Diversity climate promises in ideological psychological contracts: racial differences in responses to breach and fulfilment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Diversity, a major societal force that exerts an important influence on contemporary workplaces, may play a role in shaping present-day workers’ psychological contracts. In two studies, we explored diversity as an ideological commitment in psychological contracts and its impacts on workers and organizations. In Study 1, a three-wave longitudinal study following workers from pre- to post-hire, organizations’ use of diversity recruitment was positively associated with job-seekers’ perceptions that ideological diversity climate promises were made pre-employment. In addition, we found that subsequent perceptions of breaching these promises have negative effects on worker attitudes and behaviours above and beyond the consequences of traditional (i.e., transactional and relational) psychological contract breach. Unexpectedly, fulfilment and breach of ideological diversity climate promises were more weakly related to racial minority than majority group workers’ attitudes and behaviours. In Study 2, using both between- and within-person experimental designs, we largely replicate this counter-intuitive moderating effect and uncover that racial minority versus majority workers’ differential reactions can be explained by their prior experiences with racial discrimination. Our work substantiates that diversity is an important ideological commitment and provides novel insights as to the mechanisms and consequences of ideology for workers’ psychological contracts.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".