WHO AM I AT WORK?: EXAMINING IDENTITY MANAGEMENT MOTIVES IN THE WORKPLACE By Christine M. Y. Kermond A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Psychology – Master of Arts 2014 ABSTRACT WHO AM I AT WORK?: EXAMINING IDENTITY MANAGEMENT MOTIVES IN THE WORKPLACE By Christine M. Y. Kermond Employees with an invisible stigmatized identity, such as a minority sexual orientation, religion, or psychological disorder, engage in a balancing act between expressing who they are with hiding negative aspects of themselves from others. Two key goals are posited to underlie identity management behaviors, a motivation to self-verify and a motivation to self-enhance (Swann, 1987). However, the specific role of each motive in identity management behaviors is largely not well understood. The current study attempts to clarify the mediating role of both self-verification and self-enhancement motives in the relationship between identity centrality and identity management behaviors in a sample of lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) employees. Results indicate that both self-verification and self-enhancement motives mediate the relationship between LGB identity centrality and identity management behaviors. The different identity management behaviors uniquely predict LGB employee job perceptions, turnover intentions, and well-being. Surprisingly, perceptions of work context such as perceptions of risk of disclosure and perceptions of diverse organizational climate did not predict the centrality of their LGB identity specific to the workplace. Furthermore, centrality of the LGB identity at work was not related to their identity management behaviors, irrespective of self-verification motive. The findings of this study contribute to a better understanding of why employees manage stigmatized identities and the job-related and health outcomes of their identity management decisions. Copyright by CHRISTINE M. Y. KERMOND 2014 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express my sincere appreciation to each of my thesis committee members for their guidance and contribution to this project. I would like to thank my advisor and committee chair Dr. Ann Marie Ryan, for her guidance, thoughtful feedback, and dedication to this project. I would also like to thank my committee members Drs. Rick DeShon and Isis Settles, for their helpful feedback and support. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ vii LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... viii INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND ................................................................................................ 6 Identity Centrality ....................................................................................................................... 8 The Motive to Express Who We Are.......................................................................................... 9 Similar construct to self-verification. ................................................................................... 10 Self-verification and centrality. ............................................................................................ 11 The Motive to Promote Positive Self-Esteem ........................................................................... 13 How We Express Who We Are ................................................................................................ 14 Identity management strategies............................................................................................. 15 Similar constructs to identity management. .......................................................................... 15 Self-Verification Motive and Identity Management Behaviors................................................ 17 Identity Centrality at Work ....................................................................................................... 19 Role of Organizational Context ................................................................................................ 21 Positive perceptions of climate for diversity. ....................................................................... 22 Perceived risks of disclosing. ................................................................................................ 23 Outcomes of Identity Management Strategies .......................................................................... 24 RESEARCH QUESTIONS .......................................................................................................... 29 Interplay of Self-Verification and Self-Enhancement .............................................................. 29 Identity Valence ........................................................................................................................ 30 Collective self-esteem. .......................................................................................................... 31 Malleability perceptions........................................................................................................ 33 Identity Compartmentalization ................................................................................................. 34 METHOD ..................................................................................................................................... 36 Procedure .................................................................................................................................. 36 Participants ................................................................................................................................ 39 Measures ................................................................................................................................... 39 Antecedents to identity management strategies. ................................................................... 39 Identity centrality. ............................................................................................................. 39 Self-verification motive. ................................................................................................... 40 Self-enhancement motive.................................................................................................. 40 Collective self-esteem. ...................................................................................................... 40 Identity compartmentalization. ......................................................................................... 41 Other’s perceptions of sexual orientation malleability. .................................................... 41 Identity management strategies............................................................................................. 41 Identity centrality at work. .................................................................................................... 41 v Organizational context. ......................................................................................................... 42 Positive perceptions of climate for diversity. ................................................................... 42 Perceived risks of disclosing. ............................................................................................ 42 Employee outcomes of identity management strategies. ...................................................... 42 Job satisfaction. ................................................................................................................. 42 Perceived fit. ..................................................................................................................... 42 Turnover intentions. .......................................................................................................... 43 Psychological distress. ...................................................................................................... 43 Controls. ................................................................................................................................ 43 RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................... 44 Descriptive Statistics ................................................................................................................. 44 Measurement Model ................................................................................................................. 44 Identity centrality and identity centrality at work. ................................................................ 47 Identity compartmentalization and avoiding. ....................................................................... 47 Hypothesis Testing.................................................................................................................... 48 Research Questions Results ...................................................................................................... 62 Additional Analyses .................................................................................................................. 64 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................................... 67 Implications for Theory and Research ...................................................................................... 67 The motive to express who we are. ....................................................................................... 67 The motive to promote positive self-esteem. ........................................................................ 69 Interplay of self-verification and self-enhancement. ............................................................ 69 Identity valence. .................................................................................................................... 71 Identity centrality at work. .................................................................................................... 71 Outcome of identity management strategies. ........................................................................ 72 Practical Implications................................................................................................................ 74 Study Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research ............................................... 75 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 78 APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................. 80 Appendix A: Survey ................................................................................................................. 81 Appendix B: Informed Consent ................................................................................................ 89 Appendix C: Debriefing ............................................................................................................ 91 FOOTNOTE ................................................................................................................................. 92 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 94 vi LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Sample Demographic Frequencies and Percentages ................................................... 38 Table 2 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations ........................................................................ 45 Table 3 Research Hypotheses and Results ................................................................................ 49 Table 4 Research Questions and Results .................................................................................. 52 Table 5 Results of Regression Analyses for Hypothesis 1 ....................................................... 54 Table 6 Results of Regression Analyses for Hypothesis 2, 4 ................................................... 55 Table 7 Results of Regression Analyses for Hypothesis 6 ....................................................... 58 Table 8 Results of Regression Analyses for Hypothesis 8-13 .................................................. 60 Table 9 Results of Regression Analyses for Research Question 2 ........................................... 65 Table 10 Descriptive Statistics for Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Group ...................................... 66 vii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Self-verification and self-enhancement model of identity management strategies ..... 3 Figure 2. Effect of integrating behaviors on turnover intentions at high and low levels of identity centrality at work .......................................................................................... 61 Figure 3. Effect of identity centrality on self-enhancement motive at high and low levels of membership self-esteem ............................................................................................. 63 viii INTRODUCTION Who am I at work?: Examining identity management motives in the workplace Within an era of globalization and increasing workforce diversity, an organization’s competitive advantage greatly depends on effective management of diverse employees (Orenstein, 2005; Wilson & Illes, 1999). Understanding how organizations can maximize return on investment by providing an inclusive work environment has become a critical area of inquiry for both practitioners and academics alike. To date, organizations have mostly focused their diversity management efforts on programs that revolve around formal structures such as company policy and procedures. However, employees also self-manage their own diverse identities (e.g., sexual orientation identity, gender, religious beliefs) in the workplace by means of “bottom-up” tactics. That is, employees actively manage the presentation of their own diverse identities through interactions with others at work. For example, lesbian, gay, or bisexual (LGB) employees may choose to refrain from disclosing their stigmatized sexual identity such that their sexual orientation identity does not negatively impact their workplace interactions. Alternatively, individuals may openly discuss their sexual orientation identity to express who they are if they feel others will be accepting of them. In this paper, I first define stigmatized social identity as an individual’s selfconcept based on membership in a stigmatized, or socially devalued, group that is viewed as inferior compared to another group. Employees with invisible or concealable, stigmatized identities engage in a balancing act of expressing who they are and hiding their stigma from others. Whether one reveals or hides a 1 stigmatizing identity refers to identity management behaviors or identity management strategies. In the social psychology literature, two key motivations are theorized to underlie interpersonal behaviors in general: (1) motivation to self-verify and (2) motivation to self-enhance (Allport, 1937; Baumeister, 1982; Jones, 1964; Swann, 1983, 1987). Self-verification and selfenhancement motives are dialectical in nature. Self-verification framework theorizes that people want others to see them as they see themselves (even the negative identities) whereas the selfenhancement lens postulates that people prefer for others to think well of them in order to enhance their own self-esteem (Swann, Pelham, & Krull, 1989). In other words, employees with a stigmatized identity are conflicted with opposing motives to self-verify or to self-enhance. Figure 1 depicts the model and relations investigated in this research. In this study, I examine the mediating mechanisms underlying why individuals chose to present or hide their stigmatized sexual identity from coworkers. I also assess the influence of centrality of the stigmatized identity on motives to self-verify and self-enhance. The work context will have important implications for expressions of stigmatized identities. Thus, I also examine workplace conditions that influence individuals’ identity management strategies and the psychological and job related outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction, perceived fit, turnover intentions, psychological distress) of adopting such strategies. 2 Organizational Context Organizational Diversity Climate Perceived Risk of Disclosing Identity Centrality at Work Identity Management Strategies Disclose SelfVerification Motive Integrate Employee Outcomes Perceived Fit Job Satisfaction Identity Centrality Conceal Avoid SelfEnhancement Motive Counterfeit Turnover Intention Psychological Distress Figure 1. Self-verification and self-enhancement model of identity management strategies. This study provides three contributions to the literature. First, I extend organizational research on identity management by testing how self-verification and self-enhancement motives operate independently to drive identity management behaviors in the work setting. The majority of the identity management literature focuses on self-verification as the main explanatory mechanism for why people express their stigmatized identity (e.g., Ragins, 2008). However, selfverification motives often exist in tandem with self-enhancement motives (Morling & Epstein, 1997; Swann, 1987; Swann et al., 1989). Thus a concurrent examination of the two motives will contribute to the identity management literature by disentangling the influence of the two motives on identity management behaviors. Extant literature has not empirically examined the 3 two motives as mechanisms explaining why people engage in certain identity management behaviors. Furthermore, determining whether one motive explains incremental variance in identity management behaviors over and above the other motive provides value by teasing out their relative role. Second, I demonstrate the influence of organizational context such as perceived risks of disclosing the stigmatized identity and perception of organizational climate for diversity on identity management decisions. There are several practical implications managers can draw from this research. Managing stigmatized social identities is a critical element of interactions in organizations with diverse employee composition (Deaux & Ethier, 1998; Goffman, 1959). Employee must learn to effectively navigate interactions with others such that they can express their diverse social identities while maintaining a positive self-esteem and minimizing potential conflict from association with a socially devalued group. However, managers must also understand how the organizational context impacts the identity management strategies of employees. Furthermore, understanding the influence of organizational context, managers will also be better positioned to know how to create a welcoming environment for LGB employees. Thus, it is important for organizations to understand the role of organizational context on how diverse employees manage their own social identities and the consequences of such strategies. Finally, I extend self-verification and self-enhancement theory by examining the theory in the context of social identity and identity management strategies. Previous empirical research on self-verification theory has traditionally focused on the verification of personal characteristics (Swann 1983; 1987). Examining self-verification of social identity rather than only personal identity will shed light on how self-verification motive operate at a social identity level, in 4 conjunction with self-enhancement motive, which in contrast has been studied frequently in the social identity literature. In the following sections, I will introduce and describe the proposed model of how and why employees reveal invisible stigmatized identities by drawing on research on theories of selfverification, (Swann, 1983), self-enhancement motives (Baumeister, 1982) and models of disclosure (Button, 2004; Chaudoir & Fisher, 2010; Clair, Beatty, & MacLean, 2005; Ragins, Singh & Cornwell, 2007). I begin by discussing the purpose of verification and enhancement motives broadly, then of managing invisible stigmatized identities specifically. I then discuss the influence of organizational context on identity management behaviors. Finally, I discuss the employee job-related attitudes and health outcomes of adopting such strategies. 5 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND First consider two scenarios: One scenario highlights Lindy, a lesbian advertisement executive, who has kept her sexual orientation identity a secret her entire working career. The second scenario features Carmin, an open lesbian employee who founded a professional LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) network within her company. These two lesbian employees are drastically different in how they manage their lesbian identity. Why doesn’t Lindy disclose her lesbian identity to her coworkers? What motivated Carmin to disclose her lesbian identity? In this study, I examine the identity management strategies of gay, lesbian, and bisexual (LGB) employees. The LGB identity is a social identity. Social identity represents the portion of an individual’s self-concept based on membership in a social group. Social identity is defined as “that part of an individual’s self-concept which derives from [his/her] knowledge of [his/her] membership in a social group (or groups) together” (Tajfel, 1981, p. 255). Social identity theory (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Miller & Brewer, 1986; Tajfel, 1978) proposes that the self-concept is comprised of multiple social identities. Social identities are comprised of membership in a socially constructed group (e.g., Latina, female, sister, lesbian). On the other hand, personal identities consist of idiosyncratic personal characteristics and personality (e.g., extraverted, social, talented). The focus of this research is on stigmatized social identities, rather than the personal identities. The LGB identity is considered a stigmatized social group that is socially devalued such that others view the group and its members as inferior (Goffman, 1974). Approximately 25% to 66% of LGB employees reported experiencing workplace discrimination (Croteau, 1996). Workers with a stigmatized identity employ identity management strategies to manage others’ impressions of their competency and character (Roberts, 2005). 6 The LGB identity is unique compared to other social groups such as gender, age, or race/ethnicity for several reasons. First, the LGB identity is a concealable identity, that is, individuals can make choices to conceal their sexual orientation identity or openly discuss their identity (Ragins, 2008). Second, unlike other minority groups (e.g., women, racial and ethnic minorities, persons over the age of 40, and persons with physical disabilities), LGB individuals generally do not have direct federal legal protection from workplace discrimination in the United 1 States (Civil Rights Act, Title VII 1964, 1991) . The discrepancy in legal protection for LGB individuals across the different states allows for manifestation of varied organizational contexts that likely influence identity management strategies of LGB employees. The focus of this paper 2 is on sexual orientation identity , that is a self-categorization of oneself as a sexual minority (i.e., lesbian, gay, or bisexual). There is evidence that the centrality, or importance, of a LGB identity to the self-concept varies in range across LGB individuals (e.g., Griffith & Hebl, 2002; Ragins, 2008). 