Purkiss et al. (2006)

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 101 (2006) 152–167

www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp

Implicit sources of bias in employment interview judgments and decisions �

Sharon L. Segrest Purkiss a, Pamela L. Perrewé b,¤, Treena L. Gillespie a, Bronston T. Mayes a, Gerald R. Ferris b

a Department of Management, College of Business and Economics, California State University, Fullerton, Fullerton, CA 92834-6850, USAb Department of Management, College of Business, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL 32306-1110, USA

Received 17 March 2003Available online 7 September 2006

Abstract

This study empirically examined implicit sources of bias in employment interview judgments and decisions. We examined two eth-nic cues, accent and name, as sources of bias that may trigger prejudicial attitudes and decisions. As predicted, there was an interac-tion between the applicant name and accent that aVected participants’ favorable judgments of applicant characteristics. Theapplicant with the ethnic name, speaking with an accent, was viewed less positively by interviewers than the ethnic named applicantwithout an accent and non-ethnic named applicants with and without an accent. Furthermore, modern ethnicity bias had a negativeassociation with the favorable judgments of the applicants, which, in turn, aVected hiring decisions. Implications of the results, limi-tations of the study, and directions for future research are discussed.© 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Employment interview; Modern ethnicity bias; Implicit sources of bias; Decision to hire

Introduction

The employment interview is an important source forinformation and remains, by far, the most frequently usedemployment selection and decision-making device in orga-nizations (e.g., Eder & Harris, 1999; Posthuma, Morgeson,& Campion, 2002). Unfortunately, this reality stands instark contrast to the continued questions about interviewvalidity and the persistence of biases in the interview pro-cess, suggesting that more research in this area is needed(Pingitore, Dugoni, Tindale, & Spring, 1994; Roehling,Campion, & Arvey, 1999). In particular, the eVects of vari-

� David Harrison provided unusual and outstanding guidance andsupport throughout the review and revision process. The authors feelthat his insight made an important contribution to the quality of thispaper and we would like to express our gratitude to him.

* Corresponding author. Fax: +1 850 644 7843.E-mail address: [email protected] (P.L. Perrewé).

0749-5978/$ - see front matter © 2006 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.06.005

ous interviewer and applicant characteristics on the inter-view process and outcomes deserve additional exploration(Dipboye, 1992). Although some research has addressedthese issues, most of the studies of interviewer biases andstereotypes have focused on non-subtle, demographiceVects on interviewers’ judgments and decisions.

In a review of the interview literature, Posthuma et al.(2002) suggested that researchers redirect attention fromexamining simple demographic eVects and considerthese as potential cues for other causal factors, particu-larly attitudes and values. The present study addressesthis appeal, and it extends previous work on applicantcharacteristics by focusing on the eVects of implicit orsubtle cues on interview outcomes within the frameworkof modern racism or modern ethnicity bias. SpeciWcally,the purpose of the present study is to investigate theextent to which ethnic name and accent serve as cuesthat trigger biased interviewer judgments and decisionsin the employment interview process.

mailto: [email protected]

mailto: [email protected]

S.L. Segrest Purkiss et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 101 (2006) 152–167 153

Employment interview

As a traditional component of most organizations’human resource management selection systems, researchhas been conducted on the employment interview fornearly a century (e.g., Eder & Harris, 1999). Interviewscholars have been interested in a broad range of topicsover the years, including psychometric properties of theinterview as a measurement device, interview format andtype (e.g., structured, unstructured and situational),notions of Wt (e.g., person–job and person–organization),and interviewer cognition and decision-making pro-cesses. However, we need more employment interviewresearch examining the eVects of applicant demographiccharacteristics as cues aVecting interviewer judgmentsand decisions.

Research needs to probe beyond simple demographiccategory eVects to investigate potential underlying rea-sons for what are observed as judgment and decisionbiases. With increased interest in person–organization Wtin the interview, there has come a realization that thehomogenization eVects from such assessments, whichdrive employment decisions, potentially could accountfor discrimination eVects (e.g., Judge & Ferris, 1992).However, we still need to know much more about theperceptual cues associated with applicants of diVerentraces and ethnicities that might be driving these assess-ments, judgments, and employment decisions.

The psychological processes of prejudice and stereotyping

Prejudicial attitudes, as well as other interviewer char-acteristics, such as race and personality, aVect inter-viewer perceptions of applicants (Dipboye, 1992).Prejudice and ethnicity stereotypes tend to be positivelyrelated to each other in both the historical and currentviews (Dovidio, Brigham, Johnson, & Gaertner, 1996),and some researchers have agreed that the positive rela-tionship is due to stereotypes being the cognitive compo-nent of racial attitudes or prejudice (Jones, 1986).Stereotypes are particular types of knowledge structuresor cognitive schema that link group membership to cer-tain traits (Ford & Stangor, 1992; Nesdale & Rooney,1990), and which have been found to inXuence the inter-pretation of others’ behavior (Duncan, 1976), the mem-ory of others (Stangor & McMillan, 1992), and behaviortoward others (Snyder, Tanke, & Berscheid, 1977).

Research has suggested that prejudice tends to evokenegative stereotypes. Participants with high levels ofprejudice are more likely to use cultural stereotypes, andhigh levels of prejudice correspond with more negativestereotypes (Kawakami, Dion, & Dovidio, 1998). Thesestereotypes could have been elicited through the use of acue, and in the Kawakami et al. (1998) study, the cate-gory label, Black, was purported to activate the stereo-type. This type of cue likely activates judgments of a

speciWc group without the awareness of the perceiver,consistent with an implicit form of racism, called mod-ern racism (McConahay, 1986).

We would expect that prejudice against a speciWc eth-nic group (e.g., Hispanics) would aVect judgments aboutthat group, but would not necessarily inXuence judg-ments about a diVerent group (e.g., non-Hispanics). It isimportant to note that prejudicial attitudes and stereo-types about race and ethnicity may be generated by mul-tiple cues. We argue that examining multiple cues, suchas ethnic accent and name, is key to understanding howprejudicial attitudes and stereotypes are triggered. Workin these areas is examined next.

Ethnic speech accent and name

Subtle cues may play a role in triggering implicit dis-criminatory responses. One possible cue may be appli-cant accent. Whereas other Welds, such as linguistics andcommunication, have recognized the important role ofaccent in the perception of individual characteristics,organizational research has neglected this area. Accentcan initiate perceptions regarding intelligence and kind-ness, as well as status, solidarity, economic class,national origin, or ethnicity (Lippi-Green, 1994; Nesdale& Rooney, 1990).

For example, in the U.S., French accents often areassociated with sophistication, Asian accents tend to belinked with high economic and educational attainments(Cargile, 2000; Lippi-Green, 1997), and in England, theLiverpool accent is considered less cultured than accentsassociated with Oxford and Cambridge (Lippi-Green,1997). Due to the verbal nature of the employment inter-view process, and the potential for triggering biasedjudgments, accent may prove to be a particularly impor-tant factor aVecting interview decisions.

Although it may be subtle, accent has been demon-strated to be easily perceptible. Research has demon-strated that even linguistically naïve individuals canmake basic distinctions among diVering accents (Cargile,2000; Giles, Williams, Mackie, & Rosselli, 1995; Podb-eresky, Deluty, & Feldstein, 1990). However, this recog-nition of accent distinctiveness seems to apply only to acertain degree. SpeciWcally, when presented with fourvarieties of Spanish-accented English (i.e., Cuban, CostaRican, Argentinean, and Puerto Rican), and four varie-ties of Asian-accented English, most American listenerscould not distinguish between the diVerent varieties ofSpanish- and Asian-accented English speech (Podbere-sky et al., 1990). It appears that a general Spanish accentis recognized by most listeners, and often evokes similarreactions, regardless of the speciWc variety of Spanishspoken.

Accents associated with countries of lower socio-eco-nomic status and darker skin colors frequently are deni-grated (Lippi-Green, 1997). However, some regional

154 S.L. Segrest Purkiss et al. / Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 101 (2006) 152–167

accents are looked upon less favorably, even when skincolor is not an issue. For example, in the U.S., “Appala-chian English” is downgraded (Atkins, 1993). In general,the accent of the dominant or majority group in a soci-ety is evaluated most positively (Nesdale & Rooney,1990). Interestingly, the dominant accent often is judgedmore positively not only by the dominant group, whichis Anglo Americans in the U.S., but also by minoritygroups, such as African Americans and Hispanics (Bren-nan & Brennan, 1981; DeShields, Kara, & Kaynak,1996). Therefore, one would expect that interviewerswould evaluate applicants more positively if their accentmatched that of the majority group, regardless ofwhether the interviewers were minority group members.

