Overcoming or Removing Gendered Barriers? Support for Individualistic Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Interventions Among Those in Power

IF 2.2 3区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
C. Y. Edwina Wong, Teri A. Kirby, Michelle K. Ryan, Floor Rink
{"title":"Overcoming or Removing Gendered Barriers? Support for Individualistic Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Interventions Among Those in Power","authors":"C. Y. Edwina Wong,&nbsp;Teri A. Kirby,&nbsp;Michelle K. Ryan,&nbsp;Floor Rink","doi":"10.1111/jasp.13075","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Organizations are increasingly committed to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts. However, those who have the power to implement DEI interventions and those who ought to benefit from such interventions might have conflicting perspectives about their aims. In three studies, we investigate how those with high (vs. low) power endorse structural versus individualistic interventions for women. In Study 1 (<i>n</i> = 403), we focus on women's evaluation of the intervention. We find that they anticipate that structural interventions will be more successful at alleviating gender barriers at work than individualistic interventions. In Studies 2 (<i>n</i> = 500) and 3 (<i>n</i> = 319), we focus on men and women across different levels of power and find that individuals, regardless of their gender and their hierarchical position, prefer interventions that challenge organizational systems that maintain inequalities than those that support women in coping with DEI issues. However, individuals with stronger system-legitimacy beliefs showed just as much support for individualistic DEI interventions as for structural ones. The results suggest overall support for structural DEI interventions, but that ongoing meritocratic beliefs can detract from their actual implementation. We discuss how intervention research may benefit from focusing on interventions that target system-legitimacy beliefs to leverage more support and implementation of structural interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":48404,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Social Psychology","volume":"55 1","pages":"22-37"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jasp.13075","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Social Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jasp.13075","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Organizations are increasingly committed to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts. However, those who have the power to implement DEI interventions and those who ought to benefit from such interventions might have conflicting perspectives about their aims. In three studies, we investigate how those with high (vs. low) power endorse structural versus individualistic interventions for women. In Study 1 (n = 403), we focus on women's evaluation of the intervention. We find that they anticipate that structural interventions will be more successful at alleviating gender barriers at work than individualistic interventions. In Studies 2 (n = 500) and 3 (n = 319), we focus on men and women across different levels of power and find that individuals, regardless of their gender and their hierarchical position, prefer interventions that challenge organizational systems that maintain inequalities than those that support women in coping with DEI issues. However, individuals with stronger system-legitimacy beliefs showed just as much support for individualistic DEI interventions as for structural ones. The results suggest overall support for structural DEI interventions, but that ongoing meritocratic beliefs can detract from their actual implementation. We discuss how intervention research may benefit from focusing on interventions that target system-legitimacy beliefs to leverage more support and implementation of structural interventions.

Abstract Image

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
4.00%
发文量
95
期刊介绍: Published since 1971, Journal of Applied Social Psychology is a monthly publication devoted to applications of experimental behavioral science research to problems of society (e.g., organizational and leadership psychology, safety, health, and gender issues; perceptions of war and natural hazards; jury deliberation; performance, AIDS, cancer, heart disease, exercise, and sports).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信