J Organ Behavior - 2011 - Derous - Multiple Categorization in Resume Screening Examining Effects On Hiring Discrimination

Journal of Organizational Behavior, J. Organiz. Behav.
33, 544–570 (2012)

Published online 5 August 2011 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/job.769
Multiple categorization in resume screening:

Examining effects on hiring discrimination against
Arab applicants in field and lab settings1
EVA DEROUS1*, ANN MARIE RYAN2 AND HANNAH-HANH D. NGUYEN3
1
Department of Personnel Management, Work, and Organizational Psychology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
2
Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East-Lansing, Michigan, U.S.A.
3
Department of Psychology, California State University, Long Beach, California, U.S.A.
Summary Debate exists as to what the more appropriate prediction is regarding the effects of multiple stigmatized group
memberships on employment discrimination. The ethnic prominence (EP), multiple minority status (MMS),
and subordinate male target hypotheses were assessed for the combined effects of ethnic group membership
(Arabic), sex, social status, and job type on hiring evaluations. Two correspondence tests in the field (Study 1)
and two experimental studies in the lab (Study 2) and in the field (Study 3) were conducted. Studies 1 and 2
showed evidence for the EP hypothesis when low-status jobs were tested. The odds for rejection were four
times higher for Arab than for Dutch applicants. Applicants’ sex, socio-economic status, and external client
contact did not moderate findings (Study 1). The effect of applicants’ ethnic group membership was further
moderated by raters’ motivation to control prejudice (Study 2). Study 3 showed evidence for the MMS hy-
pothesis. We found double jeopardy against Arab women who applied for high-status jobs when recruiters’
prejudice was controlled. Study findings show that discrimination in resume screening may depend upon
the particular intersection of applicant, job, and recruiter characteristics. We discussed implications for anon-
ymous resume screening and research on evaluation of applicants possessing multiple stigmatizing character-
istics. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Keywords: multiple categorization; resume screening; hiring discrimination; ethnic prominence; prejudice
Individuals may belong to multiple stigmatized groups (e.g., women of color, homosexual ethnic minorities), and the in-
tersection of multiple stigmatized identities has been the focus of some research (Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach, 2008). How-
ever, in terms of discrimination experiences of ethnic minorities who also hold other stigmatized identities,
theoretical predictions differ. Three separate hypotheses have been put forth. According to the ethnic prominence
hypothesis (EP; Levin, Sinclair, Veniegas, & Taylor, 2002), ethnicity would be the predominantly influential factor
because of the greater salience and greater conflict and threat associated with ethnicity as compared with other stig-
matizing characteristics. The multiple minority status hypothesis (MMS; also referred to as the double or multiple
jeopardy hypothesis), however, suggests that other characteristics may have additive or moderating effects on ethnic
discrimination (Landrine, Klonoff, Alcaraz, Scott, & Wilkins, 1995; Nelson & Probst, 2004), and individuals with
multiple stigmatized identities are expected to experience greater discrimination than those with just one. The sub-
ordinate male target (SMT) hypothesis focuses specifically on the intersection of ethnicity and sex and suggests that
ethnic minority men suffer the most discrimination because threat and conflict are predominantly associated with
*Correspondence to: Eva Derous, Department of Personnel Management, Work, and Organizational Psychology, Ghent University, Ghent,
Belgium. E-mail: eva.derous@ugent.be
1
A previous version of this paper was presented as Featured Top Poster at the 23rd Annual SIOP Conference, San Francisco, USA.
Received 27 May 2009

Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Revised 20 April 2011, Accepted 7 June 2011
10991379, 2012, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/job.769 by Shanghai Jiaotong University, Wiley Online Library on [14/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
MULTIPLE CATEGORIZATION IN RESUME SCREENING 545
intergroup competition among men in society (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Debate remains as to which hypothesis
more clearly describes discriminatory processes in hiring, or whether each is applicable under different circumstances.
The aims of the studies presented here were to contribute to research on hiring discrimination in several ways.
First, whereas several studies have investigated the adverse impact of various selection methods (Outtz, 2009),
the more ubiquitous tool of resume screening is less investigated. Although resumes are one of the most widely used
selection methods (Piotrowski & Armstrong, 2006), concerns have been voiced about judgmental biases toward eth-
nic out-groups (Derous, Nguyen, & Ryan, 2009); hence, we study this stage of the hiring procedure.
Second, the literature on stigmatization in employment contexts tends to treat minority ethnicity as a monolithic
category and has been criticized for not considering individual ethnic minority groups separately (Avery, Hernandez,
& Hebl, 2004; King, Madera, Hebl, Knight, & Mendoza, 2007). In these studies, we examined employment discrim-
ination against one such understudied ethnic group, namely those of Arabic origin in Western societies, such as the
Moroccan in the Netherlands.
Third, we considered the intersection of ethnicity and sex to assess the viability of the three hypotheses (EP,
MMS, and SMT) in the context of employment screening of Arab applicants. Our contention is that the applicability
of each depends upon the specific stereotypes linked with the intersected group, such as Arab women, as well as the
job stereotype (status; amount of external client contact). We further extended the examination of the EP and MMS
hypotheses to consider how the intersection of ethnicity with socio-economic status (SES) might affect hiring eval-
uations. This directly addresses Kulik, Roberson, and Perry’s (2007) call for research on the relative role of multiple
categories in hiring decisions considering contextual cues that might affect those roles.
Finally, and in line with Kulik et al. (2007), we also investigated the moderating effects of recruiter characteristics
such as rater prejudice and motivation to control their own prejudice on the relation of ethnicity to hiring evaluations.
We first review basic support for the likelihood of discrimination against Arabs in employment. We follow this with a
description of the different hypotheses regarding identity intersectionality (i.e., sex, SES), the need for further research
on their viability, and expectations for their support in an employment screening context (e.g., depending on job status).
We assess our questions via three studies involving different methods and populations so as to balance ecological va-
lidity and internal validity concerns as well as to address related questions regarding discrimination against Arabs.
Discrimination Against Arab Applicants
Models of impression formation, such as the continuum model (Fiske, Lin, & Neuberg, 1999) and the dual process
model (Brewer & Harasty Feinstein, 1999), suggest that category-based information processing occurs automatically
and will be particularly strong when limited individualized information is available. In resume screening, when job
applicants are judged on the basis of a one-page or two-page resume only (i.e., individuating information about
applicants is limited), judgment may be based on raters’ category-based stereotypes (Bennington & Wein, 2002;
Klink & Wagner, 1999).
Theories on social categorization and group threat (e.g., Blalock’s social competition theory) suggest positive
relations among minorities’ share of jobs, their threat to majority workers, and the severity of the latter’s response
(Blalock, 1982; Reskin, McBrier, & Kmec, 1999). In the wake of the September 11th attack in the USA in 2001,
individuals of Arab descent have increasingly experienced social prejudice all over the world (e.g., Oswald,
2005). The term Arab refers to the ethnic group originated from various Arab countries/societies such as Morocco.
However, the term has evolved into a general and derogatory label for all Arab groups in the western world (Barakat,
1993; Oswald, 2005). In the Netherlands, non-western immigrants of Arab descent (specifically Moroccans) have
become one of the most prominent non-western ethnic groups (Myors et al., 2008; Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development, OECD, 2008).
It is amply demonstrated that stereotypes about out-group members are particularly strong when in-group members
perceive some threat from the out-group (Oswald, 2005). Furthermore, in-group members (i.e., host nationals or
Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Organiz. Behav. 33, 544–570 (2012)
DOI: 10.1002/job
546 E. DEROUS ET AL.
majority ethnic members) who feel particularly threatened by a certain out-group (e.g., Arab ethnics) may employ
discriminatory practices against the out-group to compensate for the felt threats (Crocker, Major, & Steele, 1998;
Derous et al., 2009). Therefore, we would expect hiring discrimination against Arab applicants.
Hypothesis 1: Arab applicants will receive more rejections than those of equally qualified Dutch applicants for the
same job.
Intersection of Ethnicity and Sex
As mentioned above, there are different theoretical predictions as to how applicants who belong to multiple stigma-
tized groups will be evaluated in the hiring process. The multiple minority status hypothesis (MMS) hypothesis
would indicate a double jeopardy for individuals who belong to two stigmatized groups (e.g., Pak, Dion, & Dion,
1991) on the assumption that disadvantage accrues with each identity as each has distinctive burdens of membership
(Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach, 2008). Double jeopardy is most often discussed in terms of the status of minority 2
women (e.g., Almquist, 1975; Cortina, 2001) and has been the focus of considerable feminist scholarship (see
Browne & Misra, 2003 for a review). The MMS hypothesis would suggest that resumes of Arab women will be
rated lower than those of Arab men.
A second perspective is the subordinate male target hypothesis (SMT) hypothesis, derived from social dominance
theory (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999), which argues that oppression is primarily directed at subordinate men in response
to resource competition. Thus, the SMT would suggest that (i) subordinate men are rated lower than dominant men;
(ii) subordinate women are rated lower than dominant men, and (iii) the effect size for subordinate/dominant men is
larger than the effect size for subordinate/dominant women. Specifically, resumes of Arab men will receive more
rejections/lower job suitability scores than those of dominant Dutch men, and this effect (or difference) will be larger
for men than for the Arab/Dutch women in comparison.
One final perspective has been termed the ethnic prominence hypothesis (EP; Levin et al., 2002) and is based on
cognitive accessibility frameworks and the role of threat in stereotyping. Specifically, this approach argues that nu-
merical minority status (true of many ethnic minority groups but not of women) influences accessibility and there-
fore stereotyping. According to Levin et al. (2002), ethnicity is more linked to threat than sex, and, hence, it will be
the more salient characteristic and basis for decision making in hiring evaluations. Thus, the EP hypothesis would
suggest that although resumes of Arab applicants would be rated lower than those of the majority Dutch group, there
will be no differences between evaluations of Arab men and women.
Empirical evidence in support of each of these views does exist, but almost all of it is outside the hiring context
(e.g., in workplace harassment, Berdahl & Moore, 2006; in performance evaluations, Powell & Butterfield, 1997; in
pay, Bowen & Bok, 1998; retail, Ayres & Siegelman, 1995; housing Yinger, 1995; and in general expectations of
discrimination, Levin et al., 2002). Studies in recruiting contexts are fewer and inconsistent. For example, Bendick,
Jackson, Reinoso, and Hodges (1991) found that Latino applicants were more likely to encounter discrimination
than Anglo applicants and that discrimination was particularly prevalent for men (supporting the SMT hypothesis),
but Bendick, Jackson, and Reinoso (1994) reported that African-American women were more likely to encounter
discrimination than African-American men and White individuals (supporting the MMS hypothesis). A study by
Hosoda, Stone, and Stone-Romero (2003a) actually found a double advantage for African-American women in that
they were evaluated more highly than White women and men.
In sum, there are three different perspectives and little clarity regarding their effects in employment screening con-
texts. Browne and Misra (2003) noted that the question of whether intersectional effects are ubiquitous or contingent
has not been well addressed, and that there is a need to specify the conditions under which ethnicity or sex might be
2
“Minority” in this case is somewhat of a misnomer, as individuals can be socially disadvantaged while not a numerical minority (e.g., women).
The reference here is to a sociological minority, or a less dominant group in society, rather than to a numerical minority.
DOI: 10.1002/job
more salient in hiring decisions, and to be more cautious in asserting intersectionality as influencing decisions. Con-
tingency seems likely as research on social identities has established that context influences the salience of specific
identities (see Ridgeway & Smith-Lovin, 1999 for a review); for example, the nature of the job might influence
whether an EP, MMS, or SMT hypothesis is supported. Kulik et al. (2007) proposed that one of an individual’s mul-
tiple categories may become more salient in hiring contexts depending on category salience cues such as job char-
acteristics. Further, Goff, Thomas, and Jackson (2008) argued and demonstrated that stereotypes of a multiple
stigma group are not necessarily a collection of stereotypes of the individual groups to which one belongs but a
unique set specific to the intersected identity. The stereotypes of “Arab” and “female” are not simply combined to
create a stereotype of “Arab females.” Thus, the applicability of these various hypotheses may be contingent upon
the stereotypes associated with the specific intersected identity.
In considering Arab applicants as a minority group of interest, perceived threat has been noted as a particularly salient
aspect of reactions to Arabs (Oswald, 2005), suggesting that Arab applicants in general will be discriminated against,
relative to Dutch applicants. However, the stereotypes of Arab men and women differ. For example, Arab women
are stereotyped as docile, submissive, and oppressed (Cole & Ahmadi, 2003) whereas Arab men are stereotyped
as aggressive, belligerent, and hostile compared with Dutch men and Arab/Dutch women (Blom, Oudhof, Bijl, &
Bakker, 2005; van Gemert, 1998; Srivastava, 1987). Dutch labor market statistics (Andriessen, Dagevos, Nievers,
& Boog, 2007) show that the mean employment level of Arab women resembles that of Dutch women whereas there
are lower employment levels for Arab men compared with their Dutch counterparts. Equally, the difference in num-
ber of fixed-term employment contracts versus long-term employment contracts is also significantly smaller for
Arab/Dutch women compared with Arab/Dutch men, with more fixed-term contracts for Arab men compared with
Dutch men (Andriessen et al., 2007). Hence, we posit that the effects of the intersection for ethnicity and sex on hir-
ing evaluations for Arab applicants will be in keeping with the SMT hypothesis, as Arab men are viewed as more
threatening than Dutch men, Arab women, and Dutch women.
Hypothesis 2: Sex will moderate the relation of ethnicity to evaluations such that resumes of Arab men will receive
more rejections than those of equally qualified dominant (Dutch) men, and this effect (or difference) will be signif-
icantly larger than any difference between Arab women and dominant (Dutch) women. It is expected that Arab male
applicants will receive more rejections than those of equally qualified Arab female applicants and Dutch applicants.
Intersection of Ethnicity and Socio-Economic Status
While the SMT hypothesis is focused specifically on the intersection of sex and ethnicity, both the MMS and EP
hypotheses can apply to the intersection of other stigmatizing characteristics with ethnicity. Calls have been made
to investigate employment-related issues for social class (Ashkanasy, Härtel, & Daus, 2002) and the need for orga-
nizational psychologists to consider poverty in their research (Carr et al., 2008; Lefkowitz, 2008). Yet, there has
been relatively little consideration to studying applicants’ SES in recruitment and selection settings (Magnus &
Mick, 2000). Status characteristics models (Berger, Cohen, & Zelditch, 1972; Berger, Fisek, & Norman, 1998),
however, suggest that one’s expectation about the competence of others (e.g., applicants) is based on inferences
from the status value assigned to the others’ personal characteristics by the society as a whole. Lott (2002) reviewed
evidence of classism and found that those who are not poor have the attitudes of distancing, separation, exclusion,
and devaluing of the poor.
We sought to extend the evaluation of the intersection of multiple stigmas by considering SES as a sta-
tus characteristic that may also affect evaluations of Arab applicants. Acker (2006) has argued that class is
considered as a legitimate basis for inequality as it is an inherent by-product of organizational pay practices in cap-
italist societies, whereas inequality on the basis of racism is seen as less legitimate. She argued that racial/ethnic in-
equality can be framed as more legitimate if embedded in class distinctions. However, much of the empirical work
DOI: 10.1002/job
on the intersection of SES and ethnicity focuses on gaps in wages (Browne & Misra, 2003); that is, the interest is
in SES as an outcome of discrimination rather than on the intersection of SES and ethnicity in predicting
discrimination.
There is some limited evidence in support of this possible intersection between SES and ethnicity. For example,
Jussim, Coleman, and Lerch (1987) showed that Black minority applicants were rated more highly when their
speech and dress were more closely aligned with middle-class values. Hartman, Hoogstraten, and Spruijt-Metz
(1994) found that Black people of low SES were more often viewed as victims of racism than Black people of high
SES in scenarios depicting everyday discrimination. Although there is a sizeable body of research that suggests that
perceptions of racism may be aligned with SES (see Brondolo et al., 2009 for a review), this research literature has
not produced entirely consistent findings. Recently, Brondolo et al. noted that while low SES was associated with
higher levels of lifetime stigmatization and harassment, higher SES was associated with great exposure to workplace
discrimination. However, these results are based on self-reported discrimination experiences or evaluations of sce-
narios, not actual employment decisions. The examination of the intersection of ethnicity and SES in evaluations
of applicants is needed. Following Jussim et al. (1987) and Hartman et al. (1994), we expected that:
Hypothesis 3: Socio-economic status will moderate the relation of ethnicity to evaluations such that resumes of
Arabs with low SES will receive more rejections than those of equally qualified Arabs with high SES and Dutch
applicants, respectively.
Job Characteristics as a Moderator
As noted above, the job context may affect whether the EP, MMS, or SMT perspective prevails in a given hiring
situation. That is, the nature of the job may change evaluator views of multiple stigma intersection. Specifically,
stereotypes are held both for people and for jobs and may orient people toward viewing certain applicants as suitable
for certain types of jobs (e.g., Ashkanasy et al., 2002). For example, Terpstra and Larsen (1980) found significant
interactions between applicants’ ethnicity and job characteristics such that evaluators recommended Black appli-
cants more often than White applicants for blue-collar jobs typically held by Black people. Further, Caucasian
men are seen to be more similar to the prototype of successful managers than women and ethnic minorities
(Chung-Herrera & Lankau, 2005; Duehr & Bono, 2006).
Employment discrimination seems more severe in jobs involving representing the organization to those outside
the organization. De Beijl (2000) found that migrant applicants had higher job rejection rates than majority appli-
cants and that this rejection rate was particularly high in jobs that required visual contacts with clients (e.g., sales
representatives). In the Netherlands, Klaver, Mevissen, Odé, Materman, and Weening (2005) also reported that hir-
ing discrimination occurred in the service sector when client contact was essential. That is, by hiring few visible eth-
nics in positions with much external client contact, employers may safeguard the organization against clients’
potential negative reactions (Derous et al., 2009).
Although the above research suggests that the job characteristic of client contact may influence the effects of Arab
ethnicity on hiring evaluations because of its relation to perceived threat, the intersection of sex in this context must
be considered. Typically, women are stereotyped as communal (i.e., kind, helpful; Eagly, 1987), and this would sug-
gest a preference for female candidates (or at least a lack of hiring discrimination) for jobs requiring employees to
assist clients. Kulik et al. (2007) noted that category activation and inhibition in hiring situations is motivated and
influenced by factors such as job characteristics that increase the salience of certain categories over others. Thus,
the nature of the job and the nature of the stereotype of the multiple stigma group suggest that the MMS hypothesis
may be less relevant in this context, and that the SMT hypothesis should hold up (i.e., Arab men will be seen as less
suitable for this job than Arab women in relation to Dutch men and women, respectively). Given these findings, it is
expected that:
DOI: 10.1002/job
Hypothesis 4a: Client contact will moderate discrimination effects such that the rejection rates for Arab men as
compared with equally qualified Dutch men will be greater than the comparable rates for Arab and Dutch women
when applying for a job with much external client contact. It is expected that Arab male applicants will receive
more rejections than those of equally qualified Arab female applicants when applying for an external contact
job, than Arabs applying for a job with little external client contact, or than Dutch applicants applying for either
type of job.
Although SES may affect hiring discrimination against Arabs (e.g., Brondolo et al., 2009; Jussim et al., 1987), the
intersection with the job characteristic of client contact also is worth considering. Christopher and Schlenker (2000)
showed that affluent people are viewed as less considerate of others (e.g., less kind, likable, honest) than not so af-
fluent persons. Typically, ratings of communal qualities increase with lower SES (Johannesen-Schmidt & Eagly,
2002) and may fit the stereotype of semi-skilled jobs that require much client contact. Because client contact may
increase the salience of communal characteristics (Kulik et al., 2007), hiring discrimination may be less pronounced
for ethnic minority applicants with low SES than for those with high SES as evaluators may perceive the fit of the
former with the job stereotype as greater than that of the latter. Thus, it is possible that SES, applicant ethnicity, and
job client contact interact with each other in influencing hiring discrimination against Arabs. Whereas Dutch appli-
cants will experience the least discrimination, we expected that:
Hypothesis 4b: Client contact will moderate discrimination effects such that the resumes of Arab applicants with
low SES will receive less rejection if they apply for a job with much external client contact than equally qualified
Arabs with high SES applying for the same job, and than Arabs with either high or low SES that apply for a job
with little external client contact.
Study 1
Study 1 consisted of two correspondence tests examining hiring discrimination against Arab minority applicants in a
large Dutch metropolitan area. The correspondence technique (i.e., a kind of employment audit using application
letters or resumes) allows researchers to compare labor market outcomes of applicants who are equally qualified
for a job (i.e., identical in all productive characteristics) but different in demographic variables (e.g., ethnicity and
sex). By sending out matched applications to the same job opening and counting the callbacks (i.e., rejections or
invitations), we could investigate whether recruiters’ differential treatment of subgroups of applicants was attribut-
able to hiring discrimination.
Method
Design, sample, and procedure
We examined the effect of applicants’ ethnicity (Arab vs Dutch), sex (male vs female), SES (high vs low), and job
type (high vs low external client contact) on callback rates. Correspondence Test 1 consisted of a 2 (ethnicity: Dutch
vs Arab)2 (sex: male vs female)2 (job: high vs low external client contact) mixed factorial design, with ethnicity
and sex as the within-subjects factors and job as the between-subjects factor. Correspondence Test 2 was similar
to Test 1, but varying in ethnicity and SES (sex was kept constant as male; see Materials and pilot testing). Two
correspondence tests were used to keep the design from becoming overly complex.
In total, we sent 768 resumes or applications to 192 advertisements (i.e., four resumes per advertisement) and
counted the rates of responses (i.e., rejection vs invitation). Because employers may send feedback to applicants
by email, by postal mail, or by phone, we used six different mailing addresses, four different email accounts, and
DOI: 10.1002/job
four different phone numbers. Six contact persons, who were blind to the experimental goal, provided their mailing
addresses, checked for employers’ letters, and forwarded them to the experimenters weekly. Four of the mailing con-
tacts were living in better neighborhoods, whereas two were living in areas with lower socio-economic standing.
We also created four email accounts (one account per applicant) that included the name of the applicant. Finally,
(new) phone cards with different cell phone numbers (one phone number per applicant) were purchased for the
study. There was a standard voice mail box for each phone number. The standard outgoing message of the (same)
telecom company consisted of the cell phone number (e.g., “This is the voicemail of 06-12345678. Please leave your
message after the beep”) and a beep tone, after which an employer could leave his message for the fictitious appli-
cant so that no outgoing message needed to be recorded. The email accounts and phone lines were especially created
for the study and not used for any other purpose.
Materials and pilot testing

In a series of pilot studies preceding these two correspondence tests, we developed and tested the experimental mate-
rials. First, we selected a pool of job advertisements in the service sector covering jobs at a semi-skilled level. These
advertisements were posted on electronic job search databases in a large Dutch metropolitan area. Specifically, we
selected only advertisements which asked applicants to email their resume instead of calling or appearing in person.
The advertised jobs were then evaluated by two independent experts for relevant variables such as job type (amount
of contact with external clients), sex neutrality (equally accessible to men and women), and educational require-
ments (middle-level vocational training). When the advertisements were considered suitable, we logged the name
of the employer, along with any specific information on the position advertised (e.g., work experience).
We next developed resume templates and tailored them to the advertisements. Following Bertrand and
Mullainathan’s (2004) procedure, we took resumes of actual job seekers that were posted on a job search website
in the area of interest, deleting the person’s name and contact information and altering them sufficiently to create dis-
tinct resumes. The templates included information on applicants’ age3 (23–25 years), educational level (i.e., middle-
level vocational training), work experiences (for service jobs in retail/customer services), and extracurricular
activities (i.e., a combination of sports and cultural activities).
Third, we manipulated the fictitious applicant’s SES by varying the applicant’s address and schools (i.e., in up-
scale neighborhoods or lower class neighborhoods) in the Dutch metropolitan area where the advertised job was lo-
cated. Schools and neighborhoods were selected on the basis of socio-demographic statistics. To manipulate appli-
cant’s ethnicity, we assigned each resume either a very Dutch or Arab name. To this end, pairs of first and last names
were retrieved from existing studies (e.g., De Beijl, 2000).
The pilot test sample consisted of 86 voluntary participants (64 per cent White people, 48 per cent male with mean
age of 28.97years). First, participants rated eight resume templates, presented in pairs, on the equivalence of edu-
cation (i.e., level, grades), work experiences (i.e., amount, type), extracurricular activities (i.e., amount, type),
applicant age, and grammar (i.e., spelling, word use, length). The rating scale was a 5-point Likert-type scale
(1=totally unequal; 5=totally equal). Overall, the resume templates were perceived as highly equivalent (M=4.01;
SD=0.50; min=3.33; max=5). We also conducted pairwise t-tests for all resume templates (for both correspondence
tests). Results of pairwise t-tests (15 tests by 10 resume characteristics by two correspondence tests) showed that
templates were very equivalent: there were no significant differences regarding education (level, grades), work ex-
perience (amount, type), extracurricular activities (amount; type), applicant age, grammar (spelling, word use,
length), and “overall” impression of resumes. (Detailed results can be retrieved from the authors upon request.)
Second, participants rated the SES of six neighborhoods (low, medium, vs high) on a 7-point Likert-type scale
(1=very low SES; 7=very high SES). Paired samples t-tests showed significant differences in the expected
direction: tlowvs mediumSES (26)= 11.41, p<.01; tlow vs high SES (26)= 19. 25, p<.01; and tmedium vs high SES (26)=
14.05, p<.01. Similarly, participants rated the SES of 15 schools (low, medium, vs high). Paired samples t-tests
3
In the Netherlands, it is common for job applicants to provide age on resumes.
DOI: 10.1002/job
showed significant differences in the expected direction: tlowvsmediumSES (26)= 4.51, p<.01; tlow vs high SES (26)=
17. 22, p<.01; and tmediumvs high SES (26)= 18.42, p<.01. On the basis of these results, we selected the schools
and neighborhoods with the most extreme scores for the final resumes.
Finally, participants evaluated 40 first names (20 female/male names) and 40 last names. Specifically, participants
were given name lists and asked to identify to which ethnic group each name belonged. On the basis of chi-square
analyses, we selected names that were perceived by respondents as typically Arabic (e.g., Mohammed; w2(2)=78.88,
p<.01) and Dutch (e.g., Henk; w2(2)=73.62, p<.01). Furthermore, a series of chi-square analyses showed that
respondents classified names correctly as being male (e.g., Henk; w2(1)=172, p<.01) or female (e.g., Janneke;
w2(1)=172, p<.01). All elements were then integrated together to formulate eight resume templates (four resumes
per correspondence test).
Results and discussion

