What makes affirmative action‐based hiring decisions seem (un)fair? A test of an ideological explanation for fairness judgments

Studies show that Whites tend to show the lowest level of support for affirmative action (AA) policies. Opponents of AA often argue that this is because it violates principles of meritocracy. However, self‐interest (based on social identification with those adversely affected) could also explain their opposition. In three studies, we varied whether an Asian or White male is adversely affected by AA to test another explanation; namely, that Whites' fairness judgments are based on both the adversely affected person's race and the fairness evaluator's ideological beliefs. Although we found some support for the meritocratic explanation, this was not sufficient to explain why Whites view AA as (un)fair. Instead, we found strong support for our prediction that Whites who are opposed to equality perceive more unfairness when a White (vs. Asian) was harmed by AA, whereas Whites who endorse egalitarian ideologies perceive the opposite. This finding suggests that neither self‐interest nor meritocratic explanations can fully account for Whites' opposition to AA. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Multiple categorization in resume screening: Examining effects on hiring discrimination against Arab applicants in field and lab settings

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 hypothesis. 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 anonymous resume screening and research on evaluation of applicants possessing multiple stigmatizing characteristics. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.