Another problem occurs when the limited selectionresearch examining minorities fails to distinguishbetween race and ethnicity. Although African Ameri-cans and Hispanics both share the distinction of beingminorities in the United States, one diVerence needs tobe clariWed. The terms race and ethnicity often elicit con-fusion. Race has been deWned as a social grouping basedon visible physical characteristics, such as skin color, andon supposed common ancestral origins, whereas ethnic-ity has been deWned as a group’s cultural and social heri-tage that has been transferred through generations ofgroup members (BolaY, Braham, Gindro, Tentori, &Bracalenti, 2003; Singer & Eder, 1989; Slavin, Rainer,McCreary, & Gowda, 1991). For example, one studyselected research participants on the basis of theirappearance, speech, and name being indicative of His-panic descent (Kenney & Wissoker, 1994). The study,designed to diVerentiate between the success of an Angloand a Hispanic job candidate, revealed that an Anglocandidate was more likely to be successful than the His-panic counterpart at Wling an application, obtaining aninterview, and receiving a job oVer. However, theseresults may have been confounded by the failure to con-trol for race and/or accent, exemplifying the diYcultiesof research in this area.

Similarly, a Weld study found signiWcant same-racebias between the interviewer and applicants for custodialjobs. It was acknowledged that, whereas their Black/White and Black/Hispanic comparisons examined racialdiVerences, the White/Hispanic comparisons examineddiVerences in ethnic background (Lin, Dobbins, & Farh,1992). Even though it was stated that race similarityeVects were examined, it appeared that no data weregathered regarding the actual race of the Hispanic appli-cants, or other potentially confounding factors, such asthe degree of accent.

Singer and Eder (1989) separated the eVects of ethnic-ity and accent cues in the selection process, and foundnegligible eVects for accent, but signiWcant eVects for eth-nicity. In contrast to the statistical results, participants inthe role of interviewer perceived and rated applicantaccent as moderate in importance and applicant ethnic-

ity as low in importance in their selection decision(Singer & Eder, 1989). This suggests that interviewersmay rely on applicant accent as a more concrete, legiti-mate justiWcation for ethnicity discrimination. Consider-ing applicant accent also could reXect some implicittheory on the part of the interviewer that an applicantshould not have an accent, because having an accentmight aVect job performance negatively. Of course, italso might be that accent is, in fact, job-related, andreXects an important requirement in job applicants.

An ethnic cue (e.g., accent) that is paired with anotherminority ethnic group cue (e.g., name) may evoke a con-sistent stereotype, resulting in a negative evaluation ofan applicant. Consistent with the premise of modern rac-ism, these negative judgments are likely made automati-cally, not consciously. However, when accent alone orethnicity alone is perceived, a single cue may not beenough to trigger modern racism. Because researchinconsistently has demonstrated lower evaluations ofminority applicants (Lewis & Sherman, 2003; Mullins,1982; Vrij & Winkel, 1994), it may be a combination ofcues that elicit modern racism. In other words, when twominority ethnic cues are paired together, the ethnicity ofthe target person is clearer, evoking automatic negativestereotypes. However, if only one cue is present, the eth-nicity is less clear, which may trigger a more consciousprocess of evaluation.

Modern racism and the complex eVects of ethnic cues

Racial and ethnic demographic classiWcations maysolicit categorical reactions and decisions that reallymask underlying subtle cue eVects related to individualswho are members of those categories. Modern racismcould be a potential explanation for such eVects. Racialprejudice is deWned as “an unfair negative attitudetoward a social group or a person perceived to be amember of that group” (Dovidio, 2001, p. 329). Prior tothe Civil Rights era, prejudice was viewed as a psychopa-thology, with those perpetuating prejudice as individualsin need of reform (Dovidio, 2001). Racial prejudice wasdeWned as blatant and overt. However, this “old fash-ioned” racism soon melted into a more implicit form ofracism, or “modern racism” (McConahay, 1986). Thismore subtle racial prejudice was recognized as a normalprocess that emerged from, and was perpetuated by,socialization and social norms (Dovidio, 2001).

As unintentional and subtle, individuals who are highin modern racism may denounce racism, but still act inways that discriminate against others without con-sciously doing so (Dovidio, 2001). Modern racistsespouse egalitarianism, so they do not openly discrimi-nate. However, their underlying feelings may lead themto engage in unintentional discrimination when anotherfactor exists to sway their decision (Dovidio, 2001). Forexample, Dovidio and Gaertner (2000) discovered that


when applicants had marginally acceptable qualiWca-tions, Black candidates were less often selected thanWhite candidates, although their qualiWcations wereidentical. However, when qualiWcations were low (i.e., aclear need to reject the candidate) or qualiWcations werehigh (i.e., a clear decision to select the candidate), biaswas not evident.

Modern racism, hereafter, referred to as modern eth-nicity bias, oVers researchers the context for less detect-able discrimination in the workplace. Whereas blatant or“old-fashioned” racism is unacceptable and illegal as ameans for making selection decisions, subtle cues may betriggering unconscious or implicit forms of ethnicity biasin judgments and decisions.

A combination of ethnic minority cues (i.e., asopposed to a single cue) may be more likely to trigger anunconscious and automatic negative reaction because ofthe salience of the cues and the ease in which one is moreconWdent about placing someone in a class or category;essentially, stereotyping. Further, “when one’s attentionis diVerentially directed to one portion of the environ-ment rather than to others, the information contained inthat portion will receive disproportionate weighting insubsequent judgments” (Taylor & Thompson, 1982, p.175). Thus, observing a combination of two or more eth-nic cues might lead to an unconscious, automatic, nega-tive labeling of an individual. However, a single ethniccue is less likely to trigger an automatic stereotype. Inthis case, a single cue might trigger a more consciousprocess of labeling an individual. When an individual isconscious of placing another into a class or category, ste-reotyping due to modern racism is less likely to occur.

Hypotheses

Based on the previous discussion, we argue that theinteraction of ethnic cues (i.e., ethnic name and accent) ismore likely to elicit ethnic stereotypes and negativeappraisals than a single cue. Thus, the following hypoth-esis is proposed:

Hypothesis 1. Ethnic name and ethnic accent will inter-act to predict unfavorable judgments about the appli-cant and a reduced likelihood of deciding to hire theapplicant. The synergistic combination of two ethniccues (i.e., when both ethnic name and ethnic accent arepresent), will lead to the most negative judgments ofapplicants.

Within the context of modern ethnicity bias, individu-als may unconsciously attend to the ethnicity withoutrecognizing its impact on their decisions. We expect thatthose who have an ethnicity bias will react more nega-tively to ethnic cues and will be more likely to hold unfa-vorable judgments about ethnic minorities than thosewho do not have an ethnicity bias. Further, these judg-ments will likely aVect interviewers’ decisions to hire eth-

nic minorities. In accordance with the previousdiscussion of ethnicity bias, it would be expected thatethnic applicants also would be judged less favorably inan interview context by both minority and non-minorityinterviewers. In light of the relationship between prejudi-cial attitudes, stereotypes, and perceptions of ethnicgroup members, the following relationship is hypothe-sized:

Hypothesis 2. The ethnicity of the applicant will interactwith modern ethnicity bias such that the negative rela-tionship between the ethnicity of the applicant and judg-ments and decisions to hire the applicant will beexacerbated when modern ethnicity bias is high.

Method

Participants

Two hundred and twelve students enrolled in basicmanagement courses at a large southeastern universityvoluntarily participated in this study in exchange forextra course credit. The mean age of the participants was22 with a range from 18 to 47 years. The average totalwork experience was 2.7 years. The ethnicity compositionof the sample was as follows: 66% Caucasian (not of His-panic origin); 18% African American; 11% Hispanic; 4%Asian/PaciWc Islander; and 1% Other. For data analysispurposes, the following three classiWcations were used forparticipants’ ethnicity: 0DCaucasian/White (not of His-panic origin); 1DOther Minorities; 2DHispanic. Fifty-six percent of the participants were male.

Procedure

Although previous employment interview researchhas examined ethnicity cues on interviewer decisions, thestudy of Hispanic ethnicity has been neglected relative toother minority applicants (Lin et al., 1992). This dearthin research persists even though the Hispanic segment ofthe population is growing rapidly in the United States(Grow, 2004; Mosisa, 2002; Sanchez & Brock, 1996), anddespite evidence that biases against Hispanic employeesexist (Kenney & Wissoker, 1994; Sanchez & Brock,1996). Thus, we chose to examine sources of bias towardHispanics.

In order to reduce the potential of experimenter biasdue to diVerences in sex or ethnicity, White (non-His-panic), male doctoral students were selected and trainedto administer the surveys. The administrators were per-sonally trained by one of the researchers, and given spe-ciWc written instructions to follow.

