Diversity? Great for Most Just Less So for Me: How Cognitive Abstraction Affects Diversity Attitudes and Choices

Individuals' decisions to promote or limit diversity in the workplace are ambivalent and may be influenced by their cognitive focus. Drawing from construal level theory, we test across five studies whether individuals are more supportive of diversity when diversity is thought of more abstractly versus concretely. Furthermore, we examined the salience of diversity pros and cons as the underlying mechanisms, as well as the role of egalitarian beliefs as a boundary condition for this discrepancy. We tested these hypotheses in five studies, which varied in samples, cognitive focus manipulation, and measures. Dutch and American individuals indicated more positive attitudes toward diversity (Studies 1 and 2) and made more choices that enhanced diversity (Studies 2 and 5) when they considered diversity abstractly (for most companies and teams) rather than concretely (for their own company and teams). Furthermore, the discrepancy in diversity attitudes by construal level was more pronounced among individuals with egalitarian beliefs (Study 3) and was driven by the heightened salience of diversity pros at more abstract versus concrete levels of construal (Study 4). This research contributes to further understanding the ambivalent view of diversity and provides concrete recommendations for diversity management in organizations.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Behavioral Sciences
Published
2025-04-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15050585
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Gender Diversity and Inequality
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
3.87
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Diversity? Great for Most Just Less So for Me: How Cognitive Abstraction Affects Diversity Attitudes and Choices

Katherine W. Phillips, Claudia de Toma, Ashli B. Carter
1 citations
Behavioral Sciences
Gender Diversity and Inequality
3.87
article

Diversity? Great for Most Just Less So for Me: How Cognitive Abstraction Affects Diversity Attitudes and Choices

Katherine W. Phillips, Claudia de Toma, Ashli B. Carter
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Individuals' decisions to promote or limit diversity in the workplace are ambivalent and may be influenced by their cognitive focus. Drawing from construal level theory, we test across five studies whether individuals are more supportive of diversity when diversity is thought of more abstractly versus concretely. Furthermore, we examined the salience of diversity pros and cons as the underlying mechanisms, as well as the role of egalitarian beliefs as a boundary condition for this discrepancy. We tested these hypotheses in five studies, which varied in samples, cognitive focus manipulation, and measures. Dutch and American individuals indicated more positive attitudes toward diversity (Studies 1 and 2) and made more choices that enhanced diversity (Studies 2 and 5) when they considered diversity abstractly (for most companies and teams) rather than concretely (for their own company and teams). Furthermore, the discrepancy in diversity attitudes by construal level was more pronounced among individuals with egalitarian beliefs (Study 3) and was driven by the heightened salience of diversity pros at more abstract versus concrete levels of construal (Study 4). This research contributes to further understanding the ambivalent view of diversity and provides concrete recommendations for diversity management in organizations.

Behavioral SciencesVol. 15(5)
Université Libre de Bruxelles (BE), International Solvay Institutes (BE), Columbia University (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 12%
Gender Diversity and Inequality
3.87
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.