study in which Muslim
applicants were among the lowest ranked applicants for a security guard position, it is
expected that Hijabis will be less likely to apply for security-based positions or ones that
concern public safety in general. This is because stereotypes about Muslims usually place
them in categories of terrorists (Shaheen, 1984: Siam ,1993). Being aware of these
stereotypes and assuming that employers hold such attitudes towards them as well,
Hijabis know that their likelihood of receiving security-related jobs, which in essence
require serving the public good, will be low and will try to avoid rejection by not
applying for such occupations (disidentification).

HYPOTHESIS 2:

Hijabis will have lower intentions than non-Hijabis (a) to apply for and lower

expectations of (b) receiving interviews or (c) getting job oflers for security-

related occupations than non-security related occupations.
Job Status as a Moderator

For exploratogg purposes, this study will also assess how job status operates in

relation to Hijabi’s likelihood to apply for jobs. This study proposes that in the case of
high status occupations, high public contact will not deter Hijabis from applying for these
jobs. This is because jobs of high status, or jobs concerning professionals (e.g. doctors,
lawyers), usually require higher education as credentials (O*NET, 2006). Higher
education, for the most part, implies hard work and dedication as much time and effort
needs to be expended for this criterion. So, to be even considered qualified for some jobs
of such high status, one must be able to forgo hurdles (e.g., graduate school, selection

process, years of commitment). If a Hijabi becomes qualified for a high status job, it

11

means that she has already went through the barriers of obtaining the credentials required
for jobs of high status, even if she believes that the odds are stacked against her from
actually getting the job due to discrimination. This dilemma will create dissonance.

According to cognitive dissonance theory, there is a tendency for individuals to seek
consistency among their cognitions (i.e., attitude, beliefs, values) (F estinger, 1957).
When there is an inconsistency among cognitions, such as when an individual believes
one thing (attitude) but then acts in a different way from what she believes (behavior),
cognitive dissonance occurs. To reduce this dissonance between attitude and behavior,
something must change; the individual must either obtain new beliefs or modify existing
beliefs. In the case of a discrepancy between attitudes and behavior, it is most likely that
the attitude will change to accommodate the behavior to eliminate the dissonance
(Festinger, 1957).

In line with this theory, the Hijabi, having already put in all the time commitment
and effort to become qualified for a high status job, will face cognitive dissonance with
the belief that she will not get the job due to her religious attire due to discrimination.
Because the behavior (time commitment) can no longer be changed, as it has already
happened, the Hijabi will instead change her belief. Her new attitude toward applying for
work and expectations for getting job offers will be more positive, in that she will come
to believe that she can get the job and thus will be willing to apply for the job even if it
requires high public contact or has a potential for discrimination. This hypothesis is being
done for exploratory purposes only, because some may argue that the other likely change
in attitude will be however, for the Hijabi’s to devalue the job. Therefore, the effect of

job status as a moderating role will be explored.

12

HYPOTHESIS 3: Job status moderates the relationship between public contact and
intentions (a) to apply for and expectations of (b) receiving interviews or (c) getting job
offers for Hijabis such that:
a) Hijabis will be more likely to apply for high public contact occupations in high
status occupations than in low status occupations.
b) For low status occupations, Hijabis will be less likely to apply for high public
contact occupations than low public contact occupations.
Stereoggpe Intemalization
Discounting stereotypes of one’s social group can also serve as a moderator to
prevent disengagement and disidentification (Kaiser & Major, 2004; Major et al., 2003).
This means that the individual does not buy into the stereotypical attributes of his or her
social group, such as inferiority or laziness, or in the case of a Hijabi, the idea that she
will not get the job due to her religious attire. It is important to note here, that there is a
distinction here between being aware of the stereotypes of one’s group and actually
internalizing them. Even when the individual is aware of the consensual negative
stereotypes against their group, it does not necessarily imply that he/ she buys into
(intemalizes) the stereotypes. When one intemalizes the stereotype, the person comes to
believe that the stereotype is not only reflective of one’s group, but him/ herself as well.
By not internalizing the stereotypes of one’s group, an individual can discount him
or herself from being affected by the stereotype even if the individual realizes that others
may hold the stereotype, because he/ she will view the stereotypes as inaccurate
information about one’s self (Major et al., 2003). However, internalizing stereotypes

about one’s group counteracts this. The individual will come to attribute the failures of

13

one’s social group to oneself, and for him/ herself for being a part of it. As a result, the
target will come to believe that prejudice and negative treatment towards oneself from
others is justified. Another term for this attribution is justifiable differential treatment
(Major et al., 2003). Justifiable differential treatment causes targets to lose the self
protective properties sometimes associated with attributions to discrimination and causes
the target to become more vulnerable to perceived prejudice against the ingroup, and
eventually to engage in disengagement] disidentification tactics.

Thus, if a Hijabi intemalizes the stereotypes about Muslims it will affect her
perception of the likelihood of getting off-limit jobs (high-public contact & security-
related occupations), she will be less likely to believe she can obtain those types of jobs
and will therefore not attempt to apply for them (disidentification). However, if the Hijabi
does not internalize the stereotypes she will be willing to believe that even off-limit jobs
are attainable, and will be willing to apply for them. So, the magnitude to which Hijabis
internalize the stereotypes moderates the likelihood of them applying for or expecting to
get job offers or to receive interviews for occupations that require high public contact or
jobs that are security related.

HYPOTHESIS 4:
Negative stereotype internalization moderates the relationship between the
amount of public contact required in an occupation and intentions (a) to apply for
and expectations of (b) receiving interviews or (c) getting job oflers for Hijabis
such that Hijabis who do not internalize the negative stereotypes of their Muslim
identity will be more likely to apply for high public contact occupations than

Hijabis who internalize the stereotypes.

14

HYPOTHESIS 5:

Negative stereotype internalization moderates the relationship between gen—rig»;

relategl occupations and intentions (a) to apply for and expectations of (b)

receiving interviews or (c) getting job oflers for Hijabis such that Hijabis who do

not internalize the negative stereotypes of their Muslim identity will be more likely

to apply for security-related occupations than Hijabis who internalize the

stereotypes.
Hijabis and Group Identification

Disengagement and disidentification also depend on whether the target perceives
the stigma to be a threat to personal identity or whether it is a threat to his/ her social
identity. According to Major et a1. (2003), personal identity “refers to a person’s sense of
his or her unique self.” This can be described by the individual’s traits and attributes.
Personal identity can be distinguished from social identity, which “refers to the self
derived membership in social categories or groups, and which is shared to some extent
with others” (Major et al., 2003). The two are interrelated in that social identity has been
considered a subsystem of the personal self concept (Tajfel, 1972; Turner, 1982).
It is hypothesized that Hijabis are more likely to hold their Muslim social identity as

a core aspect of self than non-Hijabi Muslim women. This is because Muslim women
willing to wear the hijab are also more likely to hold their religion at heart and thus
identify strongly with their Muslim religion and heritage. According to the Quran,
Islam’s holy book, modesty in relation to the physical self means that Muslim women
should dress in clothes that do not accentuate the shape of their bodies and cover all but

their hands and faces. So following Islamic principles, a Muslim woman who chooses to

15

wear the hijab is choosing to be judged based on her character, instead of an objectified
physical characteristic. For Hijabis, modest attire is an essential part of following their
faith. In a recent news article, it was estimated that about 10 percent of the female
Muslim population nationally wears the hij ab, and nearly all of those interviewed for that
news article stressed that wearing the veil was a personal decision (Post-Gazette News,
2001). This is quite different from the coercion that Muslim women might undergo in
certain countries such as Iran and Afghanistan. The following quotes are taken from a
news article which represents what it means to be an American Muslim for most Hijabis
(Post-Gazette News, 2001).

“America is one of the best places on Earth to follow our religion, because we are
free. And I feel that way, too.”

“I never want to change my values and the way I am now. I feel I want to
educate the public in what a hijab is. Women that wear the hijab in America
love to wear (it). I've never met a woman in America who didn't choose. "

"The US. is still one of the only parts of the world where I may practice my

religion, wear what I choose and be respected for my choices. To me, that is real
empowerment."

HYPOTHESIS 6:
Hijabis will have a stronger degree of group identification with their social
group (Muslims) than non-Hijabis.

Most often, discrimination is usually targeted against social identity and not the
personal identity. Perceiving one’s social identity to be the cause of prejudice protects
self esteem because when one can identify that the prejudice is a threat to social identity,
and not one’s personal self, one can shift the blame fi'om the traits and characteristics of
one’s personal self to that of others (Crocker & Major, 1989; Crocker et al., 2003).

However, when one cannot discount his or her personal identity, they will perceive their

16

personal self to be responsible for negative outcomes, resulting in lower self esteem and
negative affect. Thus, threats to social identity can affect self esteem only to the degree to
which the victim also experiences a threat to their own personal identity.

Perceiving threats to social identity rather than personal identity can also be a buffer
to engaging in disengagement/ disidentification tactics depending on the degree of
identification one has with their social group (Kaiser & Major, 2004; Major et al., 2003).
If one identifies strongly with their targeted group, as is predicted to be the case of
Hijabis, then the impact of perceived discrimination on self esteem will be higher
(Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; McCoy & Major, 2003). Negative outcomes will no longer
be related just to one’s social identity, but will be also attributed to one’s personal
identity. The more the social identity becomes a core part of one’s personal self,
prejudice against the social identity also becomes prejudice against oneself (Major et al.,
2003). This threat to the personal self eventually results in lower self esteem and
eventually, disengagement and disidentification tactics. However, if the target is
disassociated with his or her social identity, perceiving prejudice against one’s social
identity will protect personal self esteem.

So, the extent to which the Hijabi identifies with her targeted goup also serves as a
moderator between her likelihood to apply for and her expectations to receive job offers
for high-public contact or security-related jobs. Because Hijabis are predicted to
generally identify strongly with their social identity of being Muslims, Hijabis’ will tend
to perceive the stigna against other Muslims as prejudice against the self. This is because
the negative outcomes will no longer be attributed solely to their group, but will be also

attributed to them, personally (to the goup aspect of their selves). This threat to the

17

personal self will eventually result in their greater likelihood to use disengagement and
disidentification tactics for certain job types in which they anticipate discrimination.
HYPOTHESIS 7:
The degree of identification with one ’s social group (Muslim) moderates the
relationship between the amount of public contact required in an occupation and
intentions (a) to apply for and expectations of (b) receiving interviews or (c)
getting job oflers for Hijabis such that Hijabis who identijy more strongly as
Muslims will less likely to apply for high public contact occupations than Hijabis
who do not identify as strongly as Muslims.
HYPOTHESIS 8:
The degree of identification with one ’s social group (Muslim) moderates the
relationship between security-related occupations and intentions (a) to apply for
and expectations of (b) receiving interviews or (c) getting job oflers for Hijabis
such that Hijabis who identijy more strongly as Muslims will be less likely to
apply for security related occupations than Hijabis who do not identify as
strongly as Muslims.
Optimism and Locus of Control
Certain attributes of personality, like dispositional optimism and internal locus of
control, can also serve as moderators between the likelihood to apply for high public
contact and security-related occupations. These personal characteristics reduce the degree
to which the target perceives prejudice against their social identity as personally
threatening and serve as important moderators of emotional responses to stressors such as

discrimination (Kaiser, Major, & McCoy, 2004; Major et al., 2003).

18

In a study done by Kaiser and colleagues (2003), women who were dispositional
optimists or pessirnists were recruited and asked to read an article about sexism, after
which they completed measures of personal self-esteem and depressed emotions.
Optimism was found to be positively related to self esteem and negatively related to
depressed emotions. Compared to pessimists, optimists also perceived prejudice against
their goup as less personally threatening and believed they were better able to cope with
prejudice. This suggests that an optimistic person will be less likely to perceive a
negative outcome as threatening. On the other hand, a pessimistic person will appraise a
negative situation as harmfiil and will be more prone to becoming debilitated by it.

Similar to optimism, people with an internal locus of control will believe that they
can control their outcomes by their efforts and will not be limited by people’s stereotypes
of their goup. On the other hand, a person with an external locus of control will believe
that certain goals are out of his/ her reach and believe he/ she will not be able to control
other’s stereotypes towards their social identity. This is because they believe that they
can’t control their outcomes. In a post-abortion adaptation study done by Major et al.
(1998), it was found that women who had more resilient personalities (perceived control,
optimism) appraised their abortion as less stressful and had a higher self-efficacy for
coping with abortion. Other substantial evidence also shows that the perception of
perceived control and optimism contributes to positive appraisals of and better
adjustments to stressful life events (Aspinwall & Taylor, 1992; Carver et al., 1993;
Cozzarelli, 1993).

Thus, it is hypothesized that certain personality characteristics (optimism and

internal locus of control) can counter negative affect and bolster self esteem by enabling

l9

the person to be better at coping with prejudice. This suggests that Hijabis who score
more highly on either optimism or internal locus of control are less susceptible to using
disengagement/ disidentification tactics to cope with prejudice. Their personality
characteristics will serve as an important moderator in preventing a negative emotional
response to discrimination.
HYPOTHESIS 9:
@timism moderates the relationship between the amount of ablic contact
required in an occupation and intentions (a) to apply for and expectations of (b)
receiving interviews or (0) getting job ofi’ers for Hijabis such that Hijabis who
score high on optimism will more likely to apply for high public contact
occupations than Hijabis who score low on optimism.
HYPOTHESIS 10:
Optimism moderates the relationship between security-related occupations and
intentions (a) to apply for and expectations of (b) receiving interviews or (c)
getting job oflers for Hijabis such that Hijabis who score high on optimism will
be more likely to apply for security-related occupations than Hijabis who score
low on optimism.
HYPOTHESIS 11:

Locus of control moderates the relationship between the amount of mtblic contact

 

required in an occupation and intentions (a) to apply for and expectations of (b)
receiving interviews or (c) getting job offers for Hijabis such that Hijabis who
have an internal locus of control will be more likely to apply for high public

contact occupations than Hijabis who have an external locus of control.

20

HYPOTHESIS 12:
Locus of control moderates the relationship between security-related occupations
and intentions (a) to apply for and expectations of (b) receiving interviews or (c)
getting job oflers for Hijabis such that Hijabis who have an internal locus of

control will be more likely to apply for security-related occupations than Hijabis

who have an external locus of control.

21

METHOD
Participants

610 Muslim females, 337 Hijabis and 272 non-Hijabis, participated in an online
experiment. Participants were recruited through local mosques (Islamic Center of East
Lansing, Islamic center of Long Island), Muslim American organizations (Council for
American-Islamic Relations, ArabDetroit, American-Arab Anti-Discrimination
Committee, Arab American Institute Foundation), Muslim Student Associations
throughout America, and a Muslim networking website (www.naseeb.com). The
organizations were contacted through email or given a letter similar to the email in
person, asking for help concerning recruiting participants for the experiment (see
Appendix F). The organizations were asked to forward the email or letter to potential
participants or organization members.

The email or letter described the experiment and participant requirements (see
Appendix F). Recipients who fulfilled the criteria of being a Muslim female were asked
to take part in a study that examined issues that Muslim women face in the employment
context. A website link was provided in the email or letter that led the participants to the

actual online experiment. Upon logging in, participants were asked to confirm their

religion and sex. This was to assure that only Muslim female participants took part in the

study. Then, an informed consent form was shown (see Appendix D), which the
participants were required to read and agee to participate before they began the actual
experiment.

Additionally, a snowballing technique was employed to ensure an adequate sample

size. The primary investigator of this study sent fellow Muslim female friends and

22

colleagues the same email (see Appendix F) that was sent to the organizations. These
friends were expected to forward the email to their fellow Muslim fiiends and family
members.
Pilot Testing

150 Michigan State University undergaduates completed an online questionnaire
rating the job status, amount of public contact required, and gender composition of over
90 occupations (see Appendix C). From the results, I attempted to select occupations that
were low, neutral, or high in job status and low, neutral, or high in the amount of public
contact required. The original pilot study did not yield any occupations that fit the low
public contact/ low job status and high public contact/ neutral job status conditions, so
two additional occupations were picked from a secondary pilot study geared towards
finding occupations that fit these missing categories, creating a full 3 x 3 desigr (see
Table l for statistics). Only jobs that were rated neither masculine nor feminine were
used in the experiment to avoid confounding gender-linkage with other job
characteristics.

In addition to the nine jobs listed below, two security related jobs that involve
promoting public safety (security guard and flight attendant) were also used as
independent variables. These jobs were chosen based on the criteria that both of these
jobs require knowledge of public safety and security, as described in 0*NET (2006), and
are clearly recogrizable as demanding security enforcement. In total, there were a total of

eleven occupation conditions.

23

Table 1

Descriptive Statistics: Job Status. Public Contac_t, & Gender Composition of Occupations
selectedfor use in the experiment

 

 

Job Public Gender
Status Contact Composition
Occupation N Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

 

Factory Worker-Cereal Company 21 2.10 .70 1.48 .68 2.00 .78
Laundry/Dry-Cleaning Worker 150 1.83 .83 3.21 .93 2.16 .57

 

 

 

Waiter/ Waitress 150 2.33 .83 4.56 .66 2.39 .52
Cooks, Private Household 150 2.70 .87 2.13 .85 2.15 .74
Paralegal 150 3.47 .68 3.37 .68 2.12 .58
Sales Representative 150 3.02 .74 4.21 .77 1.85 .67
Graphic Designer 150 3.69 .69 2.39 .83 1.70 .69
Technical Writer 21 3.60 .51 2.76 .77 1.90 .79
Physician 150 4.59 .60 4.17 .80 1.70 .52

 

Note: Scales for job status and public contact ranged from 1 (low) to 5 (high), while the
scale for gender composition ranged from 1 (male) to 3 (female).
Procedure

Participants who logged in to the experiment website were initially asked to
indicate their religion and sex. Then, they began the experiment by reading the informed
consent form (see Appendix D), and agreeing to participate in the experiment.

Upon the start of the online experiment, participants were asked to identify
themselves as a Hijabi or not. Two goups resulted from this: a target goup (Muslim
women who wear the hij ab) and a control goup (Muslim women who do not wear the
hijab). The main reason for comparing Hijabi Muslim women to non-Hijabi Muslim
women is that this desigr reduced variance between the two goups, as the only
difference between them was the wearing of religious attire. There is a legitimate reason
to believe that along with the hijab, Muslim women also display other attributes (e. g,
race, accent, nationality, etc). By using just Muslim female participants, it was expected

that the control group and target group will both display these possible confounding

24

variables just as equally. Still, to ensure that both of these goups were actually similar,
demogaphic factors were still asked (see Appendix A).

For the online experiment, fictitious newspaper ads (see Appendix C) from each of
the eleven occupations (nine occupations for the main desigr plus two security-related
occupations) were shown online prior to having the participants fill out the actual
measures. The occupations were either low, neutral, or high on job status and low,
neutral, or high on the amount of public contact required, creating a 3 x 3 desigr, or
security-related.

Table 2 describes the experimental desigr and lists the NS, moderators, and DVs.

Table 2

Experimental Design: I V’s. Moderators, and D V’s

 

Dependent Variables
(disengagement/ disidentification

 

 

Independent Variables Moderators tactics)
Job type Job type - high/ low job status Intention to apply for job
- amount of public contact Stereotype Intemalization Expectations to receive interviews
- security/ non-security related Group identification Expectations to receive job offers
Religious attire Optimism
- Hijabi/ non-Hijabi Internal locus of control
Stimuli

Participants were randomly assigred to one of the eleven occupational conditions.
The participants were asked to read the newspaper ad imagining that they were about to
apply for the job described in the ad, for which they had all the qualifications necessary.
Upon reading the ad, participants completed the measures described in the following

section and were debriefed (see Appendix E) and informed that their responses to the

25

 

 

online experiment will be used to identify issues confionting Hijabis in the employment
arena.

Measures

Disengement and Disidenttfication. Upon reading the job ad, all participants were asked
how likely they will be to 1) apply for the job, 2) be shown interest for the job such as
receiving interviews or a call back, and to 3) get a job offer, assuming they applied for
the job in the ad and had all the qualifications for it. Each of these three DV categories
(Apply, Interest, and Offer) had two questions each, and item scale responses ranged
from 1 (very unlikely) to 7 (very likely), with lower scores reflecting greater
disengagement/ disidentification (See Appendix A).

Manipulation Checks. Participants were asked to rate the job status, the amount of public
contact required, and the gender composition of the occupation featured in the ad (See
Appendix A).

Group Identification. A modified form of the Collective Self-Esteem Scale (CSES) was

used to measure religious identification (Luhtanen & Crocker 1992). The CSES is a 16-

 

item measure assessing the degee to which individuals identify with their social goup
and if they regard their social goup positively. The CSES has 4 sub-scales: 1)
Membership esteem evaluated how worthy one is as a member of one’s social goup; 2)
Private collective self esteem measured one’s evaluation of how good one’s social group
is; 3) Public collective self esteem measured one’s evaluation of how positively their
social group is viewed by others; and 4) Importance to identity measured how important

one’s social goup membership is to one’s self concept. Item scale responses ranged from

26

1 (strongly disagee) to 7 (strongly agee), with higher scores reflecting greater collective
self-esteem.

Stereotype Intemalization. A self-stereotype measure was created consisting of 24
characteristics and traits stereotypically associated with Muslims (Kenny, 1975;
Karnalipour, 2000; Pipes, 1990); (See Appendix A). Participants were asked to rate
themselves on 7-point scales ranging from 1 (very unlike me) to 7 (very like me) on how
true each of these stereotypical characteristics were of themselves.

Optimism. An individual difference measure of optimism was also included to test
whether optimism moderates the relationship between public contact and security/ non-
security relate occupations and the likelihood of employing disengagement and
disidentification tactics (See Appendix A). To assess future dispositional expectations,
the Revised Life Orientation Test (LOT-R) was used (Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994).
This six item measure contained dispositional statements such as "In uncertain times, I
usually expect the best," which were rated on a 5-point item scale ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agee). Higher scores indicate a more optimistic outlook
on life while lower scores show a more pessimistic outlook on life.

Locus of Control. An individual difference measure of locus of control was also included
to test whether locus of control moderates the relationship between public contact and
security/ non-security relate occupations and the likelihood of employing disengagement
and disidentification tactics (See Appendix A). Locus of control was measured with
Rotter’s Locus of control scale (1966). This 24-item measure consisted of attributional
statements such as “People's misfortunes result from the mistakes they make.” Each item

requires respondents to choose which of a pair of statements is more representative of

27

them. These items were then scored with 1 for an external alternative and 0 for an
internal alternative. Scores were summed such that higher scores indicated a more
external locus of control and lower scores indicated a more internal locus Cronbach’s
alpha was .74.
Demographics. Participants were asked to indicate their age, education, marital status,
regional location, English proficiency, acculturation, work experience, annual income,
and nationality status (See Appendix A).
Open-ended Questions. At the end of the experiment, Hijabi participants (not Non-Hijabi
participants) were asked 6 extra questions to examine their perceptions of the impact of
wearing religious attire in employment contexts. Participants were asked to recall and to
write about real life incidents of work discrimination and how these incidents affected
their career aspirations (if at all) (See Appendix A).
Debriefing

After completing all the measures described above, participants were debriefed
through the use of an electronic debriefing form (see Appendix E) and informed that their
responses to the discussion questions will be used to identify issues confronting Hijabis

in the employment arena.

28

RESULTS
Reliability of measures
Disengement and Disidentification. Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to
confirm that the three DVs (apply, interest, and offer) should be considered separately.
Specifically, a three-dimensional model was compared to an alternative unidirnensional
model and to all different types of 2-dimensional alternative models that combined the

two latent factors. Results indicate that the 3-dimensional model (x2 (6, N= 599) = 14.97,

p=.02, a CFI of 1.00, and an RMSEA of .05), fit the data sigrificantly better than the
alternative 2-dimensional models. The reliability of these three DVs (apply, interest, and
offer) were .90, .95, and .98, respectively.

Group Identification. Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to see if the four-

dimension model (membership self-esteem, private self-esteem, public self esteem, and
importance to identity) was a good fit. The four-dimension model yielded a x2 (98, N:

396) = 414.35, p=.00, a CFI of .95, and an RMSEA of .09; supporting the four
dimensional nature of the scale, as stated in prior research. The overall scale had a
coefficient alpha of .85, and internal consistencies of the subscales (membership self-
esteem, private self-esteem, public self esteem, and importance to identity) were .84, .81,
.78 and .77, respectively.

Stereotype Intemalization. An exploratory factor analysis using principal axis factoring
with a varimax rotation was conducted and yielded six factors. Because various items
had cross loadings on different factors, and because some of the content differences
across the six factors were not discemable and only the first two factors seemed to make

sense content wise and accounted for the geatest proportion of variance, a second

29

exploratory factor analysis was conducted using principal axis factoring with a varimax
rotation forcing two factors. The first factor had 12 items, all representing negative
stereotypes mostly hinting at violence and being backwards (e. g. terrorist, oppressive)
and accounted for 4.68% of the total variance, The second factor had 4 items, all of
which represented stereotypes that reflected conservative attitudes (e. g. traditional,
modest) and accounted for 2.13% of the total variance. The remaining items did not load
distinctly on either of the two factors, and were therefore omitted. The negative
stereotypes and conservatism scales had Cronbach’s alphas of .78 and .73, respectively.
Optimism. A confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to see if the six-items in the

optimism scale constituted a single underlying dimension, as expected. The single factor
model yielded a x2 (9, N= 570) = 94.39, p=.00, a CFI of .93, and an RMSEA of .129.

Although the RMSEA did not meet the criteria of good fit, because the scale has been
demonstrated to be unidimensional in prior research, and the reliability of the scale was
adequate (a = .75), and the inter-item correlations were high with an average r= .34, a
single scale was created by combining (arithmetic average) the six optimism items.
Overall Scales. Table 3 shows the intercorrelations for the scales used in this study. All
of the three Dv’s (Apply, Interest, Offer) were sigrificantly correlated with one another.
Apply and Interest was sigrificantly correlated with optimism. Optimism was positively
related to three of the measures of collective self esteem (membership self esteem, public
self esteem, and private self esteem). Locus of control was negatively related to Offer,
Interest, and optimism. The four subscales of collective self esteem were sigrificantly
related to one another. Negative stereotype internalization was negatively related to

Offer and locus of control but positively related to the collective self esteem scales.

30

Conservative stereotype internalization was negatively related to optimism, and to the all

of the subscales of collective self esteem but public self esteem.

31

8. v a .a $3536 a... 28 5 22.2230 .953“. sue a... co em mEoBEmou 332.2 2...? .202

 

3.588% 94.95300 .2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. 3.9 :9 2.9 a... 3.98... 3.9 2.9 .99 8.9 a... 2.... .2 2... genius.
. .2. a... z... 8... :9 8... 9.9 8.9 8.9 .3 .2 8... 2... monsoon.“ £92.... .305.
F 3... 8... .4... 8... 39 3.9 8.. .3. a... 8.. a... E. Engagemmz
. a... 9.... 3.9 2... 2.... .3. 8... 5.. 8.. 8... a... gouging..-” 5......
P 8... ....9 2... 2... 8... s... .3 No. a: ...... 8059033..-. success...
. =9 8... .99 8... 8... 8.. a... N3 3... 5903035252-..
. 8.... .99 :9 8.9 8.. a... 3.: <2 passage 388033
. .3. 2... 8... .5 z... 2.... m... 8.3.0.4 .58....
. 4.... a... .8 a... a... 8... egos
. 8... .8 2.. 2a .3... 893A “.5.
F 8.. .2 .2 ..I..... €37.
:..~.....em9m~.>..ax:39 2:8»...
Mafigfifiau

 

 

 

 

 

n as...

32

Demo ggaphics

Although 610 participants logged onto the website, only 442 produced complete
surveys. However, not all incomplete surveys were discarded since they still contained
valuable data concerning the major IVs (intentions to apply, and expectations to receive
interviews and job offers) and DVs (religious attire and occupation). Table 4 offers a
more detailed description of the completed surveys sample size for each of the
occupations and religious attire conditions.

The mean age for the sample was 24.95, ranging from 18-58, and 55.3% of the
sample was Hijabi. 19 participants were removed fiom the data set because they were
under 18. On average, participants rated themselves as having fairly good English
speaking and writing abilities, 4.86 and 4.78 respectively, on a scale from 1-5 with 1
being poor and 5 being excellent. 87 % were either native US. citizens or naturalized,
and 96.5% of the participants had lived in US for more than 5 years. All of the
participants had completed high school or higher. The average annual self goss income
was around $20-30k, while the average goss household income was around $70-80k.
84.9% of the participants had had a year or more employment experience, and 64.7%
were currently employed at the time of their participation. 28.1% were married, out of
which only 15.9% had children. The participants came from all regions of America:
Northeast (46.1%), Midwest (17.6%), South (16.4%), California (9.7%), West (5.9%),
and the North West (2.9%). Finally, this sample was 44.1% South Asian, 20.2% Middle

Eastern, 15.4% White, 7.7% Black, 12.5% other ethnicities.