Two large entry-level management classes (ND115,ND 150) were selected for the study. One week prior todata collection, the instructor informed these students of


an extra credit opportunity that would take place thefollowing week during the scheduled class time. The par-ticipants reported to their regular classroom where theywere randomly assigned to one of four separate, prear-ranged rooms. All participants were told they wouldserve as employment interviewers, and they were askedto watch a video of a job applicant participating in aninterview. However, the video in each of the roomsdiVered on the basis of applicant name and applicantaccent. Participants were exposed to one of four condi-tions: a Hispanic accent with a Hispanic name, a His-panic accent with a non-Hispanic name, a standardAmerican-English accent with a Hispanic name, or astandard American-English accent with a non-Hispanicname.

After the participants reported to their assignedroom, they were seated so that they could clearly viewand hear the videotaped interview. They signed aninformed consent form. The participants were instructedto imagine that they were hiring for the HumanResources Manager position. The general procedure wasthen explained.

The participants were given the job description andthe resume with the appropriate name manipulation(Michael Fredrickson/Miguel Fernandez) to review. Thejob description for the Human Resource Manager wasadapted from the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (U.S.Department of Labor, 1991). The resume informed theparticipants that the applicant had the following qualiW-cations: an MBA with a concentration in HumanResource Management from a large state university (3.7Grade Point Average – GPA); a B.S. in Business Admin-istration from a large state university (3.5 GPA); andinternship experience with two major corporations, per-forming duties such as designing training programs,updating job position descriptions, and working withsalary surveys.

Finally, the participants watched the 10-min video-taped job interview that included the accent manipula-tion and name manipulation (i.e., ethnicity cue), andthen answered a two-part anonymous survey related tothe interview. When participants Wnished with the Wrstpart of the survey, they turned it in to the administratorand received the second matched part of the survey. TheWrst part of the survey contained questions related tothe following: the applicant’s perceived characteristics,the interviewer’s attitude toward hiring the applicant,decision to hire, hire decision, participant demographics,and perceptions of the videotaped job applicant’s demo-graphics.

Precautions were taken to conceal the true nature ofthe study. Items tapping individuals’ perceptions ofaccent and ethnicity were embedded among many otherdemographic-type items. The second part of the surveyincluded the ethnicity bias scale questions. This sectionof the survey was given separately in order to prevent the

participants’ answers on the Wrst part of the survey frombeing primed by the modern ethnicity bias scale ques-tions.

Experimental manipulations

Early linguistics researchers often used a matched-guise technique in an experimental situation in order tocontrol for extraneous factors. The present study utilizedthis approach to examine the inXuence of ethnicity cue(i.e., name) and accent in the interview process by havingthe same actor perform identical interview scripts whilethe accent and ethnicity cues of the actor were manipu-lated. With this technique, factors such as appearanceand voice tone were held constant in order to focus onthe variables of interest (i.e., accent and ethnicity cue).

When creating the matched-guise videotapes for theaccent and ethnicity cue manipulations, details werethoroughly considered to insure quality manipulations.An experienced videographer donated her time andequipment to the project, including a professional videocamera, lights, and microphones. An interview script,adapted from research by Howard and Ferris (1996),was used to ensure the same information was communi-cated in all conditions. The interview script combinedwith the applicant’s resume showed that the applicantwas articulate, enthusiastic and motivated, as well ashighly qualiWed for the position with the relevant univer-sity degrees and work experience.

AccentAuditions were held in order to Wnd an actor for the

applicant role who had the ability to speak with a stan-dard American-English accent and a Hispanic accent.The chosen actor was a White male who had experi-ence with theater and with national commercials inboth Spanish and English. Three linguistic expertsindependently veriWed the realism and the understand-ability of the Hispanic accent. The actor was instructedto keep body movements, facial expression, and pos-ture as similar as possible in both the accented andnon-accented conditions. Because the applicant was thesame person in both videos, factors such as applicantattractiveness, tone of voice, and other mannerismswere virtually identical. Finally, the actor wore thesame conservative business suit and tie in both condi-tions.

The second actor, a male with a standard American-English accent, assumed the role of the interviewer andwas not shown in the video to prevent interference withthe manipulations. Both actors had microphones, withthe applicant’s microphone hidden under his clothing toprevent interference with realism. Participants wereeither exposed to the Hispanic-accented applicant(coded 1) or to the standard American-English accent(coded 0).


NameFor the name manipulation, two identical resumes

were constructed, with the only diVerence being thename. Miguel Fernandez was used for the Hispanic eth-nic cue, and Michael Fredrickson was used for the non-Hispanic ethnic cue. Thus, participants encountered oneof the following four conditions: Miguel with a standardAmerican-English accent; Miguel with a Hispanicaccent; Michael with a standard American-Englishaccent; or Michael with a Hispanic accent. Additionally,the videotapes were professionally edited to reinforce thename manipulation by inserting the title “HumanResource Manager Applicant: Michael Fredrickson(Miguel Fernandez)” into the introduction. At the begin-ning of the videotaped interviews, the applicant namewas displayed for approximately 7 s. Editing also wasused to insert the beginning segment of dialogue inwhich both the interviewer and the applicant use theappropriate applicant name for added emphasis. Theparticipants were asked to write the applicant name onthe survey to check that they were aware of the namemanipulation. All of the participants correctly recordedthe applicant’s name.

The main actor (Miguel/Michael) was a White male.Care was taken to choose an individual with physicalcharacteristics such as white skin, brown eyes, andbrown hair that could typically be considered eitherAnglo American or Hispanic American. This race/gen-der mix was chosen in an eVort to control for the poten-tially negative eVect of other races and sex, becausewhite males are still predominant in high-status posi-tions in U.S. organizations (Ely, 1995). Controlling therace of the individual was imperative; as previously men-tioned, past studies examining biases against Hispanicshave failed to control for this potentially importantfactor. The participants were exposed to eitherMichael (non-Hispanic, coded 0) or to Miguel (Hispanic,coded 1).

Model variables

Interviewer perceptions of applicant accentPerceptions of accent were measured with an item

used in previous linguistics research (Ryan, Carranza, &MoYe, 1977). This item was embedded with other itemsthat measured the applicant’s perceived characteristicsin an eVort to conceal the fact that accent was a mainvariable of interest in the study. Participants rated theapplicant on a seven-point scale ranging from ethnicaccented speech to Standard American accented speech(e.g., television/radio accent). Higher scores indicate per-ceptions of ethnic accented speech.

Interviewer perceptions of applicant ethnicityThe participants indicated which of the following cat-

egories they believed applied to the video applicant:

Caucasian (0); African American (1); Hispanic (2);Native American (3); Asian/PaciWc Islander (4); andOther (5). These categories for race/ethnicity were basedon EEOC guidelines. Perceived ethnicity was coded “0”for Caucasian, “1” for Other Minority, and “2” for His-panic.

Modern ethnicity biasCurrently, no published modern ethnicity bias scale

exists in the research literature that focuses speciWcallyon Hispanics. Therefore, a scale was derived from McC-onahay’s (1986) Modern Racism Scale in order to spe-ciWcally assess the degree of the participants’ biasesagainst Hispanics.

The Modern Racism Scale was originally designed toinconspicuously measure prejudice against AfricanAmericans (McConahay, 1986). In our scale, all occur-rences of the word “African American/s” were changedto “Hispanic/s”. In addition to the word adaptations,Wve items were added to the scale based on researchexamining controversial issues related to Hispanics, suchas Spanish language usage in the United States, bordercrossing issues, aYrmative action, and treatment ofmigrant farm workers. One item that related to segrega-tion issues appeared to be irrelevant to Hispanics, so itwas adapted to reXect issues related to Hispanics andschool language issues.

All of the items were signiWcantly correlated, and theCronbach � reliability estimate was .79 in this study, and.85 in an earlier pilot study. Evidence of the constructvalidity (Nunnally, 1978) of our measure is demon-strated in the present study by virtue of its signiWcantnegative correlation with perceptions of Hispanics(rD¡.42, p < .001). Participants who have higher scoreson the modern ethnicity bias scale tend to describe His-panics in more negative terms than those with lowerscores on the scale. Please see the Appendix A for all ofthe items included in the modern ethnicity bias scale.Participants responded to a 7-point scale (7D stronglyagree and 1D strongly disagree) with higher numbersindicating greater levels of prejudice.

This scale was designed to be less vulnerable to socialdesirability eVects due to the type of questions used. Theitems used for this scale dealt with issues that are politi-cal in nature (e.g., Discrimination against Hispanics is nolonger a problem in the United States), instead ofdirectly asking the respondent about their prejudice (e.g.,Do you believe that Hispanics are less industrious thannon-Hispanics). Therefore, it assessed prejudice in a lessconspicuous manner than previous scales.