7 Identity Centrality Identity centrality refers to the extent to which a particular identity is important to one’s overall self-concept (Ashforth, 2001; Ragins, 2008). Individuals can vary in the extent to which they hold a social identity central to their self-concept, that is, their sense of self (cf. Ashforth, 2001; Hogg & Terry, 2000). Individuals with a central identity to a social group also have strong psychological attachments to the social group and other group members (Brown, Condor, Mathews, Wade, & Williams, 1986). The centrality of one’s stigmatized social identity can have important implications for how one interprets negative events and one’s subsequent well-being (e.g., Branscombe, Schmitt, & Harvey, 1999; Sellars, Caldwell, Scheelk-Cone, & Zimmerman, 2004). For individuals belonging to stigmatized groups, espousing a highly central identity with the group can buffer the negative consequences of discrimination and psychological distresses. For instance, women who coped with discrimination by increasing the centrality of their female identity (and their identification with other women) demonstrated higher well-being than women who did not adopt a strong identification with women (Schmitt, Branscombe, & Kobrynowicz, & Owen, 2002). Likewise, African Americans with high African American identity centrality exhibited higher well-being than African Americans with low identity centrality to the African American group (Branscombe et al., 1991). In sum, individuals with stigmatized identities can vary in the extent to which their stigmatized identity is central or important. Therefore I would expect that LGB individuals with high LGB identity centrality may want to express their stigmatized identity, even risking discrimination and interpersonal conflict, because it is an important part of who they are. Likewise, LGB individuals with low identity centrality may rather keep their stigmatized identity a secret and view potential discrimination as not worth the trouble of disclosing. However, what 8 would motivate people to disclose an invisible stigmatized identity (e.g., LGB identity) in face of jeopardizing their standing in the organization or social relationships? The Motive to Express Who We Are Self-verification theory posits that people have an underlying motivation to express who they are to others (Swann, 1983; 1987). That is, people have a motive to self-verify and strive to maintain a coherent sense of self by presenting to others as to how they view the self (Swann, 1983; 1987). The main tenant of self-verification theory revolves around the notion that people desire to construct a social world that is predictable and controllable (e.g., Erikson, 1959; Festinger, 1957; Heider, 1958; Lecky, 1961; Rogers, 1951; 1959). By expressing who one is to others, that is, by behaviorally self-verifying, people are able to better predict social interactions with others because they know what the other party understands about them. Self-verifying allows people to confirm that they know their own characteristics and traits. Traditionally, the self-verification literature has focused on the verification of self-views and personal characteristics (Swann 1983; 1987). However, it is possible that self-verification motive can also be domain specific, such as wanting to verify a specific social identity. Based on the self-verification framework, it is expected that people will have an underlying need to verify their social identities, that is, group identities, as well as their personal identities. According to self-verification theory, even if people hold negative self-views, people still want others to know this aspect of themselves (for a reviews, see Swann, 1990; Swann, Stein-Seroussi, & Giesler, 1992; Swann, Polzer, Seyle, & Ko, 2004; Swann, Rentfrow, & Guinn, 2003). Similarly, individuals with invisible stigmatized identities will want to self-verify and express this identity. 9 There are several reasons for why people want to self-verify. First, self-verification fulfills epistemic objectives such as reassurance that one knows the self (Swann, 1983; Swann et al.,1992). For invisible identities, people reveal the identity to maintain a coherent sense of self (Harry, 1993; Moorhead, 1999). Disclosing the stigma allows the individual to be a complete and integrated person (Friskopp & Silverstein, 1996). For example, a gay man is able to disclose his identity as a gay man consistently across multiple life domains such as at work and in his personal life. Second, people self-verify to fulfill pragmatic objectives. Self-verification helps to ensure smooth social interactions (Swann et al., 1992) because you know what to expect in interactions. For example, a gay man is able to maintain control of the narrative of his identity (Herek, 1996), know what to expect in interactions, and able to escape having to constantly engage in concealing his identity (Charmaz, 1991). Similar construct to self-verification. Self-verification motive is a similar construct to authenticity, though it is different in several ways. Past research has explored the role of authenticity in employee outcomes in organizations (e.g., Cameron, Dutton, Quinn, & Wrzensniewski, 2003; Kernis, 2003; Roberts, Cha, Hewlin, & Settles, 2009). The core tenants of authenticity posit that in order to achieve authenticity, one must first discover the “true” self by means of introspection and reflection and then express this true self through actions that are consistent with oneself (Rogers, 1980). In other words, authenticity is “being one’s true self” (Illies, Morgeson, & Nahrgang, 2005, p. 374). Self-verification is conceptually related to authenticity, in that they both emphasize an external display of consistent behaviors and identity. However, self-verification motive is different from authenticity in that self-verification is a much more narrow construct. Self-verification reflects the degree to which people desire to maintain a consistency and coherence within a specific social setting, whereas authenticity focuses on the 10 gestalt of discovering a person’s self-concept and acting genuinely in all settings. Selfverification defined in this study focuses on the act of revealing versus hiding information about the self to others in the workplace. To fulfill self-verification motive in the workplace, a gay employee would have to either tell others or signal to his coworkers that he is gay. Another gay employee may have no desire to self-verify, yet he can be living authentically by engaging in relationships with men outside of the workplace. Self-verifying at work is not necessary nor sufficient for authenticity. Self-verification and centrality. A great deal of empirical findings show that people do in fact strive to verify their self-concepts and social identities. For instance, in one study, college students with roommates’ appraisal that are incongruent with their self-concept were more likely to plan to change roommates than when their roommates held congruent perceptions (Swann & Pelham, 2002; Study 2). Similarly, people exhibit lower marriage intimacy when their spouses perceive them as more or less favorable than how they actually perceive themselves (Swann, De La Ronde, & Hizon, 1994). Therefore, just as people engage in behaviors to verify their selfconceptions, likewise employees may engage in identity management behaviors to verify their social identities. In the context of a diverse workforce, self-verification motive is manifested through behaviors of expressing one’s social identity or group membership. Past conceptualizations of self-verification have assumed that all individuals are equally motivated to self-verify (e.g., Sedikedes & Strube, 1995; Swann, 1990). However, recent research revealed that some individuals place greater emphasis on the self-verification motive than others (Cable & Kay, 2012). Individuals high in self-verification motive are more likely to engage in behaviors that elicit self-confirmatory feedback than individuals lower in selfverification motive (e.g., McCall & Simmons, 1966; Swann, 1983, 1987; Swann & Ely, 1984). 11 For example, when interacting with partners, individuals who were certain of their self-concepts were more likely to self-verify their self-views by behaving in ways consistent with their selfviews (Swan & Ely, 1984). Individual differences in self-verification motive predict new incumbents’ job satisfaction, job performance, organizational citizenship behaviors, and organizational commitment (Cable & Kay, 2012). Some people may embrace a social identity close to their self-concept and are thus chronically ready to perceive and act in terms of the social category than others. For example, a lesbian employee, Carmin from the previous scenario, with high identity centrality is likely to want to express her identity to her coworkers and have her lesbian group membership chronically salient. Ragins (2008) suggested that some individuals might not be motivated to verify and disclose a stigmatized identity to others because the identity is not an important identity. Thus, for individuals, like Carmin, whose sexual orientation identity is important the self-concept are likely to want others to know who they are (including their sexual orientation identity); therefore, they will have a high motive to self-verify their sexual orientation identity. According to self-verification theory, even if people hold a stigmatized identity, they will still want others to know this aspect of themselves, especially if the identity is central to their self-concept. Thus, in accordance to the self-verification framework, I predict that individuals who are highly identified with their stigmatized group – that is, regard their stigmatized identity as central and important to their self-concept. – will demonstrate higher self-verification motive than those who are less identified with their stigmatized group. Hypothesis 1a: Centrality of a stigmatized identity is positively related to motive to self-verify the stigmatized identity. 12 However, self-verification motive may not fully explain how employees manage their stigmatized identities. One can imagine that there are other motivators driving why employees reveal or hide a stigmatized social identity, other than maintaining a coherent sense of self, such as a motive of maintaining a positive sense of self and self-image. The Motive to Promote Positive Self-Esteem Some researchers have argued that the driving motivation behind identity management strategies is self-enhancement, that is a motive to maintain a positive self-esteem (e.g., Baumeister, 1982; Jones, 1964; Jones & Pittman, 1982). Past research demonstrated that people are simultaneously motivated to self-verify as well as self-enhance and will work to satisfy both motives (Morling & Epstein, 1997; Swann, 1987). Stigmatized and non-stigmatized individuals often want to maintain, enhance, and protect their self-esteem and desired self-image (Baumeister, 1982). Self-enhancement refers to a process whereby people strive to promote positive self-perceptions. Self-esteem and self-image are linked to beliefs about how others view the self (e.g., Mead, 1934). One technique by which individuals maintain and protect a positive sense of self and self image is through employing identity-relevant self-presentation strategies (Baumeister, 1982; Jones, 1964). Individuals derive self-enhancement from their social groups. According to social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986), individuals strive to maintain or enhance a positive social identity. Individuals are motivated to view their social group as valued and positive. Past research demonstrated that self-enhancement motive is more likely to be activated for highly central social identities central than for peripheral, or less important, social identities (e.g., 13 Crocker, 2002; Sedikides, Gaertner, & Toguchi, 2003). That is, individuals who consider their identity as central to their concept are motivated to view their social group as positive. Building on the self-enhancement framework, I propose that people have an underlying need to selfenhance their stigmatized social identities. In accordance with the self-enhancement framework, I predict that individuals with a highly central stigmatized social identity, will demonstrate higher self-enhancement motive. Hypothesis 1b: Centrality of a stigmatized identity is positively related to motive to self-enhance the stigmatized identity. How We Express Who We Are Employees actively manage their social identities in the workplace (Chaudoir & Fisher, 2010). Individuals express who they are, by verifying and confirming their identity through displaying identity cues (Goffman, 1959; Swann, 1983). Identity cues may include verbalizations of sexual orientation identity, placing photos of one’s same-sex partner in the office, or wearing clothing or jewelry that signifies one’s identity. However, employees with a potentially stigmatizing identity do not always reveal their identity at work. People with social identities that are not readily apparent (e.g., sexual orientation identity) maintain the flexibility to choose to hide or reveal the potentially stigmatizing membership status. 14 Identity management strategies. From a stigma framework, identity management strategies can be generally categorized as two types of behaviors, (1) disclosing or integrating one’s social identity and (2) concealing one’s social identity (Clair et al., 2005). Woods (1993) originally identified three major identity management strategies adopted by gay men at work: (1) integrating or disclosing; and concealing consisting of two dimensions – (2) avoiding, and (3) counterfeiting. Button (2004) demonstrated empirical supported for Woods’ three-strategy model of identity management with lesbian and gay employees. Disclosing behaviors involve integrating the stigmatized identity into a professional identity in the organization (e.g., telling coworker’s of sexual orientation identity; Button, 2004). Integrating behaviors can be subtle (e.g., displaying identity symbols such as a ordaining a gay pride flag on a keychain) or overt (e.g., verbally telling coworkers one’s sexual orientation identity; Woods, 1993). Concealing behaviors includes avoiding and counterfeiting behaviors (Button, 2004). Avoiding strategies involve avoiding the topic, changing the topic, or not correcting coworker’s false assumptions of group membership (Woods, 1993). Counterfeiting on the other hand, involves the active construction of a false identity, such as talking about one’s partner as if heterosexual (Woods, 1993). Similar constructs to identity management. Identity management is distinct from similar constructs such as impression management and facades of conformity. Impression management refers to behaviors in which individuals enact behaviors to influence the image others have of them (Garner & Martinko, 1988; Jones & Pittman, 1982). Identity management is dissimilar to impression management in several ways. Impression management encompasses behaviors that include management of several domains (e.g., work habits, personality) and not particularly specific to managing impressions of social identity. Impression management behaviors are 15 compelled by the dyadic interaction, that is to manage the other party’s impression; on the other hand, identity management behaviors can be both motivated to manage the other party’s impression, but also motivated by self-verification as well as self-enhancement. The intended outcome of impression management is directed towards attaining organization outcomes or maintaining relationships. In contrast, identity management behaviors may be motivated by social or job-based reinforcements (e.g., maintain positive relationships or avoid job discrimination), but also an intrinsic need to verify and/or enhance the identity. Facades of conformity refers to “false representations employees create to appear as if they embrace organizational values” (Hewlin, 2009, p. 727). The individual suppresses his/her personal values in order to express organizational values that he/she does not hold. Identity management is distinct from facades of conformity in three ways: range of behaviors, specificity of behaviors, and the underlying intentions. First, although aspects of facades of conformity overlap with concealing behaviors (e.g. “I say things that I don’t really believe in at work”), facades of conformity is more general than identity management behaviors. Facades of conformity does not include integrating identity management behaviors, which would be behaviors that are consistent with employees’ personal values (regardless of whether it is consistent with organization’s values). Second, identity management behaviors are specific to a social identity. Facades of conformity consist of displaying behaviors consistent with a wide territory of organizational values. Third, akin to impression management, the assumed motive behind engaging in facades of conformity is to increase opportunities available, and establish positive relations for transactional purposes. 16 Self-Verification Motive and Identity Management Behaviors Important identities are more likely to be verified and integrated into the workplace identity than less important identities (Pelham, 1991; Swann & Pelham, 2002), suggesting that people differ in their need to publicly verify their identity and thus their identity management strategies. For example, Carmin, from the previous scenario, may be motivated to verify her lesbian identity, so she tells her coworkers that she is a lesbian. Lindy, on the other hand, is less motivated to verify her lesbian identity, so she avoids topics about relationship and discussing personal topics with her coworkers. Perhaps Lindy even engages in counterfeiting identity management behaviors and talks of fictional dates with members of the opposite sex. Research on the disclosure of sexual orientation identities showed that highly identified LGB individuals are more likely to integrate their stigmatized identity at work (Button, 2001; Chrobot-Mason, Button, & DiClementi, 2001; Griffith & Hebl, 2002; Rostosky & Riggle, 2002) than their less identified counterparts. Therefore consistent with past research, I predict that individuals with high identity centrality with the stigmatized social group will manifest higher self-verification motive and therefore behaviorally verify their identity by engaging in integrating strategies. More specifically, I hypothesize that: Hypothesis 2: Self-verification motive is positively related to (a) integrating strategies and negatively related to (b) avoiding strategies and (c) counterfeiting strategies. 17 Hypothesis 3: Self-verification motive mediates the relationship between identity centrality with a stigmatized group and identity management strategies: (a) integrating, (b) avoiding, and (c) counterfeiting. LGB employees may engage in specific identity management strategies via self-enhancement motivation. Social identity theory posits that individuals seek to affiliate with groups that are positively valued (Tajfel, 1978). Belonging to a stigmatized group threatens one’s self-esteem (Crocker, Major, & Steele, 1998). Therefore, members of stigmatized groups will attempt to affiliate with groups that have a more positive status, or improve the status of their current group in order to maintain a positive self-esteem (Mummendey, Kessler, Klink, & Mielke, 1999; Tajfel, 1978). Sexual minorities are unable to become valid members of the heterosexual group, thus they may either pretend to be heterosexual at work, or come out about their sexual orientation identity at work, so that they may improve the current status of their group to maintain their self-esteem. Employees with a stigmatized identity may utilize integrating strategies in hopes of presenting a positive image of their social identity. Job applicants who presented a gay or lesbian identity received less interpersonal discrimination when they also displayed increased positivity in their interactions or gave additional information about themselves (Singletary & Hebl, 2009). For example, Carmin, from the previous scenario, may be motivated to be perceived positively by others, so she tells her coworkers that she is a lesbian. In the course of sharing this information, Carmin advocates for and speaks positively of her sexual orientation identity group. On the other hand, Lindy, adopts avoiding and counterfeiting strategies to hide her sexual orientation identity in order to self-enhance. In sum, employees with 18 invisible stigmas may utilize integrating, avoiding, or concealing strategies to escape negative evaluations and to maintain a positive self-concept. Therefore, I predict that individuals with high identity centrality with a particular social group will manifest higher self-enhancement motive and may subsequently display any of the three strategies: integrating, avoiding, and/or counterfeiting identity management behaviors. The behavioral manifestations of self-enhancement motive can be expressing or hiding an invisible stigmatized identity. More specifically, I hypothesize that: Hypothesis 4: Self-enhancement motive is positively related to (a) integrating, (b) avoiding and (c) counterfeiting strategies. Hypothesis 5: Self-enhancement motive mediates the relationship between identity centrality with a stigmatized group and identity management strategies(a) integrating, (b) avoiding, and (c) counterfeiting. Identity Centrality at Work Social identity may not be important to individuals in all social domains (cf. Ashforth, 2001; Hogg & Terry, 2000). A social identity central to an individual in general, may not be a central identity in the work setting. In environments where employees fear discrimination, employees are more likely to base their self-esteem on other activities and domains other than the work domain (e.g., Major et al., 1998; Steele, 1997). Thus, the centrality of an identity in a specific setting may be determined by the contextual cues that either supports or contests the identity (Higgins & King, 1981). For instance, Lindy, the lesbian employee from previous examples, may 19 adopt a lesbian identity at home and around friends. If she views the work environment as being unsupportive of diverse employees and she expects discrimination based on her sexual orientation identity, Lindy is likely to distance her LGB identity from the work setting and the identity will be peripheral to her identity at work. In contrast, if Carmin perceives her organization as supporting employee diversity and openness, she will likely incorporate her LGB identity into her professional identity, and have a central lesbian identity at work. Thus, I expect that the behavioral manifestations of self-verification motive in the workplace are contingent on the importance of the identity specific to the work setting. Individuals with a highly central stigmatized social identity will be more likely to integrate the identity at work if it is a highly central identity in the workplace than if a peripheral identity at work. I hypothesize that: Hypothesis 6a: The positive relationship between self-verification motive and integrating strategies is stronger for individuals with high identity central in the workplace than for those with low identity centrality in the workplace. Individuals who do not hold their stigmatized identity central to their self-concept at work will more likely to avoid or counterfeit their identity. The use of the more passive avoidance strategies than active counterfeiting pose less of a threat to the individual’s self-identity (Leary, 1999). Thus I predict that for those with high identity centrality at work, self-verification motive will be more negatively related to avoiding strategies, than for those low in identity centrality in the workplace. Likewise, for those with high identity centrality in the workplace, high selfverifiers will be less likely to engage in active counterfeiting strategies that actively deny an 20 important identity at work than those lower in identity centrality in the workplace. More specifically, I hypothesize that: Hypothesis 6b: The negative relationship between self-verification motive and avoiding strategies is stronger for individuals with high identity centrality in the workplace than for those with low identity centrality in the workplace. Hypothesis 6c: The negative relationship between self-verification motive and counterfeiting strategies is stronger for individuals with high identity centrality in the workplace than for those with low identity centrality in the workplace. In sum, identity centrality may be conceptualized in terms of its subjective importance of the identity in the context of work setting. Moreover, the organizational context can have an influence on the centrality of a stigmatized identity at work. Individuals are motivated to categorize themselves in most meaningful way as dictated by contextual factors (Hogg & Abrams, 1990). Reaction of others in social environments can determine whether or not a devalued social identity will be incorporated in an individual’s self-concept (Jones et al., 1984). Role of Organizational Context Though individuals construct their self-concept in response to social stimuli in the environment (Stryker, 1987), this construal can be rather stable within a specific context. The work environment is relatively stable and constant in that demographic make-up and therefore salience of certain social identities should not fluctuate greatly. In addition, an environment that 21 continually reinforces or punishes expressions of social identity (via organizational policies and procedures and interpersonal interactions) will promote stable identity centrality notions within the workplace. If an environment consistently punishes or lacks positive reinforcement for expression of diversity, then individuals are likely to distance their diverse social identity from the work domain. In response to threats, individuals respond with emotion-focused coping by distancing from their stigmatized identity in an attempt to reduce the applicability of the stigma to the self (Miller & Major, 2000). In the social psychology literature, when a stigmatized individual’s identity is threatened, one possibility to cope with the threat is to to decrease identification with the stigmatized group (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Therefore, I expect that whether or not an identity becomes central to one’s professional identity should be influenced by organizational context factors such as perceived positive workplace climate for diversity and the perceived risks of disclosing one’s stigmatized identity. Positive perceptions of climate for diversity. The psychological climate for diversity refers to an individual’s perceptions of the organization’s overall atmosphere with regard to diversity initiatives, policies, and discriminatory practices (McKay et al., 2007). Employees draw from climate perceptions to determine whether one’s diverse social identity is valued or welcome in the work setting. Empirical evidence demonstrated that perceptions of a supportive climate for sexual minorities were positively related to disclosing strategies and negatively associated with avoiding and counterfeiting strategies (Button, 2001; Chrobot-Mason et al., 2001). Perceptions of climate for diversity can be inferred from work environments that consist of supportive managers (Day & Schenrade, 1997) and accepting coworkers (Ragin & Cornwell, 2001). 