Between a Cross and a Hard Place: Religious Identifiers and Employability

Abstract

Unfair hiring practices in the form of differential treatment are forbidden by law (e.g., in the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964). Our experimental research examines whether differential treatment occurs based on the wearing of religious identifiers. Mainly, this study explores whether applicants who wear Muslim and Jewish religious identifiers are considered less employable than applicants who do not wear religious identifiers, and whether the job status and gender of the evaluator influence these ratings. Our findings revealed that applicants who wore Muslim religious identifiers were rated the most employable for low status jobs and least employable for high status jobs. Additionally, female applicants who wore Muslim religious identifiers received the highest employability ratings of all groups, but male applicants who wore Muslim religious identifiers received the lowest employability ratings of all groups. The implications of these findings for discrimination in the workplace are discussed.

Religious bias and stigma: attitudes toward working with a Muslim co-worker

“…The lack of a main effect in this study is also consistent with previous work-related religious identity research (Ghumman and Jackson 2008, King and Ahmad 2010 and highlights the importance of incorporating perceiver religiosity into research on religious identity-based bias. The collective results in the literature and the critical moderating role that perceiver religiosity plays in the findings in our current study suggest the need to consider the 112 J.E.…”

“…Similarly, Ghumman and Jackson (2008) used applicant photographs wearing various types of visible religious adornments (e.g. cross, turban, and Star of David) and found no main effect for wearing a religious identifier on employability.…”

Who can ride along? Discrimination in a German carpooling market

“…Sidanius and Veniegas's () social dominance orientation theory also suggests that males are more likely to discriminate against minority males due to a perception of threat based on evolutionary competition over in‐group females who are easier to control (the subordinate male target hypothesis). Recent work on ratings of job applicants and the rental market attests to this theory (Dahl & Krog, ; Ghumman & Jackson, ) and thereby contradicts the double‐jeopardy hypothesis (women of colour experiencing more discrimination) and ethnic‐prominence hypothesis (no gender differences in discrimination; Levin, Sinclair, Veniegas, & Taylor, ). As natives connect patriarchy and violence with immigrants from non‐Christian majority countries (Pollack, ), native drivers might be less willing to accept males of Turkish origin.…”

Religious Affiliation and Hiring Discrimination in the American South

“…Jolson's study lacks a control group to assess whether religious identifiers differed from nonidentifiers. Ghumman and Jackson's (2008) experimental study lacks external and ecological validity since college students cannot approximate employers' expertise in evaluating job applicants. Ghumman and Jackson's survey of Muslim women merely measured subjects' perceptions of their own employability, not employers' actual decisions about hiring.…”