{"id":{"repo_id":"colostate","oai_identifier":"oai:mountainscholar.org:10217/238532"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/colostate/oai:mountainscholar.org:10217/238532","repository":{"repo_id":"colostate","name":"Colorado State University","base_url":"https://api.mountainscholar.org/server/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"Identifying and evaluating factors that enhance former offenders' hiring-related outcomes","abstract":"Former offenders face several barriers to re-entry into society and the workplace. One such barrier includes employers' negative and unfounded attitudes of former offenders, which may lead to unfair bias in hiring. Crandall and Eshleman's (2003) justification-suppression model (JSM) posits that such prejudicial attitudes can be suppressed. Guided by the JSM theoretical framework, the current two-study project was designed to (1) identify prejudice suppression factors that might increase employers' willingness to hire former offenders – more specifically former minor drug offenders (FMDOs) and (2) test the efficacy of two suppression factors in a hypothetical hiring setting. Study 1 was an interview study of 13 employers, across several industries, on what factors made them more likely to consider hiring FMDOs. Thematic analysis results yielded 30 factors that were classified as situation-related, employer-related, and applicant-related suppression factors. The two most frequently endorsed prejudice suppression factors were: (1) evidence of the applicant's desistance & positive change, and (2) evidence of the applicant's honest disclosure of their background. In Study 2, the efficacy of these two suppression factors (desistance and disclosure) was tested to assess whether FMDOs' hiring-related outcomes were improved by manipulating suppressor evidence (desistance, disclosure, or no suppressor) and the offense type of the applicant (traffic offense, minor drug offense, and serious drug-related offense) in a hypothetical hiring context, for a retail sales associate position. Using a sample of 230 hiring managers in a retail setting, a significant main effect of offense type was found. No significant main effect was found for suppressor evidence on hiring recommendations. Neither offense type nor suppressor evidence was related to participants' concerns about hiring the applicants, or their proposed starting salary for applicants. Implications of these findings, alternative theoretical explanations, limitations, and future directions are discussed.","abstract_html":"Former offenders face several barriers to re-entry into society and the workplace. One such barrier includes employers' negative and unfounded attitudes of former offenders, which may lead to unfair bias in hiring. Crandall and Eshleman's (2003) justification-suppression model (JSM) posits that such prejudicial attitudes can be suppressed. Guided by the JSM theoretical framework, the current two-study project was designed to (1) identify prejudice suppression factors that might increase employers' willingness to hire former offenders – more specifically former minor drug offenders (FMDOs) and (2) test the efficacy of two suppression factors in a hypothetical hiring setting. Study 1 was an interview study of 13 employers, across several industries, on what factors made them more likely to consider hiring FMDOs. Thematic analysis results yielded 30 factors that were classified as situation-related, employer-related, and applicant-related suppression factors. The two most frequently endorsed prejudice suppression factors were: (1) evidence of the applicant's desistance & positive change, and (2) evidence of the applicant's honest disclosure of their background. In Study 2, the efficacy of these two suppression factors (desistance and disclosure) was tested to assess whether FMDOs' hiring-related outcomes were improved by manipulating suppressor evidence (desistance, disclosure, or no suppressor) and the offense type of the applicant (traffic offense, minor drug offense, and serious drug-related offense) in a hypothetical hiring context, for a retail sales associate position. Using a sample of 230 hiring managers in a retail setting, a significant main effect of offense type was found. No significant main effect was found for suppressor evidence on hiring recommendations. Neither offense type nor suppressor evidence was related to participants' concerns about hiring the applicants, or their proposed starting salary for applicants. Implications of these findings, alternative theoretical explanations, limitations, and future directions are discussed.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Anderson, Kemol J., author","Cleveland, Jeanette, advisor","Gibbons, Alyssa, advisor","Dik, Bryan, committee member","Henle, Chris, committee member","Kraiger, Kurt, committee member"],"institution":"Colorado State University. Libraries","degree_name":"Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.)","degree_level":"Doctoral","degree_discipline":"Psychology","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2024,"date_issued":"2024","date_published":"2024","updated_at":"2026-07-27T19:13:25Z","subjects":["hiring outcomes","former offenders","suppression factors"],"languages":["eng","English"],"rights":["Copyright and other restrictions may apply. User is responsible for compliance with all applicable laws. For information about copyright law, please see https://libguides.colostate.edu/copyright."],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["https://doi.org/10.25675/3.02612"],"render_values":[{"text":"https://doi.org/10.25675/3.02612","href":"https://doi.org/10.25675/3.02612","code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://hdl.handle.net/10217/238532","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Anderson, Kemol J., author","Cleveland, Jeanette, advisor","Gibbons, Alyssa, advisor","Dik, Bryan, committee member","Henle, Chris, committee member","Kraiger, Kurt, committee member"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2024-05-27T10:32:58Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2024-05-27T10:32:58Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["2024"]},{"key":"dc:publisher","label":"Institution","values":["Colorado State University. Libraries"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Text"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Psychology"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Doctoral"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.)"]