CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 601Social and Intergroup PsychologyHuman Resource Development and Performance EvaluationGender Diversity and Inequality

A meta-analytical integration of over 40 years of research on diversity training evaluation

Bezrukova, Katerina, Spell, Chester S., Perry, Jamie L., Jehn, Karen A.·2016·Psychological Bulletin
DOI 10.1037/bul0000067
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This meta-analysis of 260 independent samples assessed the effects of diversity training on 4 training outcomes over time and across characteristics of training context, design, and participants. Models from the training literature and psychological theory on diversity were used to generate theory-driven predictions. The results revealed an overall effect size (Hedges g) of .38 with the largest effect being for reactions to training and cognitive learning; smaller effects were found for behavioral and attitudinal/affective learning. Whereas the effects of diversity training on reactions and attitudinal/affective learning decayed over time, training effects on cognitive learning remained stable and even increased in some cases. While many of the diversity training programs fell short in demonstrating effectiveness on some training characteristics, our analysis does reveal that successful diversity training occurs. The positive effects of diversity training were greater when training was complemented by other diversity initiatives, targeted to both awareness and skills development, and conducted over a significant period of time. The proportion of women in a training group was associated with more favorable reactions to diversity training. Implications for policy and directions for future research on diversity training are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/bul0000067

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A meta-analysis of diversity training found an overall positive effect, but effects differed by outcome and were stronger when training was sustained, addressed both awareness and skills, and was complemented by other diversity initiatives.

    “A meta-analysis of diversity training found an overall positive effect, but effects differed by outcome and were stronger when training was sustained, addressed both awareness and skills, and was complemented by other diversity initiatives (Bezrukova et al., 2016).”

    From Inclusive Workplaces and Performance: An Integrative Review of Diversity and Employee Outcomes (2026) · cites this paper as Bezrukova et al., 2016

  • Bezrukova et al. (2016), synthesizing 260 independent samples, found a positive overall effect of diversity training, with stronger effects when programs were integrated with other diversity initiatives, included both awareness and skills, and were conducted over a meaningful period.

    “Bezrukova et al. (2016), synthesizing 260 independent samples, found a positive overall effect of diversity training, with stronger effects when programs were integrated with other diversity initiatives, included both awareness and skills, and were conducted over a meaningful period.”

    From Inclusive Workplaces and Performance: An Integrative Review of Diversity and Employee Outcomes (2026) · cites this paper as Bezrukova et al. (2016)

  • Training programs work better when they are sustained and connected to other initiatives.

    “The training evidence is instructive: programs work better when they are sustained and connected to other initiatives (Bezrukova et al., 2016).”

    From Inclusive Workplaces and Performance: An Integrative Review of Diversity and Employee Outcomes (2026) · cites this paper as Bezrukova et al., 2016

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bezrukova, K., Spell, C. S., Perry, J. L., & Jehn, K. A.
Affiliations
  • University at Buffalo, State University of New York (US)
  • Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
  • Cornell University (US)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
ORCID
Venue
Psychological Bulletin
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2016-11
Volume
142
Issue
11
Pages
1227-1274
ISSN
  • 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1455
DOI
10.1037/bul0000067
OpenAlex
W2518907272
Cited by
601
References
17
Citations by year
2026: 59 · 2025: 63 · 2024: 88 · 2023: 72 · 2022: 102 · 2021: 84 · 2020: 55 · 2019: 44 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 1
FWCI
74.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Cornell Peter and Stephanie Nolan School of Hotel Administration (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • eCommons (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Santa Clara University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Human Resource Development and Performance Evaluation
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Diversity and Inequality
Keywords
diversity training, training evaluation, training outcomes, cognitive learning, behavioral learning, attitudinal learning, diversity initiatives, skill development, workplace diversity
MeSH terms
Education, Humans, Learning, Psychological Theory, Program Evaluation, Cultural Diversity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review