33

Table 4

Sample Size by Occupation and Religious Attire

 

 

 

 

 

 

Religious Attire
N

Occupation Hijabi NonHijabi Total
Total 337 272 609
Cook: private household 29 26 55
Factory worker: Cereal company 32 23 55
Flight attendant 25 25 50
Graphic Designer 25 26 51
Laundry/ Dry Clean Worker 31 31 62
Paralegal 39 21 6O
Physician 3 l 24 55
Sales representative 38 21 59 a
Security guard 30 26 56
Technical writer 27 27 54
Waitress 30 22 52

 

To test for sigrificant differences between Hijabis and non-Hijabis for the
demographic variables, independent samples t-tests or Pearson chi-square tests were
conducted. Results of these analyses are summarized in Table 5 for continuous data and

Table 6 for categorical data.
Table 5

Mean Hiiabi/ Non-Hijabi Diflerences in Demographics

 

 

 

Hijabi Non Hijabi

Mean
Tool Difference M SD N M SD N D-value
Age 1.46“ 25.59 7.06 214 24.13 6.00 164 0.22"
English speaking -0.02 4.85 0.39 231 4.87 0.4 190 -0.05
English writing 0.00 4.78 0.48 230 4.78 0.49 187 0.00
Stay in the US 0.09 4.85 0.46 231 4.76 0.69 190 0.16
Income self 0.00 3.23 2.52 225 3.23 2.74 186 0.00
Income House -0.77* 6.76 2.98 226 7.52 3.00 184 025"
Children -0. l 3* 1.78 0.41 231 1.91 0.29 189 -O.36"‘*
Employment
Experience 042* 4.03 1.3 231 3.62 1.32 189 0.31 **
Religious
Devotion 0.86"“ 4.27 0.72 219 3.41 0.99 174 1.01 ***

 

 

 

 

 

34

 

Table 6

Descriptive Reszilts for Pgrticipants

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

35

Questions Percent

What ethnicity do you consider yourself to be?* Total Hijabi Non HM
Hispanic 2.4 3.95 .54
Native American or Alaskan Native .5 .88 .00
East Asian 4.1 3.07 5.38
South Asian 44.1 32.02 58.60
Middle Eastern 20.2 21.93 18.28
Black/ Afiican American 7.7 10.53 4.30
White/ Caucasian/ Not of Hispanic Origin 15.4 21.49 8.06
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander .7 .44 1.08
Other 4.8 5.70 3.76
was, N= 4141= 43.48, p < .05.

What is your current nationality status?* Total Hijabi Non Hijabi
Permanent Alien 10.9 10.43 1 1.58
Temporary Alien 1.9 1.30 2.63
Native US. Citizen 65.1 70.00 58.95
Naturalized 22.1 18.26 26.84
{fig N: 420) = 6.50, ns.

How long have you lived in the United States? Total Hijabi Non Hijabi
Less than a year .9 0.43 1.58
1-2 years .2 0.00 0.53
3-4 years 2.4 1.73 3.16
5-10 years 10.0 9.96 10.00
Over 10 years 86.5 87.88 84.74
Indicate the highest level of education you have

completed?’ Total Hijabi Non Hijabi
Did not complete High School 0 0.00 0.00
High school or equivalency 5.9 5.63 6.32
Some college 19.7 21.65 17.37

2 year college degree (Associates) 13.5 14.29 12.11

4 year college degree (BA, BS) 37.9 34.63 42.11
Master’s degree 15.2 15.15 15.26
Doctoral degree or other professional degee (e. g.,

Medical, law) 7.8 8.66 6.84
was, N= 421)= 3.39, ns.

Are you currently enrolled in an academic program

(e.g. college, graduate school)?‘ Total Hijabi Non Hijabi
yes 61.4 58.01 65.26
No, but I plan to return to school 23.9 28.14 18.95
No, I am finished with school 14.7 13.85 15.79
:m, N: 421) = 4.33, ns.

What is the highest level of education you intend

to complete?" Total Hijabi Non Hijabi
Some college .3 0.50 0.00

2 year college degree (Associates) 1.9 3.52 0.00

Table 6

Descriptive Resylts for Participants (cont)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

36

Questions Percent
What is the highest level of education you intend
to complete (cont.)?* Total Hijabi Non Hijabi
4 year college degree (BA, BS) 7.2 8.54 5.63
Master’s degree 36.1 36.18 36.25
Doctoral degee or other professional degree (e.g.,
Medical, law) 54.4 51.26 58.13
*x2(4, N= 359) = 8.25, us.
What is the highest level of education your mother
has completed? * Total Hijabi Non Hijabi
Did not complete High School 11.0 14.78 6.38
High school or equivalency 20.3 21.74 18.62
Some college 12.6 12.17 13.30
2 year college degee (Associates) 9.5 9.57 9.57
4 year college degree (BA, BS) 26.7 25.65 27.66
Master’s degree 11.7 11.30 12.23
Doctoral degree or other professional degree (e.g.,
Medical, law) 8.1 4.78 12.23
33(6, N= 418) = 14.53, p <05.
What is the highest level of education your father
has completed?* Total Hijabi Non Hijabi
Did not complete High School 5.7 8.23 2.66
High school or equivalency 13.8 18.61 7.98
Some college 11.7 12.55 10.64
2 year college degree (Associates) 5.5 5.19 5.85
4 year college degee (BA, BS) 20.2 19.05 21.28
Master’s degee 22.1 19.48 25.53
Doctoral degree or other professional degree (e. g.,
Medical, law) 21.0 16.9 26.1
4 18(6, N= 419) = 20.61, p <01.
What is your gross yearly income? Total Hijabi Non Hijabi
Less than $10 41.36 38.67 44.62
$10,000-19,999 9.98 10.67 9.14
$20,000-29,999 9.49 l 1.1 1 7.53
$30,000-39,999 1 1.92 12.89 10.75
$40,000-59,999 9.00 9.33 8.60
$60,000-69,999 8.03 8.00 8.06
$70,000-79,999 2.92 3.1 1 2.69
$80,000-89,999 1.46 1.33 1.61
$90,000-99,999 1.22 0.89 1 .61
$100,000-150,000 1.95 1.33 2.69
More than 150,000 2.68 2.67 2.69
What is your total gross household income,
including all earners in your household? Total Hijabi Non Hijabi
Less than $10 3.90 4.87 2.72
$10,000—19,999 3.17 3.10 3.26
$20,000—29,999 7.56 9.29 5.43
$30,000-39,999 7.56 7.52 7.61
$40,000-49,999 9.76 9.73 9.78

Table 6

Descriptive Results for Participants (confl

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Questions Percent

What is your total gross household income,

including all earners in your household (cont£* Total Hijabi Non Hijabi
$50,000-59,999 12.93 14.60 10.87
$60,000-69,999 8.05 9.73 5.98
$70,000-79,999 9.02 8.85 9.24
$80,000-99,999 6.59 5.75 7.61
$100,000-150,000 13.41 12.39 14.67
More than 150,000 18.05 14.16 22.83
What is your current marital status?* Total Hijabi Non Hijabi
Single, never married 64.5 51.95 79.79
Married 28.1 38.10 15.96
Separated 1.4 1.73 1.06
Divorced 5.7 7.79 3.19
Widowed .2 0.43 0.00
*x2(4, N= 419) = 35.47, p < .01.

Do you have any children? Total Hijabi Non Hijabi
Yes 15.9 21.65 8.99
No 84.1 78.35 91.01
What Eion of the United States do you live in?* Total Hijabi Non Hijabi
North East 46.1 45.02 47.62
North West 2.9 3.90 1.59
Midwest 17.6 18.61 16.40
West 5.9 6.49 5.29
South 16.4 16.88 15.34
California 9.7 8.23 1 1.64
Do not live in the US 1.4 0.87 2.12
*3fl6, N= 420) = 5.15, ns.

How much work experience (of any kind) do you

have? Total Hijabi Non Hijabi
None 4.0 3.03 5.29
less than a year 11.2 8.23 14.29
1-2 years 25.2 22.51 28.57
3-5 years 29.5 32.03 26.46
5-10 years 16.4 16.88 15.87
over 10 years 13.8 17.32 9.52
Are you currently employed?* Total Hij abi Non Hijabi
Yes, full time 34.3 36.11 31.98
Yes, part time 30.4 31.48 29.07
No 35.3 32.41 38.95

5 12(2. N= 388) = 1.82, ns.

How Religious do you consider yourself to be? Total Hijabi Non Hijabi
very little/ not at all 2.0 0.00 4.60

a little 5.9 1.37 11.49
some 21.1 11.42 33.33

a lot 42.7 45.66 39.08

 

37

There was a sigrificant difference for age, t(376) = 2.17, p < .05, with Hijabis
tending to be older than Non-Hijabis. There was a sigrificant difference for employment
experience, t(418) = 3.23, p < .01, with Hijabis having higher employment experience
than Non-Hijabis. This work experience difference is likely due to the age difference
between the two goups.

Also, possibly as a result of the age differences, there was a sigrificant difference
for marital status, x2(4, N = 419) = 35.47, p > .01, with Hijabis being more likely to be
married than Non-Hijabis. Likewise, there was also sigrificant difference for having
children, t(418) = -3.57, p < .01 , with Hijabis being more likely to have children than
Non-Hijabis.

As expected, there was a sigrificant effect for religious devotion, t(391) = 9.98, p <
.01, with Hijabis being more devoted to their religion than Non-Hijabis. Not expected,
the percentage of Hijabis differed from the percentage of Non-hijabis by race, x2(8, N =
414) = 43.48, p > .05, with the non Hijabi sample having more percentage of South
Asians and a lower percentage of other minorities than the Hijabi sample. Also not
expected, there were sigrificant differences for education of mother and father, x2(6, N =
418) = 14.53, p > .05 and x2(6, N = 419) = 20.61, p > .01, respectively; with the parents
of Hijabis usually being less educated than the parents of Non-Hijabis. Perhaps the
difference in parental education level could explain why there was a sigrificant
difference for overall household income t(408) = -2.58, p < .05, with Hijabis having
lower household income than Non-Hijabis. Since these demogaphic factors were not

expected to affect the participant responses, they were not controlled for in the analyses.

38

To test for sigrificant differences between Hijabis and non-Hijabis for the moderator
variables, independent samples t-tests were conducted and effect sizes were computed.
Results of these analyses are summarized in Table 7. Hijabis had sigrificantly higher
membership self esteem, private self esteem, and importance to identity than non-Hijabis
(see page 100 for discussion). Hijabis were also sigiificantly more likely to internalize
the negative stereotypes of their identity goup, which might be a result of identifying
more with their social goup of Muslims. Hijabis and were also more likely to be
optimistic than non-Hijabis, possibly tied to the belief that God will help them and take
good care of them. On the other hand, Non-Hijabis were more likely to have an internal
locus of control than Hijabis. This might also be a result of the belief for Hijabis that God

is in control of their destiny.

Table 7

Mean Hiz'abi/ Non Hiigbi Difi’erenpfl in chlg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hijabi Non-Hijabi
Mean
T 00] difference M SD N M SD N D-value
Membership
Selesteem .791’ 5.88 .97 255 5.08 1.29 204 0.71"
Private Self
Collective Esteem .33)” 6.24 .95 256 5.91 1.10 204 032*
Self esteem Public Self
Esteem -.11 4.14 1.34 256 4.25 1.30 204 -0.08
Importance to
Identity .491” 5.51 1.20 255 5.03 1.38 203 0.38*
Conservative
Stereotype Stereotypes -.04 1.29 .49 247 1.33 .49 200 -0.07
Intemalization Negative
Stereotypes .881‘ 5.42 .99 246 4.54 1.21 200 0.81***
Optimism Optimism .971 21.85 3.65 315 20.88 3.90 254 026*
Locus of Locus of
Control Control -.99'l' 10.91 4.17 254 11.90 4.17 200 -0.24*

 

Tp < .05, * = small effect size, ** = moderate effect size, ***= large effect size

39

Manipulation Check

For each of the occupations used in the experimental desigr, participants were asked
to rate the amount of public contact required for the occupation on a scale of 1 (low) to 5
(high), the job status of the occupation on a scale fi'om 1 (low) to 5 (high), and the gender
composition of the occupation on a scale from 1 (male) to 3 (female). Table 9 shows the
statistics. For the majority of the occupations, gender composition was found to be either
neutral or female-oriented, with the exception being security guard.

Similar to the pilot study, from these statistics, an attempt was made to select
occupations that were low, neutral, or high in job status and low, neutral, or high in the
amount of public contact. It was expected that this method would verify the original 3 x 3
pilot study desigr. However, the original pilot study desigr could not be recreated. Not
only were the new occupation ratings of public contact and job status for many of the
occupations different from the original pilot study ratings, firrthermore most of the
neutral public contact and neutral job status conditions were not sigrificantly different
fi'om the low public contact and low job status occupations, making it more likely that
many of the potential findings would be more uninterpretable due to weak comparisons
among the two of the three conditions (low and neutral public contact and job status).

Thus, a new desigr was created removing all the neutral conditions (See Table 8). In
the new desigi, the low job status occupations were sigrificantly different from the high
job status occupations and the low public contact conditions were sigrificantly different
from the high public contact conditions, yielding a strong comparison between the low

and high conditions and thus, a more powerful desigr.

40

All the hypothesis will be run using the new 2x2 desigr (see Table 8) as well as the
3x3 original pilot study desigr (see Table 1). Because the main focus will be on the new
desigr, the results for all the hypotheses run using the original pilot study design will be

provided separately in Appendix H.

Table 8

Job Status and Public Contact Ratings of Occupations of the New Design

 

 

 

 

Public Contact
low high
'8 3 low Laundry Waiter
"‘ 32 high Graphic
Desigrer Physician
Table 9

Descriptive Statistics: Job Status. Pyblic Contact. & Gender Composition of Occupations

 

 

 

Job Public Gender

Status Contact Composition
Occupation N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean SD
Cook 55 2.13 0.88 55 2.22 1.01 55 2.73 0.56

FactoryWorker 55 1.98 0.91 54 1.35 0.78 55 1.82 0.82
Flight Attendant 49 2.69 0.74 49 4.45 0.82 50 2.80 0.45

Graphic

Desigrer 51 3.35 0.69 50 3.04 0.90 51 2.04 0.72
Laundry/ Dry

Clean Worker 61 1.95 0.83 61 3.02 1.28 61 2.57 0.62
Paralegal 60 3.15 0.73 60 3.27 0.97 60 2.00 0.84
Physician 56 4.00 0.87 56 4.45 0.60 56 1.68 0.64
Sales

Representative 57 2.54 0.68 58 4.36 0.81 57 2.39 0.82

Security Guard 56 2.32 0.83 55 3.53 0.98 56 1.09 0.35

Technical writer 53 3.21 0.77 53 3.02 0.89 53 2.21 0.79

Waitress 52 2.10 0.82 52 4.56 0.70 52 2.46 0.73
Note: Scales for job status and public contact ranged from 1 (low) to 5 (high), while the
scale for gender composition ranged from 1 (male) to 3 (female).

 

 

 

 

41

In addition to the desigr listed above, two security related jobs (security guard and
flight attendant) were considered to test some of the hypotheses. It was intended that
these two jobs be combined into one general security condition and then compared
against non-security occupations that were similar on job status and public contact.
However, because the amount of public contact required for security guard was
significantly lower than the amount of public contact required for a fight attendant, the
two occupations were not combined together into a one general security condition (and
they differed in gender-linkage).

Instead, both these occupations were tested separately for all the hypotheses relating
to security conditions. Flight attendant as a security occupation was compared against the
non security occupation, sales representative, as it does not differ sigrificantly from the
flight attendant occupation on the amount of public contact required and job status.
Security guard as a security occupation was compared against the non security
occupation, laundry/ dry clean worker, as it does not differ sigrificantly from the security
guard occupation on the amount of public contact required or job status.

Hypothesis 1

Hypothesis 1 suggested that in high public contact occupations, Hijabis will have
lower intentions than non-Hijabis to apply for a job, and that they will have lower
expectations of receiving interviews or getting job offers, than in low public contact
occupations. A 2 by 2 MAN OVA, treating religious attire (Hijabi versus non-Hijabi) and
public contact (high versus low) conditions as independent variables, and the variables
Apply, Interest, and Offer as dependent variables was used to conduct an omnibus test of

this hypothesis. Sigrificantly higher intentions to apply for a job (Apply) and higher

42

expectations of receiving interviews (Interest) and getting job offers (Offer) for high-
public contact occupations in non-Hijabis relative to other cells in the design would be
interpreted as support for this hypothesis.

The multivariate test results indicated that although the main effect of public
contact was not sigrificant [F (3, 213) = 1.24, p = .30], the main effect of religious attire
was sigrificant [F(2, 213) = 10.57, p = .01], meaning that Hijabis and non-Hijabis were
sigrificantly different in their intentions to apply, and expectations to receive interviews
(Interest) and getting job offers (Offer). In addition, the religious attire by public contact
interaction was marginally sigrificant [F(3, 213) = 2.14, p = .096], meaning that Hijabis
and non-Hijabis were marginally different in their intentions to apply (Apply), and
expectations to receive interviews (Interest) and getting job offers (Offer), depending on
the amount of public contact required for the occupation.

Because the multivariate main effect for religious attire was sigrificant, and the
multivariate interaction between religious attire and public contact was marginally
sigrificant, the MANOVA was followed up with a series of 2 x 2 ANOVA’s. As would
be expected given the MANOVA results, the AN OVA’s showed no sigrificant main
effect for public contact (see Table 10). However, there were sigrificant religious attire
main effects for the Interest and Offer DVs, indicating that Hijabis have lower
expectations than non-Hijabis of receiving interviews (interest) or getting job offers
(offer) than non-Hijabis (see Table 11 for the means and standard deviations). The
religious attire by public contact interaction was sigrificant for Interest and was
marginally sigrificant for Offer. The means presented in Table 10 suggest that Hijabis

had lower expectations than non-Hijabis of receiving interviews and getting job offers for

43

occupations that require high public contact than occupations that require low public

contact.

Table 10

Religious Attire by Public Contact MANO VA

 

 

 

 

 

Source df F p value
Apply 1 0.89 0.35
Interest 1 3.60 0.06
Public Contact Offer 1 2.77 0.10
Apply 1 0.03 0.87
Interest 1 13.99* 0.00
Religious Attire Offer 1 29.76* 0.00
Religious Attire Apply 1 0.73 0.39
x Public Interest 1 6.48* 0.01
Contact Offer 1 3.79" 0.05
Apply 2 l 5
Interest 215
Error Offer 215

 

 

 

* = p < .05, ** = p=.05

Effect sizes (Cohen’s d) were also computed to see if the differences presented in
the MANOVA also have practical sigrificance (Cohen, 1988). Cohen described d-values
of .2, .5, .8 to be classified as small, moderate, and large (Cohen, 1988). Table 11
presents the effect sizes between Hijabis and non-Hijabis on the 3 DVs.

Similar to the MANOVA, there was no sigrificant effect size for applying for either
of the public contact conditions (Apply) for Hijabis in comparison to non-Hijabis. There
was a marginally small effect size ((1 = -0.19) for Hijabis in comparison to non-Hijabis in
expecting interviews in the low public contact occupations (Interest), which became a
moderate sigrificant effect size ((1 = -0.75) in the high public occupations. There was a

moderate sigrificant effect size ((1 = -0.51) for Hijabis in comparison to non-Hijabis in

expecting job offers in the low public condition (Offer), which became a large effect size
((1 = -0.94) in the high public condition.

Although the results show that Hij abis are less likely to expect interest and offers
than non-Hijabis in general for both the low and high public contact conditions, it should
be noted that the effect size are large in the high public contact condition compared to the
small to moderate effect sizes displayed in the low public contact condition.

Table 11

Religious Attire by Ppblic Contact Effect Sizes

 

 

 

 

Relig'ous Attire
Hfiabi Non-Hijabi
Public Mean SD N Mean SD N D-
Contact 1 1 1 2 2 2 value
Intention to apply for job 4.06 1.21 56 3.94 1.28 57 0.10

Expectations to receive interviews 3.97 .96 56 4.15 0.88 57 -0.19
LOW Expectations to receive job offers 3.45 1.17 56 4.00 0.99 57 -0.51*

 

Intention to apply for job 3.74 1.46 61 3.86 1.41 46 -0.08
Expectations to receive interviews 3.32 1.45 61 4.24 0.84 45 -0.75"""
HIGH Expectations to receive job offers 2.88 1.36 61 4.04 1.04 45 -0.94"”"

 

 

 

 

* = moderate effect size, ** = large effect size

Overall, hypothesis 1 was partially supported. Although Hijabis do not have
sigrificantly lower intentions than non-Hijabis to apply for high public contact
occupation than low public contact occupations, Hijabis are sigrificantly less likely to
expect job interviews and offers than non-Hijabis. These differences increase as the
amount of public contact associated with the occupation increases.

Hypothesis 2

Hypothesis 2 suggested that for security-related occupations, Hijabis will have

lower intentions than non-Hijabis to apply for a job, and that they will have lower

expectations of receiving interviews or getting job offers, than non-security related

45

occupations. A 2 by 2 MANOVA, treating religious attire (Hijabi versus non-Hijabi) and
security conditions (security versus non-security) as independent variables, and the
variables Apply, Interest, and Offer as dependent variables was used to conduct an
omnibus test of this hypothesis. Sigrificantly higher intentions to apply for a job (Apply)
and higher expectations of receiving interviews (Interest) and getting job offers (Offer)
for security-related occupations in non-Hijabis relative to other cells in the desigr would
be interpreted as support for this hypothesis. The results are divided below in to the two
different security/ non-Security condition analyses that were conducted: (1) security
guard/ laundry dry clean worker and (2) flight attendant! sales representative.
Security Guard

The multivariate test results indicated that the main effects of security condition [F(3,
112) = 9.74, p = .00] and religious attire [F(3, 112) = 5.41, p = .01] were sigrificant.
However, the religious attire by security condition interaction was not sigrificant [F(3,
112) = 1.39, p = .25].

The MANOVA results showed no sigrificant interaction for religious attire by
security condition (see Table 12). However, there was a sigrificant religious attire main
effect for the Offer DV, indicating that Hijabis have lower expectations than non-Hijabis
of getting job offers (offer) than non-Hijabis (see Table 13 for the means and standard
deviations). The security condition main effects were sigrificant for the Interest and
Offer DVs and marginally sigrificant for Apply DV, indicating that both Hijabis and
non-Hijabis have lower expectations of receiving interviews (Interest) or getting job

offers (Offer) for security-related occupations than non-security-related occupations.

46

Table 12

Religious Attire bv Secyitv Condition IMANO VA

 

 

 

 

Source df F pvalue
Apply 1 0.28 0.60
Interest 1 16.18* 0.00
Security Condition Offer 1 29.10* 0.00
Apply 1 0.32 0.57
Interest 1 0.13 0.72
Religious Attire Offer 1 5.88* 0.02
Apply 1 1.13 0.29
Religious Attire x Interest 1 0.32 0.57
Security Condition Offer 1 0.41 0.53
Apply 1 14
Interest 1 14
Error Offer 1 14

 

 

 

*=p<.05

Effect sizes (Cohen’s d) were also computed to see if the differences presented in
the MAN OVA also have practical sigrificance. The means presented in Table 13
suggests that there was no sigrificant effect size for expecting interviews (Interest) for
either of the security conditions for Hijabis in comparison to non-Hijabis. For applying
(Apply), there was a non-significant effect size ((1 = 0.09) in the non-security condition
for Hijabis in comparison to non-Hijabis in applying in the security-related condition,
which became a small effect size (d = -0.30) in the security condition. Although the
results show that Hijabis are less likely expect offers (Offer) than non-Hijabis in general,
it should be noted that the effect size is moderate (-0.52) in the security-related condition

compared to the small effect size (-0.36) displayed in the non security condition.

47

Table 13

Religious Attire bv Security Congition Effect Sizes

 

Reference Group

 

 

Hijabi Non Hijabi
Security Mean SD N Mean 81) N
Status 1 1 1 2 2 2 D-value
. Intention to apply for job 3.13 1.51 30 3.56 1.26 26 ~0.30*
Security Expectations to receive
Guard interviews 3.27 1.52 30 3.06 1.38 26 0.14
(360111109 Expectations to receive
job offers 2.17 1.47 30 2.88 1.24 26 4152'"

 

Laundry/Dry Intention to apply for job 3.55 1.38 31 3.42 1.46 31 0.09
(3193111118 Expectations to receive

 

 

 

Worker interviews 4.05 .93 31 4.10 1.01 31 -0.05
(0011' Expectations to receive
Security) job offers 3.58 1.20 31 4.00 1.15 31 -0.36*

 

* = moderate effect size, *"' = large effect size

Overall, hypothesis 2.1 was not supported. Although the effect sizes reveal that the
direction hypothesized is true, the differences are not sigrificant. Even though Hijabis do
have lower intentions than non-Hijabis to apply for security-related occupation than non-
security related occupations, and are less likely to expect offers (Offer) in the security
condition than in non-security condition in comparison to non-Hijabis, the MANOVA
does not suggest a sigrificant difference between Hijabis and non-Hijabis in Apply,
Interest, and Offer depending on security condition.

Flight Attendant

The multivariate test results indicated that the main effects of security condition
[F(3, 101) = 2.57, p = .06] and religious attire [F(3, 101) = 12.05, p = .00] were
sigrificant. However, the religious attire by security condition interaction was not
sigrificant [F(3, 101) = 1.366, p = .26].

The MANOVA results showed no sigrificant interaction for religious attire by

security condition except for a marginally sigrificant interaction for the Apply DV (see

48

Table 14). However, there were sigrificant religious attire main effects for Interest and
Offer DVs, indicating that Hijabis have lower expectations than non-Hijabis of receiving
interviews (interest) or getting job offers (offer) (see Table 15 for the means and standard
deviations). The security condition main effects were sigrificant for the Apply DV,
indicating that both Hijabis and non-Hijabis have lower expectations of applying (Apply)

for non-security related occupations than security related occupations.

Table 14

Religious Attire by SeLurity Condition MANO VA

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source df F p value
Apply 1 5.45* 0.02
Interest 1 0.67* 0.42
Security Offer 1 2.60 0.1 1
Apply 1 0.21 0.65
Interest 1 10.90* 0.00
Religious Attire Offer 1 3625* 0.00
Apply 1 3.16“ 0.08
Religious Attire x Interest 1 0.03 0.85
Security Offer 1 0.75 0.39
Apply 103
Interest 103
Error Offer 103

 

* = p < .05
Effect sizes (Cohen’s d) were also computed to see if the differences presented
in the MANOVA also have practical significance. Table 15 presents the effect sizes
between Hijabis and non-Hijabis on the 3 DVs.
For applying (Apply), there was a small effect size ((1 = -0.28) in the non-security
condition for Hijabis in comparison to non-Hijabis. Surprisingly, for the security
condition, there was a small effect size, but in reverse, for the Apply Dv (d = 0.41),

suggesting that Hij abis were actually more likely to apply for the security-related

49

occupation than non-Hijabis. For both the security and non-security condition, there was
a moderate effect size between Hijabis and non-Hijabis (-O.66 & -0.64) for the Interest
DV and a large effect size (-1.30 & -l .06) for the Offer DV suggesting that Hijabis were
less likely to expect interviews and offers than non-Hij abis in general, for both the

security and non-security condition.

Table 15

Religion; Attire by Securifl Condition Eflect Sizes

 

Reference Group

 

 

 

Hijabi Non Hijabi
Mean SD N Mean SD N D-
Security Status 1 1 1 2 2 2 value
Apply for job 3.70 1.38 25 3.15 1.34 24 041*

Flight Attendant . . .
(Security) Receive mterv1ews 3.36 1.17 25 4.08 1.01 24 -0.66**

Receive job offers 2.30 1.28 25 3.83 1.06 24 .130W
Sales Apply for job 3.84 1.25 37 4.17 0.99 21 -O.28*
Representative Receive interviews 3.57 1.17 37 4.21 0.64 21 -0.64**

(”°“‘S°°““ty) Receive job offers 2.85 1.17 37 4.00 0.91 21 -1.06***
* = small effect size, ** = moderate effect size, *** = large eflbct size

 

 

 

 

 

Overall, hypothesis 2.2 was not supported. The effect sizes show that there is a
difference between Hijabis and Non-hijabis in applying, interest, and offer, and a
significant difference in applying compared to the security condition, but these
differences did not yield a sigrificant interaction between security condition and religious
attire, as revealed by the MANOVA.

