Study Guide with article summaries for Culture and Diversity at Work at Leiden University - 2022/2023

Study Guide with article summaries for Culture and Diversity at Work at Leiden University - 2022/2023

Image

Check summaries and supporting content in full:
Article summary of The impact of hierarchical structures on the work behavior of women and men by Kanter - 1976 - Chapter

Article summary of The impact of hierarchical structures on the work behavior of women and men by Kanter - 1976 - Chapter

Preface

Structural conditions, certainly those that stem from the natural hierarchy, constitute gender differences in the workplace and in organizations. Findings about the behavior of women in organizations can be explained by a number of structural variables that also cause the behavior of and against men in comparable situations.

Three structural variables form the behavior of men and women in organizations:

  1. The opportunity structure.
  2. The power structure.
  3. The ratio of the sexes.

The structural position can be responsible for what appear to be gender differences and may even explain the variation in the behavior of men and women.

Work orientations, aspirations and location in the opportunity structure

Women tend to be less involved in their work than men. They interrupt their work when they can and they are more interested in relationships with other people than the duties and remuneration aspects at work.

These findings can be explained by opportunity structure. People find themselves, whether they are men or women, in a mobility situation. People with a low mobility situation or blocked mobility situation tend to limit their aspirations, seek pleasure and satisfaction in other things and create a social peer group that they are more concerned with than their work. When women, but also men, experience a low mobility situation, they tend to exhibit these characteristics. Because women are more often in such a low mobility situation (they are stuck in their position, they cannot get promoted and they experience few opportunities), it seems that this is due to gender differences.

Opportunity and limited aspirations

Research by Hornall (1974) showed that men have a greater motivation to be promoted than women, and they felt more excited about the possible consequences of promotion. Men found themselves more suitable and able to learn and do basic management skills than women. Men also received more encouragement from leaders to work their way up. Newer employees also showed more motivation than older employees, just like the higher educated. This shows that other characteristics and not (only) gender differences influence the opportunities and motivation.

There is evidence that jobs occupied by female employees have fewer opportunities, and the opportunities that exist have less to do with getting a higher function.

The lower work involvement and aspirations of women can be seen as a response to the employees and managers who place the employees in the opportunity structure. Those who are placed in a disadvantaged position have fewer aspirations and motivation and are therefore less suitable for promotion. So it's a vicious circle. A social structure effect is often understood as a gender difference.

'Peer' group relationships

Along with more limited aspirations, women - more than men - consider interpersonal relationships at work more important. Women are often more involved with other people than with the intrinsic nature of a task. Motivational factors (factors that highlight the aspects of motivation and performance and the consequences) are distinguished from hygiene factors (the prevention of dissatisfaction in a job).

For women, peer relationships were a motivational factor, which motivated them more, while for men relationships were only a hygiene factor. For men, relationships in the workplace are a lot less important.

Research shows that more women than men find it important that their colleagues are friendly and helpful. Women called 'colleagues are friendly' in the first place. In second place was 'the job is interesting' and in third place came 'the direct boss is friendly'. For men, the list was almost the other way around. In the first place came 'the job is interesting'. In the second place came 'colleagues are friendly' and in third place came 'the direct boss is friendly'.

Playing strategy games was different for women than for men. Women had a more accommodative strategy that included instead of excluding people. Their strategy was also more focused on others than on winning. The strategies of men were more investigative and success-oriented.

  • High mobility situations cause rivalry, instability in the composition of work groups, comparisons with the organization 's upper class and dealing with intrinsic aspects of a job.
  • Low mobility situations ensure stable groups, friendships and more involvement with extrinsic aspects. When people have good chances, they compare themselves with the higher levels within an organization, where the current peer group is already traded in. Merton (1968) calls this expectation socialization. Unfavorable or no opportunities ensures peer group loyalty.

When members of a non-mobility organization are not interested in instrumental relationships, fixed groups arise, which are closed. As a member a closed group, there is more pressure to remain loyal to this group, a promotion can therefore be seen as an unfaithful act.

Leadership attitudes, behavior and power structure

Bartol (1974) thought that the gender of the leader itself had no influence on the satisfaction of the follower, even when a female leader was described as very dominant, a characteristic that many employees often find unpleasant. Attempts to prove that women as leaders were evaluated differently from men showed very few results. On the other hand, there is evidence that people in many different cultures see men as better leaders.

Structural explanations probably explain that men prefer to be seen as a leader rather than women, and that people find it unpleasant to see women in an authoritarian and dominant position. Both of these phenomena are understandable given the current distribution of women and men in the power structure of organizations.

The nature of the power structure of organizations as a total system can explain the following:

  • Which leaders are preferred and are considered effective by their followers.
  • Which leaders use overly interfering leadership styles.

Leadership effectiveness and dominant position

The influence that a leader has outside the working group and higher up in the organization is an important variable. This is often associated with good relationships. The combination of good relations with power is associated with a high moral. Relationship skills and low power (a possible combination for female leaders) sometimes have negative effects on morality. High external power adds power to the power base outside the authority in the current workplace. People are more likely to inhibit aggressive and negative behavior against a demanding person of high status than against a person with a low status. People with a high external status are more likely to be liked and talk more.

Organizational power comes with various structural factors:

  • Lots of contact and good relationships with other people with power within the system.
  • A good location within the opportunity structure and good mobility prospects.

The first has influence because of the relationships and interactions present, the second has influence because of future power.

Power, powerlessness and leadership style

Leaders with good mobility are more inclined to satisfy their followers than leaders who are stuck and therefore have poor mobility.

Departments led by men are often seen as higher in "spirit and intimacy" (a good predictor of morality) and divisions led by women are often seen as hindered.

Leaders who can be promoted often have a leadership style in which they share information, train people and allow autonomy. Leaders who cannot be promoted try to keep control and give their followers little autonomy. These leaders are therefore less loved.

Access: 
Public
Article summary of Recognizing the benefits of diversity: When and how does diversity increase group performance? by Roberge & van Dick - 2010 - Chapter

Article summary of Recognizing the benefits of diversity: When and how does diversity increase group performance? by Roberge & van Dick - 2010 - Chapter

Introduction

As the diversity among personnel has increased considerably, implementers indicate that it is important to have a diverse workforce. This contributes to competitive advantages by increasing creativity and innovation. Yet there is little scientific research that supports this. There are more studies that find the opposite. That diversity leads to negative consequences, such as more conflicts or a decrease in group cohesion.

This study will first provide an overview of the studies that have been conducted into diversity and performance. The authors attempt to bring together this inconsistency of results from previous research by presenting a conceptual multi-level model. This model wants to answer the following question: “when and how does diversity lead to positive, rather than negative, outcomes of group performance?”. In general, the authors think that there are moderators for the relationship between diversity and the multi-level model. And that the multi-level model has a mediating role in the relationship between diversity and group performance.

The model is different from previous studies because it emphasizes social psychological constructs and uses the social identity theory to answer the "when and how" questions, rather than focusing on pure cognitive constructs, such as reducing stereotypes. The model identifies psychological mechanisms at the individual and group level of the analysis. These are indicated as concept of mediators between the relationship of group composition and group performance. This allows them to explain how diversity leads to more positive outcomes.

What does it mean to be a diverse working group?

There are several definitions for diversity. The most common definition of diversity is the perceptible difference between individuals for characteristics that they can see different from each other. Examples of this assumption are given as; different characters, personality traits, personal values ​​and norms, but also other types of belief, sexual preference or mental/physical health. This first definition refers to the difference between individuals.

A different definition focuses on the group. Diversity is a mix of people with different group identities in the same social system. This definition is therefore more based on the group identity. This research focuses on the second definition.

Various groups consist of individuals who identify themselves with different subgroups. There are different ways in which people can differ from each other. Surface-level diversity are differences between group members based on biological traits and that can be seen physically. Such as age, gender, race/ethnicity. Deep-level diversity are differences between group members that are not immediately visible. Like personalities, attitudes, norms and values. However, the authors say that the separation between these two levels is not as clear as it seems and that it is very dependent on the context under which level something must be placed.

Does diversity lead to improved performance?

Research shows that a diverse group leads to an improvement in decision-making capacity through the increase in creativity and innovation. Because people with different backgrounds think differently and therefore have multiple perspectives to come to a solution. Nevertheless, studies with hard evidence for this statement are hard to find.

There are also studies that indicate that groups with differences are less attracted to their group mates, have less confidence, communicate less and feel less united, compared to groups with the same people. This therefore leads to more conflicts and misunderstandings within the group with differences.

To explain these differences, studies have been using the social identity theory and the self-categorization theory. This showed that people who are different from each other are less willing to work together than people without differences, because they do not place themselves in the same social category (in-group) and therefore they do not share the same social identity.

Social categorization has been used to investigate the negative outcomes of group performance. Social categorization involves the following; people tend to have a preference for their own group (in-group) and to dislike other groups (out-group). This could therefore counteract the cooperation in groups with differences. Yet there are also researchers who think that it is not the social categorization itself, but the prejudices of the in-group. Because of this people from a lower group would like to work together with someone from a higher group, although this is an out-group. This could explain the difference in outcomes of the studies into diversity in groups.

When does diversity lead to improved group performance?

It is important to be clear when diversity improves group performance to promote the potential benefits of a diverse workplace. Various studies have been conducted into moderators that ensure that various groups perform better. In general, it emerged that the positive effects of diversity and group contact are determined by four circumstances; equal group status within a situation, the same goals, cooperation and support of the authorities, and the law.

Research in the field of organizational behavior shows that improving group performance is influenced by; task independence, task difficulty, organization structure, collective vs. individual values, the climate of the organization and openness to diversity.

There have also been recent studies into individual differences in attitudes towards group diversity. People who are open to new experiences have a better group performance than a group that consisted of people with superior identities.

How does diversity improve group performance?

Research into team reflexivity revealed that reflexivity mediates the relationship between the interaction effect on demographic diversity and the dependence on the team outcome (if the interaction effect on demographic diversity and lifetime of satisfaction with the measures, dedication and performance of the group).

Research suggests that diversity leads to more conflicts within a group, which can have advantages or disadvantages, depending on the type of conflict. Different types of conflicts are: task conflicts, social-emotional conflicts and values ​​conflicts. It appears that more task conflicts arise with functional/informational diversity. Social-emotional conflicts are predominant in groups with demographic differences. In the case of cultural differences within a group, value conflicts are more often present. These conflicts can lead to a positive outcome, because people put forward their ideas and opinions, the team comes to a nuanced solution.

Other mechanisms also positively influence the relationship between diversity and group performance. Such as the learning behavior of the team and the confirmation of identity. Only a really clear answer to the question “how does diversity improve group performance?” stays off. With the following model, the authors try to provide an answer to this.

The conceptual model and its development

Each part of the model is explained in a separate piece. The model can be used to understand the effects of diversity. The model uses social psychological mechanisms from previous research to explain a multi-level process of learning each other's identity within a group.

Outcome variable: group performance

The most important variable in this model is the outcome variable: group performance. This concept can be applied to the performance of an entire organization or to smaller groups. Work performance is defined as the total expected value for an organization, through the behavior of an individual, within a standard time period. This definition is aimed at the individual and therefore includes the contribution of each individual member of a group. These individual performances together is the performance of the group.

Another study explained work performance by in-role behavior (IRB) and extra-role behavior (ERB). IRB contains of the behavior that ensures that the tasks are performed. ERB refers to contextual behavior that contributes to the overall effectiveness of the group through the effect on psychological and social characteristics of work. The proposed model involves both IRB and ERB.

Multi-level mechanisms; explain how diversity improves group performance

According to some researchers, explaining this process goes through the learning process. This is very difficult because a learning process consists of several underlying, independent mechanisms. However, some researchers have tried this and described it as activities in which team members try to gain, share, improve or combine task relevant knowledge by interacting with each other. This behavior is specifically aimed at performing their duties, not at getting to know each other better.

In this paper they go beyond what has already been investigated. The learning behavior of a team is seen as knowledge of each other's identities and obtaining the necessary knowledge that is necessary for a heterogeneous group to function effectively. Learning each other's identities is accompanied by a number of psychological mechanisms: embed the identities of the others in your own identity, respect the correspondence of someone's personal and social identity and respect each other's identity.

Two levels are needed to analyze this, at individual level and at group level. On an individual level, empathy and self-disclosure are considered. At group level, the greatest focus is on communication, involvement with the group and trust in the group. This study does not want to say that all of these variables must be present to a certain extent to ensure that diversity improves group performance. The activation of a variable can be enough to improve performance.

Empathy

Empathy is seen as an individual process in which people identify with others and show understanding for someone's situation, feelings and motives. This can be very important to learn things from each other, to incorporate each other's identities and as a result there can be more understanding, tolerance and cooperation with each other. Empathy ensures that people are more willing to help each other, which can contribute to the creation of a team (self-other merger). This can occur in the following situations: if someone else's prosperity promotes your own prosperity, if you and the other are connected by parable, and if you and the other share the same relationship in a social category or group.

According to the social identity theory and the self-categorization theory, people in a different groups are more likely to separate themselves from the whole and therefore there is less empathy. Yet people must be able to have empathy for people who differ from themselves according to the theory of empathy. Empathy is present in every person, regardless of the relationship with others.

Some studies show that empathy is important for the proper functioning of groups with diversity. It causes the stereotypes to decrease, because there is more understanding for the other and improves the representation of someone. This leads to social behavior.

Empathy will mediate in the relationship between diversity and group performance.

Self-disclosure

Advantages can arise if people are willing to give themselves up by sharing information about themselves with others. If this occurs within a group with many differences, the part-level diversity changes to surface-level diversity. Because the atmosphere is very open, this improves the functioning of the individual.

By exposing someone's identity, group members understand each other better, which in turn ensures better performance. That is why self-disclosure is an important psychological mechanism that better develops interpersonal relationships. Which is especially important for groups with diversity, because there is already a standard sense of distrust.

Self-disclosure mediates in the relationship between diversity and group performance.

Communication

Studies show that much communication in a heterogeneous group can lead to conflicts. Avoiding different opinions and having open communication leads to fewer conflicts, but it does reduce the performance of employees.

It is suggested not to look at the amount of conflicts, but to analyze the reason for the conflicts and how they are resolved. To investigate this, research does not look at the frequency of communication, but at reflexibility. This shows that it is not bad to have conflicts, but how they are handled and how the group generally communicates.

The quality of communication within a group mediates in the relationship between diversity and group performance.

Commitment to the group

Commitment to the group is the extent to which an individual is involved in the execution of tasks, such as the exchange of information, joint decisions and the extent to which he feels respected. Commitment to the group is seen as the perception of inclusion and exclusion with regard to employee interaction or involvement within work teams. Research shows that visible differences within a team cause a negative relationship with involvement within the group.

Commitment to the group mediates in the relationship between diversity and group performance.

Group confidence

Research shows that people who belong to different social categories or people who see themselves differently from others feel much more anxious compared to people who don't. This can cause them to think paranoid, which makes them unreliable for others. Distrust spreads within the group, leading to "collective paranoia". This means that diversity leads to a poorer group performance.

Trust mediates in the relationship between diversity and group performance.

Explanation of when diversity improves group performance

The model focuses on two psychological conditions, for which not much research has been done before. Yet these conditions, which activate the psychological mechanisms, are essential to explain when diversity can lead to better group performance. The two conditions are: the importance of a collective identity and a safe psychological climate. They are both seen group level variables that interact with each other. In general, this model suggests that the importance of a collective identity and a safe psychological climate is the relationship between diversity and the multi-level psychological mechanisms. And that these mechanisms mediate the relationship between diversity and group performance.

The importance of a collective identity

It is important to reduce the importance of in-group - out-group within a group. Research has shown that this has negative consequences for diversity in the group. Groups must ensure that they place both themselves and others in the same category, which in turn has positive consequences for diversity in a group. Organizations that focus more on the development of groups, rather than individuals, will therefore experience more benefits with diversity within a group. The importance of a collective identity moderates the relationship between diversity and group performance.

Someone with a personal identity asks the question: “who am I as a unique individual?” while someone with a collective identity wonders himself: “who are we as a group?”. The difference between a social identity and a collective identity is in the focus on the group. A social identity is focused on itself within a social group, a collective identity is only focused on group-level variables. The social identity theory and the self-categorization theory also indicate that the negative effects of diversity within a group are reduced if there is a collective identity within that group.

The effects of group composition on psychological processes (at individual and group level) are moderated by the importance of a collective identity.

A safe psychological climate

According to the social identity theory and the self-categorization theory, different people are more willing to cooperate if the team identification is high than when it is low. Only if the group identification becomes too strong do people with a different opinion want to stay in line with the rest of the group and therefore tend not to give their opinion.

Therefore, group identification cannot indicate positive or negative effects of diversity. Because a certain degree of identification is important, a safe psychological climate cannot be missing. A safe psychological climate is defined as shared beliefs among the members of a group, as a result of mutual respect and trust. Some researchers say that pro-diversity beliefs are also essential for a safe climate. This means that different perspectives in a group are expected to be an advantage for solving a task. Research also shows that when employees consider their environment as safe enough for interpersonal risks, they are more likely to show who they are. Which leads to positive psychological processes, such as empathy, communication and trust. These processes are necessary elements for diversity to improve group performance.

It is also important to say that the interaction between the importance of a collective identity and a safe psychological climate (to a lesser extent) can also be found in homogeneous groups. A three-way interaction effect could therefore be found in an organization between group composition, group identification and a safe psychological climate. Research still needs to be done.

The effects of group composition on psychological processes (individual and group level) are moderated by a safe psychological climate.

Discussion and conclusion

The suggested model contributes to the understanding of the effects of diversity on group performance. It is different from other attempts to understand the effects of diversity because social psychological constructs and identity perspectives are included. The "when" and "how" questions for managers can be answered, instead of other studies that focus on cognitive constructs. The importance of a collective identity and a safe psychological climate are included in the model to determine the conditions under which diversity improves group performance. The model thus provides a comprehensive explanation of how diversity leads to group performance by looking at mechanisms at the individual and group level that underlie the learning of each other's identity within a group.

Until now, research has only looked at the conditions needed to create a diverse workplace and the underlying psychological mechanisms that explain how diversity can lead to better group performance. Most of the studies focused on describing a good climate for diversity, developing a mindset about diversity, and then studying it or testing the direct effects of diversity. The model from this study brings a new psychological perspective and shows the process how people can learn from each other's identity within a group. The model tests the influence of diversity on performance through a behavioral perspective, by seeing group performance as a meeting of the behavior of all group members.

In summary, the authors believe that this model contributes to explaining and predicting good results through diversity and provides a constructive framework for further research. This further research is theoretical, but is necessary for practical knowledge. So that the model or parts of it can be tested. It is important to state that the model should apply to all possible aspects of diversity, but it is also possible that some aspects are more important than others at certain stages of group work. This is interesting for theoretical and empirical testing with longitudinal research.