Preliminary analyses
We removed 16 advertised vacancies from further analyses for the following reasons: emails bounced back; com-
pany website was unavailable; vacancies were no longer online. An overall response rate of 51 per cent was
obtained (n=360 applications); 57 per cent was obtained for Correspondence Test 1 (n=204) and 43 per cent for
Correspondence Test 2 (n=156 applications).We coded responses only if we received a formal rejection or invitation
from a company and we excluded the non-responses (or missing data) from further analyses. Whereas some
researchers suggest that no response might reflect a rejection (De Beijl, 2000), others (Riach & Rich, 2002) mention
that no response might reflect factors (e.g., such as lost letters) not related to discrimination. In our sample, chi-square
analyses on missing cases (nmissing =344) revealed no differential treatment of applicant profiles, w2(1)=.96, p=.33.
In line with Riach and Rich (2002) and in order not to confound response rates, we conducted a series of logistic
regression analyses on the resumes for which we received a response (either a rejection or an invitation for
interview).
Hypothesis testing
Logistic regression analysis was performed with rejection as the outcome and applicant ethnicity, sex, SES, and job
type as predictors. Correspondence Test 1 investigated effects of applicant ethnicity, sex, and job type (Hypotheses
1, 2, and 4a). A test of the full model with all predictors against a constant-only model was statistically significant,
w2(7, N=204)=23.02, p<.01. Table 1 shows regression coefficients, Wald statistics, odds ratios, and 95 per cent
confidence intervals for odds ratios for each of the predictors. According to the Wald statistics, only ethnicity reli-
ably predicted rejection as evaluation outcome, w2(1, N=204)=16.02, p<.01, even after controlling for sex and job
type. That means that the rejection of resumes was significantly enhanced for applicants with an Arab name com-
pared with applicants with a Dutch name, supporting Hypothesis 1. Specifically, the odds for rejection (compared
with invitation) were 4.83 times higher for resumes with an Arab name than for resumes with a traditional Dutch
name. No significant effects were found for sex, job type, and their interactions with ethnicity, so that Hypotheses
2 and 4a were not supported.
Correspondence Test 2 investigated effects of applicant ethnicity, SES, and job type (Hypotheses 1, 3, and 4b) . A
test of the full model with all predictors against a constant-only model was statistically significant, w2(7, N=156)=
12.92, p<.05. Logistic regressions revealed that the hypothesized model predicting rejection of resumes from eth-
nicity was significant, w2(1, N=156)=7.66, p<.01, even after controlling for SES and job type (Table 1): The odds
for rejection (compared with invitation) were 3.94 times higher for resumes with an Arab name than for resumes
with a traditional Dutch name, supporting Hypothesis 1. However, no other significant effects were found for
SES, job type, and their interactions with ethnicity, so that Hypotheses 3 and 4b were not supported.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Table 1. Logistic regression of rejection of resumes on ethnicity, sex, socio-economic status, and job type (Study 1).
B SE (B) Walda Exp (B) CI (95%) Δw2 (df) w2 (df) n
Correspondence Test 1 (H1, H2, H4a) 204

1. Sexb .06 .36 .03 1.07 .53–2.14 – .03 (1)
2. Job typeb .64 .36 3.15 1.89 .94–4.06 3.17 (1) 3.17 (2)
3. Ethnicityb 1.58** .43 13.41 4.83** 2.08–11.21 16.08 (1)** 19.27 (3)**
4. Ethnicitysex .77 .88 .78 2.17 .39–12.12 .80 (1) 20.07 (4)**
5. Ethnicityjob type 1.10 .88 1.55 2.99 .53–16.79 1.59 (1) 21.67 (5)**
6. Sexjob type .46 .78 .35 .63 .14–2.88 .36 (1) 22.03 (6)**
7. Ethnicitysexjob type .28 .29 1.01 1.33 .67–2.33 .99 (1) 23.02 (7)**
Correspondence Test 2 (H1, H3, H4b) 156

1. SESb .25 .21 1.37 1.28 .85–1.95 – 1.40 (1)
2. Job type .36 .48 .57 .70 .27–1.78 .59 (1) 1.98 (2)
3. Ethnicity 1.22** .47 6.75 3.94** 1.35–8.56 7.66 (1)** 7.66 (3)*
4. EthnicitySES .15 .48 .10 1.16 .45–2.96 .10 (1) 9.74 (4)*
5. Ethnicityjob type .96 1.25 .59 2.61 .23–13.13 .66 (1) 10.40 (5)*
6. SESjob type .26** .22 1.40 1.32 .50–4.95 1.32 (1) 11.72 (6)*
7. EthnicitySESjob type .24 .22 1.12 .79 .51–1.22 1.20 (1) 12.92 (7)*
Note: Parameter estimates are for final step, except for model parameters Δw2 (df) and w2 (df), which are at each step. H1=Hypothesis 1;
H2=Hypothesis 2; H3=Hypothesis 3; H4a/H4b=Hypotheses 4a and 4b.
a
The Wald statistic was used to test whether the odds ratios were significantly different from 1.
b
Reference categories are: female (for sex of applicant), low external client contact (for job type), Dutch (for ethnicity of applicant), and high SES
(for socio-economic status or SES of applicant).
*p<.05; **p<.01.
Discussion
“Nomen est omen”: As hypothesized, resumes with an Arab name received significantly more rejections than
resumes with traditional Dutch names. Evidence was found for EP as no moderating effect was found for applicants’
sex or SES. Apparently, the amount of external client contact did not play a mitigating role either. Employers
seemed particularly reluctant to invite Arab applicants further in the selection process.
Of all types of employment audits, correspondence tests offer the greatest amount of control because applicants’ in-
terpersonal style, appearance, and behavior cannot affect the outcome. However, correspondence tests are limited in that
they only register callbacks; they do not allow researchers to examine unobserved factors such as raters’ characteristics
(e.g., prejudice). Therefore, we conducted a lab study to investigate the role of rater prejudice and motivation to suppress
prejudice as characteristics that might affect category activation and inhibition, as suggested by Kulik et al. (2007). Such
an investigation is important as the discrimination against Arab applicants documented in Study 1 might be
mitigated by organizational, legal, and societal sanctions that target such discrimination. Study 2 examines whether
motivation can lead those who hold stereotypes of Arabs to suppress that prejudice.
Study 2
One would anticipate that raters that are more prejudiced against Arabs would be more likely to discriminate against
them. Work on “modern racism” has advanced the idea that individuals will only discriminate against a group when
they can point to an alternative justification for their action. Modern racists are more attuned to normative standards
about expression of traditional racist views; therefore, they are more likely not to display their racism when it can be
easily detected (i.e., appears blatant) and to display their racism where it cannot be easily detected, such as when
DOI: 10.1002/job
there is a business justification for their act (i.e., Brief, Dietz, Cohen, Pugh, & Vaslow, 2000) or when the profile of
the candidate is ambiguous rather than having very strong or weak credentials (i.e., Dovidio & Gaertner, 2000;
Hodson, Dovidio, & Gaertner, 2002). One might expect external client contact to be a business justification for mod-
ern racists to display prejudice (i.e., customer-based discrimination; Brief et al., 2000; Holzer & Ihlanfeldt, 1998).
Therefore, we expected that:
Hypothesis 5: The two-way interaction between ethnicity and modern racism on evaluations will be qualified by
external contact such that the relationship will be stronger when external contact is high versus low.
Many researchers have noted that explicit measures of prejudice have limitations, as self-representation biases
may lead to a restriction of range in responses (Dovidio & Gaertner, 2000; Fazio, Jackson, Dunton, & Williams,
1995). Indeed, one can be externally motivated to respond without prejudice (Plant & Devine, 1998), such as
through organizational and legal sanctions for discrimination, and suppress overtly expressed ethnic prejudice and
discriminatory behaviors. Motivation to control prejudice refers to perceivers’ effortful cognitive processes to coun-
teract automatically activated stereotypes (Kulik et al., 2007). That is, individuals are sensitive to social norms re-
garding how appropriate it is to express prejudice (Crandall, Eshleman, & O’Brien, 2002). For example, Ziegert
and Hanges (2005) found that motivation to control prejudice moderated the relationship between implicit and ex-
plicit attitudes (i.e., modern racism), although they did not report the effects of motivation to control prejudice on
evaluations. Kulik et al. (2007) mentioned motivation to control prejudice as one potential effect on category acti-
vation and inhibition. Hence, it was hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 6: The effect of ethnicity on evaluations will be moderated by raters’ level of external motivation to
control prejudice toward Arabs: Arab applicants will receive lower job suitability scores than those of equally
qualified Dutch applicants when raters’ external motivation to control prejudice is low.
Method
Participants
We recruited college students (N=157) in a public university in the Netherlands (located in the same metropolitan
area as Study 1) to participate voluntarily in this study for course credits. The final sample was 146 and included
only Dutch native participants (as ethnicity might influence responding) and those who passed the manipulation
checks. Participants all had work experience (working 9.63h/week on the average) and a mean age of 20.04 years
with 66 per cent being men.
Design and procedure

We conducted a two-phase experiment. In Phase 1, participants filled out the consent form and participated in the
experimental resume-sifting task. The experimental task consisted of a 2 (ethnicity: Dutch vs Arab)2 (job: high
vs low external client contact) mixed-factor design with ethnicity as the within-subjects factor and job as the
between-subjects factor. We randomly assigned participants to one of the two job conditions and asked to role
play a recruiter for an international company. Participants first reviewed an advertisement for either a desk clerk/
receptionist (i.e., a front-office job with high external client contact) or internal mail processor (i.e., a back-office
job with low external client contact) at a semi-skilled level (comparable with Study 1). They then received two
resumes to review. (We had pilot tested these resumes as noted in the next section and presented them in a counter-
balanced order.) Participants rated the job suitability of each resume/applicant on a 5-point Likert-type scale. In
Phase 2, the administered seven days after completion of Phase 1, participants responded to a biographic question-
naire and measures of prejudice (modern racism; external motivation to respond without prejudice).
DOI: 10.1002/job

