BACKLASH TOWARD DIVERSITY INITIATIVES: EXAMINING THE IMPACT OF DIVERSITY PROGRAM JUSTIFICATION, PERSONAL AND GROUP OUTCOMES
Abstract
This study used a scenario design to examine whether there are different reactions among whites based on how a diversity program is justified by an organization. A reactive justification (affirmative action) was proposed to result in greater backlash than a competitive advantage justification (diversity management). In addition, this study examined the effects of personal and group outcomes on backlash and explored two individual difference variables, gender and orientation toward other ethnic groups, as potential moderators of the proposed relationships. Backlash was operationalized in four ways: an affect‐based measure (negative emotions), two cognitive‐based measures (attitude toward the diversity program, perceptions of unfairness of promotion procedures), and a behavioral‐intentions‐based measure (organizational commitment). Results indicated that the diversity management justification was associated with more favorable support of the diversity initiative, and that unfavorable personal and group outcomes adversely affected backlash reactions. There was no empirical support for the influence of the moderator variables on the proposed relationships, however, a main effect for gender was found. Implications of the study's findings and future research directions are discussed.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Anti-bias training can activate rather than suppress bias.
“They suggest that anti-bias training can activate rather than suppress bias (Kidder et al., 2004;Naff and Kellough, 2003;Rynes and Rosen, 1995;Sidanius et al., 2001).”
From Are Diversity Programs Merely Ceremonial? Evidence-Free Institutionalization (2017) · cites this paper as Kidder et al., 2004
Cites
The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988) · Critical Issues in Social Justice · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-2115-4 · Cited by 6,585 · see citing works
The Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure: A New Scale for Use with Diverse Groups
Phinney, J. S. (1992) · Journal of Adolescent Research · doi:10.1177/074355489272003 · Cited by 3,813 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/000312240607100404 · Cited by 2,052 · see citing works
Are Diversity Programs Merely Ceremonial? Evidence-Free Institutionalization
Dobbin, F., & Kalev, A. (2017) · The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism · doi:10.4135/9781446280669.n32 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
- Authors
- Kidder, D. L., Lankau, M. J., Chrobot‐Mason, D., Mollica, K. A., & Friedman, R. A.
- Affiliations
- Towson University (US)
- University of Georgia (US)
- University of Cincinnati (US)
- Bethel College (US)
- Venue
- International Journal of Conflict Management
- Publisher
- Emerald
- Published
- 2004-01-01
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 77-102
- ISSN
- 1044-4068 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1967186047
- Cited by
- 209
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 17
- FWCI
- 10.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Conflict Management (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Diversity and Inequality
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
- Keywords
- backlash, diversity initiatives, affirmative action, diversity management, White employees, organizational commitment, gender differences
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