ENCOURAGING ASIAN AMERICAN WOMEN IN LEADERSHIP: INTERSECTIONALITY 

AND IDENTITY CUES 

 

By 

Caitlin Q. Briggs 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A THESIS 

Submitted to 

Michigan State University 

in partial fulfillment of the requirements 

for the degree of 

Psychology – Master of Arts 

2020 

 

ENCOURAGING ASIAN AMERICAN WOMEN IN LEADERSHIP: INTERSECTIONALITY 

ABSTRACT 

AND IDENTITY CUES 

 

By 

Caitlin Q. Briggs 

This investigation integrates research on organizational identity safety cues and 

intersectionality theories by examining whether single-stigmatized (Asian American men, White 

women) and double-stigmatized identities (Asian American women) react differently to 

organizational identity safety cues. A series of online experimental surveys were developed to 

determine if there were differences in responses to cues between Asian American women vs. 

Asian American men, and Asian American women vs. White women in a leadership context, 

when presented with a racial or gender identity safety cue, respectively. Results did not reveal 

differences in how subgroups responded to identity safety cues. A third survey investigated 

whether Asian American women in a leadership context (a double-stigmatized identity) 

responded to different types of identity safety cues that tapped either racial, gender, or racial-

gender cues. Results did not reveal differences between types of cues. Ultimately, evidence 

emerged to support anticipated authenticity at work perceptions as a mediator of cue-outcome 

relationships, specifically for the outcome of feelings of belonging. Furthermore, exploratory 

analyses revealed that participants’ trait authenticity and level of acculturation affect how they 

perceive and respond to identity safety cues. Limitations and future research directions are 

discussed. 

 

Keywords: cue transfer, double jeopardy, ethnic prominence, organizational identity safety cues, 

authenticity at work 

 

Copyright by 
CAITLIN Q. BRIGGS 
2020

 

 

This thesis is dedicated to my family and friends  

whose support has been unwavering.

iv 

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

 

This thesis project would not have been possible without the support of my mentors, 

colleagues, friends, and family, including my rescue dog, Vega. So many individuals have 

contributed to my accomplishment of this goal whether through their knowledge, kindness, 

friendship, or love. 

 

I am especially grateful for my thesis committee chair and advisor, Dr. Ann Marie Ryan, 

a model of a successful, smart, and ever-compassionate mentor and researcher. I would also like 

to acknowledge Dr. Frederick T. L. Leong and Dr. J. Kevin Ford for serving on my thesis 

committee and for providing thoughtful, constructive feedback. 

 

I would also like to acknowledge that this thesis project was funded by grants from the 

Michigan State University Graduate School and the Michigan State University Consortium for 

Multicultural Psychology Research. Lastly, I would like to thank the participants who took the 

time to partake in my research. 

 

 

 

v 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

 

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................. viii 

LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................... x 

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1 
Social Identity Cues ......................................................................................................... 4 
Intersectionality ............................................................................................................... 8 
Intersectionality and Identity Safety Cue Transfer.......................................................... 12 
Authenticity as a Mediator of Cue-Outcome Relationships ............................................ 16 
Asian American Women Leaders as a Double Role Incongruity .................................... 18  
Role congruity ................................................................................................... 18 
Implicit leadership theories ................................................................................ 20 
 

HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT ............................................................................................. 22 
Study 1 Hypotheses ....................................................................................................... 22 
Study 2 Hypotheses ....................................................................................................... 28 

PILOT STUDIES ...................................................................................................................... 31 

STUDY 1 METHOD ................................................................................................................ 33 
Participants .................................................................................................................... 34 
Study 1A ............................................................................................................ 34 
Study 1B ............................................................................................................ 35 
Procedure ...................................................................................................................... 36 
Measures ....................................................................................................................... 37 
Cue condition ..................................................................................................... 37 
Stigmatized status .............................................................................................. 37 
Anticipated feelings of belonging ....................................................................... 38 
Procedural justice ............................................................................................... 38 
Person-organization fit ....................................................................................... 39 
Attraction to the organization ............................................................................. 39 
Perceived social dominance orientation (SDO) ................................................... 39 
Authenticity at work (situational authenticity) .................................................... 40 
Stigma consciousness for gender and race .......................................................... 40 
Manipulation and attention checks ..................................................................... 40 
Demographics .................................................................................................... 41 
Other Measures ............................................................................................................. 41 
Trait authenticity (dispositional authenticity)...................................................... 41 
Acculturation ..................................................................................................... 41 
Perceived workplace flexibility .......................................................................... 42 

 

vi 

 

STUDY 1 RESULTS ................................................................................................................ 43 
Study 1A Results ........................................................................................................... 43 
Study 1A Exploratory Analyses ..................................................................................... 46 
Study 1B Results ........................................................................................................... 48 
Study 1B Exploratory Analyses ..................................................................................... 51 

STUDY 1 DISCUSSION .......................................................................................................... 54 

STUDY 2 METHOD ................................................................................................................ 58 
Participants .................................................................................................................... 58 
Procedure ...................................................................................................................... 59 
Measures ....................................................................................................................... 60 
Cue condition ..................................................................................................... 61 
Stigma consciousness for gender, race, and gender-race combined ..................... 61 

STUDY 2 RESULTS ................................................................................................................ 62 
Exploratory Analyses .................................................................................................... 64 

STUDY 2 DISCUSSION .......................................................................................................... 67 

GENERAL DISCUSSION ........................................................................................................ 69 
Theoretical Implications ................................................................................................ 74 
Practical Implications .................................................................................................... 77 
Limitations .................................................................................................................... 79 
Future Directions ........................................................................................................... 83 
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 87 

ENDNOTES ............................................................................................................................. 88 

APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................... 90 
APPENDIX A: Prescreening Questions ......................................................................... 91 
APPENDIX B: Informed Consent ................................................................................. 94 
APPENDIX C: Initial Directions for Participants ........................................................... 99 
APPENDIX D: Company Description ......................................................................... 101 
APPENDIX E: Manipulations for Cue Conditions ....................................................... 103 
APPENDIX F: Job Description.................................................................................... 108 
APPENDIX G: Items and Measures ............................................................................ 110 
APPENDIX H: Debriefing Form ................................................................................. 119 
APPENDIX I: Tables and Figures ............................................................................... 121 

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 160 
 

 

 

vii 

 

LIST OF TABLES 

 

Table 1. Study 1A Means, Standard Deviations, and Bivariate Correlations ............................ 124 

Table 2. Study 1A Mean Outcome and Mediator Scores by Condition with t-Tests  ................ 126 

Table 3. Study 1A Hierarchical Regression Testing the Interaction of Cue Condition and 
Stigmatized Status  .................................................................................................................. 128 
 
Table 4. Study 1A Hierarchical Regression Testing the Interaction of Cue Condition and Racial 
Stigma Consciousness  ............................................................................................................ 129 
 
Table 5. Study 1A Exploratory Variable Means by Condition with t-Tests  ............................. 130 

Table 6. Study 1A Hierarchical Regression Testing the Interaction of Cue Condition and Trait 
Authenticity ............................................................................................................................ 131 
 
Table 7. Study 1A Hierarchical Regression Testing the Interaction of Cue Condition and 
Acculturation Toward Country of Origin ................................................................................. 132 
 
Table 8. Study 1A Hierarchical Regression Testing the Interaction of Cue Condition and 
Acculturation Toward European American Culture ................................................................. 133 
 
Table 9. Study 1B: Means, Standard Deviations, and Bivariate Correlations............................ 135 

Table 10. Study 1B: Mean Outcome and Mediator Scores by Condition with t-Tests............... 137 

Table 11. Study 1B: Hierarchical Regression Testing the Interaction of Cue Condition and 
Stigmatized Status ................................................................................................................... 139 
 
Table 12. Study 1B: Authenticity at Work as a Mediator of the Relationship Between Identity 
Safety Cue and Feelings of Belonging ..................................................................................... 140 
 
Table 13. Study 1B: Hierarchical Regression Testing the Interaction of Cue Condition and 
Gender Stigma Consciousness ................................................................................................. 141 
 
Table 14. Study 1B: Exploratory Variable Means by Condition with t-Tests ........................... 142 

Table 15. Study 1B: Hierarchical Regression Testing the Interaction of Cue Condition and Trait 
Authenticity ............................................................................................................................ 143 
 
Table 16. Study 1B: Hierarchical Regression Testing the Interaction of Cue Condition and 
Acculturation Toward European American Culture ................................................................. 144 

 

viii 

 

Table 17. Study 1B: Hierarchical Regression Testing the Interaction of Cue Condition and 
Acculturation Toward Country of Origin ................................................................................. 145 
Table 18. Study 1B: Hierarchical Regression Testing the Interaction of Cue Condition and 
Acculturation Toward Asian American Culture ....................................................................... 146 
 
Table 19. Study 2 Means, Standard Deviations, and Bivariate Correlations ............................. 147 

Table 20. Study 2 Mean Outcome and Mediator Scores by Condition ..................................... 148 

Table 21. Study 2 Hierarchical Regression Testing the Interaction of Cue Condition and Stigma 
Consciousness (Outcome: Perceived SDO) ............................................................................. 150 
 
Table 22. Study 2 Hierarchical Regression Testing the Interaction of Cue Condition and Stigma 
Consciousness (Outcome: Authenticity at Work) .................................................................... 151 
 
Table 23. Study 2 Exploratory Variable Means by Condition .................................................. 152 

Table 24. Study 2 Hierarchical Regression Testing the Interaction of Cue Condition and Trait 
Authenticity (Outcome: Perceived SDO) ................................................................................. 153 
 