22 Perceived risks of disclosing. Individuals with stigmatized social identities may anticipate negative consequences from disclosing their identity. The perceived risks of disclosing may include instrumental risks such as job loss, bypass for promotions or social outcomes such as interpersonal discrimination, and social isolation (Clair et al., 2005). Individuals who perceive high risks of disclosing may prefer to adopt avoidance or counterfeiting strategies (Chaudoir & Fisher, 2010). For example, LGB employees who have witnessed or experienced discrimination in the past would perceive a higher risk of disclosing, and therefore are less likely to disclose their identity than LGB employees who do not sense such risks (Ragins, & Cornwell, 2001). Employees with invisible stigmas that are protected under law (e.g., religion) are more likely to reveal their stigma than those with invisible stigmas that are not unanimously protected under federal law (e.g., sexual orientation identity) (Ragins & Cornwell, 2001). Research has demonstrated the relationship between perceptions of a supportive diversity climate and perceived risks of disclosing on attitudes about one’s stigmatized identity (Button, 2001). Unsupportive climates and high risks of disclosing may lead individuals with stigmatized identities to psychological withdrawal from the identity (e.g., making the identity in the domain less psychologically central; Burke & Stets, 1999; Ethier & Deaux, 1994; McCall & Simmons, 1978). For instance, Lindy may have distanced the centrality of her lesbian identity in the workplace because she perceives risks of disclosing or because her organization has disciplined minorities in the past. In contrast, Carmin’s high lesbian identity centrality at work may be due to her perception of her organization as welcoming and inclusive of diversity. Thus I hypothesize that: 23 Hypothesis 7a: Positive perceptions of organizational diversity climate are positively related to identity centrality at work. Hypothesis 7b: Perceived risk of disclosing is negatively related to identity centrality at work. Outcomes of Identity Management Strategies Integrating, avoiding, and counterfeiting identity management strategies are differentially related to job attitudes and psychological well-being (for a review see DeJordy, 2008). Though individuals integrating their stigmatized identity in the workplace risk interpersonal discrimination, integrating strategies can potentially generate positive outcomes such as interpersonal liking and trust within relationships (Beals, Peplau, & Gables, 2009). Integrating strategies are related to ratings of higher social support from coworkers. Concealing or avoiding a stigmatized identity in interpersonal relationships prevents individuals from forming strong social support networks (Chaudoir & Fisher, 2010). Positive relationships within the workplace may contribute to higher levels of job satisfaction, perceptions of fit with organizational values, and commitment to the organization. Evidence supports that disclosing at work is positively related to job satisfaction (Griffith & Hebl, 2002) and concealing is negatively related to job satisfaction (DeJordy, 2008; Pachankis, 2007). Avoiding or concealing a stigmatized identity purportedly creates a dissonance over one’s identity (DeJordy, 2008). Concealing is related to higher job anxiety (Griffith & Hebl, 2002). Publically denying one’s identity predicts lower employee job satisfaction and well-being (DeJordy, 2008; Pachankis, 2007). Avoiding or concealing a stigmatized identity, for example, 24 keeping a stigmatized identity a secret from coworkers can be cognitively and emotionally taxing (Goffman, 1963; Pachankis, 2007). Constant self-regulating and heightened vigilance of identity management behaviors are hypothesized to deplete cognitive resources (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice, 1998). Individuals who fabricate and actively construct a false identity are likely to feel like a fraud and experiences strain because of constant vigilance of his/her environment (Goffman, 1963). On the other hand, individuals who integrate their stigmatized identity into their work identity are able to alleviate psychological stress caused by active concealment (Clair et al., 2005). Identity management behaviors may shape stigmatized individuals’ perceptions of the organization and organizational values. For instance DeJordy (2008) conjectures that individuals’ identity management behaviors shape perceptions of organization’s values to be consistent with their own. For example, a closeted gay man with a central LGB identity perceives that the organization is homophobic after attributing his lesbian’s friend being passed over for a promotion due to her sexual orientation. Thus, it is likely that individuals who integrate their stigmatized identity perceive the organization espousing values as consistent with their personal values, that is perceived organizational fit. In contrast, individuals who avoid or counterfeit their stigmatized identity may perceive lower organizational fit. Consistent with previous research demonstrating the benefits of integrating stigmatized identities and the consequences of concealing, I predict that integrating strategies will be related to positive job attitudes and psychological outcomes, whereas avoiding or counterfeiting strategies will be related to negative outcomes. More specifically, I hypothesize that: 25 Hypothesis 8: Use of integrating strategies is positively related to (a) job satisfaction and (b) perceived organizational fit, and negatively related to (c) turnover intentions, and (d) psychological distress. Hypothesis 9: Use of avoiding strategies is negatively related to (a) job satisfaction and (b) perceived organizational fit, and positively related to (c) turnover intentions, and (d) psychological distress. Hypothesis 10: Use of counterfeiting strategies is negatively related to (a) job satisfaction and (b) perceived organizational fit, and positively related to (c) turnover intentions, and (d) psychological distress. Though integrating strategies are related to positive job attitudes and psychological outcomes, the positive benefits of integrating may depend on the centrality of one’s stigmatized identity at work. Integrating strategies may be beneficial only for employees with a stigmatized identity that is highly central to their self-concept at work and disclosing a non-central identity at work may have more deleterious outcomes than allowing the individual to keep the identity hidden. Integrating a non-central identity at work potentially exposes the LGB individual to discrimination and interpersonal conflict that he/she cannot buffer with his/her identification with the social group. For instance, if Lindy, the woman from the previous example, were to integrate her lesbian identity that is not important to her at work, would be similar to forcibly “being out” when she does not want to be out. If Lindy’s lesbian identity is not important to her self-concept at work, then she will view potential threats as greater than benefits of integrating, 26 which is not worth the cognitive and emotional effort of integration (Major, Quinton, McCoy, & Schmader, 2000). Previous research has found that inconsistencies in self-verification motives and behavioral manifestations of identity expressions have negative effects on employee outcomes (e.g., withdrawal from work; Farmer & Aguinis, 2005). Thus I hypothesize that: Hypothesis 11: Integrating a highly central work identity is more strongly positively related to (a) job satisfaction and (b) perceived organizational fit and negatively related to (c) turnover intentions and (d) psychological distress than integrating a less central work identity. On the other hand, if Lindy avoided or counterfeited her lesbian identity that is not central to her work identity, she would be less likely to experience the psychological strain than if her lesbian identity was central. The taxing nature of keeping a stigmatized identity concealed (Goffman, 1963; Pachankis, 2007) is likely to be exacerbated by the importance of the identity to the individual at work. The feeling of deception and experience of psychological stress from active concealment (Clair et al., 2005; Goffman, 1963) would be more prominent when one is counterfeiting or avoiding an important identity at work than a peripheral identity. On the other hand, avoiding or counterfeiting a non-central LGB identity at work is likely easier and creates less cognitive conflict for the individual. In sum, individuals hiding an important identity will be preoccupied with attempting to avoid or counterfeit their identity and will have less cognitive resources to contribute to the workplace (Smart & Wegner, 1999). Therefore, I hypothesize that: 27 Hypothesis 12: Avoiding a highly central work identity is more strongly negatively related to (a) job satisfaction and (b) perceived organizational fit and positively related to (c) turnover intentions and (d) psychological distress than avoiding a less central work identity. Hypothesis 13: Counterfeiting a highly central work identity is more strongly negatively related to (a) job satisfaction and (b) perceived organizational fit and positively related to (c) turnover intentions and (d) psychological distress than counterfeiting a less central work identity. 28 RESEARCH QUESTIONS Interplay of Self-Verification and Self-Enhancement Self-verification and self-enhancement motives are seemingly incongruent. One motive suggests that individuals want others to know who they are, regardless of the negative characteristics or negative identity, the other motive suggests that individuals want to maintain a positive self-image. Accordingly, individuals motivated by self-verification should aim to display their negative identities; yet individuals motivated by self-enhancement should keep their negative identities hidden. The interaction between self-verification and self-enhancement motive is unclear. Theorists have proposed that people are simultaneously concerned with both self-verification and self-presentation implications of their behavior (e.g., Deaux & Major, 1987; Tetlock & Manstead, 1985). However, other theorists argue that the desire to self-enhance overrides the desire for accurate self-perceptions (e.g., Rogers, 1951, for a review, see Colvin & Griffo, 2007). This claim implies that self-enhancement motivation is so powerful that it overrides other competing motives such as self-verification. Especially in the job context, employees’ desire to maintain positive image and self-esteem in the workplace may override their desire to self-verify potentially stigmatizing identities. Research consistently demonstrated that self-verification and self-enhancement motives exist concomitantly (e.g., Morling & Epstein, 1997, Swann et al., 1989). Meta-analytic data showed no statistical difference in the relationship between interpersonal behaviors and self-verification (r = .25) and self-enhancement (r = .18), t(5) = -1.14 (Kwang & Swann, 2010). The meta-analysis mostly examined interpersonal decisions in the laboratory setting, for example, choosing between a partner who accurately acknowledges negative aspects of the participant or a partner who views the participant more 29 positively than the participant sees him/herself. Thus, I expect generalizing to the work setting, the two motives operate simultaneously and independently (Swann et al., 1989) to influence peoples’ use of specific identity management strategies. A key research question to explore is how does self-verification and self-enhancement motive interact to predict identity management strategies? Research Question 1: How does self-verification motive and self-enhancement motive interact to influence identity management strategies: (a) integrating, (b) avoiding, and (c) counterfeiting. Identity Valence To what extent will Lindy or Carmin’s lesbian identity centrality interact with the perceived positivity of their lesbian social identity? It is possible that the centrality of a social identity may interact with the valence (i.e., the positivity or negativity) of the social group category. Research has shown that people are more likely to verify identities that are important (e.g., Pelham, 1991; Swann & Pelham, 2002). However, how does the valence of one’s social identity influence the motives to self-verify or self-enhance? According to the core tenants of social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), people desire to view their group memberships positively and are more inclined to identify with their social group when it has high status or positive valence (Ellemers, 1993). Lemay and Ashmore, (2004) conducted a longitudinal study of the impact of category valence and identity centrality and self-categorization, a construct similar to self-verifying one’s identity. Lemay and Ashmore (2004) operationalized self-categorization as the extent to which participants acknowledged or verified their social identity in a questionnaire (i.e., self- 30 categorized themselves within a social category). The researchers found that high school students were more likely to self-verify a positive social group membership (e.g., jock) than when the social group was negative (e.g., outcast). Relevant identity valence variables for LGB employees are their collective self-esteem (evaluation of the positivity or negativity of one’s social identity) and judgment of others’ perceptions of malleability of social identity, which imbues a connotation of negative or positive valence. Collective self-esteem. Collective self-esteem is the self-evaluation of one’s social identity (Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992). Just as individual or personal self-esteem refers to an overall evaluative attitude toward the self and personal identity (Rosenberg, 1965), collective selfesteem is a social identity based construct that refers to attitude towards one’s social group and social identity. For example, collective self-esteem refers to the how proud a bisexual employee is of his bisexual identity, whether he thinks he is a worthy member of the bisexual community, and whether he perceives others as viewing bisexuals positively. Luhtanen and Crocker’s (1992) original conception of collective self-esteem distinguishes between four self-evaluations of one’s social identity: (1) membership-self-esteem, (2) public self-esteem, (3) private self-esteem, and (4) importance of the identity. Membership self-esteem is defined as the judgment of how good or worthy individuals feel about being a member of their social group. For instance, a bisexual employee who has high membership self-esteem would feels like he is a useful member of his bisexual community and has a lot to offer the group. Public self-esteem is the judgment of other’s perception of the valence of their social group. An example of a bisexual man with high public self-esteem would be if he thinks others respect bisexuals in general. On the other hand, private self-esteem reflects one’s personal judgment of the valence of their social group. A bisexual man with high private collective self-esteem would 31 be glad to be a member of the bisexual community and feel good about being a bisexual. Importance to identity refers to the extent to which the social group is an important reflection of who one is, in other words, identity centrality. When I discuss collective self-esteem hereafter, I am referring to three collective self-esteem constructs (i.e., membership, public, and private), and not to importance of the identity (i.e., identity centrality). Although, the former three collective self-esteem constructs are strongly related to identity centrality (correlations range from .23 to .53; Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992), they are empirically distinct constructs. Luhtanen and Crocker (1992) demonstrated better fit with a four-factor structure (compared to one-factor structure) in two separate samples. Membership, public, and private collective-self esteem refer to the judgment of the valence of the identity, rather than the centrality or importance – one can consider a positively- or negatively-valenced social identity as central. Individuals also are willing to categorize themselves in a negatively-valenced stigmatized group and identify with the group despite status threats to the group (e.g., Doosje, Spears, & Ellemers, 2002). Several researchers demonstrated that individuals self-verify a central selfconception, regardless of the valence (Swann, 1990; Swann et al., 1992; Swann, Polzer, Seyle, & Ko, 2004; Swann et al., 2003). Accordingly, I would expect that the valence of one’s social identity (via membership self-esteem, public esteem or private esteem) has an impact on motives to verify or enhance the social identity. A key question remains: How does identity centrality and valence of the identity (represented by membership, public, and private aspects of collective selfesteem) interact to impact self-verification and self-enhancement motive? 32 Research Question 2: What is the role of collective self-esteem (a) membership selfesteem, (b) public self-esteem, and (c) private self-esteem on the relationship between identity centrality and self-verification and self-enhancement motives? Malleability perceptions. Stigmas can differ on dimensions of concealability and controllability. The focus of this research is on a concealable social identity (i.e., sexual orientation). Controllability of a stigma refers to the extent to which the stigmatized individual has control over the stigma. A stigma that is perceived to be controllable is attributed to be within personal control (or blame) of the target. Sexual orientation can be perceived on a continuum of controllability by third party perceivers. The attributional theory of stigma proposes that people are more likely to view individuals with stigmas that are perceived to be controllable as causing and deserving their own negative fate (Weiner, Perry, & Magnusson, 1988). Individuals with stigmas believed to be controllable elicit pity and anger, and are more likely to be disliked, rejected, and discriminated against (e.g., Weiner et al., 1988; see King et al., 2006 for a review). Researchers have demonstrated that heterosexuals who believe sexual orientation is controllable held more hetereosexist attitudes (e.g., see Aguero, Bloch, & Byrne, 1984; Hegarty & Pratto, 2002; Sakalli, 2002). Public opinion polls have showed that there variance in whether people in the United believe sexual orientation to be controllable, that is a “lifestyle choice,” or uncontrollable, that is determined by biological factors (Ernulf, Innala, & Whitman, 2002; Whitley, 1990). Controllability perception is conceptually similar to malleability perceptions. Malleability perceptions refer to the extent to which something is changeable, which is inexplicitly linked to controllability perceptions. If someone perceives a characteristic to controllable he/she is also 33 likely to view the characteristic to be largely malleable. Perceptions of others’ view of malleability of sexual orientation may have an impact on LGB employees’ motives to self-verify or self-enhance their social identity. That is, a gay employee’s perception of what others think of the malleability of sexual orientation may have an impact on his motive to express or hide his gay identity. Thus a research question surfaces of how do others’ beliefs about the malleability of a social identity influence motives to self-verify or self-enhance? Research Question 3: What is the role of other’s perceptions of identity malleability on the relationship between identity centrality and self-verification and selfenhancement motive? Identity Compartmentalization How does the importance of Lindy or Carmin’s lesbian identity and whether they compartmentalize their work and family life influence the centrality of their LGB identity specific to the workplace? The compartmentalization model of self (Showers & Zeigler-Hill, 2007; Zeigler-Hill & Showers, 2007) posits that individuals vary in the extent to which they can compartmentalize their life characteristics. That is, individuals differ in whether they see their self-concepts as segregated or integrated. Applying compartmentalization of self-concept to social identity, just as individuals can have distinct self-concepts in certain domains, they can also have distinct social identity and centrality of the social identity in certain domains. Individuals also compartmentalize their social identities – consider a social identity as important in one domain, but not another (cf. Ashforth, 2001; Hogg & Terry, 2000). For instance, Lindy may compartmentalize her lesbian identity in that she may be an outgoing LGB and equality 34 activist with her LGB friends and at home, but quiet and reserved and counterfeiting as heterosexual at work. On the other hand, Carmin, may be low in identity compartmentalization, in that the importance and integration of her identity is consistent across her work and home life. Thus, a research question remains of what is the nature of the relationship between identity compartmentalization and LGB identity centrality on LGB identity centrality in the workplace? Research Question 4: What is role of identity compartmentalization on the relationship between general identity centrality and identity centrality at work? In sum, there has been much speculation with limited empirical evidence of support for selfverification motives driving identity management behaviors for invisible social identities. The role of self-verification motive over and above self-enhancement motive in the identity management literature is unclear. Thus I attempt to extend the literature on identity management strategies by incorporating self-verification (Swann, 1983) and self-enhancement theory (Baumeister, 1982) to models of disclosure and identity management (Button, 2004; Chaudoir & Fisher, 2010; Clair et al, 2005; 1982; Ragins et al., 2007). To summarize, the purpose of this research is to develop and test an integrative model of how self-verification motive explains the impact of social identity centrality on identity management strategies in the work setting. Such framework not only delineates the mechanism through which possession of a stigmatized identity predicts certain identity management behaviors but also describes the influence of the work context (e.g., perceived climate for diversity and perceived consequences of disclosure) on identity management motives. 