Interviewer favorable judgments of applicant characteristics

Participants’ judgments of the applicant’s characteris-tics were assessed by asking the participants to ratethe applicant on 26 bipolar pairs of adjectives using a


seven-point scale, with 7 as the anchor for favorabletraits and 1 as the anchor for unfavorable traits (�D .87).The adjective pairs were adapted from previous researchfocusing on characteristics of the ideal employee, eVec-tive top managers, and motivated workers (Larkin &Pines, 1979), and from research concentrating on His-panics and accent discrimination by employmentrecruiters (Brennan & Brennan, 1981). The following areexamples of the adjective pairs used: unsuccessful–suc-cessful, lazy–industrious, unstable–stable, and tardy–prompt.

Interviewer decision to hireThree statements, coded 1–7 (1D strongly disagree,

7D strongly agree; �D .94), measured interviewers’ deci-sion to hire the applicant. The scale items were: “I willprobably NOT hire the applicant for the HumanResource Manager position” (reverse-coded); “It islikely that I WILL hire the applicant for the HumanResource Manager position”; and “I plan to hire theapplicant for the Human Resource Manager position.”Higher scores indicate a stronger decision to hire theapplicant.

Control variables

Social desirabilityBecause past research has indicated that social desir-

ability among raters may aVect the results of ethnicity-oriented studies (Mullins, 1982), an abbreviated 10-itemform of the social desirability scale was used (Strahan &

Gerbasi, 1972) (coded 1–7, with 1D strongly disagree,7D strongly agree; �D .70) as a control variable. Higherscores indicate a tendency to give socially desirableresponses.

Accent understandabilityDue to concerns that negative evaluations might be

due to the applicant not being understandable, and notdue to the ethnic cues of accent and name, we controlledfor the understandability of the applicant. We asked par-ticipants to indicate their ability to understand the appli-cant’s speech on a one-item, seven-point scale thatranged from “not understandable accent” to “under-standable accent”. Higher scores indicate a higher degreeof understandability.

Participants’ demographic featuresSelf-reported demographic information on partici-

pants’ race/ethnicity, gender, GPA, and work experiencewere collected and used as control variables, based onprevious research suggesting these variables may bias theresults (Kenney & Wissoker, 1994; Vrij & Winkel, 1994).

Results

Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, andthe zero-order correlations among study variables. Afterlist-wise deletion of cases with missing data, 200 partici-pants were included in the analyses. Diagonal entriesindicate the internal consistency reliability estimates (i.e.,

Table 1Means, standard deviations, and correlations among study variables (diagonal values are reliabilities) (N D 200)

One-tail signiWcance: *p 6 .05; **p 6 .01; ***p 6 .001.a 0 D Anglo name cue; 1D Hispanic name cue.b 0 D North American English accent; 1 D Hispanic accent.c 0 D Caucasian; 1 D Other Minority; 2D Hispanic.d 0 D Caucasian; 1 D Other Minority; 2D Hispanic.e 0 D Male; 1 D Female.

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

1. Applicant Namea 0.52 0.50 —2. Applicant Accentb 0.46 0.50 ¡.118* —3. Perceived Accent 3.70 1.97 ¡.122* .792*** —4. Perceived Accent

Understandability5.95 1.47 .114 ¡.198** ¡.155* —

5. Perceived Applicant Ethnicityc

1.53 0.80 .312*** .380*** .376*** ¡.014 —

6. Modern Ethnicity Bias 3.18 0.95 ¡.064 ¡.017 .060 ¡.086 ¡.065 .847. Interviewer Favorable

Judgment of Applicant5.09 0.54 .032 ¡.094 ¡.146* .292*** .172** ¡.223*** .87

8. Interviewer Decision to Hire

5.10 1.60 .035 ¡.002 ¡.039 .172** .116* ¡.286*** .447*** .94

9. Social Desirability 4.36 0.87 ¡.028 .036 .020 .071 ¡.053 ¡.192** .151* .160* .7010. Work Experience

(Months)5.05 3.65 .061 ¡.123* ¡.032 .019 ¡.075 ¡.145* ¡.076 ¡.071 .160* —

11. Grade Point Average 3.00 0.43 .013 .034 ¡.039 .001 .025 .009 ¡.148* ¡.058 ¡.042 ¡.052 —12. Participant Ethnicityd 0.47 0.70 ¡.027 .096 .156* .005 .037 ¡.294*** .035 .083 ¡.001 ¡.053 ¡.131* —13. Participant gendere 0.46 0.50 ¡.078 .093 ¡.014 ¡.089 .040 ¡.105 .118* .061 ¡.028 ¡.140* .186** .082 —


CoeYcients �). As indicated in the table, understandabil-ity and social desirability among participants had agreater number of signiWcant correlations with the studyvariables than the other control variables (i.e., workexperience, gender, GPA, and participant ethnicity). Fol-lowing are more details regarding the manipulationchecks, as well as the analytical results relating to thehypotheses.

Manipulation checks

For the manipulation checks, there were two primaryconsiderations: the name and the accent manipulations.Among the four experimental conditions, the strongestethnicity manipulation was when accent and Hispanicname were combined. In this case, 100% of the partici-pants identiWed the applicant as Hispanic or OtherMinority. When Miguel had no accent, 85% of the par-ticipants identiWed the applicant as Minority, and whenMichael had an accent, 96% of the participants identiWedhim as Minority. In the condition where there were noHispanic ethnicity cues, 32% of the participants identi-Wed the applicant as Hispanic.

We conclude that the combination of Hispanic nameand accent is a strong cue to the ethnicity of the appli-cant. However, it is also clear that only one ethnic cue isneeded to trigger the identiWcation of the applicant asHispanic or Other Minority. Interestingly, 32% of theparticipants identiWed the applicant with no Hispanic

ethnicity cues as Hispanic or Other Minority. Because allof the participants were from management classes, per-haps topics such as diversity in organizations weresalient to them, which may have aVected their percep-tion. Unfortunately, because the surveys were anony-mous, no follow-up interviews were possible.

The correlation between perceived accent and themanipulated applicant accent was .79 (p 6 .001), whichdemonstrates that the accent manipulation was eVective.We also asked the participants to indicate their ability tounderstand the applicant’s speech. A mean score of 5.95(SDD 1.47), on a seven-point scale, was obtained for thismeasure, which indicates that the applicant was gener-ally well understood. The mean score for understand-ability in the Ethnic Accent condition was 5.64, and forthe Standard Accent condition the mean score was 6.19(tD 2.63, dfD188; p 6 .01). These results suggest thatsomewhat lower understandability ratings were pro-vided when a Hispanic accent was present, but in bothconditions understandability was close to 6 on a 7-pointscale.

Tests of hypotheses

We tested Hypotheses 1 and 2 using hierarchicalregression, and Tables 2 and 3 provide the results of thedata analyses for both hypotheses. To test Hypothesis 1,we entered the control variables, social desirability, mod-ern ethnicity bias, work experience, GPA, participant

Table 2Hierarchical regression of interviewer favorable judgment of applicant on name cue, accent cue, and their interaction (N D 200)

Two-tail signiWcance: *p 6 .05; **p 6 .01; ***p 6 .001.a 0 D Caucasian; 1D Other Minority; 2D Hispanic.b 0 D Male; 1 D Female.c 0 D Anglo name cue; 1D Hispanic name cue.d 0 D North American English accent; 1 D Hispanic accent.