Table 25. Study 2 Hierarchical Regression Testing the Interaction of Cue Condition and Trait 
Authenticity (Outcome: Authenticity at Work) ........................................................................ 154 
 
Table 26. Study 2: Simple Regression Results for Predicting Authenticity at Work for Each Cue 
Condition ................................................................................................................................ 155 
 
Table 27. Study 2 Hierarchical Regression Testing the Interaction of Cue Condition and 
Acculturation Toward European American Culture ................................................................. 157 
 
Table 28. Study 2: Simple Regression Results for Predicting Authenticity at Work for Each Cue 
Condition ................................................................................................................................ 158 
 

 

 

ix 

 

 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Company Description Presented in All Surveys ........................................................ 102 

Figure 2. Study 1A No Identity Safety Cue Manipulation ........................................................ 104 

Figure 3. Study 1A Racial Identity Safety Cue Manipulation ................................................... 104 

Figure 4. Study 1B No Identity Safety Cue Manipulation ........................................................ 105 

Figure 5. Study 1B Gender Identity Safety Cue Manipulation ................................................. 105 

Figure 6. Study 2 Racial Identity Safety Cue Manipulation ..................................................... 106 

Figure 7. Study 2 Gender Identity Safety Cue Manipulation .................................................... 106 

Figure 8. Study 2 Double Identity Safety Cue (Race and Gender Cues Separate) Manipulation
 ............................................................................................................................................... 107 
 
Figure 9. Study 2 Intersected Identity Safety Cue (Cue Specific to Asian American Women) 
Manipulation ........................................................................................................................... 107 
 
Figure 10. Model of Study 1 Hypotheses ................................................................................. 122 

Figure 11. Model of Study 2 Hypotheses ................................................................................. 123 

Figure 12. Study 1A: The Interaction Between Cue Condition and Acculturation Toward 
European-American Culture on Perceived Ability to be Authentic in the Workplace ............... 134 
 
Figure 13. Study 2: Predicting Authenticity at Work as a Function of Trait Authenticity 
Separately for Cue Condition .................................................................................................. 156 
 
Figure 14. Study 2: Predicting Authenticity at Work as a Function of Acculturation Toward 
European American Culture Separately for Cue Condition ...................................................... 159 
 

 

 

 

 

x 

 

INTRODUCTION 

Many organizations have turned to diversity management practices in an effort to reap 

benefits such as a reduced turnover and absenteeism, better qualified job applicants, and greater 

creativity and problem-solving capacities (Gilbert, Stead & Ivancevich, 1999). Diversity 

management refers to steps that a company voluntarily takes in order to increase inclusion in the 

workplace, both formally as well as informally (Gilbert et al., 1999). This may take the form of 

revamping recruitment efforts to attract diverse job applicants or instituting cultural awareness 

training. For example, Google is famous for providing employees with unconscious bias training 

(Feloni, 2017) and a quick perusal of IBM’s (n.d.) diversity and inclusion web page indicates 

resources for a number of stigmatized groups, including women and transgender individuals. The 

page displays the social media campaign hashtag “#inclusiveIBM.” 

 

Despite the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on diversity initiatives to increase 

inclusivity (e.g., Google spent $265 million on diversity efforts in 2014; Kokalitcheva, 2017), the 

statistics for discrimination in the workplace remain sobering. The Pew Research Center reported 

in 2017 that 42% of women say they have experienced gender discrimination on the job (Parker 

& Funk, 2017). A meta-analysis of field studies on racial discrimination in hiring indicates that 

we have made little to no progress in reducing discrimination for Black and Latino individuals in 

the last 25 years (Quillian, Pager, Hexel, & Midtbøen, 2017). In fields such as STEM, minorities 

perceive many obstacles, including a lack of role models and discrimination in recruitment, 

hiring, and promotions (Funk & Parker, 2018). Women also face similar issues, especially in top 

leadership positions (Pew Research Center, 2015).  

 

Asian American women are one group that is particularly impacted by a lack of inclusion 

and diversity in leadership. As aforementioned, women are much less likely to reach leadership 

 

1 

 

positions. In 2018, less than 5% of Fortune 500 CEOs were women (Zarya, 2018). Additionally, 

while women in general are prevalent among middle manager ranks, they are encased by “glass 

walls”, preventing them from continuing up the ladder (Bolton, 2015). Such statistics do not 

bode well for Asian American women who may also be limited on the dimension of their 

race/ethnicity. 

For example, while Asian Americans are part of the fastest-growing minority group in the 

U.S., they are severely underrepresented in executive leadership in the U.S. despite high levels of 

education (including standardized test scores and higher education levels; Chin, 2013). In 

Harvard Business Review, Gee and Peck (2017) commented on how Asian Americans, while 

hired at large rates for tech jobs, fail to reach upper management in those same fields. Thus, it is 

possible that Asian American women may perceive stigmatization due to their gender, race, or 

both. 

 

In seeking to increase representation for members of stigmatized groups, such as Asian 

American women in leadership, companies may create identity safe environments (i.e., 

environments that welcome, support, and value an individual’s social identity; Davies, Spencer, 

& Steele, 2005). Research has found that organizational identity safety cues (i.e., aspects of the 

environment that signal an individual with a stigmatized identity will not be treated negatively 

for that identity; Purdie-Vaughns, Steele, Davies, Ditlmann, & Crosby, 2008) for one stigmatized 

group may signal an identity safe environment for other groups that hold a stigmatized identity 

(i.e., cue transfer, Chaney, Sanchez, & Remedios, 2016). Most studies on identity cues and cue 

transfer only focus on samples with single-stigmatized identities (e.g., White women, Black 

men). However, a double-stigmatized identity, such as Asian American women (i.e., they are 

stigmatized via their race and gender, in certain contexts), may be differentially affected by 

 

2 

 

identity safety cues. Some perspectives in intersectionality, the concept that social identities 

interact to create unique experiences (Warner, 2008), suggest that this may be the case. For 

example, the double jeopardy perspective contends that double- or multiple-stigmatized 

identities will experience compounded negative consequences of prejudice and discrimination 

(Beale, 1979). 

Research on intersectionality is lacking given a traditional emphasis on WEIRD 

(Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic; Henrich, Heine, & Norenzayan, 

2010), White, and male samples, as well as convenience samples of college students (Peterson, 

2001). This investigation highlights an underrepresented group (Asian American women) while 

demonstrating whether identity safety cues and cue transfer operate differently for a double-

stigmatized identity group (e.g., Asian American women) as compared to a single-stigmatized 

identity group (e.g., White women, Asian American men). By using a double-stigmatized 

identity this investigation serves as a replication and extension of prior work by Chaney and 

colleagues (2016; 2018). This study also provides an opportunity to compare two competing 

theories in intersectionality, the double-jeopardy perspective and the ethnic-prominence 

perspective (i.e., women of color will acknowledge racial discrimination over gender 

discrimination, Levin, Sinclair, Veniegas, & Taylor, 2002). Furthermore, authenticity, the ability 

to be one’s true self (Goldman & Kernis, 2002), is introduced as a competing mediator of cue 

transfer for double-stigmatized identities, whereas Chaney et al. (2016) position “perceived 

social dominance orientation” (perceived SDO) as the mediator of cue transfer. Therefore, this 

investigation seeks to add to the literatures on intersectionality, identity safety cues, and cue 

transfer. 

 

3 

 

First, the literature on social identity cues and intersectionality is reviewed, including two 

popular perspectives on intersectionality (double jeopardy and the ethnic prominence). 

Following this, the concept of identity safety cue transfer and how this concept relates to 

intersectionality and identities that are double-stigmatized (e.g., women of color) is described. 

Then, authenticity (specifically, situational authenticity) as a possible new mediator for cue-

outcome link is introduced. Lastly, prior to introducing hypotheses and methods, the review of 

the literature will expand upon why Asian American women constitute a double-stigmatized 

identity, thus making this identity a suitable context in which to study cue transfer. 

Social Identity Cues 

 

The root of research on social identity cues is found in the stereotype threat literature. 

Stereotype threat occurs when an individual’s group membership becomes salient, causing an 

individual to perceive that they can be judged based on a group stereotype, or that they might 

confirm a group stereotype (Steele, Spencer, & Aronson, 2002, p. 389). The concept was initially 

studied in the context of African American students performing poorly compared to their White 

counterparts on academic tests (Steele & Aronson, 1995) and has also been extended to women’s 

performance in male-dominated contexts, like STEM (Hoyt & Murphy, 2016). Given that social 

stigma theory points to stigma having negative effects on the target individual (Goffman, 1963), 

yet some research points to more nuanced effects (e.g., stigma acting as a buffer when self-

esteem is threatened; Crocker & Major, 1989), attention turned to situational aspects that might 

be driving suppressed test scores for African Americans and women. Since then scholars have 

continued to replicate stereotype threat (e.g., Autin, Branscombe, & Croizet, 2014) as well as to 

investigate different types of identity threat (i.e., social stigma) with consequences beyond 

testing (e.g., global self-esteem—Crocker & Major, 1989; social fit and comfort—Cundiff, 

 

4 

 

Ryuk, & Cech, 2018; health disparities in sexual minorities—Fingerhut & Abdou, 2007; 

learning—Larnell, Boston, & Bragelman, 2014), including physical outcomes (e.g., cortisol 

responses—Matheson & Cole, 2004; Townsend, Major, Gangi, & Mendes, 2011). At the same 

time, the effects of stereotype threat have been questioned. Sackett, Hardison, and Cullen (2004) 

caution against interpreting Steele and Aronson’s (1995) original findings (i.e., that differences 

in performance between White and Black students can be eliminated by reducing stereotype 

threat) as solely explained by stereotype threat. Nguyen and Ryan’s (2008) meta-analysis found a 

range of stereotype threat effect sizes across minorities and women, but their study was criticized 

by Zigerell (2017) after a reanalysis demonstrated that the results varied widely when accounting 

for publication bias. However, in response, Ryan and Nguyen (2017) noted the difference in 

methodologies used and the advancement of publication bias techniques since the original meta-

analysis may have resulted in the differences. Additionally, in a meta-analysis several years after 

Nguyen and Ryan (2008), researchers demonstrated the effects of gender stereotypes and bias in 

hiring decisions using more recent methods to examine publication bias as well as a number of 

contextual moderators (Koch, D’Mello, & Sackett, 2015).   