As in Study 1, we first conducted a series of pilot tests to develop the experimental materials, and to test the ade-
quacy and equivalency of the resume aspects. A total of 61 master’s graduate students in industrial/organizational
psychology participated in the pilot testing for Study 2. Participants were 76.5 per cent White, 49 per cent male, with
a mean age of 21.7years.
First, participants rated 22 job positions on the amount of face contact with external clients and cognitive demands re-
quired for performing these jobs. On the basis of these results, we selected two jobs, namely “desk clerk/receptionist” and
“internal mail processor” that were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1=low; 5=high). These two jobs differed sig-
nificantly in the amount of client contact, t(60)=6.55, p<.01 (desk clerk/receptionist: M=4.00; SD=0.90; internal
mail processor: M=2.05; SD=0.95), but participants judged them as equal in cognitive demands, t(59)=.57,
p=.57 (desk clerk/receptionist: M=3.33; SD=1.08; internal mail processor: M=3.23; SD=1.08).
Subsequently, participants rated eight work experiences on perceived job relevance on a 7-point Likert-type scale
(1=low; 7=high) with a mean relevance of 5.08 (SD=0.60). Finally, participants rated the overall equivalence of full
resumes on a 7-point Likert-type scale. Paired samples t-tests revealed no significant differences between the resume
templates for the desk clerk, t(42)=.25, p=.80, and internal mail processor, t(42)=1.15, p=.26, meaning that
resumes were perceived as equivalent. We kept constant sex and SES of school and neighborhood (male; medium
SES; see Study 1 for pilot testing). Study 2 used the same names as those in Study 1.
Measures
All self-reported measures in this study utilized a 5-point Likert-type scale.
Job suitability was adapted from existing studies and consisted of five items measuring both raters’ overall impres-
sion of the candidate (Bart, Hass, Philbrick, Sparks, & Williams, 1997; two items) and raters’ hiring intentions
(McIntyre, Morberg, & Posner, 1980; three items). Sample items are “Given all information you read about this ap-
plicant, how suitable do you believe this applicant is for this function?” (1=not suitable at all; 5=very suitable), and
“Given all information you read about this applicant, what is the likelihood that you would invite this person for an
interview (i.e., the next stage of the hiring process)?” (1=very low; 5=very high). Confirmatory factor analyses us-
ing maximum likelihood estimation method showed significant loadings and good fit indices for a one-factor job
suitability model (CFI=.99, NFI=.97, TLI=.95, RMSEA=.06). Fit indices are in line with the suggested cut-off
values (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Cronbach’s alpha was satisfactory, a=.84.
We measured modern racism to assess prejudice by using an adapted version of the Modern Racism Scale (MRS;
McConahay, Hardee, & Batts, 1981), by changing occurrences of the word “African-American/s” into “Arabs” (see
for a similar approach, Purkiss, Perrewé, Gillespie, Mayes, & Ferris, 2006). The scale consisted of seven Likert-type
items, such as “Arab minorities are getting too demanding in their push for equal rights” (1=disagree strongly; 5=
agree strongly). The scale’s alpha was adequate, a=.77.
Finally, we administered external motivation to respond without prejudice (EMS; Plant & Devine, 1998; five
items) to measure people’s desire to respond without prejudice because of concerns over how others would evaluate
them if they responded with prejudice. As with the MRS, we made the EMS-scale context-specific by adding the
word “Arab” to the word “minorities.” A sample item is “Because of today’s politically correct standards, I try to
appear non-prejudiced toward Arab minorities” (1=disagree strongly; 5=agree strongly). Cronbach’s alpha was sat-
isfactory, a=.83.

In addition to pilot testing of the materials, we performed manipulation checks on participants (n=151). After eval-
uating the resumes, respondents indicated to which ethnic group the applicants belonged. The perceived ethnicity of
the applicants (Dutch vs Arab) corresponded well to the manipulated ethnicity (Dutch vs Arab), w2Dutch (2, n=151)=
DOI: 10.1002/job
205.06, p<.01, and w2Arab (2, n=151)=267.23, p<.01, which showed that overall respondents did pay appropriate
attention to the task. Note that for the final analyses, we did eliminate those who did not pass the manipulation check
(n=5), that is, when they considered resumes with Arab (or Dutch) names as stemming from Dutch (or Arab) appli-
cants, respectively.
Hypothesis testing
Table 2 presents the means, standard deviations, correlation coefficients, and reliabilities of the measured variables,
whereas Table 3 presents the mean job suitability scores and standard deviations by experimental conditions. In
Study 2, we tested Hypotheses 1, 5, and 6 by performing two-way analyses of covariance with repeated measures
(ethnicity as the within-subjects factor, job type as the between-subjects factor, and modern racism and external mo-
tivation to respond without prejudice as the covariates; Table 4).
As in Study 1, a main effect for ethnicity was found, F(1, 132)=14.30, p<.01, 2 =.10. Job suitability ratings
were lower for resumes with Arab names (MArab =3.73; MDutch =4.00), which supported Hypothesis 1. The three-
way interaction between ethnicity, modern racism, and job type was non-significant, F(1, 132)=.71, p=.39, so
Hypothesis 5 was not supported. No significant two-way interactions were found between ethnicity and modern
racism, F(1, 132)=.01, p=.95, or between modern racism and job type, F(1, 132)=.03, p=.87. Modern racism
did not affect job suitability ratings, F(1, 132)=1.98, p=.16. A significant two-way interaction was found for raters’
external motivation to respond without prejudice and ethnicity, F(1, 132)=8.24, p<.01, 2 =.06, thereby supporting
Hypothesis 6. Specifically, when raters’ external motivation to control prejudice was high, job suitability ratings for
applicants with Arab names were almost as high as those for applicants with typical Dutch names. However, when
external motivation to control prejudice was low, resumes with an Arab name received lower job suitability scores
than those of equally qualified applicants with a Dutch name (Figure 1).
Discussion
Because correspondence tests do not reveal raters’ prejudice, we extended the correspondence tests in Study 1 into a
controlled lab experiment. Study 2 results supported Study 1 findings that applicants with Arab names are disadvan-
taged upon resume screening. We did not find evidence that modern racists considered job external client contact as
a justification for discrimination. However, raters’ motivation to control prejudiced reactions against Arabs moder-
ated the effect of ethnicity.
Study 3
Both Studies 1 and 2 show evidence for the EP hypothesis. However, Study 2 is limited in that it only replicated
findings of Study 1 without disentangling some of the competing hypotheses (EP, MMS, and SMT) because sex
was kept constant (males only). Furthermore, both Studies 1 and 2 only investigated low-status jobs. Yet, job status
Table 2. Means, standard deviations, correlations, and internal consistencies of study variables (Study 2).
M SD 1 2 3 4
1. Job suitability 3.87 0.50 .84

2. Modern racism 2.26 0.68 .12 .77
3. External motivation to respond without prejudice 2.34 0.80 .12 .37** .83
4. Sex of respondentsa,b – – .08 .05 .13 –
Note:
a
1=male; 2=female.
b
Spearman correlations. Scale internal consistencies (Cronbach’s alpha) are presented in italic on the diagonal.
**p<.01.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Table 3. Mean job suitability scores and standard deviations by experimental conditions (Study 2).
External client contact in job
High Low
Ethnicity M SD M SD
Dutch 4.03 0.55 3.96 .57

Arab 3.73 0.69 3.72 .62
might also affect the feasibility of alternative hypotheses (Kulik et al., 2007). Study 3 therefore investigated whether
the EP or MMS hypothesis holds for high-status jobs. To this end, we conducted a controlled field experiment
among real recruiters, controlling for recruiters’ prejudice against Arabs and women.
Despite some advances in women’s employment status, most women still hold lower-paying, lower-status jobs
than men do (Swim, Aiken, Hall, & Hunter, 1995). Thus, the nature of the job we chose (i.e., HR manager) and
the nature of the stereotype of the multiple stigma group suggests that the MMS hypothesis should hold up (i.e., al-
though Arabs will be seen as less suitable for this job than Dutch, Arab men will be seen as fitting this type of job
better than Arab women). As already noted, another influence on category activation and inhibition involves the
strength of the decision maker’s prejudice toward out-group members. Kulik et al. (2007) suggest that in a multi-
ple-category situation, the category associated with the strongest attitudes of a decision maker will most likely dom-
inate the impression formation process and resulting outcomes. For instance, if a recruiter is highly prejudiced
toward Arabs, this may result in lower scores for Arabs and may affect the interactive effects of sex and ethnicity.
In the same way, the effect of sex on evaluations may depend on raters’ level of sexism. To consider this more com-
pletely, we included both explicit and implicit prejudice measures in Study 3 (Greenwald et al., 1998). The follow-
ing hypothesis was formulated:
Hypothesis 7: The two-way interaction between ethnicity and sex on job suitability will be qualified by (explicit/
implicit) prejudice, such that Arab female applicants will receive lower job suitability scores than those of equally
qualified Arab men and Dutch applicants when (explicit/implicit) prejudice is high.
Table 4. Analysis of covariance for job suitability (Study 2).

Source df F 2 p
Between subjects
Job type (client contact) 1 .73 .00 .40
Modern racisma 1 1.98 .01 .16
Modern racismjob type 1 .03 .00 .87
External motivation to respond without prejudicea 1 .35 .00 .55
External motivation to respond without prejudicejob type 1 1.80 .01 .18
Error 132 (.51)
Within subjects
Ethnicity 1 14.30** .10 .00
Ethnicityjob type 1 .03 .00 .87
Ethnicitymodern racism 1 .01 .00 .95
Ethnicitymodern racismjob type 1 .71 .01 .39
Ethnicityexternal motivation to respond without prejudice 1 8.24** .06 .00
Error 132 (.21)
Note:
a
These variables were the covariates. Values in parentheses represent mean square errors.
**p<.01.
DOI: 10.1002/job
4.1
Low EMS
4 High EMS
Job suitability
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.4
Dutch Arab
Ethnicity
Figure 1. Interaction of ethnicity with external motivation to respond without prejudice (EMS) (Study 2)
Method
Participants
Participants were 55 recruiters (51 per cent men) with a mean age of 41.22 years (SD=9.9). All participants were
native Dutch and working in recruitment and selection offices as recruiters.4 We contacted them through a profes-
sional network of recruiters.
Design and procedure

We asked participants to participate in a study on the development of an in-basket for assessing competencies of recruit-
ers. A two-phase experiment was conducted. In Phase 1, participants filled out the consent form and participated in the
experimental resume-sifting task. The experimental task consisted of a 2 (ethnicity: Dutch vs Arab)2 (sex: male vs
female) mixed-factor design with ethnicity as the between-subjects factor and sex as the within-subjects factor. We ran-
domly assigned participants to the ethnic conditions and asked them to screen the applicant profiles for an international
company (comparable to Study 2). Participants first reviewed an advertisement for an HR manager (i.e., a high-status
job with moderate external client contact; see Materials and pilot testing). They then received two resumes to review.
(We had pilot tested these resumes as noted in the next section and presented them in a counterbalanced order.) Parti-
cipants rated the job suitability of each resume/applicant on a 5-point Likert-type scale. In Phase 2, administered 7–10
days after completion of Phase 1, participants responded to a biographic questionnaire and prejudice measures. Before
debriefing, we asked participants what the study was about, and recruiters all indicated that the study was about devel-
oping an assessment (in-basket) for measuring competencies of recruiters, showing that they did not suspect that this
was a study focused on discrimination.

