Despite the widespread assumption that prodiversity values make companies more attractive workplaces for underrepresented groups, few experiments have tested this assumption. Two experiments investigated the impact of prodiversity messages in organizational recruitment materials for racial/ethnic minorities. In Study 1 (N = 399), racial/ethnic minority MTurk workers imagined applying for a position at a prodiversity (vs. neutral) company, then imagined receiving acceptance or rejection feedback. In Study 2 (N = 179), Latino men engaged in a realistic hiring simulation while cardiovascular and behavioral responses were recorded. They then received acceptance or rejection feedback. Both experiments found that the presence (vs. absence) of prodiversity messages had no significant effect on anticipated belonging, anticipated fairness, or concerns about discrimination at the company. Study 2 also found that the presence (vs. absence) of prodiversity messages had no effect on interview performance or on cardiovascular responses during the interview. Moreover, following feedback, the presence (vs. absence) of prodiversity messages led participants to attribute their feedback more to illegitimate factors, and to rate themselves as less competent/deserving. Implications for organizations and minority job candidates are discussed.
ApfelbaumE. P.StephensN. M.ReagansR. E. (2016). Beyond one-size-fits-all: Tailoring diversity approaches to the representation of social groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111, 547–566. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000071
BerreyE. (2015). The enigma of diversity: The language of race and the limits of racial justice. University of Chicago Press.
4.
BlascovichJ. (2008). Challenge, threat, and health. In ShahJ. Y.GardnerW. L. (Eds.), Handbook of motivation science (pp. 481–493). Guilford Press.
5.
BlascovichJ.MendesW. B. (2010). Social psychophysiology and embodiment. In FiskeS. T.GilbertD. T.LindzeyG. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., pp. 194–227). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470561119.socpsy001006
6.
ChaneyK. E.SanchezD. T.RemediosJ. D. (2016). Organizational identity safety cue transfers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42, 1564–1576. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216665096
7.
CrockerJ.MajorB. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96, 608–630. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.96.4.608
8.
CrockerJ.VoelklK.TestaM.MajorB. (1991). Social stigma: The affective consequences of attributional ambiguity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 218–228. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.2.218
9.
CundiffJ. L.RyukS.CechK. (2018). Identity-safe or threatening? Perceptions of women-targeted diversity initiatives. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21, 745–766. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430217740434
10.
DerricksV.EarlA. (2019). Information targeting increases the weight of stigma: Leveraging relevance backfires when people feel judged. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 82, 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.12.003
DobbinF.SchrageD.KalevA. (2015). Rage against the iron cage: The varied effects of bureaucratic personnel reforms on diversity. American Sociological Review, 80, 1014–1044. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122415596416
13.
DoverT. L.KaiserC. R.MajorB. (2020). Mixed signals: The unintended effects of diversity initiatives. Social Issues and Policy Review, 14, 152–181. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12059
14.
DoverT. L.MajorB.KaiserC. R. (2014). Diversity initiatives, status, and system-justifying beliefs: When and how diversity efforts de-legitimize discrimination claims. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 17, 485–493. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430213502560
15.
DoverT. L.MajorB.KaiserC. R. (2016). Members of high-status groups are threatened by pro-diversity organizational messages. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 62, 58–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.006
16.
EdelmanB. L.KriegerH. L.EliasonR. S.AlbistonR. C.MellemaV. (2011). When organizations rule: Judicial deference to institutionalized employment structures. American Journal of Sociology, 117, 888–954. https://doi.org/10.1086/661984
17.
Espino-PérezK.MajorB.MaltaB. (2017). Was it race or merit? The cognitive costs of observing the attributionally ambiguous hiring of a racial minority. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000153
18.
HeilmanM. E.BlockC. J.LucasJ. A. (1992). Presumed incompetent? Stigmatization and affirmative action efforts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 536–544. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.77.4.536
19.
HeilmanM. E.BlockC. J.StathatosP. (1997). The affirmative action stigma of incompetence: Effects of performance information ambiguity. The Academy of Management Journal, 40, 603–625. https://doi.org/10.2307/257055
20.
KaiserC. R.BradyL. M.DoverT. L.XiaG.MajorB. (2020). Organizational diversity initiatives and Whites’ sensitivity to anti-White bias. Manuscript in preparation.
21.
KaiserC. R.MajorB.JurcevicI.DoverT. L.BradyL. M.ShapiroJ. R. (2013). Presumed fair: Ironic effects of organizational diversity structures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 504–519. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030838
22.
KalevA.DobbinF.KellyE. (2006). Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. American Sociological Review, 71, 589–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240607100404
LeslieL. M. (2019). Diversity initiative effectiveness: A typological theory of unintended consequences. Academy of Management Review, 44, 538–563. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2017.0087
25.
LuhtanenR.CrockerJ. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of one’s social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 302–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167292183006
MajorB.KunstmanJ. W.MaltaB. D.SawyerP. J.TownsendS. S.MendesW. B. (2016). Suspicion of motives predicts minorities’ responses to positive feedback in interracial interactions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 62, 75–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.007
28.
MajorB.SawyerP. J.KunstmanJ. W. (2013). Minority perceptions of Whites’ motives for responding without prejudice: The Perceived Internal and External Motivation to Avoid Prejudice Scales. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 401–414. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213475367
29.
MarquesJ. F. (2010). Colorful window dressing: A critical review on workplace diversity in three major American corporations. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 21, 435–446. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.20045
30.
MendesW. B.MajorB.McCoyS.BlascovichJ. (2008). How attributional ambiguity shapes physiological and emotional responses to social rejection and acceptance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 278–291. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.278
31.
Mendoza-DentonR.DowneyG.PurdieV. J.DavisA.PietrzakJ. (2002). Sensitivity to status-based rejection: Implications for African American students’ college experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 896–918. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.83.4.896
32.
MurphyM. C.SteeleC. M.GrossJ. J. (2007). Signaling threat: How situational cues affect women in math, science, and engineering settings. Psychological Science, 18, 879–885. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01995.x
33.
O’BrienL. T.MajorB. (2005). System-justifying beliefs and psychological well-being: The roles of group status and identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1718–1729. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205278261
34.
Purdie-VaughnsV.SteeleC. M.DaviesP. G.DitlmannR.CrosbyJ. R. (2008). Social identity contingencies: How diversity cues signal threat or safety for African Americans in mainstream institutions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 615–630. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.615
35.
SchmaderT.JohnsM.ForbesC. (2008). An integrated process model of stereotype threat effects on performance. Psychological Review, 115, 336–356. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.336
36.
UnzuetaM. M.GutiérrezA. S.GhavamiN. (2010). How believing in affirmative action quotas affects White women’s self-image. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 120–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.08.017
37.
UnzuetaM. M.KnowlesE. D.HoG. C. (2012). Diversity is what you want it to be: How social-dominance motives affect construals of diversity. Psychological Science, 23, 303–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611426727
38.
UnzuetaM. M.LoweryB. S.KnowlesE. D. (2008). How believing in affirmative action quotas protects White men’s self-esteem. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 105, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.05.001
39.
WiltonL. S.BellA. N.VahradyanM.KaiserC. R. (2020). Show don’t tell: Diversity dishonesty harms racial/ethnic minorities at work. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167219897149
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.