35 METHOD Procedure Participants were recruited from various online LGBT-professional groups, online LGBTcommunity groups, and LGBT-advocacy groups. Sampling from these sources may create certain sampling bias such as restriction in the variance in identity management strategies such that the majority of participants are out and use integrating strategies. However, this sampling design avoids the potentially harmful (Ragins et al., 2007) and ineffective strategy of sampling many organizations to identity LGBT individuals within them. The Internet has been shown to be useful method for contacting hard-to-reach populations who may be stigmatized because of their identity, such as LGBT individuals (Gosling, Vazire, Srivastava, & John, 2004; Keller, & Lee, 2003; Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald, 2002; Phillips, Ingram, Smith, & Mindes, 2003). The resulting sample revealed variance in the extent to which participants were out to their coworkers. On average, participants reported that they were out to 75.79% (SD = 34.47) of their coworkers, with a range of participants reporting that they were completely in the closet (0% out to coworkers) to completely out (100% out to coworkers). Although there may be concerns with range restriction in the variance of identity management behaviors, the sample had sufficient variance in the extent to which participants exhibited integrating, avoiding, and/or counterfeiting behaviors (SD ranges from 1.04 to 1.43 on a 7-point scale). Procedural approaches as suggested by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff (2003) were applied to minimize common method biases, the degree to which relationships between constructs are inflated due to a methods effect. To decrease socially desirable responding participants were assured about the anonymity of their responses. In addition, instructions 36 specified that there were no right or wrong answers to the items in the survey. Furthermore, data was collected at two distinct time periods (i.e., separated by two weeks), separating the predictor variables from the immediate criterion variables. A total of 142 participants were eligible to participate in the study (i.e., identified as lesbian, gay, or bisexual, over 18 years of age, and currently work at least 20 hours a week) and completed the survey at Time 1. A total of 122 participants completed the survey at Time 2, for a response rate of 86%. Participants identifying as transgender or gender queer were excluded from the analyses because transgendered individuals (i.e., gender identity) represent a dimension different from sexual orientation; thus the sample size used in subsequent analyses is N = 110. The survey at Time 1 assessed participants’ demographic information, centrality of LGB identity, self-verification motive, self-enhancement motive, collective self-esteem, other’s perception of sexual orientation malleability, organizational context (i.e., perceptions of climate for diversity, perceived risks of disclosing), and centrality of LGB identity in the work domain. The survey at Time 2 measured identity management behaviors, identity compartmentalization, and employee job attitudes (i.e., job satisfaction, perceived fit, turnover intentions) and psychological distress. Participant responses were linked via an anonymous unique identifier code (i.e., favorite movie, best friend’s birthday, and last four digits of their best friend’s phone number). Participants received an online $10 Amazon.com gift card as compensation for their participation. Please refer to Appendix A for survey. 37 Table 1 Sample Demographic Frequencies and Percentages Participant Characteristics Number of participants (% of sample) Participant Characteristics Gender Female Male 48 (43.6%) 62 (56.4%) Sexual Orientation Bisexual Lesbian Gay Sexual Orientation Disclosed to Coworkers None 1-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-99% 100% Race / Ethnicity Asian / Asian American Black / African American Hispanic / Latino / Spanish Origin Native Hawaiian / Pacific Islander White Multi-Racial Other Workplace Industry Advertising Education Finance Government Health Care 19 (17.3%) Technology 35 (31.8%) Manufacturing 56 (50.9%) Non-Profit Other Services Restaurant / Hospitality Retail Other 2 (1.9%) 14 (13.2%) 13 (12.3%) Organization Size 2 (1.9%) Less than 15 employees 24 (22.6%) 15-29 employees 51 (48.1%) 30-59 employees 60-100 employees Over 100 employees 1 (.9%) 1 (.9%) Education 5 (4.6%) High school graduate / GED 1 (.9%) Some college, no degree 86 (79.6%) Associate’s degree 12 (11.1%) Bachelors degree 2 (1.9%) Some graduate school, no degree Graduate degree 38 Number of participants (% of sample) 4 (3.7%) 16 (14.8%) 7 (6.5%) 4 (3.7%) 17 (15.7%) 12 (11.1%) 8 (7.4%) 4 (3.7%) 11 (10.0%) 9 (8.3%) 12 (11.1%) 4 (3.7%) 25 (23.1%) 19 (17.6%) 12 (11.1%) 5 (4.6%) 47 (43.5%) 6 (5.6%) 22 (20.4%) 12 (11.1%) 30 (27.8%) 8 (7.4%) 30 (27.8%) Participants Participants in this study were 110 LGB employees. On average, participants were 40 years old (SD = 11.24 years), 44 percent were female, and 32 percent were identified as lesbian, 51 percent gay, and 17 percent bisexual. Participants were employed in a variety of different industries, the most common being health care (15.7%), education (14.8%), retail (11.1%), and technology (11.1%). Their average tenure with their current employer was 6.22 years (SD = 6.50), working on average 39.44 hours a week (SD = 9.98). Table 1 displays the sample demographic frequencies and percentages. Measures For all the measures below, except noted otherwise (i.e., psychological distress), the response format was measured on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). Higher scores indicate high values on the variables. Antecedents to identity management strategies. Identity centrality. Four items assessed how important sexual orientation identity is to overall identity or sense of self (e.g., “In general, being a member of the lesbian/gay/bisexual group is an important reflection of who I am”). Items were adapted from the Importance to Identity subscale of Luhtanen and Crocker’s (1992) Collective Self-Esteem Scale of race identity to assess sexual orientation identity (α = .76). The Importance to Identity subscale is related to collective self-esteem constructs (i.e., membership, public, and private collective self-esteem; Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992). However, the constructs represent empirically distinct constructs, as 39 supported by a better fit of a four-factor structure compared to one-factor structure (Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992; see also Ellemers, Kortekaas, & Ouwerkerk, 1999). Self-verification motive. Four-items assessed motives to verify sexual orientation identity (e.g., “It’s worth it to be truthful with others about my lesbian/gay/bisexual identity so that they know what to expect from me”). Items were adapted from Cable and Kay’s (2012) selfverification motive for personal characteristics scale to assess self-verification motives specific to LGB identity (α = .78). Self-enhancement motive. Five-items assessed motives to project a good self-image of sexual orientation to others. Items were adapted from Yun, Takeuchi, and Liu’s (2007) selfenhancement motive scale for general enhancement of self-image to others to assess selfenhancement motive specific to sexual orientation identity. An example item is “It is important to me to give a good impression to others about my lesbian/gay/bisexual identity” (α = .88). Collective self-esteem. Luhtanen and Crocker’s (1992) collective self-esteem scale assessing three aspects of self-evaluation of one’s social identity (i.e., membership self-esteem, public collective self-esteem, and private collective self-esteem) was adapted to assess self-evaluation of participants’ LGB identity. The first aspect, membership self-esteem, was measured with three-items assessing the judgment of how good or worthy participants felt they are as members of their LGB group (e.g., “I am a worthy member of the LGB community;” α = .80). Public collective self-esteem was measured with three-items assessing participants’ judgment of how other people evaluated their LGB social group (e.g., “Being a lesbian/gay/bisexual is considered good by other people;” α =.78). Private collective self-esteem was measured with three-items assessing participants’ personal judgment of how positively they felt about their LGB identity is (e.g., “I am glad to be a lesbian/gay/bisexual”; α =.82). 40 Identity compartmentalization. Four-items were adapted from Rosenmann and Safir’s (2007) measure of separation between online internet versus offline lives to reference separation between work versus home lives. An example item is “It is crucial to keep my work and non work lives separately” (α = .88). Other’s perceptions of sexual orientation malleability. Three-items were adapted from Dweck’s (2000) scale assessing personal perceptions of malleability of intelligence, personality and morality to assess judgment of other people’s perceptions of malleability of sexual orientation. An example item is “In general, other people think that sexual orientation is something that can’t be changed very much” (α = .85). Identity management strategies. Identity management strategies were measured with Button’s (2001; 2004) scale assessing identity management strategies of lesbian and gay employees. Integrating was measured with nine-items (e.g., “I openly confront others when I hear a homophobic remark or joke;” α = .84). Avoiding was measured with five-items (e.g., “I withdraw from conversations when the topic turns to things like dating or interpersonal relationships;” α = .90), and counterfeiting with four-items (e.g., “To appear heterosexual, I sometimes talk about fictional dates with members of the opposite sex;” α = .72). Identity centrality at work. Identity centrality at work was assessed with four-items that assessed how important sexual orientation identity is to their identity or sense of self, in the context of work. Items are the same as previous identity centrality items (Importance to Identity subscale; Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992), with an added reference to specify the centrality of the 41 identity within the work context. An example item is “In general, being a member of the lesbian/gay/bisexual group is an important reflection of who I am at work” (α = .80). Organizational context. Positive perceptions of climate for diversity. Four-items assessed perceptions of the policies, practices, and procedures that communicate diversity is a priority in the organization (Kossek Markel, & McHugh, 2003; McKay et al., 2007; Mor Barak, Cherin, & Berkman, 1998; Pugh, Dietz, Brief, & Wiley, 2008). An example item is “Managers demonstrate through their actions that they want to hire and retain a diverse workforce” (α = .90). Perceived risks of disclosing. Based on Ragins et al. (2007) conceptualization and description of perceived risks of disclosing, nine-items were adapted from Lyons, Wessel, Ghumman, Ryan, and Kim’s (2013) measure of perceived risks of disclosing a Christian identity at work to assess the extent to which participants perceived risks associated with disclosing their LGB identity at work. An example item is “If I disclose my LGB membership/identity, I would lose my job (α = .90). Employee outcomes of identity management strategies. Job satisfaction. Three-items measured satisfaction with one’s job with the Job Satisfaction scale from the Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire (Camman, Fichman, Jenkins, & Klesh, 1979). An example item is “In general, I like working here” (α = .88). Perceived fit. Three-items assessed perceptions of person-organization values congruence fit (Cable & Judge, 1996, 1997; Lauver & Kristof-Brown, 2001). An example item is “The things that I value in life are similar to the things that my organization values” (α = .96). 42 Turnover intentions. Turnover intentions were assessed with three items developed by Tepper et al. (2009). An example item is “I plan on leaving this organization very soon” (α = .94). Psychological distress. Psychological distress was assessed with ten-items from the Center for Epidemiologic Studies–Depression scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977). Psychological distress was measured with a four-point response format was measured on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = rarely or none of the time, less than 1 day to 4 = most of the time, five to seven days). Participants were asked “on an average week, how often have you been feeling this way in the past month.” An example item is “I felt depressed” (α = .86). Controls. Organizational tenure, gender, and age were controlled for in all analyses. Selfdisclosure increases as relationship length increases (Cozby, 1973), thus organizational tenure at current organization was used as a proxy for relationship length with their coworkers. A metaanalysis by Dindia and Allen (1991) found that women are more likely to self-disclose personal information than men (d = .18, 95% confidence interval [.16, .21]). In addition, older individuals are found to more likely self-disclose than younger individuals (Sinha, 1979). 43 RESULTS Descriptive Statistics Table 2 shows the means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations among the study variables. Measurement Model I did not test a measurement model of all the constructs together in one model because of the limited sample size. However, I examined the factor structure for variables in the model that exhibited statistically significant sizable high correlation (r > .60) by testing a series of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) models. To assess model fit, I used overall model chi-square 2 (Χ ), comparative fit index (CFI; Bentler, 1990), normed fit index (NFI; Bentler & Bonnett, 1980), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI; Tucker & Lewis, 1973), and root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA; Browne & Cudeck, 1993) (Hu & Bentler, 1999). CFI, NFI, and TLI values above .90 for are indicative of a good fitting model (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Because RMSEA is subject to greater sampling error for low N and small degrees of freedom models, I also present the 90% confidence interval (CI) and use a more lenient criteria to assess good fit. That is, a model of RMSEA of .08 or less is good fit (MacCallum, Browne, & Sugawara, 1996), compared to Hu and Bentler’s (1999), more conservative criteria of .05. 44 Table 2 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Variables a 1. Gender 2. Age 3. Tenure 4. Centrality Mean SD 1 .44 .50 -39.59 11.24 -.02 6.22 6.50 .01 4.44 1.47 -.17 2 3 4 -.43** .05 -.08 (.76) 5. Centrality at work 6. Self-verification 7. Self-enhancement 8. Membership esteem 9. Public regard esteem 2.71 5.50 4.60 5.59 3.69 1.12 1.13 1.45 1.23 1.31 -.34** -.22* -.21* -.03 -.19 .00 .04 -.30** .29** .19* -.01 .19 -.16 .21* .11 10. Private regard esteem 11. Malleability perceptions 12. Compartmentalization 13. Diversity climate 14. Risk of disclosure 15. Integrating 16. Avoiding 17. Counterfeiting 18. Job satisfaction 19. Perceived fit 20. Turnover intentions 21. Psychological distress 6.00 4.09 2.75 5.50 2.67 4.96 2.45 1.88 5.60 5.08 2.67 .69 1.04 .87 1.44 1.31 1.30 1.14 1.43 1.04 1.37 1.15 1.94 .60 .01 -.03 -.04 -.08 .15 -.14 .05 -.13 .16 -.03 -.20* -.03 .32** .12 -.19 .06 -.11 .08 -.19* -.29** -.02 .03 -.13 -.17 .25* .13 -.27** -.08 -.11 .19 -.20 -.23* -.08 -.12 -.01 -.09 a .65** .44** .33** .41** .03 .21* -.09 .03 .03 -.09 .23* -.06 -.09 -.09 -.04 -.02 .14 5 6 7 8 9 (.80) .41** .29** .14 -.01 (.78) .13 .39** .14 (.88) .11 -.15 (.80) .03 (.78) .03 -.09 .08 .02 -.04 .29** .04 .03 -.16 .06 .00 .20* .36** .02 -.30** .24* -.31** .52** -.28** -.24* -.16 .03 .08 -.10 -.10 -.19* .31** .00 .09 -.04 .22* .34** -.08 .00 -.01 .26** .43** -.06 -.26** .20* -.20* .36** -.29** -.31** .01 .11 -.24* -.18 .29** .44** -.35** .25** -.33** .29** -.27** -.26** .13 .22* -.02 -.36** 1= Female, 0 = Male. Reliabilities are on the diagonal in parentheses. * p < .05, ** p < .01 45 10 (.82) .16 -.34** .17 -.24* .41** -.37** -.50** -.07 .16 -.04 -.27** (Table 2 continues) Table 2 (cont’d) Variables a 1. Gender 2. Age Mean SD .44 .50 39.59 11.24 3. Tenure 4. Centrality 5. Centrality at work 6. Self-verification 7. Self-enhancement 8. Membership esteem 6.22 4.44 2.71 5.50 4.60 5.59 6.50 1.47 1.12 1.13 1.45 1.23 9. Public regard esteem 10. Private regard esteem 11. Malleability perceptions 12. Compartmentalization 13. Diversity climate 14. Risk of disclosure 15. Integrating 16. Avoiding 17. Counterfeiting 18. Job satisfaction 19. Perceived fit 20. Turnover intentions 21. Psychological distress 3.69 6.00 4.09 2.75 5.50 2.67 4.96 2.45 1.88 5.60 5.08 2.67 .69 1.31 1.04 .87 1.44 1.31 1.30 1.14 1.43 1.04 1.37 1.15 1.94 .60 a 11 12 13 14 (.85) -.23* .18 -.35** .04 -.24* -.19* .10 .04 .03 -.38** (.88) -.36** .56** -.50** .74** .55** -.19* -.21* .24* .47** (.90) -.56** .46** -.41** -.30** .34** .54** -.18 -.35** (.90) -.56** .51** .42** -.15 -.19* .10 .40** 15 16 18 19 20 21 (.84) -.58** (.90) -.39** .57** (.72) .17 -.19* .00 (.88) .33** -.24* -.12 .50** (.96) -.07 .22* .12 -.60** .32* (.94) -.25** .54** .46** -.29** .27** .30** (.86) 1= Female, 0 = Male. Reliabilities are on the diagonal in parentheses. * p < .05, ** p < .01 46 17 Identity centrality and identity centrality at work. The items from the identity centrality measure and identity centrality at work measure were drawn from the same source, the Importance to Identity subscale (Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992). The identity centrality at work scale had an added reference of the centrality of the LGB identity specifically in the work context. Also provided that the two variables were measured at the same time (at Time 1), due to common method bias, the zero-order correlation between the two variables is sizeable r = .65, p < .01. Thus to test that these two variables are distinct constructs, I estimated two confirmatory measurement models. I first specified a model in which the items loaded on to their corresponding hypothesized latent construct (i.e., identity centrality and identity centrality at 2 work). I compared the hypothesized two factor model (Χ (19) = 96.61, p < .001, CFI = .82, TLI = .73, NFI = .79, RMSEA = .19, RMSEA 90%CI [.16, .23]) to an alternative measurement model in which all the items load onto a single factor. Although the two factor model did not 2 demonstrate good fit, the one factor model, (Χ (20) =153.26, p < .001, CFI = .69, TLI = .56, NFI = .66, RMSEA = .25, RMSEA 90%CI [.21, .28]), was statistically significantly worse fitting 2 than the two factor model, (∆Χ (1) =56.65, p < .001). Therefore, I treat identity centrality and identity centrality at work as different constructs in subsequent analyses (i.e., hypothesis testing). Identity compartmentalization and avoiding. Identity compartmentalization refers to the separation and the preference for separation between home and work life in general, not specific to LGB identity. Though avoiding behaviors conceptually refer to avoiding revealing one’s LGB identity, the scale items consists of avoiding or withdrawing from work interactions that revolve around discussing about “personal life,” which may overlap with identity compartmentalization items. Several items from the avoiding subscale of identity management consisted of items that 47 refer to avoiding “personal questions” or discussing “personal life” The zero-order correlation between identity compartmentalization and avoiding in this study is r = .74, p < .01. Also, it must be noted that this high correlation may be due to common method bias (i.e., measured at the same time, Time 2). To test that these are distinct constructs, I estimated two confirmatory measurement models, one in which there are two factors and an alternative model in which all the items from both scales load onto a single factor. The two factor model exhibited good fit 2 (Χ (26) = 51.09, p < .01, CFI = .97, TLI = .95, NFI = .93, RMSEA = .09, RMSEA 90%CI [.06, 2 .13]). The one factor model, (Χ (27) =113.16, p < .001, CFI = .88, TLI = .84, NFI = .85, RMSEA = .17, RMSEA 90%CI [.14, .20]) was statistically significantly worse fitting than the two factor 2 model, (∆Χ (1) =56.65, p < .001). Therefore, the results support the conceptualization of identity compartmentalization and avoiding identity management behaviors as two distinct constructs. Hypothesis Testing Gender was statistically significantly related to self-verification and self-enhancement motive. Age and tenure were statistically significantly related to self-enhancement motive and avoiding and identity management behaviors. Thus, I controlled for gender, age, and tenure in testing all analyses. Given the limited sample size (N = 110), I did not test all the hypotheses in one model (e.g., structural equation model). A series of hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted to test the hypotheses. See Table 3 for summary of hypotheses testing results and Table 4 for a summary of research questions results. 