 

Social identity threat theory (Steele et al., 2002) contends that individuals will become 

vigilant in a setting where their identity is threatened (e.g., African American students taking an 

academic test will experience identity threat as a result of the stereotype that their group 

performs poorly in academics). Additionally, Steele et al. (2002) posited that attending to 

threatening cues will further heighten this vigilance, depending on the individual. Moreover, 

there is a tension within individuals; they may deny that bias is affecting them in a setting, yet 

also recognize social identity threats. This results in a psychological cost; they cannot fully 

engage in a situation and performance suffers (Steele et al., 2002).  

 

5 

 

 

Steele et al. (2002) suggested several remedies to stave off the negative effects of social 

identity threat. Their “contextual strategies” (p. 429) translate to the organizational level. One 

remedy it to explicitly note that a setting is unbiased. Organizations can also remedy social 

identity threat via representation of the stigmatized identity, as well as espousing an ideology 

that values differences (as opposed to a color-blind ideology where differences are ignored or a 

neutral ideology). Furthermore, identity threat can be combatted when individuals perceive that 

authorities (e.g., supervisors, management) are procedurally fair and that they can trust these 

authorities. 

 

Investigating remedies for social identity threat led to the possibility that one can create 

environments that are the opposite of identity threatening by using identity safety cues (e.g., 

greater representation of minority individuals) that signal the environment is identity safe. 

Settings that are identify safe “[assure] individuals that they are welcomed, supported, and 

valued whatever their background” (Davies et al., 2005, p. 278). Some studies on identify safety 

cues confirm what Steele et al. (2002) posited as remedies for identity threat. For example, 

Purdie-Vaughns et al. (2008) found that greater minority representation led to greater identity 

safety for Black participants. They have also found that framing a testing situation differently 

can suppress identity threat and increase identity safety in the form of test performance (Autin et 

al., 2014). Practicing self-affirmation also appears to buffer against identity threat effects on 

academic performance in Black students and female students (Cook, Purdie-Vaughns, Garcia, & 

Cohen, 2012; Shnabel, Purdie-Vaughns, Cook, Garcia, & Cohen, 2013). However, not all studies 

support the effect of these identity safety cues. Company diversity initiatives are especially 

controversial, as some studies show that they may function as identity-threatening cues (e.g., 

Cundiff et al., 2018) 

 

6 

 

Social identity threat has been extended to the concept of social identity contingencies, 

which are “judgments, stereotypes, opportunities, restrictions, and treatments that are tied to 

one’s social identity in a given setting,” (Purdie-Vaughns et al., 2008, p. 615). That is, cues in the 

setting can trigger expectations in the individual about the treatment the individual may face in a 

given setting (Purdie-Vaughns et al., 2008). Depending on whether cues trigger expectations of 

safety or threat, perceptions such as anticipated feelings of belonging and trust in the setting are 

increased or decreased, respectively (Purdie-Vaughns et al., 2008). For example, Murphy, Steele, 

and Gross (2007) demonstrated that low representation of one’s stigmatized group resulted in 

one feeling a lower sense of belonging and less desire to engage. 

At the same time, there is some evidence of stigmatized individuals’ resilience or coping 

in the face of identity threats. For example, though they did not explicitly study identity cues, 

Crocker, Voelkl, Testa, and Major (1991) placed participants in situations that would cue threat 

or the perception that the participant could be stigmatized. Participants then attributed their 

negative performance feedback to the stigmatized views of the person giving the feedback rather 

than to their own performance.  

 

Purdie-Vaughns and Walton (2011) state that identify safety theory “seeks to identify the 

unique identity-based concerns that each disadvantaged group contends with and tailors 

intervention toward addressing those concerns” (p. 162). They contend that theories of color 

blindness (i.e., the belief that race does not matter and one does not see color) and 

multiculturalism (i.e., social groups have different experiences and these differences should be 

valued) both fail to reduce identity threat. Color blindness ignores the disparate experiences of 

social groups, and multiculturalism highlights social categories such that stereotyping can be 

inadvertently strengthened (Purdie-Vaughns & Walton, 2011). In contrast, identity safety theory 

 

7 

 

highlights between-group and within-group differences, allowing for an acknowledgment of 

individual experiences (Purdie-Vaughns & Walton, 2011). Because this within-group variance 

can be identified, Purdie-Vaughns and Walton (2011) believe identity safety theory is a useful 

lens through which to examine multiply stigmatized identities (e.g., they specifically mention 

African American women and intersectional invisibility). Virtually all people can identify with 

several groups (e.g., Latinx, gay, middle-class, etc.) and many belong to more than one 

stigmatized group. However, in order to realize the potential of identity safety theory, researchers 

need to design studies that include a focus on intersecting identities.  

 

Intersectionality 

 

Intersectionality can be defined as the “idea that social identities such as race, class, and 

gender interact to form qualitatively different meanings and experiences” (Warner, 2008, p. 454).  

The term rose to prominence with Crenshaw’s (1989) widely cited Black feminist critique as 

well as her subsequent writings (e.g., Crenshaw, 1994/2005). Crenshaw (1989) pointed to the 

erasure of Black women in academia—the scholarly community only referred to gender in terms 

of White women, and race in terms of Black men. She argued for a multi-axis framework to 

describe the experiences of Black women, and that simply looking at sexism or racism is not 

enough. 

It is important to recognize that identities can be described in terms of power and status 

(Baca Zinn & Thornton Dill, 1996; Collins, 1990; Warner, 2008) and that each person has a 

multitude of identities that result in a mixture of privilege and disadvantage. Identity is not a 

simple division between the oppressed and the oppressors (Warner, 2008). Collins (1990) 

referred to this as the matrix of domination. Notably, there is some debate in the literature 

regarding whether intersectionality is the study of all intersecting identities (i.e., having multiple 

 

8 

 

identities that are disadvantaged and privileged) or whether intersectionality is chiefly the study 

of stigmatized intersecting identities (Warner & Shields, 2008). The current study does not seek 

to take a side in this debate, but it does focus on stigmatized intersecting identities. 

Studies on intersectional identities have great potential to enrich existing theory and 

phenomena. A sampling of studies are as follows: unique resiliency strategies in transgender 

youth of color (Singh, 2013); the relationship between disclosure and depression in lesbians of 

color (Aranda, Matthews, Hughes, Muramatsu, Wilsnack, Johnson, & Riley, 2015); Asian 

American women’s experience of racial and sexual harassment and psychological well-being 

(Buchanan, Settles, Wu, & Hayashino, 2018); and differences in consequences for enacting 

proscribed agentic behaviors in older men vs. older women (Martin, North, & Phillips, 2018). 

Each of these studies takes psychological constructs and phenomena that have already been 

established (e.g., resiliency, gender roles) for the general population or for single-stigmatized 

identities and applies them to social groups that contain more than one stigmatized identity. 

However, obtaining the samples needed for these types of studies often poses a challenge, 

especially due to the low base rate of some of these identities (e.g., transgender people with 

disabilities). Additionally, one can readily see that each group of double- or multiple-stigmatized 

identities lends a certain uniqueness to that group. This makes it difficult to generalize findings 

to other groups. 

Given the great difficulty associated with studying intersectionality, what is gained from 

studying it? Does intersectionality have an impact if it has mainly resulted in seemingly 

disjointed pockets of research on Black women, immigrant women, LGBT religious minorities, 

etc.? Purdie-Vaughns and Eibach (2008) introduced the concept of intersectional invisibility. 

They asserted that subgroups within master categories (e.g., women) who are more powerful 

 

9 

 

become the prototypes for their groups (e.g., White women). This renders subordinate subgroups 

(e.g., Black women, Asian women) effectively invisible. For example, a common stereotype is 

that women are too emotional, but this stereotype is predominantly attached to White women 

(Landrine, 1985). Less powerful subgroups of women are attached to stereotypes that appear to 

go against the broader stereotype that women are too emotional. Instead, Asian women are 

stereotyped as docile and quiet (Mukkamala & Suyemoto, 2018) and Black women are 

stereotyped as hostile (Landrine, 1985). Such nuances get lost when we focus on general group 

stereotypes that reflect the most powerful subgroup. 

Several perspectives have attempted to explain intersecting identities. In fact, many 

theories regarding how intersectionality operates conflict. Two popular theories that are often 

pitted against each other are the double jeopardy and ethnic prominence perspectives. The double 

jeopardy perspective suggests there is a compounded disadvantage for those who face multiple 

identity stigmatizations, such as women of color, resulting in greater experienced discrimination 

or expectations of discrimination as compared to each identity alone (e.g., Beale, 1979; King, 

2003; Klonoff, Landrine, & Scott, 1995; Landrine, Klonoff, Alcarz, Scott, & Wilkins, 1995). 

Conversely, the ethnic prominence perspective suggests that women of color will prioritize their 

race/ethnicity compared to their gender when anticipating discrimination (Levin et al., 2002). 

