Integrating justification-suppression and stereotype content models of prejudice, this research examines religious discrimination in employment settings. In the first study, confederates dressed in either Muslimidentified or nonreligious attire, who either did or did not provide stereotype-inconsistent information, applied for retail jobs. No differences emerged with regard to interview offers between job applicants dressed in traditional Muslim attire and those in the control condition. However, interactions were shorter and rated (by confederates, observers, and naïve coders) as more interpersonally negative when applicants wore Muslim attire and did not provide stereotype-inconsistent information than when applicants wore nonreligious attire. Similarly, results from a second experimental study in which participants rated fictitious Muslim or non-Muslim job applicants suggest that reactions were most negative toward Muslim applicants who did not provide stereotype-inconsistent information. Together, these findings suggest that justification-suppression and stereotype content models are complementary, and that Muslims may face challenges to employment that reflect a lack of acceptance of this religious identity.

No abstract

SummaryRacism, sexism, and ageism persist in modern day organizations and may translate into workplace discrimination, which can undermine organizational effectiveness. We provide the first meta‐analysis comparing the relationships between these three types of prejudice (racism, sexism, and ageism) and three types of workplace discrimination (selection, performance evaluation, and opposition to diversity‐supportive policies). Across outcomes, racism was associated with workplace discrimination, whereas sexism was not. Ageism was associated with discriminatory selection and opposition to organizational policies supporting older workers; however, ageism was not related to discriminatory performance evaluation. Consistent with prior research and theory, Implicit Association Test measures were related to subtle discrimination (opposition to diversity‐supportive policies) but not deliberate discrimination (selection and performance evaluation). Finally, prejudice was more strongly associated with discrimination against real as compared with hypothetical targets. Implications for organizational researchers and practitioners are discussed. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Organizational scholars study a number of sensitive topics that make employees and organizations vulnerable to unfavorable views. However, the typical ways in which researchers study these topics-via laboratory experiments and field surveys-can be laden with problems. In this article, the authors argue that the difficulties in studying sensitive topics can be overcome through the underutilized method of field experiments, detail strategies for conducting high-quality experimental field studies, and offer suggestions for overcoming potential challenges in data collection and publishing. As such, this article is designed to serve as a guide and stimulus for using the valuable methodological tool of field experiments.

No abstract