Independent variables Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

B � t B � t B � t

Control variablesAccent understandability .104 .283 4.331*** .099 .270 4.017*** .089 .242 3.584***

Social desirability .068 .109 1.632 .114 .071 1.694 .071 .115 1.723Work experience ¡.018 ¡.120 ¡1.790 ¡.019 ¡.128 ¡1.889 ¡.018 ¡.120 ¡1.787GPA ¡.234 ¡.185 ¡2.768** ¡.231 ¡.183 ¡2.726** ¡.225 ¡.179 ¡2.682**

Participant ethnicitya ¡.052 ¡.067 ¡0.971 ¡.047 ¡.061 ¡0.878 ¡.036 ¡.047 ¡0.683Participant genderb .161 .149 2.204* .165 .152 2.240* .161 .149 2.213*

Modern ethnicity bias ¡.112 ¡.197 ¡2.790** ¡.112 ¡.197 ¡2.776** ¡.109 ¡.192 ¡2.739**

Predictor IV’sName cue manipulationc .005 .005 0.074 .157 .145 1.613Accent cue manipulationd ¡.071 ¡.065 ¡0.965 .088 .081 0.872Name-accent product ¡.325 ¡.243 ¡2.271*

Intercept 5.275 13.349*** 5.314 13.262*** 5.254 13.223***

Regression statisticsR .441 .446 .469F (df) Regression 6.639 (7,192)*** 5.242 (9,190)*** 5.337 (10,189)***

Adj. R2 .166 .161 .179�R2 .195 .004 .021F (df) of �R2 6.639 (7,192)*** .478 (2,190) 5.157 (1,189)*


ethnicity, perceived accent understandability, and partic-ipant gender in the Wrst step of the regression analysispredicting the favorability of judgments of the applicant.At step two, we entered the name cue manipulation andaccent cue manipulation variables, and in step three, weentered the interaction of the name cue and accent cuemanipulations. Step three produced a signiWcant interac-tion eVect (�R2D .021, F1,189D5.157, p < .05) for the pre-diction of interviewers’ judgments of the applicant.These results are presented in Table 2, indicating thatHypothesis 1 was partially supported. Namely, applicantname and accent interacted to predict interviewers’favorable judgments of the applicant. The name andaccent interaction was not signiWcantly related to deci-sion to hire.

Procedures outlined by Cohen and Cohen (1983)were used to compute regression equations showing therelationship between accent and favorable judgments ofthe applicant for the Hispanic and non-Hispanic nameconditions. A graphic representation of these equationsis shown in Fig. 1.

Fig. 1 demonstrates that perceptions of the Hispanicnamed applicant became more negative when the His-panic named applicant also had an accent. However, thiseVect did not occur for the applicant with an Angloname, which corresponds to research that suggestsaccents associated with countries of lower socio-eco-nomic status or darker skinned people are often viewednegatively (Ryan & Carranza, 1975; Callan, Gallois, &Forbes, 1983). Factors such as the applicant qualiWca-

tions, clothing, physical attractiveness, and age were heldconstant by utilizing the same person and identicalresume content. Only accent and name varied, yet per-ceptions of the applicant changed. Moreover, in thisstudy, the accented applicant was Xuent in English, usedcorrect grammar, and had an understandable accent.Therefore, any accent discrimination against this indi-vidual could not be justiWed as a legitimate communica-tion issue.

As previously mentioned, it appears that only oneethnic cue is needed to trigger interviewers to identifyapplicants as Hispanic. However, as expected, one ethniccue did not result in as negative of a judgment as the syn-

Fig. 1. Graphic representation of name cue £ accent cue interaction oninterviewer judgment of applicant. For Hispanic Name: InterviewerJudgment of Applicant D¡.237£ Accent + 5.411. For Anglo Name:Interviewer Judgment of Applicant D .088 £ Accent + 5.254.

5.05

5.1

5.15

5.2

5.25

5.3

5.35

5.4

5.45

No Accent Accent

Anglo NameCue

HispanicName Cue

Table 3Hierarchical Regression of Interviewer Favorable Judgment of Applicant on Modern Ethnicity Bias, Perceived Applicant Ethnicity, and Their Inter-action (N D 200)

Two-tail SigniWcance: *p 6 .05; **p 6 .01; ***p 6 .001.a 0 D Caucasian; 1 D Other Minority; 2D Hispanic.b 0 D Male; 1 D Female.c 0 D Caucasian; 1 D Other Minority; 2D Hispanic.

Independent variables Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

B � t B � t B � t

Control variablesAccent understandability .110 .299 4.508*** .105 .286 4.428*** .105 .285 4.390Social desirability .088 .142 2.119* .073 .118 1.787 .073 .117 1.774Work experience ¡.013 ¡.091 ¡1.345 ¡.016 ¡.108 ¡1.627 ¡.016 ¡.108 ¡1.625GPA ¡.228 ¡.180 ¡2.652** ¡.238 ¡.188 ¡2.851** ¡.237 ¡.187 ¡2.826Participant Ethnicitya ¡.007 ¡.009 ¡0.130 ¡.053 ¡.069 ¡1.010 ¡.052 ¡.067 ¡0.978Participant genderb .185 .170 2.496* .159 .147 2.200* .159 .147 2.199

Predictor IV’sPerceived ethnicityc .110 .163 2.539* .083 .123 0.506Modern ethnicity bias ¡.104 ¡.183 ¡2.627** ¡.117 ¡.206 ¡1.378Product .008 .046 0.17Intercept 4.724 13.561*** 5.057 12.674*** 5.099 10.879

Regression statisticsR .403 .470 .470F (df) Regression 6.229 (6,193)*** 6.780(8,191)*** 5.999 (9,190)***

Adj. R2 .136 .189 .184�R2 .162 .059 .000F (df) of �R2 6.229 (6,193)*** 7.226 (2,191)*** .029 (1,190)


ergistic eVect of two cues. Interestingly, the most favor-able judgment was triggered by applicants with aHispanic name and with no accent.

Hypothesis 2 stated that participants’ modern ethnic-ity bias will interact with the ethnicity of the applicantsuch that the negative relationship between ethnicity andjudgments and decisions to hire will be stronger whenmodern ethnicity bias is high. Hierarchical regressionwas used to test this hypothesis, with modern ethnicitybias, perceived applicant ethnicity, and their interactionas predictors of favorable judgments of applicant char-acteristics and decision to hire. The results of this analy-sis for favorable judgments are presented in Table 3.

The interaction term introduced at step 3 was not sig-niWcant, which indicates that participant modern ethnic-ity bias was not selectively associated with judgmentsabout only the Hispanic applicant. However, step 2 wassigniWcant (�R2D .059; F2,191D7.226, p < .001). The stan-dardized beta weight for perceived accent understand-ability (�D .286, tD4.428, p 6 .001) shows that theapplicant was judged more favorably when his accentwas perceived higher in understandability. The � weightfor participant GPA (�D¡.188, tD¡2.851, p 6 .01) andgender (�D .147, tD 2.200, p 6 .05) were also signiWcantindicating that male participants and those with higherGPA’s tended to judge the applicant less favorably thanfemale participants and those with lower GPA’s. The �for modern ethnicity bias (�D¡.183, tD¡2.627, p 6 .01)shows that this variable was negatively related to favor-able judgments of applicant characteristics.

In regard to decision to hire, the interaction termintroduced at step 3 was not signiWcant, which indicates

that participant modern ethnicity bias was not selec-tively associated with the decision to (or not to) hire theHispanic applicant. However, modern ethnicity bias wasalso negatively related to decision to hire (�D¡.261,tD¡3.564, p 6 .01).

Path analysis results

Although the hypothesized name and accent cueinteraction was related to favorable judgments of theapplicant, but not signiWcantly related to the decision tohire, modern ethnicity bias was signiWcantly related tothese variables. To further understand the nature of therelationship among ethnic cues, modern ethnicity bias,judgments of the applicant, and decision to hire, we per-formed a path analysis using these variables. Fig. 2shows the results of the path analysis.

Fig. 2 demonstrates that these causal paths explainsigniWcant amounts of variance in decision to hire(R2D .23; F(5,206)D 12.456; p 6 .001). As one wouldexpect, a signiWcant positive path was demonstratedbetween favorable judgments of the applicant and deci-sion to hire (�D .42; tD 6.562; p 6 .001). A signiWcantnegative path to decision to hire was also obtained formodern ethnicity bias (�D¡.16; tD¡2.582; p 6 .01).SigniWcant negative paths to favorable judgments of theapplicant were obtained for modern ethnicity bias(�D¡.24; tD¡3.703; p 6 .001), and the name/accent cueinteraction (�D¡.31; tD¡2.934; p 6 .01).

Table 4 shows the decomposition of causal eVectsthrough the path model (Alwin & Hauser, 1975). Thepath analysis demonstrates that modern ethnicity bias

Fig. 2. Path analysis of the eVects of modern ethnicity bias, name cue and accent cue on interviewer judgment of applicant and interviewer decision tohire.

Numbers on paths are r’s (i.e., double arrows) and b’s (i.e., single arrows).

* p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001

-.24***-.07

-.13*

.54***

Favorable Judgment of Applicant

R2 =.10***

Modern Ethnicity Bias

Decision toHire R2=.23***

-.31**

.42***

.08

.10

NameCue

Accent Cue

Name xAccent Interaction

.14

-.16**

-.04

.01

.50***


indirectly aVects the decision to hire through the inter-vening variable, favorable judgments of the applicant,but it also exerts a signiWcant negative direct eVect aswell. The ethnicity cue interaction seems to aVect deci-sion to hire through its negative indirect eVect on favor-able judgments about the applicant, but its direct eVect isnot signiWcant.