48 Table 3 Research Hypotheses and Results Result Supported Supported Supported Supported Supported Research Hypothesis (H) H1a: Centrality of a stigmatized identity is positively related to motive to selfverify the stigmatized identity. H1b: Centrality of a stigmatized identity is positively related to motive to selfenhance the stigmatized identity. H2a: Self-verification motive is positively related to integrating strategies. H2b: Self-verification motive is negatively related to avoiding strategies. H2c: Self-verification motive is negatively related to counterfeiting strategies. H3a: Self-verification motive mediates the relationship between identity centrality with a stigmatized group and integrating strategies. Not Supported H3b: Self-verification motive mediates the relationship between identity centrality with a stigmatized group and avoiding strategies. Supported H3c: Self-verification motive mediates the relationship between identity centrality with a stigmatized group and counterfeiting strategies. Supported Not Supported H4a: Self-enhancement motive is positively related to integrating strategies. Not Supported H4b: Self-enhancement motive is positively related to avoiding strategies. Supported H4c: Self-enhancement motive is positively related to counterfeiting strategies. Not Supported H5a: Self-enhancement motive mediates the relationship between identity centrality with a stigmatized group and integrating strategies. Not Supported H5b: Self-enhancement motive mediates the relationship between identity centrality with a stigmatized group and avoiding strategies. Supported H5c: Self-enhancement motive mediates the relationship between identity centrality with a stigmatized group and counterfeiting strategies. Not Supported H6a: The positive relationship between self-verification motive and integrating strategies is stronger for individuals with high identity central in the workplace than for those with low identity centrality in the workplace. Not Supported H6b: The negative relationship between self-verification motive and avoiding strategies is stronger for individuals with low identity centrality in the workplace, than for those with high identity centrality in the workplace. Not Supported H6c: The negative relationship between self-verification motive and counterfeiting strategies is stronger for individuals with low identity centrality in the workplace, than for those with high identity centrality in the workplace. (Table 3 continues) 49 Table 3 (cont’d) Result Research Hypothesis (H) Not Supported H7a: Perceptions of organizational diversity climate is positively related to identity centrality at work. Not Supported H7b: Perceived risk of disclosing is negatively related to identity centrality at work. Not Supported H8a: Use of integrating strategies will be positively related to job satisfaction. Supported H8b: Use of integrating strategies will be positively related to perceived organizational fit. Not Supported H8c: Use of integrating strategies will be negatively related to turnover intentions. Not Supported H8d: Use of integrating strategies will be negatively related to psychological distress. Not Supported H9a: Use of avoiding strategies will be negatively related to job satisfaction. Not Supported H9b: Use of avoiding strategies will be negatively related to perceived organizational fit. Supported H9c: Use of avoiding strategies will be positively related to turnover intentions. Supported H9d: Use of avoiding strategies will be positively related to psychological distress. Not Supported H10a: Use of counterfeiting strategies will be negatively related to job satisfaction. Not Supported H10b: Use of counterfeiting strategies will be negatively related to perceived organizational fit. Not Supported H10c: Use of counterfeiting strategies will be positively related to turnover intentions. Supported H10d: Use of counterfeiting strategies will be positively related to psychological distress. Compared to integrating a less central work identity: Not Supported H11a: Integrating a highly central work identity will be more strongly positively related to job satisfaction. Not Supported H11b: Integrating a highly central work identity will be more strongly positively related to perceived organizational fit. Not Supported H11c: Integrating a highly central work identity will be more strongly negatively related to turnover intentions. Not Supported H11d: Integrating a highly central work identity will be more strongly negatively related to psychological distress. (Table 3 continues) 50 Table 3 (cont’d) Result Research Hypothesis (H) Compared to avoiding a less central work identity: Not Supported H12a: Avoiding a highly central work identity will be more strongly negatively related to job satisfaction. Not Supported H12b: Avoiding a highly central work identity will be more strongly negatively related to perceived organizational fit. Not Supported H12c: Avoiding a highly central work identity will be more strongly positively related to turnover intentions. Not Supported H12d: Avoiding a highly central work identity will be more strongly positively related psychological distress than integrating a highly central work identity. Compared to counterfeiting a less central work identity: Not Supported H13a: Counterfeiting a highly central work identity will be more strongly negatively related to job satisfaction. Not Supported H13b: Counterfeiting a highly central work identity will be more strongly negatively related to perceived organizational fit. Not Supported H13c: Counterfeiting a highly central work identity will be more positively related to turnover intentions. Not Supported H13d: Counterfeiting a highly central work identity will be more positively related to psychological distress than integrating a highly central work identity. 51 Table 4 Research Questions and Results Result No interactions Research Question (RQ) RQ1: How does self-verification motive and selfenhancement motive interact to influence identity management strategies? Interaction between membership self- RQ2a: What is the role of membership self-esteem on the esteem and identity centrality on relationship between identity centrality and self-enhancement motive self-verification and self-enhancement motive? RQ2b: What is the role of public self-esteem on the No interaction relationship between identity centrality and self-verification and self-enhancement motive? RQ2c: What is the role of private self-esteem on the No interactions relationship between identity centrality and self-verification and self-enhancement motive? No interactions RQ3: What is the role of other’s perceptions of identity malleability on the relationship between identity centrality and self-verification and self-enhancement motive? No interactions RQ4: What is role of identity compartmentalization on the relationship between general identity centrality and identity centrality at work? 52 Hypothesis 1 predicted that centrality of the LGB identity is positively related to (a) motive to self-verify and (b) motive to self-enhance. Hypothesis 1a and 1b was supported, centrality of 2 the LGBT identity is positively related to motive to self-verify, β = .40, R = .15, p < .01, and 2 positively related to motive to self-enhance β = .29, R = .18, p < .05, (Table 5). Controlling for gender, age, and tenure, centrality of the identity explains 15% of the variance in self-verification motive and 8% of the variance in self-enhancement motive. Hypothesis 2 predicted that self-verification motive is (a) positively related to integrating strategies, and (b) negatively related to avoiding and (c) counterfeiting strategies. Hypothesis 2 was supported (Table 6). When controlling for self-enhancement motive, self-verification motive 2 is (a) positively related to integrating behaviors (β = .51, R = .23, p < .01), and (b) negatively 2 2 related to avoiding (β = -.29, R = .08, p < .01), and (c) counterfeiting behaviors, (β =- .29, R = .18, p < .01). Self-verification motive accounts for 23% of the variance in integrating behaviors, 8% of the variance in avoiding behaviors, and 18% of the variance in counterfeiting behaviors. 53 Table 5 a Results of Regression Analyses for Hypothesis 1 Self-verification b Gender Age Tenure Model 1 -.22* (.23) Model 2 -.16 (.21) Model 1 -.21* (.29) Model 2 -.16 (.28) -.06 .22* -.07 .19 -.28* -.04 .29** -.06* (.01) (.02) .29** (.10) Centrality ∆R a (.01) (.02) (.01) (.02) .40** F 2 R Adjusted R Self-enhancement 2 2 (.07) (.01) (.02) 2.93* .09* 6.98** .24** 4.60** .13* 6.02** .22** .06* .21** .11* .18** .09* .15** .14* .08** Standardized regression coefficients are displayed. Standard errors are in parentheses. b 1= Female, 0 = Male. * p < .05 ** p < .01 54 Table 6 a Results of Regression Analyses for Hypothesis 2, 4 Integrating b Gender Age Tenure Self-enhancement Adjusted R ∆R a 2 2c Model 1 .10 (.30) Model 2 .05 (.22) Model 2 .04 (.30) -.01 .19 (.01) (.02) .00 .07 (.01) (.02) -.07 -.13 (.02) (.03) -.08 -.07 (.01) (.03) -.04 (.09) -.10 (.08) .20 (.11) .23 (.11) .51** (.10) -.29** (.13) Model 1 -.08 (.21) Model 2 -.14 (.20) -.16 -.21 (.01) (.02) -.17 -.05 (.02) (.02) (.08) .29** (.07) -.29** (.09) .26* 1.29 .06 7.06** .29** 2.14 .29 3.41* .41** 4.25** .42* 5.78** .50** .01 .25** .09 .16** .13* .21** .00 .23** .03 .08** .06* .18** Standardized regression coefficients are displayed. Standard errors are in parentheses. b 1= Female, 0 = Male. c Counterfeiting Model 1 -.15 (.24) Self-verification F 2 R Avoiding 2 ∆R for Model 1 is in reference to the control only (i.e., gender, age, tenure) model. * p < .05 ** p < .01 55 Hypothesis 3 predicted that self-verification motive mediates the relationship between identity centrality and identity management strategies (i.e., integrating, avoiding, and counterfeiting). To examine mediation, I bootstrapped 10,000 samples, using the bootstrap estimates to construct bias-corrected confidence intervals (CI; Hayes, Preacher, & Myers, 2011; Mooney & Duval, 1993; Shrout & Bolger, 2002). Hypothesis 3 was partially supported. Selfverification motive mediates the relationship between centrality of the LGB identity and integrating behaviors, indirect effect β = .15, SE = .05, 95%CI [.06, .27] and counterfeiting behaviors, indirect effect β = -.11, SE = .05, 95%CI [-.22 -.02]. Self-verification motive did not mediate the relationship between centrality of the LGB identity and avoiding behaviors, indirect effect β = -.11, SE = .06, 95%CI [-.24, .00]. Hypothesis 4 predicted that self-enhancement motive is positively related to (a) integrating, (b) avoiding, and (c) counterfeiting identity management behaviors. Hypothesis 4 was partially supported (Table 6), controlling for self-verification motive, self-enhancement motive is 2 positively related to counterfeiting behaviors, β = .29, R = .06, p < .01, but not to integrating 2 2 behaviors, β = -.10, R = .00, ns, and avoiding behaviors, β = .23, R = .03, ns. Selfenhancement motive explains 8% of the variance in counterfeiting identity management behaviors. Hypothesis 5 predicted that self-enhancement motive mediates the relationship between identity centrality and identity management strategies (i.e., integrating, avoiding, and counterfeiting). Hypothesis 5 was partially supported, self-enhancement motive mediates the relationship between centrality of the LGB identity and counterfeiting behaviors, indirect effect β = .06, SE = .03, 95%CI [.01, .14]. 56 Hypothesis 6 predicted that the relationship between self-verification motive and identity management strategies is moderated by centrality of the identity in the workplace. More specifically, Hypothesis 6a predicted that the positive relationship between self-verification motive and integrating strategies is stronger for individuals with high identity central in the workplace than for those with low identity centrality in the workplace. Hypothesis 6b predicted that the negative relationship between self-verification motive and avoiding strategies is stronger for individuals with high identity centrality in the workplace, than for those with low identity centrality in the workplace. Hypothesis 6c predicted that the negative relationship between selfverification motive and counterfeiting strategies is stronger for individuals with high identity centrality in the workplace, than for those with low identity centrality in the workplace. As shown in Table 7, there were no statistically significant main effects of centrality of the LGB 2 2 identity in the work domain on (a) integrating (β = .13, R = .01, ns), (b) avoiding (β = .14, R = 2 .02, ns), or (c) counterfeiting behaviors (β = -.01, R = .00, ns. Hypothesis 6 was not supported; there were no statistical interaction effects of centrality of identity at work and self-verification 2 motives on the three identity management behaviors: (a) integrating (β = .14, R = .02, ns), (b) 2 2 avoiding (β = -.14, R = .02, ns), or (c) counterfeiting behaviors (β = -.07, R = .01, ns). 57 Table 7 a Results of Regression Analyses for Hypothesis 6 Integrating b Gender Age Tenure Self-enhancement Self-verification Model 1 -.02 (.22) Model 2 -.02 (.22) .00 .08 -.13 .47** -.02 .08 -.12 .50** Centrality at work SV x CW Adjusted R ∆R a b c d .13 c F 2 R Avoiding (.01) (.02) (.08) (.10) (.11) (.01) (.02) (.08) (.11) .09 (.11) .14 (.09) Model 1 .07 (.30) -.08 -.06 .20 -.34** .14 (.01) (.02) (.11) (.14) (.15) Counterfeiting Model 2 .08 (.30) Model 1 -.14 (.21) Model 2 -.13 (.21) (.01) (.02) (.11) (.14) -.17 -.05 .29** -.30* (.01) (.02) (.07) (.10) -.16 -.05 .29** -.32* (.01) (.02) (.07) (.10) .18 (.15) -.01 (.10) -.03 (.10) -.14 (.12) -.07 (.08) -.07 -.06 .19 -.38** 6.17** .30 5.69** .32 3.12** .18 2.96** .20 4.76** .25 4.13** .25 .25 .26 .12 .13 .20 .19 .01 .02 .02 .02 .00 .01 2 2d Standardized regression coefficients are displayed. Standard errors are in parentheses. 1= Female, 0 = Male. SV = Self-verification; CW = Centrality at work. 2 ∆R for Model 1 is in reference to a model that includes control (i.e., gender, age, tenure), self-enhancement, and self-verification * p < .05 ** p < .01 58 Hypothesis 7 predicted that positive perceptions of organizational diversity climate is positively related to identity centrality at work. Hypothesis 7 was not supported, controlling for gender, age, and tenure, positive perceptions of organizational diversity climate (β = .00, ns) and perceived risk of disclosure (β =.01, ns) were not statistically significantly related to centrality of 2 2 2 the LGB identity (F = 2.36, R = .12, Adjusted R = .07, ∆R = .00, ns). Hypothesis 8 predicted that use of integrating strategies will be positively related to (a) job satisfaction, (b) perceived organizational fit, and negatively related to (c) turnover intentions, and (d) psychological distress. As displayed in Table 8, Hypothesis 8 was partially supported. Use of integrating behaviors at work was only related to perceived fit (β = .34 p < .05) and not related to job satisfaction (β = .18 ns), turnover intentions (β = .09, ns), or psychological distress (β = .03, ns). Hypothesis 9 predicted that use of avoiding strategies will be negatively related to (a) job satisfaction, (b) perceived organizational fit, and positively related to (c) turnover intentions, and (d) psychological distress. As shown in Table 8, Hypothesis 9 was partially supported. Use of avoiding behaviors at work was positively related to turnover intentions (β = .35, p < .01) and psychological distress (β = .35, p < .01). Avoiding behaviors was not statistically related to job satisfaction (β = -.20, ns) or perceived fit (β = -.13, ns). Hypothesis 10 predicted that use of counterfeiting strategies will be negatively related to (a) job satisfaction, (b) perceived organizational fit, and positively related to (c) turnover intentions, and (d) psychological distress. As shown in Table 8, Hypothesis 10 was partially supported. Use of counterfeiting behaviors was positively related to psychological distress (β =.29, p < .05), but not related to job satisfaction (β = -.10, ns), perceived fit (β = .08, ns), or turnover intentions (β = -.17, ns). 59 Table 8 a Results of Regression Analyses for Hypothesis 8-13 Job Satisfaction Model 1 .18 (.30) b Model 1 .02 (.33) Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 .02 (.34) -.27 (.43) -.26* (.43) Psychological Distress Model 1 .04 (.12) Model 2 .03 (.11) .03 -.13 (.01) (.02) .05 (.01) .09 -.13 (.02) -.23 (.02) .10 (.02) -.14 (.03) -.23* (.03) .08 (.02) -.18 (.03) .08 (.02) -.05 (.03) .06 (.01) -.03 (.01) .06 (.01) (.01) Integrating Avoiding Counterfeiting Centrality at work .22 -.20 .20 -.16 (.16) (.14) (.17) (.14) .18 -.20 .19 -.10 (.18) .34* (.15) -.13 (.19) .08 (.15) -.02 (.23) .09 (.20) .35* (.24) -.13 (.20) -.17 (.24) (.20) (.25) (.21) (.06) (.05) (.06) (.05) .03 .35** .29* .18 (.06) (.05) (.07) (.07) c F 2 R Adjusted R ∆R b Model 2 .17 (.30) Turnover Intentions Gender Age Tenure Integrating x CW Avoiding x CW Counterfeiting x CW a Perceived Fit (.17) .34* (.14) -.09 (.18) .04 (.15) .03 (.19) .07 (.16) .31* (.20) -.08 (.16) -.13 .06 .41** .24* .17 -.18 (.15) -.10 (.16) .28* (.21) -.09 (.06) -.23 (.12) .17 (.15) .08 -.09 (.13) (.17) .08 .03 .17 -.11 (.04) (.06) (.17) (.21) 1.92 .14* 1.74 .18 2.23* .16* 1.72 .17 1.71 .12 1.73 .17 6.82** .36** 5.37** .40 .07* .08 .09* .07 .05 .07 .30** .32 .11* .04 .13* .02 .06 .05 .33** .04 2 2c Standardized regression coefficients are displayed. Standard errors are in parentheses. 1= Female, 0 = Male. c CW = Centrality at work. * p < .05, ** p < .01 60 Hypothesis 11 predicted that centrality of the work identity moderates the relationship between integrating behaviors and job-related outcomes (i.e., job satisfaction, perceived fit, turnover intentions) and psychological distress. As displayed in Table 8, Hypothesis 11 was not supported. Though there were was a statistical interaction effect of integrating behaviors and centrality of identity at work on turnover intentions. Figure 2 shows the simple slope plot of the effect of integrating behaviors at high (1 SD above the mean) and low (1 SD below the mean) levels of centrality of identity at work (Aiken & West, 1991). The relationship between integrating behaviors and turnover intention was in the opposite direction as expected. When identity centrality at work is high, integrating was positively related to turnover intention (β = .60, t = 2.98, p < .01). Integrating was not significantly related to turnover intention when identity centrality at work was low (β = -.30, t = -.91, ns). There were no statistical interaction effects of integrating behaviors and centrality of identity at work on job satisfaction, perceived fit, or psychological distress. 7 Turnover Intentions 6 5 Low Identity Centrality at Work 4 High Identity Centrality at Work 3 2 1 0 Low Integrating Behaviors High Integrating Behaviors Figure 2. Effect of integrating behaviors on turnover intentions at high and low levels of identity centrality at work. 61 Hypothesis 12 predicted that centrality of the work identity moderates the relationship between avoiding behaviors and job-related outcomes (i.e., job satisfaction, perceived fit, turnover intentions) and psychological distress. As displayed in Table 8, Hypothesis 12 was not supported. There were no statistical interaction effects of avoiding behaviors and centrality of identity at work on job satisfaction, perceived fit, turnover intentions, or psychological distress. Hypothesis 13 predicted that centrality of the work identity moderates the relationship between counterfeiting behaviors and job-related outcomes (i.e., job satisfaction, perceived fit, turnover intentions) and psychological distress. As displayed in Table 8, Hypothesis 13 was not supported. There were no statistical interaction effects of counterfeiting behaviors and centrality of identity at work on job satisfaction, perceived fit, turnover intentions, or psychological distress. Research Questions Results Research Question 1 explored how self-verification and self-enhancement motive interact to influence identity management strategies: (a) integrating, (b) avoiding, and (c)counterfeiting. There were no statistically significant interactions between self-verification motive and self2 enhancement motive on integrating behaviors (β = -.06, R = .00, ns), avoiding behaviors (β = 2 2 .04, R = .00, ns), or counterfeiting behaviors (β = .11, R = .01, ns). Research Question 2 explored how collective self-esteem moderates the relationship between identity centrality and self-verification motive and self-enhancement motive. As displayed in Table 9, there were no statistically significant interactions between LGB identity centrality and membership, private, or public self-esteem on self-verification motive. There were no statistically significant interactions between LGB identity centrality and private or public self62 esteem on self-enhancement motive. There was a statistically significant interaction between LGB identity centrality and membership esteem on self-enhancement motive (β = .38, p < .01). More specifically, as depicted in Figure 3, a simple slopes analysis revealed that there is positive relationship between LGB identity centrality and self-enhancement motive only when LGB group membership self-esteem is high (β = .66, t = 5.19, p < .01), and no relationship when LGB group membership self-esteem is low (β = -.21, t = -.12, ns). 7 Self-Enhancement Motive 6 5 Low Membership Self-Esteem 4 High Membership Self-Esteem 3 2 1 0 Low Identity Centrality High Identity Centrality Figure 3. Effect of identity centrality on self-enhancement motive at high and low levels of membership self-esteem. Research Question 3 explored the role of other’s perception of identity malleability on the relationship between identity centrality and self-verification motive and self-enhancement motive. As shown in Table 9, there were no statistically significant interactions between malleability perceptions and centrality of identity on self-verification motive and selfenhancement motive. 63 Research Question 4 explored the role of identity compartmentalization on the relationship between identity centrality and identity centrality at work. Controlling for gender, age, tenure, and identity centrality, identity compartmentalization was not significantly related to identity 2 centrality at work (β = .10, R = .01, ns). There was no statistically significant interaction effect of LGB identity centrality and identity compartmentalization on LGB identity centrality at work 2 (β = -.03, R = .00, ns). Additional Analyses Table 10 presents the break down in means and standard deviation for lesbians, gays, and bisexuals. Due to the limited sample size and low power threats, I did not formally test for measurement invariance between the groups or analyze hypotheses separately for each of these groups. Lesbian and gay employees were more likely to integrate their sexual orientation identity in the workplace than bisexuals. There were no differences between the groups on the use of avoiding and counterfeiting strategies. Lesbians and gays also demonstrated higher public collective self-esteem than bisexuals. Gay employees had significantly higher LGB identity centrality at work than their lesbian and bisexual identified counterparts. Furthermore, gay employees exhibited higher self-verification motive than bisexual employees, and higher turnover intentions than lesbian employees. Finally, bisexual employees were more likely to perceive higher risk of disclosing their identity than gay employees. 64 Table 9 a Results of Regression Analyses for Research Question 2 Self-verification Gender Age Tenure -.16 Model 1 (.21) -.12 .19 (.01) (.02) -.10 .21 (.01) (.02) -.16 -.25 -.05 (.28) (.01) (.02) -.16 -.27 -.02 (.26) (.01) (.02) Centrality Membership Private Public Malleability Perceptions .42** -.18 .30* -.15 .03 (.07) (.07) (.09) (.06) (.12) .39** -.15 .35* -.08 .02 (.08) (.09) (.10) (.07) (.13) .26* .10 -.21 .10 -.13 (.10) (.10) (.12) (.08) (.16) .18* .26* -.16 .16 -.17 (.09) (.10) (.12) (.08) (.16) b c C x Membership C x Private C x Public C x Malleability Perceptions F 2 R Adjusted R ∆R a Self-enhancement 2 2d -.14 Model 2 (.22) .20 (.05) -.07 .03 -.11 (.06) (.04) (.09) Model 1 .38** .02 .10 .00 4.43** .30** 3.19** .32 3.63** .26* 4.26** .39** .23** .22 .19* .30** .21** .03 .12* .13** Standardized regression coefficients are displayed. Standard errors are in parentheses. b c 1= Female, 0 = Male. C = Centrality. d Model 2 2 ∆R for Model 1 is in reference to the control only (i.e., gender, age, tenure) model. * p < .05, ** p < .01 65 (.06) (.07) (.05) (.10) Table 10 Descriptive Statistics for Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Group Variables Age Tenure Centrality Lesbian Mean Lesbian SD 40.43 6.95 4.04 12.29 7.33 1.38 Centrality at work Self-verification 2.43 5.45 Self-enhancement Membership esteem Public regard esteem + Gay Mean 40.59 6.51 4.72 Gay SD 11.13 6.52 1.48 35.11 3.31 4.34 2.18 0.96 1.07 3.06* 5.76* 1.14 1.02 4.36 5.63 3.61* 1.52 1.13 1.13 4.84 5.70 4.07* 1.36 1.20 1.35 Private regard esteem Malleability perceptions Compartmentalization Diversity climate Risk of disclosure Integrating Avoiding Counterfeiting Job satisfaction Perceived fit 6.04 4.08 2.74 5.51 0.81 0.88 1.41 1.29 1.35 0.96 1.57 1.09 1.17 1.28 6.13 4.15 2.65 5.67 2.30 5.19* 2.28 1.81 5.43 5.20 1.03 0.85 1.45 1.20 1.17 1.13 1.41 0.88 1.39 1.72 Turnover intentions Psychological distress 1.95 .68 1.50 .64 2.93* .65 2.08 .57 + 2.84 5.09* 2.57 1.76 5.95 5.10 + + Bisexual Mean 4.83 4.32 5.23 + + + 3.21 .85 8.70 2.75 1.46 1.04 1.29 1.54 1.44 2.72 5.58 3.91 3.07 4.99 3.42* 4.03 2.77 2.28 5.47 4.68 Bisexual SD + 0.98 1.34 0.91 1.48 1.56 1.27 1.03 1.22 1.30 1.60 1.26 1.95 .63 No superscript indicates that the groups did not statistically differ in means. * denotes the group with the statistically higher mean compared to the groups with a superscript + with the statistically significantly lower mean. Lesbian N = 32-35; Gay N = 50-56; Bisexual N = 13-19. 