Cited by 15Social and Intergroup PsychologyNames, Identity, and Discrimination ResearchRacial and Ethnic Identity Research

Interracial contact at work: Does workplace diversity reduce bias?

Open access
Darling-Hammond, Sean, Lee, Randy T., Mendoza-Denton, Rodolfo·2021·Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

Abstract

Research suggests that anti-Black bias among White Americans is persistent, pervasive, and has powerful negative effects on the lives of both Black and White Americans. Research also suggests that intergroup contact in workplaces can reduce bias. We seek to address two limitations in prior research. First, the workplaces reviewed in prior studies may not be typical. Second, previously observed relationships between workplace contact and bias may stem from selection bias—namely, that White individuals who tend to work with Black individuals are systematically different from those who do not, and those systematic differences explain lower bias levels. To address these issues, we review records ( N = 3,359) of White, non-Hispanic, working adults in a nationally representative survey to examine the relationship between workplace contact and racial closeness bias after adjusting for an exhaustive set of potential confounders. Using propensity score matching, we compare individuals who work with Black individuals with their “virtual twins”—individuals who have the same propensity of working with Black individuals but do not. We estimate that having a Black coworker causes a statistically significant reduction in racial closeness bias for White, non-Hispanic adults.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1368430220932636

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Scholars have warned that correlations between restorative practices and student outcomes might reflect a causal relationship or a spurious relationship.

    “scholars (e.g., Darling-Hammond, Lee et al., 2021; Darling-Hammond, Trout, et al., 2021) have warned that while these correlations might reflect a causal relationship, they also could reflect a spurious relationship.”

    From Fostering Belonging, Transforming Schools: The Impact of Restorative Practices (2023) · cites this paper as Darling-Hammond, Lee et al., 2021

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 21 · Cited by 15

Authors
Darling-Hammond, S., Lee, R. T., & Mendoza-Denton, R.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • Cornell University (US)
  • University of California, Berkeley, USA
Corresponding author
Darling-Hammond, Sean
Venue
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations
Published
2020-07-03
Volume
24
Issue
7
Pages
1114-1131
ISSN
  • 1368-4302 (ISSN-L)
  • 1461-7188
OpenAlex
W3039509181
Cited by
15
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1
FWCI
2.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Group Processes & Intergroup Relations (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Names, Identity, and Discrimination Research
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Racial and Ethnic Identity Research
Keywords
interracial contact, workplace diversity, anti-Black bias, White Americans, intergroup contact, selection bias

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