Diversity is one of the buzzwords of the 21st century. But who counts as diverse? We coded diversity statements to examine how organizations typically define diversity and whether oppressed-group members perceive some definitions as diluting diversity, or detracting from the original intention of diversity initiatives. Organizations most commonly opted for a broad definition of diversity (38%) that focused on diversity in perspectives and skills, with no mention of demographic group identities (e.g., race; Study 1). In Studies 2 and 3, people of color perceived broad statements as diluting diversity more than other diversity statements. They were also less interested in working at those organizations, and broad statements led sexual minorities to be less willing to disclose their sexual identity (Study 4). Thus, broadening the definition of diversity to include individual characteristics and skills may backfire, unless the importance of demographic diversity is also acknowledged.
The 2016 U.S. presidential election provided a pertinent context for investigating novel influences on system-related beliefs. We examined Trump and Clinton supporters’ sexist attitudes toward women, perceptions of gender discrimination, and system justification before and after the election. Controlling for conservatism, we found that (a) Trump supporters reported more modern and hostile sexism than Clinton supporters; (b) male Trump supporters perceived greater gender discrimination toward men than male Clinton supporters, an effect mediated by sexist attitudes toward women; (c) female Trump supporters perceived less gender discrimination toward women than female Clinton supporters, an effect also mediated by sexist attitudes toward women; and (d) system justification increased among Trump supporters but decreased among Clinton supporters postelection. These results extend the existing literature on system-related beliefs by revealing the role of antifeminism and misogyny in shaping perceptions of gender discrimination and highlighting how political outcomes are associated with system threat versus reinforcement.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.