Hypgthesis 3

Hypothesis 3 suggested that job status moderates the relationship between public
contact and intentions (a) to apply for and expectations of (b) receiving interviews or (c)
getting job offers for Hijabis such that Hijabis will be more likely to apply for high public

contact occupations in high status occupations than in low status occupations. For low

50

 

status occupations, Hijabis will be less likely to apply for high public contact occupations
than low public contact occupations.

One separate moderated regession analysis was conducted for each of the three
dependant variables [intentions (a) to apply for and expectations of (b) receiving
interviews or (0) getting job offers for Hijabis] (See Table 16). The demogaphics
variables of age, race, educational level of parent, goss household income, and
employment experience were controlled for in the analyses. Due to the directional nature
of the hypothesis, one-tailed tests were conducted
Apply

Hypothesis 3a was not supported (See Table 16).
Interest

Hypothesis 3b was supported. Sigrificant main effects were found for both public
contact (,6 = -.77, p < .01, one-tailed) and job status (,8 = .70, p < .01, one-tailed). A
sigrificant interaction between public contact and job status was also found (,8 = 1.36, p <
.01, one-tailed; AR2= .07, p= .00, one-tailed) (see Table 16). To detect the true nature of
the interaction, the statistically sigrificant interaction between public contact and job
status was plotted (see Figure 1). The plot shows that job status neutralizes the effect of
public contact so that Hijabis were more likely to apply for high public contact
occupations in high status jobs than in low status jobs, and were less likely to apply for
high public contact occupations than low public contact occupations for low status jobs.
Ofler

Hypothesis 3c was supported. Sigrificant main effects were found for both public

contact (,8 = -.78, p < .01, one-tailed) and job status (,6 = .64, p < .05, one-tailed). A

51

...~_d' J

sigiificant interaction between public contact and job status was also found (B = 1.86, p <
.01, one-tailed; AR2= .12, p= .00, one-tailed) (see Table 16). Inspection of the means
shows job status neutralizes the effect of public contact so that Hijabis were more likely
to expect job offers for high public contact occupations in high status jobs than in low
status jobs, and were less likely to expect job offers for high public contact occupations

than low public contact occupations for low status jobs.

 

 

2.5
l
l

 

 

Interest

. I _ _. ’ F—i—o—LowJobStatus l
l--u--High Job Status]
1 - _ .. .

0.5 —f _, 4

 

 

 

 

 

 

Low Public Contact High Public Contact

 

Figure 1. Interaction between public contact and job status on expectations to receive
interviews (interest) for Hijabis.

52

 

Table 16

Eflects at Public Contact and Job Status on Apply, Interest. and Job Oflers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hijabi
DV Name

Apply Interest Offer
Independent R2 R2 R2
variable b Total A R2 b Total A R2 b Total A R2
Step 1 0.21 0.21 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.20
Age 0.06 0.03 0.03
Race -0.13 -0.21* -0.27*
Education
Mother 0.00 0.19“ 0.08
Education Father 0.16 0.12 0.06
Income House -0.13* -0.07 0.01
Marital Status -0.21 0.15 0.20
Children 0.86 0.99“ 0.41
Employment
Experience 0.25 0.26 0.05
Step 2 0.42 0.22 0.43 0.13 0.33 0.13
Public Contact -0.59* -0.77* 078*
Job Status 133* 0.70* 0.64*
Step 3 0.43 0.00 0.50 0.07 0.45 0.12
Public Contact X
Job Status 0.34 1.36* 1.86*
Non-life“

DV Name

Apply Interest Offer
Independent R2 R2 R2
variable b Total A R2 b Total A R2 b Total A R2
Step 1 0.11 0.11 0.17 0.17 0.14 0.14
Age 0.04 0.03 -0.02
Race 0.10 -0.07 -0.04
Education
Mother -0.08 0.04 0.06
Education Father 0.17 -0.06 -0.08
Income House -0.07 0.05 0.03
Marital Status 0. 17 -0.05 0.08
Children -0.21 -0.60 -0.71
Employment
Experience -0. 12 -0.24* -0.25 *
Step 2 0.32 0.22 0.18 0.01 0.15 0.01
Public Contact -0. 10 -0.08 -0.18
Job Status 131* 0.16 0.11
Step 3
Public Contact X
Job Status -0.55 .329 0.01 0.19 .184 .003 -0.24 .156 .004
"p<.05

53

Overall, Hypothesis 3 was partially supported. The regessions show that that job
status moderates the relationship between public contact and expectations of (b) receiving
interviews or (0) getting job offers for Hijabis such that Hijabis will be more likely to
expect receiving interviews and job offers for high public contact occupations in high
status occupations than in low status occupations. For low status occupations, Hijabis will
be less likely to expect receiving interviews and job offers for high public contact
occupations than low public contact occupations. Furthermore, since the regessions
using the non-Hijabi sample did not show job status to be a sigrificant moderator of the
relationship between public contact and expectations of (b) receiving interviews or (c)
getting job offers, this shows that this sigrificant interaction is only particular to the

Hijabi population.

However, job status did not moderate the relationship between public contact and

intentions (a) to apply for Hijabis or non-Hijabis.

Hymthesis 4

Hypothesis 4 predicts that stereotype internalization moderates the relationship between
public contact and intentions (a) to apply for and expectations of (b) receiving interviews
or (0) getting job offers for Hijabis such that Hijabis who do not internalize the negative
stereotypes of their Muslim identity will be more likely to apply for high public contact
occupations than Hijabis who internalize the stereotypes.

One separate moderated regession analysis was conducted for each of the three
dependant variables [intentions (a) to apply for and expectations of (b) receiving
interviews or (c) getting job offers for Hijabis] (See Table 17). Each of these three

regessions was run twice for two subscales of the stereotype internalization measure: (1)

54

negative stereotype and (2) conservative stereotype (divided into two separate sections
below). Due to the directional nature of the hypothesis, one-tailed tests were conducted.
The demographics variables of age, race, educational level of parent, goss household
income, and employment experience were controlled for in the analyses. Due to the
directional nature of the hypothesis, one-tailed tests were conducted
Negative stereotype
Apply

Hypothesis 4.1a was supported. The main effect for negative stereotype
internalization (B = -.37, p < .05, one-tailed) was sigrificant but the main effect was not
sigrificant for public contact ([3 = -.43, ns, one-tailed), suggesting that public contact
alone did not effect Hijabis likelihood to apply for an occupation. A sigrificant
interaction between public contact and negative stereotype internalization was found ()6 =
-.74, p < .05, one-tailed; AR2= .05, p= .07, one-tailed) (see Table 17). To detect the true
nature of the interaction, the statistically sigrificant interaction between public contact
and negative stereotype internalization was plotted. Figure 2 shows that negative
stereotype internalization neutralizes the effect of public contact so that Hijabis were
more likely to apply for high public contact occupations when they do not internalize the
negative stereotypes than when they do internalize negative stereotypes, and were less
likely to apply for high public contact occupations than low public contact occupations
when they internalized the negative stereotypes.
Interest

Hypothesis 4.2b was supported. A sigrificant main effect was found for public

contact (,8 = -.69, p < .01, one-tailed), but the main effect for negative stereotype

55

internalization (B =- .24, p < .05, ns) was not. A sigrificant interaction between public
contact and negative stereotype internalization was also found (B = -.84, p < .01, one-
tailed; AR2= .07, p= .01, one—tailed) (see Table 17). Inspection of the means shows that
negative stereotype internalization moderates the effect of public contact so that Hijabis
were more likely to expect receiving interviews or call hacks for high public contact
occupations when they do not internalize the negative stereotypes than when they do
internalize negative stereotypes, and were less likely to expect receiving interviews or
call backs for high public contact occupations than low public contact occupations when
they do internalize the negative stereotypes.
Ofiler

Hypothesis 4.2c was supported. A sigiificant main effect was found for public
contact (B = -.71, p < .01, one-tailed), but the main effect for negative stereotype
internalization (B =- .18, p < .05, ns) was not. A sigrificant interaction between public
contact and negative stereotype internalization was also found (B = -.68, p < .01, one-
tailed; AR2= .05, p= .06, one-tailed) (see Table 17). Inspection of the means shows that
job status moderates the effect of public contact so that Hijabis were more likely to
expect receiving interviews or call backs for high public contact occupations when they
do not internalize the negative stereotypes than when they do internalize negative
stereotypes, and were less likely to expect receiving interviews or call hacks for high
public contact occupations than low public contact occupations when they do internalize

the negative stereotypes.

56

Table 17

Eflects ot Public Contact an_d Negative Stereotype Intern_alization on Applying and Receiving Job Interest

and Job Oflers.

 

Hijabi

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DV Name
Apply Interest Offer
Independent R2 R2 R2
variable b Total A R2 b Total A R2 b Total A R2
Step 1 0.21 0.21 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.20
Age 0.06 0.03 0.03
Race -0.13 -0.21* -0.27*
Education Mother 0.00 0.19* 0.08
Education Father 0.16 0.12 0.06
Income House -0. 13* -0.07 0.01
Marital Status -0.21 0.15 0.20
Children 0.85 0.99* 0.41
Employment
Experience 0.25 0.26 0.05
Step 2 0.28 0.07 0.39 0.09 0.29 0.09
Public Contact 043 -0.69* -0.71*
Stereotype
Intemalization -0.37* -0.23 -0. 1 8
Step 3 0.33 0.05 0.46 0.07 0.34 0.05
Public Contact X 0.34* -0.84*
Stereotype -0.68*
Intemalization
Non-Hijabi
DV Name
Apply Interest Offer
Independent R2 R2 R2
variable b Total A R2 b Total A R2 b Total A R2
Step 1 0.11 0.11 0.03 0.17 0.17 0.14 0.14
Age 0.04 -0.07 -0.02
Race 0.10 0.04 -0.04
Education Mother -0.08 -0.06 0.06
Education Father 0.17 0.05 -0.08
Income House -0.07 -0.05 0.03
Marital Status 0.17 -0.60 0.08
Children 021 -0.24* -0.71
Employment
Experience -0. 12 0.03 -0.25*
Step 2 0.11 0.00 0.18 0.01 0.16 0.02
Public Contact 007 -0.08 -0.18
Stereotype
Intemalization 0.08 -0.05 -0.09
Step 3
Public Contact X -0.35 0.13 0.02 0.05 .18 .00 0.12 .17 .01
Stereotype
Intemalization
*p<.05

57

 

l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
I
l
l
l
l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l

 

 

 

l Low Public Contact

High Public Contact

 

L____-

Intemalization

Intemalization

 

 

Figure 2. Interaction between public contact and stereotype internalization to apply

(apply) for Hijabis.

Conservative stereotype

Apply, Interest, Ofler

Hypotheses 4.2a, 4.2b, and 4.2c were not supported (see Table 18).

Table 18

Eflects 01 Public Contact and Conservative Stereotype Intemalization on Applying and

Receiving Job In_terest and Job Oflers.

l —9— Low Negative Stereotype

, - -a— - High Negative Stereotype

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DV Name

Apply Interest Offer

R2 RT R2
Step b Total A R2 b Total A R2 b Total A R2
1.Pub1ic
Contact 038 0.04 0.04 -0.73* 0.11 0.11* -0.64* 0.06 .06*
Conservative
Stereotype -0.28 -0.22 -0.03
2. Public
Contactx
Conservative
Stereotype 0.06 0.04 0.00 0.29 0.11 0.01 0.57 0.08 0.02
*=p<.05,N=77

58

Overall, Hypothesis 4 was partially supported. Stereotype internalization of the
negative stereotypes of Muslims moderates the relationship between public contact and
intentions (a) to apply for and expectations of (b) receiving interviews or (c) getting job
offers for Hijabis such that Hijabis who did not internalize the negative stereotype of their
Muslim identity to be of low status were more likely to apply and to expect receiving
interviews for high public contact occupations than Hijabis who internalized the negative
stereotypes. Hijabis who internalized the negative stereotypes of their Muslim identity to
be of low status were less likely to apply and expect receiving interviews or job offers for
high public contact occupations than low public contact occupations. Furthermore, since
the regessions using the non-Hijabi sample did not show negative stereotype
internalization to be a siglificant moderator of the relationship between public contact
and expectations of (b) receiving interviews or (c) getting job offers, this shows that this

sigrificant interaction is only particular to the Hijabi population.

Also, conservative stereotype internalization did not moderate the relationship
between public contact and intentions (a) to apply for and expectations of (b) receiving

interviews or (c) getting job offers for Hijabis.

Hypothesis 5

Hypothesis 5 suggested that stereotype internalization of Muslims moderates the
relationship between security-related occupations and intentions (a) to apply for and
expectations of (b) receiving interviews or (c) getting job offers for Hijabis such that
Hijabis who do not internalize the negative stereotypes of their Muslim identity will be
more likely to apply for security-related occupations than Hijabis who internalize the

stereotypes.

59

Each of these three regressions was run twice for two subscales of the stereotype
internalization measure: (1) negative stereotype and (2) conservative stereotype (divided
into two separate sections below). The results are divided below in to the two different
security/ non-security condition analyses that were conducted: (1) security guard/ laundry
dry clean worker and (2) flight attendant/ sales representative. Due to the directional
nature of the hypothesis, one-tailed tests were conducted.
Security Guard 1
Negative stereotype _-_
Apply, Interest, Ofler

Hypotheses 5.1.1.a, 5.1.1.b, and 5.1.1.c were not supported (see Table 19).

Table 19

Meets Q'Secyritv Condition and Negative Stereogzpe Intemalization on Applying and
Receiving Job Interest and Job Oflers.

 

 

 

 

DV Name
Apply Interest Offer
R2 R2 R2
Step b Total A R2 b Total A R2 b Total A R2
1.Security Condition 0.39 0.05 0.05 0.52 0.04 0.04 1.27* 0.17 017*
Negative Stereotype 0.32 0.05 -0.01
2. Security Condition x
Negative Stereotype 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.17 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.17 0.00

 

 

 

* = p < .05, N=50

60

Conservative stereotype

Apply, Interest, Ofler

Hypotheses 5.1 .2.a, 5.1.2.b, and 5.1.2.c were not supported (see Table 20).

Table 20

Eflects of Security Condition and Conservative Stereotype Intemalization on Applying and

Receiving Job Interest and Job foers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DV Name
Apply Interest Offer
R2 R2 R2
8th b Total A R2 b Total A R2 b Total A R2
1.Security Condition 0.30 0.02 0.02 0.51 0.04 0.04 1.28* 0.17 0.17*
Conservative
Stereotype -0.42 -0.22 -0.13
2. Security Condition x
Conservative
Stereotype -2.56 0.06 0.05 1.11 0.05 0.01 1.89 0.19 0.02
*=p<.05,N=50
F light Attendant
Negative stereotype

Apply, Interest, Ofler

Hypotheses 5.2.1.a, 5.2.1.b, and 5.2.1.c were not supported (see Table 21).

Table 21

Eflects of Security Condition and Negative Stereotype Intemalization on Applying and Receiving
Job Interest and Job Offers.

 

 

 

DV Name
Apply Interest Offer
R2 R2 A RI

Step b Total A R2 b Total R2 b Total A R2
1. Security Condition 0.22 0.03 0.03 0.10 0.02 0.02 0.80* 0.10 0.10

Negative Stereotype —0.20 -0.14 -0.10
2. Security Condition x

Negative Stereotype 0.20 0.03 0.00 -0.09 0.02 0.00 -0.55 0.13 0.04

 

 

 

*=p<.05,N=46

61

Conservative stereotype
Apply, Interest, Ofler

Hypotheses 5.2.2.a, 5.2.2.b, and 5.2.2.0 were not supported (see Table 22).

Table 22

I- - A 1

Eflects of Security Condition and Conservative Stereotype Inte. ‘ on ’ and

Receiving Job Interest and Job Oflers.

 

 

DV Name
Apply Interest Offer
R2 R2 R2
Step b Total A R2 b Total A R2 b Total A R2

 

1.SecurityCondition 0.15 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.00 0.00 079* 0.10 0.10
Conservative
Stereotype 0.43 -0.08 -0.38
2. Security Condition x
Conservative

Stereotype -0.90 0.02 0.01 1.87 0.04 0.04 -0.21 0.10 0.00

 

 

 

* = p < .05, N=46

Hypothesis 5 was not supported. Neither conservative stereotype internalization nor
negative stereotype internalization of Muslims moderates the relationship between
security-related occupations and intentions (a) to apply for and expectations of (b)
receiving interviews or (c) getting job offers for Hijabis.
mama

Hypothesis 6 suggested that Hijabis will have a stronger deg‘ee of group
identification with their social group (Muslims) than non-Hijabis.

T-tests between being a Hijabi/ non-Hijabis and degree of identification were
conducted for each of the four subscales within the collective self esteem measure to test
the hypothesis (see Table 23). Siglificant higher degree of identification for Hijabis

compared to non-Hijabis were to be interpreted as support for this hypothesis.

62

All of the subscales had Siglificant differences between Hijabis and Non-Hijabis
except for the public self-esteem scale, t(458) = -.88, ns. There was a Siglificant effect
for membership self esteem, t(457) = 7.52, p < .001 , with Hijabis receiving higher scores
than Non-Hijabis. There was a Significant effect for private self esteem, t(458) = 3.45, p <
.001, with Hijabis receiving higher scores than Non-Hijabis. There was a Siglificant
effect for Importance to identity, t(456) = 4.00, p < .001, with Hijabis receiving higher

scores than Non-Hijabis.

Table 23

Mean Hiiabi/ Nonhijabi Diflerences on the Collective Self Esteem Scale.

 

 

 

 

 

Hijabi Non-Hijabi

Collective Self Mean
Esteem Difference N M SD N M SD D-value
1 - Membership 0.79* 255 5.88 0.97 204 5.08 1.29

Self Esteem 0.71 ***
2 - Private Self 0.33* 256 6.24 0.95 204 5.91 1.1

Esteem 0.32**
3 - Public Self -0.11 256 4.14 1.34 204 4.25 1.3

Esteem -0.08
4 - Importance to 0.49* 255 5.51 1.2 203 5.03 1.38

Identity 0.38"

 

 

 

*p < .05, ** = small effect size, ***= moderate effect size

Overall, Hypothesis 6 was partially supported. Hijabis were Siglificantly more likely
to have higher membership self esteem, private self esteem, and importance to identity.
However, there was no Siglificant difference between Hijabis and non-Hijabis on public
self esteem.
Hypothesis 7

Hypothesis 7 suggested that the degee of identification with one’s social goup
(Muslim) moderates the relationship between public contact and intentions (a) to apply

for and expectations of (b) receiving interviews or (c) getting job offers for Hijabis such

63

that Hijabis who identify more strongly as Muslims will less likely to apply for high
public contact occupations than Hijabis who do not identify as strongly as Muslims.

One separate moderated regession analysis was conducted for each of the three
dependant variables [intentions (a) to apply for and expectations of (b) receiving
interviews or (c) getting job offers for Hijabis]. Each of these three regessions were run
four times for the four subscales of the goup identification (collective self esteem)
measure: (1) membership self esteem, (2) public self esteem, (3) private self esteem, and
(4) importance to identity (divided into four separate sections below). The demographics
variables of age, race, educational level of parent, goss household income, and
employment experience were controlled for in the analyses. Due to the directional nature
of the hypothesis, one-tailed tests were conducted
Membership Self Esteem
Apply
Hypothesis 7.1 .a was not supported (see Table 24).

Interest

Hypothesis 7.1.b was supported. The main effect for public contact (B = -.68, p <
.05, one-tailed) was Sigrificant but the main effect was not Siglificant for membership
self esteem (B = .00, ns, one-tailed). A Sigrificant interaction between public contact and
membership self esteem was also found (B = -1.07, p < .01, one-tailed; (AR2= .11, p=
.00, one-tailed)) (see Table 24). The statistically siglificant interaction between public
contact and membership self esteem was plotted to better interpret the results. Figure 3
Shows that membership self esteem neutralizes the effect of public contact so that Hijabis

were more likely to expect receiving interviews or call backs for high public contact

64

occupations when they scored low on membership self esteem than when they scored
high on membership self esteem, and were less likely to expect receiving interviews or
call backs for high public contact occupations than low public contact occupations when
they scored high on membership self esteem.
Ofler

Hypothesis 7.1.c was supported. The main effect for public contact (B = -.70, p <
.05, one-tailed) was Siglificant but the main effect was not Siglificant for membership
self esteem (B = .01, ns, one-tailed). A Sigrificant interaction between public contact and
membership self esteem was also found (B = -1 .31, p < .01, one-tailed; AR2= .17, p= .00,
one-tailed) (see Table 24). Inspection of the means Shows that membership self esteem
neutralizes the effect of public contact so that Hijabis were more likely to expect
receiving job offers for high public contact occupations when they scored low on
membership self esteem than when they scored high on membership self esteem, and
were less likely to expect receiving job offers for high public contact occupations than

low public contact occupations when they scored high on membership self esteem.

65

Table 24

Eflects of Public Contact and Membership Selt Esteem on Applying and ReceivingJob Interest anpl Job

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Qtii’m
Hijabi
DV Name

Apply Interest Offer
Independent b R2 b R2 b R2
variable Total A R2 Total A R2 Total A R2
Step 1 0.21 0.21 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.20
Age 0.06 0.03 0.03
Race -0.13 -0.21* -0.27*
Education
Mother 0.00 0. 19* 0.08
Education Father 0.16 0.12 0.06
Income House -0.13* -0.07 0.01
Marital Status -0.21 0.15 0.20
Children 0.85 0.99* 0.41
Employment
Experience 0.25 0.26 0.05
Step 2 0.23 0.02 0.36 0.06 0.27 0.07
Public Contact 038 -0.68* -0.70*
Membership Self
Esteem 0.09 0.00 0.01
Step 3 0.24 0.01 0.47 0.11 0.44 0.17
Public Contact X
Membership Self
Esteem 0.33 -1.07* -1.31*
Non-Hijabi

DV Name

Apply Interest Offer
Independent b R2 b R2 b R2
variable Total A R2 Total A R2 Total A R2
Step 1 0.11 0.11 0.17 0.17 0.14 0.14
Age 0.04 0.03 -0.02
Race 0.10 -0.07 -0.04
Education
Mother -0.08 0.04 0.06
Education Father 0.17 -0.06 -0.08
Income House -0.07 0.05 0.03
Marital Status 0.17 -0.05 0.08
Children -0.21 -0.60 071
Employment
Experience -0. 12 -0.24* -0.25
Step 2 0.11 0.00 0.18 0.01 0.21 0.07
Public Contact 007 -0.05 -0.05
Membership Self
Esteem 0.03 0.06 0.25
Step 3
Public Contact X
Membership Self
Esteem -0.18 0.11 0.01 0.18 .19 .01 0.31 .23 0.03
*p<.05

66

‘ _
IL
it.

 

 

2.5

 

 

 

1.5

Interest

0.5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Low Public Contact

 

High Public Contact

 

F—k— Low Membership Sew
Esteem

l
— -o- — High Membership Self. .
Esteem l I

l

 

 

L

 

 

Figure 3. Interaction between public contact and membership self esteem on
expectations to receive interviews or calls back for the job (interest) for Hijabis.

Public Self Esteem

Apply, Interest, Offer

Hypotheses 7.2.a, 7.2.b, and 7.2.b were not supported (see Table 25).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 25
Effects oflybh’c Contact andfltblic Self Esteem on Applying an_d Receiving Job Interest and Job
Oflers.
DV Name
Apply Interest Offer
R2 R2 R2

Step b Total A R2 b Total A R2 b Total A R2
1. Public

Contact -0.53* .06 .06* -0.83* 0.11 .11* -0.71* 0.07 .07*

Public

Self

Esteem -0. 18 -0.07 0.00
2. Public

Contact x

Public Self

Esteem -0.01 .06 .00 -0.14 0.12 0.01 -0. 14 0.08 0.01
* = p < .05, N=79

67

Private Self Esteem

Apply, Interest, Ofler

Hypotheses 7.3.a, 7 .3.b, and 7.3.c were not supported (see Table 26).

Table 26

Eflects at Public Contact and Conservative Private Self Esteem on Applviig and Receiving Job Interest

and Job Otters.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DV Name
Apply Interest Offer
R2 R2 R2

Step b Total A R2 b Total A R2 b Total A R2
1. Public Contact -0.43 0.06 0.06 -O.80* 0.11 .l 1* -O.75* 0.08 0.08*

Private Self Esteem -O.22 -0.05 0.11
2. Public Contact x

Private Self Esteem 0.27 0.06 0.01 -0.29 0.11 0.01 -0.55 0.11 0.03
* = p < .05, N=79

Importance to Identity

Apply, Interest, Ofler

Hypotheses 7.4.a, 7.4.b, and 7.4.c were not supported (see Table 27).

Table 27

Eflects at Public Contact and Importance to Identigv on Applying and Receiving Job Interest an_d Job

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oflers.
DV Name
Apply Interest Offer
R2 1?.2 R2
Step b Total A R2 b Total A R2 b Total A R2
1. Public Contact -0.51 0.04 0.04 -0.82* 0.11 0.11“ -0.7 1* 0.07 0.07“
Importance to
Identity 0.07 -0.01 0.03
2. Public Contact x
Importance to
Identity 0.20 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.00 -O.20 0.08 0.01
* = p < .05, N=79

68

Overall, hypothesis 7 was partially supported. Membership self esteem moderates
the relationship between public contact and expectations of (b) receiving interviews or (c)
getting job offers for Hijabis such that Hijabis who score low on membership self esteem
will be more likely to expect interviews and job offers for high public contact
occupations than hijabis who score high on membership self esteem. Hijabis who score
high on membership self esteem will be less likely to expect interviews and job offers for
high public contact occupations than low public contact occupations. Furthermore, since
the regressions using the non-Hij abi sample did not show membership self esteem to be a
significant moderator of the relationship between public contact and expectations of (b)
receiving interviews or (c) getting job offers, this shows that this significant interaction is
only particular to the Hij abi population. Membership self esteem did not, however,

moderate the relationship between public contact and (a) applying for Hij abis.

Also, public self esteem, private self esteem, and importance to identity did not
moderate the relationship between public contact and intentions (a) to apply for and
expectations of (b) receiving interviews or (c) getting job offers for Hijabis.

Hypothesis 8

Hypothesis 8 suggested that the degree of identification with one’s social group
(Muslim) moderates the relationship between security-related occupations and intentions
(a) to apply for and expectations of (b) receiving interviews or (c) getting job offers for
Hijabis such that Hijabis who identify more strongly as Muslims will be less likely to
apply for security related occupations than Hijabis who do not identify as strongly as

Muslims.

69

One separate moderated regression analysis was conducted for each of the three
dependant variables [intentions (a) to apply for and expectations of (b) receiving
interviews or (c) getting job offers for Hijabis] (See Table 28). Each of these three
regressions were run four times for the four subscales of the group identification
(collective self esteem) measure: (1) membership self esteem, (2) public self esteem, (3)
private self esteem, and (4) importance to identity (divided into four separate sections
below). The results are divided below in to the two different security/ non-Security
condition analyses that were conducted: (1) security guard/ laundry dry clean worker and
(2) flight attendant/ sales representative. Due to the directional nature of the hypothesis,
one-tailed tests were conducted.

Security Guard
Membership Self Esteem
Apply, Interest, Ofler
Hypotheses 8.1.1 .a, 8.1.1.b, and 8.1.1.0 were not supported (see Table 28).

Table 28

Eflects of Security Conalition and Membership Selt Esteem on Applying and Receiving
Job Intere._st and Job Ofiers.

 

 

 

 

 

DV Name

Apply Interest Offer

R2 R2 R7
Step b Total AR2 b Total AR2 b Total AR2
1. Security
Condition 0.22 0.04 0.04 0.38 0.17 0.17* 1.12* 0.31 0.31*
Membership
Self Esteem 0.32 0.55* 0.71*
2. Security
Conditionx
Membership
Self Esteem -O.56 0.07 0.02 -O.12 0.17 0.00 -O.43 0.33 0.01

 

 

 

* = p < .05, N=50

70

Public Self Esteem

Apply, Interest, Ofler

Table 29

 

Hypotheses 8.1.2.a, 8.1.2.b, and 8.1.2.c were not supported (see Table 29).

Eflects 0t Security Cfldition and Public Selt Esteem on Applying and Receiving Job Interest and Job

 

 

 

 

 

Qtfgsa
DV Name
Apply Interest Offer
R2 R2 R2
3g: b Total A R2 b Total A R2 b Total A R2
1. Security Condition 0.28 0.10 0.01 0.47 0.04 0.04 130* 0.17 0.17*
Public Self Esteem 0.02 0.07 -0.05
2. Security Condition x
Public Self Esteem -O.30 0.03 0.02 -O.l7 0.05 0.01 -O.25 0.18 0.01
* = p < .05, N=50

 

 

Private Self Esteem

Apply, Interest, Offer

Hypotheses 8.1.3.a, 8.1.3.b, and 8. l .3.c were not supported (see table 30).

