Using interviews, a laboratory experiment, and a ré sumé audit study, we examine racial minorities' attempts to avoid anticipated discrimination in labor markets by concealing or downplaying racial cues in job applications, a practice known as ''ré sumé whitening.'' Interviews with racial minority university students reveal that while some minority job seekers reject this practice, others view it as essential and use a variety of whitening techniques. Building on the qualitative findings, we conduct a lab study to examine how racial minority job seekers change their ré sumé s in response to different job postings. Results show that when targeting an employer that presents itself as valuing diversity, minority job applicants engage in relatively little ré sumé whitening and thus submit more racially transparent ré sumé s. Yet our audit study of how employers respond to whitened and unwhitened ré sumé s shows that organizational diversity statements are not actually associated with reduced discrimination against unwhitened ré sumé s. Taken together, these findings suggest a paradox: minorities may be particularly likely to experience disadvantage when they apply to ostensibly pro-diversity employers. These findings illuminate the role of racial concealment and transparency in modern labor markets and point to an important interplay between the self-presentation of employers and the selfpresentation of job seekers in shaping economic inequality.

Using interviews, a laboratory experiment, and a ré sumé audit study, we examine racial minorities' attempts to avoid anticipated discrimination in labor markets by concealing or downplaying racial cues in job applications, a practice known as ''ré sumé whitening.'' Interviews with racial minority university students reveal that while some minority job seekers reject this practice, others view it as essential and use a variety of whitening techniques. Building on the qualitative findings, we conduct a lab study to examine how racial minority job seekers change their ré sumé s in response to different job postings. Results show that when targeting an employer that presents itself as valuing diversity, minority job applicants engage in relatively little ré sumé whitening and thus submit more racially transparent ré sumé s. Yet our audit study of how employers respond to whitened and unwhitened ré sumé s shows that organizational diversity statements are not actually associated with reduced discrimination against unwhitened ré sumé s. Taken together, these findings suggest a paradox: minorities may be particularly likely to experience disadvantage when they apply to ostensibly pro-diversity employers. These findings illuminate the role of racial concealment and transparency in modern labor markets and point to an important interplay between the self-presentation of employers and the selfpresentation of job seekers in shaping economic inequality.

With the outbreak of COVID-19, there have been growing reports of racial harassment targeting Asian Americans. We study one such manifestation of racial harassment that Asian employees may face in the workplace: Leaders' use of stigmatizing labels for COVID-19 such as the "Chinese Virus" and "Kung Flu." Integrating organizational justice theories with research on racial harassment in the workplace, we theorize that leaders' use of stigmatizing COVID-19 labels reduces employees' perceptions of interpersonal justice, which subsequently impact employees' emotional exhaustion and work engagement. We further theorize that while such effects will be stronger among Asian employees who experience both moral anger and reduced public collective self-esteem, that the effects will also be present among non-Asian employees who experience moral anger. Using one survey (Study 1) and one experiment (Study 2), we find support for our predictions. We find that leaders' use of stigmatizing language to depict COVID-19 leads to deleterious workplace experiences for employees, and especially for Asian employees. The current research thus deepens our understanding of the relatively understudied work experiences of Asian Americans and brings to light the underlying psychological mechanisms linking racial harassment and employee work outcomes for both targeted employees and employees not targeted.

No abstract

Asian employees occupy an intermediate status in the U.S. racial hierarchy between White and Black employees. Given this intermediate position, it is unclear whether and how Asian employees' own racial experience at work will affect their willingness to take action against racism toward other groups. In the current research, we examine how Asian employees' experiences of racism impact their propensity to combat racism against Black coworkers. Across four studies including a qualitative survey (Pilot), a timelagged quantitative survey (Study 1), a preregistered experiment (Study 2), and a conceptual replication experiment (Study 3), we find that Asian employees who experience more racial discrimination at work feel more similar to Black individuals, which is subsequently associated with greater allyship toward Black coworkers. We find that this relationship is heightened among Asian employees who have stronger zerosum beliefs (Study 1). Importantly, we further find that processes that lead to allyship among Asian employees differ among White employees (Studies 2-3): In contrast to Asian employees, White employees who perceive more anti-in-group workplace discrimination feel less similar to Black individuals, which is associated with diminished pro-Black allyship. By examining the poorly understood racial experiences of Asian employees, and uncovering mechanisms that propel Asian employees to engage in intergroup allyship, we provide a more complete picture of racism in the workplace.