Access: 
Public
Article summary of Stereotypes and prejudice create workplace discrimination by Fiske & Lee - 2008 - Chapter

Article summary of Stereotypes and prejudice create workplace discrimination by Fiske & Lee - 2008 - Chapter

Introduction

Discrimination at the workplace can occur in two ways. The first reflects negative affect, which can be blatant or subtle. The second type refers to gender stereotypes that limit women through descriptive and prescriptive stereotypes. Descriptive stereotypes are for stereotypes that declare women unfit for certain roles. Prescriptive stereotypes punish women who violate the descriptive stereotypes.

Background on intergroup perception

Stereotypes refer to the categorical association of traits, behaviors and roles that perceivers make to group members based on their group membership. Discrimination refers to behaviors that advantage one group over another. Prejudice refers to the affect as the result of intergroup perception.  These three intergroup-related phenomena interlock: the effects of stereotyping increase with prejudice, which means that prejudiced perceivers are much more likely to discriminate against negatively stereotyped groups.

How do stereotypes form?

The above mentioned intergroup phenomena are the result of categorization processes. According to the social identity theory, people conceptualize the self at different levels of abstraction that range from subordinate to superordinate, and within which the corresponding identity (personal, social or collective) is salient and is dictated by context. Thus, the person views the self as a member of an ingroup that is distinctive and more positive than outgroups. Self-categorization theory suggests that depersonalization creates group phenomena, including stereotyping and prejudice. There are two principles of self-categorization theory which guide intergroup perception: comparative fit (meta-contrast ratio) and the normative fit. The comparative fit refers to the ratio of the perceived average difference between target group members and outgroup members over the average difference among target group members. The smaller the ratio, the more the target group embodies a coherent unit. So, categorized groups minimize within-group differences and maximize between-group differences. Normative fit refers to that these differences (within and between), match up to the perceiver's beliefs about the group in that context, so that the group fits expectations or socially shared meanings of those groups. Stereotypes come into existence because of an interplay between comparative and normative fit. Comparative fit affects the degree of group differentiation, while normative fit affects the content of a group's meaning.

There are three quadrants in stereotypes: ambivalent (cross-dimensional) stereotypes ("elderly people are nice, but incompetent"); stereotypically neither warm nor competent (poor people); and stereotypically both warm and competent (middle class people). Especially groups whose members are part of the least representative of the 'default or normal', receive the most stereotypes. 

It is argued that because of the speed of categorizing people in dimensions such as age, gender, race and ethnicity makes that stereotypes are most common in these dimensions. 

Where does intergroup prejudice originate?

According to scholars, group threats are a primary source of intergroup prejudice. When there is negative interdependence, this means that the perceiver sees outgroups as inhibiting one's own goals. This leads to anxiety and negative emotions, which can lead to prejudice toward the outgroup. Also, groups of people are perceived to be more competitive than individuals and especially as they increase in homogeneity and power. 

Stereotypes are convenient at times

Stereotypes can serve social and cognitive functions. The following models explain how people use stereotypes sometimes but not at other times.

Person perception models

Fiske and Neuberg's Continuum Model (CM) describe impression-formation processes. According to them, impression-formation compose a continuum ranging from category-based perception to attribute-based perception. It includes several steps, such as automatic categorization, category reconfirmation, and transformation of the initial category into just another attribute. These processes are mediated by the configuration of available information and motivational circumstances. 

Brewer (1999) suggests a Dual Process Model of Impression Formation. He identifies two routes to impression formation: controlled processing and automatic processing. Controlled processing refers to bottom-up processing and include a holistic and integrated understanding of the target person. It is volitional, effortful and goal-directed. Automatic processing is considered to be the default mode, in which existing knowledge is immediately activated and the target is represented as a conceptual whole and in terms of associations. 

Both of the mentioned models emphasize two processing modes: stereotype-based and attribute-based. Stereotype-based processing refers to making quick decisions through categorical information. Attribute-based processing refers to the effortful use of individuating information. In the Continuum Model, attention and motivation dictate which route a perceiver follows. It seems that people their motivation can and sometimes do override initial stereotype-based processing, as long as they have enough cognitive resources.

Stereotype utility

It is mentioned that stereotypes can have benefits, because they save mental effort. It seems that people rely more on stereotypes when they are under high cognitive load. 

Another reason for stereotyping may be to maintain the status quo. This refers to that people are motivated to perceive the world as fair and legitimate. Stereotypes serve this purpose, because they justify the current state ("my group deserves to be rich because we work hard; poor people are too lazy to succeed"). 

What is remarkable, is that people may go along with others' expectations of them, even when they are not accurate. This is termed 'self-fulfilling prophecy'. This especially holds with power differentials in the workplace.

When we meet a person for the first time and we thus do not have enough information to know whether that person is a good or bad person, we use stereotypes to decide whether to approach or to avoid the other person. 

Problems with stereotyping and prejudice

Accuracy

Judd and Park (1993) identified three types of inaccuracies: stereotypic inaccuracy, valence inaccuracy, and dispersion inaccuracy. Stereotypic inaccuracy refers to the overestimation of the target group's stereotypicality or underestimation of its stereotype-inconsistent qualities. Valence inaccuracy refers to exaggeration of the negativity of positivity of the group's stereotypes. Dispersion inaccuracy refers to the over or under-generalizations of variability between group members.

Processing biases

People have the tendency to confirm their stereotypes. Thus, they detect stereotype-consistent information more easily compared to stereotype-inconsistent information. There are two specific mechanisms for how people do this: they ignore subgroups and they create subtypes. Subgroups are clusters of people that differ from the overall stereotype. If people ignore subgroups, then they maintain their stereotypes. Subtyping happens when the perceiver isolates a few people who are stereotype-inconsistent. They conclude that they belong to the stereotype group, but are just a bit different.

People also have memory biases, both recall and recognition, which favor stereotype-consistent information over stereotype-inconsistent information. This is especially true when people are in complex environments. People also remember their ingroups better than their outgroups, and they show biases in their use of situational or dispositional explanations for ingroup and outgroup behaviors. An example of the latter is that when they experience ingroup failures, they attribute this to the situation rather than to the group ("because of the weather, we did not perform well"). However, when they experience success, they attribute this to group characteristics and not to the situation ("we won, because we are very smart). They do the exact opposite for outgroups.

What should be noted however is that discrimination against outgroups often happens through ingroup favoritism, rather than through outgroup derogation.

Racial stereotypes, prejudices and discrimination

Ambivalent racism is defined as white Americans' anti-black sentiments coexisting with sympathy for blacks. So, one the one hand, a white person might think of a black person as lazy and incompetent, but at the same time he or she might perceive them as to be disadvantaged in society and thus feel sympathy. These ambivalent attitudes are from two conflicting American values. Americans do endorse democratic ideals such as equality. This results in sympathy for societally disadvantaged groups. However, they also strive for independence, hard work and achievement. So, whoever fails in life is thought to not have worked hard enough or did not have the traits to "make it". So, ambivalent racism is the consequence of internally conflicting views.

Aversive racism, a related concept, refers to an intrapsychic conflict between interracial antipathy and concerns for egalitarian principles. They find the idea of themselves being racist, averse. The theory of aversive racism predicts that discrimination is most likely to occur when normative structure is weak. So, when there are vague guidelines for appropriate behavior, discrimination is most likely to occur for aversive racists.

Contemporary racism is the general term for symbolic and modern racism.

Gender stereotypes, prejudice and discrimination

Studies have shown that women employees are often not given enough credit for their successes. To overcome discrimination, they have to show abnormally high performance. Also, female employees' evaluations are less positive than male employees'.

Prescriptive stereotypes discriminate against women through disparate treatment. This means that they are punished when they violate expectations of how women should behave. For example, when women self-promote during interviews, they may succeed in establishing perceived competence, but they will probably be less liked and therefore less often hired. 

Managing diversity

There are two main sociocultural models of diversity: the awareness and inclusion of differences, and color-blindness models. The first refers to that differences between people are real, substantial and should be acknowledged and valued. The latter refers to that differences between people are merely superficial and that they are irrelevant to how people should treat each other. Thus, differences should be ignored.

Color-blindness

It seems that the color-blind policy is not realistic. No organization would probably hire someone without an interview. Also, the color-blind perspective lacks wide support and people are often unaware of their automatic categorization of others.

What to do?

To combat stereotyping and prejudice, we could use the two routes to perception: automatic and controlled. It seems that making people more motivated and informed, leads to more complex assessments. Organizations should also acknowledge the role of power. Powerful people are more vulnerable to stereotypes, because they often experience a high cognitive load. An organization could also create interdependence. An interdependent relationship leads to that the perceiver pays more attention to the target, because outcomes depend on that person.

Access: 
Public
Article summary with Advantaged group members’ reaction to tokenism by Richard & Wright - 2010 - Exclusive
Article summary of Fail or flourish? Cognitive appraisal moderates the effect of solo status on performance by White - 2008 - Chapter

Article summary of Fail or flourish? Cognitive appraisal moderates the effect of solo status on performance by White - 2008 - Chapter

If everyone in a certain group has the same social identity (for example, everyone is a man) and one person is not (a person is a woman), then this person has a solo status. This makes this solo person more visible in the group, because she stands out more. Moreover, it causes more pressure on performance, which can manifest itself in stress. The personal response to stress can be predicted by cognitive values ​​(or valuation, for example, fight or flight). In this article, two experiments are discussed that look at whether cognitive values ​​moderate the effect of a solo status on performance.

  • Experiment 1 found that high appraisal values ​​cause solo status to increase performance and low values ​​to decrease performance.
  • Experiment 2 found this effect based on minimal group tasks.

In short, for people who feel challenged and not threatened, a solo status can contribute to a better performance.

Preface

Sometimes a solo status ensures better performance, sometimes worse. This was investigated various studies. One or more moderators must explain this difference. Group moderators are already known: group status and group stereotypes. However, the moderators are not yet known at the individual level. People with a solo status stand out, have higher performance pressure and social isolation and feel that others will stereotype them. On an individual level, the way a person deals with that stress (cognitive appraisal) could be a moderator. With cognitive appraisal, someone can appreciate a situation and see if it is possible to keep it under control. Positive evaluation makes it possible higher performance and negative evaluation for poorer performance, which is why cognitive appraisal predicts the effect of solo status, high appraisal predicts better performance and lower appraisal predicts poorer performance.

Solo status: abnormal performance

Different processes are taking place at the majority and minority groups. Firstly, people in the minority groups are clearly visible, which can lead to higher performance pressure. Secondly, there is increased polarization (strengthening of opposites) between the minority and minority groups and this can lead to social isolation of the minority group. Thirdly, members of the minority group are characterized by a certain stereotype by the majority group. People with a solo status experience the same group pressure as tokens (people who have been assigned a higher rank precisely because they are in the minority).

A solo status can cause a poorer performance, it can contribute to the threat of stereotyping and it influences leadership in a group. Research showed that when a task seemed 'female', women with a solo status did not start to perform worse, but male solos did. This effect was also found the other way around. There are several group-level variables that can moderate the effect of solo status on individual performance: gender, group stereotypes, and group status.

Cognitive appraisal on emotion

When one is more certain of his or her ability to perform, one experiences less stress during a task. To be able to predict how someone will deal with the stress, you can look at the cognitive appraisal of emotion. This consists of primary and secondary appraisal: primary appraisal is the allocation of possible implications for a person himself: do I have a problem? This is done if there are possible negative implications. Secondary appraisal is the appraisal of if you can possibly solve the problem. Two constructs are related to cognitive appraisal: self-determination (the belief that you can produce specific actions to cope with a stressful situation)  and expectations about performance (how will I do it?) Two experiments have been designed to test the hypothesis that cognitive appraisal moderates the effect that solo status has on performance. It was thought that solos would perform better when the cognitive appraisal is high than when it is low.

Experiment 1

This experiment looks at whether cognitive appraisal would moderate the effect of solo gender status on performance. Participants had to do two tasks. There was a group discussion task and a difficult math task. It was thought that solos would feel higher levels of emotional arousal than non-solos. They also thought to find a solo status versus cognitive appraisal interaction: solos perform better when the cognitive appraisal is high than when it is low. This relationship would be stronger for solos than non-solos.

Method

137 participants participated. Groups consisted of 1 man and 3 women or 1 woman and 3 men. One had to do an emotion task to see how much arousal someone had. Then they did a group discussion task and a math task. Then the cognitive appraisal was investigated, both primary and secondary. They then answered various questions about, for example, peer pressure and stereotyping.

Results

Solos no longer felt visible or evaluated. Solos did not report higher levels of emotional arousal. Cognitive appraisal as variable: women had significantly lower appraisal (confidence in solving) in the math task and the group decision task. However, there was no significant effect of solo status on the appraisal. So it didn't matter if you were solo or not when it comes to trusting in solving a task. The solo status versus gender interaction was also not significant. And there was no difference between solos and non-solos.

Cognitive appraisal as a moderator: cognitive appraisal significantly predicted math scores. It predicted both for solos and non-solos, but significantly more for solos. A significant solo status versus cognitive appraisal interaction was found.

Discussion

Experiment 1 found that cognitive appraisal moderates the effect of solo status on performance. However, solos did not say that they felt raised arousal. They were aware of their solo status. They also thought they were stereotyped.

Experiment 2

Experiment 2 was designed to support the first experiment and to ensure that the independent variables on solo status and cognitive appraisal were uncorrelated. Cognitive appraisal was first measured and then participants were randomly assigned. They didn't get a privacy screen, which they did get in the first experiment. The group task from experiment 1 was not included, there was only a math task. Moreover, it contained several measurements to measure appraisal, instead of 1. The same hypotheses were used as in experiment 1.

Method

91 people participated. There were 21 groups of 3 people and 7 groups of 4 people.

Procedure

A few tasks had to be done and the cognitive appraisal was measured before there was a slight emphasis on the status of a person. This is different from experiment 1. The test subjects did a math task and the rest of the tasks (such as the questionnaires) that they did in experiment 1.

Results

With cognitive appraisal as a variable: there were no significant effects of gender or solo status and there was also no solo versus gender interaction. Solos indicated that they no longer feel visible, nor feel a higher pressure to perform, nor feel stereotyped. No effect was found in terms of emotion.

For cognitive appraisal as a moderator: just as in experiment 1, cognitive appraisal significantly predicts the math score. There was a solo status versus cognitive appraisal interaction. Just as in the first experiment, the women scored lower than the men.

Discussion

Experiment 2 supports the results of experiment 1. Solos with high levels of appraisal score higher than solos with low levels of appraisal. This effect was stronger for solos than for non-solos. The difference with the first experiment was that the appraisal was tested by making the math test in the group context and the solo status was introduced afterwards for some participants. In this way one ensures that the possibility that the effect was observed, because the solo status makes people more accurate and extreme in their appraisal, was excluded. For example, it was ensured that this effect is uncorrelated with the reported cognitive appraisal.

General discussion

Two experiments found support for the hypothesis that the cognitive appraisal of emotion moderates the effect on solo status on a personal performance. This effect is stronger and more positive for solos than non-solos. This may explain why solo status leads to better performance in some people and to poorer performance in others. There were no differences in the effect that solo status has on men and women.

Access: 
Public
Article summary of Who am I and what am I going to do with my life? Personal and Collective Identities as Motivators of Action by Eccles - 2009 - Chapter

Article summary of Who am I and what am I going to do with my life? Personal and Collective Identities as Motivators of Action by Eccles - 2009 - Chapter

Introduction

This article is about the expected value perspective of identity and the formation of an identity. According to the author there are two basic types of self-perception, namely (a) a perception that is associated with skills, traits and competences and (b) a perception that is related to personal values ​​and goals. This article focuses on the influence of identity on choices, or motivated actions. A distinction can also be made between two types of identity, personal identity and collective/social identity. The author sees personal identity as the aspect that makes you feel that you are unique and she also calls it the ME self . Collective identity is seen as the qualities that you personally find important and that strengthen the ties with groups and relationships. The author also calls collective identity the WE self . She also thinks that choices that are made help to form an identity. The article also discusses the development of identity. According to the author, identity changes due to changes in situations.

Identity is something that has been built up by motivation. The author has compiled a social cognitive model with her colleagues. This model is the expectancy value model or motivated behavioral choice. The model is about different types of behavioral choices, tasks, and activities. Choices that are important for life (e.g. study choice, friendships) are linked to two types of beliefs, (1) individual expectations of success and (2) the importance or value of different options that the individual can choose between (subjective) task value. These beliefs are related to cultural norms, social roles, and social experiences; personal experiences and their interpretation and memories; personal ability, talents, personality and temperament; and personal beliefs and attitudes towards business. All of these factors predict personal expectations about future success and about the personal subjective value of the options.

The author also thinks that the two aforementioned beliefs also contribute to the formation of the ME and WE self . The development is influenced by at least two processes. First of all, every cultural group has a picture of how the order of development tasks and experiences should proceed. This exposes individuals to different situations with different standards. Secondly, every individual gets better at choosing social contexts and experiences that helps them shape their own beliefs. These beliefs are closely linked to the prominence, centrality and content of many different personal and collective/social identities. The author thinks there are a number of beliefs about who you are and who you want to become.

Are expectations and personal competence mediators of performance-based choices? The expectation of success and self-assurance in your abilities to succeed have long been seen as important mediators of behavioral choices. People usually make choices that they feel confident about or that they expect to be most successful. The model predicts that self-understanding of your ability and understanding of task difficulty are the most important psychological predictors that determine whether you expect success. Self-understanding of your ability and your expectation of success have such a great coherence that it is difficult to separate it. Self-insight is formed by comparison, interpretation of processes and consequences, social influences, learning processes, exchange of information about skills. All these sources of information help to form different components of your ME self . These components can (de)motivate behavior again if they are activated. So there is a constant development going on as long as people gain more experiences.

Subjective task values

Subjective task values motivate the choice between activities. Important choices you make in life are influenced by the options available and how much you value them. The author (and therefore also the model) states that the subject task values ​​are directly related to personal and collective/social identity and to identity formation. Subjective task values are qualities that contribute to different choices, the chance that someone will choose the option or not.

Subjective task values are influenced by four factors:

  1. Interest value: The value of the interest based on the amount of pleasure a person experiences from an activity/certain behavior. Ultimately, it can develop in such a way that it becomes part of the ME self. It can therefore develop from something that is simply an interest to something that is really accessible (see also attainment value).
  2. Attainment value: The image about your own identity consists of different components, views about your own (a) personality and abilities, (b) goals and plans, (c) image about the division of roles between men and women, (d) instrumental and terminal values, (e) motivations, (f) ideal image about how someone should be, (g) image about what is appropriate behavior in different situations. These components influence the attainment values, or the goals that the individual considers important to achieve. Individuals want to make choices that suit their identity.
  3. Utility value: This is similar to the attainment value, but it is a task that someone wants to accomplish, because it influences a slightly less personal goal.
  4. Perceived cost: Participating in a certain activity can entail costs, such as a waste of time, social consequences or issues such as fear of failure.

