In general, diversity beliefs are beliefs about the instrumentality of diversity for the functioning of groups. Focusing on a societal level, recent social-psychological research addressed pro-diversity beliefs as individuals’ beliefs that diversity is beneficial for the progress of society. Despite the growing interest in societal pro-diversity beliefs, no systematically validated scale measuring pro-diversity beliefs is available to date. We addressed this shortcoming and studied the reliability and validity of the newly developed Pro-Diversity Beliefs Scale (PDBS) across four samples. Results indicate that the PDBS is reliable, adequately distinct from related and established scales, and valid in predicting external criteria such as outgroup attitudes or intergroup threat.
AdesokanA.UllrichJ.van DickR.TroppL. R. (2011). Diversity beliefs as moderator of the contact–prejudice relationships. Social Psychology, 42, 271–278. doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000058
2.
AsbrockF.KauffM. (2015). Authoritarian disbeliefs in diversity. The Journal of Social Psychology, 155, 553–558. doi:10.1080/00224545.2015.1038497
3.
AshtonM. C.LeeK. (2009). The HEXACO-60: A short measure of the major dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91, 340–345. doi:10.1080/00223890902935878
4.
BansakK.HainmuellerJ.HangartnerD. (2016). How economic, humanitarian, and religious concerns shape European attitudes toward asylum seekers. Science, 354, 217–222. doi:10.1126/science.aag2147
5.
BarnardL.StevensT.SiwatuK. O.LanW. (2008). Diversity beliefs as a mediator to faculty attitudes toward students with disabilities. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 1, 169–175. doi:10.1037/a0012707
6.
BeierleinC.AsbrockF.KauffM.SchmidtP. (2015). Die Kurzskala Autoritarismus (KSA-3). Ein ökonomisches Messinstrument zur Erfassung dreier Subdimensionen autoritärer Einstellungen (Working Papers 2014/35) [The Shortscale Authoritarianism: An economic measurement instrument for the three subdimensions of authoritarian attitudes (Working Papers 2014/35)]. Retrieved from https://www.gesis.org/fileadmin/kurzskalen/working_papers/KSA3_WorkingPapers_2014-35.pdf
7.
BerryJ. W.KalinR. (1995). Multicultural and ethnic attitudes in Canada: An overview of the 1991 National Survey. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne des Sciences du Comportement, 27, 301–320. doi:10.1037/0008-400X.27.3.301
8.
BezrukovaK.SpellC. S.PerryJ. L.JehnK. A. (2016). A meta-analytical integration of over 40 years of research on diversity training evaluation. Psychological Bulletin, 142, 1227–1274. doi:10.1037/bul0000067
9.
BrownT. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
10.
ChenF. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 464–504. doi:10.1080/10705510701301834
11.
CheungG. W.RensvoldR. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
GrütterJ.MeyerB. (2014). Intergroup friendship and children’s intentions for social exclusion in integrative classrooms: The moderating role of teachers’ diversity beliefs. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 44, 481–494. doi:10.1111/jasp.12240
15.
GuillaumeY. R. F.DawsonJ. F.Otaye-EbedeL.WoodsS. A.WestM. A. (2015). Harnessing demographic differences in organizations: What moderates the effects of workplace diversity?Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38, 276–303. doi:10.1002/job.2040
16.
HaddockG.ZannaM. P.EssesV. M. (1993). Assessing the structure of prejudicial attitudes: The case of attitudes toward homosexuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1105–1118. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.65.6.1105
17.
HauserD. J.SchwarzN. (2016). Attentive Turkers: MTurk participants perform better on online attention checks than do subject pool participants. Behavior Research Methods, 48, 400–407. doi:10.3758/s13428-015-0578-z
18.
HomanA. C.GreerL. L.JehnK. A.KoningL. (2010). Believing shapes seeing: The impact of diversity beliefs on the construal of group composition. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13, 477–493. doi:10.1177/1368430209350747
19.
HomanA. C.HollenbeckJ. R.HumphreyS. E.van KnippenbergD.IlgenD. R.van KleefG. A. (2008). Facing differences with an open mind: Openness to experience, salience of intra-group differences, and performance of diverse workgroups. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 1204–1222. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2008.35732995
20.
HomanA. C.van KnippenbergD.van KleefG. A.De DreuC. K. W. (2007). Bridging faultlines by valuing diversity: Diversity beliefs, information elaboration, and performance in diverse work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1189–1199. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1189
21.
HorwitzS. K.HorwitzI. B. (2007). The effects of team diversity on team outcomes: A meta-analytic review of team demography. Journal of Management, 33, 987–1015. doi:10.1177/0149206307308587
22.
JonesJ. M.DovidioJ. F.VietzeD. L. (2014). The psychology of diversity. Beyond prejudice and racism. Chichester, UK: Blackwell.
23.
JoshiA.RohH. (2009). The role of context in work team diversity research: A meta-analytic review. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 599–627. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2009.41331491
24.
KauffM.AsbrockF.ThörnerS.WagnerU. (2013). Side effects of multiculturalism: The interaction effect of a multicultural ideology and authoritarianism on prejudice and diversity beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 306–321. doi:10.1177/0146167212473160
25.
KauffM.IssmerC.NauJ. (2013). Pro-diversity beliefs and everyday ethnic discrimination on grounds of foreign names. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 23, 536–542. doi:10.1002/casp.2143
26.
KauffM.SchmidK.ChristO. (2017, July). When valuing diversity is not enough – Pro-diversity beliefs and non-instrumental outgroup members. Paper presented at the 18th General Meeting of the European Association of Social Psychology, Granada, Spain.
