Presumed fair: ironic effects of organizational diversity structures.

This research tests the hypothesis that the presence (vs. absence) of organizational diversity structures causes high-status group members (Whites, men) to perceive organizations with diversity structures as procedurally fairer environments for underrepresented groups (racial minorities, women), even when it is clear that underrepresented groups have been unfairly disadvantaged within these organizations. Furthermore, this illusory sense of fairness derived from the mere presence of diversity structures causes high-status group members to legitimize the status quo by becoming less sensitive to discrimination targeted at underrepresented groups and reacting more harshly toward underrepresented group members who claim discrimination. Six experiments support these hypotheses in designs using 4 types of diversity structures (diversity policies, diversity training, diversity awards, idiosyncratically generated diversity structures from participants' own organizations) among 2 high-status groups in tests involving several types of discrimination (discriminatory promotion practices, adverse impact in hiring, wage discrimination). Implications of these experiments for organizational diversity and employment discrimination law are discussed.

[1]  Miguel M. Unzueta,et al.  Which racial groups are associated with diversity? , 2010, Cultural diversity & ethnic minority psychology.

[2]  J. Colquitt On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a measure. , 2001, The Journal of applied psychology.

[3]  C. N. Macrae,et al.  Out of mind but back in sight: Stereotypes on the rebound , 1994 .

[4]  Michael Inzlicht,et al.  Ironic Effects of Antiprejudice Messages , 2011, Psychological science.

[5]  T. Tyler,et al.  The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice , 1988 .

[6]  R. H. Willis,et al.  Social Exchange: Advances In Theory And Research , 1981 .

[7]  V. Plaut,et al.  Is Multiculturalism or Color Blindness Better for Minorities? , 2009, Psychological science.

[8]  Carol T. Kulik,et al.  Ironic evaluation processes: effects of thought suppression on evaluations of older job applicants , 2000 .

[9]  A. Hayes PROCESS : A Versatile Computational Tool for Observed Variable Mediation , Moderation , and Conditional Process Modeling 1 , 2012 .

[10]  Michael D. Buhrmester,et al.  Amazon's Mechanical Turk , 2011, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[11]  F. Dobbin,et al.  How Affirmative Action Became Diversity Management , 1998 .

[12]  R. Stewart,et al.  Confronting Perpetrators of Prejudice: The Inhibitory Effects of Social Costs1 , 2004 .

[13]  C. Steele,et al.  Ambient belonging: how stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. , 2009, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[14]  M. Banaji,et al.  The role of stereotyping in system‐justification and the production of false consciousness , 1994 .

[15]  C. Crandall,et al.  A justification-suppression model of the expression and experience of prejudice. , 2003, Psychological bulletin.

[16]  Cheryl R. Kaiser,et al.  Shifts in justice beliefs induced by Hurricane Katrina: The impact of claims of racism , 2010 .

[17]  R. Nelson,et al.  Scaling the Pyramid: A Sociolegal Model of Employment Discrimination Litigation , 2005 .

[18]  P. Devine,et al.  Responses to other-imposed pro-black pressure: Acceptance or backlash? , 2001 .

[19]  P. Earley,et al.  Voice, control, and procedural justice : instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgments , 1990 .

[20]  Donald E. Conlon,et al.  Justice at the millennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. , 2001, The Journal of applied psychology.

[21]  Stuart S. Nagel,et al.  Procedural Justice: A Psychological Analysis , 1976 .

[22]  R. Havighurst,et al.  A social-psychological perspective on aging. , 1968, The gerontologist.

[23]  Elizabeth Levy Paluck,et al.  Peer pressure against prejudice: A high school field experiment examining social network change , 2011 .

[24]  Bryan D. Edwards,et al.  Employee Discrimination Claims and Employee-Initiated Lawsuits: Does Procedural Justice Climate Moderate the Claims [Right Arrow] Disputes Relationship? , 2008 .

[25]  Timothy D. Wilson,et al.  Redirect: The Surprising New Science of Psychological Change , 2011 .

[26]  Elizabeth Levy Paluck,et al.  Diversity Training and Intergroup Contact: A Call to Action Research , 2006 .

[27]  Victoria C. Plaut,et al.  Diversity Science: Why and How Difference Makes a Difference , 2010 .

[28]  Jeffrey W. Sherman,et al.  Suppression as a Stereotype Control Strategy , 1998, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

[29]  Scott R. Eliason,et al.  When Organizations Rule: Judicial Deference to Institutionalized Employment Structures1 , 2011, American Journal of Sociology.

[30]  L. Edelman,et al.  Diversity Rhetoric and the Managerialization of Law1 , 2001, American Journal of Sociology.

[31]  J. Brockner,et al.  An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. , 1996, Psychological bulletin.

[32]  Valerie Purdie-Vaughns,et al.  Social identity contingencies: how diversity cues signal threat or safety for African Americans in mainstream institutions. , 2008, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[33]  John T. Jost,et al.  Attitudinal Ambivalence and the Conflict between Group and System Justification Motives in Low Status Groups , 2000 .

[34]  문경희 Multiculturalism , 2006, Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals.

[35]  T. Tyler,et al.  A Relational Model of Authority in Groups , 1992 .

[36]  Daniel M. Oppenheimer,et al.  Instructional Manipulation Checks: Detecting Satisficing to Increase Statistical Power , 2009 .

[37]  Cheryl R. Kaiser,et al.  Post-Hurricane Katrina Racialized Explanations as a System Threat: Implications for Whites’ and Blacks’ Racial Attitudes , 2008 .

[38]  Frank Dobbin,et al.  Inventing Equal Opportunity , 2009 .

[39]  G. Leventhal What Should Be Done with Equity Theory , 1980 .

[40]  Cheryl R. Kaiser,et al.  A Social Psychological Perspective on Perceiving and Reporting Discrimination , 2006, Law & Social Inquiry.

[41]  Cheryl R. Kaiser,et al.  Stop Complaining! The Social Costs of Making Attributions to Discrimination , 2001 .

[42]  Cheryl R. Kaiser,et al.  Why Are Attributions to Discrimination Interpersonally Costly? A Test of System- and Group-Justifying Motivations , 2006, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[43]  D. Cordova Cognitive limitations and affirmative action: The effects of aggregate versus sequential data in the perception of discrimination , 1992 .

[44]  M. Triana,et al.  Valuing diversity: a group‐value approach to understanding the importance of organizational efforts to support diversity , 2009 .

[45]  Christopher Uggen,et al.  The Endogeneity of Legal Regulation: Grievance Procedures as Rational Myth , 1999, American Journal of Sociology.

[46]  Alexandra Kalev,et al.  Best Practices or Best Guesses? Assessing the Efficacy of Corporate Affirmative Action and Diversity Policies , 2006 .