There is support for both hypotheses in the literature. For example, King (2003) linked negative 

emotions experienced by individuals with double-stigmatized identities (women of color) to 

perceiving ethnic prejudice and ethnic-gender prejudice combined, while perceiving gender-

related prejudice was not significantly related with negative emotions. In a survey study, Levin et 

al. (2002) found that men and women of color did not differ in their expectations of 

discrimination. On the other hand, women of color face greater penalties when encountering 

 

10 

 

gender bias at work as compared to White women (Berdahl & Moore, 2006; Williams, Phillips, 

& Hall, 2014).  

Scholars have also investigated how observers perceive individuals with multiple 

stigmatized identities. For example, Kulik, Roberson, and Perry (2007) introduce a framework 

using social categorization to understand which identities of a target take primary focus for an 

observer. They propose that through processes that affect category activation and inhibition, a 

single, dominant category emerges that observers use to guide their actions. In support of a 

double jeopardy perspective, Rosette and Livingston (2012) found that Black women leaders 

were rated more harshly as compared to their White and male counterparts in the context of a 

failing company. Derous, Ryan, and Nguyen (2012) also demonstrated double jeopardy for Arab 

women job applicants of high-status jobs. These women were rated less favorably by recruiters 

as compared to their White and male counterparts. Furthermore, Black women are more likely to 

go “unnoticed” and “unheard” as compared to their White women and male counterparts (Sesko 

& Biernat, 2009).  

 

Criticisms levied toward intersectionality research center around the field’s use of social 

categories. For one, intersectionality research has largely neglected to truly address the fluidity 

of identity (Warner & Shields, 2008). It has been demonstrated in some studies that sexuality 

(especially in women) and gender identity are not static (e.g., Diamond, 2003; Diamond & 

Butterworth, 2008); yet the broader research, much like popular culture, continues to treat LGBT 

individuals as if this is so.  Intersectionality research also often fails to acknowledge the social 

construction of social categories, which may contribute to strengthening stereotypes (Warner & 

Shields, 2008). This can be exacerbated when researchers are members of the majority group. 

For instance, the use of “Asian” as a category often lumps together all peoples from Eastern 

 

11 

 

regions and ignores the great cultural diversity in those areas. In fact, the very use of any social 

categories is a drawback in intersectionality research. In a way, the impetus of this area of 

research was to tear down categories (e.g., tearing down the category of “(White) women” so 

that women of color could be included), yet researchers still use categories (albeit more specific 

ones like African American women). Some scholars have called for looking at social identities as 

social structural processes to capture how context (institutional, political, and societal structures) 

affects identity (Warner, 2008). Alternatively, in response to the limitations posed by using 

demographic categories in clinical psychology, Leong, Park, and Kalibatseva (2013) focused on 

disentangling psychological protective and risk factors from immigrant status. Rather than using 

one’s designation as an immigrant to indicate mental health risks, they found that mental health 

risks in Asian and Latino immigrants in the U.S. differed based on variables such as 

bilingualism, ethnic identity, and family cohesion. 

 

Despite the challenges associated with studying intersectionality, the field has pointed to 

important differences in the experiences of individuals with intersected identities, such as 

discrepancies between White women and women of color, or the differences between racial 

minority immigrants versus their U.S.-born counterparts in Leong et al.’s (2013) study 

mentioned above. Another phenomenon where intersected identities may experience divergent 

consequences is identity safety cue transfer. 

Intersectionality and Identity Safety Cue Transfer 

 

A recent development in the organizational identity cue literature is organizational 

identity cue transfer (Chaney et al., 2016). Identity safety cues may transfer such that stigmatized 

individuals whose identities are not congruent with the presented safety cue will perceive 

identity safety via perceptions of the company’s endorsement of social hierarchy. According to 

 

12 

 

Purdie-Vaughns et al. (2008), this work focuses on the effect of identity cues on social identity 

contingencies (i.e., expectations about how one will be treated based on identity). For instance, 

Chaney et al. (2016) found evidence that White women perceived identity safety (i.e., greater 

feelings of acceptance, feelings that one could succeed in the organization, and procedural justice 

for women) when faced with cues for racial diversity. Furthermore, Black men perceived identity 

safety when faced with safety cues for gender. Replicating these results, Chaney and Sanchez 

(2018) demonstrated that gender neutral bathrooms (positioned as a cue for gender-

nonconforming folk) served as a cue for identity safety for White women, Blacks, and Latinos. 

Importantly, in both studies the authors hypothesized and found that White men were unaffected 

by safety cues. These studies investigate cue transfer for single-stigmatized identities (e.g., White 

women), but it is unclear whether these results would generalize to individuals with double-

stigmatized identities.  

 

Cue transfer as conceptualized by Chaney and colleagues suggests that this may be the 

case. Perceptions of the organization’s social dominance orientation (perceived SDO) were 

found to mediate identity safety cue-outcome relationships in these studies. Social Dominance 

Orientation is typically viewed as an individual difference and defined as “one’s degree of 

preference for inequality among social groups” (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994, p. 

741). Chaney and colleagues posit that an individual will make a judgment on the extent to 

which a company, at the organizational level, conforms to an SDO ideology. This perceived 

social hierarchy ideology of the organization then signals to all individuals with stigmatized 

identities the organization’s stance on relations between social groups. Perceived SDO can be 

distinguished from the seemingly similar construct of organizational diversity climate. Diversity 

climate refers to emergent, socially-shared perceptions between members of an organization that 

 

13 

 

form as they experience life in the organization (Zohar & Hofmann, 2012). Chaney et al. (2016) 

asked participants to imagine themselves as potential job applicants to an organization; thus, the 

focus is on outsider perceptions of the organization rather than the views of members of the 

organization. The current investigation also takes this perspective.  

Perceived SDO can also be distinguished from diversity ideologies. Usually, diversity 

ideologies refer to whether an organization endorses a multicultural (i.e., differences should be 

valued) or a color-blind (i.e., differences should not matter) ideology (Purdie-Vaughns & 

Walton, 2011). Perceived SDO signals an organization’s stance on egalitarian values and group 

equality. It is conceivable that an organization can espouse both color-blind and SDO ideologies 

(e.g., proclaiming that all individuals should be treated as the same regardless of differences as 

well as that everyone is equal). 

 

In contrast to this work on cue transfer, Pietri, Johnson, and Ozgumus (2018) found that 

African American women in STEM did not perceive identity safety when faced with only a 

gender safety cue (i.e., representation of a White woman scientist at a STEM company). Instead, 

African American women were more receptive to a racial cue in comparison (i.e., representation 

of a Black male scientist or a Black female scientist at a STEM company). African American 

women were only receptive to a White woman scientist safety cue when the White woman 

scientist espoused specific support for African American women (as opposed to support for 

general diversity or no mention of support). This relationship was moderated by participants’ 

scores on stigma consciousness (i.e., sensitivity to prejudice). Only those who scored low on 

stigma consciousness were receptive to the White woman scientist who supported African 

American women. These results run counter to cue transfer. According to cue transfer, African 

American women presented with a gender identity safety cue should have perceived identity 

 

14 

 

safety as a function of perceived SDO of the organization (i.e., a gender safety cue should have 

signaled to the participants that the organization is low on endorsing social hierarchy, and thus 

would be more accepting of African American women too).  

 

Perspectives on intersectionality theory may explain why cue transfer did not play out for 

the double-stigmatized identity in Pietri et al.’s (2018) study as it did for the single-stigmatized 

identities in the studies by Chaney et al. (2016; 2018). The ethnic prominence hypothesis 

explains why African American women participants preferred the African American male 

scientist as a cue compared to the White woman scientists—in this context their race was most 

salient, so they felt the greatest identity safety when their race was represented (Pietri et al., 

2018; Levin et al., 2002). At the same time, the double jeopardy hypothesis (Beale, 1979) was 

also supported in that African American woman participants were receptive to a White woman 

scientist only when the White woman espoused support for African American women 

specifically (as opposed to support for general diversity) and when the participant was low on 

stigma consciousness. Otherwise, only the presence of a Black woman scientist in the company 

led to identity safety. Because the participants were not receptive to general diversity cues from 

the White woman scientist, but rather, specific diversity cues, this implies that participants were 

perceiving their experience as unique; thus, they preferred acknowledgment of diversity on both 

race and gender dimensions, as the double jeopardy hypothesis posits. It may be that a key 

mediator is not present for double-stigmatized individuals when they are faced with an identity 

safety cue that only taps one dimension of stigmatization (i.e., only race or only gender). The 

following section elaborates on another possible mediator for cue-outcome relationships. 

 

 

 

15 

 

Authenticity as a Mediator of Cue-Outcome Relationships 

Authenticity has been defined as “the unobstructed operation of one’s true or core self in 

one’s daily enterprise” (Goldman & Kernis, 2002, p. 18). This involves individuals having an 

unbiased awareness of themselves, as well as the ability to express their true selves, especially in 

interpersonal interactions (Goldman & Kernis, 2002). Authenticity has been linked to positive 

individual outcomes such as increased psychological well-being, job satisfaction, work 

engagement, job performance, and optimal self-esteem (Kernis, 2003; Metin, Taris, Peeters, & 

van Beek, 2016; Wood, Linley, Maltby, Baliousis, & Joseph, 2008) among others, as well as 

thriving social environments (i.e., environments containing individuals who are self-aware and 

express their authentic selves) through authentic leadership (Avolio & Gardner, 2005).  

 

As originally conceptualized, authenticity can be thought of as a stable trait that varies 

from person to person (e.g., Wood et al., 2008). Individuals may have different needs when it 

comes to the ability to express oneself fully. Others have criticized this perspective stating that 

the environment has a crucial effect on experienced authenticity (e.g., people feel more authentic 

in certain roles, Sheldon, Ryan, Rawsthorne, & Ilardi, 1997; van den Bosch & Taris, 2014). 