Table 30

 

Eflects of Security Corpdition and Private Self Esteem on Applying and Receiving Job In_tgrest and Job
Oflers.

 

 

 

 

 

DV Name
Apply Interest Offer
R2 R2 R2
Step b Total A R2 b Total A R2 b Total A R2
1. Security Condition 0.30 0.02 0.02 0.49 0.05 0.05 125* O. 18 0.18*
Private Self Esteem -O.l 1 0.12 0.16
2. Security Condition x
Private Self Esteem -O.47 0.04 0.02 -0.05 0.05 0.00 -O.34 0.19 0.01
"‘ = p < .05, N=50

 

 

71

Importance to Identity

Apply, Interest, Ofler

Hypotheses 8.1.4.a, 8.1.4.b, and 8.1.4.0 were not supported (see Table 31).

Table 31

Eflects of Security Condition and Importance to Identigy on Applying and ReceivingJob Interest arLd Job

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oflers.
DV Name

Apply Interest Offer

R2 R2 R2
Step b Total All2 b Total AR2 b Total AR2
1.Security Condition 0.30 0.01 0.01 0.52 0.05 0.05 1.30* 0.19 .19*
Importancetoldentity 0.05 0.09 0.17
2. Security Condition x
Importancetoldentity -0.32 0.03 0.02 -0.11 0.05 0.00 -0.09 0.19 0.00
*=p<.05,N=50
Flight Attendant
Membership Self Esteem

Apply, Interest, Ofler

Hypotheses 8.2.1 .a, 8.2.1.b, and 8.2.1.c were not supported (see Table 32).

Table 32

E fleets 0t Securigy Condition (Ad Membership Self Esteem on Applying and Receiving Job Interest and

 

 

 

 

 

 

M
DV Name
Apply Interest Offer
R2 R2 RT
Step b Total A R2 b Total A R2 b Total A R2
1. Security Condition 0.14 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.66“ 0.07 0.07
Membership Self Esteem -0.13 0.10 -0.05
2. Security Condition x
Membership Self Esteem 0.59 0.04 0.03 -0.45 0.03 0.03 -0.19 0.07 0.00

 

. = p < .05, N=50

72

Public Self Esteem
Apply, Interest, Ofi'er

Hypotheses 8.2.2.a. 8.2.2.b, and 8.2.2.0 were not supported (see Table 33).

Table 33

 

Eflects of Security Con_dition and Public Self Esteem on Applying and Receiving Job Interest and Job
Qtifea.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DV Name
Apply Interest Offer
R2 A R2 R2

Step b Total R2 b Total A R2 b Total A R2
1. Security Condition 0.09 0.00 .00 -0.10 0.13 0.13* 0.44 0.14 014*

Public Self Esteem -0.06 0.29" 0.26*
2. Security Condition x

Public Self Esteem 0.21 0.02 .01 0.20 0.14 0.02 0.07 0.14 0.00
* = p < .05, N=50
Private Self Esteem

Apply, Interest, Offer

Hypotheses 8.2.3.a, 8.2.3.b, and 8.2.3.c were not supported (see Table 34).

Table 34

Eflects of Security Corgition and Private Self Esteem on Applying and Receiving Job In_terest and Job
Oflers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DV Name
Apply Interest Offer
R2 R2 R2
Step b Total A R2 b Total A R2 b Total A R2
1. Security Condition 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.52 0.09 0.09
Private Self Esteem -0.07 -0.09 -0.25
2. Security Condition x
Private Self Esteem 0.31 0.02 0.01 -0.12 0.01 0.00 -0.08 0.09 0.00

 

* = p < .05, N=50

Importance to Identity
Apply

Hypothesis 8.2.4.a was supported. The main effects for security condition (B = .13,
ns, one-tailed) and importance to identity (,6 = -.07, ns, one-tailed) were not significant
(see table 38). A significant interaction between public contact and importance to identity
was also found (,8 = 1.51, p < .01, one-tailed; AR2= .18, p= .00, one-tailed) (see Table
33). The statistically significant interaction between security condition and importance to
identity was plotted to better interpret the results. The Figure 4 plot shows that
importance to identity neutralizes the effect of security condition so that Hijabis were
more likely to apply for security-related occupations when they scored low on importance
to identity than when they scored high on importance to identity, and were less likely to
apply for security-related occupations than non-security-related occupations when they
scored high on importance to identity.
Interest, Ofler

Hypotheses 8.2.4.b and 8.2.4.c were not supported (see Table 35).

Table 35

Eflects 0t Security Condition and Importance to Identigy on Applying and Receiving Job Interest and Job

ers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DV Name
Apply Interest Offer
R2 R2 R2
Step b Total A R2 b Total A R2 b Total A R2
1. Security Condition 0.13 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.05 065* 0.13 0.13*
Importance to Identity -0.07 -0.27 -0.32*
2. Security Condition x
Importance to Identity 1.51* 0.19 0.18* -0.03 0.05 0.00 0.37 0.14 0.01

 

* = p < .05, N=50

74

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘ 6
l 5 "mu-”
l
\ ,B
4 ’e’
I >\ I —9— Low Importance to l
2 , , ’ I ldenitity .
E 3 a, , ’L—’ T — -u— - High Importance to l
< Identity l
2 __._m _ __ A A...
1 l
o ‘ l
Security Non-Security l

l _
Figure 4. Interaction between security condition and importance to identity on intentions
to apply for the job (apply) for Hijabis.

 

Overall, hypothesis 8 was not supported. Collective self esteem did not moderate
the relationship between security condition and intentions (a) to apply for and
expectations of (b) receiving interviews or (c) getting job offers for Hijabis such that
Hijabis. However, when comparing the flight attendant occupation (security) to the sales
representative occupation (non-security), importance to identity did moderate the
relationship between security-related occupations and (a) intentions to apply so that
Hijabis were more likely to apply for security-related occupations when they scored low
on importance to identity than when they scored high on importance to identity, and were
less likely to apply for security-related occupations than non-security-related occupations

when they scored high on importance to identity.

75

Hypgthesis 9

Hypothesis 9 suggested that optimism moderates the relationship between public
contact and intentions (a) to apply for and expectations of (b) receiving interviews or (c)
getting job offers for Hijabis such that Hijabis who score high on optimism will be more
likely to apply for high public contact occupations than hijabis who score low on
optimism.

One separate moderated regression analysis was conducted for each of the three
dependant variables [intentions (a) to apply for and expectations of (b) receiving
interviews or (c) getting job offers for Hijabis] (See Table 36). An interaction term for
optimism and amount of public contact will be entered into a regression predicting
differences in the DV. Due to the directional nature of the hypothesis, one-tailed tests
were conducted.

Apply, Interest, Offer

Hypotheses 9a, 9b, and 90 were not supported (see Table 36).

Table 36

Eflects of Public Contact and Optimism on Applying and Receiving Job Interpst and Job

Oflers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

DV Name

Apply Interest Offer

R2 R2 R2
Step b Total A R2 b Total A R2 b Total A R2
1. Public
Contact -0.34 0.02 0.02 -0.72* 0.11 0.11* -0.62* 0.07 0.07*
Optimism 0.02 0.07* 0.03
2. Public
Contactx
Optimism -0.01 0.02 0.00 -0.03 0.11 0.00 -0.07 0.01 0.01

 

*=p<.05,N=111

76

Overall, hypothesis 9 was not supported. Optimism did not moderate the relationship
between public contact and intentions (a) to apply for and expectations of (b) receiving
interviews or (0) getting job offers for Hijabis.

Hyppthesis 10

Hypothesis 10 suggested that optimism moderates the relationship between security-
related occupations and intentions (a) to apply for and expectations of (b) receiving
interviews or (0) getting job offers for Hijabis such that Hijabis who score high on
optimism will be more likely to apply for security-related occupations than non-security
related occupations.

One separate moderated regression analysis was conducted for each of the three
dependant variables [intentions (a) to apply for and expectations of (b) receiving
interviews or (c) getting job offers for Hijabis]. An interaction term for optimism and
security-related condition will be entered into a regression predicting differences in the
DV. The results are divided below in to the two different security/ non-security condition
analyses that were conducted: (1) security guard! laundry dry clean worker and (2) flight
attendant/ sales representative. Due to the directional nature of the hypothesis, one-tailed

tests were conducted.

77

Security Guard

Apply, Interest, Ofler

Hypotheses 10.1.a, 10.1.b, and 10.1 .0 were not supported (see Table 37).

Table 37

Eflects of Security Condition and Optimism on Applying and Receiving Job Interest and Job Oflers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DV Name
Apply Interest Offer
Step b Total A R2 b Total A R2 b Total A R2
1. Security Condition 0.30 0.03 0.03 0.70“ 0.13 .13* 1.37“ 0.24 .24*
Optimism 0.05 0.09* 0.06
2. Security Condition x
Optimism 0.09 0.04 0.01 0.04 0.13 0.00 0.07 0.24 0.01
* = p < .05, N=59
Flight Attendant
Apply, Interest, Ofler
Hypotheses 10.2.a, 10.2.b, and 10.2.c were not supported (see Table 38).
Table 38
Efiects ofSecyrity Condition and Optimism on Applying and Receiving Job Interest and Job Oflers.
DV Name
Apply Interest Offer
R2 R2 R2
Step b Total A R2 b Total A R2 b Total A R2
1. Security Condition 0.13 0.03 0.00 0.13 0.04 0.04 0.53 0.05 0.05
Optimism 0.02 0.07 0.02
2. Security Condition x
Optimism 0.09 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.04 0.00 0.17 0.08 0.03

 

 

 

* = p < .05, N=54

78

Overall, hypothesis 10 was not supported. Optimism did not moderate the
relationship between security condition and intentions (a) to apply for and expectations of
(b) receiving interviews or (c) getting job offers for Hijabis.

Hyp_othesis 11
Hypothesis 11 suggested that locus of control moderates the relationship between
public contact and intentions (a) to apply for and expectations of (b) receiving interviews
or (c) getting job offers for Hijabis such that Hijabis who have internal locus of control
will be more likely to apply for high public contact occupations than Hijabis who have
external locus of control.
One separate moderated regression analysis was conducted for each of the three
dependant variables [intentions (a) to apply for and expectations of (b) receiving
interviews or (c) getting job offers for Hijabis]. An interaction term for locus of control
and amount of public contact will be entered into a regression predicting differences in
the DV. Due to the directional nature of the hypothesis, one-tailed tests were conducted.
Apply, Interest
Hypotheses 11a, and 11b were not supported (see Table 39).
Ofler

Hypothesis 11c was supported. The main effect for public contact (fl = -.55, p < .05,
one-tailed) was significant but the main effect was not significant for locus of control (B
= -.02, ns, one-tailed) (see Table 39). The interaction between public contact and locus of
control was found to be significant (,8 = .12, p < .05, one-tailed; AR): .04, p= .07, one-
tailed). To make sure that the demographic variables were not affecting the results, this

regression was run again controlling for age, race, educational level of parent, gross

79

household income, and employment experience were controlled for in the analyses. The
interaction between public contact and locus of control was found not to be significant (,8

= .11, ns, one-tailed; AR2= .03, p= .17, one-tailed) and thus the prior analysis was

ignored.

Table 39

E fleets at Public Contact and Locus of Control on Applying an_d Receiving Job In_terest anpl Job Offers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DV Name
Apply Interest Offer
R2 R2 R2
Step b Total A R2 b Total A R2 b Total A R2
1. Public Contact 039 0.02 0.02 -0.62* 0.07 .07 "‘ -O.55"‘ 0.05 0.05
Locus of Control -0.01 0.00 -0.02
2. Public Contact x
Locus of Control -0.04 0.02 0.00 -0.01 0.07 0.00 .12* 0.09 .04*
* = p < .05, N=83

Overall, hypothesis 11 was not supported. Locus of control did not moderate the
relationship between public contact and intentions (a) to apply for and expectations of (b)
receiving interviews and (0) getting job offers.

Hypothesis 12
I Hypothesis 12 suggested that locus of control moderates the relationship between
security-related occupations and intentions (a) to apply for and expectations of (b)
receiving interviews or (c) getting job offers for Hijabis such that Hijabis who have
internal locus of control will be more likely to apply for security-related occupations than

Hijabis who have an external locus of control.

80

One separate moderated regression analysis was conducted for each of the three

dependant variables [intentions (a) to apply for and expectations of (b) receiving

interviews or (c) getting job offers for Hijabis]. An interaction term for locus of control

and security condition will be entered into a regression predicting differences in the DV.

The results are divided below in to the two different security/ non-security condition

analyses that were conducted: (1) security guard/ laundry dry clean worker and (2) flight

attendant/ sales representative. Due to the directional nature of the hypothesis, one-tailed

tests were conducted.

Security Guard

Apply, Interest, Ofler

Hypotheses 12.1 .a, 12.1.b, and 12.1.c were not supported (see Table 40).

Table 40

Eflects 0t Security Condition and Locus of Control on Applying and Receiving Job Interest and Job

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Qfiier_s.
DV Name
Apply Interest Offer
R2 R2 R2
Step b Total A R2 b Total A R2 b Total A R2
1. Security Condition 0.33 0.01 0.01 0.34 0.03 0.03 1.25‘ 0.18 018*
Security Condition 0.00 -0.04 -0.04
2. Secruity Condition x
Locus of Control -0. 17 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.04 0.01 -0.18 0.22 0.05
* = p < .05, N=47
Flight Attendant

Apply, Interest, Ofi'er

Hypotheses 12.2.a, 12.2.b, and 12.2.c were not supported (see Table 41).

81

 

Table 41
Eflects of Security Condition and Locus of Control on Applying and Receiving Job Interest and Job

Oflers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

DV Name
Apply Interest Offer
R2 R2 R2
Step b Total A R2 b Total A R2 b Total A R2
1. Security Condition -0.04 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.33 0.05 0.05
Security Condition 0.04 -0.04 -0.04
2. Security Condition x
Locus of Control -0.05 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.04 0.01 -0.05 0.06 0.01
* = p < .05, Nfl7

Overall, hypothesis 12 was not supported. Locus of control did not moderate the
relationship between security condition and intentions (a) to apply for and expectations of
(b) receiving interviews or (c) getting job offers for Hijabis.

Qualitative Findings

Open-ended questions were used to gain a better understanding of the Hijabi
perspective on the hij ab, work, and discrimination. These open-ended questions were
generated based on interest and not any particular theory, but it was believed that they
would corroborate with the quantitative data and enlighten the findings qualitatively.
Quotes which were the most articulate and represented most of the Hijabis’ concerns are
presented in Appendix I. A few select quotes are also represented below by question.
What does the hijab mean to you as a Muslim, and as an American?

One hundred ninety six Hijabis chose to respond to this optional open-ended
question. Most of the responses reflected that as a Muslim, the hijab was an act of
following God’s will, showing commitment to their religion, and to show modesty and

piousness. As an American, hijab was used to represent one’s identity as a Muslim

82

woman, show individuality, serve as a form of freedom of expression, and a feministic
statement against the portrayal of women as sexual objects. Below are some quotes that
reflect the overall opinion of the majority of the participants:

“As a Muslim American; the hijab represents to me dignity and modesty.”

“As a Muslim, hijab is an indication of my commitment to Islam. Also, it's a

constant reminder of what that commitment mean insofar as how I choose to
spend my life. As an American, I want to be identified as a member of this

group.”

“It's a symbol of my religion, gives me a sense of identity, and allows me to

observe modesty. Also it's a great conversation opener with people who may not

know much about Islam.”
Why do you choose to wear the hijab even after 9/11, when it might pose a danger to do
so or it might arouse suspicion from others?

Two hundred and three Hijabis chose to respond to this optional open-ended
question. Most Hijabis responded that their reason for continuing to wear the hijab post-
9/11 was that regardless of the politics or current events going about, the hijab was still
and will continue to be a religious obligation and an essential part of their identity. They
expressed that this dress code needs to be observed despite all obstacles and barriers.
Most of these Hijabis also voiced an opinion of how wearing the hijab and keeping it on
became even more pertinent for them after 9/11; the primary reason being to dispel
stereotypes about Muslims by being model citizens and to teach people that Islam is a
peaceful religion. Some of the comments that were quite vocal are listed below:

“After 9/11 many people had questions about Islam. By wearing the hijab, I gave

them someone to approach to ask those questions. I consider myself highly

educated, and am therefore willing to answer those questions in a calm manner

and hopefully enlightened.”

“Because it is a command from Allah (God).”

83

 

“It is a part of who I am - my identity and is representative of my Islamic values
and beliefs - modesty being one of the many.”

“It serves a political and educative purpose and helps to eliminate stereotypes of
Muslim women.”

In what ways has your Islamic beliefs influenced your work life in America, such as in
seeking employment and in demanding accommodations on the basis of your religion?

One hundred eighty one Hijabis chose to respond to this optional self report
question. There were mixed responses for this question, with some Hijabis stressing that
their Islamic beliefs makes it harder for them to apply for work and to ask for
accommodations. Due to restrictions within the religion (not accepting interest, eating
pork, not drinking alcohol, working co-ed), they are limited to certain jobs. Other Hijabis
disagreed and stated that the hijab has opened doors for them, feeling that it gives them
an advantage in looking more memorable during job interviews and in general, feeling
that people are eager to learn about their religion and accommodating to their religious
practices. Some of the comments are presented below:

“Before I apply for a job, I have to think about how easy it will be for me to pray
on location and abide by Islamic dress code.”

“. . ..ofien times when I go for interviews I'm fearfirl that I won't be chosen
because I wear a headscarf and am Muslim. Not because they think I'm a terrorist
but because it may look "unprofessional". ”

“I try to apply to places that are more open minded and educated like universities
and cultural places and to jobs where praying etc. wouldn't be a big deal.”

“Often times, people mistake us for other non-English speaking people because

we are dressed differently. The more covered you are, the more backwards or
illiterate you seem, but that is not the case in the majority.”

84

Are you concerned about applying for work because you wear the hijab?

One hundred ninety nine Hijabis chose to respond to this optional self report
question. There were a wide range of responses to this question. Some Hijabis stated that
they are not concerned about applying for work because of their religious attire, main
reasons being that they are confident in their skills and abilities, strong belief that God
will help them and they will get the job if fate has it in line for them, and that they would
not work for employers who judge them by their hijab anyway. Other Hijabis stated that
it was a big concern, they feel that often they are or will be rejected from jobs due to their
hijab or will trigger other stereotypes that do not represent them. Despite this, the
overwhelming majority of responses stressed that this fear does not hinder them from
applying. The following are select responses for this particular question:

“I have had interviews in which it was obvious they were taken aback by the hijab
and it probably affected the overall outcome of the interview. But how one
carries oneself and speaks and one's qualifications go along way most of the
tlme.”

“No, because if the people who hire you base your ability, knowledge, and
dependability on your appearance (head scarf), then you should not work for them

because they are not worthy or your time and energy. ”

“Yes. When I interview for a job, I can tell that some HR representatives are
surprised to see a hijabi walk in. They don't say, but you can tell that they're

9”

thinking, ‘I'm not going to hire her no matter how well the interview goes .

Yes, because of constant discrimination. People think I don't speak English, that
I'm stupid and archaic.”

Would you consider taking your hijab off to apply for work or if you were specifically
asked to or were required to in order to get work?
Two hundred and two Hijabis chose to respond to this optional self report question.

The overwhelming majority of them stated that they would not take off the hijab for

85

 

work, if asked. Some stated that only under absolute dire circumstances, such as
starvation or homelessness, would they consider such an option. Many others reported
that they would consult legal forces if such a situation ever arose to protect their civil
rights. The following are some of the responses to this question:
“I will not compromise my beliefs especially for a job offer or asked, in order to
get to work as I would take this matter to a higher level due to discrimination and

harassment.”

“I would modify it, but never take it off. Due to employment laws, employers
must accommodate religious practices.”

“Never, unless I was out on the streets and my children or farme were starving,
but most likely not.”

“No. Hijab is a part of me. That's like asking me to take my arm off to work for
you. You must accept it as a part of me.”

Are you aware of any incidences (personal or not) in which Hijabis were refused work on
the basis of their attire?

One hundred and ninety four Hij abis chose to respond to this optional self report
question. Mostly, there were mixed responses. Many Hijabis reported never facing any
discrimination or knowmg anyone who had, while others stated they have experienced
discrimination due to their religious attire and know of people who have as well. Some
Hijabis stated that the discrimination was subtle so it was hard to actually classify it as
discrimination, even though they felt it did occur. The following are select responses for
this question:

“I had a personal experience where they didn't want to hire me because I wear
hijab or they asked me to take it off because I would be dealing with the public.
So of course I refused the job.”

“I know a lot of Muslims who think the world is out to get them and that they
can’t get a job because of their hijab and heard. But no one I know has any

86

personal examples, proof, or has ever had any comments made to them about their
attire.”

“I was actually fired when I decided to start to wear the hijab. I was given a
choice to not wear the hijab or quit, of course I wore the hijab. I have also heard
about 3 stories from fiiends of similar mistreatment.”

“Yes, some people feel they may have been discriminated against because of it,

but many hijabis have also had positive experiences. It is on a person-by-person
basis.”

87

 

DISCUSSION

This study addresses whether Muslim women who wear the hijab employ
disidentification/ disengagement tactics during job selection procedures for certain job
types (occupations that involve high public contact and those which deal with security).
More specifically, disengagement and disidentification were collectively measured by
Hij abis’ likelihood to apply for and to expect to receive work. It was expected that
Hijabis would employ disengagement/ disidentification tactics more for occupations that
require high public contact than occupations that required low public contact than non-
Hijabis. It was also expected that Hijabis will also not apply for or expect to get work for
occupations that concern the security of others.

Job status was another job type factor that was tested to see if it would influence
Hijabi’s likelihood to disengage and disidentify from certain work domains. It was
expected that Hijabis would not be hindered from applying for high public contact
occupations that have high job status than when the occupation had low job status.

Other moderators that were tested were stereotype internalization, group
identification, optimism, and locus of control. Hijabis who internalized the negative
stereotypes of their Muslim identity, had high group identification as Muslims, scored
low on cptirnism, or had an external locus of control were expected to be less likely to
apply for and to expect to receive interviews or job offers for occupations that were either
of high public contact or were security related than Hijabis who did not internalize the
negative stereotypes of their Muslim identity, had low group identification, scored high

on optimism, or had an internal locus of control.

88

 

Fin_ding§
Demographic Difierences

Although Hijabi and non-Hijabis were expected to be similar in demographics with
the exception of their religious devotion, this was not the case. The Hijabi participants
were found to be significantly different from non-Hijabis in age, employment experience,
marital status, child status, religious devotion, parental education, and household income.
Hijabis in general tended to be older in age, maybe a result of having more Hijabis in the
sample than non-Hijabis. Possibly due to being older, Hijabis also tended to be more . a.
likely to be married, and to have children. Not surprising at all was that Hijabis rated
themselves as being more religiously devoted than non-Hijabis. This was expected since
the hijab represents a core aspect of the Islamic religion, and Hijabis choose to observe
this practice while many other Muslim females do not.

Non-Hijabis tended to have parents with higher education than non-Hijabis, which
might have also resulted in non-Hijabis reporting coming fiom higher household income
than no-Hijabis, as higher education entail higher paying jobs. The US Census Bureau
has shown that people with a higher level of education make more money on average
than those with less education (2004). Perhaps being more educated resulted in being less
religious, as more non-Hijabis stemmed from more educated households than Hijabis.

Because these differences might just be representative of the sample used in this
study, it is hard to make generalizations to the Muslim female population at large. Future
research should include samples from a more varied age group. Because some of these

factors might affect the results, all of these demographic factors were controlled for.

89

Job Status Ratings

For some of the occupations, the pilot study ratings of job status were significantly
different than the ratings given by the Muslim females. This might suggest that Muslims
and non-Muslims view occupations differently, and on average, Muslim females viewed
certain jobs as having even more lower status than did non-Muslims. This might be the
case because the Muslim female sample in this study have a higher college education
completion rate (60.9%) than the average American population (26%) (US Census
Bureau, 2004). Since higher education qualifies one for more higher paying jobs that
require higher credentials (N CCP, 2006), being educated might have lead the Muslim
female sample to consider jobs of higher status as more suitable for themselves and
perhaps leading them to rate jobs of lower status as even lower than the average
American might perceive them. Also, the US Census Bureau has shown that people with
a higher level of education make more money on average than those with less education
(2004). Coming from a high income family (70,000-80,000), these Muslim females might
look more favorably towards occupations that require higher education (6. g. physician)
and even less favorably for occupation that do not require education (e.g. laundry
worker). However, since the income status of the pilot study group was not asked, this is
just an assumption.

It is important to note that unlike the pilot study group who were just provided with
the title of the occupations and then asked for ratings, the Muslim sample group was also
given job ads with descriptive tasks of the occupations. Knowing more about the
occupations and the job characteristics associated with them might have influenced their

ratings.

90

h._

 

Public Contact

Hypothesis 1 predicts that Hijabis employ disengagement/ disidentification tactics
more for occupations that require high public contact than occupations that require low
public contact. It was found that Hijabis were significantly less likely to expect to receive
interviews and job offers than non-Hijabis for occupations that required high public
contact than occupations that had low public contact. However, Hijabis did not have
significantly lower intentions than non-Hijabis to apply for high public contact
occupation than low public contact occupations.

This finding suggests that Hijabis and Non-Hijabis, despite being similar on most
characteristics, have different expectations about the possibility of getting hired.
Particularly, Hijabis feel that they are less likely to receive interviews or work than non-
Hijabis. Because the control group in this experiment also included Muslim women, most
of the confounding factors between the two groups were controlled for (e. g. English
speaking ability, nationality, etc.). Since Hijabis and non-Hijabis were alike on most
characteristics, as shown by our demographic information, one can conclude from this
data that religious attire does have a part in Muslim women’s likelihood in employing
disengagement/ disidentification tactics. Muslim women who wear the hijab are less
likely to expect to receive job interviews and job offers than Muslim women who do not.

Unlike non-Hijabis, who might be able to conceal the religious identity, Hijabis
cannot hide their religious affiliation as the Hijab is a dead giveaway of their Muslim
identity. Research shows that stigmatized individuals are aware that the visibility of their
stigma leads others to use their stigma as a basis of judging and discrediting them

(Crocker et al., 1998, Goffman, 1963). As stigmatized individuals, Hijabis might be well

91

 

 

aware that their Muslim identity will be used to negatively evaluate them as potential job
applicants. Being aware of this, Hijabis might feel that their likelihood of getting a job
offer or even being called back for an interview is quite low, as shown from the findings.
Another interesting finding within this hypothesis was that as the amount of public
contact increases, so does the difference between Hijabi and non-Hijabi’s expectations to
receive work. Particularly, Hijabis become even less likely to expect job interviews and
offers for high public contact occupations than occupations that require low public
contact. This is expected to be the case for Hijabis because high public contact
occupations involve an increase in the amount of interactions Hijabis will have with other
people fi'om other groups. 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 received by others and how they should act
(Blascovich, Spencer, Quinn, & Steele, 2001; Devine, Evett, & Vasquez-Suson, 1996;
Goffman, 1963; Ickes; 1984; Stephan & Stephan, 1985). In turn, this anxiety can
motivate people to avoid certain situations, making inter-group interaction less likely to
occur (Fiske & Ruscher, 1993, Stephan & Stephan, 1985). Similarly, in the context of
this experiment, high public contact occupations require Hijabis to have a wide number
of interactions, some of which might be particularly uncomfortable due to people’s
stereotypical beliefs about Muslims. To reduce this possibility, Hijabis might believe that

employers will be less likely to hire them for such occupations.

92

 

 

Job Status

Hypothesis 3 predicts that job status would moderate the relationship between the
amount of public contact required for an occupation and Hijabis’ likelihood to disengage/
disidentify. Job status was in fact found to moderate the relationships between expecting
to receive interviews and job offers and public contact such that Hijabis had a higher
likelihood to expect interviews and job offer for high public contact occupations when
the occupation had high job status than when it had low job status.

Since this hypothesis was conducted for exploratory purposes, more data needs to
be collected before speculating the underlying mechanisms behind this finding. However,
there might be a variety of reasons why Hijabis were more likely to expect to receive
interviews and job offers for high public contact occupations when the occupation had
high job status than when it had low job status. It might be an influence of the culture of
the Muslim community tested in this study. 63.3% of the Muslim female sample reported
having fathers who had a college degree or higher, and 46.5% of them had mothers who
had a college education or higher. Furthermore, 90.5% of the Muslim sample reported
that they intend to pursue a Master’s degree or higher. Since higher education qualifies
one for higher paying jobs that require higher credentials (N CCP, 2006), being educated
might lead the Muslim female sample to consider jobs of higher status as more
achievable. Thus, Hijabis may in fact not disidentify/disengage with high status
occupations even when they require high public contact, despite perceived discrimination
in them. However, this explanation needs to be further investigated using direct methods

to get at the root of this finding.

