Communicating Inclusion: How Men and Women Perceive Interpersonal Versus Organizational Gender Equality Messages

IF 2.5 2区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Charlotte E. Moser, N. Branscombe
{"title":"Communicating Inclusion: How Men and Women Perceive Interpersonal Versus Organizational Gender Equality Messages","authors":"Charlotte E. Moser, N. Branscombe","doi":"10.1177/03616843221140300","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Interpersonal allyship may serve as a justice cue to signal that an environment is fair to women without increasing men's expectations of anti-male bias. We investigated how exposure to justice cues communicated at the interpersonal and organizational level impact men's and women's perceptions of procedural justice and fairness at an organization. Men and women were asked to imagine working at one of three randomly assigned male-dominated workplaces. Women who imagined working with a White man who was a gender-equality ally (Study 1, N = 352, and Study 2, N = 488) perceived the organization as more procedurally just, identified more strongly with the organization, and were less likely to view their gender as a disadvantage compared to women who imagined a workplace with an organizational diversity statement (Study 2 only) or a control workplace with no justice cues. Men did not view the ally nor the diversity statement negatively in either study. Integrative data analysis revealed medium to large effects (Cohen's d range .74–1.30) across dependent measures included in both studies. Our results suggest that interpersonal allyship from men is a practical way to promote women's expectations of fair treatment without increasing the threat of anti-male bias among men. Additional online study materials, as well as online slides for instructors who want to use this article for teaching are available on PWQ's website at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/03616843221140300.","PeriodicalId":48275,"journal":{"name":"Psychology of Women Quarterly","volume":"47 1","pages":"250 - 265"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology of Women Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03616843221140300","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Interpersonal allyship may serve as a justice cue to signal that an environment is fair to women without increasing men's expectations of anti-male bias. We investigated how exposure to justice cues communicated at the interpersonal and organizational level impact men's and women's perceptions of procedural justice and fairness at an organization. Men and women were asked to imagine working at one of three randomly assigned male-dominated workplaces. Women who imagined working with a White man who was a gender-equality ally (Study 1, N = 352, and Study 2, N = 488) perceived the organization as more procedurally just, identified more strongly with the organization, and were less likely to view their gender as a disadvantage compared to women who imagined a workplace with an organizational diversity statement (Study 2 only) or a control workplace with no justice cues. Men did not view the ally nor the diversity statement negatively in either study. Integrative data analysis revealed medium to large effects (Cohen's d range .74–1.30) across dependent measures included in both studies. Our results suggest that interpersonal allyship from men is a practical way to promote women's expectations of fair treatment without increasing the threat of anti-male bias among men. Additional online study materials, as well as online slides for instructors who want to use this article for teaching are available on PWQ's website at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/03616843221140300.
沟通包容:男性和女性如何感知人际与组织性别平等信息
人际关系可以作为一种正义的暗示,表明环境对女性是公平的,而不会增加男性对反男性偏见的期望。我们调查了在人际和组织层面交流的正义线索如何影响男性和女性对组织中程序正义和公平的看法。男性和女性被要求想象在三个随机分配的男性主导的工作场所中的一个工作。想象与性别平等盟友白人一起工作的女性(研究1,N = 352和研究2,N = 488)认为该组织在程序上更公正,对该组织的认同度更高,与那些想象有组织多样性声明的工作场所(仅研究2)或没有正义线索的控制工作场所的女性相比,她们不太可能将自己的性别视为劣势。在这两项研究中,男性都没有对盟友和多样性声明持负面看法。综合数据分析显示,两项研究中包含的依赖性指标存在中到大的影响(Cohen d范围.74-1.30)。我们的研究结果表明,男性的人际联盟是一种切实可行的方式,可以在不增加男性反男性偏见威胁的情况下,提高女性对公平待遇的期望。PWQ的网站上提供了其他在线学习材料,以及希望使用本文进行教学的教师的在线幻灯片,网址为http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/03616843221140300.
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
5.00%
发文量
50
期刊介绍: Psychology of Women Quarterly (PWQ) is a feminist, scientific, peer-reviewed journal that publishes empirical research, critical reviews and theoretical articles that advance a field of inquiry, teaching briefs, and invited book reviews related to the psychology of women and gender. Topics include (but are not limited to) feminist approaches, methodologies, and critiques; violence against women; body image and objectification; sexism, stereotyping, and discrimination; intersectionality of gender with other social locations (such as age, ability status, class, ethnicity, race, and sexual orientation); international concerns; lifespan development and change; physical and mental well being; therapeutic interventions; sexuality; social activism; and career development. This journal will be of interest to clinicians, faculty, and researchers in all psychology disciplines, as well as those interested in the sociology of gender, women’s studies, interpersonal violence, ethnic and multicultural studies, social advocates, policy makers, and teacher education.
×
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