Discussion

Inappropriate, inaccurate, and even illegal decisionscan occur regardless of the type of human resource man-agement selection device utilized. However, the employ-ment interview should be a prime target for research inthis area, because it is the most frequently used tool formaking employment decisions, and because more thanother selection devices, the interview presents consider-able opportunity for the inXuence of subtle cues and per-ceptual and judgmental biases to aVect decisions. Thepresent study examined the eVects of ethnic cues oninterviewers’ favorable judgments and their decision tohire applicants. We hypothesized that the synergisticeVect of ethnic cues (i.e., ethnic name and ethnic accent),were more likely to trigger negative interviewer reactionstoward an applicant than one ethnic cue or no ethniccues. Even after controlling for participant modern eth-nicity bias, support was found for the eVect of anaccent£ ethnicity cue interaction on the favorable judg-ments of applicants’ characteristics.

As hypothesized, the most unfavorable judgmentsof the applicant were triggered by the combination ofethnic name and accent. Interestingly, the most favor-able judgments were triggered when the applicant didnot have an accent, but had an ethnic name. These

Wndings can be partially explained by the expectancy-violation theory (Jussim, Coleman, & Lerch, 1987),which suggests that there often are lower expectationsfor minorities, and when these expectations are vio-lated in a positive direction (i.e., no accent), evalua-tions will be in the direction of the violation. In otherwords, the Hispanic named applicant might have beenviewed positively because he spoke without an accent.This theory is similar to the accommodation hypothe-sis reported in the linguistics Weld by Giles and Bour-his (1976), which states that eVorts by ethnicminorities to increase similarities between themselvesand the majority group are associated with morefavorable evaluations. To the extent that speech stylecontains prejudicial triggers, it can be altered to a stylethat is deemed more socially acceptable. Accommo-dating their speech allows minority members to poten-tially reduce social costs and increases the likelihoodof social approval. Consistent with the accommoda-tion hypothesis, participants may have perceived thecandidates to be more similar to the majority group,thus rating them more positively.

Modern ethnicity bias toward Hispanics was pre-dicted to relate negatively to favorable judgments of theHispanic applicant, and not relate to judgments of thenon-Hispanic applicant. We examined modern ethnicitybias, perceived applicant ethnicity, and their interactionas predictors of favorable judgments of applicant char-acteristics, and found that the interaction was not signiW-cant. This indicates that modern ethnicity bias was notselectively associated with judgments about only theHispanic applicant. Based on this Wnding, we then exam-ined the main eVects of modern ethnicity bias on judg-ments of the applicant, attitudes about hiring, anddecision to hire the applicant.

Table 4Decomposition of direct and indirect eVects for modern ethnicity bias and name/accent cue interaction on decision to hire coeYcients (�)

Independent variables Dependent variables

Favorable judgment of applicant Decision to hire step 1 Decision to hire step 2

Modern ethnicity bias ¡.244*** ¡.267*** ¡.163*

Name cue .144 .018 ¡.043Accent cue .101 .039 ¡.004Name£ accent ¡.314** ¡.028 .105Favorable judgment of applicant .423***

Dependent variables Independent variables Total eVect Indirect eVect via favorablejudgment of applicant

Direct eVect

Favorable judgment of applicant Modern ethnicity bias ¡.244 — ¡.244Name cue .144 .144Accent cue .101 .101Name £ accent ¡.314 ¡.314

Decision to hire Modern ethnicity bias ¡.265 ¡.103 ¡.162Name cue .061 .061 .000Accent cue .042 .042 .000Name £ accent ¡.051 ¡.132 .081Favorable judgment of applicant .421 .421


Modern ethnicity bias demonstrated a negative rela-tionship with favorable judgments of the applicant, andthese judgments of the applicant showed a positive asso-ciation with the decision to hire. Further, modern ethnic-ity bias had a direct negative relationship with thedecision to hire. Together, these results indicate thatmodern ethnicity bias seems to have a negative associa-tion with the favorable judgments of, and decisions tohire all applicants, not just Hispanic applicants. Perhapsinterviewer ethnic biases trigger a skeptical and guardedview of others, which is translated into more negativeperceptions of applicants in general. Additional researchon the eVects of modern ethnicity biases is needed.Finally, having favorable judgments of applicants isassociated with the decision to hire the applicant.

Limitations of the study

Some researchers may consider generalizability aproblem when using students as interviewers. However,when examining ethnicity issues, the deviations betweenstudents and actual employees or managers may be min-imal (Barr & Hitt, 1986). This may be due to the fact thatstudents, like managers, have been exposed to similarethnic stereotypes through the media and society in gen-eral. If stereotypes are less prevalent among students,due to more progressive ideas among the youth of soci-ety, then the evidence of ethnicity bias among studentsfound in this study may be a conservative estimate of theethnicity bias of practicing managers. Alternatively, itmay be that practicing managers are more experiencedwith, and aware of, discrimination issues, and thereforewould be less likely to respond in a biased manner. Inorder to investigate these potential diVerences, examin-ing practicing professionals should help to extend thisresearch.

A related concern is the potential lack of realism inthe situation. As with most laboratory experimental situ-ations, some realism is lost, but control is gained, byallowing for more precise manipulation of the variablesof interest. Posthuma et al. (2002), in a review of theresearch pertaining to interviews, suggested that havingparticipants view an interview without actively partici-pating could lead to lack of involvement for partici-pants, thus alleviating the responsibility thatorganizational members may feel in a real interview situ-ation. Presumably, this lack of accountability couldlessen participants’ attention to the task at hand.

In the present study, the procedure was designed inorder to increase participant involvement. Interviewerswere instructed to examine the applicant’s resume, towatch the interview carefully and imagine that they wereactually interviewing the applicant, to rate the applicanton various aspects, and to make a hiring decision. Addi-tionally, the use of a matched-guise video provided anopportunity to control verbal and nonverbal cues (Post-

huma et al., 2002), which allowed accent to be teasedapart and isolated from other cues in the environment.

In this study, the job description used for the appli-cant was for the Human Resource Manager position.The choice of this particular job description may haveaVected the results if participants perceived that this jobwas associated with a certain degree of status. Previousresearch by Kalin and Rayko (1978) documented vary-ing eVects due to diVering degrees of job status. SpeciW-cally, they found that foreign accented applicants weregiven lower evaluations for high status jobs and higherevaluations for low status jobs. Therefore, diVerent jobdescriptions of varying degrees of status should beexamined in future research.

Further, the qualiWcations of the applicant for theHuman Resource Manager position in this study werehigh, indicating the applicant was clearly qualiWed forthe position. Dovidio and Gaertner (2000) found thatethnic bias was most likely to occur when applicants hadonly reasonable qualiWcations and least likely to occurwhen applicants had qualiWcations that were either low(i.e., clear decision not to hire) or high (i.e., clear decisionto hire). This study found ethnic biasing eVects evenwhen the applicant was clearly qualiWed. In the work-place, it is likely that applicants will have some goodqualities as well as some less attractive qualities and thatinterviewers are normally dealing with individuals whodo not have such high qualiWcations that the decision tohire is clear. Thus, the results of this study may actuallyunderestimate the degree to which ethnic biases aVectthe judgments and decisions of interviewers.

The results of this research also may vary dependingon where the study is conducted, and on the compositionof the sample. In other parts of the country, Hispanicethnicity cues may be perceived more or less readily, andHispanics may face more or less discrimination. Forexample, in the Miami, Florida, area where there is alarge Cuban-American population, is there more or lessaccent and general ethnicity discrimination against His-panics than in an area of the country where there is verylittle exposure to Hispanics? Research has found somesupport for the contention that ethnic minorities, likemembers of the majority ethnic group, tend to have neg-ative perceptions of ethnic accents and positive percep-tions of standard accents (Ryan & Carranza, 1975;Callan et al., 1983).

Other research has suggested that individuals aremore likely to gravitate toward others who are similar.For example, in a study of workgroup preferences, indi-viduals demonstrated a clear desire for working withothers who were racially similar (e.g., Hinds, Carley,Krackhardt, & Wholey, 2000). More research is neededto validate these results, and to examine various popula-tions of Hispanics (e.g., Mexican Americans, PuertoRicans, and Cuban Americans) to observe whether thereare any subculture diVerences in responses.


Implications and future research directions

A key contribution of the present study is that itallowed a closer look at the potential underlying triggersof bias in the employment interview process by examin-ing cues associated with ethnicity. Building on this study,there are some important directions for future research.One area that needs attention is to investigate the inXu-ence of interview structure on ethnic/racial cue eVects oninterviewer decisions. The present study used a standardstimulus (i.e., videotaped interview) in presentation ofapplicant cues to an interviewer. This most closelyresembles a structured interview format, where it wouldbe argued that biases might be less observable becauseattention and focus is maintained on job-related contentissues. Indeed, the unstructured interview tends to bewhere job-irrelevant information tends to emerge toinXuence interviewer decisions (e.g., Dipboye, 1994). Itwould be interesting to compare structured to unstruc-tured interviews to see if the observed eVects from thisstudy regarding ethnic cues diVer by interview format.

