Race matters more than racial identity disclosure when evaluating applicant diversity statements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The present research investigated whether a target applicant's race and disclosure of their race in a personal diversity statement influenced White evaluators' perceptions of the applicant's egalitarian motivations and their likelihood of contributing to organizational diversity and inclusion outcomes. In Study 1 ( N = 206), participants evaluated a diversity statement that was ostensibly written by a White or Black applicant who either referenced or did not reference his race within the statement. Participants judged Black applicants as more internally motivated to be egalitarian and White applicants as more externally motivated, regardless of whether they disclosed their race in the statement. Participants also judged Black applicants as more likely to contribute to diversity and inclusion outcomes than White applicants. Study 2 ( N = 257) aimed to replicate Study 1 and tested a strengthened race disclosure condition. We again saw little evidence of race disclosure impacting evaluations of applicants: Black applicants were judged as more internally motivated, less externally motivated, and more likely to contribute to diversity and inclusion compared to White applicants. Study 3 ( N = 297) aimed to further replicate and expand on these results by testing a disclosure manipulation wherein the applicant discussed the personal importance/centrality of his race. Once again, applicant race (and not disclosure) demonstrated consistent effects on applicant evaluations. Our results highlight flaws in the personal diversity statement evaluation process, such that factors beyond statement content (i.e., applicant race) influenced perceptions and outcomes of the applicants. Practical implications and solutions for applicant evaluation processes are discussed.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".