According to the model, there is a connection between the personal values and the achievement-related choices. Various studies have found evidence for this. For example, people who are primarily focused on the person choose a study in which this also occurs and people who are primarily interested in physics choose a study in which physics is repeated. This works both ways. The value 'helping people' therefore also predicts that someone with this value will not opt ​​for a physics study.

Resume

Beliefs about yourself (about your ability and the subject task value) have a lot of influence on the choices that are made. These two factors help to form an identity, which in turn leads to your behavior in general. The attainment value certainly influences in part the degree of self-insight and the behavioral choices that are made. These two processes also influence each other, so that an identity can be formed.

Subjective tax values also influence which activity is being participated. They should also influence the development of individual competencies. Different competencies should also influence the development of subjective task value , because (repeated) success or failure in a task influences whether someone likes the task.

Access: 
Public
Article summary of Understanding diversity ideologies from the target’s perspective: A review and future directions by Gündemir et al. - 2019 - Chapter

Article summary of Understanding diversity ideologies from the target’s perspective: A review and future directions by Gündemir et al. - 2019 - Chapter

Introduction

Racial and gender diversity in organizations has decreased over the last decades. Diversity could lead to positive outcomes, but it may also lead to negative outcomes. Organizations can utilize approaches to shape their culture. This article discusses diversity ideologies. Diversity ideologies refer to organizational practices that are explicitly summarized in a diversity mission statement. These statements communicate the organizational approach and norms around diversity. Diversity ideologies can also refer to employees' own beliefs about diversity. So, diversity ideologies can be contextual or individual.

Diversity ideologies: blindness vs. awareness

There seem to be two broad types of diversity ideologies: the colorblindness approach and the multiculturalism approach. The former refers to that categorizing individuals by their social groups leads to prejudice and conflict. Therefore, ignoring social categories should reduce these consequences. However, opponents suggest that suppressing social categories is not possible, because humans have a natural tendency to categorize their environment to be able to process the large amount of information. Multiculturalism refers to that diversity should be emphasized rather than ignored. In this view, differences should also be valued and celebrated. When differences between groups are perceived in a positive way, this does not lead to prejudice. Group differences can also be meaningful and important. Opponents of the multiculturalism theory suggest that by emphasizing differences between groups, stereotypes can also be emphasized and racial segregation can be promoted.

There are also gender ideologies, called gender-blindness (colourblindness) and gender awareness (multiculturalism). Blindness refers to that differences between men and women should be ignored. Awareness refers to that differences between men and women should be recognized and celebrated.

How do racial minorities respond to diversity ideologies?

It seems that awareness ideologies can help to change the status quo and enhance the position of the minority group. So, it is functional for the minority group. This is especially true for those who strongly identify with their group.

Racial minorities' responses to diversity ideologies

Studies on the impact of diversity ideologies on racial minorities focuses on three areas: 1) minority group members' preference for different ideologies; 2) the effects of dominant group members' ideology on minorities' responses and experiences, and; 3) the role of ideologies at the organizational level on minorities' perceptions and behaviors. Relevant findings are discussed.

It seems that members of minority groups prefer multiculturalism. This probably stems from their desire for their needs to be recognized. This is not only true for racial minorities, instead it applies to any group that holds minority. For example, White students at predominantly black colleges also endorse an awareness ideology. However, when they are part of a majority group, they endorse diversity blind ideologies. So, as the functionality of an ideology shifts, so do groups' preferences.

Multiculturalism can also lead to higher workplace satisfaction for minorities, because they feel more included. It can also reduce turnover intentions of minorities.

Additional considerations

Studies show that racial minorities prefer multiculturalism. However, when minority groups are strongly underrepresented (when they make up to 5% of the company), they might endorse a colorblindness ideology.

Multiculturalism can also produce unintended side effects. For example, racial minorities might feel a "minority spotlight effect", which leads to that they experience heightened self-awareness, negative emotions and discomfort. It can also lead to an emphasis on sometimes problematic differences. For example, multiculturalism has been shown to increase race essentialism and lead to (positive) stereotyping of the racial minority group. This can lead to negative reactions.

How do women respond to diversity ideologies?

Studies show that a gender-blind ideology may benefit women, because it may reduce sexism.

Empirical work on women's responses to diversity ideologies

Studies have shown that men and women perceive a gender-blind ideology as the most appropriate in the work domain. However, outside the context of the workplace, they prefer an awareness ideology. Gender-blindness can also produce negative side effects. For example, it has been shown that gender-blind ideologies lead both male and female decision makers to offer higher levels of bonus to men than to equally qualified women. Also, gender-blindness can exacerbate backlash for women who show more feminine behavior.

Suggestions from past research 

So, multiculturalism may benefit racial minorities and gender-blindness may benefit women. However, these ideologies both have negative and unintended side effects. Therefore, some scholars developed more nuanced ideological approaches to diversity. Some of them suggested a focus on "identity safety" rather than multiculturalism. According to identity safety, diversity can be a source of value and social groups can experience social contexts in similar ways, but barriers prevent them from doing so. Other scholars suggested a multiculturalism message that explicitly includes the majority group, with the goal to reduce the majority group's sense of exclusion. This is called the all-inclusive multiculturalism approach. Another strategy is to explicitly incorporate an equal opportunity, value-in-merit message to multiculturalism. This is called the multicultural meritocracy. This reduces negative effects of multiculturalism such as stereotype activation of minorities and sense of exclusion by the majority, while it retains the positive effects. 

Access: 
Public
Article summary of Assimilation and diversity: An integrative model of subgroup relations. Personality and Social Psychology Review by Hornsey & Hogg - 2000 - Chapter

Article summary of Assimilation and diversity: An integrative model of subgroup relations. Personality and Social Psychology Review by Hornsey & Hogg - 2000 - Chapter

What is this article about?

Groups, organizations and societies often exist of different subgroups, and are thus not homogenous. These subgroups are based on intragroup roles, or on wider social categories such as profession, socioeconomic status (SES), gender, religion, music preferences, and many other things. In science, there are also groups. These subgroups are part of a larger group. As an explanation, think of cognitive and social psychologists. These psychologists are part of the group ‘psychologists’. Psychologists themselves are also part of a group. For example, sociologists and psychologists are both social scientists. Thus, groups often exist of subgroups with a superordinate identity group (psychologists, social scientists).

This characteristic of groups is often not captured by the commonly used ingroup-outgroup manner, in which many scientists believe social categorization to operate.

In this article, the authors explain the psychological processes that happen when group relations take place within the context of a superordinate identity. They use a social identity theory perspective for this, and they base their ideas on studies on multiculturalism, and social psychological research. The goal of the article is to present a general, integrative framework for understanding the dynamics of subgroup relations and subgroup identification. Their model is based on ideas and studies that have looked at the way that superordinate identity pressures can lead to intersubgroup conflicts. A central idea in their framework is that the superordinate identity should be viewed as a source of positive identity that does not conflict with the subgroup identity. They argue that social harmony is most likely to be achieved by maintaining and not weakening the subgroup identities.

What is the Social Identity Theory?

The Social Identity Theory is about category membership and identity threat. It had a significant impact on social psychology. Originally, it focused on the relation between people’s striving for self-esteem through positive social identity and people’s beliefs about the nature of intergroup relations. Later, self-categorization theory came into existence. This theory is the same as Social Identity Theory, but incorporated an explanation of how social categorization can produce group prototype-based depersonalization. In sum, the social identity perspective states that people are motivated to identify themselves in group terms, because of two reasons: they strive for uncertainty reduction, and they want to enhance their self-esteem. This means that people want to reduce uncertainty about who they are, how they should behave, and how other people will behave. By means of social categorization, they achieve these goals, because these categorizations can help them to achieve structure and context in who they are. Self-categorization means that people define themselves in relations to others, and also prescribes one’s perceptions, attitudes, feelings, and behaviors. Thus, uncertainty is a motivation for self-categorization and can cause groups to preserve or enhance their distinctiveness and entitativity. Another motive that people have is a self-enhancement (self-esteem) motive, which means that social categorizations are often given a value (good or bad). Therefore, groups try to be better than other groups, and they strive for positive social identity and positive self-esteem for their members.

Next to ingroup and outgroup attitudes, people also hold ‘social beliefs’, which are attitudes and beliefs about the nature of the relation between groups. These social beliefs are thus about intergroup boundaries, the relative status of groups, and the legitimacy and stability of such relations. In turn, these social beliefs determine the general strategies and specific behaviors that the group members adopt to reach their goals of self-enhancement and uncertainty reduction.

The Social Identity Theory acknowledges the existence of subgroups. Thus, they state that intergroup comparisons often occur within the context of higher order similarities.

Turner and colleagues proposed three levels of self-categorization that are important to the self-concept:

  1. The superordinate category of the self as human being (the human identity);
  2. The intermediate level of the self as a member of a social ingroup, defined against other human groups (social identity);
  3. The subordinate level of personal self-categorizations which are based on interpersonal comparisons (personal identity).

Even though Social Identity Theory acknowledges subgroups, it does not elaborate on gradations of the intermediate level. Thus, there is a need for elaboration on the psychology of subgroup relations.

What is meant with Threat and Intersubgroup Relations?

A key component of the Social Identity Theory is that people strive for positive intergroup distinctiveness. Therefore, humans engage in prejudice, discrimination, negative stereotyping, and other aggressive intergroup behaviors. These can help them to achieve positive distinctiveness. Other, more positive behaviours to achieve a positive distinctiveness is the use of ingroup solidarity, the use of totems, icons, and symbols. The question then is: what predicts a group’s tendency to engage in negative, aggressive behaviors instead of positive behaviours?

An answer is on this question is ‘threat’. This is often called ‘threat to identity’, but this term is often vague. For example, threat can emerge when a group is criticized or attacked (self-enhancement considerations). It can also emerge when the intergroup boundaries are blurred (distinctiveness). Thus, when there is identity threat, the goal for distinctiveness may lead to aggressive behaviours. When there is no identity threat (in the case of blurred boundaries), this may lead to more positive and benign strategies.

In sum, social identity threat can provoke behavior that is aimed at protecting or enhancing a social identity. This social identity can be threatened if a group has the possibility of a loss of status, an absence of the possibility to improve low status, if there is uncertainty about the intergroup boundaries, low entitativity, or a poorly defined ingroup prototype. When groups perceive threat, this strengthens subgroup solidarity, sharpens intergroup boundaries, accentuates ethnocentric attitudes and behavior, inhibits superordinate group identification, and it produces a more polarized ingroup prototype, that lead to a more orthodox subgroup with more hierarchical leaderships and power structures.

The paradox in this is that the superordinate group identification can bind subgroups together in a more powerful group, but it can also destroy subgroup identities.

What about Conflict and Harmony Between Subgroups?

Studies on conflict and harmony between subgroups have followed two different approaches. First, there is the political science perspective on assimilation and multiculturalism. Second, there is social psychological research on intergroup contact and social harmony.

Assimilation and Multiculturalism

Assimilation

Encouraging members of competing groups to define their similarities at the superordinate level to encourage assimilation within the superordinate group, is called ‘assimilation’. Assimilation is based on the idea that the system becomes intragroup and that problematic intergroup boundaries diminish.

There are two types of assimilation. Melting-pot assimilation refers to the belief that through shared goals and intensive social interaction, old ethnic loyalties melt away and change into a new, homogenous society. Minority-group assimilation refers to that nondominant subgroups adopt the language, values, and systems of a dominant subgroup. These political models are different, but they share a common idea that subgroup identification reflects a problematic or immature stage of development. Thus, all effort should be put in toward refocusing group loyalties: from the subgroup level to the superordinate level. Examples of assimilation-related quotes are: “One nation, one flag”, and “It does not matter if you are Black or White, we are all humans”.

Multiculturalism

Multiculturalism is different than assimilation, because it assumes that ethnic identities are inescapable and that they are fundamental to humans’ self-concept. Therefore, individuals are motivated to retain their cultural heritages. Multiculturalism aims to preserve this integrity, while also stimulating ethnic groups to interact and coexist harmoniously. A limitation of traditional multiculturalism research is that it is often global and descriptive, and is not able to examine underlying psychological processes. It also does not seem to be generalizable outside the specific context in which it was studied. Another limitation is that it is narrow in its focus. It lacks a general, theory-based model of subgroup relations that can apply to all subgroups.

What is the common ingroup identity model?

The common ingroup identity model states that contact is beneficial when an individual’s representation changes from two separate groups (us, them) to one (we). It does not try to eliminate group boundaries. Instead, it describes a process by which group boundaries are defined by a superordinate identity. When a person is categorized as ‘an ingroup member’, then evaluations of this person should become more positive, and biases should be reduced. This common ingroup identity may be reached by making the superordinate identity more salient, or by introducing certain factors such as shared goals. This increases the entitativity of the superordinate group.

Studies and experiments have shown that contact reduces intergroup bias, because it changes the perception from ‘two groups’ to ‘one group’.

It is a bit similar to the assimilationist models. However, the common identity theory argues that the superordinate category should be strengthened, and that subgroups should not be eliminated. The best situation is one in which the group members remain a distinct identity, but perceive themselves as part of the same team. But why is this the best situation? Well, if outgroup members are perceived as the same, then contact will not help to change people’s feelings of that group. Thus, previous subgroup identities should not be eliminated, because it reduces the likelihood that positive attitude changes will be generalized outside of the cooperative environment.

What is the mutual intergroup differentiation model?

According to the mutual intergroup differentiation model, there are historical and sociological reasons in many intergroup settings that suggest that it would be impossible to completely diminish social identities. Attempts to do so will be perceived as ‘a threat to those groups identities’. In turn, a reaction could be increased intergroup differentiation or dislike, because the group will try to reassert their distinctiveness. The model proposes two methods of minimizing threat. First, each group’s areas of expertise should be recognized, and each expertise area should be equally valued. Second, when the groups get in contact, the salience of the original group should be preserved. This model is a bit similar to multiculturalism.

How can we generalize categorization models to noncontact situations?

The models described above, the common ingroup identity model and the mutual intergroup differentiation model were originally specified to account for intergroup contact. However, their principles can be extended to noncontact situations. This is very important, because in real life the types of contact necessary to achieve successful intergroup contact are rare. Then, the strategies described by Gaertner and colleagues to invoke a common intergroup identity (physical proximity, cooperation on a common task) are not useful. In these cases, the ‘one group identity’ can be achieved by categorizing participants at the superordinate level, without any reference to subgroup identity.

What is an integrative model of subgroup relations?

The authors state that, based on the research on intergroup relations, it seems important to acknowledge category-based differences to achieve harmonious intergroup relations. Thus, one should not try to eliminate intergroup differences and threaten people’s need for distinct subgroup identities. Instead, one needs to nourish distinct subgroup identities, within the context of a superordinate identity. If this happens, then subgroups have a complementary relationship, rather than a competitive relationship. This is called ‘dual categorization’, and thus refers to activating the superordinate and subgroup identities simultaneously. This provides two types of benefits. First, others who are normally seen as out-group members will now be seen as ingroup members. Second, dual categorization protects the distinctiveness of the group, which seems necessary according to multiculturalists for people to be generous toward outgroup members. This dual categorization is beneficial in multi-ethnic contexts, but it can also be extended to other intergroup contexts, for example organizations. It seems that in the case of organizational mergers, it’s best to focus on a common ingroup identity, because otherwise negative relationships can emerge.

Dual categorization or identification may also be beneficial in intergroup negotiations. Why? Well, it has generally been assumed that category-based processing is a negative predicting factor for achieving successful negotiation outcomes. In this case, it seems that successful resolutions of group conflicts involve arriving at a shared superordinate definition of both groups, as well as acknowledging the subgroup level of definition.

Keep in mind that it’s not always necessary to strengthen the common superordinate identity. It can also be that it should be weakened, and this may depend on certain social realities, such as perceptions of superordinate inclusiveness and intergroup similarity.

What are social realities of subgroup relations?

Perceptions of Inclusiveness

An important factor that influences subgroup identification is how inclusive the superordinate group is perceived to be. According to Optimal distinctiveness theory, there is a dynamic tension between opposing drives for distinctiveness and inclusiveness. So, if people feel overly distinctive or unique, they will experience anxiety and feelings of discomfort. Then they will experience a drive to achieve greater inclusiveness, which can be achieved by identifying with a group or category. The other way around is also true: if a group feels over-inclusive, then this will activate a drive to achieve greater distinctiveness.

Research findings on inclusiveness

Brewer and Weber (1994) found that, in highly inclusive conditions, identification with the group weakens and the group fragments into individuals. Hornsey and Hogg (1999) found that the more inclusive the superordinate category is perceived to be, the more people strive for differentiation at the subgroup level.

Intersubgroup Similarity

Subgroup members dislike being categorized exclusively on a superordinate level, when this means that category boundaries are ignored. This would make them feel as if the superordinate category is an illegitimate way to structure the social world. Thus, subgroup members will resist being categorized entirely at the superordinate level if the subgroups are seen as essentially different.

What are nested and cross-cutting subgroups?

Nested groups mean that groups can be hierarchically nested within, or crosscut with, a superordinate category. Sometimes, the subgroups are nested entirely within the superordinate category. For example, arts and science students are nested entirely within the superordinate category of ‘university student’.

What is known about leadership?

Not surprising, groups are often directed by representatives, figureheads, or leaders. Often, subgroup members obtain their intergroup attitudes from what they hear their leaders say. According to a social identity analysis, it seems that effective leaders need to be highly ingroup prototypical. This means that when a superordinate identity is perceived as a threat to the subgroup identity, the subgroup leaders need to fight this. In these cases it is common that more extreme subgroup leaders emerge.

What about instrumental goal relations?

Often, cooperation between subgroups is beneficial for all of these groups. This means that subgroups need to work together within an overarching superordinate identity. This helps to transform a competitive intergroup orientation into an intergroup role differentiation, in which the different groups work together toward pursuing shared goals.

What about power and status differentials?

Subjective ethnolinguistic vitality refers to beliefs that people have about how well an ethnic-cultural subgroup is going to survive in a multi-ethnic setting in which there is a single dominant cultural group. This subjective vitality depends on beliefs about subgroup status (control of one’s destiny, pride in the group’s language, history, and culture), subgroup demography (absolute numbers, relative numbers, population growth and decline), and institutional support (representation in the culture and leadership of the larger society). When vitality is high, people remain highly identified with their subgroup and no not identify strongly with their superordinate group.

When a member is of a low-status subgroup, it is possible for these members to enhance their identities by self-categorizing at a superordinate level. For example, a member of a low-status university may be motivated to think of themselves as ‘a university student’. In contrast, someone from a high-status university may identify him or herself with the specific university, instead of ‘a university student’. Thus, for a low-status subgroup, the superordinate identity may be ‘additive’, while for the high-status subgroup the superordinate identity may be ‘subtractive’.

What can be concluded?

Often, social psychologists view intergroup relations in a binary way: in-group and out-group. However, in reality there are multiple groups within a superordinate identity. This article is one of the first to attempt to integrate the different streams of research and theory into one single framework of subgroup relations.

