MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Generational Differences in Responses to Diversity Rationales

2024· article· en· W4400479274 on OpenAlexaff
Eileen Y. Suh, Evan P. Apfelbaum, Nir Halevy

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademy of Management Proceedings · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocioeconomic Development in MENA
Canadian institutionsQuest University Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiversity (politics)PsychologySociologyAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Because employee buy-in has been identified as a critical component of change with respect to diversity, organizations frequently attempt to make diversity-related events seem more appealing by offering reasons for why one should attend them. For example, organizations justify these diversity-related events as learning opportunities to attain practical skills in a diverse world, opportunities to promote social justice, or judgment-free spaces to discuss sensitive topics. It is important to empirically test whether providing these justifications is effective, because the signals they send can unintentionally hinder the very goals that they aim to achieve. It is particularly critical to examine the effects of these diversity justifications in an organizational setting with multiple stakeholders, because the ways that organizations discuss diversity can elicit varying responses across individuals from different backgrounds. In this paper, we examine whether these managerial practices are actually effective in engaging the individuals that they target in a multi-stakeholder field context. In two pre-registered field experiments at a large academic institution (N = 47,807), we find that providing a justification has a positive effect on younger generation’s registration and attendance rates, whereas it has a negative effect on the older generation’s engagement in these events, after controlling for other relevant factors such as gender, race, and staff/student status. In a follow-up lab experiment, we find evidence that organizations’ attempts to influence people via diversity justifications affect older generation adversely, but not younger generation, due to a difference in the sense of obligation that they feel toward the organization. Based on research on psychological reactance (Brehm, 1966), we theorize that diversity justifications trigger disengagement among those who feel more obligated to attend (e.g., older generation) due to a perceived threat to their autonomy.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.068
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademy of Management ProceedingsSame topicSocioeconomic Development in MENAFrench-language works237,207