There has been growing research interest in recentyears in the use of applicant impression managementtactics, and their eVects on interviewer ratings (e.g., Gil-more, Stevens, Harrell-Cook, & Ferris, 1999). Indeed,Gilmore et al. proposed an adaptation of the Ferris andJudge (1991) framework, which shows applicant impres-sion management tactics aVect interviewer decisions andactions through the potential mediating variables of lik-ing, perceived similarity, or perceived competence. Itwould be interesting to investigate whether applicants’impression management tactics overshadowed, and thusneutralized, their race or ethnicity in aVecting interview-ers’ judgments and decisions. It might be the case thatminority job applicant self-promotion tactics are suc-cessful in elevating their competence in the eyes of theinterviewer to a level that eliminates any eVects of eth-nicity bias. This would be a new area of research becausevirtually no work has been done relating ethnicity tosocial inXuence (Ferris et al., 2002).

Besides interview format and impression manage-ment, future research should examine other factors thatmight constrain or magnify the eVects of applicant eth-nic/racial cues on interviewer judgments and decisions.It would be interesting to investigate the ethnicity ofboth applicant and interviewer in employment inter-views to see if there are rating eVects for ethnicity simi-larity. EVects of ethnicity or racial similarity oninterview ratings have been reported for both AfricanAmericans (McFarland, Sacco, Ryan, & Kriska, 2000;Prewett-Livingston, Feild, Veres, & Lewis, 1996), andfor Hispanics (Lin et al., 1992). However, all three ofthese studies used panel interviews as opposed to themore conventional one-on-one interviews. Becauseone-on-one interviews would seem even more likely toproduce ethnic/racial similarity eVects (Sacco, Scheu,

Ryan, & Schmitt, 2003), interview scholars should pro-ceed in this direction.

Additionally, we would suggest that future researchinvestigate the area of person–organization Wt as itrelates to interviewer decision making regarding ethnic/racial cues. Some recent work has proposed social-cogni-tive theoretical underpinnings for an integrative theoryof multidimensional Wt that focuses on a prototype-matching approach (Wheeler, Buckley, Halbesleben,Brouer, & Ferris, 2005). Most Wt research in the employ-ment interview has investigated supplementary Wt, whichconsiders how applicants seek to match particular char-acteristics they possess to the employing organization’senvironment. The investigation of ethnic/racial cues inthe area of person–organization Wt would be applicableto the concept of complimentary Wt, whereby applicants’personal attributes and characteristics are viewed asadding something new that is not presently found in theorganizational environment.

Future research is needed to determine if the resultsfound in this study replicate to other scenarios or sam-ples. One area for further exploration is investigatewhether name and accent cues trigger interviewer per-ceptions based on country of origin as well as race. Forinstance, is a Caucasian applicant with a Russian accentand Russian name perceived more negatively or posi-tively than when the applicant has a Russian name andno accent, or a Russian accent and non-Russian name?Furthermore, future research may address the extent towhich these eVects occur in decision-making processeswith internal applicants (e.g., promotions, opportunitiesfor training). Perhaps these eVorts will help delineate therelative strength of name and accent cues in diVerentsamples, as well as identify situations in which the eVectsgeneralize.

The results of the present study suggest the need forcontinued eVorts to increase the eVectiveness of inter-viewer judgment and decision making. As demonstratedin this study, interviewers are vulnerable to makingbiased judgments about applicants. Potential solutions toreducing interviewer biases include training interviewers,structuring the rating procedures, using multiple inter-viewers, using videotaped interviews, and selecting eVec-tive interviewers. In particular, future research focused oninterviewer training is needed. Although there is evidencethat trained interviewers may be able to make moreobjective hiring decisions, most interviewers still do notreceive much training, if any at all, before being allowedto conduct employment interviews (Howard & Ferris,1996; Kennedy, 1994). More research is needed thatexplores the eVectiveness of interviewer-training methodsin reducing biases.

Interviewer characteristics, besides a bias toward ethnicminorities, also should be examined in future research.For example, international experience may be correlatedwith more positive perceptions of applicants with diverse


characteristics, such as non-standard accents. PersonalitydiVerences among interviewers also may be important inthis research. Perhaps interviewers that rate high on the“openness to experience” dimension of the Five-FactorModel of personality are less likely to be prejudicedtoward ethnic minorities, or less likely to apply these prej-udices toward particular job applicants. Openness to expe-rience or extraversion of the trainees also may beimportant individual diVerence variables related to theeVectiveness of interviewer training.

Conclusion

This study oVers several notable contributions to theresearch literature. First, because it allows for excellentcontrol in experimental conditions, the matched-guise

technique was employed in the present study. Althoughthis technique has not been widely used in managementresearch to date, perhaps the present study will encour-age researchers to consider using this type of methodo-logical approach in studying organizationalphenomena. Second, this research separates the eVectsof accent from the eVects of ethnicity cues. Previousethnicity research generally has failed to separate theconfounding factors of accent and ethnicity, factorsthat appear to have interactive eVects. The results ofthe present study indicate that, to a degree, interviewersare still allowing illegal and often irrelevant factors,such as the combined eVects of ethnicity and accent, toaVect judgments and decisions about job applicants,instead of focusing only on job-related qualiWcations.In essence, we are still judging the book by the coverrather than solely by the contents.

Appendix A

Please indicate the degree to which you disagree or agree with each of the following statements by circling the appropri-ate number

Modern Ethnicity Bias Scale (Adapted from McConahay’s Modern Racism Scale, 1986). Items 1–7 are adapted fromthe original scale and items 6–12 are additions. Questions 2, 10, and 12 are reverse-coded.

1. Over the past few years, the government and news media have shown more respect to Hispanics than they deserve.Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree

2. It is easy to understand the frustration of Hispanics in America.Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree

3. Discrimination against Hispanics is no longer a problem in the United States.Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree

4. Over the past few years, Hispanics have gotten more economically than they deserve. Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree

5. Hispanics have more inXuence upon school language issues than they ought to have.Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree

6. Hispanics are getting too demanding in their push for the usage of the Spanish language.Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree

7. Hispanics should not push themselves where they are not wanted.Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree

8. Hispanics are taking advantage of their minority status.Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree

9. Hispanics are taking too many jobs from non-minorities.Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree

10. Migrant farm-workers have been treated poorly in many instances.Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree

11. Hispanics often intentionally exclude non-Spanish speakers in their conversations.Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree

12. Mexicans crossing the US border are often dealt with too harshly.Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Agree


References

Alwin, D. F., & Hauser, R. M. (1975). The decomposition of eVects inpath analysis. American Sociological Review, 40, 37–47.

Atkins, C. P. (1993). Do employment recruiters discriminate on the basis ofnonstandard dialect? Journal of Employment Counseling, 30, 108–118.

Barr, S. H., & Hitt, M. A. (1986). A comparison of selection decision modelsin manager versus student samples. Personnel Psychology, 39, 599–617.

BolaY, G., Braham, P., Gindro, S., Tentori, T., & Bracalenti, R. (2003).Dictionary of Race, Ethnicity and Culture. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications.

Brennan, E. M., & Brennan, J. S. (1981). Accent scaling and languageattitudes: reactions to Mexian American English speech. Languageand Speech, 24, 207–221.

Callan, V. J., Gallois, C., & Forbes, P. A. (1983). Ethnic stereotypes:Australian and Southern European youth. Journal of Social Psy-chology, 119, 287–288.

Cargile, A. C. (2000). Evaluations of employment suitability: doesaccent always matter? Journal of Employment Counseling, 37, 165.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlationanalysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Law-rence Erlbaum.

DeShields, O. W., Kara, A., & Kaynak, E. (1996). Source eVects inpurchase decisions: the impact of physical attractiveness and accentof salesperson. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13,89–101.

Dipboye, R. L. (1994). Structured and unstructured selection inter-views: beyond the job-Wt model. In G. R. Ferris (Ed.), Research inpersonnel and human resources management (Vol. 12, pp. 79–123).Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Dipboye, R. L. (1992). Selection interviews: Process perspectives. Cin-cinnati, OH: South-Western.

Dovidio, J. F. (2001). On the nature of contemporary prejudice: thethird wave. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 829–849.

