Unveiling everyday discrimination. Two field experiments on discrimination against religious minorities in day-to-day interactions.

In recent years-particularly since the beginning of the refugee crisis in 2015-the political debate about issues of Islamophobia and resentment of Muslims has gained new momentum. Our research contributes to the growing experimental literature focusing on these phenomena. Unlike most previous empirical investigations, the present study does not examine "large scale" discrimination against Muslim minorities in situations which occur only periodically throughout an individual's life (e.g., on the rental-, labor-, or partner market); rather, it sheds light on (minor) discrimination events that occur on a day-to-day basis. Such "everyday discrimination" has been shown to be particularly detrimental to physical and psychological health. Specifically, our research examines the effect of open displays of religious identification-wearing a Muslim headscarf-on everyday discrimination against female Muslims. We report the results of two natural field experiments in Switzerland designed to examine such forms of day-to-day discrimination. Study 1 focuses on differential sanctioning, whereas study 2 investigates differences regarding helping behavior. We found pronounced discrimination against women wearing a headscarf in two distinctly different types of everyday interactions. In both scenarios, headscarf-wearing confederates were treated less favorably than bare-headed ones: they were sanctioned more often for violating the "stand right, walk left"-norm on escalators and received less help when asking for a favor (borrowing a mobile phone for an urgent call).

Is participation in high-status culture a signal of trustworthiness?

Trust is essential for social interactions, cooperation and social order. Research has shown that social status and common group memberships are important determinants of receiving and reciprocating trust. However, social status and group membership can coincide or diverge-with potentially different effects. Our study contributes to the existing literature on the role of status and group membership by testing two separate trust-generating mechanisms against each other. We examine if individuals tend to place trust in high-status groups (irrespective of their own group membership) or, rather, if they tend to trust others with whom they share a common group membership. We assume that status group membership is signalled by cultural (musical) taste. This operationalization follows the theoretical reasoning of Bourdieu who argues that it is, above all, musical taste that classifies persons of different status. By demonstrating their "legitimate" cultural taste, upper-class members distinguish themselves from the middle and lower classes and signal their social status, thereby creating awe, respect and an air of trustworthiness. We report evidence from online experiments with incentivized trust games, which enable us to separate the two trust-generating mechanisms. We find no evidence that persons with "legitimate" tastes are generally trusted more. Instead, our results clearly demonstrate ingroup favouritism towards persons with a similar taste. Participants place more trust in members of their own group and expect them to be more trustworthy. In other words: members of taste-based groups trust each other more than members of different-taste-based groups. Interestingly, this group-based trust is not always justified inasmuch as received trust is not necessarily reciprocated more strongly by own group members. This suggests that ingroup favouritism is, at least in part, driven by false beliefs.