93

 

 

Negative Stereotype Intemalization

Hypothesis 4 predicts that negative stereotype internalization moderates the
relationship between the amount of public contact and employing disengagement/
disidentification tactics such that Hijabis who do not internalize the negative stereotypes
of their Muslim identity will be more likely to apply for high public contact occupations
than Hijabis who internalize the stereotypes of their negative identity.

This hypothesis was partially supported. When Hijabis internalized negative
stereotypes of themselves as being violent and backward, meaning that they themselves
rated themselves as actually identifying with such stereotypes, they were less likely to
apply for high public contact occupations and to expect to receive job interviews and job
offers than when they did not internalize such stereotypes. This is because when a person
comes to buy into the stereotypes of his/ her group, that person can come to believe that
since the stereotype is true, discrimination based on this stereotype is deserved, a
phenomenon known as justifiable differential treatment (Major et al., 2003). In the case
of this study, Hijabis who believe that they are violent, just as the many Muslim
stereotypes labeling them as “terrorist,” they also come to believe that they will have a
less likelihood of receiving interviews or job offers for such jobs because they confirm
the stereotype of Muslims as violent. Thus, they are less likely to apply for high public
contact jobs.

On the other hand, Hijabis who did not internalize this stereotype, can disassociate
themselves form these stereotype by seeing these negative stereotypes as being reflected
of something else, either of other Muslims or ignorance, but not of themselves. So, even

though Hijabis might be aware of public perceptions of Muslims, they reject them for

94

 

with either their group, themselves, or both. When the person does not internalize the
stereotype, they also become less vulnerable to perceived prejudice against their ingroup
(Major et al., 2003). This, in turn, would make Hijabis less likely to disengage/
disidentify since these Hijabis do not think that they confirm these stereotypes. Thus,
they are more likely to expect to receive interviews and job offers for high public contact
jobs than Hijabis who internalize the stereotypes, and thus, more likely to apply for such
occupations.

However, another alternative explanation for this finding could be that stereotype
internalization, especially that of violent attributes, could also reflect a poor opinion of
oneself, or low global self esteem (feelings of personal self-worth) (Crocker & Major,
1989). Chassin and Stager (1984) found that the acceptance of negative stereotypes was
related to low self-esteem among stigmatized individual. Similarly, in this experiment,
Hijabis who internalize the negative stereotypes of Muslims might also have low self
esteem, causing them to have low self ratings of themselves. Thus, they are less likely to
expect to receive interviews and job offers, making them less likely to apply.

It is important to note that some may argue that the stereotypes of Muslim men and
women are different, but there is no research known to date that has quantitatively
attempted to separate the stereotypes by gender and Muslim women are also categorized
by the same stereotypes that Muslims in general have, such as evil, barbaric, backwards,
terrorists, religious fanatics, and uncivilized (Asani, 2003; Shaheen, 2003).

Group Identification: Collective Self Esteem
Hypothesis 6 predicts that Hijabis will have a stronger degree of group identification

with their social group (Muslims) than non-Hijabis and was supported. Hijabis were

95

 

 

found to be significantly different than non-Hiijabis on all the subscales of group
identification, but public self esteem. This was expected as the Hijabis choose to wear the
hijab, an essential part of their religion, while many other Muslim women do not. Thus,
donning the hijab is symbolic of how much the Muslim identity is a core aspect of
Hijabis’ lives.
Group Identification: Membership Self Esteem

Hypothesis 7 predicts that the degree of identification with one’s social group
(Muslim) moderates the relationship between employing disengagement! disidentification +
tactics and the amount of public contact required in an occupation such that Hijabis who
identify more strongly as Muslims will be less likely to apply for high public contact
occupations than Hijabis who do not identify as strongly as Muslims. This was partially
supported; membership self esteem was the sole subscale from the collective self esteem
measure, which was used to assess group identification, that was shown to moderate the
relationship between public contact and expectations to receive interviews and job offers.

Membership self esteem evaluates how worthy one is as a member of one’s social
group. When Hijabis had high membership self esteem, or believed that they were worthy
of being a member of their social group, they were less likely to expect to receive
interviews and job offers for high public contact jobs than low public contact jobs. This is
because research has shown that when group identification is high, the lines become
blurred between group identity and personal identity (Major et al., 2003). So when a
person’s group is discriminated against, the person will also perceive this threat to
him/herself (Major et al., 2003; McCoy & Major, 2003). As a result, Hijabis who have

high membership self esteem might feel more threatened by rejection of their group from

96

 

 

the public arena than Hijabis who have low membership self esteem, and thus are less
likely to expect to receive interviews and job offers for high public contact jobs.

Another explanation that can be tied in with this finding is that high membership self
esteem could also reflect low global self esteem. Correlational studies have shown that
the more that stigmatized individuals perceive themselves or their groups as targets of
discrimination, the lower their global self esteem will be (Brascombe, Schmitt, & Harvey,
1999; Schmitt & Brascombe, 2002; Schmitt, Brascombe, & Kobrynowicz, 2002). Hijabis
having high membership self esteem are more likely to perceive the discrimination
against their group (Muslims) as also as discrimination against themselves. Thus, they
might be more likely to also exhibit lower self esteem and rate them self as more
unfavorable, such as in their low expectations to receive job offers and interviews.
Dijfirences between the Intent to Apply, and Expecting Job Interviews and Job Oflers

The results of this study show that there were differences for Hijabis in their
likelihood of employing the three disengagement! disidentification variables: (1) intent to
apply, and expectations of receiving (2) job interviews and (3) job offers. Although the
Hijabis were less likely to expect to receive interviews and job offers for high public
contact occupations and this relationship was moderated by job status and membership
self esteem, they were not any less likely to apply for high public contact occupations
except for when the relationship was moderated by negative stereotype internalization.

One explanation for this might be that applying is more within the person’s range of
things which they can control while receiving interviews and job offers is not. Thus
Hijabis are willing to apply for these jobs, even if they don’t think they will actually get

them. Another explanation is that the cost of applying is minimal (tlu'ning in a resume)

97

 

compared to the benefit of actually getting the job (money, security). Even if one doesn’t
expect to receive the job, they have not lost anything but actually increased their chance
of gaining work. One can even think of it like buying a lottery ticket, although an extreme
example, the underlying mechanisms for buying lotto tickets are the same. Most people
know that their chances of winning the lottery are actually quite low, but they still buy
them, just for the small possibility that they might actually win.

In actuality, the implications of this finding is good since it shows that Hijabis still
will apply for jobs, regardless of their belief that these jobs are out of their reach. This
shows that they do not fully disengage/ disidentify to the extent that this study had
proposed, but only partially.

Limitations
Public Contact and Job Status Design

One of the major problems with this study turned out to be the design. As explained
in the results section, the manipulation check showed that the participants in the actual
experiment had different perceptions of the job status and amount of public contact
required for most of the occupations than the participants in the pilot study. Because of
this problem, a new design had to be created excluding all the occupations that fit in the
neutral job status and neutral public contact conditions, resulting in a simple 2 x 2 design
(hi/ 10 public contact x hi/lo job status). Since this new 2 x 2 only had one occupation (4
jobs total) under each category, it is difficult to factor out the uniqueness of that job from
the results. The hypotheses might or might not have been supported because of something
particular about the job itself and not necessarily reflecting the job status or the amount of

public contact required for that job. It would have been best if multiple jobs were used for

98

 

 

each category, so the results would have been more generalizable to the conditions and
not the job.
Security Design

All of the results for the hypotheses (2, 5, 8, 10, & 12) concerning the security
condition might not have been supported because of the problems with the design and the
choice of the security occupations, security guard and flight attendant. Although
participants were asked to report the amount of public contact required or the job status
associated with each of the occupations used in the experiment, the participants were not
asked their opinion on how much they felt these occupations actually concerned security
or the protection of others. Instead, this information was assumed fi'om O*NET (2006),
which described these two security occupations as having elements of security involved.
However, asking this information from the participants would have been useful to see if
the participants actually perceived these occupations as having security content involved.
It is very plausible to believe that the perceived degree of security involved for the two
occupations in the security condition differs; for example, the security guard occupation’s
primary concern might be with dealing with safety but the flight attendant occupation
might be more concerned with offering other services, with safety as being a secondary
or in—demand concern.

Also, to factor out the influence of public contact and job status, the two security
occupations were compared with occupations that were equivalent in these factors (public
contact and job status). Thus the security guard position was compared to a laundry/ dry-
clean worker position and the flight attendant position was compared to a sales

representative position. These comparisons however might have compounded the

99

 

problem. For example, perhaps Hijabis are just not likely to apply for either of the two
occupations, flight attendant and sales representative, because they both require high
public contact. Comparing security guard to laundry/ dry clean worker might have also
been a problem since security guard was generally seen as a male dominated occupation.
But since the laundry/ dry clean worker was a low status job, Hijabis were not necessarily
less likely to apply for the security guard position or expect to receive interviews and job
offers over the job of a laundry/ dry clean worker. Using security occupations that had
both neutral public contact and job status would have also helped factoring out some of
the noise that was affecting the results.
The Operationalization of Disengagement/ Disidentification

Another important limitation to address in this study is the operationalization of
disengagement and disidentification, which were collectively measured by three separate
DV3: (1) the willingness to apply for, and expectations to (2) receive interviews and (3)
job offers for certain occupations. Although Hijabi’s intent on applying, and expecting
interviews and job offers were sufficient in measuring Hijabi’s self reported behavior on
removal of themselves from that work context, there was a failure to incorporate any
measure of self esteem. Thus, there is no way of knowing if Hijabis do not use the work
place to determine their self-esteem. In hindsight, this was a crucial piece of the
disengagement/ disidentification hypothesis omitted fi'om this research.
Response Rates & Systematic Attrition

To recruit participants for the study, initial contact people/ organizations were asked
to forward the survey link to other potential participants, who were supposed to forward

the email to other potential participants as well, creating a snowballing technique. But

100

 

because of the nature of this recruitment method, it is impossible to detect the actual
response rate of the participants. There is no way to note how many individuals received
information or an email about the experiment and how many forwarded this information
about the experiment on to others. However, it is important to note that there might be a
possibility of response rate bias within this study. If there is a response rate bias within
this study, it should be noted that this threatens the external validity of my study and
limits the generalizability of my findings.

Systematic attrition might have been another problem within this study (see Table
4). Although each of the conditions were randomly assigned and participants had an
equal chance of being in any of the 11 conditions, the complete data suggests an unequal
sample size matrix. This suggests a possibility that participants chose to complete the
experiment for certain conditions over others. This systematic attrition is more likely
between groups than across them. In particular, Hijabis were more selective in
completing the experiments for certain occupations over others. This could be a result of
two things: 1) there were simply more Hijabi participants making the selectivity bias
more obvious in the study and 2) Hij abis might be more apt to share that certain
occupations are especially challenging for them (sales representative, paralegal) and thus
were more compelled to complete surveys for such occupations. Surprisingly, the job
status of an occupation did not entail having a higher completion rate, as many low status
jobs (sales representative, laundry worker) had a higher sample size than high status jobs
(physician, technical writer). This excludes the possibility that job attractiveness might be

causing the differences in completion rates.

10]

 

Systematic attrition limits the generalizability of my findings and pose ad internal
validity threats. Shadish, Cook, and Campbell (2002) state that if different kinds of
people are left out of sample, then these differences can produce posttest outcome
differences. It is possible that perhaps that certain subsets of Muslim females are not
represented in my study, therefore weakening my findings and limiting my results to just
my sample.

Conservative Stereotype Intemalization
For Hypothesis 4, although negative stereotype internalization moderated the

relationship between employing disengagement/ disidentification tactics and public
contact, conservative stereotype internalization did not moderate the relationship between
public contact and intentions to apply for and expectations of receiving interviews or
getting job offers for Hijabis. This might have been because conservative stereotype
internalization focused on stereotypes that reflected traditional attitudes. Unlike negative
stereotype internalization, none of the items on the conservative stereotype scales had a
negative connotation to them (e. g. traditional, modest, conservative, and religious). Since
fulfilling conservative stereotypes is not necessarily as unfavorable as having negative
stereotype internalization, Hijabis might not feel that they deserve to be discriminated
against on the basis of these conservative stereotypes. Thus, they are not any more or less
likely to employ disengagement/ disidentification tactics for high public contact jobs than
when they do not internalize the conservative stereotype.
Public Self Esteem

For Hypothesis 6, Hijabis were found to be significantly different than non-Hiijabis

on all the subscales of group identification (collective self esteem), but public self

102

 

 

esteem. It is believed that Hijabis and non-Hijabis did not differ significantly on public
self esteem because it measures how they evaluate how positively their social group is
viewed by others. Since both the Hijabi and non-Hijabi participants used in this
experiment live in America and are probably subject to the same media and societal
portrayal of their social identity, they agree as to how their Muslim identity is judged by
others.

Collective Self Esteem

 

For Hypothesis 7, although membership self esteem moderated the relationship
between employing disengagement/ disidentification tactics and public contact, the three
other dimensions of collective self esteem (public self esteem, private self esteem, and
importance to identity) did not. It appears the scales (private, public self esteem, and
importance to identity) examining the group as the referent do not play a role in this
relationship. For example, private collective self esteem measures one’s evaluation of
how good one’s social group is, public collective self esteem measures how one evaluates
how positively one’s social group is viewed by others, and importance to identity
measures how important one’s social group membership is to one’s self. All of these
dimensions focus more on the value of the group, not the self. Membership self esteem
puts the focus on the self, by measuring how worthy one self is as a member of one’s
social group. Perhaps it is this focus on the self that make membership self esteem more
likely to moderate the relationship between employing disengagement! disidentification

tactics and public contact.

103

 

Optimism & Locus of Control

For Hypotheses 11 and 12, neither locus of control nor optimism was found to
moderate the relationship between applying and expecting to receive interviews and
getting job offers and public contact. This might have been the case because even if they
have an external locus of control or low optimism, Hijabis might have believed that
divine intervention can control their outcomes. Infact, a main theme expressed in the
open ended questions, was the belief that getting work is dependant on God’s will. Also,
Hijabis, on average rated themselves as high on religiosity.

Thus, perhaps religiosity is the driving force for many Hijabis that when it comes to
applying for or expecting work, that they might succeed through God’s help. Hijabis
might be using their religion as a source of well-being; as religion has been shown to
derive meaning in life, which in turn helps them feel better (Stager & Frazier, 2005).
Previous research has also shown that religiosity is positively related to higher self
esteem and psychological well being (Maltby, Lewis, & Day, 1999; Knox, Langehough,

Walters, & Rowley, 1998; Levin, Chatter, & Taylor, 1995).

_Implfi:_ation_s and Future Directiorys

The results of this study have important consequences for American Muslims. The
Council of American-Islamic Relations (2004), America's largest Muslim civil liberties
group, reports that there is no scientific count of Muslims in the U.S., but six to seven
million is the most commonly cited figure. Islam has also become the fastest growing
religion in the world. In light of these statistics and the great social implications that

Islam has had after September 11, 2001, on the United States, it has become increasingly

104

 

important to develop an empirically based understanding of Muslims and the issues
confronting them as citizens in the US. today.

This study aims to gain understanding of the perceptions that Muslim women who
wear the hijab have in the employment context. Although, there is no statistical data to
date that details the percentage of Hijabis working today, yet alone working in high
status/ high public contact occupations, this study shows that Hijabis partially disidentify
from certain work domains (those that require high public contact) by expecting to be less
likely to receive interviews and job offers than non-Hijabis for certain occupations. This
is important because it suggests that more research should be done on Hijabis to uncover
why this is the case. This finding alone suggests that there are differences in expectation
when applying for work within Muslim females, with religious attire being a major
driving force behind the difference. This finding can explain systematic differences that
might exist for Hij abis for certain types of work that concern public contact, and it is
important to inform the findings and offer suggestions to members within Muslim
communities.

Many actions need to be taken to empower Hijabis. Muslim communities should
work together to stress the problems Muslim women face when applying for work in the
public domain, and report any incidents focusing on the discrimination experienced by
Muslim women wearing hijab. Hijabis need to be given more support, through the use of
workshops focusing on gaining leadership skills and boosting self-confidence.
Additionally, Hijabis should be educated about the whole job process, their rights, and
how to take action if they feel they have experienced discrimination during the hiring

process or at work.

105

 

 

Collective action within the Muslim community can help tremendously. Although
high identification with one’s social identity can be a threat to personal identity, high
identification can also serve as a coping strategy to increase self esteem and counter
threats to the self (Major et al., 2003). One’s social identity can also promote
psychological well being and raise self esteem (Branscombe, Schmitt, & Harvey, 1999).
Because of this, the Muslim community should collectively work together to address the
problem of prejudice facing their social group and invest efforts in reducing
discrimination. Thus, for some Hijabis, group identification can be a boon as it can
provide emotional support and a sense of belonging.

Another approach to addressing this issue would be to inform HR officials of the
findings of this study that Hijabis believe that employers are less likely to give them
interviews or hire them than compared to non-Hij abis for certain occupations. As in case
of the open-ended measures, many Hijabis voiced concerns that their hijab is a major
issue when applying for work. Employers should be educated that wearing hij ab has no
effect on a woman’s capability to execute her job, and that Hijabis should be hired on the
basis of their credentials and experiences, not according to how they dress. This involves
employing training workshops that serve to clear any misconceptions one might have
about Hijabis or Muslims in general.

Future directions regarding theoretical advancement of the findings of this study
should revolve around reexarnining this study while addressing the limitations concerned
in this present study; occupations used in the design, response rate bias, disengagement!
disidentification measures, etc. Also, although this study does show that Hij abis are less

likely to expect to receive interviews and job offers for high public contact occupations

106

 

than non-Hijabi Muslim females and that this relationship is moderated by job status, the
underlying mechanisms for why this is so remains inconclusive whether this is a cause of
discrimination, perceived discrimination, both, or neither. Future research should directly
ask if it is in fact perceived discrimination (which is hypothesized to be the case but not
measured) due to wearing the hijab that is leading the Hijabis to respond such a way.

In the most ideal scenario, a field study investigating Hijabis and their quest for
employment in different work domains conceming public contact, security, and job status
should be conducted to see if these self-report behaviors of Hijabis are actually backed by
real-life data. A longitudinal study should also be employed. Osborne (1995) states that
in order for the disidentification theory to hold, one of the elements that should occur is
that the correlation between measures of the disidentified domain and self esteem should
be moderate and significant in the beginning, but over time this relationship would
weaken as the stigmatized group will remove their self esteem fiom that particular
domain. In line with this, a longitudinal study measuring this relationship should be
employed to see if Hijabi’s also observe this.

Additionally, future research should extend the findings of this study to the
employment context to see if nonstigrnatized individuals limit the amount of exposure
that Hijabis have in public domains to reduce the possibility of potential interactions with
them. Other possible future directions involve investigating stigma from the employer’s
perspective. More research needs to be conducted addressing what triggers the employer
to employ these unfair hiring tactics. Also, it is possible that prejudice might not always

be the culprit in the employment setting. Other considerations, such as health and safety

107

 

issues (requirements of a different dress code), and the use of organizational dress as a
symbol of person-organization fit should also be accounted for.

Future research should also examine the generalizability of these findings to other
religious groups, such as Jewish men who wear the yarmulke, Sikh men who wear the
turban, and Christians who wear the crucifix. The general hypothesis is that these groups,
like Muslims, will be stigmatized because of their physical display of their religious
beliefs and as a result of the stigmatization, disengage and disidentify from the work
domain. However, the extent of this stigmatization and the victim’s use of
disengagement/ disidentification tactics will depend on the extent to which these other
religious groups are perceived as a threat and how these religious groups, as victims,

perceive prejudice.

108

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Measures
Appendix B: Online Study Protocol
Appendix C: Job Ads
Appendix D: Informed Consent
Appendix E: Debriefing Form
Appendix F: Recruitment Letters and Emails
Appendix G: Summary of Analyses
Appendix H: Analyses Conducted Using the Original Pilot Study Design

Appendix 1: Select Responses for the Open Ended Questions

109

APPENDIX A

MEASURES

Measure at disengagement/ disidentification

Assuming that you were interested in this job and had all the qualifications, would
you consider applying for this job?

Assuming that you were interested in this job and had all the qualifications, would
you actually apply for this job?

Assuming that you were interested in this job and had all the qualifications, do you
think you would receive a call back for this job?

Assuming that you were interested in this job and had all the qualifications, do you
think you would receive a job interview?

Assuming that you were interested in this job and had all the qualifications, do you
think you would receive a job offer?

Assuming that you were interested in this job and had all the qualifications, do you
think you would be hired for this job?

To what extent do you think your religious attire would be factor in getting the job?
Would you be willing to take off or modify your religious attire in order to get or to
keep the job?

 

Meaflrept occppational ratings

Job Status (prestige)
1 2 3 4 5
Very Low Somewhat Average Somewhat Very High
Low High
Gender Composition
1 2 3

More males than females About the same number More females than and males
of males and females

Contact with the public

1 2 3 4 5
very a little some a lot a great deal
little/none

Measure of Group Identification
Collective Self-Esteem Scale (Lutheran & Crocker, 1992) (4 Subscales)

Membership self-esteem
1. I am a worthy member of my social group (Muslims).
5. I feel I don't have much to offer to my social group (Muslims).
9. I am a cooperative participant in the activities of my social group (Muslims).
13. I often feel I'm a useless member of my social group (Muslim).

110

 

Private collective self-esteem
2. I often regret that I belong to my social group (Muslims).
6. In general, I'm glad to be a member of my social group (Muslims).
10. Overall, I often feel that my social group (Muslims) is not worthwhile.
14. I feel good about the social group (Muslim) I belong to.

Public collective self-esteem
3. Overall, my social group is considered good by others (Muslims).
7. Most people consider my social group (Muslims), on the average, to be more
ineffective than other groups.
11. In general, others respect my social group (Muslims).
15. In general, others think that the social group (Muslim) I am a member of are
unworthy.

Importance to Identity
4. Overall, my social group (Muslims) has very little to do with how I feel about
myself.

8. The social group (Muslims) I belong to is an important reflection of who I am.

12. The social group (Muslim) I belong to unimportant to my sense of what kind of a
person I am.

16. In general, belonging to my social group (Muslim) is an important part of my
self image.

Measure of Stereotype Intemalization
American (Reverse-coded)
Terrorist
Backward
Traditional
Educated (Reverse-coded)
Modest
Immigrant
Conservative
Peaceful (Reverse-coded)
Uncultured
Westernized (Reverse-coded)
Religious
Extremist
Wild
Nomadic
Disorganized
Violent
Misogyrrist (People who mistreat or oppress women)
Polygamous
Menacing
Uneducated

Oppressive

 

111

 

 

Submissive
Fanatic

Measure of thimism
Revised Life Orientation Test (LOT-R)

In uncertain times, I usually expect the best.

It's easy for me to relax.

If something can go wrong for me, it will.

I'm always optimistic about my future.

I enjoy my fiiends a lot.

It's important for me to keep busy.

I hardly ever expect things to go my way.

I don't get upset too easily.

I rarely count on good things happening to me.

Overall, I expect more good things to happen to me than bad.

Measure of Loops of control
Rotter's Locus of Control Scale (Rotter, 1966)
1a. Children get into trouble because their parents punish them too much.
1b. The trouble with most children nowadays is that their parents are too easy with
them.
2a. Many of the unhappy things in people's lives are partly due to bad luck.
2b. People's misfortunes result fi'om the mistakes they make.
3a. One of the major reasons why we have wars is because people don't take enough
interest in politics.
3b. There will always be wars, no matter how hard people try to prevent them.
4a. In the long run people get the respect they deserve in this world
4b. Unfortunately, an individual's worth often passes unrecognized no matter how
hard he tries
5a. The idea that teachers are unfair to students is nonsense.
5b. Most students don't realize the extent to which their grades are influenced by
accidental happenings.
6a. Without the right breaks one cannot be an effective leader.
6b. Capable people who fail to become leaders hive not taken advantage of their
opportunities.
7a. No matter how hard you try some people just don't like you.
7b. People who can't get others to like them don't understand how to get along with
others.
8a. Heredity plays the major role in determining one's personality
8b. It is one's experiences in life which determine what they're like.
9a. 1 have often found that what is going to happen will happen.
9b. Trusting to fate has never turned out as well for me as making a decision to take a
definite course of action.
10a. In the case of the well prepared student there is rarely if ever such. a thing as an
unfair test.

112

10b. Many times exam questions tend to be so unrelated to course work that studying
in really useless.

11a. Becoming a success is a matter of hard work, luck has little or nothing to do with
it.

11b. Getting a good job depends mainly on being in the right place at the right time.
12a. The average citizen can have an influence in government decisions.

12b. This world is run by the few people in power, and there is not much the little guy
can do about it.

13a. When I make plans, I am almost certain that I can make them work.

13b. It is not always wise to plan too far ahead because many things turn out to- be a
matter of good or bad fortune anyhow.

14a. There are certain people who are just no good.

14b. There is some good in everybody.

15a. In my case getting what I want has little or nothing to do with luck.

15b. Many times we might just as well decide what to do by flipping a coin.

16a. Who gets to be the boss often depends on who was lucky enough to be in the
right place first.

16b. Getting people to do the right thing depends upon ability, luck has little or
nothing to do with it.

17a. As far as world affairs are concerned, most of us are the victims of forces we can
neither understand, nor control.

17b. By taking an active part in political and social affairs the people can control
world events.

18a. Most people don't realize the extent to which their lives are controlled by
accidental happenings.

18b. There really is no such thing as "luck."

19a. One should always be willing to admit mistakes.

19b. It is usually best to cover up one's mistakes.

20a. It is hard to know whether or not a person really likes you.

20b. How many fiiends you have depends upon how nice a person you are.

21a. In the long run the bad things that happen to us are balanced by the good ones.
21b. Most misfortunes are the result of lack of ability, ignorance, laziness, or all three.
22a. With enough effort we can wipe out political corruption.

22b. It is difficult for people to have much control over the things politicians do in
office.

23a. Sometimes I can't understand how teachers arrive at the grades they give.

23b. There is a direct connection between how hard 1 study and the grades I get.

24a. A good leader expects people to decide for themselves what they should do.
24b. A good leader makes it clear to everybody what their jobs are.

25a. Many times I feel that I have little influence over the things that happen to me.
25b. It is impossible for me to believe that chance or luck plays an important role in
my life.

26a. People are lonely because they don't try to be fiiendly.

26b. There's not much use in trying too hard to please people, if they like you, they
like you.

27a. There is too much emphasis on athletics in high school.

113

 

27b. Team sports are an excellent way to build character.

28a. What happens to me is my own doing.

28b. Sometimes I feel that I don't have enough control over the direction my life is
taking.

29a. Most of the time I can't understand why politicians behave the way they do.
29b. In the long run the people are responsible for bad government on a national as
well as on a local level.

[ Demogmphics ]

Please respond to the following questions about yourself

What is your age?—

 

What ethnicity do you consider yourself to be?
Hispanic

American Indian or Alaskan native

East Asian

South Asian

Middle Eastern

Black/African American
White/Caucasian/Not of Hispanic origin
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander

Other (specify: )

r'P‘QGthP-PP‘P

How would you rate your English speaking ability?

a. Poor
b. Somewhat below average
c. Average
(1. Good
e. Excellent
How would you rate your English writing ability?
a. Poor
b. Somewhat below average
0. Average
d. Good
e. Excellent

What is your current nationality status?
a. Permanent Alien
b. Temporary Alien
0. Native US. Citizen
(1. Naturalized

How long have you lived in the United States?
a. less than a year
b. 1-2 years

114

c.
d.
C.

3-5 years
5-10 years
over 10 years

Are you currently enrolled in an academic program?

a.
b.

Yes
No

Indicate the highest level of education you have completed?

(tonne-pert»

Did not complete High School

High school or equivalency

Some college

2 year college degree (Associates)

4 year college degree (BA, BS)

Master’s degree

Doctoral degree or other professional degree (e. g., Medical, law)

Are you currently enrolled in an academic program (e. g. college, graduate school)?

a.
b.
c.

Yes, full time
Yes, part time
No

What is the highest level of education you intend to complete?

(PWPP-PP‘P

Less than high School

High school/ GED

Some college

2 year college degree (Associates)

4 year college degree (BA, BS)

Master’s degree

Doctoral degree or other professional degree (e. g., Medical, law)

What is the highest level of education your mother has completed?

crease-99‘s»

 

Less than high School

High school/ GED

Some college

2 year college degree (Associates)

4 year college degree (BA, BS)

Master’s degree

Doctoral degree or other professional degree (e. g., Medical, law)

What is the highest level of education your father has completed?

(Prensa-99'.»