As in previous studies, we first conducted a series of pilot tests to develop the experimental materials, and to test the
adequacy and equivalency of our resume aspects. A total of 123 graduate students in psychology participated in the
pilot testing for Study 3. Participants were 87 per cent White, 33 per cent male, with a mean age of 22.20 years
(SD=2.1). First, 44 participants rated 34 job positions on job status (1=low; 7=high), the amount of face contact
with external clients (1=low; 7=high), and the sex typing of the job (1=male-dominated; 7=female-dominated).
On the basis of these results, we selected the job of “HR manager”, which scored high on job status (M=6.0;
SD=0.95), moderate on external client contact (M=3.6; SD=1.2), and was considered a slightly male-dominated
4
In Europe and indeed in much of the world outside the USA, hiring for many positions is managed through employment firms that have full-time
professional recruiters who do screening of job candidates. These are not the campus recruiters that one would be referring to in the USA.
DOI: 10.1002/job
job (M=3.0; SD=0.91). Subsequently, 50 participants rated 12 work experiences on perceived job relevance on a
7-point Likert-type scale (1=low; 7=high) with a mean relevance of 4.7 (SD=0.49). We chose those four work
experiences that were perceived as most relevant for this job (M=5.2; SD=0.71). Finally, 29 participants rated
the overall equivalence of the full resumes on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1=low; 5=high) with a mean equivalence
of 4.4 (SD=0.47), meaning that resumes were perceived as very equivalent. We kept SES constant (medium SES;
see Study 1 for pilot testing). Study 3 used the same names as those in Studies 1 and 2 (see Materials and pilot testing
in Study 1).
Measures
All self-reported measures in this study utilized a 5-point Likert-type scale. Except for external motivation to re-
spond without prejudice, we used the same measures as in Study 2. In addition, we included some new measures.
The Modern Sexism Scale (MSS) was used to assess prejudice against women (Swim et al., 1995). The scale con-
sisted of seven Likert-type items, such as “Society has reached the point where women and men have equal oppor-
tunities for achievement” (1=disagree strongly; 5=agree strongly). The scale’s alpha was .67.
Implicit prejudice (Arab-IAT; gender-IAT). The IAT was used to measure implicit prejudice toward Arabs (i.e.,
Arab-IAT) and toward women (gender-IAT). The IAT measures the strength of automatic associations that re-
spondents hold between a concept (e.g., Arab names/female words) and an attribute (e.g., pleasant words/career-
related words).
We developed/conducted the IATs after the Arab-IAT (Derous et al., 2009) and the gender-roles IAT
(Rudman & Kilianski, 2000) using the E-prime 2.0 software (Psychology Software Tools, Pittsburgh, PA).
The Arab-IAT paired Arab/Dutch names with pleasant/unpleasant words. Consistent with the “lack-of-fit”
model of Heilman (Heilman, 1983; Heilman & Eagly, 2008), the gender-IAT paired female/male words with
career/domestic-related words. Specifically within employment contexts, sex bias in evaluations of women
may not arise from their sex but from the perceived mismatch between their inferred female attributes and sev-
eral role requirements (at the workplace; at home). All stimuli were pretested to be matched on valence. The
Arab-IAT and gender-IAT were counterbalanced as well as the compatible/incompatible blocks in each of the
IATs and this did not affect results.
During the IAT, we asked participants to categorize different concepts/attributes. These concepts/attributes
belonged to either an evaluative compatible combination (e.g., female word+domestic-related word) or an
evaluative non-compatible combination (e.g., female word+non-domestic/career-related word). We concluded
implicit prejudice when response times were shorter in the compatible pairing condition (i.e., Block 5; Table 5)
when highly associated concepts and attributes are paired, and when response times were longer in the incom-
patible condition (i.e., Block 3; Table 5) when loosely associated concepts and attributes are paired (Greenwald
et al., 1998).
More implicit prejudice resulted in larger values, because we subtracted latencies of the compatible sorting con-
ditions from those of the incompatible conditions. We log-transformed latencies to have a statistic that has a satis-
factory distribution for analyses (ANCOVAs). We also included the IAT-effect “d”, which represents the size/
strength of the prejudice. The IAT-effect “d” is calculated as the difference in average response latencies between
the compatible and incompatible pairing conditions, divided by the standard deviation of all latencies for both pair-
ing conditions (Greenwald et al., 1998).
The results of both IATs were in the expected directions. We subtracted reaction times (log-transformed from the
original raw values for a better fit) of the compatible combinations from the incompatible combinations, and the
results for both the Arab-IAT and the gender-IAT were positive, meaning that participants had slower reaction times
for the incompatible combinations. This suggests that, in general, the participants had negative implicit attitudes to-
ward Arabs and women. The differences in reaction time between the compatible and incompatible combinations
were large (d=1.08 for the Arab-IAT and d=1.00 for the gender-IAT) and significant for both the Arab-IAT,
F(1,54)=62.81, p<.01, 2 =.53, and the gender-IAT, F(1,54)=56.36, p<.01, 2 =.51.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Table 5. The implicit association test.

IATs Blocks Trials Left-key response (“e”) Right-key response (“i”)
Arab-IAT 1 20 Arab names (e.g., “Said”) Dutch names (e.g., “Sjaak”)

2 20 Pleasant words (e.g., “happiness”) Unpleasant words (e.g., “sickness”)
3 20 Arab names+pleasant words (practice) Dutch names+unpleasant words (practice)
40 Arab names+pleasant words (test) Dutch names+unpleasant words (test)
4 20 Dutch names Arab names
5 20 Dutch names+pleasant words (practice) Arab names+unpleasant words (practice)
40 Dutch names+pleasant words (test) Arab names+unpleasant words (test)
Gender-IAT 1 20 Female words (e.g., “she”) Male words (e.g., “he”)

2 20 Career-related words (e.g., “office”) Domestic-related words (e.g., “family”)
3 20 Female words+career-related words Male words+domestic-related words
(practice) (practice)
40 Female words+career-related words (test) Male words+domestic-related words (test)
4 20 Male words Female words
5 20 Male words+career-related words Female words+domestic-related words
(practice) (practice)
40 Male words+career-related words (test) Female words+domestic-related words (test)

After evaluating the resumes, respondents indicated to which ethnic group the applicants belonged and whether the appli-
cants were perceived as women or men. A series of chi-square analyses showed that participants perceived the applicants’
ethnicity (w2(1)=54, p<.01) and sex (w2(1)=54, p<.01) as intended. We also tested the perceived educational level
of the applicants (as a proxy of job status) on a Likert-type scale (1=low; 2=medium; 3=high educational level) with
a mean of 3.0 (SD=0.0). As all participants passed the manipulation checks, the final sample was 55.
Descriptives
Table 6 presents the means, standard deviations, correlation coefficients, and reliabilities of the measured variables.
Job suitability ratings related significantly and negatively to modern racism and implicit prejudice against Arabs but
not to modern sexism and implicit prejudice against women. Implicit prejudice measures did not relate significantly
to explicit prejudice measures, for either Arabs or women.
Hypothesis testing
In Study 3, we performed two-way analyses of covariance with repeated measures to test Hypothesis 7 with ethnicity
as the between-subjects factor, sex as the within-subjects factor, and prejudice (Arabs; women) as the covariates.
Table 7 shows the mean job suitability score and standard deviations by experimental conditions, and Table 8 shows
the results of the covariance analysis.
After controlling for the effects of prejudice, results showed a significant interaction of sex with ethnicity, F(1,
46)=5.28, p<.05, 2 =.10, such that Arab women received lower ratings than the other intersected groups, support-
ing Hypothesis 7 (Table 8).
In addition, we found significant main effects of sex, F(1, 46)=13.26, p<.01, 2 =.22 with higher scores for male
applicants (adjusted Mmale =3.95; SDmale =.46) than for female applicants (adjusted Mfemale =3.62; SDfemale =.46).
However, there were no significant interaction effects of sex with modern sexism, FMSS(1, 46)=.01, p=.93, and im-
plicitly measured prejudice toward women, Fgender-IAT(1, 46)=.65, p=.42.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Table 6. Means, standard deviations, correlations, and internal consistencies of study variables (Study 3).
M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Job suitability 3.78 0.45 .74

2. Modern racism 2.29 0.56 .37** .73
3. Modern sexism 2.64 0.50 .07 .09 .67
4. Implicit prejudice toward Arabs 0.28 0.26 .50** .14 .24† |1.08|a
5. Implicit prejudice toward women 0.20 0.20 .23† .15 .04 .21 |1.00|a
6. Sex of respondentsb,c – – .14 .15 .16 .05 .11 –
Note: Scale internal consistencies (Cronbach’s alpha) are presented in italic on the diagonal.
a
This is the IAT-effect size d instead of the Cronbach alpha.
b
1=male; 2=female.
c
Spearman correlations.
†
p<.10; **p<.01.
As in Studies 1 and 2, we found a main effect for ethnicity, F(1, 46)=10.93, p<.01, 2 =.19: Job suitability ratings
were lower for resumes with Arab names (adjusted MArab =3.63; SDArab =.51) than for those with Dutch names (ad-
justed MDutch =3.99; SDDutch =.51).
Further, the interaction of ethnicity with sex could be qualified by the three-way interaction of ethnicity, sex, and
implicit prejudice toward Arabs, F(1, 46)=4.02, p=.05, 2 =.08. When implicit prejudice was high, both Arab
women and men received lower job suitability ratings than their Dutch counterparts (with Arab women receiving
the lowest scores). However, when implicit prejudice was low, job suitability scores of Arab women but not Arab
men were still lower than those of their Dutch counterparts (Figure 2).
For modern racism, there were no three-way interactions with ethnicity and sex, F (1, 46)=1.55, p=.22, and there
were no significant two-way interactions for modern racism with ethnicity either, F (1, 46)=2.25, p=.14.
Discussion
Because Study 2 did not test the interaction of ethnicity with sex (i.e., only men were tested), we conducted a study
using a sample of real recruiters evaluating resumes for the high-status job of HR manager. We crossed ethnicity
(Arab vs Dutch) with sex and found a significant interaction when prejudice was controlled for. We further inves-
tigated moderating effects of both explicitly and implicitly measured prejudice against Arabs and women. Implicit
prejudice against Arabs moderated the ethnicity effects such that Arabs were more disadvantaged when prejudice
was high. Analyses further showed that implicit prejudice against Arabs moderated the interaction of ethnicity with
sex: Arab women were more disadvantaged than Arab men and Dutch women or men, even when implicit prejudice
against Arabs was low.
In line with Study 2 findings, no moderating effect was found for modern racism. Explicitly measured attitudes
(like MRS) may shape responses that are more easy to monitor and to control than implicitly measured attitudes
(Greenwald et al., 1998) and therefore may result in weaker effects. Interestingly, no significant effects were found
Table 7. Mean job suitability scores and standard deviations by experimental conditions (Study 3).
Sex
Male Female
Ethnicity M SD M SD
Dutch 4.09 0.60 3.90 .43

Arab 3.81 0.49 3.33 .51
DOI: 10.1002/job
Table 8. Analysis of covariance for job suitability (Study 3).

