On Melting Pots and Salad Bowls: A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Identity-Blind and Identity-Conscious Diversity Ideologies

• 成果类型: Article
• 署名作者: Leslie, Lisa M.; Bono, Joyce E.; Kim, Yeonka (Sophia); Beaver, Gregory R.
• 署名单位: New York University; New York University; State University System of Florida; University of Florida; University of Wisconsin System; University of Wisconsin La Crosse; Suffolk University
• 刊物名称: JOURNAL OF APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY
• ISSN/ISSBN: 0021-9010
• DOI: 10.1037/apl0000446
• 发表日期: 2020
• 页码: 453-471
• 关键词: diversity ideologies; multiculturalism; colorblindness; assimilation; Meritocracy

摘要

Significant debate exists regarding whether different diversity ideologies, defined as individuals' beliefs regarding the importance of demographic differences and how to navigate them, improve intergroup relations in organizations and the broader society. We seek to advance understanding by drawing finer-grained distinctions among diversity ideology types and intergroup relations outcomes. To this end, we use random effects meta-analysis (k = 296) to investigate the effects of 3 identity-blind ideologies-colorblindness, meritocracy, and assimilation-and 1 identity-conscious ideology-multiculturalism-on 4 indicators of high quality intergroup relations-reduced prejudice, discrimination, and stereotyping and increased diversity policy support. Multiculturalism is generally associated with high quality intergroup relations (prejudice: rho = -.32; discrimination: rho = -.22; stereotyping: rho = -.17; policy support: rho = .57). In contrast, the effects of identity-blind ideologies vary considerably. Different identity-blind ideologies have divergent effects on the same outcome; for example, colorblindness is negatively related (rho = -.19), meritocracy is unrelated (rho = .00), and assimilation is positively related (rho = .17) to stereotyping. Likewise, the same ideology has divergent effects on different outcomes; for example, meritocracy is negatively related to discrimination (rho = -.48), but also negatively related to policy support (rho = -.45) and unrelated to prejudice (rho = -.15) and stereotyping (rho = .00). We discuss the implications of our findings for theory, practice, and future research.