Unity through Diversity: Value-in-Diversity Beliefs, Work Group Diversity, and Group Identification

Research on work group diversity has more or less neglected the possibility that reactions to diversity may be informed by individuals' beliefs about the value of diversity (vs. homogeneity) for their work group. We studied the role of such diversity beliefs as a moderator of the relationship between work group diversity and individuals' identification with the work group across two studies. Study 1 was a cross-sectional survey that focused on gender diversity and gender diversity beliefs. Study 2 was a laboratory experiment in which work group diversity and diversity beliefs were manipulated. Results of both studies support the prediction that work group diversity and group identification are more positively related the more individuals believe in the value of diversitydiversity;identification;social identity;self-categorization;value-in-diversity

Unity through Diversity: Value-in-Diversity Beliefs, Work Group Diversity, and Group Identification

Research on work group diversity has more or less neglected the possibility that reactions to diversity may be informed by individuals' beliefs about the value of diversity (vs. homogeneity) for their work group. We studied the role of such diversity beliefs as a moderator of the relationship between work group diversity and individuals' identification with the work group across two studies. Study 1 was a cross-sectional survey that focused on gender diversity and gender diversity beliefs. Study 2 was a laboratory experiment in which work group diversity and diversity beliefs were manipulated. Results of both studies support the prediction that work group diversity and group identification are more positively related the more individuals believe in the value of diversit

Social mindfulness and prosociality vary across the globe

Humans are social animals, but not everyone will be mindful of others to the same extent. Individual differences have been found, but would social mindfulness also be shaped by one’s location in the world? Expecting cross-national differences to exist, we examined if and how social mindfulness differs across countries. At little to no material cost, social mindfulness typically entails small acts of attention or kindness. Even though fairly common, such low-cost cooperation has received little empirical attention. Measuring social mindfulness across 31 samples from industrialized countries and regions (n = 8,354), we found considerable variation. Among selected country-level variables, greater social mindfulness was most strongly associated with countries’ better general performance on environmental protection. Together, our findings contribute to the literature on prosociality by targeting the kind of everyday cooperation that is more focused on communicating benevolence than on providing material benefits

Reply to Komatsu et al.: from local social mindfulness to global sustainability efforts?

Komatsu et al. (1) argue that Van Doesum et al. (2) may have overlooked the role of GDP in reporting a positive association between social mindfulness (SoMi) and the Environmental Performance Index (EPI) at country level. Although the relationship between EPI and SoMi is relatively weaker for countries with higher GDP, that does not imply that the overall observed relationship is a statistical artifact. Rather, it implies that GDP may be a moderator of the relationship between EPI and SoMi. The observed correlation is a valid result on average across countries, and the actual effect size would, at least to some degree, depend on GDP.Social decision makin

Reply to Nielsen et al.: social mindfulness is associated with countries’ environmental performance and individual environmental concern

Nielsen et al. (1) argue that Van Doesum et al. (2) need to consider three points for their interpretation of a positive association between individual-level social mindfulness (SoMi) and environmental performance (EPI) at the country level (3). The association is weaker when 1) it is controlled for GDP and 2) when the data of three countries are removed; also, 3) the data do not address the association between SoMi and individual-level environmental concern. We discuss these points in turn.Social decision makin

The dialogical self: One person, different stories

0ntbrkt

When are intergroup attitudes judged as free speech and when as prejudice? A social identity analysis of attitudes towards immigrants

First published: 18 May 2021Although anti-immigrant attitudes continue to be expressed around the world, identifying these attitudes as prejudice, truth or free speech remains contested. This contestation occurs, in part, because of the absence of consensually agreed-upon understandings of what prejudice is. In this context, the current study sought to answer the question, "what do people understand to be prejudice?" Participants read an intergroup attitude expressed by a member of their own group (an "in-group" member) or another group (an "out-group" member). This was followed by an interpretation of the attitude as either "prejudiced" or "free speech." This interpretation was also made by in-group or an out-group member. Subsequent prejudice judgements were influenced only by the group membership of the person expressing the initial attitude: the in-group member's attitude was judged to be less prejudiced than the identical attitude expressed by an out-group member. Participants' judgements of free speech, however, were more complex: in-group attitudes were seen more as free speech than out-group attitudes, except when an in-group member interpreted those attitudes as prejudice. These data are consistent with the Social Identity Approach to intergroup relations, and have implications for the processes by which intergroup attitudes become legitimised as free speech instead of prejudice.Chris Wang, Michael J. Platow, Daniel Bar-Tal, Martha Augoustinos, Dirk Van Rooy, and Russell Spear