Access: 
Public
Article summary of Understanding and addressing contemporary racism: From aversive racism to the common ingroup identity model by Gaertner & Dovidio - 2005 - Chapter

Article summary of Understanding and addressing contemporary racism: From aversive racism to the common ingroup identity model by Gaertner & Dovidio - 2005 - Chapter

Introduction

This article reflects two major research question. First: What are the dynamics of a subtle form of racism, aversive racism, that exists among well-intentioned Whites? Second: What can we do about it?

Gaertner studied aversive racism. This study looked at the willingness of registered Liberal and Conservative Party members in New York City to help a Black or White motorist whose car had broken down on a local highway. The motorists were thus Black or White and were identifiable on the basis of their dialects. They made phone calls, claiming to have been dialing their mechanic's number from a public telephone along the highway. They explained that they now needed the respondent's help to call the mechanic because they used their last coin for this wrong-number call. It was found that Conservative Party members discriminated by helping Black callers less often than White callers, whereas Liberal Party members did not discriminate. However, they did discriminate in a different way. Even though Liberals helped Black and White callers equivalently when they knew their assistance was needed, they terminated their help more readily for Black than for White callers prior to learning that the callers needed their help. Thus, they hung up prematurely. These results were puzzling and the authors of this article aimed to explain these findings by applying the notion of aversive racism. Thus, they wanted to explain why nonprejudiced Liberals discriminated against Blacks, but only when they were not sure that their help was needed.

Contemporary Bias: Aversive Racism

Gunnar Myrdal pointed to the paradox between egalitarian values and racist traditions in the United States. He named this "the American dilemma". This dilemma reflects the tension between central principles of equality and fairness in the society and the daily appearance of systematic prejudice and discrimination, at an individual and societal level, which produces racial inequality and reinforces racial disparities. Sixty years after Myrdal's observation, the American dilemma is still evident. This principle of equality remains a fundamental social value, and since the civil rights legislation of the 1960s, overt expressions of prejudice of Whites towards Blacks in the United States have declined significantly over the past several decades. However, there is still evidence of racial disparity and discrimination still remains. 

Joel Kovel coined the term 'aversive racism', and distinguished it from 'dominative racism'. Aversive racists do sympathize with victims of past injustice, they support the principle of racial equality, and regard themselves as nonprejudiced, but, they also possess negative feelings and beliefs about Blacks. This may be unconscious. It is different from dominative racism, in that it is more subtle and that it is presumed to characterize the attitudes of most well-educated and liberal Whites in the United States. However, the consequences of aversive racism are as intense as traditional racism.

The nature of aversive racism

Thus, many Whites consciously, explicitly, and sincerely support egalitarian principles and believe that they are nonprejudiced. However, they still have negative feelings and beliefs about Blacks and other historically disadvantaged groups. However, these feelings and beliefs happen unconsciously and develop as a consequence of normal and unavoidable functional, cognitive, motivational and social-cultural processes. Cognitive processes refer to that people normally categorize others into groups, in terms that delineate one's own group from other groups. This mere categorization of people into the ingroup and outgroup is enough to initiate bias. Therefore, the existence of both the egalitarian values and unconscious negative feelings toward Blacks, makes aversive racism a complex construct.

When interracial interaction is unavoidable, aversive racists experience anxiety and discomfort. Consequently, they try to disengage from the interaction as quickly as possible. Therefore, they are more motivated to avoid wrongdoing in interracial interactions. However, they still manifest their negative feelings in subtle, indirect, or rationalizable ways. Thus, the "aversive" in aversive racism reflects two types of aversion. First, because of the anxiety and discomfort, aversive racists find interracial interactions aversive and try to avoid it. Second, because aversive racists believe that they are nonprejudiced and consciously embrace egalitarian ideals, they find any thoughts or indications that they might be a racist, aversive. Therefore, they are motivated to avoid wrongdoing and acting inappropriately in interracial situation. They try to avoid thinking bad thoughts about Blacks, experiencing bad feelings towards Blacks, and behaving in a discriminatory way toward Blacks. 

The expression of subtle bias

The aversive racism framework helps to identify when discrimination against Blacks and other minority groups will or will not occur. Old-fashioned racists exhibit direct and overt patterns of discrimination, whereas aversive racists' actions may appear more variable and inconsistent. Sometimes they discriminate and at other times they do not. 

The framework suggests that, because aversive racists consciously recognize and aspire to be nonprejudiced, they will not discriminate in situations with strong social norms when discrimination is obvious to others and themselves. The authors propose that when people are presented with a situation in which the appropriate response is clear, aversive racists will not discriminate against Blacks. In these circumstances, aversive racists will be especially motivated to avoid feelings, beliefs, and behaviors that could be associated with racist intent. However, as mentioned before, they do possess (unconscious) negative feelings towards Blacks. They will eventually express these feelings, but in subtle, indirect, and rationalizable ways. Thus, discrimination will occur in situations in which social norms are weak or when the guidelines for appropriate behavior are vague. Also, discrimination will occur when an aversive racist can justify or rationalize a negative response on the basis of some factor other than race. Under these circumstances, aversive racists may engage in behaviors that ultimately harm Blacks, but in ways that allow them to maintain their self-image as nonprejudiced.

Empirical evidence of the influence of aversive racism

An experiment showed that aversive racism can operate in dramatic and consequential ways. The stabbing of a woman, Kitty Genovese, lead to an experiment. In the case of Kitty Genovese, 38 bystanders witnessed the stabbing, but did not intervene to help. When looking at explanations for this behavior, it seems that feelings of responsibility play a key role. When a person witnesses an emergency and knows that he or she is the only bystander, this person will most likely help. In contrast, when a person witnesses an emergency but believes that there are other people who might help, the responsibility for helping is share. This decreases the likelihood of that person to help.

This incident inspired the authors to conduct an experiment in which White participants witnessed a staged emergency involving a Black or White victim. They made some participants believe that they would be the only witness to the emergency, while others believed that there would be other White people who also witnessed the emergency. The authors hypothesized that, because aversive racists do not act in overtly racist ways, Whites would not discriminate when they were the only witness. However, Whites were expected to be less helpful to Black than to White victims when they had a justifiable excuse not to get involved, such as the belief that another witness would help. The findings supported their hypotheses. When White participants believed that they were the only witness, they helped White and Black victims equivalently. However, when they thought that there were other witnesses, they could rationalize a decision not to help on the basis of some factor other than race. In this case, they helped Black victims only half as often as White victims. Thus, the subtle biases can have dramatic and life-threatening consequences. There are also other examples of the subtle bias. For example, it happens in personnel selection decisions and in college admission decisions. Hodson and colleagues found that more racially biased Whites weighed the weaker aspect of the applicant's credentials as more important for admissions decisions when the candidate was Black than when the candidate was White. There is also evidence that Blacks and Whites are not treated equally under the law. Blacks have been more likely to be convicted of crimes and, if they are convicted, sentenced to longer terms for similar crimes, particularly if the victim is White. The authors propose that aversive racism is particularly common in the legal context because evidence may offer nonracial justifications for actions. 

Dissociated attitudes: explicit and implicit

Explicit attitudes and stereotypes operate consciously and are exemplified by traditional, self-report measures of these constructs. In contrast, implicit attitudes and stereotypes are evaluations and beliefs that are automatically activated by the mere presence of the attitude object. Implicit attitudes and stereotypes function in an unconscious and unintentional manner. To assess implicit attitudes and stereotypes, often response latency procedures, memory tasks, physiological measures and indirect self-report measures are used. The authors have shown consistent evidence of Whites' implicit racial bias. For example, they found that by subliminally presenting schematic faces of Blacks and Whites systematically influenced the reaction times with which Whites indicated whether positive or negative traits describe a certain person. And, lower reaction times reflect greater associations. They also found that White participants have more positive associations with Whites than with Blacks as well as more negative associations with Blacks than with Whites, even though they were not aware of this. Also, Whites' unconscious attitudes are largely dissociated from their conscious, self-reported attitudes. The correlation between these attitudes (implicit and explicit) is .24, which shows that people's self-reports (explicit attitudes) do not match their implicit attitudes (the associations they make). 

Implicit Bias and Interracial Interaction

The authors found that Whites' unconscious negative attitudes predict nonverbal cues of discomfort (increased blinking) and aversion (decreased eye contact) toward Blacks, whereas Whites self-reported conscious attitudes predict overt evaluations and indications of liking towards Blacks. This means that aversive racists do have positive conscious attitudes and do want to be supportive of Blacks, but they also have unconscious negative attitudes or associations and are likely to convey mixed messages in interracial interactions.

In less controllable and monitorable nonverbal behaviors, Whites' implicit racial attitudes predicted bias, instead of their self-reported prejudice.

Blacks and Whites also have divergent views on the quality of interracial interactions. White participants often believe that they behaved in a friendly and nonprejudiced way and that the interaction was positive and productive. However, their Black interaction partners were less satisfied with the interaction compared to Whites. Also, both the Black and White participants were unaware of the different experiences of the interaction.

The Common Ingroup Identity Model

The authors wanted to look at what could help against bias. 

Social Categorization and Social Identity

Research has shown that people favor ingroup members over outgroup members in their evaluations, feelings, and actions. Bias that follows from social categorization is often the consequence of ingroup favoritism instead of an anti-outgroup orientation.

The authors hypothesized that if members of different groups are induced to conceive themselves as a single group rather than as two completely separate groups, the attitudes towards former outgroup members will become more positive through the cognitive and motivational forces that result from ingroup formation, which is a consequence that could increase the sense of connectedness across group lines.

Thus, it may be possible to affect the level of category inclusiveness people use when categorizing other people, including themselves. It may also be possible to alter whether people identify themselves as distinct individuals or as group members. So, in other words, it is possible to engineer a recategorization or decategorization of perceived group boundaries in ways that reduce intergroup bias and conflict.

Initial Empirical Investigations

The authors wondered which factors might lead to more inclusive group representations, especially among different racial groups. It is known that feelings and behaviors toward outgroup members becomes more positive and intergroup relations become more harmonious when groups work together under certain conditions. These conditions are outlined in the Contact Hypothesis, and include equal status between the groups, opportunities for self-revealing interactions, and equalitarian norms endorsed by relevant authority. 

The Dynamics of the Common Ingroup Identity Model

The Common Ingroup Identity Model identifies potential antecedents and outcomes of recategorization. 

Common Identity and Motivation in Interracial Interaction

Thus, the Common Ingroup Identity Model can potentially change the motivational orientation or intentions of aversive racists from trying to avoid wrongdoing to trying to do what is right. The authors hypothesized that because aversive racists have the primary motivation to avoid wrongdoing and thus to suppress negative thoughts and feelings, explicitly instructing participants to avoid wrongdoing compared to instructing them to do nothing, would lead to a stronger accessibility of negative thoughts after interacting with a Black partner. Participants who were instructed to behave correctly would be expected to escape such a rebound effect. The results support these expectations. When the partner was White, the experimental conditions did not differ significantly in the accessibility of negative thoughts from one another or from baseline. However, when the confederate was Black, the increased accessibility of negative relative to positive characteristics in the avoid wrongdoing and no instructions conditions was significantly greater than in the do right and same team conditions. Thus, the development of a common ingroup identity can affect motivation in interracial situations from one of suppressing negative thoughts, feelings, and actions to one that is positive and more prosocial. However, our findings lead some people to question whether developing a common ingroup identity is a realistic strategy.

The Green Circle Elementary School Anti-Bias Education Program

The Green Circle Elementary School intervention aims to teach children to be more inclusive in terms of bringing those who differ from themselves literally into their circle of caring and sharing into their own circle of caring and sharing fosters appreciation of their common humanity as well as respect for their differences. The intervention works like this: each facilitator visits each class for about 40 minutes and shows children a small green circle on a board. The facilitator then states: "Whenever you see the green circle, you should think about your world of people: the people who you care about and the people who care about you." A stick figure is added to the circle and the students are told that the figure represents themselves. The facilitator explains that each person has "a big job of deciding who is going to be in your circle, how to treat people, and how big your circle will grow" and engages children in a variety of exercises designed to expand this circle. Then, the facilitator states: "All of us belong to one family-the human family." Then, the Green Circle assumes that an appreciation of common humanity will increase children's positive attitudes toward people who would otherwise remain outside of their circle of inclusion.

Based on the goals of the Green Circle Program and the principles of the Common Ingroup Identity Model, the authors expected that children who receive the program would act more inclusive toward others who are different than themselves in playing and sharing. The results showed that first- and second-grade children in fairly well-integrated classrooms still had a general preference for playing and sharing with children of the same race than a different race. However, the results also showed that the Green Circle intervention did lead children to be more inclusive in terms of their most preferred playmate. More specifically, children who participated in Green Circle activities showed a significantly greater increase in willingness to select a child they "would most want to play with" who was different from them. 

Access: 
Public
Article summary of Gender differences in entitlement: The role of system-justifying beliefs by O'Brien et al. - 2012 - Chapter

Article summary of Gender differences in entitlement: The role of system-justifying beliefs by O'Brien et al. - 2012 - Chapter

Preface

Women earn less than men, even if they do the same work. What contributes to this? Experience with earlier work, the value you give to salary in relation to other factors such as flexibility, marital status, responsibility to look after a child, unified membership, interrogation and discrimination. This all contributes to the gender pay gap. This research examines the role that system justification processes play in creating and maintaining gender differences.

Differences in law

This research examines personal law: what you think you can earn based on your performance. Research shows that men think they have a higher personal right than women. They think they are more entitled to a high amount compared to what women think about themselves. According to the status construction theory, people who are in group A and get paid less than group B think that they have indeed contributed less and therefore earn less. However, this does not have to be the case.

System justification and law

This is a process in which differences between groups are justified. People want the system to be fair. System justifications include Protestant work ethics and individual mobility. This system ensures that people themselves are responsible for their outcomes. In short: it shows that differences, including wages, are fair. The SROs make people think that men apparently have more input than women, so that they also earn more output (salary). This can reinforce existing gender differences. This has also been shown by a study. This research tests the hypothesis that approval or activation of SROs will increase the sex gap in terms of personal law. So if one is convinced that a gender pay gap is justified, women will think that they indeed deserve less, so their sense of personal right will be less. It is thought that it will lead to an increased sense of personal rights in men and that it will decrease in women.

However, it has been found that the approval or confirmation of the SROs have fewer implications for the low status groups (in this case the women) and more for the high status groups (men). So with SROs, women will show less effect in decreasing personal law and men will show more effect in increasing personal law. This is called ideological asymmetry. The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between SROs and law and also how this relationship can differ due to the gender function. The research consists of two different studies:

  1. It investigates the relationship between individual differences in SRO entitlement and the personal payment entitlement received between men and women (correlational relationships).
  2. Priming procedure. It examines the impact of SROs on payment law (causal relationships).

Study 1

People at a university had to fill in a questionnaire about SROs (very much agree to very much disagree) and read and evaluate vignettes (short stories). They also had to report their personal rights and enter demographic information.

Results

There was a significant positive relationship between SROs and law regarding men. At SROs, men reported a higher personal right. In women, the relationship was negative, although it was not significant. People who had high SROs showed a significant effect of gender; men reported higher law than women. For people who had low SROs, there was no gender difference.

Discussion

In men, SROs are associated with higher salaries. There were only gender differences measured at high SROs. Furthermore, there is no difference between reported personal rights between men and women. Why study 2? An important goal is to determine whether the experimental priming of SROs influences law. If so, we can suggest that SROs have a causal impact on law. Secondly, they also want to measure behavioral law in which people actually pay themselves. They want to determine whether SROs have an influence on behavioral measurements of law, just like the self-report measurement of law (in study 1).

Study 2

There were three changes from the first study. They had to determine their right to salary after doing real work, instead of the right to salary for imagined future work. They tested the impact of SROs on received salary rights by experimentally priming SROs (i.e. offering them unknowingly), instead of measuring it as an individual difference. Thirdly, a measure of behavior was added, participants were allowed to pay themselves for work.

It was thought that women would work harder, give themselves less money and pay themselves less. Moreover, it was thought that gender differences would be greater after primed SROs. They had to do a circular task: they were given a text and had to circle all the e's. With the SRO priming condition they were given a task in which the SROs would be activated, for example by offering texts that contained prejudices about women.

Finally, they had to pay themselves, up to 5 dollars. They also had to report what they would give themselves, what their personal rights were.

Results

Regarding complete work: women had made significantly more than men. Accuracy: although women had done more than men, they were no less accurate. It is therefore not significant. Self-reported law: men found significantly that they earned more than women. After priming, men felt much stronger that they earned a lot. After priming, they therefore awarded themselves a higher salary than in the other condition. In women this effect was the other way around and only minimal: not significant. So after SROs, women did not grant themselves significantly less salary than without the SROs.

Men also reported after the SROs that they really earn more than the women in the SRO condition. In the control condition also, but still less and not significant. Behavioral law: men actually gave themselves more than women.

Discussion

Men indeed felt that they deserved more than women and this idea was reinforced by the prime condition. The reinforcement is mainly because men allowed themselves more after the SRO condition. For women it was the other way around: they felt that they did earn a little less. But this was not significant.

The behavioral situation was different: men paid themselves more than women, but this did not depend on the prime condition. This is striking, because women had done more work than men.

But there is a difference between the reported condition (so what would you give yourself) and the behavioral condition (what did you actually give yourself). And why? Researchers usually find a behavioral condition better, more reliable, but in this study the other seems purer. The behavioral condition depends on, for example, how much money someone needs.

General discussion

SROs create and maintain gender differences in the right to payment by increasing men's sense of right and decreasing women's sense of right. This has been demonstrated by two studies. Study 1 looked at the correlation between individual differences in entitlements of SROs and entitlements received in future payments. Study 2 manipulated the SROs and looked at the impact of that manipulation on the right received for work that has already been carried out.

In some studies, members of a low status group justify the social system less than members of a high status group. For people in a low status group, the system justifications (that think salary differences are fair) are in conflict with the ego and the motives for justice of the group. This can cause a feeling of unfairness, ambivalence and instability. These conflicting motives can explain why it has sometimes been found that there are weaker relationships between SROs and outcomes in people in a low status group compared to people in a high status group. This is called the ideological asymmetrical effect. It is also possible that an SRO is interpreted differently: men get a lot because they work hard or men get a lot so they work hard. However, this is not both positive for women. This could explain that they work harder; then they can earn more.

People often compare themselves with others: social comparison. For example, men compare their wages with other men, women compare their wages with other women. Since there is a gap between men's and women's wages, the comparisons also lead to skewed relationships as to the expectation of wages. If gender inequality exists, SROs would encourage men and women to think that those differences are fair and well deserved. However, if equality exists and men and women have the same expectations, SROs would also encourage men and women to think that it is fair and deserved. However, this has not yet been investigated.

Conclusion

Because men have a great sense of entitlement, they dare to ask for raise sooner. They are also less satisfied with their salary. It can also cause men to be blind when they actually get too much, justifying their good position.