Thus, the cultural context of a particular organization may constrain one’s ability to be authentic. 

Van den Bosch and Taris (2014) specifically propose that individuals will feel authentic at work 

if the work environment matches closely with the individual’s authentic self.  

 

Perceiving identity safety cues are thought to make individuals feel that they will be 

welcomed and valued in an environment (Davies et al., 2005). The current study asserts that 

triggering such feelings will lead an individual to anticipate that they can be authentic (i.e., be 

their true selves) in that environment, thus leading to more positive consequences (i.e., outcomes 

including greater anticipated feelings of belonging, person-organization fit, attraction to the 

 

16 

 

organization, and procedural justice perceptions). Moreover, perceiving a welcoming 

environment for women and minorities may also lead to greater perceived congruency between 

the organization and one’s authentic self, resulting in greater authenticity perceptions as well 

(van den Bosch & Taris, 2014).  

Chaney et al. (2018) position perceived SDO as a mediating mechanism in cue-outcome 

relationships. This paper further proposes perceptions of authenticity at work (i.e., an 

individual’s perceptions of his/her ability to be authentic in the work setting; situational 

authenticity) as a competing mediating pathway. Moreover, Pietri et al. (2018) hypothesized and 

found evidence for perceived similarity to a visual cue (for example, seeing a Black woman 

employee) acting as a mediating mechanism for outcome-cue relationships for Black women 

STEM job applicants. Perceived similarity likely added to the perception that participants felt 

they could be themselves since another person that looked similar to them was present in that 

STEM company. However, their effect is specific to a cue involving a specific individual. 

Authenticity at work as a mediator would generalize to other identity safety cues.   

Authenticity may appear to be conceptually similar to psychological safety. 

Psychological safety has been defined as “perceptions of consequences of taking interpersonal 

risks in a particular context such as a workplace” (Edmondson & Lei, 2014). Thus, it emphasizes 

the risks of uncertainty and change (Schein & Bennis, 1965). Because Edmondson (2002, 2003) 

showed that beliefs of interpersonal climate for psychological safety varied between groups 

despite strong shared organizational culture, Edmondson and Lei (2014) stated that 

psychological safety is best studied at the group-level. They assert that this is due, in part, to 

perceptions formed about a group’s supervisor. The current investigation positions participants 

 

17 

 

as individual job applicants who are not yet part of the organization rather than group members 

within an organization; hence, psychology safety is not a focus. 

Asian American Women Leaders as a Double Role Incongruity 

 

Asian American women are one identity amenable to testing the effectiveness of cue 

transfer for double-stigmatized identities. In the context of leadership, they present a double role 

incongruity. First, as women they are violating gender roles; women do not fit leader prototypes 

(Eagly & Karau, 2002). Second, Asian Americans are also stereotyped as lacking typical 

leadership characteristics (in Western contexts; Sy, Shore, Strauss, Shore, Tram, Whiteley, 

Ikeda-Muromachi, 2010). These effects can be explained by role congruity and implicit 

leadership theories. 

 

Role congruity. Social role theory (Eagly, 1987) posits that society ascribes norms to 

groups (i.e., roles) which guide the way group members are perceived (e.g., stereotypes) and 

expected to behave. Women are attributed communal characteristics such as warm, kind, 

nurturing, and helpful, while men are attributed agentic characteristics such as assertive, 

independent, ambitious, and confident (Eagly & Karau, 2002). Furthermore, individuals of Asian 

descent are considered by many in the West to have non-agentic traits such as being submissive 

(Sy et al., 2010). Leader roles are ascribed agentic characteristics, which match those applied to 

Western (White) men (Schein, 1975; Heilman, Block, Martell, & Simon, 1989). 

Social role theory was extended to role congruity theory (Eagly & Karau, 2002) to 

explain resulting prejudice and discrimination in the event that roles combine or clash (e.g., 

women leaders or Asian American leaders). Women are incongruent with leader norms because 

women are characterized as communal, and not agentic. Furthermore, when women are in 

leadership positions and decide to display agentic characteristics (i.e., characteristics of 

 

18 

 

successful managers), then they become incongruent with gender norms for women. Eagly and 

Karau (2002) posited and found evidence for prejudice against women for violating both gender 

and leader norms (Eagly & Karau, 2002). Not only were women less preferred for leadership 

positions, but they were evaluated less favorably (as compared to men) when they enacted 

typical leader behaviors (i.e., filled leadership roles). This reflects the “backlash” agentic female 

leaders face, which is motivated by a desire to defend the traditional gender hierarchy (Rudman, 

1998; Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Phelan, & Nauts, 2012). 

Similarly, Asian American leaders are viewed as an incongruity between racial and 

leader roles. Hyun’s (2005) Breaking the Bamboo Ceiling: Career Strategies for Asians refers to 

the racism, stereotypes, and biases that prevent Asian Americans from rising to top leadership 

positions as the “bamboo ceiling”. Asian Americans are prescribed non-agentic characteristics, 

such as being submissive, nonconfrontational, and anti-social, which clashes with typical 

leadership traits like assertiveness and extraversion (Burris, Ayman, Che, & Min, 2013; Sy et al., 

2010; Xin, 2004). Once reaching leadership positions, Asian Americans still face obstacles. 

Kawahara, Pal, and Chin (2013) interviewed Asian American leaders and found that navigating 

the stereotypes and perceptions of Asian Americans was a prominent part of their experience. 

Moreover, Gündemir, Carton, and Homan (2018) demonstrated a glass cliff effect, where Asian 

American leaders were more likely to be hired at failing companies. 

To be explicit, the focus of this research is on Asian American individuals, and 

specifically Asian American women. Thus, this study is primarily focused on ethnically Asian 

individuals in Western, White-dominated spaces. While there is research supporting the notion 

that women are subjected to gender-based stereotypes and other unfair norms and social 

practices around the world (e.g., United Nations, Accessed Oct 24, 2019), we would not expect 

 

19 

 

that Asian individuals would face a role incongruity between their race/ethnicity and leadership 

positions in areas where Asian race/ethnicity is the majority. Instead this incongruence between 

Asian identities and leadership/agentic traits is seen as related to Asian Americans’ “model 

minority” status (Xin, 2004). The model minority stereotype paints Asian Americans as hard 

workers, but also lacking leadership qualities because they are stereotyped as more communal 

(due to the collectivistic nature of Asian cultures in comparison to Western cultures). Again, 

communal characteristics are not stereotypically considered as leadership traits in the West.   

Implicit leadership theories. The leadership literature also supports the idea that often 

women and Asian Americans are rejected as leaders in the West. Individuals have impressions, 

or prototypes, of a typical leader, and the extent to which a possible leader matches these 

prototypes influences how likely that individual is to emerge as a leader (Lord, Foti, & Phillips, 

1982). Leader prototypes are affected by the frequency with which certain characteristics are 

found in current leaders. Gender and race are among these factors. Women leaders are heavily 

underrepresented in upper management. For example, in 2018 only 4.8% of Fortune 500 CEOs 

were women (Zarya, 2018). By the frequency standard, being male is prototypical of leaders. 

Regarding race, Whites tend to represent the majority of top leaders in U.S. organizations (Jones, 

2017); thus, being white may also be considered an aspect of a prototypical leader. Racial 

minorities in the U.S., such as Asian Americans, would be considered incongruent with a leader 

prototype based on frequency.  

Thus, Asian American women as leaders represent a double role incongruity which is 

reflected in the severe lack of Asian American women in executive leadership positions in the 

West. A recent study by the Ascend Foundation (Gee & Peck, 2017) found that Asian women 

were least likely to become executives as compared to other women of color. To situate this 

 

20 

 

further, Asian Americans as a whole represent only 5% of executives (Hansen, 2018). Being an 

Asian American woman in leadership can then be thought of as a double-stigmatized identity and 

we can examine how cue transfer operates for this identity.  

 

 

21 

 

 

HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT 

The goals of the current investigation were to (1) determine whether organizational 

identity cue transfer operates differently for single vs. double-stigmatized identities, (2) evaluate 

an alternative mediating mechanism for cue transfer (i.e., authenticity at work) and (3) 

investigate whether individuals possessing double-stigmatized identities will react differently to 

single vs. multiple identity safety cues. Study 1 consisted of two parts. In Study 1A, survey 

responses were gathered from Asian American women and Asian American men. In Study 1B, 

an almost identical survey was presented to Asian American women and White women. 

Participants were asked to imagine they are learning about a company in order to decide to what 

extent they would want to apply to a leadership position at that company. Figure 1 below shows 

a model of Study 1 hypotheses. In Study 2, a similar survey was used to gather responses from a 

sample of Asian American women while varying the type of identity safety cues presented. 

Figure 2 below shows a model of Study 2 hypotheses. 

Study 1 Hypotheses  

Identity safety cues (e.g., minority representation) are predicted to lead to positive 

perceptions about being welcomed, supported, and valued in individuals with stigmatized 

identities (Davies et al., 2005). Purdie Vaughns et al. (2018) showed that identity safe 

environments possess cues that trigger expectations of social identity contingencies that in turn 

lead stigmatized individuals to perceive trust and comfort. So, the extent to which an individual 

believes he or she belongs in a work environment should also indicate identity safety.  

Procedural justice refers to fairness in the processes an organization uses to arrive at 

outcomes such as hiring, firing, promoting, rewarding, etc. (Leventhal, Karuza, & Fry, 1980). In 

an identity safe environment, we would expect women and minority group members to perceive 

 

22 

 

that they and their fellow group members will be treated fairly at an organization (i.e., high 

procedural justice levels) as that would signal that they believe the organization values them.  

We may also view person-organization fit as a part of an identity safe environment. 