Source df F 2 p
Between subjects
Ethnicity 1 10.93** .19 .00
Modern racism 1 7.92* .15 .01
Modern sexism 1 2.05 .04 .16
Implicit prejudice toward Arabs 1 11.79** .20 .00
Implicit prejudice toward women 1 .36 .01 .55
Ethnicitymodern racism 1 2.25 .05 .14
Ethnicityimplicit prejudice toward Arabs 1 9.00** .16 .00
Error 46 (.20)
Within subjects
Sex 1 13.26** .22 .00
Sexethnicity 1 5.28* .10 .02
Sexmodern sexism 1 .01 .00 .93
Seximplicit prejudice toward women 1 .65 .01 .42
Sexethnicitymodern racism 1 1.55 .03 .22
Sexethnicitymodern sexism 1 .43 .01 .52
Sexethnicityimplicit prejudice toward Arabs 1 4.02* .08 .05
Sexethnicityimplicit prejudice toward women 1 .41 .01 .52
Error 46 (.18)
Note:
*p<.05; **p<.01.
for (explicit/implicit) prejudice against women. Benevolent sexism (Glick & Fiske, 1996) might be a possible expla-
nation. These findings and their implications are further discussed in the next section.
General Discussion
Although much research has documented discrimination against minority ethnic groups in hiring, unanswered ques-
tions remain regarding how those with multiple stigmatizing characteristics are evaluated. The present series of
4.4
Dutch /Female
4.2
Dutch /Male
4 Arab /Female
Job suitability
Arab /Male
3.8
3.6
3.4
3.2
3
Low (-2SD) High (+2SD)
Implicit prejudice towards Arabs
Figure 2. Interaction of ethnicity and sex with implicit prejudice toward Arabs (Study 3)
DOI: 10.1002/job
studies shed light on resume screening, which has been relatively under-researched when compared with other as-
sessment tools, particularly so among relatively “new” populations of study like Arab applicants. Moreover and
in line with the discussion by Kulik et al. (2007) on motivated category activation and inhibition when evaluating
applicants who belong to multiple stigmatized groups, we proposed that the viability of different hypotheses regard-
ing the intersection of multiple categories with regard to Arab applicants is affected by the differential stereotypes of
Arab men and women, as well as the nature of the job to which they are applying. To this end, four experiments—
namely two correspondence tests (combined into Study 1) and two additional experimental studies, one in the lab
(Study 2) and one in the field (Study 3)—were conducted that investigated whether ethnicity led to hiring discrim-
ination and whether applicant characteristics (i.e., sex, SES), job characteristics (i.e., amount of external client
contact; job status), and rater characteristics (i.e., prejudice toward Arabs) moderated this effect.
Our three studies complement each other in several ways. Study 1 (correspondence tests) aimed to test whether
the EP, MMS, or SMT hypothesis hold in the context of lower-status jobs. Because evidence was found for the
EP hypothesis, Study 2 (lab experiment) further investigated the intersection of ethnicity with client contact in
this job context, replicating findings of Study 1. Because the nature of the job might affect the feasibility of
the alternative hypotheses (i.e., both Studies 1 and 2 were conducted in the context of lower-status jobs), Study 3
further investigated these hypotheses in the context of a higher-status job, showing support for the MMS
hypothesis. Note that Studies 2 and 3 build further on Study 1 by investigating contingencies (i.e., prejudiced atti-
tudes; motivation to appear unprejudiced) surrounding hiring decisions that are typically not revealed through
audit methodology. Finally, Study 3 differs from Study 2 by further testing real recruiters’ implicitly measured
prejudice, which may be far more difficult to monitor and to control than explicitly measured prejudice assessed
as in Study 2.
Our studies contributed to research on hiring discrimination in several ways. First, findings from all our field-
based and lab experiments pointed to the existence of hiring discrimination against Arab minority applicants upon
resume screening, which is in line with the predictions based on the social categorization (e.g., Reskin et al., 1999)
and impression formation theories (Fiske et al., 1999). This is disturbing as resume screening is one of the most
widely used selection methods and one of the first hurdles that applicants need to proceed past when applying for
positions (Piotrowski & Armstrong, 2006).
Second, we examined hiring discrimination against Arabs (i.e., Moroccans), which is one of the largest ethnic mi-
nority groups in the Netherlands as well as in Western-Europe (Myors et al., 2008) but remains a relatively under-
investigated group, particularly so when compared with other ethnic minority groups like African-Americans (e.g.,
Brief, Butz, & Deitch, 2005), Latino (e.g., Purkiss et al., 2006), and Asian applicants (e.g., King et al., 2007). More
specifically, in Study 1, the odds for rejection were four times higher for resumes with Arab names than for those
with prototypical Dutch names, all job qualifications being equal. This effect is large and was replicated in Studies
2 and 3, with moderate (2 =.10; 2 =.19) effect sizes, respectively). These findings lend credence to the notion that
possessing certain characteristics (like an Arab-sounding name) is sufficient for a person to be assumed to be a mem-
ber of a social (ethnic) group and to experience hiring discrimination (Crocker et al., 1998), especially when limited
information is available about this person, as during a typical resume screening process.
Third, our study findings further showed that discrimination in resume screening may depend upon the particular
intersection of applicant, job, and recruiter characteristics. Our contention was that the applicability of the EP, MMS,
and SMT depends on the specific stereotypes linked with the intersected group, such as Arab women, as well as the
job stereotype (e.g., job status). Thus, the specific application context needs to be considered when judging the ap-
plicability of such hypotheses. Specifically, when a lower-status job was involved (as in Studies 1 and 2), we found
evidence for the EP hypothesis. Study 3, on the other hand, involved a higher-status job and showed evidence for the
MMS hypothesis. Double jeopardy may occur when gender and ethnicity are equally prominent, such as in higher-
status jobs (Levin et al., 2002). Typically, occupational sex segregation increases the higher one in an organization
goes, with an underrepresentation of women in top management positions (Powell, 1999). The decision maker’s cat-
egorization of applicants with multiple, competing stigma might interact with job status such that the MMS hypoth-
esis may hold more frequently for high-status jobs than for low-status jobs (i.e., female Arabs being more
DOI: 10.1002/job
discriminated than male Arabs and female/male Dutch in high-status jobs than in low-status jobs). This may explain
why we found a significant main effect for sex in Study 3, but not so in Study 1.
Further, our set of studies focused on a psychological rather than an economic rationale for discrimination.
Whereas economists typically are concerned about customer preferences (e.g., Holzer & Ihlanfeldt, 1998), psychol-
ogists also consider raters’ prejudiced attitudes to explain hiring discrimination. Assessing prejudice enabled us to
better understand discriminatory behavior in this context. Specifically, in Study 2, moderating effects of raters’ mo-
tivation to respond without prejudice were found, with higher job suitability ratings for Arabs (almost as high as for
Dutch applicants) by those who were highly, externally motivated to respond without prejudice against Arabs. We
also found moderating effects for implicitly measured ethnic prejudice on job suitability ratings in Study 3 such that
less discrimination against Arabs occurred when implicit prejudice was low. However, the three-way interaction fur-
ther showed that this pertained particularly to Arab men. When implicit prejudice was high, both Arab men and
women were disadvantaged compared with their Dutch counterparts. Factors that increase the cost for forming
incorrect impressions (like self-representational concerns) may motivate decision makers to use more individu-
ating strategies instead of stereotype-based strategies (Fiske et al., 1999). The reverse, however, may also be true:
Because of factors that increase the cost of gathering individuating information (like time pressures and cognitive
load), decision makers may rely on category-based characteristics when limited information about the candidate
is available.
Whereas a moderating effect for sex was found in Study 3, no moderating effects of applicant sex or SES
were found in Study 1 (i.e., correspondence tests). First, category salience of applicants’ sex and SES may de-
pend on our manipulation of these constructs as well as the nature of the screening phase. For instance, discrim-
inatory effects for sex may be more pronounced if applicants are viewed physically rather than through the
manipulation of names on resumes. Similarly, SES markers may become more prominent during the interview
than upon initial resume screening. Alternatively, our manipulation may have been too weak to produce any ef-
fect: Information provided about type of school and place of living (although successfully pilot tested) may not
be as strong markers for social class as physical appearances and accent (Jussim et al., 1987) or income (Johan-
nesen-Schmidt & Eagly, 2002).
As mentioned, SES did not moderate the relation between ethnicity (Arab) and hiring decisions, which is
in line with findings of Bertrand and Mullainathan (2004), but inconsistent with Jussim et al. (1987). Another
explanation for the lack of effects may be that only high-quality resumes were sent out; future research
could investigate whether resume quality (high vs low) interacts with applicants’ SES and ethnicity. Further,
whereas perceptions of communal characteristics are higher for those with low SES, research also showed
that perceptions of agentic qualities and expectations of workplace success are lower for this group (e.g.,
Johannesen-Schmidt & Eagly, 2002). Also, less affluent persons are perceived to have less personal ability
(e.g., intelligence, self-discipline), sophisticated qualities, and lifestyle (e.g., culture, success) than more affluent per-
sons (Christopher & Schlenker, 2000). Both communal and agentic qualities might have been viewed as important
for the job so that any positive impression of higher communal qualities might have been countered by a perceived
lack of agentic competencies.
Finally, findings of no role for client contact in Study 1 can be considered along with Study 2 results. We
expected external client contact to serve as a business justification for prejudiced individuals to display discrim-
ination as differential treatment of Arab minorities could be justified by customer preference (i.e., customer dis-
crimination, Holzer & Ihlanfeldt, 1998). However, the interactions between modern racism and job type (i.e.,
amount of client contact) as well as modern racism, ethnicity, and job type were not significant. Some respondents
may have felt that external client contact is not a good business justification to display bias but rather a good busi-
ness justification not to display prejudice because of a growing diversity in organizational clientele. That is,
researchers (Holzer & Ihlanfeldt, 1998; Kenney & Wissoker, 1994) have shown that the higher the fraction of mi-
nority customers, the lower the probability of hiring discrimination against applicants from that minority group. Re-
cent lawsuits against companies that were accused of customer-based discrimination were much debated in Dutch
society. Using unobtrusive measures (to avoid socially desirable responding) may aid understanding. Also, using
DOI: 10.1002/job
more ambiguous applicant profiles rather than the clearly qualified ones in our studies may enable better understand-
ing of the role of prejudice.
Although organizations may strive for access to and legitimacy with a more diverse clientele by matching the de-
mographics of the organization to those of critical consumer groups (Thomas & Ely, 1996), our findings suggest that
majority group members still perceived Arab applicants as less suited for all job positions, even for low-status jobs.
One of the major antecedents of unfair discrimination is conformity to expectations of other group members, such as
supervisors, subordinates, and colleagues (Brief et al., 2000): Because low-status jobs do not require high ability and
educational efforts, Arab minority applicants may be treated more negatively in accordance with the existing stereo-
types about this particular group and type of job. According to processes of attributional discounting (Kelley, 1972),
the lower educational level and ability attributions might confirm and strengthen the negative stereotypes of Arab
minority applicants for this type of job (Derous et al., 2009).
Furthermore, potential problems with co-workers in culturally diverse working groups (e.g., more conflict, stress,
and turnover; Riordan & Shore, 1997) might have been expected by resume reviewers. Among many other corre-
lates, out-group derogation has been associated with the development of a more sophisticated cognitive ability with
which to understand the complexity of multi-ethnic societies. This means that lower-educated workers, as opposed
to higher-educated workers, may be less tolerant of others and less accepting of equal rights (Hagendoorn & Nekuee,
1999). As a consequence, one may expect conflict in culturally diverse working groups to be highly prevalent among
workers in low-status, low cognitive-demanding jobs. Further research may investigate how organizational context
variables like workforce composition may influence which categories of group membership are most salient in a
given context (Kulik et al., 2007).
Strengths and Limitations
Landy (2008) strongly encouraged field-based studies to investigate social–cognitive phenomena such as stereotyp-
ing and discrimination in personnel decision making. We conducted both field experiments (Studies 1 and 3) and lab
experiments (Study 2) by using different designs and methodologies and found corroborative evidence for discrim-
ination against Arabs upon resume screening. In general, correspondence tests are ecologically valid, can insulate
from demand effects, and may yield powerful findings. Of all types of employment audits (i.e., correspondence tests,
telephone audits, in-person audits), correspondence tests offer the greatest amount of experimental control because
any difference in applicants’ appearance and behavior cannot affect the outcome. However, this may also result in
rather conservative results as job applicants’ group status may become less salient in correspondence tests compared
with telephone audits and in-person audits.
Laboratory studies, on the other hand, can be criticized on the grounds of low external validity, but serve other
purposes as they may test contingencies surrounding discriminatory decisions in hiring, such as prejudiced attitudes.
Note that studies on workplace-related stereotyping and discrimination that employ paper people have been criti-
cized for not providing real-world context information, resulting in inflated effect sizes (e.g., Sackett & DuBois,
1991). However, resume review is a paper-people task (Dipboye, Stramler, & Fontenelle, 1984; Landy, 2008); there-
fore, studies on resume review do have greater experimental realism. As noted by Copus (2005), the resume screen-
ing performed by recruiters in the real world closely resembles the process followed in laboratory experiments. One
notable difference, however, relates to the impact of resume screening, which may be larger when real jobs are at
stake (e.g., as in Study 1) than when screening has no consequences for staffing (as in Studies 2 and 3).
Experimental studies have further been criticized for using student participants instead of real recruiters (Landy,
2008). In our studies, we addressed this concern by including both types of participants. Yet, past studies have
evidenced that there were hiring biases regardless of the samples used (i.e., professional recruiters or college stu-
dents; Hosoda, Stone-Romero, & Coats, 2003b), perhaps because of the fact that (real) recruiters are often untrained
(Rynes & Boudreau, 1986). In line with Hosoda et al. (2003b), our study findings did not show substantial
DOI: 10.1002/job
differences in hiring outcomes between employers (Studies 1 and 3) and students (Study 2) either, and this may also
be due to the fact that resumes provide limited information about the candidate (Fiske et al., 1999) to both actual
recruiters and role-playing students.
Type of design is another interesting point of discussion. In Study 3, ethnicity was a between-subjects factor; this
might be a more rigorous test of hiring discrimination but also might have limited somewhat the ecological validity
of our study findings. Specifically, studies that use ethnicity as a within-subjects factor would more closely reflect
real-world selection contexts (i.e., recruiters evaluating two or more job applicants at the same time) than when eth-
nicity is used as a between-subjects factor (Hosoda et al., 2003b). Within-subjects designs, on the other hand, might
inflate discrimination scores. As both between-subjects and within-subjects designs have their particular strengths
and limitations, triangulation is necessary in this line of research.
Whereas clear evidence was found for EP upon resume screening, multiple minority characteristics (e.g., ac-
cent, looks, dress, attitude, etc.) may have effects when more information about the candidate becomes available,
during the further interview or testing phase (Landy, 2008). For instance, De Meijer, Born, Van Zielst, and Van der
Molen (2007) showed that Dutch majority assessors judging ethnic minority applicants used more and more irrele-
vant cues than assessors judging Dutch majority applicants at later testing phases (i.e., the employment interview,
assessment center). Hence, the relative roles of group memberships may change as individuals progress through a
hiring process.
Ethnicity was operationalized by name which may have led to invoking other stereotypes. Specifically, the as-
sumed characteristics theory (Coleman et al., 1995) posits that stereotypes of various ethnic minority groups might
reflect stereotypes of other features of these groups, such as SES or GPAs. For instance, Arab names may signal
lower SES than Dutch names in the eyes of Dutch majority raters. According to the assumed characteristics theory,
one might expect to find that evaluations of Arabs and Dutch become more similar when SES is equated. In Corre-
spondence Test 1 and Studies 2 and 3, we kept SES equal (i.e., moderate) across resumes and still found hiring dis-
crimination based on applicants’ ethnicity, which does not lend support to the assumed characteristics hypothesis.
Thus, while we believe that the effects of SES and ethnicity can be disentangled in our study design to some extent,
it might well be that respondents attribute lower levels of SES to Arabs than to Dutch. One way to deal with assumed
characteristics is to take care of the experimental design so that alternative explanations can be eliminated by pro-
viding and pilot-testing precise resume information. Further, and if allowed by type of study/methodology, respon-
dents can be asked directly about their “attributions” or “beliefs” (e.g., on SES, GPAs) as a control. There is a need
to research what individuals infer about personal characteristics from resume information. For instance, in addition
to name, evaluators of resumes may make assumptions about gender, for example, on the basis of past positions
held.
Finally, a contribution of our studies is the investigation of hiring discrimination against Arab minorities, which is
a current topic of great practical relevance that has received relatively little empirical attention so far (Klaver et al.,
2005). Note that we do not propose that effects necessarily generalize across ethnic groups; our premise is that the
stereotypes associated with intersected identities vary (e.g., the stereotype for African-American women will differ
from that for Arab women or for African-American men), and therefore, the hypothesis of most applicability may
vary depending upon the ethnic group studied (see also Bendick et al., 1994). Also, our studies investigated
Arab-name discrimination in Europe (i.e., the Netherlands), thereby adding to the literature of non-American re-
search on discrimination in employment. The generalizability of this research across cultures may depend on the uni-
versality of stereotypes associated with group membership across cultural contexts.
In Study 3, we balanced sex composition, high cognitive demands, and moderate client contact in the job (i.e., HR
manager). Future research that systematically varies membership categories that intersect (e.g., other ethnic groups,
sexual orientation, disability status) as well as other job characteristics (e.g., complexity, autonomy), organizational
and occupational characteristics (e.g., workforce composition), and stage in the hiring process (e.g., screening, final
interview) is needed in order to make generalizable inferences regarding the applicable of multiple-category mem-
bership hypotheses. Although such an effort cannot be undertaken in one study, it is necessary in order for informed
organizational interventions to combat discrimination to be developed.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Practical Implications
Labor market participation has always been a central concern in the general framework of Dutch integration policy
(Doomernik, 1998), and anonymous resume sifting is currently much debated in Dutch society (e.g., Andriessen
et al., 2007). Although our field and lab results suggest that anonymous sifting might be useful in the first stage
of the hiring procedure, it might not be sufficient enough to prevent hiring discrimination. For instance, applicants’
ethnic origin may become apparent at later stages of the hiring procedure and may also be derived from other char-
acteristics than ethnic-sounding names, such as affiliations on resumes (Derous et al., 2009).
Category-based responses contrast with individuated, attribute-by-attribute considerations of the applicant (Fiske
et al., 1999). We therefore recommend that organizations use structured sifting processes, with competency and ex-
perience checklists. Given that raters’ motivation not to behave in a prejudiced way toward Arab minorities may de-
pend on social norms and policies, diversity training and external incentives (e.g., accountability during performance
reviews) for non-discrimination also may be promising interventions in this area (Bercx, 2005) that warrant further
investigation.
Conclusion
How individuals who belong to multiple stigmatized groups are treated in the hiring process may depend upon the
specific intersection of characteristics studied. In the work presented here, we examined hiring discrimination
against Arabs to consider whether sex, SES, recruiter, or job characteristics related to the magnitude of discrimina-
tion in resume screening. Our findings may help organizational decision makers understand the magnitude of dis-
crimination and combined effects of applicant, job, and decision maker characteristics as they work to avert ethnic
discrimination upon organizational entry.
Acknowledgement
The present research was supported by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research no. R59-348.
Author biographies
Eva Derous is an Assistant Professor of Industrial-Organizational Psychology at the Department of Personnel Man-
agement, Work and Organizational Psychology, Ghent University, Belgium. Her research interests are in recruit-
ment and selection (applicant perceptions, adverse impact, multimedia assessment) and workplace diversity. She
obtained a Fulbright grant as research scholar (Michigan State University, USA) and has a research affiliation to
the Erasmus University of Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Ann Marie Ryan is a Professor of Organizational Psychology at Michigan State University, United States. Her ma-
jor research interests involve improving the quality and fairness of employee selection methods, and topics related to
diversity and justice in the workplace. In addition to publishing extensively in these areas, she regularly consults
with organisations on improving assessment processes. She is a past president of the Society of Industrial and Or-
ganizational Psychology and past editor of the journal Personnel Psychology.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Hannah-Hanh D. Nguyen is an Assistant Professor of Industrial-Organizational Psychology for the Department of