Women have a lesser sense of justice. This prevents them from realizing when they are discriminated against and it reduces the chance that they will participate in a collective action that changes the distribution of social good (revolution).

Access: 
Public
Article summary of How university diversity rationales inform student preferences and outcomes by Starck et al. - 2021 - Chapter

Article summary of How university diversity rationales inform student preferences and outcomes by Starck et al. - 2021 - Chapter

What is this article about?

Higher educational institutions seem to embrace diversity and inclusion, and there are different rationales available for doing so. It seems that rationales which assert that diversity provides educational benefits (and is thus instrumental useful), seem to be consistently favored by the U.S. Supreme Court. In the current study, it was examined how instrumental, as opposed to moral, rationales for diversity shape the expectations and experiences of racial majority and minority group members. It was hypothesized that instrumental diversity rational should:

Be especially appealing to White Americans but not to low-status racial minorities. There are three reasons for this hypothesis. First, the purported educational benefits described in instrumental diversity rationales largely serve to provide educational benefits to White individuals. Second, instrumental rationales likely afford a greater sense of belonging to White Americans compared to moral rationales. Organizations than acknowledge and celebrate racial diversity tend to make White individuals feel excluded, and instrumental rationales can lead them to feel more included. Third, instrumental rationales as opposed to moral rationales may alleviate feelings of social identity threat for White Americans, who are often concerned with being stereotypes as ‘prejudiced’. There is also reason to think that for racial minority groups, this preference is not shared. First, the outcomes highlighted of diversity often pertain to the outcomes for White students. Second, it is not clear whether either diversity rationale would also encourage a sense of belonging for racial minorities. Third, instrumental rational might amplify social identity threat for low-status minorities who are stigmatized in educational domains, in comparison to moral rationales.

Dominate diversity discourse in higher education. It was expected that, if White Americans indeed prefer instrumental rational, that their relatively high numerical representation and power would incentivize university policy makers to adopt approaches to appeal to them. Second, universities may utilize instrumental rationales in order to comply with legal precedent. Third, rules that affirm instrumental rationales might make them seem like the default, normative approach to diversity. Based on these ideas, it was expected that universities would be more likely to utilize the instrumental compared to moral rationales.

Be associated with worse relative outcomes for low-status minority students. This hypothesis is based on the finding that instrumental rationales diminish the extent to which people focus specifically on racial representation in their diversity pursuits. This might lead community members to perceive weaker institutional commitments to racial diversity, and is thus less effective in compelling them to comply with or advance this commitment in their own actions.

What can be concluded?

In this study, it was found that instrumental rationales are indeed preferred by White, but not Black Americans. In addition, instrumental rationales were understood as suiting White students best. It was also found that they are the most common approach to diversity in higher education, and that, especially in the absence of a moral approach, they are associated with greater racial disparities in graduation rates. This study thus concludes that the most common approach to diversity in higher education is one that reflects the preferences of White Americans, and privileges the outcomes of them. In addition, these findings support the perspective that diversity and inclusion efforts gain traction when they serve to advance the interests of the majority group. However, these findings could also be interpreted as that moral interpretations are preferred by Black Americans and disfavored by White Americans, and suite Black students the best.

Access: 
Public
Article summary of Acculturation: Living successfully in two cultures by Berry - 2005 - Chapter

Article summary of Acculturation: Living successfully in two cultures by Berry - 2005 - Chapter

What is this article about?

In this article, the author discusses different answers to the question of: “how can people of different cultural backgrounds encounter each other, seek avenues of mutual understanding, negotiate and compromise on initial positions, and achieve harmonious engagement?”. Specifically, the author has come up with insights based on the US American/Australian war in Vietnam.

What about group relations?

There are two distinct, but inter-related domains of psychological research that make up the field of group relations. These domains are acculturation and ethnic relations.

Acculturation

Acculturation refers to the dual process of cultural and psychological change which results from contact between two or more cultural groups and their members. On a group level, this involves changes in social structures and institutions and in cultural practices. On an individual level, this involves changes in a person’s behavior. These changes result from a long-term process: sometimes years, generations, and sometimes even centuries. Cultural and psychological changes that involve different forms of mutual accommodations which lead to longer-term psychological and sociocultural adaptations between both groups is called acculturation. Change and contact can result from different factors, such as colonization, military invasion, migration, and sojourning (tourism, international study, overseas posting).

Acculturation involves learning each other’s languages, sharing each other’s food preferences, and adopting forms of dressing and social interactions that are appropriate for each group. Sometimes this happens easily, but it can also create culture conflict and acculturative stress. An important characteristic of acculturation is it’s variability: there are large group and individual differences in the ways in which people try to achieve acculturation (acculturation strategies), and in the degree to which they achieve successful acculturation. There are also variations within families: family members acculturate at different rates and with different goals. This can lead to conflict between family members and to more difficult adaptation.

What is the concept of acculturation?

There are many competing views about the meaning of acculturation. The author suggests two different formulations which are widely used. In the first formulation, acculturation is seen as one aspect of the broader concept of cultural change. This means that acculturation takes place in the settled or dominant group as well as in the non-dominant group. Acculturation is different from assimilation. In the second formulation, a few extra features are added, such as change that is indirect (not cultural but ecological) and delayed (internal adjustments). Acculturation is also said to be ‘reactive’: by rejecting the cultural influence from the dominant group and changing back towards a more ‘traditional’ way of life.

Graves (1967) introduced the concept of ‘psychological acculturation’. This is defined as changes in an individual who is a participant in a culture contact situation, and is influenced both directly by the external culture and by the changing culture of which the individual is a member.

What about acculturation contexts?

It is important that research on acculturation is conducted in different cultural contexts. Both cultures that are in contact need to be understood. There are five aspects of cultural contexts: the two original cultures (A and B), the two changing ethnocultural groups (A’ and B’), and the nature of their contact and interactions. These are visible in Figure 2.

The authors use the immigration process as an example. The society of origin is A and the society of settlement is B, and the changing cultural features following contact are termed A’ and B’. To fully understand acculturation, one needs to start with a comprehensive examination of the societal contexts. This means that cultural characteristics of the society of origin need to be described. This has the goal of understanding where the person is coming from and to establish cultural features for comparison with the society of settlement. Researchers also need to study the political, economic, and demographic conditions which individuals face in their society of origin. This has the goal of understanding the degree of voluntariness in the motivation to migrate of individuals. Migrants can be described on a continuum between reactive and proactive. Reactive migrants are motivated by negative factors (war), and proactive migrants are motivated by positive factors (getting a better life somewhere else). These factors are also described as push/pull in earlier literature.

Then, with regard to the society of settlement, other factors need to be described. For example, one needs to study the general orientations or attitudes of a society and its citizens toward immigration and pluralism. It is important to understand the historical and attitudinal situation faced by immigrants in the society of settlement. For example, some societies are accepting of cultural pluralism that results from immigration. Other societies try to eliminate diversity, and some societies even try to achieve segregation or marginalization of their diverse populations. Murphy (1965) proposed that societies that are supportive of cultural pluralism provide a more positive settlement context for two reasons. First, they are less likely to enforce cultural change or exclusion on immigrants. Second, they are also more likely to provide social support to immigrants.

What are acculturation strategies?

As noted, there are large differences in how people seek to achieve acculturations. These are called acculturation strategies. There are two components of acculturation strategies: attitudes (an individual’s preference about how to acculturate) and behavior (a person’s actual activities). There are four acculturation strategies which are derived from two basic issues that all acculturating individuals face:

  1. A relative preference for maintaining one’s heritage culture and identity;
  2. A relative preference for having contact with and participating in the larger society along with other ethnocultural groups.

Non-dominant groups

When individuals do not wish to maintain their cultural identity and seek daily interaction with other cultures, this means that they try to shed their heritage culture and that they become absorbed into the dominant society. This is called an assimilation strategy. In contrast, when individuals place value on holding on to their original culture and wish to avoid interaction with others, then this is a separation strategy. When there is an interest in both maintaining one’s heritage culture while in daily interactions with other groups, this is called an integration strategy. This means that some degree of cultural integrity is maintained, but that an individual is seeking to become an integral part of the larger society. Finally, there can also be a marginalization strategy. This means that there is little possibility of interest for individuals to have relationships with others and also little interest in maintaining the heritage culture.

For dominant groups, other terms should be used. Integration is only a ‘free choice’ when the dominant society is open and inclusive towards cultural diversity. This means that mutual accommodation is needed to attain integration. Non-dominant groups must adopt basic values of the larger society, and the dominant group must be prepared to adapt national institutions to meet the needs of all groups that live together.

Conceptualization of acculturation strategies

In the article, the chosen conceptual approach of acculturation strategies is based on three underlying dimensions: cultural maintenance, contact and participation, and the power to decide on how acculturation will take place. However, researchers often considered only one dimension and assumed that non-dominant groups and individuals would move away from some ‘traditional’  way of living toward a way of living that resembles the dominant society.

Another issue with regard to the conceptualization is that there is little empirical basis for the four acculturation strategies.

What is acculturative stress?

There are two different ways to conceptualize outcomes of acculturation. In the first conceptualization, it is about behavioral shifts. Behavioral shifts are based on observations on changes in an individual’s behavior which take place easily and are usually non-problematic. This process of behavioral shifts involve three sub-processes: cultural shedding, culture learning, and cultural conflict. The first two of these involve the selective, accidental, or deliberate loss of behaviors and a replacement by behaviors which allow an individual to better ‘fit’ with the society of settlement. This process is also often called ‘adjustment’. Sometimes conflicts can occur. When a person is assimilating, these conflicts can be resolved by the acculturating person acting in accordance with the behavioral norms of the dominant group. When someone is pursuing separation, individuals may withdraw to avoid cultural conflict. When individuals seek integration, conflict can be avoided only when the two groups in contact agree that mutual accommodation is the appropriate course to follow. Lastly, when individuals aim for marginalization, they have to deal with cultural conflict daily, and can resolve this by seeking little improvement in either culture.

When there are high levels of cultural conflict, then this is called acculturative stress. This means that individuals understand that they are facing problems because of their intercultural contact which cannot be dealt with easily or quickly.

What about adaptation?

To cope with cultural changes, individuals often adapt and this can lead to long-term adaptations. Adaptation is defined as the relatively stable change that takes place in an individual or group in response to external demands. Furthermore, adaptation may or may not improve the match between individuals and their environments. This thus means that adaptation is not an outcome that is only positive. Adaptation can also be divided into psychological and sociocultural adaptation. Psychological adaptation is defined as one’s psychological and physical well-being. Sociocultural adaptation refers to how well an acculturating individual is able to manage their daily life in the new cultural context. These two are conceptually distinct, but they show a high correlation. However, they are empirically distinct in that psychological problems often arise quick after contact, and decrease over time. Sociocultural adaption shows a linear improvement over time.

Proper psychological adaptation is predicted by personality variables, life change events, and social support. Sociocultural adaptation is predicted by cultural knowledge, degree of contact, and positive intergroup attitudes.

It seems that individuals who pursue and accomplish integration are better adapted. In contrast, individuals who marginalize are the least well adapted.

What can be concluded?

Currently, there are two areas of application which are receiving attention in research and policy development. The first is the domain of family life, which include the relationship among individuals within the family and between family members and the outside world. The other domain is in the area of immigration and settlement policies, which include issues of changes in the institutions of a society, and the promotion of cultural diversity.

Family life

Parents and children hold different views about parent-adolescent relationships during acculturation. This means that parents have higher scores on a measure of family obligations than their adolescent children. In contrast, immigrant youth have higher scores on a scale of adolescent rights (independence in dating) than their parents. The differences between parents and adolescents in their views about family obligations vary according to which acculturation strategy the adolescent is in. For example, adolescents in a national profile (preferring assimilation, having a stronger national identity, and having more national friends) show greater discrepancies between their views and the views of their parents. These discrepancies are associated with poorer psychological and sociocultural adaptation of the adolescents. Another project on family life focuses on similarities and differences in family structure and function. These projects have shown that there are variations in family functioning that is linked to ecological contexts (reliance on agriculture, general affluence) and to variation in socio-political contexts (education, religion). It seems that hierarchical and extended family arrangements have more conservative values in high agrarian and low affluence societies. In contrast, families high in affluence and education are more nuclear, less hierarchical and show more independence. These differences in family life are likely to lead to variations in acculturation strategies, acculturative stress and psychological and sociocultural adaptation.

With regard to public policies, the authors of the article propose that public policies and programs which aim to reduce acculturative stress and improve psychological and sociocultural adaptation should emphasizes the integration approach to acculturation.

Access: 
Public
Article summary of Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes by Ely & Thomas - 2001 - Chapter

Article summary of Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes by Ely & Thomas - 2001 - Chapter

How does diversity influence the functioning of a work-group?

Many organizational experts from various disciplines have tried to find an answer to this question and they have come to the conclusion that the best answer is: "it depends".

Variety can take many forms and it depends on:

  1. The kind of diversity
  2. The nature of the work-group
  3. The organizational context to which it belongs and how this diversity influences the work process.

The researchers Ely and Thomas use the existing literature on this subject to investigate which factors give the best explanation of the circumstances in which group diversity in the work situation promotes or hinders the functioning of these groups.

They are less interested in specific aspects of diversity (race, gender, etc.) than in trying to understand the influence of the more general category of cultural diversity. Ely and Thomas come to the conclusion that work units are often different from diversity and that this divergent orientation has a major influence on the functioning of the group.

American management literature is overflowing with advice to managers to promote diversity in the workplace in order to increase the effectiveness of the work-groups. However, empirical research into whether and how diversity relates to the functioning of work-groups is limited. The conclusions vary and partly depend on which variables the diversity consists of:

  • Gender
  • Variety
  • Hierarchical or functional place in the organization
  • Idiosyncratic (personal, peculiar) attitudes
  • Values ​​and preferences of the participants in the work-group

This means that management consultants and managers who want to promote diversity must start from a combination of common sense and relying on their own views and arguments that they put forward when asking how companies/organizations should deal with this issue.

Ely and Thomas therefore investigate the experiences of people in work-groups and the conditions under which diversity in the work-groups promotes or hinders the functioning of the work-group. Theories are based on these experiences. Ely and Thomas distinguish three different principles from which people in a work-group positively assess diversity. Each of these three has different consequences for the work-group's ability to reap the benefits of cultural diversity. The results of this research are critically compared with the themes and fundamental assumptions of earlier research. Proposals are made to both researchers and practitioners who are interested in diversity to take new paths.

After an elaboration on how diversity within groups is approached by researchers (demographic, ethnic, racial, functional background, cultural, physical, social class and gender differences). This includes the aspect of power in the organization (value allocation) based on dominance differences. Ely and Thomas come to the conclusion that many of these different aspects can be summarized under the heading 'cultural diversity'. The relationship between variety of cultural diversity and the functioning of the work-groups is also influenced by the quality of the relationships between groups, by the degree to which people feel valued, and respected and the meaning (content) of the cultural identity within the work-group. This is all influenced by a general (positive or negative) approach of diversity.

Research population

Ely and Thomas focus their research on three different service organizations; a law firm, a financial service organization, and a consultancy firm.

Data collection

The research data was collected through interviews and observations during staff meetings of those three organizations investigated.

Data analysis

The data analysis consisted of independently reviewing the notes of the interviews and of the observations during the staff meetings of each of the three organizations. And determining themes that indicated similarities and differences between the three organizations, in particular with regard to the question to what extent these differences correlated with promoting or hindering the effective functioning of the organizations.

The researchers came to the conclusion that they had come to the same insights: three different perspectives seemed to distinguish how members of the working groups created diversity in their groups and how they subsequently responded. This proved important variables of how the groups functioned. This finding was used as a working hypothesis in which the other research data were framed.

Views of work-groups on diversity (diversity)

The analysis of the research data supported the hypothesis that the views (principles) of work-groups with regard to diversity were related to the different levels of the individual and the functioning of the group. We found that there were three views on diversity that seemed to have different implications as to how well people in that group functioned and therefore the likelihood that their work-group would reap the benefits of diversity:

  • The integration and learning aspect
  • The access and legitimacy aspect
  • The discrimination and fairness aspect

1. The integration and learning aspect (perspective)

In a group with great cultural diversity, the different insights, skills and experiences that employees have developed as members of groups with different cultural identity potential can tap into valuable resources that the working group can use to redefine its basic task in terms of its markets, products and strategies. This approach clearly helped the law firm and the financial services organization.

At the law firm they started with a completely white male staff, but gradually they also wanted to shift the field of work to sectors where colored low-income groups (especially women). At the beginning of that changing view, a Latino staff member was assumed who had different insights, which were increasingly used and which led the law firm to recruit more and more people from other cultural identity groups.

2. Access and legitimacy aspect (perspective)

The access and legitimacy aspect of diversity is based on the observation that the market and its component parts are culturally diverse. As a result, it is wise for the organization to assemble parts of its labor potential in such a way that access and legitimacy are obtained in these different culturally diverse market segments.

3. Discrimination and fairness aspect (perspective)

This is characterized by the belief that a culturally heterogeneous workers' composition is morally necessary because it gives a fair chance to all. The organization for this purpose was the consultancy agency. This ethical approach was expressed very clearly in the interviews.

Quality (quality) of intergroup relations

The integration and learning approach has as its starting point the notion that a heterogeneous group of people comes together with the intention of learning from each other how to work towards the objective of the organization. However, this entails a kind of tension in discussions in which people struggled with the fact that they had to listen carefully before deciding how to tackle the work.

The significance of cultural identity

The integration and learning theory emphasizes cultural identity as a potential source of insight and skills. Ethnic minorities explained that their racial group membership was a big part of how they saw their work.

Access: 
Public
Article summary of Work group diversity and group performance: an integrative model and research agenda by Van Knippenberg et al. - 2004 - Chapter

Article summary of Work group diversity and group performance: an integrative model and research agenda by Van Knippenberg et al. - 2004 - Chapter

Organizational life and behaviour are shaped by group diversity and can have positive and negative effects on job performance. However, research on the relationship between performance and group diversity is inconclusive. Therefore, van Kippenberg and his colleagues (2004) propose the categorization-elaboration model (CEM). The model tries to explain the moderator and mediator variables that were previously ignored in diversity research. Information and decision-making, and social categorization are important in interaction and influence intergroup bias. These processes also influence elaboration (in-depth processing) and reviewing task-relevant information and perspectives.

What is the relationship between work-group diversity and performance?

The definition of diversity is the difference between individuals that lead to the perception that one individual is different from another. The dimensions are indefinite, it can be race, age, gender, religious background and so on. Previous research mainly focused on age and nationality, educational and functional background. It is argued that social category difference is the most important factor in the perception of diversity. Informational -and functional diversity reflect differences in functional and educational background, which are important for job performance but are less visible. Williams and O’Reilly (1998) identified two factors that are important in diversity research:

  1. The social categorization perspective where similarities and differences are used a to categorize someone as part of a group. Riordan and Shore (1997) found that the higher the homogeneity of the work group, the more committed the group members are.