66 DISCUSSION The specific role of self-verification and self-enhancement motives on identity management behaviors is largely not well understood. The purpose of this study was to examine the mediating role of both self-verification and self-enhancement motives in the relationship between identity centrality and the use of identity management behaviors in a sample of lesbian, gay, and bisexual employees (LGB). In addition, the study explored the role of work context on employees’ LGB identity centrality at work. Implications for Theory and Research The motive to express who we are. My research extends current knowledge on motives driving identity management behaviors. Little research, however, has empirically examined how mediating factors other than fear of disclosure or discrimination affect identity management behaviors. My study provides what may be the first evidence that self-verification motive mediates identity centrality and identity management behaviors. The study findings demonstrated that centrality of a stigmatized identity is positively related to motive to self-verify the stigmatized identity. After taking into account self-enhancement motive, self-verification motive explains nearly a quarter of the variance in integrating behaviors, followed by 18% in counterfeiting behaviors, and 8% avoiding behaviors. Self-verification motive mediates the positive relationship between identity centrality and integrating LGB identity behaviors at work. These finding are consistent with previous research on identity centrality and disclosure as well as the conceptualizations of the role of self-verification motive. Past research has shown that self-verification motive is more likely to be activated for highly central self-concepts than for 67 peripheral, or less important, self-concepts (e.g., Crocker, 2002; Sedikides et al., 2003). Moreover past research has shown that LGB individuals behaviorally self-verified by disclosing their identity at work (Button, 2001; Chrobot-Mason et al., 2001; Griffith & Hebl, 2002). While self-verification motive did not mediate the negative relationship between LGB centrality and avoiding identity management strategies, self-verification motive mediates the negative relationship between LGB centrality and counterfeiting strategies. Both integrating and counterfeiting involves an active component of constructing or presenting an identity – considered acts of commission – whereas avoiding involves dodging conversation topics – considered behavioral omission. A theoretical implication of the research findings is that consistent with omission bias research (Ritov & Baron, 1990). Individuals perceive harmful omissions (such as avoiding personal conversation topics) as less immoral than equivalent commissions (such as counterfeiting a false identity; Spranca, Minsk, & Baron, 1991). If an identity is important to an individual, they will likely integrate it because they want others to know who they are – a motive that is consistent with the behaviors of integrating or expressing the identity such as “I look for opportunities to tell my coworkers that I am LGB,” and “I display objects such as photographs, magazines, symbols which suggest that I am LGB.” Mediated by self-verification motive, counterfeiting identity management behaviors involves actively feigning a false identity. Avoiding behaviors are more passive in that they involve circumventing or evading personal topics, though an identity is important to the individual, may not be driven by their motive to self-verify. These findings suggest that the mediating mechanism explaining the relationship between identity centrality and identity management behaviors does not fully operate through self-verification, as there may be other mediators in operation. 68 The motive to promote positive self-esteem. Results showed that centrality of a stigmatized identity is positively related to motive to self-enhance the stigmatized identity. After controlling for self-verification motive, self-enhancement was not related to integrating strategies or avoiding strategies. Whether LGB employees held a motive to maintain a positive image of their LGB identity did not influence the behavioral expression (disclosure or avoidance) of their LGB status. Self-enhancement is positively related to counterfeiting strategies, explaining 6% of the variance. Furthermore, self-enhancement motive significantly mediates the link between identity centrality and counterfeiting behaviors such as “to appear heterosexual, I sometimes talk about fictional dates with the opposite sex.” These findings are consistent with social identity theory of social mobility (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Individuals associated with a stigmatized identity may choose to adopt a strategy of individual mobility, or exiting the group, by attempting to identify or assimilate with the higher status majority group. In this study, the target group to which to assimilate, or construct a counterfeit to pass is the heterosexual group. Interplay of self-verification and self-enhancement. The study did not demonstrate a significant interaction between self-verification and self-enhancement motive on identity management behaviors. The influence of LGB employees’ self-verification motive on the use of their identity management behaviors did not differ across levels of self-enhancement motive. Examining the influence of theoretically conflicting self-verification and self-enhancement motives on identity management behaviors reveal unique findings for identity management research. To recapitulate, the self-verification perspective would predict that people prefer others to see them as they are and they would exhibit integrating strategies – which was supported. On the other hand, the self-enhancement view would predict that people prefer for others to see their identity as positive. Self-enhancement driven behaviors can include integrating with positivity 69 (e.g., telling coworkers one is lesbian as well as point out the positive traits of being a lesbian) as well as avoiding or counterfeiting the identity. This study showed that by pretending that one is heterosexual (i.e., counterfeiting a heterosexual identity) fulfilled the self-enhancement motive because by not explicitly facing the identity, the positive image for the LGB identity is indirectly maintained. Consistent with Swann et al.’s (1989) notions, the two motives operate simultaneously and independently to influence peoples’ use of specific identity management strategies. This study extends research on identity management by demonstrating how self-verification and self-enhancement motives both operate to drive identity management behaviors in the work setting. Thus to understand why stigmatized employees use particular identity management strategies, it is important to examine self-verification motives in tandem with self-enhancement motives in future research. Furthermore, the findings from this research point to exploring the different role of mediating mechanisms (self-verification and self-enhancement) in other invisible stigma groups. For instance, individuals with a newly diagnosed psychological disability may view their identity as less central and perhaps demonstrate drastically different mediation patterns of self-verification and self-enhancement motives in the relationship between identity centrality and identity management behaviors. Furthermore, I extend the two theories of self-verification and self-enhancement by examining them in the context of social identity and identity management strategies. Empirical research on self-verification theory has traditionally focused on the verification of personal characteristics (Swann 1983; 1987). Examining self-verification of social identity has shed light on how self-verification motive operates at a social identity level. 70 Identity valence. Identity valence dimensions of public and private self-esteem did not significantly moderate the relationship between identity centrality and self-verification or selfenhancement. There was an interaction effect of membership self-esteem and identity centrality on self-enhancement motives. In other words, for LGB employees who felt they were worthy of belonging to the LGB community, their LGB centrality positively predicted their motive to selfenhance the identity. Whereas, for LGB employees who did not feel worthy or a useful member of the LGB community, their self-enhancement motive was not influenced by the importance of their LGB identity. These findings suggest that, employees with a stigmatized identity may not all want to self-enhance, especially those that do not view themselves as worthy members of their stigmatized group. In other words, why would one want to promote a positive conceptualization of one’s social identity, if ones does not feel like one is a worthy representative? Thus, given the influence of identity valence on self-enhancement motives, future identity management research should take into account identity valence, in the form of group membership esteem. Identity centrality at work. A contribution of this study is that it demonstrates the influence of organizational context such as perceived risks of disclosing the stigmatized identity and positive perceptions of organizational climate for diversity on identity centrality at work. I hypothesized that the LGB identity becomes less important in unfriendly work environments. Surprisingly, the work context (that includes perceptions of diversity climate and perceptions of risks of disclosure) did not significantly influence the centrality of the LGB identity specific to the work domain. These findings are inconsistent with past conceptualizations of reactions to identity threat that members can cope with identity threat via identifying more closely with the group (Allport, 1954). Branscombe et al. (1999) also found that group identification increases in 71 response to perceived prejudice. It can also be argued that in contexts where the identity is threatened, the identity is more salient and therefore more important to the individual. Given that the findings did not show for either explanation, there may another variable moderating this relationship such as initial levels of work LGB identity centrality. For instance, the initial centrality of the LGB identity at work may interact with organizational cues that signal a threat to disclosing. In a study, Latino/a students reading about pervasive discrimination toward their ethnic group subsequently decreased their ethnic identity centrality when their initial levels of centrality was low. However, when their initial levels of centrality were high, the students’ centrality increased (see Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, 2002 for a review). My findings invite scholars to consider the possibility that centrality of a stigmatized identity is not constant across all domains such as in the workplace and at home. Outcome of identity management strategies. This study contributes to the identity management strategy literature by expanding on identity management outcomes. Use of integrating strategies is positively related to perceived organizational fit. When LGB employees integrated their sexual orientation identity in the workplace, they perceived the organization’s values as matching their own personal values. People who are able to behaviorally self-verify, that is integrate their social identity view a consistency between their behaviors in the organization and the organization’s acceptance of their identity expression. Furthermore, use of avoiding strategies is positively related to turnover intentions. These results align with previous research on self-verification that people seek out social contexts where they are able to selfverify and exit environments where their self-views are not congruent (e.g., Pervin & Rubin, 1967; Swann & Pelham, 1987). Also the attraction-selection-attrition (ASA) model suggests that people are attracted to and selected by organizations to the extent that their personal 72 characteristics align with the organization (Schneider, 1987). Employees who enter but do not match the organization will be more inclined to leave the organization, thus resulting in a homogenous workforce. LGB employees who avoid topics of sexual orientation in the workplace perceive that the organization’s values are not aligned with their values (of sexual orientation diversity) and thus intend to leave. Use of avoiding and counterfeiting strategies is positively related to psychological distress. Consistent with previous findings, avoiding or concealing a negative identity is proposed to create a dissonance over one’s identity (DeJordy, 2008) and contributes to feelings of strain (Goffman, 1963). Unexpectedly, for LGB employees with a highly central LGB work identity, integrating was positively related to turnover intentions. This may in part be due to others in the organization responding negatively to them. The results from this study showed that when LGB employees view their LGB identity as important, integrating the identity aggravated their intent to leave the organization. This runs counter to the hypothesis that integrating an important identity should buffer the negative effects of integrating. The rationale being that integrating a non-central identity would be akin to being “forcibly” out and having to deal with the negative consequences of an identity that the employee does not see as important. In the situation of this study sample, it maybe the case that LGB employees with a highly central LGB identity are more perceptive to their stigmatized identity. Certain employees who integrate their LGB identity may be integrating their central LGB identity as a statement – to advocate their LGB identity or show dissent towards the organization – and thus have their reasons to want to leave the organization. These findings have implications for future identity management research in showing that integrating important identities at work may not necessarily always a good thing. 73 In sum, applying the previous vignette illustrations of lesbian employees closeted-Lindy and out-Carmin, the findings from this research demonstrate that both motives of self-verification and self-enhancement independently explain Lindy and Carmin’s choice of identity management behaviors. If Lindy or Carmin felt they were worthy of belonging to the lesbian community, then their lesbian identity centrality positively predicts their motive to self-enhance the identity. The importance of their lesbian identity specific to their workplace is not influenced by their perceptions of organizational diversity climate or risks of disclosure. Moreover, the extent to which they integrated, avoided, or counterfeited their lesbian identity is not determined by the joint influence of their motives and importance of the lesbian identity at work. As expected, their identity management behaviors impacts their job attitudes and psychological well-being. By integrating her lesbian identity, Carmin is likely to perceive higher organizational fit. Whereas, avoiding and counterfeiting her lesbian identity is likely to contribute to feelings of psychological distress for Lindy. Practical Implications Several practical implications can be drawn from this research. Managing stigmatized social identities is a critical element of interactions in organizations with diverse composition of employees (Deaux & Ethier, 1998; Goffman, 1959). Though employees must manage their own diverse social identities, managers also must comprehend how and why employees manage their own diverse identities. Understanding the underlying mechanisms for why LGB individuals manage their identity in the workplace contributes to informing managers for how to support their work group and social interactions. Managers of diverse employees can be cognizant of the 74 notion that employees are motivated to see themselves and their social identities in a positive light (i.e., self-enhance) as well as motivated to express who they are as people (i.e., self-verify). Furthermore, it is important for managers to be cognizant of how the organizational context impacts LGB employees’ identity management strategies, job attitudes, and well-being. Organizational context was not associated with centrality of the LGB identity at work. However, LGB employees’ perceptions of the organization supporting a diverse climate positively influenced their perceptions of fit with the organization and job satisfaction. Perceptions of risks of disclosure negatively impacted employees’ psychological well-being. Thus, it is in the interest of manager and organizational representatives (e.g., human resource managers) to create work contexts that are welcoming and accepting of LGB employees and their identity disclosure. At the organization level, organizations can implement policies that support employee diversity and safe environments to express their identities. Study Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research This study is subject to limitations that should be acknowledged and point toward avenues for future research. First, the nature of the research design requires caution in making causal inferences. Though the bulk of the independent variables and dependent variables were measured at two separate points in time, this two-wave study does not necessitate causal conclusions. Although the model proposes that self-verification motive causes integration of a stigmatized identity at work, it is possible that engaging in integrating behaviors led to greater levels of selfverification motive, as a means of resolving cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957). Future studies may adopt an experimental design by manipulating motives in a laboratory setting and observing the resulting identity management behaviors. This design however would face internal 75 validity and generalizability threats in selecting an invisible stigma that is as embedded in participants’ self-concept as is their sexual orientation identity. An important next step would be to improve on current methodologies by measuring both independent and dependent variables at multiple wave points in a longitudinal design (e.g., experience sampling methodology; Frable, Platt, & Hoey, 1998) to statistically test the temporal precedence of the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable. A second limitation of the present research is the static conceptualization of the model tested. Other models of stigma disclosure (Chaudoir & Fisher, 2010; Clair et al., 2005) include a feedback loop in identity management decisions and behaviors. Clair and colleagues postulated that the outcome of revealing a stigmatized identity will influence one’s future choices to disclose or keep the identity a secret. For instance, successfully concealing or avoiding perpetuates fear and perceptions of risk of disclosing and thus contributes to a continuation of concealing or avoiding (Ragins et al., 2007). It can also be argued that identity management behaviors and outcomes of identity management behaviors influence the centrality of the identity. There is varying evidence to suggest that centrality of an identity can be either relatively stable or pliable. Previous researchers have demonstrated that self-conceptions remain relatively stable (e.g., Conley, 1985; Costa & McCrae, 1980). However, an identity still can change, when an identity is constantly salient, or under strong environments (e.g., joining a LGB advocacy organization where LGB expression is the forefront of job experience). Particularly when identity centrality is low, under identity threats, individuals will subsequently reduce their identification with the stigmatized group (e.g., Ellemers, 1993). However, the majority of studies that demonstrate malleability of identity consist of lab studies using feedback as an indicator of identity threat (e.g., Wylie, 1979). A natural follow-up to the research findings is to 76 longitudinally examine identity management behaviors in a sample of new employees upon organizational entry. A third limitation of the present study design is that it faces common method bias threats. The survey data was collected from a single source, the LGB employee – which potentially artificially inflates the relationships between variables because the respondent is the same person (Podsakoff et al., 2003). An issue with studying personal motives with a sensitive population and topic like the LGB community and disclosure decisions, is that there are certain limits with expanding the rating source. For instance, because the research model involves LGB employee’s reflection of their internal motive to self-verify or self-enhance, the centrality of their LGB identity, and their identity management behaviors at work, only the LGB individual can report on these factors. There would be data sensitivity issues if managers or coworkers (who know the employee is lesbian, bisexual, or gay) rated the focal employee’s disclosure behaviors. However, that being said, obtaining ratings regarding personal and home life (e.g., conflict at home, health behaviors, stress at home) from LGB employee’ partner or family may be a noteworthy future research direction. Furthermore, it would be fruitful (within the confounds of maintaining questionnaire response sensitivity) to obtain coworkers or supervisor ratings of job performance, extra-role performance behaviors, or even relationship quality with the target LGB employee. The present study implemented several procedures in an attempt to minimize common method bias. I introduced temporal separation of measurement of the variables by measuring predictor variables and immediate criterion variables at two distinct time periods (i.e., separated by two weeks). In addition, socially desirable responding and evaluation apprehension was reduced by assuring participants about the anonymity of their responses. 77 A fourth limitation is the generalizability of the findings to diverse race and ethnic LGB groups. Although efforts were made to reach out to ethnic minority LGB groups during recruitment, the final sample consisted of mainly (80%) White participants. A promising direction in future research is to examine the intersection of LGB identity with race/ethic identity. The effect of belonging to several stigmatized social groups is not merely additive, but rather the interwoven nature of the social groups can mutually strengthen or weaken the effect on each other (Crenshaw, 1989; Settles, 2004). For instance, a Hispanic gay man may adopt dissimilar identity management strategies compared to a White gay man. In addition, responses to (e.g., coworker reactions) and thus reinforcement (e.g., hiring and promotion decisions) of their identity management strategies may also be unique to a gay Hispanic employee versus a gay White employee. Furthermore, it would be fruitful to examine this research model in other invisible stigmatized groups and identities such as disability status or religious identity. Conclusion In conclusion, LGB employees manage their identity based on the importance of their LGB identity and underlying self-verification and self-enhancement motives. This study demonstrates that self-verification and self-enhancement motives mediate the relationship between identity centrality and identity management behaviors. LGB employees reveal or hide their stigmatized identity to both verify a coherent sense of self (Harry, 1993; Moorhead, 1999), allowing them to be a complete and integrated person (Friskopp & Silverstein, 1996) as well as to maintain, enhance and protect their self-esteem and desired social self-image (Baumeister, 1982). The findings from this research are meaningful because they draw attention to previously empirically unexamined mediators of identity management behaviors and provide the bases for practical 78 interventions to encourage LGB employees’ well-being and satisfaction in the workplace. In the words of equality advocate Ash Beckham (2013), “we all have closets…although our topics may vary tremendously, the experience of being in and coming out of a closet is universal, it is scary.” It is therefore important that researchers continue to investigate the identity management motives of other stigmatized social groups. 