Psychology, and an adjunct faculty for the Department of Health Care Administration at California State University,
Long Beach. She is a Research Fellow at the Center for Multicultural Psychology Research at Michigan State Uni-
versity, and a part-time Research Scientist for the Center for Innovation and Strategic Human Resource Management
at Jiangxi University of Finance and Economics, P.R. China. Her current research interests include diversity issues
in the workplace, organizational invisible stigmas, the effect of social networking websites on job-seeking beha-
viors, Asian entrepreneurs’ psychological profile, and Asian conflict management strategies.
References
Acker, J. (2006). Inequality regimes: Gender, class and race in organizations. Gender and Society, 20, 441 – 464. doi: 10.1177/
0891243206289499
Almquist, E. M. (1975). Untangling the effects of race and sex: The disadvantaged status of Black women. Social Science Quar-
terly, 56, 129 – 142. Retrieved from http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/117976158/home
Andriessen, I., Dagevos, J., Nievers, E., & Boog, I. (2007). Discriminatiemonitor niet-westerse allochtonen op de arbeidsmarkt
2007 [Discrimination of non-western allochtons on the labor market 2007]. The Hague, the Netherlands: Sociaal en Cultureel
Planbureau/Art.1.
Ashkanasy, N. M., Härtel, C. E. J., & Daus, C. S. (2002). Diversity and emotion: The new frontiers in organizational behavior
research. Journal of Management, 28, 307 – 338. doi: 10.1177/014920630202800304
Avery, D. R., Hernandez, M., & Hebl, M. R. (2004). Who’s watching the race? Racial salience in recruitment advertising. Jour-
nal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 146 – 161. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02541.x
Ayres, I., & Siegelman, P. (1995). Race and gender discrimination in bargaining for a new car. The American Economic Review,
85, 304 – 322. Retrieved from http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/contents/index.php
Barakat, H. I. (1993). The Arab world. Society, culture, and state. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Bart, B. D., Hass, M. E., Philbrick, J. H., Sparks, M. R., & Williams, C. (1997). What’s in a name? Women in Management Re-
view, 12, 299 – 308. doi: 10.1108/09649429710189867
Bendick, M., Jr., Jackson, C., & Reinoso, V. (1994). Measuring employment discrimination through controlled experiments. Re-
view of Black Political Economy, 23, 25 – 48. doi: 10.1007/BF02895739
Bendick, M., Jr., Jackson, C., Reinoso, V., & Hodges, L. (1991). Discrimination against Latino job applicants: A controlled ex-
periment. Human Resource Management, 30, 469 – 484. doi: 10.1002/hrm.3930300404
Bennington, L., & Wein, R. (2002). Aiding and abetting employer discrimination: The job applicant’s role. Employee Responsi-
bilities and Rights Journal, 14, 3 – 16. doi: 10.1023/A:1015710311395
Bercx, T. (2005). Guiding the mosaic: Trends in diversity management in organizations. Arnhem, the Netherlands: Stichting
Human Talent Trophy.
Berdahl, J., & Moore, C. (2006). Workplace harassment: Double jeopardy for minority women. Journal of Applied Psychology,
91, 426 – 436. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.91.2.426
Berger, J., Cohen, B. P., & Zelditch, M. (1972). Status characteristics and social interaction. American Sociological Review, 37,
241 – 255.
Berger, J., Fisek, M. H., & Norman, R. Z. (1998). The evolution of status expectations: A theoretical extension. In J. Berger & M.
Zelditch (Eds.), Status, rewards, and influence (pp. 1 – 72). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2004). Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakeisha and Jamal? A field experiment on
labor market discrimination. The American Economic Review, 94, 991 – 1031. doi: 10.1257/0002828042002561
Blalock, H. M. (1982). Race and ethnic relations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
Blom, M., Oudhof, J., Bijl, R.V., & Bakker, B.F.M. (2005). Verdacht van criminaliteit.Allochtonen en autochtonen nader
bekeken. [Being suspected of criminality: A study among ethnic minorities and majorities]. The Hague, the Netherlands: WODC.
Bowen, W. C., & Bok, D. (1998). The shape of the River. Long-term consequences of considering race in college and university
admissions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Brewer, M. B., & Harasty Feinstein, A. S. (1999). Dual processes in the cognitive representation of persons and social categories.
In S. Chaiken, & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual process theories in social psychology (pp. 255 – 270). New York: Guilford Press.
Brief, A.P., Butz, R.M., & Deitch, E.A. (2005). Organizations as reflections of their environments: The case of race composition.
In R. L. Dipboye & A. Collella (Eds.), Discrimination at work: The psychological and organizational bases (p. 119 – 148).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass.
Brief, A. P., Dietz, J., Cohen, R. R., Pugh, S. D., & Vaslow, J. B. (2000). Just doing business: Modern racism and obedience
to authority as explanations for employment discrimination. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81,
72 – 97. doi:10.1006/obhd.1999.2867
DOI: 10.1002/job
Brondolo, E., Beatty, D. L., Cubbin, C., Pencille, M., Saegert, S., Wellington, R., Tobin, J., Cassells, A., & Schwartz, J. (2009).
Sociodemographic variations in self-reported racism in a community sample of Blacks and Latino(a)s. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 39, 407 – 429. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00444.x
Browne, I., & Misra, J. (2003). The intersection of gender and race in the labor market. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 487 – 513.
doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.29.010202.100016
Carr, S. C., Mclachlan, M., Reichman, W., Klobas, J., O’Neill Berry, M., & Furnham, A. (2008). Organizational psychology and
poverty reduction: Where supply meets demand. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 843 – 851. doi: 10.1002/job.548
Christopher, A. N., & Schlenker, B. R. (2000). The impact of perceived material wealth and perceiver personality on first impres-
sions. Journal of Economic Psychology, 21, 1 – 19. doi:10.1016/S0167-4870(99)00033-1
Chung-Herrera, B. G., & Lankau, M.J. (2005). Are we there yet? An assessment of fit between stereotypes of minority managers
and the successful manager prototype. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 2029 – 2056. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.
tb02208.x
Cole, D.M., & Ahmadi, S.E. (2003). Perspectives and experiences of Muslim women who veil on college campuses. Journal of
College Student Development, 44, 47 – 66. Retrieved from: http://www.jcsdonline.org/
Coleman, L. M., Jussim, L., & Kelley, S. H. (1995). A study of stereotyping: Testing three models with a sample of Blacks. Jour-
nal of Black Psychology, 21, 332 – 356. Retrieved from http://jbp.sagepub.com/
Copus (2005). A lawyer’s view: Avoiding junk science. In F. L. Landy (Ed.), Employment discrimination litigation: Behavioral,
quantitative, and legal perspectives (pp. 450 – 462). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cortina, L. (2001). Assessing sexual harassment among Latinas. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 7, 164 – 181.
doi: 10.1037/1099-9809.7.2.164
Crandall, C.S., Eshleman, A. & O’Brien, L. (2002). Social norms and the expression and suppression of prejudice: The struggle
for internalization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 359 – 378. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.82.3.359
Crocker, J., Major, B., & Steele, C. (1998). Social stigma. In D. T. Gilbert & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), The handbook of social psychol-
ogy (pp. 504 – 553). Boston: McGraw Hill.
De Beijl, R. Z. (2000). Documenting discrimination against migrant workers in the labor market: A comparative study of four
European countries. Geneva, Switzerland: International Labor Office.
De Meijer, L. A. L., Born, M. Ph., Van Zielst, J., & Van der Molen, H. T. (2007). Analyzing judgments of ethnically diverse
applicants during personnel selection: A study at the Dutch police. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15,
139 – 152. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2007.00376.x
Derous, E., Nguyen, H. H., & Ryan, A. M. (2009). Hiring discrimination against Arab minorities: Interactions between prejudice
and job characteristics. Human Performance, 22, 297 – 320 . doi: 10.1080/08959280903120261
Dipboye, R. L., Stramler, C. S., & Fontenelle, G. A. (1984). The effects of the application on recall of information from the in-
terview. Academy of Management Journal, 27, 561 –575. Retrieved from http://journals.aomonline.org/amj/
Doomernik, J. (1998). The effectiveness of integration policies towards immigrants and their descendants in France, Germany
and the Netherlands. Geneva: ILO.
Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2000). Aversive racism in selection decisions: 1989 and 1999. Psychological Science, 11,
315 – 319. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00262
Duehr, E.E., & Bono, J.E. (2006). Men, women, and managers: Are stereotypes finally changing? Personnel Psychology, 59,
815 – 846. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2006.00055.x
Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fazio, R. H., Jackson, J. R., Dunton, B. C., & Williams, C. J. (1995). Variability in automatic activation as an unobtrusive mea-
sure of racial attitudes: A bona fide pipeline? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1013 – 1027. doi: 10.1037/
0022-3514.69.6.1013
Fiske, S. T., Lin, M., & Neuberg, S. L. (1999). The continuum model, ten years later. In S. Chaiken, & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual
process theories in social psychology (pp. 231 – 254). New York: Guilford Press.
van Gemert, F. (1998). Ieder voor zich; kansen, cultuur en criminaliteit van Marokkaanse jongens. [Every man for himself:
Opportunities, culture, and delinquency among Moroccan males]. Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 70, 491 – 512. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491
Goff, P.A., Thomas, M.A., & Jackson, M.C. (2008). “Ain’t I a woman?”: Towards an intersectional approach to person percep-
tion and group-based harms. Sex Roles, 59, 392 – 403. doi: 10.1007/s11199-008-9505-4
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The
Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464 – 1480. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464
Hagendoorn, L., & Nekuee, S. (1999). Education and racism: A cross national survey of positive effects of education on ethnic
tolerance. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate
Hartman, C.A., Hoogstraten, & Spruijt-Metz, D. (1994). Disentangling discrimination: Victim characteristics as determinants of
the perception of behavior as racist or sexist. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 567 – 579. Retrieved from http://www.
wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=0021-9029
DOI: 10.1002/job
Heilman, M. E. (1983). Sex bias in work settings: The lack of fit model. Research in Organizational Behavior, 5, 269 – 298.
Heilman, M. E., & Eagly, A. H. (2008). Gender stereotypes are alive, well, and busy producing workplace discrimination. Indus-
trial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 393 – 398. doi: 10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.00072
Hodson, G., Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2002). Processes in racial discrimination: differential weighting of conflicting in-
formation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 460 – 471. doi: 10.1177/0146167202287004
Holzer, H. J. & Ihlanfeldt, K. R. (1998). Customer discrimination and employment outcomes for minority workers. Quarterly
Journal of Economics,113, 835 – 867. doi:10.1162/003355398555766
Hosoda, M., Stone, D. L., & Stone-Romero, E. F. (2003a). The interactive effects of race, gender, and job type job suitability
ratings and selection decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 145 – 178. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.
tb02077.x
Hosoda, M., Stone-Romero, E. F., & Coats, G. (2003b). The effects of physical attractiveness on job-related outcomes: A meta-
analysis of experimental studies. Personnel Psychology, 56, 431 – 462. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00157.x
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new
alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1 – 55. Retrieved from http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~
content=t775653699~tab=summary
Johannesen-Schmidt, M. C., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). Diminishing returns: The effects of income on the content of stereotypes of
wage earners. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1538 – 1545. doi: 10.1177/014616702237581
Jussim, L. J., Coleman, L. M., & Lerch, L. (1987). The nature of stereotypes: A comparison and integration of three theo-
ries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 536 – 546. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/
psp/index.aspx
Kelley, H. H. (1972). Attribution in social interaction. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B.
Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 1 – 26). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
Kenney, G., & Wissoker, D. A. (1994). An analysis of the correlates of discrimination facing young Hispanic job-seekers.
The American Economic Review, 84,674 - 783. Retrieved from http://www.aeaweb.org/aer/index.php
King, E. B., Madera, J. M., Hebl, M. R., Knight, J. L. & Mendoza, S. A. (2007). What’s in a name? A multiracial investigation of
the role of occupational stereotypes in selection decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 1145 – 1159. doi:
10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00035.x
Klaver, J., Mevissen, J. W. M., Odé, A. W. M., Materman, S., & Weening, H. (2005). Ethnic minorities in the labour market:
Images and facts, obstacles and solutions. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Regioplan Beleidsonderzoek.
Klink, A., & Wagner, U. (1999). Discrimination against ethnic minorities in Germany: Going back to the field. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 29, 402 – 423. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb01394.x
Kulik, C. T., Roberson, L., & Perry, E. L. (2007). The multiple-category problem: Category activation and inhibition in the hiring
process. Academy of Management Review, 32, 529 – 548. Retrieved from http://www.aom.pace.edu/amr/
Landrine, H., Klonoff, E. A., Alcaraz, R., Scott, J., & Wilkins, P. (1995). Multiple variables in discrimination. In B. Lott, & D.
Maluso (Eds.), The social psychology of interpersonal discrimination (pp. 183 – 224). New York: Guilford Press.
Landy, F. J. (2008). Stereotypes, bias, and personnel decisions: Strange and stranger. Industrial and Organizational Psychology:
Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 379 – 392. Doi:10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.00071.x
Lefkowitz, J. (2008). To prosper: Organizational psychology should expand the values of organizational psychology to match the
quality of its ethics. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 439 – 453. doi: 10.1002/job.527
Levin, S., Sinclair, S., Veniegas, R. C., & Taylor, P. L. (2002). Perceived discrimination in the context of multiple group member-
ships. Psychological Science, 13, 557 – 560. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00498
Lott, B. (2002). Cognitive and behavioral distancing from the poor. American Psychologist 57, 100 – 110. doi: 10.1037/0003-
066X.57.2.100
Magnus, S. A., & Mick, S. S. (2000). Medical schools, affirmative action, and the neglected role of social class. American Jour-
nal of Public Health, 90, 1197 – 1201. Retrieved from http://ajph.aphapublications.org/
McConahay, J. B., Hardee, B. B., & Batts, V. (1981). Has racism declined in America? It depends on who is asking and what is
asked. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 25, 563 – 579. Retrieved from http://jcr.sagepub.com/
McIntyre, S., Morberg, D., & Posner, B. (1980). Preferential treatment in pre-selection decisions according to sex and race. Acad-
emy of Management Journal, 22, 738 – 749. Retrieved from http://journals.aomonline.org/amj/
Myors, B., Lievens, F., Schollaert, E., Van Hoye, G., Cronshaw, S. F., Mladinic et al. (2008). International perspectives on the
legal environment for selection. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 206 – 246.
doi: 10.1111/j.1754-9434.2008.00040.x
Nelson, N. L., & Probst, T. M. (2004). Multiple minority individuals: Multiplying the risk of workplace harassment and discrim-
ination. In J. L. Chin (Ed.), The psychology of prejudice and discrimination: Ethnicity and multiracial identity Vol 2., (pp.
193 – 217). Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD (2008). The labor market integration of immigrants and their
children in the Netherlands. Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
DOI: 10.1002/job
Oswald, D. L. (2005). Understanding anti-Arab reactions post-9/11: The role of threats, social categories, and personal ideolo-
gies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 1775 – 1799. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02195.x
Outtz, J. L. (2009). Adverse impact: Implications for organizational staffing and high stakes selection. New York, NJ: Taylor &
Francis.
Pak, A.W., Dion, K. L., & Dion, K.K. (1991). Social-psychological correlates of experienced discrimination: Test of the
double jeopardy hypothesis. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 15, 243 – 254. doi: 10.1016/0147-1767(91)
90032-C
Piotrowski, C., & Armstrong, T. (2006). Current recruitment and selection practices: a national survey of Fortune 1000 firms.
North American Journal of Psychology, 8, 489 – 496.
Plant, E. A., & Devine, P. G. (1998). Internal and external motivation to respond without prejudice. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 75, 811 – 832. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.811
Powell, G. N. (1999). Reflections on the glass ceiling: Recent trends and future prospects. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of
gender and work (pp. 325 – 346). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Powell, G. N., & Butterfield, D. A. (1997). Effect of race on promotions to top management in a federal department. Academy of
Management Journal, 40, 112 – 128. Retrieved from http://journals.aomonline.org/amj/
Purdie-Vaughns, V., & Eibach, R.P. (2008). Intersectional invisibility: the distinctive advantages and disadvantages of multiple
subordinate-group identities. Sex Roles, 59, 377 – 391. doi: 10.1007/s11199-008-9424-4
Purkiss, S. L. S., Perrewé, P. L., Gillespie, T. L., Mayes, B. T., & Ferris, G. R. (2006). Implicit sources of bias in employment
interview judgments and decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 101, 152 – 167. doi:10.1016/
j.obhdp.2006.06.005
Reskin, B. F., McBrier, D. B., & Kmec, J. A. (1999). The determinants and consequences of workplace sex and race composition.
Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 335 – 361. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.25.1.335
Riach, P. A., & Rich, J. (2002). Field experiments of discrimination in the market place. The Economic Journal, 112, 480 – 518.
doi: 10.1111/1468-0297.00080
Ridgeway, C.L. & Smith-Lovin, K. (1999). The gender system and interaction. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 191 – 216.
doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.25.1.191
Riordan, C. M., & Shore, L. M. (1997). Demographic diversity and employee attitudes: An empirical examination of relational
demography within work units. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 342 – 358. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.82.3.342
Rudman, L. A., & Kilianski, S. E. (2000). Implicit and explicit attitudes towards female authority. Personality and Social Psy-
chology Bulletin, 26, 1315 – 1328. doi: 10.1177/0146167200263001
Rynes, S. L., & Boudreau, J. W. (1986). College recruitment in large organizations: Practices, evaluations and research implica-
tions. Personnel Psychology, 39, 729 – 757. Doi : 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1986.tb00592.x
Sackett, P. R., & DuBois, C. L. Z. (1991). Rater–ratee effects on performance evaluation: Challenging meta-analytic conclusions.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 873 – 877. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.76.6.873
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Srivastava, R. S. (1987). A comparative study of awareness and expression of male and female sex trait stereotypes among ma-
jority and minority communities. Perspectives in Psychological Research, 10, 57 – 68.
Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A. (1995). Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned and modern prejudices. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 199 – 214. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.68.2.199
Terpstra, D., & Larsen, J. (1980). A note on job type and applicant race as determinants of hiring decisions. Journal of Occupa-
tional Psychology, 53, 117 – 119.
Thomas, D. A., & Ely, R. J. (1996). Making difference matter: A new paradigm for managing diversity. Harvard Business Re-
view, 74, 79 – 90. Retrieved from http://hbr.org/
Yinger, J. (1995). Closed doors, opportunities lost: The continuing costs of housing discrimination. New York: Russell Sage.
Ziegert, J.C., & Hanges, P.J. (2005). Employment discrimination: The role of implicit attitudes, motivation and a climate for ra-
cial bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 553 – 562. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.90.3.553
DOI: 10.1002/job

