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, Teri A. Kirby, Michelle K. Ryan, 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.
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).