79 APPENDICES 80 Appendix A: Survey 1 Time 1 Online Survey You will need to create an anonymous code to link the two parts of the surveys. This is so that your responses are NOT linked to your email. If you cannot remember your answers to the questions below, please write them down somewhere safe. We will ask for the code again when you complete the second part of the survey. Your favorite movie: _________________ Best friend’s birthday: ____(mm/dd/yyy)____ The LAST four digits of your best friend’s phone number:___________ Before beginning this survey, please answer the following items: 1. What is your gender? Male Female Male (transgender ftm) 2. I identify as: Lesbian Gay Female (transgender mtf) Bisexual Genderqueer Androgyne Heterosexual [Participants who answered “Heterosexual” to this item were told they do not meet the criteria to participate in this survey and thanked for their time] 3. Are you currently employed on average over 20 hours a week? Yes On average, how many hours do you work per week?: _________ No [Participants who answered “No” this item were told they do not meet the criteria to participate in this survey and thanked for their time] 4. Your age: ______ [Participants who answered less than “18” for this item were told they do not meet the criteria to participate in this survey and thanked for their time] Thank you for your participation in this survey, you are eligible to participate in this study. 1 Statements in italics are instructions that will appear to the participant. Statements [in brackets] are notes for the reader or labels of the measures. 81 Please answer as honestly as possible. There are no right or wrong answers to any of these statements; we are interested in your honest reactions and opinions. 1. What percentage of your family and friends know that you are lesbian/gay/bisexual? 0%----10%— 20%— 30%— 40%— 50%— 60%— 70%— 80%— 90%— 100% 2. What percentage of your family and friends are lesbian/gay/bisexual? 0%----10%— 20%— 30%— 40%— 50%— 60%— 70%— 80%— 90%— 100% 3. What percentage of your coworkers are lesbian/gay/bisexual? 0%----10%— 20%— 30%— 40%— 50%— 60%— 70%— 80%— 90%— 100% 4. What percentage of your coworkers know that you are lesbian/gay/bisexual? 0%----10%— 20%— 30%— 40%— 50%— 60%— 70%— 80%— 90%— 100% [Identity Centrality, 1-7 scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree] Please respond to the following questions about how you feel about being part of the general LGBT community and how you feel about your lesbian/gay/bisexual identity in general. Overall, being lesbian/gay/bisexual has very little to do with how I feel about myself. Being lesbian/gay/bisexual is an important reflection of who I am. Being lesbian/gay/bisexual is unimportant to my sense of what kind of person I am. In general, being lesbian/gay/bisexual is an important part of my self-image. [Collective Self-Esteem, 1-7 scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree] The following questions are about how you feel towards the LGBT community and about belonging in the LGBT community. Membership self-esteem I am a worthy member of the LGB community. I feel I don't have much to offer to the LGB community. I often feel I'm a useless member of the LGB community. Private collective self-esteem I often regret that I am LGB. In general, I'm glad to be a LGB. I feel good about being LGB. Public collective self-esteem Overall, being LGB is considered good by others. Most people consider LGBs, on the average, to be more ineffective than other groups. In general, others respect LGBs. 82 [Self-Verification, 1-7 scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree] The following questions are about how important it is for you to tell people that you are LGB. It’s worth it to be truthful with others about being LGB so that they know what to expect from me. For me it’s better to be honest about my LGB identity when meeting new people. When interviewing for a job, I try to be honest about my LGB identity. It’s important for an employer to see me as lesbian/gay/bisexual. [Self-Enhancement, 1-7 scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree] The following questions ask about whether you try to present to other people that you are a "good" LGB person. I intend to change my behaviors to create a good impression to others about my LGB identity. I try to modify my behaviors to give good images to others about my LGB identity. It is important to me to give a good impression to others about my LGB identity. I like to present myself to others as being a friendly and a polite LGB individual I am sensitive to the impression about my LGB identity. [Others’ Perceptions of Identity Malleability, 1-7 scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree] Please answer the following questions about what you believe OTHER people think about LGB individuals. In general, other people tend to think that sexual orientation is something that can’t change very much. In general, other people think that people can significantly change their attraction to women/men if they tried. In general, other people think that lesbians/gays/bisexuals are wired that way and can’t really do much to change it. 83 [Perceived Organizational Climate for Diversity, 1-7 scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree] The following questions are about your work experiences at your current place of work. Please answer the following questions regarding how supportive your workplace is of diversity and diverse employees in general. Diversity can be defined in terms of gender, age, sexual orientation, ethnicity, socioeconomic class, or other personal backgrounds that can differ between employees. Managers demonstrate through their actions that they want to hire and retain a diverse workforce The company makes it easy for people from diverse backgrounds to fit in and be accepted Where I work, employees are developed and advanced without regard to their social identity I feel my immediate manager/supervisor does a good job of managing people with diverse backgrounds [Perceived Risk of Disclosure, 1-7 scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree] Instructions: The following questions are about why you may or may not choose to disclose your sexual orientation identity in the workplace to your coworkers. "Co-workers” includes your superiors, peers and subordinates in your current occupation and workplace. If I disclosed that I am lesbian/gay/bisexual at work. . . I would lose my job. I would be less likely to be promoted I would be less likely to get a raise People would not act any differently My career would be ruined Some people would avoid me Some coworkers would make mean and derogatory remarks about me Some coworkers would feel uncomfortable around me It would make no difference to my coworkers 84 [Identity Centrality at Work, 1-7 scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree] The following questions ask about how important your LGB identity is to you at your current place of WORK. At work... Overall, being lesbian/gay/bisexual has very little to do with how I feel about myself at work. In general, being lesbian/gay/bisexual is an important part of my self-image at work Being lesbian/gay/bisexual is unimportant to my self of what kind of person I am at work Being lesbian/gay/bisexual is an important reflection of who I am at work [Demographic Items] Next we are going to ask several demographic questions. This is to get a general sense of how certain characteristics are related to workplace experiences. Again, your responses to these questions are not linked to your email. Please answer as honestly as possible. Is your ethnicity Hispanic/Latino? Yes No Your Race/Ethnicity: American Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian or Asian American; Black or African American; Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish Origin; Middle Eastern or Northern African; Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander; White, not of Hispanic origins; Other________ Your Highest Degree Earned: Not a high school graduate; High school graduate/GED; Some college, but no degree; Associate’s degree; Bachelor’s degree; Some graduate school, but no graduate degree; Graduate degree You currently work in which of the following industries: Manufacturing; Finance; Education; Health Care; Transportation; Restaurant; Retail; Other Services; High Tech; Other______________ About how many employees work in your current workplace? Less than 15 employees; 15-30 employees; 30-60 employees; 60-100 employees; Over 100 employees How many years you been working at your current workplace? ______________ Thank you for completing the first part of the survey. 85 Time 2 Online Survey Please enter your unique identifier code. You created this code 2 weeks ago when you completed the first part of the survey. You may have written it down somewhere safe. The code consists of your favorite movie, your best friend's birthday, and the last four digits of your best friend's phone number. Your favorite movie: _________________ Best friend’s birthday: ____(mm/dd/yyy)____ The LAST four digits of your best friend’s phone number:___________ [Identity Compartmentalization, 1-7 scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree] When answering the questions on this page, please consider how you are as a person in general, at home versus at work. When I go to work, it is as if I am a different person It is important for me that people at work will not know who I am outside of work It is crucial for me to keep my work and non work lives separately I would not want people I know at work to see what I am like out of work [Identity Management Strategies, 1-7 scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree] Please consider how you present (or not present) your sexual orientation identity during your daily work-related activities. Your answers should reflect how you conduct yourself, on average, with all of the people in your current workplace. At work... [Counterfeiting items] To appear heterosexual, I sometimes talk about fictional dates with members of the opposite sex I sometimes comment on, or display interest in, members of the opposite sex to give the impression that I am straight. I make sure that I don’t behave the way people expect gays or lesbians to behave I sometimes laugh at “fag” or “dyke” jokes to fit in with my coworkers 86 [Avoiding items] I avoid situations (e.g. long lunches, parties) where heterosexual coworkers are likely to ask me personal questions I let people know that I find personal questions to be inappropriate so that I am not faced with them I avoid personal questions by never asking others about their personal lives I withdraw from conversations when the topic turns to things like dating or interpersonal relationships When coworkers talk about dates, romances, and friendships, I usually remain silent [Integrating items] In my daily activities, I am open about my homosexuality or bisexuality whenever it comes up Most of my co-workers know that I am gay, lesbian or bisexual Whenever I am asked about being gay/lesbian/bisexual, I always answer in an honest and matterof-fact way It is okay for my gay/lesbian/bisexual friends to call me at work My coworkers know of my interest in gay and lesbian issues I look for opportunities to tell my coworkers that I am gay/lesbian/bisexual I let my coworkers know that I am proud to be lesbian/gay/bisexual I openly confront others when I hear a homophobic remark or joke I display objects (e.g. photographs, magazines, symbols) which suggest that I am gay/lesbian/bisexual [Perceived Fit, 1-7 scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree] To what extent do you perceive a good fit between your values and your work's organization values? The things that I value in life are very similar to the things that my organization values My personal values match my organization’s values and culture My organization’s values and culture provide a good fit with the things that I value in life [Job Satisfaction, 1-7 scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree] Please answer the following items about yourself and your place of work. In general, I don’t like my job. All in all, I am satisfied with my job. In general, I like working here. 87 [Turnover Intentions, 1-7 scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree] Please answer the following items about yourself and your place of work. I plan on leaving this organization very soon I expect to change jobs in the next few months I will look to change jobs very soon [Psychological Well-Being Scale, 1-4 scale ranging from rarely or none of the time (less than 1 day) to most or all of the time (5-7 days)] Below is a list of ways you might have felt or behaved. Please indicate how often you have felt this way, on average, during the past month. On an average week, how often have you been feeling... I was bothered by things that usually don’t bother me I felt like I could not shake off the blues even with the help of my family or friends. I felt that I was just as good as other people. (reverse-scored) I had trouble keeping my mind on what I was doing. I felt that everything I did was an effort. I felt hopeful about the future. (reverse-scored) I thought my life had been a failure. I felt fearful. I felt lonely. People were unfriendly. Thank you for participating in this study. 88 Appendix B: Informed Consent Research Participation and Consent Form: You are being asked to participate in a research project. Researchers are required to provide a consent form to inform you about the study, to convey that participation is voluntary, to explain risks and benefits of participation, and to empower you to make an informed decision. You should feel free to ask the researchers any questions you may have. PURPOSE OF RESEARCH: You are being asked to participate in a research study concerning disclosure of sexual orientation identity in the workplace. You have been selected as a possible participant in this study because of your sexual orientation identity and employment status. If you do not identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual (LGB) OR you are not currently employed on average over 20 hours a week, please exit the survey now. From this study, the researchers hope to learn more about the experiences of lesbian, gay, and bisexual employees in the workplace. Your participation in this study will take about 30 minutes. You may not participate if you are under 18 years of age. WHAT YOU WILL DO: In this study, you will complete two short surveys. You will asked a series of questions about your current workplace and your disclosure status, now and in two weeks time. You will NOT be asked to provide your name, anyone else’s name, your organization’s name, or any other information that could potentially identify you or your place of work. You will then be asked several demographic questions about yourself and several questions about your workplace experience. POTENTIAL BENEFITS AND RISKS: The potential benefits to you for taking part in this study are a chance to gain further understanding on your own thoughts and feelings concerning your work environment. Also, your participation in this study may contribute to a better understanding of LGB issues and experiences in the workplace. There are no foreseeable risks associated with participation in this study. PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY: The data for this project are being collected confidentially. No one outside of the research will be able to link data to you and we will NOT be collecting IP addresses. However, there is possible risk of loss of confidentiality/anonymity if a publicly-accessible computer is used to access the survey. YOUR RIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE, SAY NO, OR WITHDRAW: Participation in this research project is completely voluntary. You may choose not to answer specific questions or to stop participating at any time. COMPENSATION FOR BEING IN THE STUDY: You will be compensated with at $10 Online Amazon gift card for your participation. After completing the second survey in two weeks time, you receive the online gift card code within 24 hours. A code to redeem your gift card online will be sent to your email address in an email that will NOT reference the study in any way. Your email address will be deleted from the researchers computer immediately following sending you the online gift card and we will no longer have any record of your email address. 89 CONTACT INFORMATION FOR QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS: If you have concerns or questions about this study, such as scientific issues, how to do any part of it, or to report an injury, please contact the researchers: Ann Marie Ryan, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, phone: 517-353-8855, e-mail: ryanan@msu.edu or Study Coordinator: Christine Kermond, kermond@msu.edu. If you have questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant, would like to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this study, you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University’s Human Research Protection Program at 517-355-2180, Fax 517-432-4503, or e-mail irb@msu.edu or regular mail at 207 Olds Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824. By clicking the button marked SUBMIT, you are indicating your consent to participate in this study. If you do not consent to participate, please exit the survey now. Thank you for your participation. 90 Appendix C: Debriefing Debriefing Form: Sexual Orientation Identity at Work: Thank you for participating in our study. This form is designed to provide you with information about the purpose and importance of this study. Psychological research has shown that lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) individuals disclose their sexual orientation at work due to a host of factors, including characteristics of the work environment. For example, some research has shown that LGB employees will disclose to more people at work when they view their work environment as open to diversity. For more information on LGB disclosure, we refer you to the following studies: Jordan, K. M., & Deluty, R. H. (1998). Coming out for lesbian women: Its relation to anxiety, positive affectivity, self-esteem and social support. Journal of Homosexuality, 35(2), 41-63. Ragins, B. R., Singh, R., & Cornwell, J. M. (2007). Making the invisible visible: Fear and disclosure of sexual orientation at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1103-1118. We are currently examining how work environments relates to LGB identity disclosure at work. We wanted to focus on how perceptions of a climate for diversity and perceived risks of disclosing influence the importance of one’s LGB identity at work. We gathered this information through survey questions concerning your perceptions of your work environment. Your responses will help us further explore the topic organizational support of LGB individuals and of LGB disclosure. The survey was relatively straightforward and of the type often encountered in psychological research. Given the mild nature of this research study, we anticipate that there are and will be no risks involved for any of our participants. However, if you have questions or concerns regarding this study, please do not hesitate to contact the investigators. Additionally, if you would like more information about the study or have further questions about it, please feel free to contact the Diversity Research Lab at msudiversityresearch@msu.edu, Ann Marie Ryan, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, phone: 517355-0203, or Study Coordinator: Christine Kermond, Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, e-mail: kermond@msu.edu or Diversity Lab: MSUdiversityresearch@gmail.com 91 FOOTNOTE 92 FOOTNOTE 1 The Civil Rights Act of 1991 protects employees from discrimination based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, physical disability, psychological disability, and age (over 40). There are State specific Civil Rights Acts that prohibits discrimination based on other group statuses such as age (under 40), height, weight, familial status, and sexual orientation. As of April 2013, sixteen states and the District of Columbia protect against sexual orientation discrimination in the private and public sector. Four states have laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation for public sector employees only. 2 I note a major assumption in this paper regarding the labeling of sexual orientation. Sexual orientation is different from sexual orientation identity. Sexual orientation refers to “an individual’s patterns of sexual, romantic, and affectional arousal and desire for other persons based on those persons’ gender and sex characteristics” (American Psychological Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation, 2009, p. 30). In contrast, sexual orientation identity refers to “acknowledgement and internalization of sexual orientation and reflects self-exploration, self-awareness, self-recognition, group membership and affiliation, culture, and self-stigma” (American Psychological Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation, 2009, p. 30). Sexual orientation does not correspond perfectly with self-report of sexual orientation identity. For example, Ellis, Robb, and Burke (2005) found that although approximately 3% of female and male population self-reported the label of a sexual minority orientation, over 8% of the sample reported same-sex attraction, same-sex fantasies, and/or same-sex sexual experience. 93 REFERENCES 94 REFERENCES Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Aguero, J. E., Bloch, L., & Byrne, D. (1984). The relationships among sexual beliefs, attitudes, experience, and homophobia. Journal of Homosexuality, 10(1-2), 95-107. Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. Oxford, England: Holt. APA Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation. (2009). Report of the Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. The Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20-39. Ashforth, B. E. (2001). Role transitions in organizational life: An identity-based perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Baumeister, R. F. (1982). A self-presentational view of social phenomena. Psychological Bulletin, 91(1), 3-26. Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(5), 12521265. Beals, K. P., Peplau, L. A., & Gable, S. L. (2009). Stigma management and well-being: The role of perceived social support, emotional processing, and suppression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(7), 867-879. Beckham, Ash. (2013, September). We're all hiding something. Let's find the courage to open up. [Video file]. Retrieved from http://www.ted.com/talks/ash_beckham_we_re_all_hiding_something_let_s_find_the_courag e_to_open_up Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238-246. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588-606. Branscombe, N. R., Schmitt, M. T., & Harvey, R. D. (1999). Perceiving pervasive discrimination among African Americans: Implications for group identification and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(1), 135-149. 95 Brown, R., Condor, S., Mathews, A., Wade, G., & Williams, J. (1986). Explaining intergroup differentiation in an industrial organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 59(4), 273286. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 230-258. Burke, P. J., & Stets, J. E. (1999). Trust and commitment through self-verification. Social Psychology Quarterly, 62(4), 347-366. Button, S. B. (2004). Identity management strategies utilized by lesbian and gay employees: A quantitative investigation. Group & Organization Management, 29(4), 470-494. Button, S. B. (2001). Organizational efforts to affirm sexual diversity: A cross-level examination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 17-28. Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1996). Person–organization fit, job choice decisions, and organizational entry. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(3), 294311. Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1997). Interviewers' perceptions of person–organization fit and organizational selection decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(4), 546-561. Cable, D. M., & Kay, V. S. (2012). Striving for self-verification during organizational entry. Academy of Management Journal, 55(2), 360-380. Cameron, K., Dutton, J., & Quinn, R. E. (Eds.). (2003). Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, G. D., and Klesh, J. (1983). The Michigan organizational assessment survey: Conceptualization and instrumentation. In S.E. Seashore, E.E. Lawler III, P. H. Mirvis, and C. Cammann (Eds.), Assessing organizational change: A guide to methods, measures and practices. New York, NY: Wiley Interscience, 71-138. Charmaz, K. 1991. Good days, bad days: The self in chronic illness and time. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Chaudoir, S. R., & Fisher, J. D. (2010). The disclosure processes model: Understanding disclosure decision making and post disclosure outcomes among people living with a concealable stigmatized identity. Psychological Bulletin, 136(2), 236-256. Chrobot-Mason, D., Button, S. B., & DiClementi, J. D. (2001). Sexual identity management strategies: An exploration of antecedents and consequences. Sex Roles, 45(5-6), 321-336. Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq (1964). Clair, J. A., Beatty, J. E., & MacLean, T. L. (2005). Out of sight but not out of mind: Managing invisible social identities in the workplace. The Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 7895. 96 Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Colvin, C.R., & Griffo, R. (2007). The psychological costs of self-enhancement. In E.C. Chang (Ed.), Self-Criticism and Self-Enhancement: Theory, research, and clinical implications (pp.123.140). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Conley, J. J. (1985). Longitudinal stability of personality traits: A multitrait–multimethod– multioccasion analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(5), 1266-1282. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on subjective well-being: happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(4), 668-678. Cozby, P. C. (1973). Self-disclosure: A literature review. Psychological Bulletin, 79(2), 73-91. Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. In D. K. Weisberg (Ed.), Feminist legal theory: Foundations (Vol. 1, pp. 383-398). Philadelphia PA: Temple University press. Crocker, J. (2002). Contingencies of self-worth: Implications for self-regulation and psychological vulnerability. Self and Identity,1(2), 143-149. Crocker, J., Major, B., & Steele, C. (1998). Social stigma. New York: McGraw-Hill. Croteau, J. M. (1996). Research on the work experiences of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people: An integrative review of methodology and findings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48(2), 195-209. Day, N. E., & Schoenrade, P. (1997). Staying in the closet versus coming out: Relationships between communication about sexual orientation and work attitudes. Personnel Psychology, 50(1), 147-163. Deaux, K., & Ethier, K. A. (1998). Negotiating social identity. In J. K. Swim & C. Stangor (Eds.), Prejudice: The target’s perspective (pp. 301-323). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1987). Putting gender into context: An interactive model of genderrelated behavior. Psychological Review, 94(3), 369-369-389. DeJordy, R. (2008). Just passing through: Stigma, passing, and identity decoupling in the work place. Group & Organization Management, 33(5), 504-504-531. Dindia, K. & Allen, M. (1992). Sex differences in self-disclosure: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 106-124. Doosje, B., Spears, R., & Ellemers, N. (2002). Social identity as both cause and effect: The development of group identification in response to anticipated and actual changes in the intergroup status hierarchy. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41(1), 57-76. 97 Dweck, C. S. (2000). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press. Ellemers, N. (1993). The influence of socio-structural variables on identity management strategies. European Review of Social Psychology, 4(1), 27-57. Ellemers, N., Kortekaas, P., & Ouwerkerk, J. W. (1999). Self-categorisation, commitment to the group and group self-esteem as related but distinct aspects of social identity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29(23), 371-389. Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (2002). Self and social identity. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 161-186. Ellis, L., Robb, B., & Burke, D. (2005). Sexual orientation in United States and Canadian college students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34(5), 569-581. Erikson, E. H. (1959). Identity and the life cycle: Selected papers. Psychological Issues Monograph Series, 1(1), 5-165. Ernulf, K. E., Innala, S. M., & Whitam, F. L. (1989). Biological explanation, psychological explanation and tolerance of homosexuals: a cross-national analysis of beliefs and attitudes. Psychological Reports, 65(3), 1003-1010. Ethier, K. A., & Deaux, K. (1994). Negotiating social identity when contexts change: Maintaining identification and responding to threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(2), 243-251. Farmer, S. M., & Aguinis, H. (2005). Accounting for subordinate perceptions of supervisor power: An identity-dependence model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1069-1083. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press. Frable, D. E., Platt, L., & Hoey, S. (1998). Concealable stigmas and positive self-perceptions: feeling better around similar others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(4), 909-922. Friskopp, A. & Silverstein, S. (1996). Straight Jobs, Gay Lives: Gay and Lesbian Professionals, The Harvard Business School, and the American Workplace. New York: Touchstone/Simon & Schuster Gardner, W. L., & Martinko, M. J. (1998). An organizational perspective of the effects of dysfunctional impression management. Monographs in Organizational Behavior and Industrial Relations, 23, 69-126. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Oxford, England: Doubleday. Goffman, E. (1963). Embarrassment and social organization. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 98 Gosling, S. D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., & John, O. P. (2004). Should we trust web-based studies? A comparative analysis of six preconceptions about internet questionnaires. American Psychologist, 59(2), 93–104. Griffith, K. H., & Hebl, M. R. (2002). The disclosure dilemma for gay men and lesbians: "coming out" at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(6), 1191-1199. Harry, J. (1993). Being out: A general model. Journal of Homosexuality, 26(1), 25-39. Hayes, A. F., Preacher, K. J., & Myers, T. A. (2011). Mediation and the estimation of indirect effects in political communication research. Sourcebook for Political Communication Research: Methods, Measures, and Analytical Techniques, 434-465. Hegarty, P., & Pratto, F. (2004). The differences that norms make: Empiricism, social constructionism, and the interpretation of group differences. Sex Roles, 50(7-8), 445-453. Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley. Herek, G. M. 1996. Why tell if you are not asked? Self disclosure, intergroup contact, and heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. In G. M. Herek, J. B. Jobe, & R. M. Carney (Eds.), Out in force: Sexual orientation and the military (pp. 197–225). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hewlin, P. F. (2009). Wearing the cloak: antecedents and consequences of creating facades of conformity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 727. Higgins, E. T., & King, G. A. (1981). Accessibility of social constructs: Information processing consequences of individual and contextual variability. In N. Cantor & J. F. Kihlstrom (Eds.), Personality, Cognition, and Social Interaction, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (1990). Social motivation, self - esteem and social identity. In D. Abrams & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity theory: Constructive and critical advances (pp. 28-47). London: Harvester Wheatsheaf, & New York: Springer-Verlag. Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. The Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 121-140. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6: 1–55. Ilies, R., Morgeson, F. P., & Nahrgang, J. D. 2005. Authentic leadership and eudaemonic wellbeing: Understanding leader-follower outcomes. Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 373–394. Jones, E. E. (1964). Ingratiation. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Jones, E. E., Farina, A., Hastorf, A., Markus, H., Miller, D., & Scott, R. A. (1984). Social stigma: The psychology of marked relationships. New York: Freeman Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self (pp. 231-261). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 99 Keller, H., & Lee, S. (2003). Ethical issues surrounding human participants research using the internet. Ethics & Behavior, 13(3), 211–219. Kernis, M. H. 2003. Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem. Psychological Inquiry, 14(1), 1-26. King, E. B., Shapiro, J. R., Hebl, M. R., Singletary, S. L., & Turner, S. (2006). The stigma of obesity in customer service: A mechanism for remediation and bottom-line consequences of interpersonal discrimination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 579-593. Kossek, E. E., Markel, K. S., & McHugh, P. P. (2003). Increasing diversity as an HRM change strategy. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 16(3), 328-352. Kwang, T., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (2010). Do people embrace praise even when they feel unworthy? A review of criticalho tests of self-enhancement versus self-verification. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(3), 263-280. Lauver, K. J., & Kristof-Brown, A. (2001). Distinguishing between employees' perceptions of person–job and person–organization fit. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59(3), 454-470. Leary, K. (1999). Passing, posing, and "keeping it real". New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Lecky, P. (1961). Self-consistency: A theory of personality. Hamden, CT: Shoe String Press. Lemay, E. P., & Ashmore, R. D. (2004). Reactions to perceived categorization by others during the transition to college: Internalization and self-verification processes. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 7(2), 173-187. Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of one's social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(3), 302-318. Lyons, B., Wessel, J., Ghumman, S., Ryan, A. M., & Kim, S. (2014). Applying models of employee identity management across cultures: Christianity in the USA and South Korea. Journal of Organizational Behavior. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1002/job.1917 McCall, G. J., & Simmons, J. L. 1966. Identities and interactions: An examination of human associations in everyday life. New York: Free Press. MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130-149. McKay, P. F., Avery, D. R., Tonidandel, S., Morris, M. A., Hernandez, M., & Hebl, M. R. (2007). Racial differences in employee retention: Are diversity climate perceptions the key? Personnel Psychology, 60(1), 35-62. Major, B., Spencer, S. J., Schmader, T., Wolfe, C., & Crocker, J. (1998). Coping with negative stereotypes about intellectual performance: The role of psychological disengagement. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24(1) , 34-50. 100 Major, B., Quinton, W., McCoy, S., & Schmader, T. 2000. Reducing prejudice: The target’s perspective. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 211-237). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society from the perspective of a social behaviorist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Miller, N., & Brewer, M. B. (1986). Categorization effects on ingroup and outgroup perception. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 209230). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Miller, C. T., & Major, B. (2000). Coping with stigma and prejudice. In T. F. Heatherton, R. E. Kleck, M. R. Hebl, & J. G. Hull (Eds.), The social psychology of stigma (pp. 243-272). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Mooney, C. Z., Duval, R. D., & Duval, R. (1993). Bootstrapping: A nonparametric approach to statistical inference. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Moorhead, C. (1999). Queering identities: The roles of integrity and belonging in becoming ourselves. Journal of Gay, Lesbian, & Bisexual Identity, 4(4), 327-343. Mor Barak, M. E., Cherin, D. A., & Berkman, S. (1998). Organizational and personal dimensions in diversity climate. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 34(1), 82-104. Morling, B., & Epstein, S. (1997). Compromises produced by the dialectic between selfverification and self-enhancement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(6), 1268-1283. Mummendey, A., Kessler, T., Klink, A., & Mielke, R. (1999). Strategies to cope with negative social identity: Predictions by social identity theory and relative deprivation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(2), 229-245. Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2002). E-research: Ethics, security, design, and control in psychological research on the internet. Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 161176. Orenstein, E. G., (2005). The business case for diversity. Financial Executive, 21(4), 22-45. Pachankis, J. E. (2007). The psychological implications of concealing a stigma: A cognitiveaffective-behavioral model. Psychological Bulletin, 133(2), 328-345. Pelham, B. W. (1991). On confidence and consequence: The certainty and importance of selfknowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(4), 518-530. Pervin, L. A., & Rubin, D. B. (1967). Student dissatisfaction with college and the college dropout: A transactional approach. The Journal of Social Psychology, 72(2), 285-295. Phillips, J. C., Ingram, K. M., Smith, N. G., & Mindes, E. J. (2003). Methodological and content review of lesbian-, gay-, and bisexual-related articles in counseling journals: 1990–1999. The Counseling Psychologist, 31(1), 25–62. 101 Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. Pugh, S. D., Dietz, J., Brief, A. P., & Wiley, J. W. (2008). Looking inside and out: The impact of employee and community demographic composition on organizational diversity climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1422-1428. Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale a self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1(3), 385-401. Ragins, B. R. (2008). Disclosure disconnects: Antecedents and consequences of disclosing invisible stigmas across life domains. The Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 194-215. Ragins, B. R., & Cornwell, J. M. (2001). Pink triangles: Antecedents and consequences of perceived workplace discrimination against gay and lesbian employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1244-1261. Ragins, B. R., Singh, R., & Cornwell, J. M. (2007). Making the invisible visible: Fear and disclosure of sexual orientation at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(4), 1103-1118. Ritov, I., & Baron, J. (1992). Status-quo and omission biases. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5(1), 49-61. Roberts, L. M. (2005). Changing faces: Professional image construction in diverse organizational settings. The Academy of Management Review, 30(4), 685-711. Roberts, L. M., Cha, S. E., Hewlin, P. F., & Settles, I. H. (2009). Bringing the inside out: Enhancing authenticity and positive identity in organizations. In L. M. Roberts & J. E. Dutton (Eds.), Exploring positive identities and organizations: Building a theoretical and research foundation (pp. 149-169). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Rogers, C. R. (1951). Client-centered therapy: Its current practice, implications and theory, Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Rogers, C. R. (1959). A theory of therapy, personality, and interpersonal relationships, as developed in the client-centered framework. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a science (Vol. 3, pp. 184-256). New York: McGraw-Hill. Rogers, C. R. 1980. A way of being. New York: Houghton Mifflin. Rosenburg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University. Rosenmann, A., & Safir, M. P. (2007). Gay identity nonendorsement and the role of dissociative characteristics in a culturally diverse online sample of men who have sex with men. Sexuality Research & Social Policy, 4(2), 18-26. 102 Rostosky, S. S., & Riggle, E. D. B. (2002). "Out" at work: The relation of actor and partner workplace policy and internalized homophobia to disclosure status. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49(4), 411-419. Sakalli, N. (2002). Application of the attribution-value model of prejudice to homosexuality. The Journal of Social Psychology, 142(2), 264-271. Schmitt, M.T., Branscombe, N. R., Kobrynowicz, D., & Owen, S. (2002). Perceiving discrimination against one’s gender group has different implications for well-being in women and men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(2), 197-210. Sedikides, C., Gaertner, L., & Toguchi, Y. (2003). Pancultural self-enhancement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 60-70. Sedikides, C, & Strube, M. J. (1995). The multiply motivated self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(12), 1330-1335. Sellers, R. M., Caldwell, C. H., Schmeelk-Cone, K., & Zimmerman, M. A. (2004). The role of racial identity and racial discrimination in the mental health of African American young adults. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 44(3), 302-317. Settles, I. H. (2004). When multiple identities interfere: The role of identity Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(4), 487-500. centrality. Showers, C. J., & Zeigler Hill, V. (2007). Compartmentalization and integration: The evaluative organization of contextualized selves. Journal of Personality, 75(6), 1181-1204. Shroeder, D., Josephs, R., & Swann, W. B., Jr. (2006). Foregoing lucrative employment to preserve low self-esteem. Unpublished manuscript, University of Texas, Austin. Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: new procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422-445. Singletary, S. L., & Hebl, M. R. (2009). Compensatory strategies for reducing interpersonal discrimination: The effectiveness of acknowledgments, increased positivity, and individuating information. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 797-805. Sinha, V. (1972). Age differences in self-disclosure. Developmental Psychology, 7(3), 257–258. Smart, L., & Wegner, D. 1999. Covering up what can’t be seen: Concealable stigma and mental control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(3), 474-486. Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40(3), 437-453. Spranca, M., Minsk, E., & Baron, J. (1991). Omission and commission in judgment and choice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27(1), 76-105. Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotype shapes intellectual identity and performance? American Psychologist, 52(6), 613-629. 103 Stryker, S. (1987). Identity theory: Developments and extensions. In K Yardley & T. Honess (Eds.), Self and identity: Psychosocial perspectives (pp. 89-103). Oxford, England: John Wiley & Sons. Swann, W. B., Jr. (1983). Self-verification: Brining social reality into harmony with the self. In J. Suls & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Social psychological perspectives on the self (Vol. 2, pp. 33-66). Hillsdale, HJ: Erlbaum. Swann, W. B. (1987). Identity negotiation: Where two roads meet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(6), 1038-1051. Swann, W. B., Jr. (1990). To be adored or to be known : The interplay of self-enhancement and self-verification. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.) Foundations of Social Behavior, (Vol. 2, pp. 408-448). New York: Guilford. Swann, W. B., Del La Ronde, C., & Hixon, J. G. (1994). Authenticity and positivity strivings in marriage and courtship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(5), 857-869. Swann, W. B., Jr., & Ely, R. J. (1984). A battle of wills: Self-verification versus behavioral confirmation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(6), 1287-1302. Swann, W. B., Milton, L. P., & Polzer, J. T. (2000). Should we create a niche or fall in line? identity negotiation and small group effectiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(2), 238-250. Swann, W. B., & Pelham, B. (2002). Who wants out when the going gets good? psychological investment and preference for self-verifying college roommates. Self and Identity, 1(3), 219233. Swann, W. B., Pelham, B. W., & Krull, D. S. (1989). Agreeable fancy or disagreeable truth? reconciling self-enhancement and self-verification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(5), 782-791. Swann, W. B., Polzer, J. T., Seyle, D. C., & Ko, S. J. (2004). Finding value in diversity: Verification of personal and social self-views in diverse groups. The Academy of Management Review, 29 (1), 9-27. Swann, W. B., Rentfrow, P. J., & Guinn, J. S. (2003). Self-verification: The search for coherence. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 367383). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Swann, W. B., Stein-Seroussi, A., & Giesler, R. B. (1992). Why people self-verify. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(3), 392-401. Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tajfel, H. (Ed.). (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. London: Academic Press. 104 Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1986). The social identity of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology and intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Tatum, B. D. 1997. Why are all the black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? And other conversations about the development of racial identity. New York: Basic Books. Tepper, B. J., Carr, J. C., Breaux, D. M., Geider, S., Hu, C., & Hua, W. (2009). Abusive supervision, intentions to quit, and employees’ workplace deviance: A power/dependence analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 109(2), 156-167. Tetlock. P. E., & Manstead, A. S. R. (1985). Impression management versus intrapsychic explanations in social psychology: A useful dichotomy? Psychological Review, 92(1), 59-77. Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38(1), 1-10. Weiner, B., Perry, R. P., & Magnusson, J. (1988). An attributional analysis of reactions to stigmas. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(5), 738. Whitley, B. E. (1990). The relationship of heterosexuals' attributions for the causes of homosexuality to attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16(2), 369-377. Wilson, E., Iles, P. (1999). Managing diversity: An employment and service delivery challenge. The International Journal of Public Sector Management, 12(1), 27-49. Woods, J. D. The corporate closet: Managing gay identity on the job (Self disclosure). Dissertation Abstracts International, 53(5), 1325A. Wylie, R. C. (1979). The self-concept: Theory and research on selected topics (Vol. 2). University of Nebraska Press. Yun, Seokhwa, Takeuchi, Riki, & Liu, Wei. (2007). Employee self-enhancement motives and job performance behaviors: Investigating the moderating effects of employee role ambiguity and managerial perceptions of employee commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 745-756. Zeigler-Hill, V., & Showers, C. J. (2007). Self-structure and self-esteem stability: The hidden vulnerability of compartmentalization. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(2), 143-159. 105