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["Colorado State University"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["hiring outcomes","former offenders","suppression factors"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language","label":"Dc Language","values":["English"]},{"key":"dc:language.iso","label":"Language (ISO)","values":["eng"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["Copyright and other restrictions may apply. User is responsible for compliance with all applicable laws. For information about copyright law, please see https://libguides.colostate.edu/copyright."]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["Anderson_colostate_0053A_18361.pdf"]},{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["https://hdl.handle.net/10217/238532","https://doi.org/10.25675/3.02612"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["Former offenders face several barriers to re-entry into society and the workplace. One such barrier includes employers' negative and unfounded attitudes of former offenders, which may lead to unfair bias in hiring. Crandall and Eshleman's (2003) justification-suppression model (JSM) posits that such prejudicial attitudes can be suppressed. Guided by the JSM theoretical framework, the current two-study project was designed to (1) identify prejudice suppression factors that might increase employers' willingness to hire former offenders – more specifically former minor drug offenders (FMDOs) and (2) test the efficacy of two suppression factors in a hypothetical hiring setting. Study 1 was an interview study of 13 employers, across several industries, on what factors made them more likely to consider hiring FMDOs. Thematic analysis results yielded 30 factors that were classified as situation-related, employer-related, and applicant-related suppression factors. The two most frequently endorsed prejudice suppression factors were: (1) evidence of the applicant's desistance & positive change, and (2) evidence of the applicant's honest disclosure of their background. In Study 2, the efficacy of these two suppression factors (desistance and disclosure) was tested to assess whether FMDOs' hiring-related outcomes were improved by manipulating suppressor evidence (desistance, disclosure, or no suppressor) and the offense type of the applicant (traffic offense, minor drug offense, and serious drug-related offense) in a hypothetical hiring context, for a retail sales associate position. Using a sample of 230 hiring managers in a retail setting, a significant main effect of offense type was found. No significant main effect was found for suppressor evidence on hiring recommendations. Neither offense type nor suppressor evidence was related to participants' concerns about hiring the applicants, or their proposed starting salary for applicants. Implications of these findings, alternative theoretical explanations, limitations, and future directions are discussed."]},{"key":"dc:format.medium","label":"Dc Format Medium","values":["born digital","doctoral dissertations"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Identifying and evaluating factors that enhance former offenders' hiring-related outcomes"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:creator":["Anderson, Kemol J., author","Cleveland, Jeanette, advisor","Gibbons, Alyssa, advisor","Dik, Bryan, committee member","Henle, Chris, committee member","Kraiger, Kurt, committee member"],"dc:date.accessioned":["2024-05-27T10:32:58Z"],"dc:date.available":["2024-05-27T10:32:58Z"],"dc:date.issued":["2024"],"dc:description.abstract":["Former offenders face several barriers to re-entry into society and the workplace. One such barrier includes employers' negative and unfounded attitudes of former offenders, which may lead to unfair bias in hiring. Crandall and Eshleman's (2003) justification-suppression model (JSM) posits that such prejudicial attitudes can be suppressed. Guided by the JSM theoretical framework, the current two-study project was designed to (1) identify prejudice suppression factors that might increase employers' willingness to hire former offenders – more specifically former minor drug offenders (FMDOs) and (2) test the efficacy of two suppression factors in a hypothetical hiring setting. Study 1 was an interview study of 13 employers, across several industries, on what factors made them more likely to consider hiring FMDOs. Thematic analysis results yielded 30 factors that were classified as situation-related, employer-related, and applicant-related suppression factors. The two most frequently endorsed prejudice suppression factors were: (1) evidence of the applicant's desistance & positive change, and (2) evidence of the applicant's honest disclosure of their background. In Study 2, the efficacy of these two suppression factors (desistance and disclosure) was tested to assess whether FMDOs' hiring-related outcomes were improved by manipulating suppressor evidence (desistance, disclosure, or no suppressor) and the offense type of the applicant (traffic offense, minor drug offense, and serious drug-related offense) in a hypothetical hiring context, for a retail sales associate position. Using a sample of 230 hiring managers in a retail setting, a significant main effect of offense type was found. No significant main effect was found for suppressor evidence on hiring recommendations. Neither offense type nor suppressor evidence was related to participants' concerns about hiring the applicants, or their proposed starting salary for applicants. Implications of these findings, alternative theoretical explanations, limitations, and future directions are discussed."],"dc:format.medium":["born digital","doctoral dissertations"],"dc:identifier":["Anderson_colostate_0053A_18361.pdf"],"dc:identifier.uri":["https://hdl.handle.net/10217/238532","https://doi.org/10.25675/3.02612"],"dc:language":["English"],"dc:language.iso":["eng"],"dc:publisher":["Colorado State University. Libraries"],"dc:rights":["Copyright and other restrictions may apply. User is responsible for compliance with all applicable laws. For information about copyright law, please see https://libguides.colostate.edu/copyright."],"dc:subject":["hiring outcomes","former offenders","suppression factors"],"dc:title":["Identifying and evaluating factors that enhance former offenders' hiring-related outcomes"],"dc:type":["Text"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Psychology"],"thesis:degree_level":["Doctoral"],"thesis:degree_name":["Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.)"],"thesis:institution_name":["Colorado State University"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-27T19:13:25Z"}