Effects of manifest ethnic identification on employment discrimination.

Abstract

Evidence from recent laboratory experiments suggests that ethnic identification can lead to negative evaluations of ethnic minorities (Kaiser & Pratt-Hyatt, 2009). The current research considers the generalizability of these findings to face-to-face interactions in contexts wherein impression management concerns are salient: the workplace hiring process. In a field experiment, Black, Hispanic, and Irish individuals applied for retail jobs with or without visible display of their ethnic identification. Analysis of indicators of formal (e.g., application offering, interview scheduling) and interpersonal discrimination (e.g., interaction length, nonverbal negativity) suggest store personnel interacting with other-race applicants exhibited greater positivity and longer interactions when applicants displayed ethnic identification than when they did not. The findings suggest that psychologists need to understand not only attitudes or intentions expressed in the lab, but also the behavioral consequences of manifest group identity as they unfold in natural environments.

Rejection of Self or Others? Majority–Minority Status Moderates Responses to Strongly Identified Members of the Out-group

“…Yet the measure can be criticized for not targeting groups specifically and, indeed, other research has developed measures to assess identification with particular racial and ethnic groups (e.g., Knowles & Peng, 2005; Sellers, Rowley, Chavous, Shelton, & Smith, 1997). Previous investigators have even manipulated the outward expression of an interaction partner’s identification with a specific ethnic group by having confederates wear hats with slogans about ethnic pride (e.g., Barron, Hebl, & King, 2011). Despite the benefits of these alternate approaches to studying ethnic identification, using the MEIM in the present research allowed us to test both actor and partner effects in interactions between different ethnic groups.…”

Nonverbal Asymmetry in Interracial Interactions

“…Additionally, Barron et al (2011) did not disentangle nonverbal and verbal behavior from each other. That is, the managers' interactions were coded on interpersonal aspects from the entire interaction, encompassing both nonverbal and verbal behaviors.…”

“…Barron, King, and Hebl (2011) sent strongly and weakly identified racial minorities into retail stores to apply for jobs. Identification was communicated with the applicants' hats, which contained logos expressing strong identification (e.g., ''Black and Proud'') or neutral content.…”

“…White managers behaved similarly toward strongly and weakly identified minorities with respect to formal discrimination (e.g., interview offers) and actually behaved more positively toward strongly identified minorities compared to weakly identified minorities on measures of interpersonal discrimination (e.g., positivity of the exchange). Barron et al (2011) reasoned that managers who interacted with strongly identified minorities were especially concerned with creating an unbiased impression because they feared that strongly identified minorities would be litigious or confrontational with respect to negative employment treatment. Thus, the managers exerted control over their otherwise negative racial attitudes and behaved especially positively toward strongly identified minorities.…”

Field Experiments

“…For example, in a field experiment on the hiring process, Barron et al (Barron et al, 2011) found that store personnel exhibited greater positivity and engaged in longer interactions when they were randomly assigned to minority applicants who displayed prominently their ethnic identification. This observation contradicts an earlier laboratory finding that high identification leads to negative evaluation of ethnic minorities (Kaiser and Pratt-Hyatt, 2009).…”