  2. The information/decision making perspective states that diverse groups should outperform homogeneous groups. This is because diverse groups are likely to be better in processing different sorts of information and combine this into a task-relevant solution.

The social categorization perspective focuses more on relational aspects, whereas the information/decision making perspective focuses on task-related aspects of group functioning.

What is the categorization-elaboration model?

The positive and negative effects of diversity are not completely clear yet. Therefore, the categorization-elaboration model is proposed by the authors. This model identifies some reasons why there are so many inconsistent findings in diversity research:

  1. Diversity research lacks focus on group information processing;

  2. Diversity research worked with an oversimplification of the conceptualization of social processes and categories;

  3. Diversity research studies information -and decision-making processes as well as social categorisation processes in isolation. However, these processes interact and should be considered together, like in the proposed CEM-model;

  4. The assumption used in diversity research, that information/decision-making and social categorization are related to specific dimensions of diversity;

The CEM-model exists from several components to describe the effects of diversity in organizations. The authors propose that diversity in a group is positively associated with the in-depth processing of task-relevant information and perspectives. Group members can exchange and discuss their ideas that are relevant to the group task. The model is consistent with the social categorization perspective on three factors:

  1. Cognitive accessibility, when it is easy to make a social categorization this is because differences between categories are cognitively activated.

  2. Normative fit is the extend to which a categorization makes subjective sense to members of the group.

  3. Comparative fit is the extend to which the subgroups are yielded into high intragroup similarity and differences.

What are the propositions of the categorization-elaboration model?

Elaboration is described as the exchange of perspectives and information. Diversity can have a positive effect on elaboration because group-discussion and integration can yield better, and more innovative solutions to a problem. Therefore, the information/decision making perspective argues a heterogenous group outperforms a homogenous group. Empirical evidence supports this claim. This leads to the first proposition of the model:

  1. The main underlying process of positive effects of diversity on group performance is the in-depth processing and elaboration of task relevant information.

According to the information/decision making perspective, group diversity increases the outcome of creative solutions due to more elaboration of task-relevant information. However, elaboration is not always the most productive method. When performing routine tasks, elaboration can cause counterproductivity because reasonable procedures are abandoned. Thus, diversity is positively related to complex task productivity. The moderating effect of task-complexity is described in the second proposition:

  1. Task requirements and complexity is a moderator of the relationship between performance and diversity. Diversity is positively related to performance when creative and innovative solutions are required.

Besides task-complexity, another moderating effect is task motivation. Motivation is the core moderator of deep-level processing and shapes social perception and judgement. The role of motivation is discussed in proposition three and four:

  1. Diversity benefits performance when the motivation of group members to perform the task is high.

  2. Elaboration and good performance are stimulated by diversity when group member task ability is high.

The connection between diversity, social categorization and intergroup bias is also very important. It is argued that social categorization is a product of the degree of difference between members of a group and is inevitable. However, the empirical evidence relies on common practice using false assumptions. Instead, the salience of social categorization is discussed. The self-categorization theory states that the salience of a categorization is based on three components, comparative fit, normative fit and cognitive accessibility. Differences between group members do not necessarily lead to categorization, but the readiness to use the categorization and whether the categorization is subjectively meaningful are predictors of the extent to which categorization results in homogeneity or not.

  1. Social categorization in work groups depends on the interaction of normative fit, comparative fit and accessibility of social categorizations.

The relationship between social categorization and intergroup bias is described in the sixth and seventh proposition of the model. Intergroup bias is the more positive perception towards an in-group member compared to the perception of an out-group member. Intergroup bias tends to be lower when sub-groups had their own distinctive tasks in an organization.

  1. The result of social categorization is intergroup bias, which is disruptive to the overall functioning of the group. This is to the extent that the identity that is implied by the categorization is challenged.

  2. When intergroup biases are caused by work-group diversity they are disruptive to the elaboration process of task-relevant information. This has a negative impact on group performance.

Social category diversity and informational diversity can be considered different aspects of diversity. However, they are not tied to these specific dimensions. Some differences between group members might not seem task relevant, such as gender or marital status, but might be associated with task-relevant perspectives on what is important for employees. These differences might confound informational differences.

  1. All the diversity dimensions can elicit social categorization processes and elaboration processes.

What are the research implications for diversity management?

The CEM addresses the inconsistency in findings for performance and diversity and outlines the implications for further diversity research. It also outlines some consequences for management of diversities. The model suggests that work-group diversity potential benefits should be harvested. Intergroup biases should be prevented together with their disruptive effects. Furthermore, negative affective-evaluative responses to the group and group members could result in a disruption of elaboration of task-relevant information. The moderators of elaboration, categorization and intergroup bias should be carefully considered when providing guidelines for diverse work groups.

What do the researchers conclude?

The article started with the analysis of inconsistencies between various findings on the relationship between work-group diversity and performance. For this purpose, the categorization-elaboration model (CEM) was proposed. The effects of diversity can be seen trough the eyes of two perspectives, first is social categorization and second is information/decision making processes. The CEM addresses both perspectives and discusses the possible influence of work-group diversity effects on performance. The authors have eight propositions that elaborate on both positive and negative effect of diversity in work groups. These propositions can benefit future research. However, the influence of diversity and inclusion in work groups should be further researched. The influence on commitment and turnover could be explored together with their impact on group performance. The present study provides an overview of the possible effects of diversity in terms of social categorization and information processing. Several theoretical accounts have been integrated and can be combined to realistic advice on how to manage job performance in diverse work groups.

BulletPoints

  • Organizational life and behaviour are shaped by group diversity and can have positive and negative effects on job performance. However, research on the relationship between performance and group diversity is inconclusive. Therefore, van Kippenberg and his colleagues (2004) propose the categorization-elaboration model (CEM). The model tries to explain the moderator and mediator variables that were previously ignored in diversity research.

  • The definition of diversity is the difference between individuals that lead to the perception that one individual is different from another. The dimensions are indefinite, it can be race, age, gender, religious background and so on. Previous research mainly focused on age and nationality, educational and functional background. It is argued that social category difference is the most important factor in the perception of diversity. Informational -and functional diversity reflect differences in functional and educational background

  • The present study provides an overview of the possible effects of diversity in terms of social categorization and information processing. Several theoretical accounts have been integrated and can be combined to realistic advice on how to manage job performance in diverse work groups.

ExamTickets

  • Make sure that you know the eight propositions and whether they reflect the information processing/decision making perspective or the social categorization perspective.

  • What are the main positive -and negative outcomes of diverse work groups?

Access: 
Public
Article summary of The vicious cycle linking stereotypes and social roles by Eagly & Koenig - 2021 - Chapter

Article summary of The vicious cycle linking stereotypes and social roles by Eagly & Koenig - 2021 - Chapter

What is this article about?

Stereotypes can harm social life, because they are shared within societies. Individuals’ well-being and opportunities can be harmed by stereotypes by for example fostering discrimination in hiring, and this is also true for positive beliefs. Successful interventions must break the vicious cycle by which stereotypes come into existence and endure over time.

How are stereotypes formed?

Stereotypes are acquired: people are not born with stereotypes in their mind. They stem from observations, and take form by processes of social cognition. The first step is categorization: the mental sorting of people into groups (based on for example their sex, race, age). Upon observing others, perceivers spontaneously infer traits that explain the behaviors that they observe. These inferences are related to social roles. For instance, the role of mother requires caring behaviours and therefore the role of ‘mother’ triggers the inference of traits such as ‘warm’, and ‘kind’. For some social categories, such as sex and age, many individuals have a lot of direct observations. Other categories, such as sexual orientation, are less visible. Exposure to the portrayal of members in legends, novels, songs, movies, etcetera., initiate associative processes based on the coactivation of social categories and social roles. Information from multiple sources increase confidence in stereotypes.

Studies have found that stereotypes of many categories could be predicted by the attributes associated with their typical occupational roles. For example, it was found that the stereotype of ‘the rich’ was similar to the attributes of the roles of corporate executives, doctors, and bankers, in which ‘the rich’ are overrepresented. There is also a link between social roles and stereotypes. For instance, when a gay man was portrayed in a highly male-dominated occupational role, his ascribed traits shifted from a less feminine to a more masculine direction. Roles can thus influence the stereotypes that are associated with social categories. Stereotypes that are formed are easily maintained and reinforced. As an example of a vicious cycle, consider the stereotype that Asian Americans are smart and good at math. These beliefs stem from observations of Asian Americans’ frequent presence in occupational roles in technology and science. People tend to be biased to confirm their expectations, for example by seeking stereotype-consistent information. This can also lead to that Asian Americans are privileged, in that they have higher access to roles requiring technical and mathematical competence. However, it also restricts their access to roles that require other qualities, such as leadership roles, which are defined by qualities such as assertiveness and competitiveness. Another way in which stereotyping can induce a cycle is that, roles can be shaped to fit the stereotype of the people.

How can stereotypes be changed?

In a meta-analyses of interventions aimed at changing stereotypes, it was found that there is little evidence of efficacy of these interventions. It seems that multiple interventions over long time are necessary to produce enduring change. Most diversity-training interventions in organizations have also not been effective in reducing discriminatory behavior. The basic weakness of these interventions is that they attempt to cut off the weeds (stereotypes) at the ground, instead of digging them out by the roots. This means that the weeds will grow back. Thus, it is necessary to change the roles in which category members are typically observed, to roles that require different attributes. For example, women’s increasing labour-force participation and education during the years 1946-2018 lead to that they were associated with a gain in competence. Thus, changing social roles is an effective route to changing stereotypes. However, this is an incremental process which does not happen quickly. It happens when one or more well-qualified persons take on an unfamiliar role. Governments and organizations should facilitate the entry of persons from underrepresented social categories into new roles, as this can help to accelerate stereotype change. Well-designed interventions can thus encourage people to enter non-traditional roles by providing information and support. Some programs motivate young people to undertake careers that are unusual for their social category.

What can be concluded?

Stereotypes arise from observations of members of social categories that act within their usual roles. Changing stereotypes and reducing prejudice requires changing the roles that are typically occupied by category members. Without such role change, a vicious cycle will continue to repeat itself. Social policies must be targeted at inducing this change in social roles.

Access: 
Public
Article summary of The queen bee phenomenon by Derks et al. - 2016 - Chapter

Article summary of The queen bee phenomenon by Derks et al. - 2016 - Chapter

What is this article about?

In the last decades, women’s participation in the workforce has increased and women have started to outperform men in higher education. However, women are still underrepresented at higher organizational levels. Gender quotas have been put in place as a solution to this problem, and the underlying idea of this quota is that promoting a small number of women into senior positions in male-dominated organizations will improve opportunities for junior women. Specifically, it is thought that senior women will mentor and promote other women and that women leaders will add a ‘ feminine’ perspective to leadership and serve as inspirational role models for their junior counterparts.

This article describes a different view and will talk about the ‘queen bee phenomenon’, which refers to the idea that women leaders in organizations in which most executive positions are held by men, will assimilate to the male-dominated organizations and adjust their self-presentation and leadership style to fit this masculine culture. Furthermore, instead of helping other, junior women, they might distance themselves from them in order to reduce the association between themselves and the less successful group of women. Totally contrasting the underlying belief related to the gender quota, based on this queen bee phenomenon, it could be expected that organizations with queen bees (senior women) at the managerial level may offer fewer opportunities to junior women than organizations in which there are no queen bees. It is described how this would work, by describing the underlying psychological mechanisms.

What is the queen bee phenomenon exactly?

The term ‘queen bee’ is given to women who are successful in male-dominated work settings, thus in organizations in which men hold most executive positions. They adapt to the masculine culture and distance themselves from other women in three ways:

  1. By presenting themselves more like men;
  2. By physically and psychologically distancing themselves from other women;
  3. By endorsing and legitimizing the current gender hierarchy.

Presenting themselves more like men (masculine self-presentation)

It seems that, rather than adding a ‘feminine perspective’ to leadership, senior women try to present themselves more like men. For instance, different studies showed that senior women described themselves as equally or even more masculine (assertive, competitive, risk-taking) than their male peers. This was not the case for junior women. In sum, senior women often describe themselves as more masculine and ambitious than junior women, and comparably masculine and ambitious as male peers. The degree to which women leaders present themselves with stereotypically masculine characteristics was positively related to the number of subordinates they had.

Distancing from other women (underlining dissimilarities)

Studies show that some women leaders report that they are much more ambitious and committed to their career than female subordinates. They tend to describe themselves as very different from other women: they present themselves as stereotypically masculine, and also as much more masculine compared to other women. It should be noted that senior women tend to distance themselves from junior women, and not from women who are in leader positions: it is thus not a general distancing from women, it is only about distancing themselves from women who are not as successful as they are.

Legitimizing gender hierarchy

Queen bees can legitimize the status quo in different ways, for example by agreeing with negative stereotypes about women, by denying the fact that there are lower outcomes for women, and by not supporting or even opposing action to address gender inequality. By being critical of junior women and seeing them as less ambitious and less committed than junior men, the queen bees legitimize current gender differences. For instance, in different studies it was found that senior women denied that gender discrimination was still an issue in their organization, and reported low willingness to mentor junior women. It was also found that women at non-managerial level were much more in favor of gender equality policies than men, and women at the managerial level were just as unsupportive of these measures as men were. More nuanced, it was found that senior women oppose quota policies that would benefit the career of junior women or that would benefit themselves. They did however support policies that were designed to support senior women at their organizational rank.

How can the queen bee phenomenon be explained?

The queen bee phenomenon is a not related to women’s personalities or inherent competitiveness toward other women. Instead, it is triggered in work settings in which women feel threatened. This argument is based on social identity theory, which states that individuals base their identity partly on their gender. When members of disadvantaged groups are in a minority position, they are likely to perceive that their group’s typical characteristics are not valued or considered important. When women are at work and they experience a low number of women in management, their identity is threatened. They can then use different strategies to manage this threatened identity. There are coping strategies at the collective and at the individual level. Collective-level strategies reduce the threat by improving the position of the group as a whole, for instance by re-evaluating existing group characteristics (e.g., ‘social creativity) or by working to improve group-level outcomes (e.g., ‘social change’). Individual level-strategies are aimed at benefiting individual outcomes by distancing the self from the disadvantaged group and by seeking acceptance into a group with higher status (e.g., ‘individual mobility’). These individual-level strategies are thus part of the queen bee phenomenon, and they might help the individual, but harm other women.

Each of these strategies thus has its own costs and benefits. Based on this social identity theory, the queen bee phenomenon is thus seen as an individual coping mechanism by which women aim to improve their personal opportunities in work settings in which the career options for women are restricted. Women who experience these threats to gender identity at work thus face a dilemma of promoting their personal opportunities or promoting those of women more generally. An important factor that determines how this dilemma is solved, is whether women perceive the boundaries to higher positions in the organization as permeable. It is also very difficult to determine whether differences in outcomes between men and women are due to gender discrimination or due to other factors, as most of the barriers that women may encounter are invisible. Therefore, diverging career outcomes of men and women are most times attributed to individual differences in abilities, ambitions, or life choices they make. Therefore, highly competent women often aim for individual mobility, instead of social change.

Experimental research has also shown that female team members were least likely to select a female candidate when they were the only women in a team. This was due to two types of threat: first, when female leaders had to choose between highly qualified male and female candidates, they decided against choosing the female candidate, because of the competition she would pose (‘competition threat’). Second, when the choice was between a moderately qualified male and female candidate, the female leaders also decided against choosing the female candidate, worrying that her performance might reflect negatively on them (‘collective threat’). In addition, some women do not really identify with women in general. These ‘low identifiers’ might feel threatened when others categorize themselves as members of the group of ‘women’. They might then distance themselves from the group to try to cope with the threat the gender categorization poses to their social identity. It can thus be expected that the queen bee phenomenon responses would be found in:

  1. Settings that threatened the social identity of women;
  2. Among women who did not indicate being strongly identified with other women at work.

Studies have shown that the queen bee phenomenon is not a standard response of women in higher positions. Instead, it is triggered in work settings in which women experience social identity threat due to gender discrimination and negative stereotypes. These settings may motivate some women (women who identify strongly with their gender at work) to support gender equality and stimulate the career of junior women, and some women (those who identify less with being women) may promote their individual opportunities through queen bee behaviour. These studies also suggest that the queen bee phenomenon can be reduced by reducing threats to women’s social identity, for example through interventions that reduce negative gender stereotypes in organizations, or interventions that allow weakly gender-identified women to cope with the threats in alternative ways (e.g., self-affirmation).

What else is known about the queen bee phenomenon?

There is also an indirect route through which women can become dissociated from other women. For instance, work shows that the conditions of work under which women are expected to perform are less favorable than for men. For instance, women are expected to take primary responsibility for their family, but achieving career success requires that they prioritize work over other life domains. Therefore it is no surprise that many women in leader positions are more likely than men to be single or childless. Senior women may thus feel as if they have made substantial sacrifices in their personal life, such as in relationships with their partner and friends and in their decision to have children. This may also be a reason for why senior women do not identify with junior women. In other words, it seems that senior women do distance themselves from junior women but do support senior women, because they feel the junior women have not made substantial sacrifices yet to survive in male-dominated organizations.

It has also been found that the queen bee phenomenon is not specific to women. Instead, members of other negatively stereotyped groups also show queen bee responses. When members of negatively stereotyped groups pursue upward mobility in fields that are traditionally dominated by members of the higher status outgroup, some of these members may show self-group distancing. This is a strategic activity in which individuals dissociate themselves from the negative aspects of their group’s stereotype. It may involve downplaying aspects of the devalued identity in their communications. It can thus be expected that self-group distancing occurs in particular when members of stigmatized groups find themselves in threatening outgroup settings, in which they feel that their identity as a member of a negatively stereotyped group is valued less than that of the majority or high status group, but in which they perceive some opportunity for individual mobility. It can also be expected that self-group distancing is more likely to occur among those who are less identified with the negatively stereotyped group: those who identify more strongly with their group are likely to be more loyal to the group and will promote group-level claims to equality rather than showing self-group distancing.

What are consequences of the queen bee phenomenon?

For female leaders

Men in higher organizational positions may experience threats to their social identity, because of the idea that in the future, women may achieve higher statuses than men. Selecting a queen bee into an influential position may help to relieve this threat in two ways. First, if organizations select women in a higher position, this may signal to others that the organizational hierarchy is permeable and this will alleviate internal or external pressure to improve the opportunities for women. Second, selecting a queen bee that explicitly legitimizes the current gender hierarchy (e.g., by denying that gender discrimination exists) serves to protect the status quo in which most of the power positions are held by men. In addition, on the long run, queen bee responses might lead to substantial costs for the support that women leaders receive. The main source of support for queen bees are other senior women, but often there are not that many senior women in organizations. Second, women leaders more often elicit stronger resistance responses than men in leadership positions when their behavior is incongruent with their gender role, regardless of queen bee behaviour. In addition, senior women who show queen bee behaviour are less likely to receive support from their female subordinates. They thus do not benefit from the supportive psychological effects that identification with other women may provide.