Less than high School

High school/ GED

Some college

2 year college degree (Associates)
4 year college degree (BA, BS)
Master’s degree

Doctoral degree

115

 

 

 

h. Professional degree (MD, J D)

What is your gross yearly income?
Less than $10,000
$10,000-19,999
$20,000-29,999
$30,000-39,999
$40,000-49,999
$50,000-69,999
$70,000-79,999
$80,000-89,999
$90,000-99,999
$100,000-150,000
more than 150,000

trprgqa rm 9.0 9‘.»

What is your total gross household income, including all earners in your household?
Less than $10,000
$10,000-l9,999
$20,000-29,999
$30,000-39,999
$40,000-49,999
$50,000-69,999
$70,000-79,999
$80,000-89,999
$90,000-99,999
$100,000-150,000
more than 150,000

tar-rm: woe-9 9‘s»

What is your current marital status?
Single, never married

Married

Separated

Divorced

Widowed

PEI-PST!”

Do you have any children?
a. Yes
b. No

If yes, how many children do you have?__

What region of the United States do you live in?
North East

North West

Midwest

West

South

California

Do not live in the US?

(prune-99‘s»

116

 

 

How much work experience (of any kind) do you have?
None

less than a year

1-2 years

3-5 years

5-10 years

over 10 years

rage-99‘s»

Are you currently employed?
a. Yes, full time
b. Yes, part time
c. No

If yes, what is your occupation?

 

How devoted a Muslim do you consider yourself to be?

a. very little/ not at all
b. a little

0. some

d. a lot

e. a great deal

Open-ended Questions (Hijabis Only)

1. What does the hijab mean to you as a Muslim, and as an American?

2. Why do you choose to wear the hijab even after 9/11, when it might pose a danger

to do so or it might arouse suspicion fiom others?

3. In what ways has your Islamic beliefs influenced your work life in America, such
as in seeking employment and in demanding accommodations on the basis of your
religion?

Are you concerned about applying for work because you wear the hijab?

Would you consider taking your hijab off to apply for work or if you were

specifically asked to or were required to in order to get work?

6. Are you aware of any incidences (personal or not) in which Hijabis were refused
work on the basis of their attire?

PM“

 

117

 

APPENDIX B

Online Study Protocol

Are you a Muslim Female? (If yes, they will be asked an additional question. If no,
participants will not be allowed to take the study; they will be thanked and excused from
the survey)

Do you wear a hijab? (If yes, they will be asked to fill out the self-report questions, if
they wish. Everything else will remain the same regardless whether participants answers
yes or no to this question)

[ Informed Consent Form ]

Please read and click on the “I agree” button if you agree to the informed consent below.
(If participants agree, they will begin the survey in the order as follows. If they do not
agree, they will be thanked and excused from the survey):

For this study, suppose that you are a hypothetical job applicant seeking employment.
The following is a job ad for a position you come across while in the middle of your job
search. Please review the job ad and answer the questions that follow.

[A job ad will be shown here- see Appendix C for exact job ads]

[ Measure of disengggement/ disidentification ]

Please answer the following questions regarding the job ad you have read. Please use the
rating scale below to describe how accurately each of these questions below describe

your reactions to the job ad. There are no right or wrong answers. Just answer honestly.

Please respond to items using the following scale

I _ 2 _ 3 _ 4 _ 5
Very Somewhat Neither Somewhat Very
Unlikely Unlikely Likely Likely

#
0

Assuming that you were interested in this job and had all the qualifications,

would you consider applying for this job?

2. Assuming that you were interested in this job and had all the qualifications, would
you apply for this job?

3. Assuming that you were interested in this job and had all the qualifications, do
you think you would receive a call back for this job?

4. Assuming that you were interested in this job and had all the qualifications, do
you think you would receive a job interview?

5. Assuming that you were interested in this job and had all the qualifications, do

you think you would receive a job ofler?

118

 

 

6. Assuming that you were interested in this job and had all the qualifications, do
you think you would be hired for this job?

7. To what extent do you think your attire/ religious attire would be factor in getting
the job?

8. Would you be willing to take off or modify your attire/ religious attire in order to
get or to keep the job?

[Measure of occupational ratings ] ( this measure was used for pilot testing and will be
used again for the eleven occupation conditions)

Please pick out the statement that best gives your own personal opinion of the general
standing that the occupation represented in the job ad above has on each of the following
categories:

Job Status (prestige)
l 2 3 4 5
Poor Somewhat Average Good Excellent

Below Average

Gender Composition
1 2 3
More males than females About the same number More females than and males
of males and females

Contact with the public

1 2 3 4 5
very a little some a lot a great deal
little/none

[ Measure of Optimism ]
Revised Life Orientation Test (LOT-R)

Below is a list of statements dealing with your general feelings about yourself Please
indicate the degree to which each of the items represents your feelings according to the
following scale.

1 2 3 4 5
Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
Agree Disgaree

1. In uncertain times, I usually expect the best.

2. It's easy for me to relax.

3. If something can go wrong for me, it will.

4. I'm always optimistic about my future.

5. I enjoy my fiiends a lot.

119

 

 

6. It's important for me to keep busy.

7. I hardly ever expect things to go my way.

8. I don't get upset too easily.

9. I rarely count on good things happening to me.

10. Overall, I expect more good things to happen to me than bad

_[ Measure of Locus of control ]
Rotter's Locus of Control Scale (Rotter, 1966)

This questionnaire assesses your opinions about certain issues. Each item consists of a
pair of alternatives marked with a or b. Select the alternative with which you most agree.
If you believe both alternatives to some extent, select the one with which you most
strongly agree. If you do not believe either alternative, mark the one with which you least
strongly disagree. Since this is an assessment of opinions, there are obviously no right or
wrong answers.

 

1a. Many of the unhappy things in people's lives are partly due to bad luck.

b. People's misfortunes result from the mistakes they make.

23. One of the major reasons why we have wars is because people don't take enough
interest in politics.

b. There will always be wars, no matter how hard people try to prevent them.

3a. In the long run people get the respect they deserve in this world

b. Unfortunately, an individual's worth often passes unrecognized no matter how
hard he tries

4a. The idea that teachers are unfair to students is nonsense.

b. Most students don't realize the extent to which their grades are influenced by

accidental happenings.

5a. Without the right breaks one cannot be an effective leader.

b. Capable people who fail to become leaders hive not taken advantage of their

opportunities.

6a. No matter how hard you try some people just don't like you.

b. People who can't get others to like them don't understand how to get along with

others.

7a. I have often found that what is going to happen will happen.

b. Trusting to fate has never turned out as well for me as making a decision to take a

definite course of action.

8a. In the case of the well prepared student there is rarely if ever such. a thing as an

unfair test.

b. Many times exam questions tend to be so unrelated to course work that studying in

really useless.

9a. Becoming a success is a matter of hard work, luck has little or nothing to do with

it. '

b. Getting a good job depends mainly on being in the right place at the right time.

10a. The average citizen can have an influence in government decisions.

 

120

b. This world is run by the few people in power, and there is not much the little guy
can do about it.

11a. When I make plans, I am almost certain that I can make them work.
b. It is not always wise to plan too far ahead because many things turn out to- be a
matter of good or bad fortune anyhow.

12a. In my case getting what I want has little or nothing to do with luck.

b. Many times we might just as well decide what to do by flipping a coin.

13a. Who gets to be the boss often depends on who was lucky enough to be in the
right place first.
b. Getting people to do the right thing depends upon ability, luck has little or nothing
to do with it.

14a. As far as world affairs are concerned, most of us are the victims of forces we can
neither understand, nor control.
b. By taking an active part in political and social affairs the people can control world
events.

15a. Most people don't realize the extent to which their lives are controlled by
accidental happenings.
b. There really is no such thing as "luck."

16a. It is hard to know whether or not a person really likes you.
b. How many fiiends you have depends upon how nice a person you are.

17a. In the long run the bad things that happen to us are balanced by the good ones.
b. Most misfortunes are the result of lack of ability, ignorance, laziness, or all three.
18a. With enough effort we can wipe out political corruption.
b. It is difficult for people to have much control over the things politicians do in office.
19a. Sometimes I can't understand how teachers arrive at the grades they give.
b. There is a direct connection between how hard 1 study and the grades I get.

20a. Many times I feel that I have little influence over the things that happen to me.
b. It is impossible for me to believe that chance or luck plays an important role in my
life.

21a. People are lonely because they don't try to be fiiendly.
b. There's not much use in trying too hard to please people, if they like you, they like
you.

22a. What happens to me is my own doing.
b. Sometimes I feel that I don't have enough control over the direction my life is
taking.

23a. Most of the time I can't understand why politicians behave the way they do.
b. In the long run the people are responsible for bad government on a national as well
as on a local level.

 

[ Measure of Group Identification ]
Collective Self-Esteem Scale (Lutheran & Crocker, 1992)

We are all members of drflerent social groups or social categories. Some of such social
groups or categories pertain to gender, race, religion, nationality, ethnicity, and

121

 

socioeconomic class. We would like you to consider your membership in a particular
group, as a Muslim, and respond to the following statements on the basis of how you feel
about that group and your membership in it. There are no right or wrong answers to any
of these statements; we are interested in your honest reactions and opinions. Please read
each statement carefully, and respond by using the following scale fiom 1 to 7:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Disagree Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree Agree
Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly

1. I am a worthy member of my social group (Muslims).
2. I often regret that I belong to my social group (Muslims).
3. Overall, my social group is considered good by others (Muslims).
4. Overall, my social group (Muslims) has very little to do with how I feel about
myself.
5. I feel I don't have much to offer to my social group (Muslims).
6. In general, I'm glad to be a member of my social group (Muslims).
7. Most people consider my social group (Muslims), on the average, to be more
ineffective than other groups.
8. The social group (Muslims) I belong to is an important reflection of who I am.
9. I am a cooperative participant in the activities of my social group (Muslims).
10. Overall, I often feel that my social group (Muslims) is not worthwhile.
11. In general, others respect my social group (Muslims).
12. The social group (Muslims) I belong to are unimportant to my sense of what
kind of a person I am.
13. I often feel I'm a useless member of my social group (Muslims).
14. I feel good about the social group (Muslims) I belong to.
15. In general, others think that the social group (Muslims) I am a member of are
unworthy.
16. In general, belonging to social group (Muslims) is an important part of my self
image.

[ Measure of Stereotype Intemalization ]

Below is a list of stereotypes more or less associated with members of your social group
(Muslims). Please indicate the degree to which each of these characteristics represent
YOU (not just Muslims) according to the following scale. There are no right or wrong
answers; we are interested in your honest reactions and opinions.

 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Very unlike me Neutral Very like me
American (Reverse-coded)
Educated (Reverse-coded)
Terrorist

122

 

Backward

Traditional

Modest

Immigrant

Conservative

Peaceful (Reverse-coded)
Uncultured

Westernized (Reverse-coded)
Religious

Extremist

Wild

Nomadic 3'
Disorganized

Violent

Misogynist (People who mistreat or oppress women)
Polygamous

Menacing

Uneducated

Oppressive

Submissive

Fanatic

 

‘-

[ Measure of Work Centrali_ty ]

Below is a list of statements dealing with your general feelings about work in general.
Please indicate the degree to which each of the items represents your feelings according
to the following scale.

 

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Disagree Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree Agree
Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly

The most important things that happen in life involve work.

Work is something people should get involved in most of the time.
Work should be only a small part of one’s life.

Work should be considered central to life.

In my view, an individual’s personal life goals should be work-oriented.
Life is worth living only when people get absorbed in work.

Below is a list of statements dealing with your general feelings about either your current
Lab OR your careepplansfor the [yture Please indicate the degree to which each of the
items represents your feelings according to the following scale.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Disagree Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Agree Agree
Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly

123

 

The most important things that happen to me involve my present job/ career plans.
To me, my job/ career plans are only a small part of who I am.

I am very much involved personally in my job/ career plans.

I live, eat and breathe my job/ career plans.

Most of my interests are centered around my job/ career plans.

I have very strong ties with my present job/ career plans which would be very difficult to
break.

Usually I feel detached fiom my job/ career plans.

Most of my personal life goals are job-oriented/ career-oriented.

I considered my j ob/ career plans to be very central to my existence.

I like to be absorbed in my job/ career plans most of the time.

[ Demogrpphics ]

Please respond to the following questions about yourself
What is your age?—

What ethnicity do you consider yourself to be?
Hispanic

American Indian or Alaskan native

East Asian

South Asian

Middle Eastern

Black/Afiican American
White/Caucasian/Not of Hispanic origin
Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
Other (specify: )

r'P‘qc fine-99‘s»

 

How would you rate your English speaking ability?
Poor

Somewhat below average

Average

Good

Excellent

roe-99‘s»

How would you rate your English writing ability?
Poor

Somewhat below average

Average

Good

Excellent

sup-99‘s»

What is your current nationality status?
a. Permanent Alien
b. Temporary Alien
c. Native US. Citizen

124

 

 

 

d. Naturalized

How long have you lived in the United States?

a. less than a year
b. 1-2 years

o. 3-5 years

d. 5-10 years

c. over 10 years

Indicate the highest level of education you mp completed?

Did not complete High School

High school or equivalency

Some college

2 year college degree (Associates)

4 year college degree (BA, BS)

Master’s degree

Doctoral degree or other professional degree (e. g., Medical, law)

Qawnepge

Are you currently enrolled in an academic program (e. g. college, graduate school)?
a. Yes, full time
b. Yes, part time

c. No
What is the highest level of education you intend to complete?

a. Less than high School

b. High school/ GED

0. Some college

d. 2 year college degree (Associates)

e. 4 year college degree (BA, BS)

f. Master’s degree

g. Doctoral degree or other professional degree (e.g., Medical, law)
What is the highest level of education your mother has completed?

a. Less than high School

b. High school/ GED

c. Some college

(1. 2 year college degree (Associates)

e. 4 year college degree (BA, BS)

f. Master’s degree

g. Doctoral degree or other professional degree (e.g., Medical, law)
What is the highest level of education your father has completed?

Less than high School
High school/ GED

Some college

2 year college degree (Associates)
4 year college degree (BA, BS)
Master’s degree

fine???

125

 

 

g. Doctoral degree or other professional degree (e.g., Medical, law)

What is your gross yearly income?
Less than $10,000
$10,000-l9,999
$20,000-29,999
$30,000-39,999
$40,000-49,999
$50,000-69,999
$70,000-79,999
$80,000-89,999
$90,000-99,999
$100,000-150,000
more than 150,000

F'?"-”"E=‘Q° rm 9.0 9"?

 

What is your total gross household income, including all earners in your household?
3. Less than $10,000
$10,000-19,999
$20,000-29,999
$30,000-39,999
$40,000-49,999
$50,000-69,999
$70,000-79,999
$80,000-89,999
$90,000-99,999
$100,000-150,000
more than 150,000

F'7"='"P‘Q° rm 9.0 9‘

What is your current marital status?
Single, never married

Married

Separated

Divorced

Widowed

toe-99‘s»

Do you have any children?
a. Yes
b. No

If yes, how many children do you have?_ ‘

What region of the United States do you live in?
North East

North West

Midwest

West

South

California

Do not live in the US?

canoe-99‘s»

126

How much work experience (of any kind) do you have?

a. None

b. less than a year
c. 1-2 years

d. 3-5 years

c. 5-10 years

f. over 10 years

Are you currently employed?
a. Yes, full time
b. Yes, part time
c. No

If yes, what is your occupation?

How devoted a Muslim do you consider yourself to be?

a. very little/ not at all
b. a little

c. some

(I. a lot

e. a great deal

For N on-Hijabi Participants:
Thanks for completing the survey! Please click the "NEXT" option below. The debriefing
form that follows will give you more insight into our study.

If you do know of other Muslim females, please pass this survey along to them.

If you have any comments about this survey, feel free to address them below.

 

 

NEXT

 

 

 

[ Debriefingiorm]

For Hijabi Participants:

Thanks, you have reached the end of the questionnaire!
If you would like to add some more input to this experiment, you may choose to answer

some free-response questions below. Please note that these questions are OPT IONA—L,
you do not have to respond to them and you may submit the questionnaire as is. Also, you

127

 

may choose to answer all or just the questions you wish to answer. Remember, there are
no right or wrong answers. We are simply interested in your opinions and experiences.

If you wish to skip the flee-response questions, please choose the “NEXT" option below.
The debriefing form that follows will give you more insight into our study.

If you do know of other hijabis or Muslim females, please pass this survey along to them.

Open-Ended Questions E or Hijabi ’s only)

1.

.V‘P

What does the hijab mean to you as a Muslim, and as an American?

Why do you choose to wear the hijab even after 9/11, when it might pose a
danger to do so or it might arouse suspicion from others?

In what ways has your Islamic beliefs influenced your work life in America, such
as in seeking employment and in demanding accommodations on the basis of
your religion?

Are you concerned about applying for work because you wear the hij ab?

Would you consider taking your hijab off to apply for work or if you were
specifically asked to or were required to in order to get work?

Are you aware of any incidences (personal or not) in which Hijabis were refused
work on the basis of their attire?

Thanks for completing the survey. Please click the “NEXT" option below. The debriefing
form that follows will give you more insight into our study.

If you have any comments about this survey, feel free to address them below.

 

 

NEXT

 

 

 

[ DebriefinLForm ]

128

 

APPENDIX C
M

Position or Job Title: Laundry/ Dry Cleaning Worker
Company: Madison Laundry & Dry Cleaning
Position Industry: Service (Laundromat)
Position Location (City): Midwest
State: Michigan
Country: United States
Job Description: Local Laundromat is seeking to add a full time employee to their
business.
Responsibilities:

- Performing day to day laundry functions and ensuring that our facility is
maintained in a clean, safe comfortable manner.

- Operate or tend washing or dry-cleaning machines to wash or dry-clean industrial
or household articles.

Skills/Qualifications:

- High school diploma or equivalent preferred.
- Experience performing laundry duties.

129

 

 

Position or Job Title: Family Practice, Medicine

Company: Madison Health Associates

Position Industry: Healthcare (Medical Clinic)

Position Location (City): Midwest

State: Michigan

Country: United States

Job Description: Local Medical Group is seeking to add a family physician to their
practice.

Responsibilities:

- Advise patients and community members concerning health matters.

- Prescribe or administer treatment, therapy, medication, vaccination, and other
specialized medical care to treat or prevent illness, disease, or injury.

- Refer patients to medical specialists or other practitioners when necessary.

- Must see 20-25 Patients daily.

- Use good communication, manners and judgment.

 

Skills/Qualifications:
- Must have a doctorate in medicine.
- Must have completed a family practice residency program.
- Must be board certified.

130

 

Position or Job Title: Sales representative

Company: Madison Inc.

Position Industry: Sales (Retail store)

Position Location (City): Midwest

State: Michigan

Country: United States

Job Description: Local retail merchant is seeking to add a full time employee to their
sales department.

Responsibilities:

- Recommend, select, and sell merchandise based on customer needs and desires.
- Work to achieve the highest level of customer satisfaction.

- Resolve specific customer questions or complaints.

- Accurately operate retail cash register system.

- Performs functions of opening or closing stores.

Skills/Qualifications:
- Excellent communication and customer service skills.
- High school diploma or equivalent.
- Retail sales experience.

131

 

 

Position or Job Title: Waitress
Company: Madison Grill
Position Industry: Service (Restaurant)
Position Location (City): Midwest

State: Michigan

Country: United States

Job Description: Local diner is seeking waitress to serve patrons.

Responsibilities:

Present menus to patrons and answer questions about menu items, making
recommendations upon request.

Take orders from patrons for food or beverages on order slips, and memorize
orders.

Serve food and/or beverages to patrons; prepare and serve specialty dishes at
tables as required.

Check with customers to ensure that they are enjoying their meals and take action
to correct any problems.

Prepare checks that itemize and total meal costs and sales taxes.

Remove dishes and glasses from tables or counters, and take them to kitchen for
cleaning.

Skills/Qualifications:

Excellent customer service & communication skills.
High school diploma or equivalent.
General Math Skills.

132

 

 

Position or Job Title: Cook, Private Household
Company: Mr. & Mrs. Madison
Position Industry: Service (Household)
Position Location (City): Midwest

State: Michigan

Country: United States

Job Description: Local family is seeking a private cook to prepare meals for whole
family to enjoy.

Responsibilities:
- Prepare meals in private homes according to employers' recipes or tastes.
- Stock, organize, and clean kitchens and cooking utensils.
- Shop for or order food and kitchen supplies and equipment.
- Serve meals and snacks to employing families and their guests.
- Plan menus according to employers' needs and diet restrictions.
- Plan and prepare food for parties, holiday meals, and other special functions

Skills/Qualifications:
- Ability to communicate with family.
- High school diploma or equivalent preferred.
- Previous cooking experience and tools of the trade.

133

 

Position or Job Title: Factory Worker

Company: Madison Goods

Position Industry: Warehouse & Manufacturing (Cereal Company)
Position Location (City): Midwest

State: Michigan

Country: United States

Job Description: Prominent cereal company is seeking general laborers to work in their
warehouse.

Responsibilities:
- Mixes ingredients, according to formula.
- Feeds item into processing machine.
- Count finished product to determine completion of production order.
- Separates product according to weight, grade, size, and composition of material
used to produce product.
- Examines product to verify conformance to company standards.

Skills/Qualifications:
- High school diploma or equivalent preferred.
- Previous warehouse or manufacturing experience considered a plus.

134

 

 

 

Position or Job Title: Paralegal

Company: Madison & Madison

Position Industry: Legal Administration (Law Firm)
Position Location (City): Midwest

State: Michigan

Country: United States

Job Description: Local firm is seeking paralegal to add to their group to save attorneys’
time by researching, obtaining, compiling, and preparing information.

Responsibilities:

Prepare legal documents.

Prepare affidavits or other documents, maintain document file, and file pleadings
with court clerk.

Gather and analyze research data.

Call upon witnesses to testify at hearing.

Direct and coordinate law office activity, including delivery of subpoenas.
Arbitrate disputes between parties and assist in real estate closing process.

Skills/Qualifications:

4 year degree required.

Research Skills, Analyzing Information

Legal Administration Skills

Excellent writing, proofreading and organizational skills
Excellent communication skills

Formal legal training and paralegal work experience

135

 

Position or Job Title: Graphic Designer

Company: Madison Inc.

Position Industry: Design/ Marketing (Design Studio)
Position Location (City): Midwest

State: Michigan

Country: United States

Job Description: Local design studio is seeking graphic designer to plan, analyze, and
create visual solutions for client companies.

Responsibilities:

- Create designs, concepts, and sample layouts based on knowledge of layout
principles and esthetic design concepts.

- Use computer software to generate new images.

- Review final layouts and suggest improvements as needed.

- Confer with clients to discuss and determine layout design.

- Develop graphics and layouts for product illustrations, company logos, and
Internet websites.

- Key information into computer equipment to create layouts for client or
supervisor.

- Prepare illustrations or rough sketches of material, discussing them with clients
and/or supervisors and making necessary changes.

 

Skills/Qualifications:
- BS/BA or BFA in related field.
- Strong knowledge of principles of graphic and visual design. 1
- Experience working with Adobe Acrobat, Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Illustrator,
Quark Express, MacroMedia, and DreamWeaver. I
- Experience in graphic design or related field.
- Web skills an added bonus as well.

136

 

Position or Job Title: Technical writer
Company: Madison Inc.
Position Industry: Media (Writing F inn)
Position Location (City): Midwest

State: Michigan

Country: ’ United States

Job Description: Local publishing firm is currently seeking a professional, innovative
and detailed-oriented individual for a technical writer.

Responsibilities:

Organize material and complete writing assignment according to set standards
regarding order, clarity, conciseness, style, and terminology.

Maintain records and files of work and revisions.

Edit, standardize, or make changes to material prepared by other writers or
establishment personnel.

Confer with clients or publisher to establish technical specifications and to
determine subject material to be developed for publication.

Review published materials and recommend revisions or changes

Observe production, developmental, and experimental activities to determine
operating procedure and detail.

Arrange for typing, duplication, and distribution of material.

Skills/Qualifications:

Master's degree in a technical writing/composition (or equivalent graduate degree
in English, Journalism, etc.)

In-depth technical knowledge to comprehend technical programs/data.
Experienced with document editing tools such as MS Office software, screen
capture software, graphics packages, RoboHelp.

Related work experience.

137

 

 

Position or Job Title: Flight Attendant
Company: Madison Airlines

Position Industry: Customer Service (Airlines)
Position Location (City): Midwest

State: Michigan

Country: United States

Job Description: Regional airline is seeking flight attendant to offer safe and fiiendly
customer service.

Responsibilities:

Announce and demonstrate safety and emergency procedures such as the use of
oxygen masks, seat belts, and life jackets.

Answer passengers' questions about flights, aircraft, weather, travel routes and
services, arrival times, and/or schedules.

Assist passengers in placing carry-on luggage in overhead, garment, or under-seat
storage.

Assist passengers while entering or disernbarking the aircraft.

Attend preflight briefings concerning weather, altitudes, routes, emergency
procedures, crew coordination, lengths of flights, food and beverage services
offered, and numbers of passengers.

Check to ensure that food, beverages, blankets, reading material, emergency
equipment, and other supplies are aboard and are in adequate supply.

Collect money for meals and beverages.

Conduct periodic trips through the cabin to ensure passenger comfort, and to
distribute reading material, headphones, pillows, playing cards, and blankets.
Determine special assistance needs of passengers such as small children, the
elderly, or disabled persons.

Direct and assist passengers in the event of an emergency, such as directing
passengers to evacuate a plane following an emergency landing.

Skills/Qualifications:

Be at least 21 years of age.

Have a HS diploma/GED.

Customer service experience, professional image, and good communication skills.
Ability to read, write and fluently speak and understand the English language.
Ability to comprehend and retain information pertinent to the position.

Willing to work holidays, weekends, nights and extended hours.

Ability to attend a 5-week training class.

Must have a valid passport by class date.

138

 

Position or Job Title: Security Guard
Company: Madison Inc.

Position Industry: Security (Security Firm)
Position Location (City): Midwest

State: Michigan

Country: United States

Job Description: Local firm is looking for a security guard to increase safety and
security for the welfare of fellow employees.

Responsibilities:

- Patrol premises to prevent and detect signs of intrusion and ensure security of
doors, windows, and gates.

- Answer alarms and investigate disturbances.

- Monitor and authorize entrance and departure of employees, visitors, and other
persons to guard against theft and maintain security of premises.

- Write reports of daily activities and irregularities, such as equipment or property
damage, theft, presence of unauthorized persons, or unusual occurrences.

- Call police or fire departments in cases of emergency, such as fire or presence of
unauthorized persons.

- Circulate among visitors, patrons, and employees to preserve order and protect
property.

- Answer telephone calls to take messages, answer questions, and provide
information during non-business hours or when switchboard is closed.

- Warn persons of rule infractions or violations, and apprehend or evict violators
fi'om premises, using force when necessary.

- Operate detecting devices to screen individuals and prevent passage of prohibited
articles into restricted areas.

- Escort or drive motor vehicle to transport individuals to specified locations and to
provide personal protection.

 

Skills/Qualifications:
- Must be at least 21 years of age.
- Must have a High School Diploma or GED.
- Clean Criminal Background and psychological exam.
- Able to pass a pre-employment drug test.
- Prior security and/or law enforcement experience preferred.
- Surveillance Skills, dealing with uncertainty, judgment, safety management.

139

 

APPENDD( D
Informed Consent for Online Experiment
Project Title: Stigma of Muslim Women in Employment Settings
Primary Researchers: Sonia Ghumman & Dr. Linda Jackson, Professor of Psychology

Description and Explanation of Procedure: You are being asked to participate in a

study addressing the psychological and practical challenges that Muslim women encounter as
applicants for employment during job selection procedures. In this experiment, you will be asked
to take on the role of an hypothetical applicant and by computer, you will answer a set of
questions that measure your opinions regarding a hypothetical job. In addition, you will be asked
questions about yourself, Muslims, and your social identity as a Muslim.

The experiment is meant to look at issues confronting Muslim women today in the employment
arena.

Estimated Time Required: 30 minutes

Risks: 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. 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.Linda Jackson) and secondary (Sonia Ghumman) investigators
in the study. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law.

Benefits: You will gain experience in taking computer-based tests as well as learn more about
how psychological research is done.

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.

Ifyou have any questions about 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.

By clicking on the “I agree to participate in this study” button below, you indicate your voluntary
agreement to participate in this study.

140

 

 

APPENDIX E

Debriefing Form for Online Experiment

Thank you very much for completing the survey!

The goal of this study was to understand the issues confionting Muslim women today in
the workplace. Ever since the September 11, 2001 attacks, prejudice and discrimination
against Muslims in the United States have increased dramatically. Despite this, research
examining prejudice and discrimination towards Muslims in the employment context in
the United States is lacking. Even more, there has been relatively little research that
addresses the issues of Muslim women and their status as Americans. This study serves
partially to fill that void by addressing the concerns that Muslim women who don the

hij ab might have in the employment arena. This study predicts that certain job types, such
as those that require high public contact or those that are security-related, will be
considered off-limits for Hijabis. Your responses to the questions in this study will serve
to inform us of how accurate our predictions are.

