多样性的稀释:扩大多样性的讽刺效应。

IF 3.4 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
Teri A Kirby, Nicole Russell Pascual, Laura K Hildebrand
{"title":"多样性的稀释:扩大多样性的讽刺效应。","authors":"Teri A Kirby, Nicole Russell Pascual, Laura K Hildebrand","doi":"10.1177/01461672231184925","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Diversity is one of the buzzwords of the 21st century. But who counts as diverse? We coded diversity statements to examine how organizations typically define diversity and whether oppressed-group members perceive some definitions as <i>diluting diversity</i>, or detracting from the original intention of diversity initiatives. Organizations most commonly opted for a <i>broad</i> definition of diversity (38%) that focused on diversity in perspectives and skills, with no mention of demographic group identities (e.g., race; Study 1). In Studies 2 and 3, people of color perceived broad statements as diluting diversity more than other diversity statements. They were also less interested in working at those organizations, and broad statements led sexual minorities to be less willing to disclose their sexual identity (Study 4). Thus, broadening the definition of diversity to include individual characteristics and skills may backfire, unless the importance of demographic diversity is also acknowledged.</p>","PeriodicalId":19834,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin","volume":" ","pages":"268-283"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Dilution of Diversity: Ironic Effects of Broadening Diversity.\",\"authors\":\"Teri A Kirby, Nicole Russell Pascual, Laura K Hildebrand\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/01461672231184925\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Diversity is one of the buzzwords of the 21st century. But who counts as diverse? We coded diversity statements to examine how organizations typically define diversity and whether oppressed-group members perceive some definitions as <i>diluting diversity</i>, or detracting from the original intention of diversity initiatives. Organizations most commonly opted for a <i>broad</i> definition of diversity (38%) that focused on diversity in perspectives and skills, with no mention of demographic group identities (e.g., race; Study 1). In Studies 2 and 3, people of color perceived broad statements as diluting diversity more than other diversity statements. They were also less interested in working at those organizations, and broad statements led sexual minorities to be less willing to disclose their sexual identity (Study 4). Thus, broadening the definition of diversity to include individual characteristics and skills may backfire, unless the importance of demographic diversity is also acknowledged.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19834,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"268-283\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672231184925\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/7/18 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672231184925","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

多样性是 21 世纪的流行语之一。但谁算得上多元化呢?我们对多样性声明进行了编码,以研究组织通常如何定义多样性,以及受压迫群体成员是否认为某些定义淡化了多样性,或偏离了多样性倡议的初衷。各组织最常采用的是广义的多样性定义(38%),侧重于观点和技能的多样性,而不提及人口群体身份(如种族;研究 1)。在研究 2 和研究 3 中,有色人种认为广义的多样性表述比其他多样性表述更能淡化多样性。他们也不太愿意在这些组织工作,而宽泛的表述导致性少数群体不太愿意公开他们的性身份(研究 4)。因此,将多样性的定义扩大到包括个人特征和技能,可能会适得其反,除非也承认人口多样性的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Dilution of Diversity: Ironic Effects of Broadening Diversity.

Diversity is one of the buzzwords of the 21st century. But who counts as diverse? We coded diversity statements to examine how organizations typically define diversity and whether oppressed-group members perceive some definitions as diluting diversity, or detracting from the original intention of diversity initiatives. Organizations most commonly opted for a broad definition of diversity (38%) that focused on diversity in perspectives and skills, with no mention of demographic group identities (e.g., race; Study 1). In Studies 2 and 3, people of color perceived broad statements as diluting diversity more than other diversity statements. They were also less interested in working at those organizations, and broad statements led sexual minorities to be less willing to disclose their sexual identity (Study 4). Thus, broadening the definition of diversity to include individual characteristics and skills may backfire, unless the importance of demographic diversity is also acknowledged.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
5.00%
发文量
116
期刊介绍: The Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin is the official journal for the Society of Personality and Social Psychology. The journal is an international outlet for original empirical papers in all areas of personality and social psychology.
×
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