Person-organization fit (P-O fit) refers to the extent to which an individual perceives that the 

organization aligns with one’s goals and values (Cable & Judge, 1996). These perceptions affect 

job choice decisions (as in the Attraction-Selection-Attrition model; Schneider, 1987) and work 

attitudes (e.g., organizational commitment, likelihood to recommend the organization to others) 

once an employee enters into an organization (Cable & Judge, 1996).  

Likewise, a similar, but distinct concept is attraction to the organization (Highhouse, 

Lievens, & Sinar, 2003), which refers to not just attitudes one has toward the organization but 

also intentions one has towards joining that organization (i.e., accepting a job there). It follows 

that individuals will be more attracted to organizations where they feel that they will be valued 

and welcomed. Thus, it was hypothesized that 

Hypothesis 1. Identity safety cues are positively related to identity safety outcomes (i.e., 

greater anticipated feelings of belonging, greater perceptions of procedural justice, 

greater perceptions of anticipated P-O fit, and greater perceptions of attraction to the 

organization). 

 

Other outcomes of identity safety cues are thought to be more proximal. According to the 

cue transfer phenomenon (Chaney et al., 2016), identity safety cues are related to perceived 

social dominance orientation (SDO) perceptions. Perceived SDO refers to others’ perceptions of 

the extent to which an organization values the social hierarchy of groups (Chaney et al., 2016). 

Organizations that score low on perceived SDO would be thought of as supporting equal 

treatment of groups. The presence of identity safety cues should be associated with lower SDO 

 

23 

 

perceptions, as demonstrated by Chaney et al. (2016), because they signal that an individual will 

be welcomed and treated equally despite stigmatized group membership. 

Hypothesis 2. Identity safety cues will be negatively related to perceived SDO. 

 

This paper proposes that the presence of identity safety cues also signals an environment 

where one has the ability to be aware of and express one’s true self. Thus, identity safety cues 

should be associated with greater (anticipated) perceptions of authenticity at work. 

Hypothesis 3. Identity safety cues will be positively related to perceptions of authenticity 
at work. 
 
Prior studies on identity safety cues have mostly focused on single-stigmatized identities 

(e.g., White women or Black men). However, according to intersectionality research, the double 

jeopardy hypothesis would posit that an individual with a double-stigmatized identity might 

anticipate greater discrimination on account of compounded negative effects for each identity. 

Greater perceptions of perceived SDO (i.e., endorsement of social inequality) and fewer 

perceptions of authenticity at work (i.e., the ability to be and express one’s true self) would be 

associated with greater discrimination for disadvantaged groups. Thus, it seems likely that 

individuals with double-stigmatized identities would perceive higher levels of perceived SDO 

and lower levels of authenticity at work compared to single-stigmatized identities at an 

organization. Conversely, considering the ethnic prominence hypothesis leads us to infer that 

certain identity safety cues may lead double-stigmatized individuals to register levels of 

perceived SDO and authenticity at work similar to single-stigmatized individuals (e.g., a racial 

identity safety cue would signal reduced discrimination for Black women, but a gender cue may 

not since Black women do not prioritize gender discrimination, according to the ethnic 

prominence hypothesis). However, the literature also demonstrates negative consequences when 

observers perceive a double jeopardy effect (Derous et al., 2012; Rosette & Livingston, 2012), so 

 

24 

 

we might expect that double-stigmatized individuals would be more likely to take a double 

jeopardy perspective when anticipating discrimination. Thus, it was hypothesized that an 

individual’s status as a single-stigmatized or double-stigmatized identity will interact with the 

relationships between identity safety cues and perceived SDO and authenticity at work.  

Hypothesis 4a. Stigmatized status (single vs. double) will moderate the relationship 

between identity safety cues and perceived SDO such that the presence (vs. the absence) 

of an identity safety cue will be associated with a weaker negative relationship for 

double-stigmatized identities. 

Hypothesis 4b. Stigmatized status (single vs. double) will moderate the relationship 

between identity safety cues and authenticity at work such that the presence (vs. the 

absence) of an identity safety cue will be associated with a weaker positive relationship 

for double-stigmatized identities.  

Chaney et al. (2016) hypothesized and found evidence for perceived SDO of the 

organization (i.e., perceptions of the extent to which the organization values social hierarchy of 

groups) mediating cue-outcome relationships. This perception of the organization is thought to 

lead to generalized prejudice perceptions (Duckitt & Sibley, 2007), thus translating to the belief 

that if an organization is not prejudiced against one stigmatized group, then it may be more 

accepting of other groups (Chaney et al., 2016).  

However, it is unknown whether perceived SDO would also mediate these relationships 

for double-stigmatized identities. This mechanism is not fully compatible for double jeopardy 

and ethnic prominence approaches as both imply that this would not happen in certain situations 

for double-stigmatized individuals. The double jeopardy perspective (Beale, 1979) would predict 

that cue transfer would not occur because individuals facing multiple stigmatizations would 

 

25 

 

anticipate being uniquely impacted by prejudice and discrimination. Therefore, the generalized 

prejudice perceptions of the organization that are thought to apply to other groups would not 

necessarily generalize to a double-stigmatized individual. The ethnic prominence perspective 

(Levin et al., 2002) would predict that cue transfer may occur, but only under certain 

circumstances (i.e., for women of color, cue transfer would occur if the cue was race-based, but 

it would not occur if the cue were gender-based). At the same time, it seems likely that 

perceptions of the extent to which an organization supports an SDO ideology may influence how 

individuals react to cues regardless of their stigmatized status (single vs. double). Therefore, it 

was hypothesized that:  

Hypothesis 5. Perceived SDO of the organization will mediate the cue-outcome 

relationships for single-stigmatized identities. 

And, a research question was posed: 

Research Question 1. Will perceived SDO mediate the cue-outcome relationships for 

double-stigmatized identities? 

 

In the current investigation, a competing mediator of cue-outcome relationships was 

introduced: perceptions of authenticity at work. Perceiving identity safety cues may lead 

individuals who possess stigmatized identities to believe that they will be able to express their 

true selves at the workplace if they were to join the organization. Because authenticity at work 

would be an explicit perception of the individual, rather than a generalized perception like 

perceived SDO, it is expected that mediation will occur for both single- and double-stigmatized 

identities.  

 

26 

 

Hypothesis 6. Perceptions of authenticity at work will mediate the cue-outcome 

relationships for all identities studied (i.e., Asian American women, Asian American 

men, and White women). 

Differences between individuals who are similarly stigmatized are likely to manifest in 

differences in how those individuals react to identity safety cues. Specifically, there is variance 

in individuals’ levels of stigma consciousness, or how sensitive one is to possible stereotyping or 

exposure to stigma (Mendoza-Denton, Downey, Purdie-Vaughns, Davis, & Pietrzak, 2002; Pinel, 

1999). An individual’s level of stigma consciousness (high vs. low) may affect the relationships 

between identity safety cues and perceived SDO and authenticity at work. Those who score 

highly on stigma consciousness may be less likely to register lower perceptions of SDO when 

presented with an identity safety cue. Additionally, because they are hyper-vigilant of potential 

effects of stigma, these individuals may also feel that they cannot be themselves at the 

organization (i.e., lower authenticity at work) even when presented with an identity safety cue. It 

was hypothesized that: 

Hypothesis 7a. Stigma consciousness will moderate the relationship between identity 

safety cues and perceived SDO such that the presence (vs. the absence) of an identity 

safety cue will result in a weaker negative relationship for those high on stigma 

consciousness. 

Hypothesis 7b. Stigma consciousness will moderate the relationship between identity 

safety cues and authenticity at work such that the presence (vs. the absence) of an identity 

safety cue will result in a weaker positive relationship for those high on stigma 

consciousness. 

 

 

27 

 

Study 2 Hypotheses 

The second study investigated whether individuals possessing double-stigmatized 

identities react differently to cues that tap more than one type of stigma at a time (e.g., racial and 

gender, rather than just racial or gender stigma)1. This second study employed a sample of Asian 

American women.  

While the following factors could have been encompassed in Study 1 (i.e., this 

investigation could have consisted of only one, fully-crossed study), these factors and the 

questions asked are only pertinent to the identity group that is double-stigmatized (i.e., Asian 

American women). Asking White women participants to respond to multiple identity safety cues 

that tap gender and race would not be helpful because their race is not a stigmatized identity (in 

the West). Similarly, for Asian American men, their gender is not a stigmatized identity. For 

example, Chaney et al. (2016) found that White men did not perceive any differences in identity 

safety outcomes when presented with gender and racial identity safety cues versus cues 

irrelevant to social identities. They suggested that this was because White men are not 

stigmatized on these dimensions and therefore do not perceive personal benefits from these cues. 

In fact, Dover, Major, and Kaiser (2016) reported that identity safety cues (i.e., pro-diversity 

statements) triggered threat towards White individuals rather than safety. Thus, it seems most 

useful to conduct this experiment with a sample of Asian American women.  

Hypothesis 1 in Study 1 stated that identity safety cues would be positively related to 

identity safety outcomes. Study 2 extends this second hypothesis by examining additional types 

of cues beyond just racial or just gender identity safety cues. Study 2 did not include a control 

(no cue) condition. 

 

28 

 

In light of the double jeopardy hypothesis (Beale, 1979), and the supporting double 

jeopardy perspective of observers (e.g., Rosette & Livingston, 2012), it follows that the 

perception of identity safety cues that match each of the multiple identities of multiply 

stigmatized individuals will have a greater positive effect on cue-outcome relationships as 

compared to identity safety cues that only match a single dimension of stigmatization. So, 

identity safety cues that only tap race or gender should result in less advantageous outcomes than 

identity safety cues that tap both race and gender stigmatizations.  

