Page 55 - Discrimination at Work The Psychological and Organizational Bases

26
DOVIDIO AND HEBL
& Dovidio, 1986). Consistent with this reasoning, outside of the laboratory
in generally complex employment contexts, gender and racial biases in
performance appraisals and hiring and promotion decisions are generally
still observed (Bowen, Swim, & Jacobs, 2000; Powell & Butterfield, 2002).
Moreover, supportive of the moderating factors identified in the labora­
tory, employment interview evaluations of Black and Hispanic applicants
tend to be less favorable than those of White applicants, primarily when
the interview session is less structured (Huffcutt & Roth, 1998), and when
appropriate justifications arise, such as economic conditions that require
layoffs (Elvira & Zatzick, 2002). In addition, White interviewers who are
higher in measures of subtle racism, such as "modern racism" (McConahay,
1986), are more likely to discriminate against Black than White applicants
in hiring when a business-related justification for not hiring the candidate
is available (Brief, Dietz, Cohen, Pugh, & Vaslow, 2000).
Individual-level discrimination of this type may be further moderated
by the degree of threat that an employment decision has for oneself or for
one's group. For example, White individuals show more racial bias in their
employment-related responses, particularly for attributions of personal
qualities, when their decisions are perceived to threaten the traditionally
advantaged status that they have had over Black individuals. Similarly,
policies such as affirmative action that are designed to benefit members
of other groups are resisted more strongly by people who view the conse­
quences as more threatening to their group (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1996). In
contrast, consistent with the principles of social identity discussed earlier,
when a superordinate American identity is more salient, White individuals
are more likely to support affirmative action policies that benefit members
of American minority groups (Smith & Tyler, 1996).
Members of target groups themselves are also susceptible to self-
stereotyping and self-attributional biases. Heilman and Alcott (2001) found
that women who believed that others thought their selection to a higher sta­
tus position was based on gender rather than merit anticipated that others
held negative impressions of them and behaved in more timid, uncertain,
and limited ways in their role as leaders.

Interaction Biases

Discrimination in the workplace can also occur indirectly through biases
in how people interact with each other. Hebl et al. (2002), for instance,
found that store managers did not discriminate against gay and lesbian
job applicants, relative to heterosexual applicants, in terms of pursuing
their candidacy. However, store managers were less friendly, interested,
and helpful in their interactions with gay and lesbian candidates than with