J Organ Behavior - 2011 - Derous - Multiple Categorization in Resume Screening Examining Effects On Hiring Discrimination

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

J Organ Behavior - 2011 - Derous - Multiple Categorization in Resume Screening Examining Effects On Hiring Discrimination

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Organizational Behavior, J. Organiz. Behav.

33, 544–570 (2012)

Multiple categorization in resume screening:

Received 27 May 2009

Discrimination Against Arab Applicants

Intersection of Ethnicity and Sex

Intersection of Ethnicity and Socio-Economic Status

Job Characteristics as a Moderator

Materials and pilot testing

Results and discussion

Correspondence Test 1 (H1, H2, H4a) 204

Correspondence Test 2 (H1, H3, H4b) 156

Design and procedure

Materials and pilot testing

Results and discussion

1. Job suitability 3.87 0.50 .84

Dutch 4.03 0.55 3.96 .57

Table 4. Analysis of covariance for job suitability (Study 2).

Design and procedure

Materials and pilot testing

Table 5. The implicit association test.

Arab-IAT 1 20 Arab names (e.g., “Said”) Dutch names (e.g., “Sjaak”)

Gender-IAT 1 20 Female words (e.g., “she”) Male words (e.g., “he”)

Results and discussion

1. Job suitability 3.78 0.45 .74

Dutch 4.09 0.60 3.90 .43

Table 8. Analysis of covariance for job suitability (Study 3).

Strengths and Limitations

Hannah-Hanh D. Nguyen is an Assistant Professor of Industrial-Organizational Psychology for the Department of

You might also like