Hypothesis 8a. Cue conditions that tap both dimensions of stigmatization (race and 

gender) will result in lower levels of perceived SDO compared to cue conditions that tap 

only one dimension. 

Hypothesis 8b. Cue conditions that tap both dimensions of stigmatization (race and 

gender) will result in higher levels of authenticity at work compared to cue conditions 

that tap only one dimension. 

Identity safety cues that tap both race and gender could take the form of a double cue, 

where both a racial cue and a gender cue are presented separately (e.g., one company award for 

racial diversity and one for gender diversity), or they could take the form of an intersected cue, 

where the racial and gender cues are presented together (e.g., company awards that are 

specifically for Asian American women). In line with the double jeopardy hypothesis (Beale, 

1979), the intersected cue would result in more positive cue outcomes because it acknowledges 

Asian American women’s experiences explicitly. 

Hypothesis 9a. An intersected cue will result in lower levels of perceived SDO compared 

to a double cue (i.e., two separate cues for race and gender identities). 

 

29 

 

 

Hypothesis 9b. An intersected cue will result in higher levels of authenticity at work 

compared to a double cue (i.e., two separate cues for race and gender identities). 

It was expected that individual differences on stigma consciousness would affect 

relationships between identity safety cue conditions and perceived SDO and authenticity at work 

such that individuals high on stigma consciousness would experience the most advantageous 

outcomes in the intersected cue condition. This follows from the double jeopardy hypothesis and 

Pietri et al.’s (2018) study. It was also expected that individuals high on stigma consciousness 

would report outcomes that are less advantageous compared to individuals low on stigma 

consciousness in all other cue conditions. Individuals who are high on stigma consciousness are 

more aware of the potential of stereotyping ant stigmatization (Pinel, 1999). This may lead them 

to be less trusting of identity safety cues that do not explicitly apply to their multiple stigmatized 

identities.  

Hypothesis 10a. Stigma consciousness will interact with identity safety cues such that 

individuals high on stigma consciousness will register lower perceived SDO scores in the 

intersected cue condition while registering higher perceived SDO scores in all other 

conditions compared to individuals low on stigma consciousness. 

Hypothesis 10b. Stigma consciousness will interact with identity safety cues such that 

individuals high on stigma consciousness will register higher authenticity at work scores 

in the intersected cue condition while registering lower anticipated authenticity scores in 

all other conditions compared to individuals low on stigma consciousness 

 

 

 

30 

 

PILOT STUDIES 

Prior to collecting data for the planned studies, each survey was pilot tested using 

Michigan State University’s HPR SONA student participant pool. The purpose of the pilot 

testing was to detect any problems with the structure of the survey, to determine the readability 

of the survey instructions, and to determine whether most respondents were able to recall the 

study manipulation (i.e., what type of business is the company?; which award(s) does the 

company hold?). In the consent form, student participants were informed that they would receive 

0.5 credit hours for the 15-30 minutes they spent responding to the survey. 

In the pilot survey for Study 1A, 10 complete responses from Asian American men were 

gathered (Mage = 19.40, SD = .84). Initial open-ended responses to the company descriptions 

indicated that participants understood the information being presented (e.g., “As an organization 

that has multiple awards, my initial thought process about applying for the marketing position 

would be fear of being under qualified for the position….”). All participants correctly identified 

the type of business the company was. Four out of five participants in the racial identity safety 

cue condition correctly recalled the award the company held. An error in survey construction 

was uncovered in the no cue condition, so the manipulation check was not correctly recorded for 

these participants. 

In the pilot survey for Study 1B, 10 complete responses from White women were 

recorded (Mage = 20.00, SD = 1.49). Again, the open-ended responses indicated an understanding 

of the company information and all participants correctly recalled the industry of the company. 

Three out of five participants in the gender identity safety cue condition correctly recalled the 

award, and an error in survey construction prevented conclusions about the no cue condition 

manipulation check.  

 

31 

 

For the pilot survey of Study 2, eleven complete responses from Asian American women 

were recorded (Mage = 19.73, SD = 1.27). The open-ended response item indicated an 

understanding of the directions and all participants correctly identified the company’s industry. 

Eight of the eleven participants correctly recalled the award they were shown.  

In all pilot surveys, the multiple-choice item for the cue manipulation check included 3 

unique options as well as a fourth option, “Options A and B”. As a result of the pilot outcomes, it 

was decided that the manipulation check for cue condition would be simplified to two choices in 

each survey. 

 

 

 

32 

 

STUDY 1 METHOD 

The first study was comprised of two parts. In Study 1A, a 2 (Asian American women vs. 

Asian American men) x 2 (racial identity safety cue vs. no cue) between-subjects factorial 

experimental design investigated how participants reacted to a company that has received racial 

diversity awards (i.e., racial identity safety cue) versus not being presented with this information. 

Participants were also told to imagine that they were applying to a leadership position at this 

company.  

Similarly, in Study 1B, a 2 (Asian American women vs. White women) x 2 (gender 

identity safety cue vs. no cue) between-subjects factorial experimental design was used to 

investigate how participants react to knowing that a company has received a gender diversity 

award (i.e., gender identity safety cue) versus being given no information about this, in light of 

the fact that they were imagining applying to a leadership position at that company.  

A power analysis using G*Power version 3.1 software (Faul, Erdfeller, Lang, & Buchner, 

2007) indicated that 128 participants would be needed for Study 1A and 1B each (given 80% 

power for a medium effect size at .05 statistical significance).  

Chaney et al. (2016) also used diversity awards to represent identity safety cues, citing 

Dove, Major, and Kaiser (2014) who showed that diversity awards led to greater perceptions of 

the organization’s respectful and fair treatment of minorities. Their study also showed this effect 

for minority participants. In addition, corporate awards in general are accolades that many 

companies strive for and proudly display in a bid to increase recognition and credibility. It has 

been shown that companies with such awards generate greater stock values (Hendricks & 

Singhal, 2001), which supports the idea that awards are important mechanisms by which 

companies can signal their values to outsiders. In the current studies, diversity awards are also an 

 

33 

 

aspect that organizational outsiders (i.e., job applicants) would feasibly have information about 

through a company’s website or other recruiting materials. While this information is limited, it is 

presumably what many real-life job applicants would use to make judgments as outsiders of the 

organization.  

Participants 

Besides meeting racial and gender requirements (i.e., Asian American women, Asian 

American men, White women), participants were required to be 18 years or older, have resided 

in the U.S. 10 years or more, and be at least moderately proficient in the English language. 

Participant data was collected via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk) for Studies 1A and 1B. 

Samples of MTurk workers have been demonstrated to have comparable, or greater, quality in 

terms of diversity, reliability, and attention to instructions as compared to more traditional data 

samples (e.g., U.S. college students; Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011; Paolacci, Chandler, 

& Ipeirotis, 2010). Additionally, prescreening questions (See Appendix A), attention checks, and 

manipulation checks were used to better guarantee a sample that was generalizable to the 

appropriate groups, that properly understood the task, and that was engaged with the task. MTurk 

workers received $1.25 USD each for their participation in this online survey. The survey was 

estimated to take 15 minutes to complete, resulting in an hourly wage rate of $5.00 USD. 

Study 1A. After attention and manipulation checks were used to filter the data, the 

sample analyzed for Study 1A was N = 81 participants (60.5% male). This final dataset was 44% 

of the original sample collected. Participants were required to identify as male or female to 

qualify for the survey. All participants identified as Asian American as this was also a 

requirement (though they could identify as multiple races at the end of the survey). As such, 42% 

identified as Far East Asian, 13.6% as North Asian, 46.9% as Southeast Asian, 1.2% as Asian - 

 

34 

 

Indian subcontinent, and 4.9% as African American, Hispanic or Latino/a, or White. A majority 

(65.4%) were native-born U.S. citizens, 16% were immigrants or naturalized citizens, and 18.5% 

were green card holders or long-term residents of the U.S. for 10 years or more. All participants 

reported that English was their native language (77.8%) or that they were highly proficient in 

English (22.2%). The mean age of the sample was 30.72 (SD = 6.47) years. Most (86.4%) 

identified as heterosexual/straight. Lastly, 80.2% of participants answered that they are full-time 

employees, 17.3% as part-time employees, and 2.5% as unemployed. 

 

Study 1B. For Study 1B, the total sample analyzed after manipulation and attention 

checks were used to filter the data was N = 246 participants (63% of the original sample). 

Participants were required to indicate their gender as female to be eligible for the survey. Most 

(81.3%) participants identified as primarily White, while 19.5% identified as Asian American. 

Participants were able to check multiple racial/ethnic identities at the end of the survey. Of 

participants who identified primarily as White, 3% indicated another race (African American, 

Far East Asian, North Asian, Asian – Indian subcontinent, Native American/American 

Indian/Alaskan Native, Middle Eastern – Middle East, or Middle Eastern – North Africa). Of 

participants who identified primarily as Asian, 52.2% were Far East Asian, 13% North Asian, 

34.8% Southeast Asian, 4.3% Asian – Indian subcontinent, and 4.4% White or African 

American. Most White female participants (97%) were native-born U.S. citizens and indicated 

English as their native language (98%). Of Asian American women participants, 52.1% were 

native-born U.S. citizens, 29.2% were immigrants or naturalized citizens, and 18.8% were green 

card holders or long-term U.S. residents of 10 years or more. Nearly all Asian American women 

participants indicated that English was their native language (68.8%) or that they were highly 

proficient in English (29.2%). Mean age in the total sample was 37.39 (SD = 11.67) years. Most 

 

35 

 

(84.4%) participants in the total sample indicated they were heterosexual/straight. Lastly, most 

participants in the total sample were also full-time employees (68.7%; part-time = 18.3%, 

unemployed = 12.6%). 