Dovidio, J. F., Brigham, J. C., Johnson, B. T., & Gaertner, S. L. (1996).Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination: another look. In C. N.Macrae, C. Stangor, & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Stereotypes and stereo-typing (pp. 276–319). New York: The Guilford Press.

Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2000). Aversive racism and selectiondecisions: 1989 and 1999. Psychological Science, 11, 319–323.

Duncan, B. L. (1976). DiVerential social perception and attributionof intergroup violence: testing the lower limits of stereotypingof blacks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34,590–598.

Eder, R. W., & Harris, M. M. (1999). Employment interview research:historical update and introduction. In R. W. Eder & M. M. Harris(Eds.), The employment interview handbook (pp. 1–27). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Ely, R. J. (1995). The power in demography: women’s social construc-tions of gender identity at work. Academy of Management Journal,38, 589–703.

Ferris, G. R., & Judge, T. A. (1991). Personnel/human resources man-agement: a political inXuence perspective. Journal of Management,17, 447–488.

Ferris, G. R., Hochwarter, W. A., Douglas, C., Blass, F. R., Kolodinsky,R., & Treadway, D. C. (2002). Social inXuence processes in organiza-tions and human resources systems. In G. R. Ferris & J. J. Martoc-chio (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management(Vol. 21, pp. 65–127). Oxford, UK: JAI Press/Elsevier Science.

Ford, T. E., & Stangor, C. (1992). The role of diagnosticity in stereo-type formation: perceiving group means and variances. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 63, 356–367.

Giles, H., & Bourhis, R. Y. (1976). Methodological issues in dialect per-ception: a social psychological perspective. Anthropological Lin-guistics, 19, 294–304.

Giles, H., Williams, A., Mackie, D. M., & Rosselli, F. (1995). Reactionsto Anglo- and Hispanic-American-accented speakers: aVect, iden-

tity, persuasion, and the English-only controversy. Language andCommunication, 15, 107.

Gilmore, D. C., Stevens, C. K., Harrell-Cook, G., & Ferris, G. R. (1999).Impression management tactics. In R. W. Eder & M. M. Harris(Eds.), The employment interview handbook (pp. 321–336). Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Grow, B. (2004). Hispanic nation: is America ready? Business Week,59–70.

Hinds, P. J., Carley, K. M., Krackhardt, D., & Wholey, D. (2000).Choosing work group members: balancing similarity, competence,and familiarity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Pro-cesses, 81, 226–251.

Howard, J. L., & Ferris, G. R. (1996). The employment interview con-text: social and situational inXuences on interviewer decisions.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 112–136.

Jones, J. M. (1986). Racism: a cultural analysis of the problem. In J. F.Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and rac-ism (pp. 279–314). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. (1992). The elusive criterion of Wt in humanresources staYng decisions. Human Resource Planning, 15, 47–67.

Jussim, L., Coleman, L. M., & Lerch, L. (1987). The nature of stereo-types: a comparison and integration of three theories. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 52, 536–546.

Kalin, R., & Rayko, D. S. (1978). Discrimination in evaluative judg-ments against foreign-accented job candidates. PsychologicalReports, 43, 1203–1209.

Kawakami, K., Dion, K. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1998). Racial prejudiceand stereotype activation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulle-tin, 24, 407–416.

Kennedy, R. B. (1994). The employment interview. Journal of Employ-ment Counseling, 31, 110–114.

Kenney, G. M., & Wissoker, D. A. (1994). An analysis of the correlatesof discrimination facing young Hispanic job-seekers. AmericanEconomic Review, 84, 674–683.

Larkin, J. C., & Pines, H. A. (1979). No fat persons need apply: experi-mental studies of the overweight stereotype and hiring preference.Sociology of Work and Occupations, 60, 312–327.

Lewis, A. C., & Sherman, S. J. (2003). Hiring you makes me look bad:social-identity based reversals of the in-group favoritism eVect. Orga-nizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 90, 262–276.

Lin, T. R., Dobbins, G. H., & Farh, J. L. (1992). A Weld study of raceand age similarity eVects on interview ratings in conventional andsituational interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 363–371.

Lippi-Green, R. (1994). Accent, standard language ideology, and dis-criminatory pretext in the courts. Language in Society, 23, 163–198.

Lippi-Green, R. (1997). English with an accent: Language, ideology, anddiscrimination in the United States. London: Routledge.

McConahay, J. B. (1986). Modern racism, ambivalence, and the ModernRacism Scale. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, dis-crimination, and racism (pp. 91–125). Orlando: Academic Press.

McFarland, L.A., Sacco, J.M., Ryan, A.M., & Kriska, S.D. (2000).Racial similarity and composition eVects on structured panel inter-view ratings. Paper presented at the 15th Annual Conference of theSociety for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, NewOrleans.

Mosisa, A. T. (2002). The role of foreign-born workers in the U.S.economy. Monthly Labor Review, 125, 3–14.

Mullins, T. W. (1982). Interviewer decisions as a function of applicantrace, applicant quality and interviewer prejudice. Personnel Psy-chology, 35, 163–174.

Nesdale, A. R., & Rooney, R. (1990). Evaluations and stereotyping.Australian Journal of Psychology, 42, 309–319.

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York:McGraw-Hill.

Pingitore, R., Dugoni, B. L., Tindale, R. S., & Spring, B. (1994). Biasagainst overweight job applicants in simulated employment inter-view. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 909–917.


Podberesky, R., Deluty, R. H., & Feldstein, S. (1990). Evaluations ofSpanish- and Oriental-accented English speakers. Social Behaviorand Personality, 18, 53–63.

Posthuma, R. A., Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. (2002). Beyondemployment interview validity: a comprehensive narrative review ofrecent research and trends over time. Personnel Psychology, 55, 1–81.

Prewett-Livingston, A. J., Feild, H. S., Veres, J. G., & Lewis, P. M.(1996). EVects of race on interviewer ratings in a situational panelinterview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 178–186.

Roehling, M. V., Campion, J. E., & Arvey, R. D. (1999). Unfair discrim-ination issues. In R. W. Eder & M. M. Harris (Eds.), The employ-ment interview handbook (pp. 49–67). Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications.

Ryan, E. B., & Carranza, M. A. (1975). Evaluative reactions of adoles-cents toward speakers of standard English and Mexican-Americanaccented English. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31,855–863.

Ryan, E. B., Carranza, M. A., & MoYe, R. W. (1977). Reactions towardvarying degrees of accentedness in the speech of Spanish–Englishbilinguals. Language and Speech, 20, 267–273.

Sacco, J. M., Scheu, C. R., Ryan, A. M., & Schmitt, N. (2003). An inves-tigation of race and sex similarity eVects in interviews: a multilevelapproach to relational demography. Journal of Applied Psychology,88, 852–865.

Sanchez, J. I., & Brock, P. (1996). Outcomes of perceived discrimina-tion among Hispanic employees: is diversity management a luxuryor a necessity? Academy of Management Journal, 39, 704–719.

Singer, M., & Eder, G. S. (1989). EVects of ethnicity, accent, and job statuson selection decisions. International Journal of Psychology, 24, 13–34.

Slavin, L. A., Rainer, K. L., McCreary, M. L., & Gowda, K. K. (1991).Toward a multicultural model of the stress process. Journal ofCounseling and Development, 70, 156–163.

Snyder, M., Tanke, E. D., & Berscheid, E. (1977). Social perceptionand interpersonal behavior: on the self-fulWlling nature of socialstereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35,656–666.

Stangor, C., & McMillan, D. (1992). Memory for expectancy-congru-ent and expectancy-incongruent information: a review of the socialand social developmental literatures. Psychological Bulletin, 111,42–61.

Strahan, R., & Gerbasi, K. (1972). Short, homogeneous versions of theCrowne–Marlowe Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psy-chology, 28, 191–193.

Taylor, S. E., & Thompson, S. C. (1982). Stalking the elusive “vivid-ness” eVect. Psychological Review, 89, 155–181.

U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration,U.S. Employment Service, (1991). Dictionary of occupational titles(4th edition revised). Washington, DC, U.S. Government PrintingOYce.

Vrij, A., & Winkel, F. W. (1994). Perceptual distortions in cross-cul-tural interrogations: the impact of skin color, accent, speech style,and spoken Xuency on impression formation. Journal of Cross-Cul-tural Psychology, 25, 284–295.

Wheeler, A. R., Buckley, M. R., Halbesleben, J. R., Brouer, R. L., &Ferris, G. R. (2005). The elusive criterion of Wt” revisited: toward anintegrative theory of multidimensional Wt. In J. J. Martocchio (Ed.),Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 24,pp. 265–304). Oxford, UK: JAI Press/Elsevier Science.

Documents

Purkiss et al. (2006)