For junior women

Queen bee behavior is detrimental to the careers of junior women and may limit their opportunities. In addition, junior women are in need of female role models and senior women who show queen bee behaviour are rated as poor role models. Lastly, comparison with successful senior women can threaten the self-esteem of junior women, unless they identify with and see their success as attainable. When senior, queen bee female leaders thus distance themselves from these junior women, junior women may perceive upward mobility as unattainable and even undesirable.

For organizations

Queen bees can diminish outcomes for organizations by limiting their opportunities to benefit from the diversity that women can offer. When women feel like they need to adjust themselves to the masculine culture, they are unlikely to add a such a diverse perspective. Some companies might even discontinue equality policies because of the queen bee phenomenon, by concluding that: “senior women who, based on their femininity, would bring other values, insights and qualities to the company are actually very alike the men who were already there”.

For the gender hierarchy

The queen bee phenomenon is thus also a source that legitimizes current gender inequality because it allows people to conclude that women are themselves to blame for their lower outcomes. In the media, evidence is presented as if the rivalry between women causes senior women to limit the career opportunities of their junior counterparts. The queen bee phenomenon fits this gender stereotype of women as hostile toward each other, and distract from the actual problem, which is the reduced opportunities and difficult circumstances under which women achieve.

How can we combat the queen bee phenomenon?

The queen bee phenomenon can be combated by different means: reducing social identity threat and reducing beliefs in system legitimacy. Reducing social identity threat can be achieved through interventions such as self-affirmation. It may also be reduced by making women more aware of how implicit gender bias and collective disadvantage affect the outcomes of women as a group, and how they may personally be affected by gender discrimination (reducing beliefs in system legitimacy).

What can be concluded?

An explanation for why some women show queen bee behaviour has been offered. It has been shown that some organizational dynamics trigger queen bee responses, due to underlying social identity processes. In addition, it has been described that the queen bee response is not specific to women, and can occur in other disadvantaged groups.

Access: 
Public
Article summary of The glass cliff: Exploring the dynamics surrounding the appointment of women to precarious leadership positions by Ryan & Haslam - 2007 - Chapter

Article summary of The glass cliff: Exploring the dynamics surrounding the appointment of women to precarious leadership positions by Ryan & Haslam - 2007 - Chapter

Few women remain in leadership positions in companies. The glass ceiling is the explanation for this, which means that a kind of transparent barrier is holding back women for such a position. A second explanation is the glass escalator, which means that men work their way up faster within an organization. Yet there is an increase in the number of women who hold high positions, but the top positions are often in the hands of men.

Disadvantages of female employees

Female managers are examined more closely and are more often criticized than men. They are also evaluated less positively, even when they perform the same. Employees also prefer male supervisors and they doubt the effectiveness of female leaders. Women find themselves against a glass ceiling, because they associate their leadership position with major risks of failure. If there is indeed a failure, the women have to suffer.

The biggest obstacle that female employees have is the stereotype that a good manager has mainly male characteristics. A few of those characteristics are emotionally stable, competitive, objective and ambitious. These stereotype images influence how men and women are treated in the workplace. This leads to two major prejudices: (1) women who have the potential for a leadership role are assessed less positively and (2) women leaders are evaluated more negatively. If a management position can be properly attributed to male characteristics, an equally qualified man will be seen as more qualified than a woman. Women are less 'spontaneously categorized' in a leadership role. This gives women a loss-loss situation. If they behave like the female stereotype image, they are not seen as a leader, but if they behave like a leader stereotype image, they are not seen as a good woman.

Context matters when looking for a good leader. For example, a task-oriented leader can be structure-oriented, but you can also have a relationship-oriented leader who wants to promote cooperation. There is no perfect leader. In addition, leadership categorization plays a role. The perceptions of employees play a role in this. The leader's success depends on their expectations. These expectations are also influenced by the context. A leader can be effective in one context and not in another. It therefore can explain why there are more female managers in 'female sectors' such as the service sector.

Social identity

The social identity theory looks at perceptions about leadership that arise from the shared social identity that group members share and the needs and interests that come with it. According to the theory, a leader must represent what it is to be a group member, and he must be able to influence and lead the group. The theory also shows that inequalities in the number of men and women can increase, because the leaders are mostly men and show that the group consists of men. The leader is also the prototype of the group.

Leader in crisis situations

If there is a crisis, people think it is better to have certain qualities that women have. Then it's about understanding the situation, helping and being aware of the feelings of others. These characteristics are attributed to women. Successful situations require character traits that are assigned to men. So to get through a glass ceiling for a woman who wants a top position, a crisis would increase the chance. It has been shown to work.

There is a difference in gender in the area of ​​top positions. For example, women in top positions have less authority and face more restrictions. Women also indicated that they are less satisfied with their work than men. They also left their job more often than men because they experienced more stress. They were sometimes seen as too emotional. So breaking through the glass ceiling also brings problems with it.

The question remains why women are placed in risky leadership positions earlier. So in crisis there is more confidence in a woman who can solve it. Women would be better able to cope with the socio-emotional challenges that a crisis entails. Men could not face this challenge. But in normal situations, a glass ceiling can appear on women. This can be explained in two ways: in the first place there can be deliberate open sexism or discrimination in the workplace. For example, a woman may be placed in a risky situation to see her fail. Secondly, it can happen unintentionally and unconsciously because of the belief that women and men differ in competence. The latter can be done in a malignant manner (by designating a woman as a scapegoat) or in a benign manner (by wanting more women in available positions). In benign sexism, for example, a role is presented as attractive, while it is actually problematic. This way it seems as if the woman is being done a favor. Women are usually unable to reject this offer.

Ingroup favoritism

A glass ceiling could also occur because there is discrimination between groups. This would be due to ingroup favoritism, whereby the own group is seen as more attractive. All available positions are then reserved by someone from their own group. In this way men can keep certain men's jobs. Men do not want to put other men in risky positions because they want to help each other. That is why the women get such a function more often. High-risk positions are those in companies that have been bad in the media. In a risky position, students saw an opportunity for women, but as a bad turn for men.

Turn

If a company is not doing well, a female leader can come if there is nothing left to lose. On the contrary, it can also have a stimulating effect because the company is viewed differently. In Japan, an 'outsider' is asked by a poorly performing company to take the lead for a fresh look. Women also break through the glass ceiling sooner if management changes.

Reactions

If women are not treated well or are confronted with a glass ceiling for sexist reasons, or if they are placed in a senior position for sexist reasons, they deny the reason. In this way they do not play the role of the victim and they are not a point of attention for criticism from group members from another group.

Access: 
Public
Article summary of Effective Diversity Training by Roberson et al. - 2013 - Chapter

Article summary of Effective Diversity Training by Roberson et al. - 2013 - Chapter

 Diversity training is a key component of organizational diversity management initiatives. In a recent survey, seventy-one percent of human resource professionals reported that diversity training was part of their diversity management strategy.

There’s several objectives organizations want from diversity training. More directly it could increase diversity awareness among individuals, promote positive intergroup attitudes and motivate positive behaviors among organizational members. These outcomes are further linked to an organization’s competitive advantages: its flexibility and reputation, ability to attract talent, and access to more diverse markets.

The past 15 years have seen a growth in scholarly interest on diversity training. The purpose of this chapter is to summarize this literature and offer conclusions about the effectiveness of diversity training.

<

p>h2>How do you implement effective diversity training?

The current standard for developing training and improving the effectiveness of training is The Instructional Design Model. This model outlines a systemic approach, the stages of which will be reviewed in the following sections.

Needs assessment

The critical first step of the model is needs assessment. In this step the following things are determined:

  • What kind of training is needed.
  • Who should be trained.
  • Whether organizational conditions will support training so that learning transfers to the job.

The first desired outcome of this step are a set of training goals that will guide the program design and the training’s measures of success. The second is to evaluate trainees’ readiness.

Needs assessment consists of the following three related facets:

  1. Organization analysis: The organization analysis is done to identify aspects of the organizational context that influence training delivery and results. This phase is used to identify the nature of diversity-related problems and gathering baseline data.
  2. Operations or task analysis: In this phase the behaviors, knowledge, skills, and abilities needed for performance are specified. When designing job skill training the importance of operations analysis is obvious, but in the diversity training literature operations analysis has not always been viewed as relevant as similar training content is usually provided for all employees regardless of their role. However operations analysis can identiy the diversity competencies that will form the basis of training objectives. Such as the ability to work in a team, or deliver constructive feedback to diverse employees.
  3. Person analysis: In this phase individual trainees are assessed on skill level and readiness so training can be tailored to their needs. Attitudes towards diversity influence the receptiveness towards training, and its suggested to analyze trainees’ attitudes towards diversity, their previous experience with diversity, inconsistencies between attitude and behavior and trust between trainers and trainees.

How can diversity training be designed?

The design refers to the organization and coordination of the diversity training program. The two most common models for diversity training design are awareness first and the social learning theory.

Awareness first

The awareness first model proposes that diversity competency develops in stages, starting with the development of diversity awareness first. Various versions of this model exist, that all have in common that they implicate that the training should start with increasing awareness, before other learning. Diversity awareness typically refers to a combination of cognitive and affective outcomes. Cognitive outcomes concern knowledge of facts, in diversity training this may refer to facts about different social identity groups, diversity in society, knowledge about social cognition theory, etc.

Knowledge about the diversity stance of the organization is hoped to increase motivation, perceived importance of diversity and commitment to diversity goals. Knowledge of cognitive processes can lead to attention to one’s perceptions and less stereotyping. Factual knowledge about minorities and discrimination, can replace stereotypes and reduce discriminatory behavior.

Another target of diversity awareness training is the organization of knowledge, particularly social categorization. The categorization of people to in-groups and out-groups is viewed as a major cause of prejudice. Interventions are designed to reorganize trainees’ categorization of their own and other groups. Four strategies for changing attitudes and improving group relations are:

  • Decategorization: individual identities are emphasized
  • Recategorization: where all people are one large common group
  • Crossed categorization: two groups are made aware they form a third group
  • Integration methods: a common group identity is highlighted, while sub-identities are still recognized and affirmed

A third aspect of diversity awareness is self-knowledge, knowledge about one’s own attitudes and biases and how they may influence the perception and treatment of others. Developing awareness and “owning” your biases is a critical step towards controlling them. Self-knowledge is believed to lead to more “mindful” interactions, more questioning of one’s first impressions, a heightened sense of responsibility for inequalities, and increased motivation to change.

Training methods for self-knowledge all involve an amount of confrontation. These exercises to increase self-knowledge are stressful for participants, as they are intended to influence attitudes and behavior through negative emotions, such as anger and guilt. While anger may lead to positive change, it could also lead to more aggression toward the out-group.

Awareness training is the most common type of diversity training, however the model that awareness leads to attitude and behavior change has rarely been empirically tested and the available evidence is not encouraging. Studies might not have been fair to the ‘awareness first’ model as in this model awareness training should only be the first step in the process, yet in research and practice the recommendation for later learning is rarely followed.

Social learning theory

After awareness first, Social Learning Theory is also frequently invoked as a theoretical basis for the design of diversity training. According to SLT, people learn when their behavior results in positive outcomes, and when they observe others’ actions and consequences of their behavior, through a process called vicarious reinforcement: behaviors that are directly or vicariously rewarded are more likely to be recalled and reproduced. SLT also emphasizes self-efficacy: trainees are more likely to attempt behaviors when they feel they can be successful. This theory is used as the basis for behavior modeling training, which is widely and successfully used in organizational and educational settings. First, key behaviors to be taught are identified, these are then presented to trainees by a model. During training opportunities for mastery through feedback and practice are provided. Transfer to the job setting is then facilitated through goal setting and identifying situations where new skills can be used.

Evidence supporting the SLT as a diversity training model, while limited, is stronger than for the ‘awareness first’ model. The two models aren’t contradictory and it has been recommended that they be integrated and used together, with awareness training presented first, followed by behavior modeling training. Another consideration is that the trainees’ characteristics affect the effectiveness of the training operations. Trainees’ characteristics should inform the choices made in training design, as they can lead to widely different outcomes.

What training delivery decisions are of influence?

There’s several characteristics of diversity training programs beyond the content that can influence effectiveness. It is difficult to draw clear conclusions however, as there’s been limited research on these delivery decisions.

Trainer demographics

Trainers that are female or people of color are often preferred under the assumption that they have greater experience with diversity issues. An alternative view on choice of trainer is that the trainer’s demographics should match those of the trainees to enhance the trainer’s credibility and promote trainees’ identification with the trainer. A third view argues that the trainer’s demographics may interact with the training’s content to influence its effectiveness. Participants might respond more favorably to female and minority trainer when the course content focused on differences among people.

Demographic composition of the training group

The demographic composition of the training group is somewhat of a controversy in literature. Some recommend training groups with a mix of social identity groups for their educational benefits, and to reduce the possibility some trainees will be viewed as tokens. Others argue for homogenous groups, as they will facilitate discussion of within-group dynamics, as well as allow trainees to express themselves more freely. Only one study examined this issue. It reported that the effects of group composition depended on the experience of trainees. Trainees with prior diversity training gained greater knowledge and skill when they were assigned to homogenous training groups, as this enhanced the feeling of safety needed to try new skills and behaviors.

Framing of training

The framing of training refers to how the training program is defined and communicated to trainees. The frame influences pretraining attitudes, which in turn affect training outcomes. The first issue concerns how diversity is defined. This could be narrow - with one or two demographic variables, or broad - concerning not just differences in demographic, but also values, work styles, and personality. The broad frame includes all employees, reduces backlash, and is associated with greater perceived success of diversity training. But some argue it could divert attention from historically excluded groups and key issues resulting from group inequalities.

The second issue pertains the communicated reason for diversity training. Participants’ perception on why diversity training is implemented can influence the outcome of training. For example, in one study a training program resulted in more supervisory discriminatory behavior towards employees from different backgrounds, as supervisors’ believed they had been selected for training due to complaints from these employees.

Mandatory versus voluntary training

Mandatory training has been perceived as having a greater success rate. Requiring training sends a message about the importance of training and the organization’s commitment to diversity. Other characteristics for mandatory training that support training success are that it is associated with top management support and the use of post-training evaluations, as well as greater organizational support for the training and additional HR structures that maximize the effectiveness of training.

Another perspective is that being forced to attend training may lower motivation to learn and generate backlash. Mandatory training for those with strong negative attitudes towards diversity can make their attitude more extreme. Voluntary training is then associated with more positive outcomes, but relying on voluntary training may be insufficient for organization change.

How is training evaluated and transferred?

Researchers are interested in the different impacts that diversity training is likely to have, such as:

  • To what extent it can influence trainee changes, learning, motivation or skill
  • How immediate changes resulting from the training affect the way trainees behave when they return to work.
  • Whether the changes in trainees have a downstream effect on the organization’s effectiveness.

Trainee changes

At the individual level the learning outcomes comprise three major categories: Cognitive, skill-based, and affective. Diversity training is highly effective in increasing participants’ knowledge. Studies have found positive effects on diversity knowledge in the short-term as well as the long term. The evidence regarding diversity training’s effectiveness in changing attitudes about diversity is less clear cut. Some studies found short and long-term positive effects on attitudes, others found this effect was negligible, and occasionally even negative effects on attitude were reported.

Diversity skill training provides trainees to develop interpersonal competencies. Evaluation of diversity skill training has received the least attention in research literature, and within these studies mixed findings are found. Some studies have found gains related to trainees’ cross-culture skills, others documented a lack of impact on behavioral change, and some even found a negative association between diversity training and diversity skill development. The negative results on self-reported skills may be due to trainees’ rating their skills more negatively after being made aware of their lack of skills due to diversity training.

Transfer of training

For most organizational training the primary goal is the positive transfer of training - the extent to which the learning outcomes transfer to the job and lead to meaningful changes in work performance. The examination of transfer is not common in literature, but results from the few existing studies report some positive news. Some studies reported that trainees successfully transferred learned cultural sensitivity to their interactions with clients. However more negative behavior from trainees towards individuals from other ethnic backgrounds has also been an observed outcome.

Successful transfer in part depends on the content of diversity training. For example if the dominant focus of the program is on attitudes and awareness, the program is unlikely to foster trainee skills that will change on-the-job behavior. Successful transfer is also dependent on the characteristics of the work environment, and how it motivates trainees to learn and use their acquired skills.

Two particularly important environmental characteristics in training transfer are

  1. Situational cues: social and task stimuli in the work setting that remind trainees of the training context and provide opportunities to use new skills. 
  2. Consequences: the negative and positive reactions of supervisors and peers when trainees use new skills on the job. 

One of the most important situational cues is the demographic composition of people in powerful positions. The demographic of the upper layers in the company sends a message about the value of diversity in the organization, and creates more opportunities for trainees to exercise their new diversity skills. Empirical evidence of the role of consequences in diversity training is mixed. One challenge in facilitating diversity training might be ensuring managers have the skills to recognize and properly respond to diversity behaviors.

Organizational impact

The final objective of most organizational training programs is to influence organizational outcomes - lower costs, improve efficiency, or enhance morale. For diversity training these objective might be that trainees’ enhanced diversity skills:

  1. Will help make the organization an employer of choice.
  2. Will help diverse employees work together
  3. Will better serve diverse customers and clients

These ‘first-level’ effects might then generate ‘second-level’ effects on organization productivity or financial performance.

It is unfortunately difficult to identify which effects can be attributed directly to a training program, as a result few training programs have been assessed with regard to organization level outcomes. The small number of studies on organizational outcomes of diversity training make it difficult to draw firm conclusions. Diversity training appears to affect discrimination charges. When managers participate in diversity training discrimination charges were reduced, suggesting training reduces managers’ discriminatory behavior. While employee participation caused discrimination charges to increase, suggesting training raises employees’ awareness of their rights.

What should the future of diversity training research look like?

While diversity training is widely endorsed and used in organizations, it is frequently criticized for failing to deliver expected benefits. A recent study found only 51 percent of U.S employees viewed diversity training favorably. Respondents especially found diversity training ineffective in enabling them to transfer skills back to their work environments.

Research has an important role to play given the controversy over training effectiveness, as it can provide evidence-based conclusions about effects and outcome. While research has addressed concerns and criticisms, there is still a long way to go before empirical research can provide definitive answers on how to make training most effective. Especially behavioral skills and transfer are still relatively neglected by research even though they are among the most desired outcomes of diversity training.

