How diversity and disadvantage frames shape employee reactions to affirmative action: Social identity threat, stereotype threat, and fairness perceptions

Abstract

Many organizations invest in affirmative action strategies to address gender disparities in their workforce, aiming to enhance women's representation and advancement. Despite their potential benefits, research suggests these initiatives can encounter resistance due to perceptions of unfairness and stereotype-based assumptions that women have advanced due to preferential treatment rather than merit. This study examines whether gender-based affirmative action is more effectively justified by emphasizing organizational diversity or by highlighting the systemic disadvantages women face. Specifically, it investigates whether a disadvantage-based frame enhances perceptions of fairness and elicits positive responses; or instead triggers social identity threat and stereotype threat, prompting more negative responses. Using data from Australian employees, responses are analyzed through the lenses of social identity threat, stereotype threat, and fairness perceptions as explanatory mechanisms for outcomes including resentment toward affirmative action, self-efficacy in career progression, and policy support. Understanding how both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries respond to affirmative action is crucial for optimizing the effectiveness of these programs and improving career outcomes for women.