One of the ways you can help us further in this study is if you do not reveal the details of
this study to anyone who might be participating. It is only this way that we can ensure
that participants go through the experiment in exactly the same way. We thank you for
doing this!

If you are interested in finding out more about prejudice and discriminations, a good
place to start would be a book chapter by Susan T. Fiske (1998) titled “Stereotyping,
Prejudice and Discrimination.” included in the Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. 2.
Boston: McGraw-Hill; pages 357-411.

If you have any concerns or questions about this project please contact Sonia Ghumman
by email: ghummans@msu.edu or by mail at: 346 Psychology Research Bldg, MSU,
East Lansing, MI 48824.

141

 

APPENDIX F

Recruitment Letter to be Sent to MSA, Local Mosque, or Naseeb.com Concerning Online
Experiment

Dear MSA/ Local Mosque,

I am asking on your behalf to recruit potential participants for an online study I
will be conducting addressing the psychological and practical challenges that Muslim
women encounter as applicants for employment during job selection procedures. Because
I only wish to study the influences in the lives of American Muslim women, I will be
limiting my participants to these three criteria: Muslim, female, and American. Another
important consideration will be for the participant to have intemet access so that they can
visit the site of my survey and to have the ability to navigate the intemet.

The survey in itself shall be brief, taking approximately 30 minutes to complete,
small in comparison to its contribution to gaining a deeper understanding of the issues
concerning American Muslim women today at work. In addition, responses on the survey
will be completely confidential. I will not be asking for any information that can be used
to identify the participant, such as their name. The data will only be accessible by the
primary investigators in the study. Their privacy will be protected to the maximum extent
allowable by law.

If you think you can help us, please forward me the email list of the sisters in your
association or even have a couple of sisters who are interested in taking the online survey
contact me at (516) 376-5006 or by email at ghummans@msu.edu. I would greatly
appreciate your help.

Thanks,

Sonia Ghumman
Industrial/Organizational Psychology
Michigan State University

348 Psychology Building

East Lansing, MI 48824

Office: 517-355-2171

Cell: 5 1 6-3 76-5006
ghummans@msu.edu

142

InititiErpail to be Sent out to the Emil List of Pprticipants Provided by MSA. Local
Mosque, or www.Naseeb.com Members Concerning Online Experiment

Dear Sister,

1 am asking on your behalf to participate in an online study that I am conducting
addressing the psychological and practical challenges that Muslim women encounter as
applicants for employment during job selection procedures. Because I only wish to study
the influences in the lives of American Muslim women, I will be limiting my participants
to these three criteria: Muslim, female, and American. Another important consideration
will be for you to have the ability to navigate the intemet.

The survey in itself shall be brief, taking approximately 30 minutes to complete,
small in comparison to its contribution to gaining a deeper understanding of the issues
concerning American Muslim women today at work. In addition, responses on the survey
will be completely confidential. I will not be asking for any information that can be used
to identify the participant, such as your name. The data will only be accessible by the
primary investigators in the study. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent
allowable by law.

If you agree to take this survey, please click on the link below. In the case that the
link does not work, please copy and paste the link as a web address.

https://psycholopy.msu.edu/RvanResearch/Encgypt/ConsoleLogin.asp

Also, if you know of any other sisters who might be interested in filling out this
survey, please forward this email onto them. If you have any question or concerns, feel
free to contact me at (516) 376-5006 or by email (ghummans@msu.edu). I would greatly
appreciate your help.

Thanks,

Sonia Ghumman
Industrial/Organizational Psychology
Michigan State University

348 Psychology Building

East Lansing, MI 48824

Office: 517-355-2171

Cell: 516-376-5006
gl_rummans@msu.edu

143

 

 

 

APPENDIX G

Summary of Analyses

 

Hgothesis

 

Analysis

 

HYPOTHESIS l: Hijabis will have lower
intentions than non-Hijabis (a) to apply for and
have lower expectations of (b) receiving
interviews or (c) getting job offers for
occupations that require high public contact,
where discrimination is more likely, than
occupations that require low public contact,
where discrimination is less likely.

MANOVA will be used to test this hypothesis for
statistical significance. Significant higher intentions
(a) to apply for and higher expectations of (b)
receiving interviews or (0) getting job ofi’erS for
high-public contact occupations in non-Hijabis will
be interpreted as support for this hypothesis. Effect
sizes will be also computed to see if the differences
presented in the MANOVA also have practical
significance (Cohen, 1988).

 

HYPOTHESIS 2: Hijabis will have lower
intentions than non-Hijabis (a) to apply for and
lower expectations of (b) receiving interviews or
(0) getting job offers for security related
occupations than non-security related
occupations.

MAN OVA will be used to test this hypothesis for
statistical significance. Significant higher intentions
(a) to apply for and higher expectations of (b)
receiving interviews or (c) getting job offers for
security-related occupations in non-Hijabis will be
interpreted as support for this hypothesis. Effect
sizes will be also computed to see if the differences
presented in the MANOVA also have practical
significance LCohen, 1988).

 

HYPOTHESIS 3: Job status moderates the
relationship between public contact and
intentions (a) to apply for and expectations of
(b) receiving interviews or (c) getting job offers
for Hijabis such that:

3a: Hijabis will be more likely to apply for high
public contact occupations in high status
occupations than in low status occupations.

3b: For low status occupations, Hijabis will be
less likely to apply for high public contact
occupations than low public contact
occupations.

Moderated Reggession. One separate regression
analysis will be done for each of the three DV’s

[intentions (a) to apply for and expectations of (b)
receiving interviews or (c) getting job offers for
Hijabis]. An interaction term for job status and
amount of public contact will be entered into a
regression predicting differences in the DV. In the
case of a significant increase in the amount of
variance accounted for when the term is added to the
model, the interaction will be plotted to detect the
nature of the interaction and interpreted to see if it
supports the hypothesis.

 

HYPOTHESIS 4: Negative stereotype
internalization moderates the relationship
between the amount of public contact and
intentions (a) to apply for and expectations of
(b) receiving interviews or (c) getting job offers
for Hijabis such that Hijabis who do not
internalize the negative stereotypes of their
Muslim identity will be more likely to apply for
high public contact occupations than Hijabis
who internalize the stereotypes.

Moderated Reggession. One separate regression
analysis will be done for each of the three DV’s
[intentions (a) to apply for and expectations of (b)
receiving interviews or (c) getting job offers for
Hijabis]. An interaction term for perceived
legitimacy of the low status of one’s social identity
and amount of public contact will be entered into a
regression predicting difiemnces in the DV. In the
case of a significant increase in the amount of
variance accounted for when the term is added to the
model, the interaction will be plotted to detect the
nature of the interaction and interpreted to see if it
supports the hypothesis.

 

 

HYPOTHESIS 5: Negative stereotype
internalization moderates the relationship
between securig-related occupations and
intentions (a) to apply for and expectations of
(b) receiving interviews or (c) getting job offers

 

Moderated Reggession. One separate regression
analysis will be done for each of the three DV’s

[intentions (a) to apply for and expectations of (b)
receiving interviews or (c) getting job offers for
Hijabis]. An interaction term for perceived

 

144

 

 

 

for Hijabis such that Hijabis who do not
internalize the negative stereotypes of their
Muslim identity will be more likely to apply for
security-related occupations than Hijabis who
internalize the stereotypes.

legitimacy of the low status of one’s social identity
and job type (security vs. non-security) will be
entered into a regression predicting differences in the
DV. In the case of a significant increase in the
amount of variance accounted for when the term is
added to the model, the interaction will be plotted to
detect the nature of the interaction and interpreted to
see if it supports the hypothesis.

 

HYPOTHESIS 6: Hijabis will have a stronger
degree of group identification with their social
group (Muslims) than non-Hijabis.

Correlations between the being a Hijabi/ nonHijabi
and degree of identification. A t_-_te_st will be used to
test the hypothesis. Significant higher degree of
identification for occupations in Hij abis will be
interpreted as support for this hypothesis.

 

HYPOTHESIS 7: The degree of identification
with one’s social group (Muslim) moderates the
relationship between the amount of public
contact required in an occupation and intentions
(a) to apply for and expectations of (b) receiving
interviews or (c) getting job offers for Hijabis
such that Hijabis who identify more strongly as
Muslims will less likely to apply for high public
contact occupations than Hijabis who do not
identify as strongly as Muslims.

 

Moderated Reggession. One separate regression
analysis will be done for each of the three DV’s
[intentions (a) to apply for and expectations of (b)
receiving interviews or (c) getting job offers for
Hijabis]. An interaction term for degree of
identification and amount of public contact will be
entered into a regression predicting differences in the
DV. In the case of a significant increase in the
amount of variance accounted for when the term is
added to the model, the interaction will be plotted to
detect the nature of the interaction and interpreted to
see if it supports the hypothesis.

 

HYPOTHESIS 8: The degree of identification
with one’s social group (Muslim) moderates the
relationship between securig—related
occupations and intentions (a) to apply for and
expectations of (b) receiving interviews or (c)
getting job offers for Hijabis such that Hijabis
who identify more strongly as Muslims will be
less likely to apply for security related
occupations than Hijabis who do not identify as
strongly as Muslims.

Moderated Regpession. One separate regression
analysis will be done for each of the three DV’s

[intentions (a) to apply for and expectations of (b)
receiving interviews or (c) getting job offers for
Hijabis]. An interaction term for degree of
identification and job type (security vs. non-security)
will be entered into a regression predicting
differences in the DV. In the case of a significant
increase in the amount of variance accounted for
when the term is added to the model, the interaction
will be plotted to detect the nature of the interaction
and interpreted to see if it supports the hypothesis.

 

HYPOTHESIS 9: thimism moderates the
relationship between the amount of public
contact required in an occupation and intentions
(a) to apply for and expectations of (b)
receiving interviews or (c) getting job offers for
Hijabis such that Hijabis who score high on
optimism will more likely to apply for high
public contact occupations than Hijabis who
score low on optimism.

 

Moderated Reggession. One separate regression
analysis will be done for each of the three DV’s
[intentions (a) to apply for and expectations of (b)
receiving interviews or (c) getting job offers for
Hijabis]. An interaction term for optimism and
amount of public contact will be entered into a
regression predicting differences in the DV. In the
case of a significant increase in the amount of
variance accounted for when the term is added to the
model, the interaction will be plotted to detect the
nature of the interaction and interpreted to see if it
supports the hypothesis.

 

 

HYPOTHESIS 10: Optimism moderates the
relationship between securig-related
occupations and intentions (a) to apply for and
expectations of (b) receiving interviews or (c)
getting job offers for Hijabis such that Hijabis
who score high on optimism will be more likely
to apply for security-related occupations than

 

Moderated Reggession. One separate regression
analysis will be done for each of the three DV’s
[intentions (a) to apply for and expectations of (b)
receiving interviews or (c) getting job ofi‘ers for
Hijabis]. An interaction term for optimism and job
type (security vs. non-security) will be entered into a
regression predictingifi‘erences in the DV. In the

 

145

 

 

 

Hijabis who score low on optimism.

case of a significant increase in the amount of
variance accounted for when the term is added to the
model, the interaction will be plotted to detect the
nature of the interaction and interpreted to see if it
supports the hypothesis.

 

HYPOTHESIS l 1: Locus of control moderates
the relationship between the amount of public
contact required in an occupation and intentions
(a) to apply for and expectations of (b) receiving
interviews or (c) getting job offers for Hijabis
such that Hijabis who have an internal locus of
control will be more likely to apply for high
public contact occupations than Hij abis who
have an external locus of control.

Moderated Reggession. One separate regression
analysis will be done for each of the three DV’s
[intentions (a) to apply for and expectations of (b)
receiving interviews or (c) getting job offers for

Hij abis]. An interaction term for locus of control and
amount of public contact will be entered into a
regression predicting differences in the DV. In the
case of a significant increase in the amount of
variance accounted for when the term is added to the
model, the interaction will be plotted to detect the
nature of the interaction and interpreted to see if it
supports the hypothesis.

 

 

HYPOTHESIS 12: Locus of control moderates
the relationship between gonna-related
occupations and intentions (a) to apply for and
expectations of (b) receiving interviews or (c)
getting job offers for Hijabis such that Hijabis
who have an internal locus of control will be
more likely to apply for security-related
occupations than Hij abis who have an external
locus of control.

 

Moderated Regpession. One separate regression
analysis will be done for each of the three DV’s

[intentions (a) to apply for and expectations of (b)
receiving interviews or (c) getting job offers for
Hijabis]. An interaction term for locus of control and
job type (security vs. non-security) will be entered
into a regression predicting differences in the DV. In
the case of a significant increase in the amount of
variance accounted for when the term is added to the
model, the interaction will be plotted to detect the
nature of the interaction and interpreted to see if it
supports the hypothesis.

 

146

 

 

 

APPENDIX H

Anplyses Conducted Using the Origjpal Pilot Study Desigp

Hypothesis 1
Hypothesis 1 suggested that in high public contact occupations, Hijabis will have

lower intentions than non-Hijabis to apply for a job, and that they will have lower
expectations of receiving interviews or getting job offers, than in low public contact
occupations. A 2 by 3 MANOVA, treating religious attire (Hijabi versus non-Hijabi) and
public contact (high, neutral, and low) occupations as independent variables, and the
variables Apply, Interest, and Offer as dependent variables were used to conduct an
omnibus test of this hypothesis. Significantly higher intentions to apply for a job (Apply)
and higher expectations of receiving interviews (Interest) and getting job offers (Offer)
for high-public contact occupations in non-Hijabis relative to other cells in the design
would be interpreted as support for this hypothesis.

The multivariate test results indicated that although the main effect of public contact
was not significant [F(6, 986) = 0.77, p = .59], but the main effect of religious attire was
significant [F(3, 493) = 23.79, p = .00]. In addition, the religious attire by public contact
interaction was marginally significant [F(6, 986) = 1.87, p = .08].

Because the multivariate main effect for religious attire was significant, and the
multivariate interaction between religious attire and public contact was marginally
significant, the MANOVA was followed up with a series of 2 x 3 ANOVA’s. As would
be expected given the MANOVA results, the ANOVA’s showed no significant main
effect for public contact (see Table 42). However, there were significant religious attire
main effects for the interest and offer DVs, indicating that Hijabis have lower
expectations than non-Hijabis of receiving interviews (interest) or getting job offers
(offer) than non-Hijabis (see table 43 for the means and standard deviations). The
religious attire by public contact interaction was significant for both Interest and Offer.
The means presented in Table 43 suggest that Hijabis in general will have lower
expectations than non-Hijabis of receiving interviews and getting job offers for
occupations that require high public contact than low public contact. For neutral
occupations, this difference does not exist, hinting at a flaw within the design.

147

 

 

Table 42
Religious Attire by Public Contact MANO VA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source df F Sig.
Apply 2 1.91 0.15
Interest 2 0.37 0.69

Public Contact Offer 2 0.33 0.72
Apply 1 0.51 0.48
Interest 1 27.35* 0.00

Religious Attire Offer 1 68.63* 0.00

Religious Attire Apply 2 0.37 0.69

x Public Interest 2 3.94* 0.02

Contact Offer 2 4.91 * 0.01
Apply 495
Interest 495

Error Offer 495

* = p < .05

Effect sizes (Cohen’s d) were also computed to see if the differences presented in
the MAN OVA also have practical significance (Cohen, 1988). Table 43 presents the
effect sizes between Hijabis and non-Hijabis on the 3 DVs.

Similar to the MANOVA, there was no significant effect size for applying (Apply)
for either of the public contact conditions for Hijabis in comparison to non-Hijabis. There
was a moderate effect size ((1 = -0.53) for Hijabis in comparison to non-Hijabis in
expecting interviews (Interest) in the low public contact occupations, a non significant
effect size (-0.15) for neutral condition, which became a moderate significant effect size
((1 = -0.71) in the high public occupations. There was a large significant effect size (d = -
0.93) for Hijabis in comparison to non-Hijabis in expecting job offers (Offer) in the low
public occupations, a small effect size in the neutral public contact occupation, which
became a large effect size ((1 = -0.99) in the high public occupations.

Overall, hypothesis 1 was not supported. The results show that Hijabis are less likely
to expect interest and offers than non-Hijabis in general in both the low public contact
condition and high public contact condition, not just the high public contact condition.
However, this difference is not apparent in the neutral condition. Because of this and the
inherent problem within the design, it is difficult top interpret the true nature of the
results.

148

Table 43

Religious Attire by Pipblic Contact E flect Sizes

 

 

 

 

Reh'flous Attire
Hijabi NonHijabi
Public
Contact Ml SDl N1 M2 SD2 N2 D-value
Intention to apply for job 3.67 1.45 86 3.73 1.35 75 -0.04

a Expectations for interviews 3.57 1.21 86 4.12 0.77 75 -0.53**
Expectations for job offers 2.90 1.28 86 3.93 0.87 75 -0.93***
Intention to apply for job 4.00 1.26 97 3.97 1.33 79 0.02
Expectations for interviews 3.84 1.08 97 4.00 1.03 79 -0.15
Expectations for job offers 3.30 1.24 97 3.72 1.15 79 -0.35*
Intention to apply for job 3.78 1.38 98 3.96 1.29 67 -0.13
Expectations for interviews 3.41 1.35 98 4.23 0.78 66 -0.71**

Expectations for job offers 2.87 1.29 98 4.03 0.99 66 -0.99***
* = Small effect size, ** = Moderate effect Size, tn = Large efi‘ect size

 

NEUT-
RAL

 

HIGH

 

 

 

 

Hyp_othesis 3
Hypothesis 3 suggested that job status moderates the relationship between public

contact and intentions (a) to apply for and expectations of (b) receiving interviews or (c)
getting job offers for Hijabis such that Hijabis will be more likely to apply for high public
contact occupations in high status occupations than in low status occupations. For low
status occupations, Hijabis will be less likely to apply for high public contact occupations
than low public contact occupations.

One separate moderated regression analysis was conducted for each of the three
dependant variables [intentions (a) to apply for and expectations of (b) receiving
interviews or (c) getting job offers for Hijabis] (See Table 44). Due to the directional
nature of the hypothesis, one-tailed tests were conducted.

Apply

Hypothesis 3a was supported. No significant main effect was found for public
contact (B = .02, ns, one-tailed) but a positive significant main effect was found for job
status (B = .57, p < .01, one-tailed). A significant interaction between public contact and
job status was also found (B = .27, p < .05, one-tailed; AR2= .01, p= .06, one-tailed) (see
Table 44). To detect the true nature of the statistically significant interaction between
public contact and job status, the interaction was plotted (see Figure 5). The plot shows
that job status neutralizes the effect of public contact so that Hijabis were more likely to
apply for high public contact occupations in high status jobs than in low status jobs, and
were less likely to apply for high public contact occupations than low public contact
occupations for low status jobs.
Interest

Hypothesis 3b was marginally supported (see Table 44).

149

Offer

Hypothesis 3c was supported. No significant main effect was found for public
contact (B = -.04, ns, one-tailed) but a positive significant main effect was found for job
status (B = .32, p < .01, one-tailed). A significant interaction between public contact and
job status was also found (B = .23, p < .05, one-tailed; AR2= .01, p= .05, one-tailed) (see
table 44). Inspection of the means show that job status neutralizes the effect of public
contact so that Hijabis were more likely to expect receiving job offers for high public

 

 

contact occupations in high status jobs than in low status jobs, and were less likely to
expect receiving job offers for high public contact occupations than low public contact

occupations for low status jobs.

Table 44

E fleets of Public Conggct an_d Job Status on Apply, Interest. a_nc_l Job Ofiers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

DV Name
Apply Interest Offer
R2 RT R2
Step b Total A R2 b Total A R2 b Total A R2
1. Public Contact 0.02 0.11 0.11* -0.10 0.03 0.03* -0.04 0.04 .04*
Job Status 057* 0.24* 0.32*
2. Public Contact x
Job Status 027* 0.12 0.012* 0.17 0.04 0.01 0.23* 0.05 .01*

 

* = p < .05, N=281

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Apply

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Low Public Contact

High Public Contact

 

—o— Low Job Status
lift" - High Job status

 

 

 

 

Figure 5. Interaction between public contact and job status on intentions to apply (apply)

for Hijabis.

150

 

 

Overall, hypothesis 3 was supported. The regressions show that that job status
moderates the relationship between public contact and intentions (a) to apply for and
expectations of (c) getting job offers for Hijabis such that Hijabis will be more likely to
apply and to expect job offers for high public contact occupations in high status
occupations than in low status occupations. For low status occupations, Hijabis will be
less to apply and to expect job offers for high public contact occupations than low public
contact occupations.

There was also a marginally significant finding that job status moderates the
relationship between public contact and expectations of (b) receiving interviews.

Hypothesis 4
Hypothesis 4 suggested that stereotype internalization of Muslims moderates the

relationship between public contact and intentions (a) to apply for and expectations of (b)
receiving interviews or (0) getting job offers for Hijabis such that Hijabis who do not
internalize the stereotype of their Muslim identity to be of low status will be more likely
to apply for high public contact occupations than hijabis who internalize the stereotype.
Hijabis who internalize the stereotype of their Muslim identity to be of low status will be
less likely to apply for high public contact occupations than low public contact
occupations.

One separate moderated regression analysis was conducted for each of the three
dependant variables [intentions (a) to apply for and expectations of (b) receiving
interviews or (c) getting job offers for Hijabis] (See Table 45). Each of these three
regressions were run twice for two subscales of the stereotype internalization measure:
(1) negative stereotype and (2) conservative stereotype (divided into two separate
sections below). Due to the directional nature of the hypothesis, one-tailed tests were
conducted.

Negative stereotype
Apply

Hypothesis 4.1.a was supported. The main effect for negative stereotype
internalization (B = -.l7, p < .05, one-tailed) was significant but the main effect was not
significant for public contact (B = .01, ns, one-tailed). A significant interaction between
public contact and negative stereotype internalization was found (B = -.24, p < .05, one-
tailed; AR): .02, p= .05, one-tailed) (see table 45). To detect the true nature of the
interaction, the statistically significant interaction between public contact and negative
stereotype internalization was plotted (see Figure 6). The plot shows that job status
neutralizes the effect of public contact so that Hijabis were more likely to apply for high
public contact occupations when they do not internalize the negative stereotypes than
when they do internalize negative stereotypes, and were less likely to apply for high
public contact occupations than low public contact occupations when do internalize the
negative stereotypes.

Interest

Hypothesis 4.1.b was supported. The main effects for both public contact (B = -.l 1,
ns, one-tailed) and negative stereotype internalization (B = -.06, ns, one-tailed) were not
found. A significant interaction between public contact and negative stereotype
internalization was found (B = -.34, p < .01, one-tailed; AR2= .05, p= .00, one-tailed) (see
Table 45). Inspection of the means shows that job status neutralizes the effect of public

151

 

 

 

contact so that Hij abis were more likely to expect receiving interviews or call backs for
high public contact occupations when they do not internalize the negative stereotypes
than when they do internalize negative stereotypes, and were less likely to expect
receiving interviews or call backs for high public contact occupations than low public
contact occupations when they do internalize the negative stereotypes.
Ofi’er

Hypothesis 4.1.c was supported. The main effects for both public contact (B = -.02,
ns, one-tailed) and negative stereotype internalization (B = -.11, ns, one-tailed) were not
found. A significant interaction between public contact and job status was found (B = -
.27, p < .05, one-tailed; AR2= .03, p= .02, one-tailed) (see Table 45). Inspection of the
means that job status neutralizes the effect of public contact so that Hijabis were more
likely to expect job offer for high public contact occupations when they do not internalize
the negative stereotypes than when they do internalize negative stereotypes, and were less
likely to expect job offers for high public contact occupations than low public contact
occupations when they do internalize the negative stereotypes.

Table 45

Effects of Pyblic Coniact and Negative Stereotype Intemalization on Applying and Receiving Job
Interest and Job Offers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DV Name
Apply Interest Offer
R2 R2 R2

Step b Total A R2 b Total A R2 b Total A R2
1. Public Contact 0.01 0.01 0.01 -0.11 0.01 0.01 -0.02 0.01 0.01

Negative Stereotype -.l7* -0.06 -0. 11
2. Public Contact x -

Neggve Stereotype -0.240* 0.03 .02* -.34* 0.06 0.05* 0.27* 0.03 .03*

 

* = p < .05, N=205

152

 

 

 

 

—0— Low Negative Stereotype
‘ Intemalization
-- - '0' - High Negative Stereotype
Intemalization

 

 

I
L

 

 

Apply

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I
‘ 0.5 —
1

Low Public Contact High Public Contact

 

Figure 6. Interaction between public contact and stereotype internalization to apply
(apply) for Hijabis.

Conservative stereotype

Apply, Interest, Ofler
Hypotheses 4.2.a, 4.2.b, and 4.2.b were not supported (see Table 46). 1

Table 46

Eflects at Public Con_tact an_d Conservative Stereotype Intemalization on Applying and Receiving Job
Interest Md Job Offers.

 

 

 

 

DV Name
Apply Interest Offer
R2 R2 R2

Step b Total A R2 b Total A R2 b Total A R2
1. Public Contact 0.01 0.01 0.01 -0.1 1 0.02 0.02 -0.02 0.00 0.00

Conservative

Stereotype -0.25 -0.27* -O.13
2. Public Contact x

Conservative

Stereotype -0.04 0.01 0.00 0.22 0.03 0.01 0.26 0.01 0.01

 

 

 

* = p < .05, N=206

Overall, hypothesis 4 was partially supported. Stereotype internalization of the
negative stereotypes of Muslims moderates the relationship between public contact and
intentions (a) to apply for and expectations of (b) receiving interviews and (0) getting job
offers for Hijabis such that Hijabis who did not internalize the negative stereotype of their

153

 

Muslim identity to be of low status were more likely to apply and expect receiving
interviews and job offers for high public contact occupations than Hijabis who
internalized the negative stereotypes. Hij abis who internalized the negative stereotypes of
their Muslim identity to be of low status were less likely to apply and expect receiving
interviews and job offers for high public contact occupations than low public contact
occupations.

However, conservative stereotype internalization did not moderate the relationship
public contact and intentions (a) to apply for and expectations of (b) receiving interviews
or (0) getting job offers for Hijabis.

Hypothesis 7

Hypothesis 7 suggested that collective self esteem Muslims moderates the
relationship between public contact and intentions (a) to apply for and expectations of (b)
receiving interviews or (c) getting job offers for Hijabis such that Hijabis who score less
on collective self esteem will be more likely to apply for high public contact occupations
than Hijabis who score low on collective self esteem.

Hijabis who score high on collective self esteem status will be less likely to apply for
high public contact occupations than low public contact occupations.

One separate moderated regression analysis was conducted for each of the three
dependant variables [intentions (a) to apply for and expectations of (b) receiving
interviews or (c) getting job offers for Hijabis] (See Tables 47-51). Each of these three
regressions were run four times for the four subscales of the collective self esteem
measure: (1) membership self esteem, (2) public self esteem, (3) private self esteem, and
(4) importance to identity (divided into four separate sections below). Due to the
directional nature of the hypothesis, one-tailed tests were conducted.

Membership Self Esteem
Apply

Hypothesis 7 .1.a was not supported (see Table 47).
Interest

Hypothesis 7.1.b was supported. The main effect for public contact (B = -.14, ns,
one-tailed) was not significant but the main effect was significant for membership self
esteem (B = .19, p < .05, one-tailed; AR2= .02, p= .05, one-tailed ) (see Table 47). The
statistically significant interaction between public contact and membership self esteem
was plotted to better interpret the results (see Figure 7). As predicted, membership self
esteem neutralizes the effect of public contact so that Hijabis were more likely to expect
receiving interviews or call backs for high public contact occupations when they scored
low on membership self esteem than when they scored high on membership self esteem,
and were less likely to expect receiving interviews or call backs for high public contact
occupations than low public contact occupations when they scored high on membership
self esteem.
Ofler

Hypothesis 7.1.c was supported. The main effects for both public contact (B = -.05,
ns, one-tailed) and membership self esteem (B = .12, ns, one-tailed) were not significant.
A significant interaction between public contact and membership self esteem was found
(B = -.24, p < .05, one-tailed; AR2= .02, p= .03, one-tailed) (see Table 47). Inspection of
the means shows that membership self esteem neutralizes the effect of public contact so

154

 

Pl

 

 

 

that Hijabis were more likely to expect receiving job offers for high public contact
occupations when they scored low on membership self esteem than when they scored
high on membership self esteem, and were less likely to expect receiving job offers for
high public contact occupations than low public contact occupations when they scored
high on membership self esteem.

Table 47
E flects at Public Contact and Merrybershifielf Esteem on Applying and Receiving Job In_terest anflob
Oflers.