Critical directions for future research are:

  • The important trainee characteristics that influence training effectiveness or interact with training methods to influence outcomes.
  • How to evaluate diversity skill.
  • The long-term impact of diversity training, including retention of knowledge, attitude gains, and transfer of skills to on-the-job behavior

The controversy over diversity training also concerns effectiveness at the organizational level. Critics argue diversity training has failed to accomplish change outside of the individual outcomes, or even has a negative effect on organizational outcomes. Some critical directions for future research on higher-level outcomes are:

  1. Researchers must make theoretical definitions of what higher-level outcomes might be influenced by diversity training, as well as the processes that describe how those outcomes would be affected. Researchers need to develop theories that link individual-level outcomes of diversity training with organizational-level outcomes to help align expectations and specify the timeframe in which effects are likely to be seen.
  2. The role of teams and team diversity training needs to be considered. Team training strategies have been neglected in the diversity training literature. 
  3. It needs to be recognized that diversity training may have different effects in different contexts, and then identified which contextual factors are most likely to influence the effectiveness of diversity training. Diversity training my heighten employees’ awareness about challenges in the organization and motivate them to engage in voice or exit. An organization that implements diversity training may experience short-term costs before it experiences longer-term benefits.

To speed up progress in the diversity training research agenda, greater collaboration is necessary between diversity training scholars and diversity training practitioners, as field research is necessary for gathering the most useful knowledge. One reason for this divide might be that organizations rarely evaluate their training efforts. Another reason is that organizations might keep the details of their successes to gain a competitive advantage in their efforts to become an employer of choice.  

Access: 
Public
Article summary of Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research by Shore et al. - 2011 - Chapter

Article summary of Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research by Shore et al. - 2011 - Chapter

Group inclusion in the workplace is still under development and there is not yet an agreement on the construct. Previous research mainly focused on the problems with diversity including affirmative actions, tokenism and discrimination bias. Shore et al. (2011) use Brewer’s optimal distinctiveness theory (ODT) to define this construct of employee inclusion and the influence it has on satisfaction and the needs of uniqueness and belongingness in the workplace. This framework can be used for further research and reviewing inclusion and diversion in the workplace.

What is the optimal distinctiveness theory?

Identification with in-groups and out-groups is defines as the identification with social categories and the group. People become attached trough a common connection to the group. Identity contains a social component that involves defining oneself as being an individual. Brewer (1991) argues that people seek balance between uniqueness and individuation. People that choose social identities based upon a group seek acceptance in this group. When an individual feels accepted, this has many advantages.

  • People display in-group favouritism, they attribute positive group behaviour to the group and themselves and negative group behaviour to others.

  • The trustworthiness, cooperation and loyalty among group members increases;

If group members feel they are too similar, they start seeking distinctiveness. Group members start to define themselves in terms of differentiating characteristics. People tend to socially identify with a group if both the needs for uniqueness and inclusiveness are met. ODT studies show what happens when these needs are at jeopardy. To restore balance, people engage in self-stereotyping, place greater value on social identity and display intergroup differentiation.

What are the roles of belongingness and uniqueness in defining inclusion?

Inclusion is defined as the degree to which an employee feels to be an established member of a group. It includes whether the group treatment and outcomes satisfy the need for uniqueness and belongingness. The inclusion framework proposes uniqueness and belongingness create feelings of inclusion. When a unique individual is an accepted member of the group and the group values the characteristic of uniqueness. A higher value of inclusion can benefit job performance. Work groups with high inclusion values can facilitate collaboration across the organization, demonstrate good analysis and are able to enhance their skills. Exclusion is when a person does not have the feeling to be an organizational insider with a unique value in the work group. The outcomes can be harmful on emotional, cognitive and health level. The proposed inclusion-framework includes four definitions:

  1. Exclusion: when an individual is not treated as an insider in the organization containing a unique quality, while others are treated that way.

  2. Differentiation: when a person is not treated as an insider, but the organizational and unique quality he or she possesses is seen as a valuable characteristic for organizational success.

  3. Assimilation: an individual is treated as an insider, but they need to conform to the dominant/organizational culture that downplays their uniqueness.

  4. Inclusion: the individual feels like an insider and is encouraged to maintain the uniqueness within the group.

How is inclusion defined in existing literature?

According to Pelled, Ledford and Mohrman (1999) inclusion is defined as the degree to which an individual is treated and accepted as an insider by other members of the group. Inclusion is the removal of obstacles that stand in the way of full participation in organizations. Miller (1998) described inclusion as the extend to which a diverse person can participate and contribute fully in an organization. Williams, Haugen and Kossek (2008) described inclusion as the feeling of belonging and engage in inclusive behaviours such as valuing contributions from daily life in the organization. A multicultural or inclusive organization is described as an organization that brings members of different groups together and the members also shape the organizational strategy, work, operating systems and management. According to the definitions in existing literature there are two general themes that are consistent with ODT.

  1. Belongingness described as acceptance or insiderness is apparent in all definitions.

  2. Uniqueness is described in all definitions, for example the appreciation of individual talents or the ability of all employees to contribute fully.

There is a connection between uniqueness and the feeling of acceptance. Stigma’s are characteristics, attributes or experiences that convey an identity that is not valued in certain social settings. People are requested to keep these characteristics hidden, which causes several psychological issues. The model of work group inclusion proposed by Shore at al. (2011) is consistent with three values described in existing literature on inclusiveness:

  1. The optimal distinctiveness model (ODT) focuses on the satisfaction of uniqueness needs.

  2. There is emphasis in existing literature that individuals should be valued for their unique perspectives.

  3. Literature on stigma’s revealed that some characteristics are hidden by individuals to avoid rejection by the group when this unique trait is stigmatized in certain social contexts.

According to Pelled et al. (1999) there are three indicators of inclusion. The first is decision-making influence, second is access to sensitive work information and third is job security. Dissimilarity between race and gender were negatively related to these indicators, whereas similarity in education was positively related. Stamper and Masterson (2002) investigated perceived insider status and found that is was positively related to altruism. Two conclusions can be drawn based upon inclusion literature. The first is that practices associated with insider status can enhance the employees’ perception of inclusion. Second, there are positive consequences of inclusion for work performance and satisfaction.

What is the difference between this inclusion framework and other diversity theories and models?

The distinguishing characteristic of the framework proposed by Shore et al. (2011) is the emphasis on both the feeling of uniqueness and belongingness. Other diversity theories separate these constructs and focus more on one of the other. One example is that people seek to belong to groups that treat in-group members more favourable than out-group members (Byrne, 1971). They focus on demographic factors as predictors of belongingness. However, demographic similarity does not predict the feeling of belongingness to a group (Mannix & Neale, 2005). Many theories emphasize the importance of similarity without acknowledging the need for uniqueness. The emphasis on both belongingness and uniqueness makes this framework a better predictor for inclusion.

What insights should be applied in future research?

The construct of inclusion needs to be fully defined and theory and practice should be enhanced. Shore et al (2011) propose several factors that should be included in future research.

  • Contextual factors that contribute to inclusion should be considered. These factors include an inclusive climate, inclusive leadership and inclusive practices.

  • Resulting outcomes of inclusion should be considered. There is empirical evidence of the association between inclusion and job satisfaction, but there could be more related factors. One example is that inclusion could predict the intention to leave the company. Interpersonal models can be used to analyse resulting outcomes. For example, the social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) can provide a basis for predicting inclusion based on the quality of social exchange relationships.

  • The influence of creativity should be considered. Creative individuals often have a great degree of uniqueness. It would be interesting to know how belongingness can enhance uniqueness in (creative) individuals.

What do the researchers conclude?

Success in work is often related to diversity characteristics. For example, Hersch (2008) found that immigrants with the lightest skin colour earned seventeen percent more than other immigrants. This raised interest in the value-in-diversity perspective. Shore et al. (2011) believe that their inclusion framework provides more insight in the feeling of inclusion in the workplace and the connection between the feeling of both uniqueness and belongingness. Only emphasising uniqueness leads to stereotypes and overemphasizing belongingness leads to suppression of background and unique qualities. The focus of inclusion in the workplace should be on maintaining feelings of belongingness and uniqueness at the same time.

BulletPoints

  • Identification with in-groups and out-groups is defines as the identification with social categories and the group. People become attached trough a common connection to the group. Identity contains a social component that involves defining oneself as being an individual. Brewer (1991) argues that people seek balance between uniqueness and individuation. People that choose social identities based upon a group seek acceptance in this group.

  • A multicultural or inclusive organization is described as an organization that brings members of different groups together and the members also shape the organizational strategy, work, operating systems and management.

ExamTickets

  • You should know the optimal distinctiveness theory and its influence on research in inclusiveness.

  • The authors argue they propose a new framework compared to existing literature. What is the main difference between the proposed framework and the existing literature on inclusion and diversity in work groups?

Access: 
Public
Article summary of A diversity mindset perspective on inclusive leadership by Van Knippenberg & Van Ginkel - 2022 - Chapter

Article summary of A diversity mindset perspective on inclusive leadership by Van Knippenberg & Van Ginkel - 2022 - Chapter

What is this article about?

This article focuses on team leadership and how a diverse mindset might influence leadership perspectives in a team-based work environment.

Past years observations of team-based work has shown that diverse knowledge, expertise, and perspective can benefit the team and its work, suggesting that diversity should be a core value in team-based work. To achieve those benefits, it is important that team members perceive and acknowledge the additional value of a diverse team.

Team leadership can influence diversity and the team’s perspective upon it. However, research in this area is still limited. Herein, there is a differentiation between inclusive leadership and a leadership for diversity mindset. Inclusive leadership is leading behavior, which aims for a sense of inclusion. Leadership for diversity mindset aims at shaping the team's perception of a diverse team and inclusion.

What has been researched so far in this field?

Earlier research has shown that team diversity can positively impact knowledge and work performance under two conditions. First, possible disruptive tensions are prevented, and second, team members have the necessary motivation and ability to elaborate on team information. Both conditions have to be met. Hereby, focusing on positive performance outcomes can benefit the first condition, as the diverse team member will be seen as an additional value.

What exactly is inclusive leadership?

With regard to leadership, inclusion should be seen as an activity to include the experience of belongingness, as well as a feeling of distinctiveness among group members. Within inclusive leadership, the leader is responsible for creating those feelings among members. Beneficial actions include supporting individual group members, enhancing and encouraging shared decision making and contributions, as well as ensuring fairness. A feeling of belongingness and a feeling of distinctiveness often go hand in hand.

What exactly is leadership for diversity mindsets?

Diverse mindset includes the team's ability to reflect on their understanding of team diversity and how they are planning to proceed with it. This also includes the team members’ perception of their team and work. It is also called “team cognition”. If team members are sharing the same or a similar team cognition, it can be used to achieve shared goals or as a guidance to achieve the goal. Team cognition is related to team diversity climate, referring to team members’ ability to understand possible concerns and perspectives of other team members. Another important aspect of diverse mindset in teams is information elaboration, which is often not given.

A team leader can increase diverse mindset in a team by focusing on and combining all three factors in a dynamic and reflective process.

How can inclusive leadership and diversity mindsets be combined?

Most team members are more focused on finding possible agreements rather than exchanging task relevant information or perspectives. This behavior reduces a possible exchange and integration of unique perspectives. In this setting, inclusive leadership can help by creating the start for information elaboration, by either informing about it, or engaging in this behavior themselves. Team members should be encouraged to include their own and unique point of view to the team and their discussions. While doing so, a diverse mindset can add value for two reasons. First, simply sharing information is not sufficient for information elaboration. Past studies have shown that if unique perspectives are shared in discussion, they often get ignored. To elaborate on unique perspectives it is important that the team members know about the added value of diversity and are willing and motivated to reflect upon it. This results not only in encouring a contribution to a discussion by the leader, but also in encouring team members to see the benefits of a diversity mindset. This can lead to more productive outcomes.

The second reason why a diverse mindset can add value is the independence of the teams engaging in it. Teams which are engaging in information elaboration are more likely to be substantially self-leading as new insights are contributed, of which leaders are often not aware. Hereby, it is important that the information is shared proactively, with focus on team cognition, as described earlier.

Finally, it can be said that a straightforward inclusive leadership, aiming on creating a sense of belongingness and uniqueness sets the base for information elaboration. Belongingness and uniqueness should be viewed and treated as equally valuable for inclusive leadership.

Leadership for diversity mindset can enhance the effectiveness of inclusive leadership and create an inclusive team climate. To enforce that, positive outcomes should be promoted. This in turn also benefits the sense of inclusion, perceiving other team members not as different, but as part of the team.

Inclusive leadership and leadership for diversity mindsets can be combined to an approach of inclusive leadership for diversity mindsets. According to the authors of this article, this term describes leader whos behavior aims at shaping the team’s understanding of value and of information processing as part of realization of the added values.

How can the information of this article be concluded?

The observation in this study has shown that focus of inclusive leadership research was more on the psychological inclusion than on performance outcomes, such as the behavioral act of inclusion. The aim of this study was not to state that team members should not experience a barrier of diversity, but to encourage them to overcome it and to perceive the benefits of diversity.

Access: 
Public
Article summary of Diversity in the Workplace by Roberson - 2019 - Chapter

Article summary of Diversity in the Workplace by Roberson - 2019 - Chapter

What is this article about?

This article aims at providing an overview and understanding of the term workforce diversity. Different approaches to define workforce diversity have been developed, each influenced by socioeconomic trends and changes of that time, such as women rights, reduction of trade barrier and geographic boundaries.

What is diversity?

The term diversity refers to differences among people within one group, leading to perceive the other people as similar or different from oneself.

Considering another person as different can occur based on different factors. Some factors are easily observable, such as age, gender, race. Others are less observable, such as education or functional background. Also the degree of job-relevant skills is a factor in determining diversity. Demographic differences are perceived as less relevant within a work group.

Diversity can also be seen as a structural property of groups, implying that multiple composition of different social groups can have important consequences for the group, as well as for the individual. Those differences can lead to majority versus minority categorizations among group members.

In another approach to define diversity, specific diversity types have been proposed:

  • Separation diversity, referring to different values, beliefs and attitudes.
  • Variety diversity, referring to differences in knowledge and network.
  • Disparity, referring to differences in valued resources, such as privilege and status.

How does diversity operate?

Research in diversity is grounded in social-psychological theories of intergroup relations. This also includes how uncommon characteristics among people lead to categorize people in groups. Based on this research, the Social Identity Theory and the Social Categorization Theory were developed, stating how people make sense of their environment.

The Social Identity Theory by Tajfel (1978) proposed that an individuals’ self-definition is shaped by their group memberships. Their self-concept can be increased through seeking distinctiveness, which is seen as positively valued. Individuals engage in social comparison to differentiate between groups. In-group is the group they belong to, out-group the group they do not belong to. This categorization leads to finding more similarities with the in-group and more differences with the out-group.

The Self-Categorization Theory by Turner (1985) proposes that social categories become more important. Individuals might depersonalize their identities and perceive themselves as more representative as a member of their group, than as themselves as an individual.

The similarity-attraction paradigm proposed that people have the tendency to be attracted to and seek interaction with people they perceive as similar as themselves.

What does diversity do?

Earlier research has shown that dissimilarity can be related to a lower attachment, lower personal liking and lower attraction towards outgroup members. This also includes lower trust, prosocial helping, resource allocation and performance evaluation.

Various factors have been researched as possible moderators between diversity and group social processes. Demographic differences have shown to negatively impact group communication. Also conflict as an moderator has been investigated. Differences in group members’ perception of the conflict leads to less effective group or individual performance.

Diversity among various levels and factors can impact the group performance, as well as an individual’s performance in a positive or negative way.

How to manage diversity?

Diversity can be used to benefit the group by using the talents of all group members. This can be facilitated by creating diverse workforces, encouraging positive relations between group members and creating an inclusive work environment.

Research has shown that minority, as well as non-minority, group members are more attracted to job applications that express a value in diversity. Members of a minority group are more attracted towards job interviews guided by a member of a minority group.

In recent years, diversity training has been developed, which consists of an intervention to decrease bias, to improve diversity attitude and to enhance positive group relations. Such diversity training has been implemented by many organizations and companies, with or without professional guidance. The effect of those trainings are still limited, leading to the conclusion that more evaluations from scholarly and practitioner perspective is needed.

Where should diversity research go?

Several future directions of possible research have been found by the authors.

Tapping into the complexity of diversity

Diversity is more than a way to classify and study people. In research it is crucial to move away from the traditional point of view on diversity, and towards capturing the full nuances of diversity and its effects. Expanding the conceptualization of diversity can help in this regard. Additionally, a more dynamic approach of diversity research could be beneficial.

Broader Exploration of Diversity Effects

Future research should also focus more on examining the physiological and psychological reaction of people to diversity. For instance, studies can explore how diversity affects interactional behavior and behavioral patterns. This should not only be focused on the organizational outcomes, but also on effects behind the business case, such as social justice, community development and environmental responsibility.

Understanding the P in diversity I-P-O models

In further research, multilevel models of diversity should be tested to examine diversity on a broader level. Hereby, different research approaches should be used, such as qualitative methods, induction or structural analysis.

Diversity models that are generalizable across contexts

Most research in the field of diversity has been conducted in the United States, which limits the global generalization of the findings. Moreover, research often has been conducted within business organizations. Researching diversity in different countries and within different contexts would positively enhance this field.

Access: 
Public
Access: 
Public

Image

Click & Go to more related summaries or chapters

Study Guide with article summaries for Culture and Diversity at Work at Leiden University

Join WorldSupporter!
Search a summary

Image

 

 

Contributions: posts

Help other WorldSupporters with additions, improvements and tips

Add new contribution

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

Image

Spotlight: topics

Check the related and most recent topics and summaries:

Image

Check how to use summaries on WorldSupporter.org

Online access to all summaries, study notes en practice exams

How and why use WorldSupporter.org for your summaries and study assistance?

  • For free use of many of the summaries and study aids provided or collected by your fellow students.
  • For free use of many of the lecture and study group notes, exam questions and practice questions.
  • For use of all exclusive summaries and study assistance for those who are member with JoHo WorldSupporter with online access
  • For compiling your own materials and contributions with relevant study help
  • For sharing and finding relevant and interesting summaries, documents, notes, blogs, tips, videos, discussions, activities, recipes, side jobs and more.

Using and finding summaries, notes and practice exams on JoHo WorldSupporter

There are several ways to navigate the large amount of summaries, study notes en practice exams on JoHo WorldSupporter.

  1. Use the summaries home pages for your study or field of study
  2. Use the check and search pages for summaries and study aids by field of study, subject or faculty
  3. Use and follow your (study) organization
    • by using your own student organization as a starting point, and continuing to follow it, easily discover which study materials are relevant to you
    • this option is only available through partner organizations
  4. Check or follow authors or other WorldSupporters
  5. Use the menu above each page to go to the main theme pages for summaries
    • Theme pages can be found for international studies as well as Dutch studies

Do you want to share your summaries with JoHo WorldSupporter and its visitors?

Quicklinks to fields of study for summaries and study assistance

Main summaries home pages:

Main study fields:

Main study fields NL:

Follow the author: Vintage Supporter
Work for WorldSupporter

Image

JoHo can really use your help!  Check out the various student jobs here that match your studies, improve your competencies, strengthen your CV and contribute to a more tolerant world

Working for JoHo as a student in Leyden

Parttime werken voor JoHo

Statistics
2321 2