27.
KauffM.WagnerU. (2012). Valuable therefore not threatening: The influence of diversity beliefs on discrimination against immigrants. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 715–722. doi:10.1177/1948550611435942
28.
KlineR. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
29.
KrauseD.ZickA. (2013). GMF – FF. Gruppenbezogene Menschenfeindlichkeit – Kurzskala Fremdenfeindlichkeit [GMF – FF. Group-focused enmity – Shortscale xenophobia]. In KemperC. J.BrählerE.ZengerM. (Eds.), Psychologische und sozialwissenschaftliche Kurzskalen: standardisierte Erhebungsinstrumente für Wissenschaft und Praxis [Psychological and social-scientific shortscales: Standardized measurement instruments for science and practice] (pp. 115–118). Berlin, Germany: Medizinisch Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft.
30.
LolliotS.FellB.SchmidK.WölferR.SwartH.VociA.. . . HewstoneM. (2014). Measures of intergroup contact. In BoyleG.SklofskeD.MatthewsG. (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological constructs (pp. 652–683). London, UK: Elsevier.
31.
MeyerB.SchermulyC. C. (2012). When beliefs are not enough: Examining the interaction of diversity faultlines, task motivation, and diversity beliefs on team performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 21, 456–487. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2011.560383
32.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (1998–2015). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
33.
NakuiT.PaulusP. B.van der ZeeK. I. (2011). The role of attitudes in reactions toward diversity in workgroups. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 2327–2351. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00818.x
34.
NoonM. (2007). The fatal flaws of diversity and the business case for ethnic minorities. Work, Employment & Society, 21, 773–784. doi:10.1177/0950017007082886
PiontkowskiU.FlorackA.HoelkerP.ObdrzálekP. (2000). Predicting acculturation attitudes of dominant and non-dominant groups. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24, 1–26. doi:10.1016/S0147-1767(99)00020-6
37.
RosenthalL.LevyS. R. (2012). The relation between polyculturalism and intergroup attitudes among racially and ethnically diverse adults. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 18, 1–16. doi:10.1037/a0026490
38.
SawyerrO. O.StraussJ.YanJ. (2005). Individual value structure and diversity attitudes: The moderating effects of age, gender, race, and religiosity. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20, 498–521. doi:10.1108/02683940510615442
39.
SimmonsJ. P.NelsonL. D.SimonsohnU. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359–1366. doi:10.1177/0956797611417632
StegmannS.van DickR. (2013). “Diversität ist gut, oder?” Die unterschiedlichen Arten, wie sich Menschen auf Vielfalt in Gruppen einlassen, und welche Effekte diese haben [“Diversity is good, right?” The different ways in which people engage in diversity in groups and what effects these have]. Report Psychologie, 38, 153–161.
43.
StephanW. G.StephanC. W. (2000). An integrated theory of prejudice. In OskampS. (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 23–45). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
44.
StürmerS.BenbowA. E. F.SiemB.BarthM.BodanskyA. N.Lotz-SchmittK. (2013). Psychological foundations of xenophilia: The role of major personality traits in predicting favorable attitudes towards cross-cultural contact and exploration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 832–851. doi:10.1037/a0033488
45.
TalaskaC. A.FiskeS. T.ChaikenS. (2008). Legitimating racial discrimination: Emotions, not beliefs, best predict discrimination in a meta-analysis. Social Justice Research, 21, 263–396. doi:10.1007/s11211-008-0071-2
46.
UnruhL. E.McCordD. M. (2010). Personality traits and beliefs about diversity in pre-service teachers. Individual Differences Research, 8, 1–7.
47.
Van DijkH.van EngenM.PaauweJ. (2012). Reframing the business case for diversity: A values and virtues perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 111, 73–84. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1434-z
48.
Van DijkH.van EngenM. L.van KnippenbergD. (2012). Defying conventional wisdom: A meta-analytical examination of the differences between demographic and job-related diversity relationships with performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 119, 38–53. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.06.003
49.
Van DickR.van KnippenbergD.HägeleS.GuillaumeY. R. F.BrodbeckF. C. (2008). Group diversity and group identification: The moderating role of diversity beliefs. Human Relations, 61, 1463–1492. doi:10.1177/0018726708095711
50.
Van KnippenbergD.De DreuC. K. W.HomanA. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1008–1022. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1008
51.
Van KnippenbergD.HaslamS. A. (2003). Realizing the diversity dividend – Exploring the subtle interplay between identity, ideology, and reality. In HaslamS. A.van KnippenbergD.PlatowM. J.EllemersN. (Eds.), Social identity at work – Developing theory for organizational practice (pp. 61–80). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
52.
Van KnippenbergD.HaslamS. A.PlatowM. J. (2007). Unity through diversity: Value-in-diversity beliefs, work group diversity, and group identification. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 11, 207–222. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.11.3.207
53.
VerkuytenM. (2005). Ethnic group identification and group evaluation among minority and majority groups: Testing the multiculturalism hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 121–138. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.1.121
54.
WolfC. (2016). Einflussfaktoren auf das Zustandekommen von Intergruppenkontakt: Wenn anders nicht schlechter bedeutet [Antecedents of intergroup contact – When different does not mean worse]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer.
55.
WolfC.van DickR. (2008). Wenn anders nicht schlechter bedeutet – Wertschätzung von Vielfalt fördert Gleichwertigkeit der Gruppen [When different does not mean worse – Valuing diversity as a key to group equality]. In HeitmeyerW. (Ed.), Deutsche Zustände [German affairs] (pp. 137–153). Frankfurt, Germany: Suhrkamp.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