 

 

 

 

DV Name
Apply 7 Interest Offer
R7 A R2 R2

Step b Total R2 b Total A R2 b Total A R2
1. Public Contact 0.01 0.02 .02* -0.14 0.03 0.03* -0.05 0.01 0.01

Membership Self Esteem 0.21* 0.19* 0.12
2. Public Contact x -

Membership Self Esteem -0.12 0.03 0.01 -0.20* 0.05 .02* 0.24* 0.03 .02*

 

 

 

* = p < .05, N=212

 

 

l

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

R l
\\ l
4 \
\
\
\
\
3.8 i- \ 1
\ l—+— Low Membership Self -
\\ Esteem !
g 3.6 ~———* * ~ Ax — -cr- — High Membership Self]
E \3 , Esteem J.
3.4 /
3.2
3 1
Low Public Contact High Public Contact

1

Figure 7. Interaction between public contact and membership self esteem on
expectations to receive interviews or calls back for the job (interest) for Hijabis.

155

 

‘L

 

Public Self Esteem
Apply, Interest, Ofler
Hypotheses 7.2.a, 7.2.b, and 7.2.b were not supported (see Table 48).

Table 48
Eflects of Public Contact and Public Self Esteem on Applying and Receiving Job Interest and Job
Oflers.

 

 

 

 

DV Name
Apply Interest Offer
R2 R2 R2 A
Step b Total A R2 b Total A R2 b Total R2
1. Public Contact 0.03 0.01 0.01 -0.14 0.02 0.02 -0.06 0.02 0.02
Public Self Esteem -0.09 0.08 0.13*
2. Public Contact x
Public Self Esteem 0.03 0.01 0.00 -0.01 0.02 0.00 -0.06 0.02 0.00

 

 

 

* = p < .05, N=212

Private Self Esteem

Apply
Hypothesis 7.3.a was not supported (see Table 49).

Interest

Hypothesis 7.3.b was supported. The main effects for both public contact (B = -.15,
ns, one-tailed) and private self esteem (B = .14, ns, one-tailed) were not significant (see
Table 49). A significant interaction between 2public contact and private self esteem was
also found (B = -.23, p < .05, one-tailed; (AR = .02, p= .05, one-tailed). The statistically
significant interaction between public contact and private self esteem was plotted to
better interpret the results (see Figure 8). As predicted, private self esteem neutralizes the
effect of public contact so that Hijabis were more likely to expect receiving job offers for
high public contact occupations when they scored low on private self esteem than when
they scored high on private self esteem, and were less likely to expect receiving job offers
for high public contact occupations than low public contact occupations when they scored
high on private self esteem.
Ofler

Hypothesis 7.3.c was supported. The main effects for both public contact (B = -.06,
ns, one-tailed) and private self esteem (B = .11, ns, one-tailed) were not significant (see
Table 49). A significant interaction between public contact and private self esteem was
also found (B = -.33, p < .01, one-tailed; AR2= .03, p= .01, one-tailed). Inspection of the
means shows that private self esteem neutralizes the effect of public contact so that
Hijabis were more likely to expect receiving job offers for high public contact
occupations when they scored low on private self esteem than when they scored high on
private self esteem, and were less likely to expect receiving job offers for high public

156

contact occupations than low public contact occupations when they scored high on

private self esteem.

Table 49

Eflects at Public Contact and Conservgtive Private Self Esteem on Applying and Receivingob Interest

and Job Oflers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Low Public Contact

 

DV Name
Apply Interest Offer
R2 R2 R2
Step b Total A R2 b Total A R2 b Total A R2
1. Public Contact 0.02 0.00 0.00 -0.15 0.02 0.02 -0.06 0.01 0.01
Private Self Esteem 0.03 0.14 0.11
2. Public Contact x
Private Self Esteem -0.05 0.00 0.00 -0.23* 0.04 0.02* -0.33* 0.04 .03*
* = p < .05, N=212
l
l 4.1
l 4 4 _ q\
\x
3.9 a - —
\
\
3.8 .__ \
\
3.7 \
\\ —0— Low Private Self Esteem
é 3-6 7 - -D- - High Prilate Self Esteem
: \
- 3.5 .____- L.
o/ h
3.4 t
‘ 3.3 A
l 3.2 e l
l l
‘ 3.1 T I
l 1

High Public Contact

 

Figure 8. Interaction between public contact and private self esteem on expectations to
receive interviews or calls back for the job (interest) for Hijabis.

157

 

PK

 

Importance to Identity
Apply, Ofler

Hypotheses 7.4.a and 7.4.c were not supported (see Table 50).
Interest

Hypothesis 7.4.b was supported. The main effects for both public contact (B = -.14,
ns, one-tailed) and importance to identity (B = .08, ns, one-tailed) were not significant. A
significant interaction between public contact and importance to identity was also found
(,3 = -.16, p < .05, one-tailed; AR2= .01, p= .08, one-tailed) (see Table 50). The
statistically significant interaction between public contact and importance to identity was
plotted to better interpret the results (see Figure 9). As predicted, importance to identity
neutralizes the effect of public contact so that Hijabis were more likely to expect
receiving interviews or call backs for high public contact occupations when they scored
low on importance to identity than when they scored high on importance to identity, and
were less likely to expect receiving interviews or call hacks for high public contact
occupations than low public contact occupations when they scored high on importance to
identity.

Table 50

Eflects at Public Contact and Importance to Identity on Applying an_d Receivirg Job Interest anpl
Job Oflers.

 

 

 

 

DV Name
Apply Interest Offer
R2 R2 R2
Step b Total A R2 b Total A R2 b Total A R2
1. Public Contact 0.02 0.03 0.03* -0.14 0.01 0.01 -0.05 0.00 0.00
Importance to
Identity .19* 0.08 0.03
2. Public Contact x
Importance to
Identity -0.02 0.03 0.00 -0.16 0.03 0.01* -0.15 0.01 0.01

 

 

 

* = p < .05, N=212

158

 

4.1

 

4

 

3.9 ‘

 

3.8 s

 

3.7

 

3.6

 

Interest

3.5 —

 

}_._ Low Importance to ldentityl

i - -cr— — High Importance to
‘ Identity

 

3.4

 

3.3 ._.__

 

3.2

 

 

 

3.1

 

 

Low Public Contact

 

 

High Public Contact

 

Figure 9. Interaction between public contact and importance to identity on expectations
to receive interviews or calls back for the job (interest) for Hijabis.

Overall, hypothesis 7 was partially supported. Membership self esteem and private
self esteem moderates the relationship between public contact and intentions and
expectations of (b) receiving interviews or (c) getting job offers for Hijabis such that
Hijabis who score low on membership self esteem or private self esteem will be more
likely to expect interviews and job offers for high public contact occupations than Hijabis
who scorehigh on membership self esteem or private self esteem. Hijabis who score high
on membership self esteem or private self esteem will be less likely to expect interviews
and job offers for high public contact occupations than low public contact occupations.
Membership self esteem and private self esteem did not, however, moderate the
relationship between public contact and (applying) for Hijabis. Also, importance to
identity moderates the relationship between public contact and expectations of (b)
receiving interviews but not intentions to (a) apply or expectations of (c) getting job

offers for Hijabis.

Public self esteem does not moderate the relationship between public contact and
intentions (a) to apply for and expectations of (b) receiving interviews or (c) getting job

offers for Hijabis.

Hypothesis 9

Hypothesis 9 suggested that optimism moderates the relationship between public
contact and intentions (a) to apply for and expectations of (b) receiving interviews or (0)
getting job offers for Hijabis such that Hijabis who score high on optimism will be more
likely to apply for high public contact occupations than hijabis who score low on

optimism.

159

 

 

 

 

Hijabis who score low on optimism will be less likely to apply for high public
contact occupations than low public contact occupations.

One separate moderated regression analysis was conducted for each of the three
dependant variables [intentions (a) to apply for and expectations of (b) receiving
interviews or (c) getting job offers for Hijabis] (See Table 51). An interaction term for
optimism and amount of public contact will be entered into a regression predicting
differences in the DV. Due to the directional nature of the hypothesis, one-tailed tests
were conducted.

Apply, Interest, Ofler
Hypotheses 9a, 9b, and 9c were not supported (see Table 51).

Table 51

Eflects at Public Contact and Optimism on Applying and Receiving Job Interest and Job Oflers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DV Name
Apply Interest Offer
R2 R2 R2
Step b Total A R2 b Total A R2 b Total A R2
1. Public Contact 0.03 0.01 0.01 -0.13 0.05 .05* -0.05 0.02 0.02
Optimism 0.03 0.07* 0.04*
2. Public Contact x
Optimism -0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 -0.01 0.02 0.00

 

* = p < .05, N=264

Overall, hypothesis 9 was not supported. Optimism did not moderate the relationship
between public contact and intentions (a) to apply for and expectations of (b) receiving
interviews or (0) getting job offers for Hijabis.

Hypothesis 11

Hypothesis 11 suggested that locus of control moderates the relationship between
public contact and intentions (a) to apply for and expectations of (b) receiving interviews
or (0) getting job offers for Hijabis such that Hijabis who have internal locus of control
will be more likely to apply for high public contact occupations than Hijabis who have
external locus of control.

Hijabis who have internal locus of control will be less likely to apply for high public
contact occupations than low public contact occupations.

One separate moderated regression analysis was conducted for each of the three
dependant variables [intentions (a) to apply for and expectations of (b) receiving
interviews or (0) getting job offers for Hijabis] (See Table 52). An interaction term for
locus of control and amount of public contact will be entered into a regression predicting
differences in the DV. Due to the directional nature of the hypothesis, one-tailed tests
were conducted.

 

160

Apply, Interest, Ofler
Hypotheses 11a, 11b, and 11c were not supported (see Table 52).

Table 52
Eflects of Public Contact and Locus of Control on Applyingand Receiving Job Interest and Job Oflers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

DV Name
Apply Interest Offer
R2 R2 R2
Step b Total A R2 b Total A R2 b Total A R2
1. Public Contact 0.06 0.00 0.00 -0.11 0.03 .03* -0.02 0.01 0.01
Locus of Control 0.01 -0.04* -0.04
2. Public Contact x
Locus of Control -0.04 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.02 0.01

 

* =p< .05,N=210

Overall, hypothesis 11 was not supported. Locus of control did not moderate the
relationship between public contact and intentions (a) to apply for and expectations of (b)
receiving interviews or (0) getting job offers for Hijabis.

161

.1“
-..

APPENDIX I
Select Resp_onses for the Open-Ended Qpestions
What does the hijab mean to you as a Muslim, and as an American?
“An exercise of my freedom of expression.”
“It's my identity as a Muslim woman.”
“It serves many functions in America, which it may not serve in Muslim

countries. For example, in America it may be viewed as a feminist statement
along with the typical view of piety.”

 

“Hijab means a visual association of who I am, discipline, fighting conformity,
and probably very very little to do with modesty. Fighting conformity I believe is
American and Islamic.”

“I do not wear the hijab for religious identification or nationalism. I wear it
because God commanded me to. I wear it to represent modesty and submission to
God...”

“I wear the headscarf for a variety of reasons -- 1) because, as a feminist, it struck
me as the single strongest means to reject the exploitation of women's bodies and
sexuality by the entertainment industry, advertisers, and the beauty industry... .”

“As a Muslim, wearing the hijab indicates my devotion to God. It is my way of
showing my belief in God and Islam. As an American, my headscarf means
nothing other than individuality.”

Why do you choose to wear the hijab even after 9/11, when it might pose a danger to do
so or it might arouse suspicion fiom others?

“A hij ab is a piece of cloth, wrapped around my head, what kind of danger does
that pose? As for suspicion, I think that's great, people ask more questions, they
become more curious, and in turn they learn about Islam. . ..”

“America continues to be a free country, therefore I continue to do as I please.”
“Because I have nothing to fear and nothing to feel guilty about. I'm not
responsible for 9/11 and those ignorant enough to believe that women like us or
Muslim men with beards were responsible should know that we won't go into

hiding or change our ways.”

“Because I refuse to back down. This is who I am, and I should not be ashamed
of it. The men that caused 9/11 were not Muslim, so they do not reflect me, my

162

values, or my beliefs. I should not be their "fall-guy" because they are nothing
like me.”

“Because I want to be a good example to show that just because I am Muslim and
I wear a hijab, I am NOT a terrorist. I want to show that real Muslims are good
people.”

“Because it is part of the Islamic dress code that I believe in. People's suspicions
should change, not my beliefs.”

“Because wearing hijab and living in this society is my jihad and after 9/11 it
became a bigger jihad. If I were to be scared of these people and had taken off
my hijab, I don't deserve to call myself Muslim because I can't even stand up for
my beliefs.”

 

“Because I don’t live my life to please others. Hij ab is a test to see how much you
love your lord, regardless of what political times may come. It is all the more a
sign of how much I love my lord and am willing to do what he asks of me.”

“I feel that particularly since 9/11, it is important to break stereotypes of Muslim
women as submissive and down trodden as they are being used as excuses for
invasions.”

“I am not guilty of terrorism nor is Islam. Therefore, I don't think that I am the
one who needs to change...I think we need more education about Islam. I can do
more for that by keeping my hijab on and being an exemplary Muslim than by
taking it off.”

“I have more reason to wear it now, to alleviate the wrong stereotype that
Muslims have attained in this time. By my actions I want others to see that we are
peace loving, honest, hardworking individuals, just like them. I want that
stereotype to not exist.”

In what ways has your Islamic beliefs influenced your work life in America, such as in
seeking employment and in demanding accommodations on the basis of your religion?

“I am much more careful in not wanting to go into a company or job that does
anything against Islamic beliefs. For instance, as a future chemist, I will not get a
job testing formulas at a brewery.”

“I am sometimes asked why I wear hijab, and it sparks interesting discussions.”
“I choose not to work in certain places that may serve alcohol or that would

require a lot of contact with men. I think that I am just as qualified as anyone else
to get a position, and I believe that Allah swt gives me, work not people. ”

163

“I chose a career that would not compromise my religious beliefs so that I would
not have to choose between Islam and my work life. As of yet, I have had no
difficulty obtaining a position. ”

“I do not work on Fridays so I can be free to attend prayers. Also, my employer is
aware I need to take breaks to pray. ”

“I don't shake hands with men in the business setting.”

“I have experienced somewhat of discrimination when applying for jobs but have
also found others that were very accommodating.”

“I typically have not had any problems in my various jobs getting
accommodations for my religious needs — holidays, prayer space, etc. I would
never accept or seek employment in a setting that would be unsupportive of my
needs.”

“If the first interview is over the phone I noticed people are usually nice, but when
I go in for an interview and they see my hijab, I sense the awkwardness in the air.
I am not saying everyone is like that but the hijab does play a major role ...”

“In general, people at work are extremely accommodating of my needs. I have
not faced any issues in the work-place that relate to my religious beliefs. ”

“It is more difficult to be hired, some say the hijab is a health code violation or
that it is dangerous to wear at work”

“It made me CHOOSE places that were Muslim/foreigner fiiendly, avoiding
places where people stare or don’t' accept me. Most of the places I ended up in
were more willing to accommodate my religion.”

“My Islamic beliefs encourage one to work. Work is also considered as a type of
worship, as long as it’s done within boundaries. But if a job is going to require me
to take my scarf off, for example, then I wouldn't accept it.”

Are you concerned about applying for work because you wear the hijab?
“Honestly, yes. My concern is two-fold - how my potential employer might view
it, and my potential employer's concerns that it may result in a negative response
fi'om clients and customers.”
“I sometimes worry that the interviewer may not like me because I wear hij ab, or

that they may be concerned that I will not mesh with the cultural atmosphere at
the workplace.”

164

“I was and rightly so. I went to numerous interviews where I was rejected even
though I believed I was fully qualified.”

“I would not go to a job interview with a hijab.”

“It does make me nervous at times. However, I know that I have credentials in
academics and professional areas to know that where ever I'm applying, I'm
qualified for it.”

“N o. I feel most people are able to see past the stereotypes against Muslims.”

“NO ....... if it is not meant for me, I will not get the job.”

“Sometimes, I would already know if I would not be able to get the job so it'd be
pointless to apply.”

 

“Yes. I got a nice suit and always try to present myself in a very professional
manner, but I know the scarf throws them off. So, I have to try extra hard to be
personable and likable.”

“Yes. I would hesitate to apply for a new job anywhere with hijab. Especially
since I am the breadwinner for my family. The threat of unemployment is a risk I
take in pushing the envelope, so to speak. ”

“Yes, I've had a great deal of trouble finding a job because managers think it
might make the customers nervous.”

“Yes, I feel afraid that my potential employer may think I am a fanatic or a
terrorist.”

“Yes, most of the time I fear that I will be prejudiced because of the hijab, yet I
feel that if the employer has a problem with my choice to do so, I would
personally rather not be employed with that agency or corporation.”

Would you consider taking your hijab ofl to apply for work or if you were specifically
asked to or were required to in order to get work?

“Absolutely not. Taking off hijab is not an option.”
“I would never consider taking the hijab off. I strongly believe that if a Muslim
sister meets all the requirements while applying for a job, the hijab should not be

part of the selection criteria.”

“If I had no one to support me (I do currently) and my welfare had run out, I
guess I would be force to do that.”

165

“NEVER EVER”

“No way. They are either going to take me as I am or deal with a huge law suit. I
will not take off my hijab for any job out here.”

“NEVER! I think to take off your hijab to apply for work would be giving into
discrimination. I believe that it would be a violation of human rights. But no

person on Earth can make me give up part of my faith or what is required by my
faith of me.”

“Never. I would consider speaking to a lawyer about pressing a discrimination
suit, though.”

“Never. I would file a complaint with the EEOC and call CAIR to report
discrimination.”

 

“No. There are enough jobs out there that I don't have to take a job that requires
me to take off my hijab.”

“No. Wearing the hijab does not interfere with task performance. Anything and
everything that can be done with the hijab off can be done with the hijab on.”

“No, I would never sacrifice my modesty over work, no matter how desperate I
am for the job at the time. This world is vast, and I can always find another job.”

Are you aware of any incidences (personal or not) in which Hijabis were refused work on
the basis of their attire?

“A lot of people don't believe this, but I have actually NEVER been shot even as
much as dirty look even though I wear a jalbab and scarf. In my experience,
people are very open when it comes to learning about Islam.”

“Absolutely. We all know someone who was offered a position without a scarf,
only to be harassed while returning to work while wearing it.”

“I've heard of such stories and I know I was warned by non-Muslim managers and
co-workers about the trials I would face personally. However, I have not

experienced anything like that.”

“I got fired once for being a Muslim. He didn’t know until I started wearing
hijab.”

“I have heard of some stories to this effect. The people that I know personally
suspected that they were not given a job in which they were qualified for because
of their religious attire, but could not prove it.”

166

“I have never heard of anyone specifically stating at their hijab must be taken off -
but I have often felt and seen the shock on the interviewers face when they see me
sitting in the waiting room.”

“I heard, but have suspicions. I think it’s a matter of qualifications, personality,
and attitude.”

“Not anyone I know. Employers won't say that because it is discrimination but I
have felt many times that my hij ab is why employers have not hired me. With
wearing hijab, you have to prove yourself to everyone that you can do the job just
as good or better.”

“Not that I can absolutely prove, but I've applied for a number of retail jobs that I
was very well qualified for and been turned down despite the fact that the
business was still looking for help a month later.”

“That is really hard to prove. Because most people are savvy enough not to admit
that is why they don't hire someone. They will simply say someone else was more
suited to what they were looking for.”

“Yes I am. There are so many incidences in the state I live at moment. When 9/11
occurred, many people were laid off and were fired.”

“Yes, I worked at **** in Atlanta, GA and while I was there I decide on my own
I wanted to start wearing hijab. The management staff pulled me aside and said
"take the scarf off or go home and get fired" I kept it on and I went home.”

“Yes. A fiiend was hired for a job selling furniture and was told to take off her
hijab. She was one of their better sales reps. She took her employer to court and
won.”

“Yes. A sister post 9/11 was asked to give up her manager position because it may
"affect her safety at wor " or take off her hijab and continue.”

“Yes, I have many fiiends who were turned down fiom jobs, but on the other

hand, I have many friends who do wear the headscarf and have very high class
jobs.”

167

 

REFERENCES

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.

Aspinwall, L. G., & Taylor, S. E. (1992). Modeling cognitive adaptation: A longitudinal
investigation of the impact of individual differences and coping on college
adjustment and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63,
989-1003.

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

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

Bushman, B.J., & Bonnaci, A.M. (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.

Carver, C. 8., P020, C., Harris, S. D., Noriega, V., Scheier, M. F., Robinson, D. S.,
Ketcham, A., Moffat, F. L., & Clark, K. C. (1993). How coping mediates the
effect of optimism on distress: A study of women with early stage breast cancer.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 375-390.

Cash, T. F., Gillen, B., & Burn, D. S. (1977). Sexism and “beautysm” in personnel
consultant decision-making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 301 -31 l.

Chassin, L., & Stager SF. (1984). Determinants of self-esteem among incarcerated
delinquency. Social Psychology Quarterly, 47: 382—390.

CNN News. (2001). Arab-Americans concerned about treatment. Retrieved July 23, 2002
from <http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/10/24/rec.arab.americans>

Cohen, J. (1988). gptistical power afllysis for the behpviorai sciences (2nd ed.).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cole, D. M., & Ahmadi, S. E. (2003). Perspectives and experiences of Muslim women
who veil on college campuses. Journal of College Student Development, 44(1),
47-66.

Council of American-Islamic Relations (2004). American Muslims: Population Statistics.
Retrieved on November 22, 2004 from <http://www.cair-

net.org[asp/mpulationstats.aspg

 

168

 

Cozzarelli, C. (1993). Personality and self-efficacy as predictors of coping with abortion.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1224-1236.

Crocker, J ., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective
properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96, 608-630.

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.

Crocker, J ., Thompson, L. L., McGraw, K. M., & Ingerrnan, C. (1987). Downward
comparison, prejudice, and evaluations of others: Effects of self-esteem and
threat. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 52, 907-916.

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.

Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (2005). Religion Based Charges FY 992-
FY 2004. Retrieved on April 22, 2005 fi'om
htpp://www.eeo%ov/stats/religion.html

Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (2003). Muslim/Arab employment
discrimination charges since 9/11. Retrieved on November 22, 2004 from
http://www.eeoc.gov/origin/z-stgtshtml

Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (2001). Employment Discrimination Based
on Religion, Ethnicity, or Country of Origin. Retreived November 22, 2004 from
< http://www.eeogov/facts/fs-relig ethnic.html>

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.

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

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.

Heilman, 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.

169

 

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

Griffin, B. W. (2002). Academic disidentification, race, and high school dropouts. High
School Journal, 85(4), 71-81 .

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

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

Judge, T. A., Erez, A., Bono, J. E., & Thoresen, C. J. (2002). Do the traits self-esteem,
neuroticism, locus of control, and generalized self-efficacy indicate a common
coreconstruct? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 693—710.

Kaiser, C. R., Major, B. (2004). Judgments of deserving and the emotional
consequences of stigrnatization. In L. Tiedens & C.W. Leach (Eds.), The social
life of emotions. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kaiser, C. R., Major, B., & McCoy, S. K. (2004). Expectations about the future and the
emotional consequences of perceiving prejudice. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 30, 173-184.

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

Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28,
107-128.

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.

Knox, D., Langehough, S. O., Walters, C., & Rowley, M. (1998). Religiosity and
spirituality among college students. College Student Journal, 32(3), 430-432.

Law.com (2002). Post- Sept. 11 ‘Backlash’ proves difficult to quantify. Retrieved on
January 16, 2006 from <http://www.la_lw.conflsp/article.jsp?id=1022954315284>.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York:
Springer.

Levin, J. S., Chatters, L. M. and Taylor, R. J. (1995). Religious effects on health

170

 

 

status and life satisfaction among black Americans. Journals of Gerontology.
Series B. Psychological Sciences & Social Sciences, 50, 8154-163.

Levinson, D.J., & Sanford, RN, (1944). A scale for the measurement of anti-Semitism.
The Journal of Psychology, I 7, 339—3 70.

Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of
one's social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1 8, 302—318.

Major, B., Quinton, W.J., & McCoy, SK. (2003). Prejudice and Self-Esteem: A
transactional Model. European Review of Social Psychology, I 4, 77-104.

Major, B., Richards, C., Cooper, M. L., Cozzarelli, C., & Zubek, J. (1998). Personal
resilience, cognitive appraisals, and coping: An integrative model of adjustment to
abortion. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 74, 73 5-752.

Maltby, J. S. Lewis, C. A., & Day, L. (1999). Religious orientation and psychological
well-being: The role of the frequency of personal prayer. British Journal of
Health Psychology, 4(Part 4), 363-378.

McCoy, S. K., & Major, B. (2003). Group identification moderates emotional responses
to perceived prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 29, 1005-
1017.

National Center for Center in Poverty (2006). Parents’ low education leads to low
income, despite full-time employment. Retrieved on November 8, 2006 from 5

thp://www.ncgp.org/media/pei06b.pdf>.

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

 

Oldharn, G. R., Hackman, J. R., & Pearce, J. L. (1976). Conditions under which
employees respond positively to enriched work. Journal of Applied Psychology,
61, 395-403.

Osborne, J. W. (1997). Race and academic disidentification. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 89(4), 728-735.

Osbourne, J. W. (1995). Academics, self-esteem, and race: A look at the underlying
assumptions of the disidentification hypothesis. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 21(5), 449-455.

0*NET (2006). Browse by O*Net Descriptor. Retrieved on January 23, 2006 fi'om
<http://online.onetcenter.org/find/descriptor/browse/Knowledge/#cur>.

0*NET (2006). Summary Report for: 39-6031.00 - Flight Attendants. Retrieved on
January 23, 2006 from <http://online.onetcenter.org/link/summary/39-603 l .00>.

171

O*NET (2006). Summary Report for: 33-9032.00 - Security Guards. Retrieved on
January 23, 2006 fiom <http://online.onetcenter.org/link/summary/33-9032.00>.

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

Pipes, D. (1990). The Muslims are coming! The Muslims are coming! National Review,
28-3 1 .

Post-Gazette News (2001). Muslim Women Say Veil is More about Expression than
Oppression. Retrieved on February 20, 2005 from < http://www.post-

g_azette.com/headlines/2001 1028muslimwomennat3p3 .asp>

 

The Pluralism Project (2004). Religious Diversity and the Workplace. Retrieved on
January 16, 2006 from <hgr://www.pluralisrn.org/research/profiles/display.

php?profile=73543>.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.

Rotter, J. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of
reinforcements, Psychological Monographs, 80, Whole No. 609.

Scheier, M. F., Carver, C. S., & Bridges, M. W. (1994). Distinguishing optimism fiom
neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A reevaluation of
the Life Orientation Test. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 67, 1063-
1078.

Schmitt, M. T., & Branscombe, N. R. (2002). The internal and external causal loci of
attributions to prejudice. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 484-492.

Schmitt, M. T., Branscombe, N. R., Kobrynowicz, D., & Owen, S. (2002). Perceiving
discrimination against one's gender group has different implications for well-
being in women and men. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 197-210.

Shadish, W.R., T.D. Cook, and D.T. Campbell (2002). Experimental and Quasi-
Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference. Boston: Houghton-
Mifflin.

Shaheen, J. (1984). The TV Arab. 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 .

Siam, A.M. (1993). American students’ perception of Islam and the Arab World.

172

 

 

=k

 

 

 

 

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los
Angeles.

Steger, M., & Frazier, P. (2005). Meaning in Life: One Link in the Chain From
Religiousness to Well-Being. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52(4), 574-5 82.

Stephan, W. G., & 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.

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.

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

Tajfel, H. (1972). Social categorization. English MS. of La Categorisation sociale. In S.
Moscovici (Ed.), Introduction a la psychologie sociale (Vol. 1). Paris: Larousse.

Tesser, A. (1999). Toward a self-evaluation maintenance model of social
behavior. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), The self in social psychology (pp. 446-460):
New York, NY, US.

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.

Turner, J. C. (1981). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. Cahiers de
Psychologie Cognitive/Current Psychology of Cognition, 1(2), 93-118.

USA Today (2005). Post-9/11 workplace discrimination continues. Retrieved on
January 16, 2006 from <http://www.usatoday.com/money/workplace/2005-07-
Oianti-arap-workplace x.htm>.

US. Census Bureau (2004). Educational attainment in the United States: 2005. Retrieved
on November 8, 2006 from
<http://www.census.gov/populationlwww/socdemo/education/cpsZ005.html>.

Women Working With Immigrant Women (2002). No Hijab is permitted here: A
study on the experiences of Muslim women wearing hij ab applying for work in
the manufacturing, sales and services sectors Retrieved on January 16, 2006 from
<http://www.settlement.org2.

173

 

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

ll'lllllllllllrlllllllllllllllllllllllll'llll