Procedure 

 

Both Study 1A and 1B followed the same procedure, only the participant sample and the 

content of the identity safety cue changed. After passing prescreening questions (see Appendix 

A), participants read an informed consent page and were told their continued participation was 

consent to participate (see Appendix B for the informed consent page). Then, participants were 

asked to read about a company to determine whether they would want to apply to a leadership 

position there (i.e., Director of Marketing; See Appendix C). They were presented with 

background information on this company (e.g., it is part of the marketing sector) as well as 

awards the company has accrued (See Appendices D and E). Some of these awards were 

irrelevant to the focus social groups (e.g., Best Customer Service Award) while others were 

manipulations. Participants in Study 1A were randomly assigned to the racial identity safety cue 

condition or the no safety cue condition. In the racial identity safety cue condition, participants 

saw that the company was awarded a racial diversity award (e.g., “One of America’s Top 

Companies for Asian American Executives” by the National Association for Asian American 

Executives; modeled after Chaney et al., 2016). In the no safety cue condition, participants only 

saw awards that were irrelevant to social groups. Similarly, participants in Study 1B were 

randomly assigned to the gender identity safety cue condition or the no safety cue condition. In 

the gender identity safety cue condition, participants were informed that the company was 

awarded a gender diversity award (e.g., “One of America’s Top Companies for Executive 

Women” by the National Association for Female Executives—used in Chaney et al., 2016 and 

 

36 

 

Kaiser, Major, Jurcevic, Dover, Brady, & Shapiro, 2013). Those in the no safety cue condition 

viewed company awards that were not associated with a social identity. After seeing the 

company awards, participants were presented with a job description for Director of Marketing 

(developed using Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2018a; Workable.com, n.d.; See Appendix F). They 

were then asked to answer a series of measures pertaining to their anticipated feelings of 

belonging, the procedural fairness of the company, perceptions of anticipated P-O fit, to what 

extent the company is perceived as promoting social hierarchy (perceived SDO), their 

anticipated authenticity at work if they were to join the company, and manipulation and attention 

checks (See Appendix G for measures and items). Finally, participants were presented with a 

debriefing form, informing them of the purpose of the study and counseling resources (See 

Appendix H). 

Measures 

 

Study 1A and 1B employed the same measures, though manipulation checks were 

tailored to specific cue conditions (i.e., racial vs. gender). Please see the appendices at the end 

for full scales (Appendix G).   

 

Cue condition. In Study 1A, participants were either presented with a racial identity 

safety cue or no identity safety cue. Likewise, in Study 1B, participants were either presented 

with a gender identity safety cue or no identity safety cue. In MANOVA analyses, cue condition 

was dummy coded (1 = cue present, 0 = no cue). In regression analyses, cue condition was effect 

coded (1 = cue present, -1 = no cue present). 

 

Stigmatized status. Stigmatized status was determined via the participants’ 

demographics. Individuals who primarily identified as Asian American males or White females 

were considered single-stigmatized identities, as either their race or gender are considered 

 

37 

 

stigmatized in Western society, but not both. Individuals who identified as Asian American 

females were considered double-stigmatized identities, as both their race and gender are 

stigmatized in the U.S. Stigmatized status was dummy coded for MANOVA analyses (i.e., in 1 = 

double-stigmatized, 0 = single-stigmatized). For regression analyses, double-stigmatized 

identities were coded as 1 and single-stigmatized identities were coded as -1, as part of an effect 

coding scheme. 

Anticipated feelings of belonging. The extent to which participants anticipated feeling 

like they would belong at the organization was measured using an adapted version of the 9-item 

social and academic fit scale by Cook et al. (2012; originally developed for school children and 

reflects social belonging and potential success). Their scale used a 6-point Likert scale (1 = 

strongly disagree, 6 = strongly agree) with no mid-point. In the current study participants only 

completed the 5-item social fit dimension of this scale (αStudy1A = .77, αStudy1B = .90). A sample 

item from Cook et al. (2012) is “People in my school accept me.” The wording was adapted to 

refer to a workplace context. 

 

Procedural justice. The extent to which participants perceived that the organization 

would be procedurally fair was measured using the procedural justice scale developed by 

Colquitt, Long, Rodell, and Halvorsen-Ganepola (2015) which distinguishes between justice 

(fairness) and injustice (violation of fairness).  The assessment consists of 14 items and uses a 5-

point Likert scale ranging from 1 (To a very small extent) to 5 (To a very large extent). A couple 

of sample items that demonstrate the justice/injustice dimensions are, “Are you able to express 

your views during those procedures?” versus “Do your views go unheard during those 

procedures? (reverse coded)” The wording of these items was adapted to reflect the fact that 

participants were asked for anticipated procedural fairness perceptions as they were potentially 

 

38 

 

applying to work at this company in the scenario. After reverse scoring the injustice items, the 

reliabilities were acceptable, αStudy1A = .84, αStudy1B = .90.  

 

Person-organization fit. The extent to which participants perceived that their personal 

attributes and values were congruent with those of the organization was assessed using a 3-item 

measure by Cable and Judge (1996; αStudy1A = .84, αStudy1B = .96) on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = 

not at all, 5 = completely). A sample item is “To what degree do you feel your values ‘match’ or 

fit this organization and the current employees in this organization?” 

Attraction to the Organization. The extent to which an individual was generally 

attracted to, has intentions to pursue a job with, and believes in the prestige of the organization 

was assessed with a 15-item measure for organizational attractiveness from Highhouse et al. 

(2003) on 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Sample items from the 

three dimensions (attraction, intention to pursue, and prestige) include “For me, this company 

would be a great place to work,” “I would accept a job offer from this company,” and 

“Employees are proud to say they work at this company.” The reliability for the entire measure 

was calculated as one dimension resulting in relatively high internal consistency, αStudy1A = .93, 

αStudy1B = .95. 

 

Perceived social dominance orientation (SDO). The extent to which participants 

perceived that the organization promotes social hierarchy (i.e., unequal groups) was measured 

using the 16-item Social Dominance Orientation scale by Pratto et al. (1994; αStudy1A = .93, 

αStudy1B = .96). A sample item is “Inferior groups should stay in their place.” Participants were 

asked to answer these questions from the vantage point of a current manager at the company. 

Thus, the response scale was 1 (A manager would strongly oppose) through 7 (A manager would 

strongly favor). This is similar to the method used in Chaney et al. (2016). 

 

39 

 

 

Authenticity at work (situational authenticity). The extent to which participants 

anticipated the ability to be their true selves at work in the organization was measured using van 

den Bosch and Taris’ (2014) 12-item Individual Authenticity Measure at Work (αStudy1A = .85, 

αStudy1B = .88) where a 7-point Likert scale (1 = does not describe me at all, 7 = describes me 

very well) was used. A sample item is “I am true to myself at work in most situations.” These 

items and the response scale were adapted to reflect the fact that participants were asked to 

imagine themselves potentially working at this company. 

 

Stigma consciousness for gender and race. The extent to which participants are 

sensitive to possible prejudice or discrimination based on their identity (gender, race, or gender-

race combined) was measured similarly to the study by Pietri et al. (2018). Pietri et al. (2018) 

took five items from Pinel (1999) and adapted them to fit the identity being emphasized (i.e., 

woman/Black individual/Black woman). A sample item used was “Stereotypes about women 

[Black people] [Black women] have not affected me personally” (reverse coded). In this study, 

these measures were replicated using pertinent identities (Asian American, woman). Participants 

were asked to answer one of the 5-item measures on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly 

disagree, 5 = strongly agree). In Study 1A, participants received a stigma consciousness measure 

for race/ethnicity (specifically Asian American identity; αStudy1A = .72). In Study 1B, participants 

received a stigma consciousness measure for gender (women; αStudy1B = .83). Stigma 

consciousness was measured after all other key variables.  

 

Manipulation and attention checks. Participants completed several items to indicate 

whether they realized which cues were presented to them. They were asked random response 

questions (e.g., Choose ‘strongly agree’) amongst scale items to ensure they were reading 

carefully. Participants who failed to correctly answer manipulation and attention checks were 

 

40 

 

excluded from analyses. Participants were also excluded if answers to an open-ended question 

(“…please describe your initial thoughts about the organization and the job position”) appeared 

to be nonsensical. 

 

Demographics. Participants were initially screened for race, gender, age (18+ years), 

length of residency in the U.S., and proficiency in English language in order to qualify for the 

study. At the end of the survey, participants were asked for their exact age, gender identity, 

sexual orientation, race/ethnicity (check all that apply), and employment status. 

Other Measures 

 

The following measures were added as variables for exploratory analyses after 

hypotheses were formulated. 

 

Trait authenticity (dispositional authenticity). Authenticity can also be conceptualized 

as a personal disposition or trait. One’s authenticity as an individual difference was measured 

using Wood et al.’s (2008) 12-item dispositional authenticity scale (αStudy1A = .87, αStudy1B = .89,) 

with a 7-point Likert scale (1 = does not describe me at all, 7 = describes me very well). A 

sample item is “I live in accordance with my values and beliefs.” 

 

Acculturation. Acculturation refers to the extent to which an individual adopts another 

culture, often the host-culture. The acculturation measure by Chung, Kim, and Abreu (2004) is a 

three-dimensional measure focusing on acculturation toward the culture of (1) one’s country of 

origin, (2) Asian American culture broadly, and (3) European-American culture. Chung et al. 

(2004) claim that unidimensional scales treat acculturation as a “zero-sum process” where 

adopting parts of another culture implies discarding parts of one’s original culture. Including a 

dimension of acculturation toward one’s country of origin allows for representation of 

biculturation wherein individuals can hold aspects of both cultures at once. Chung et al. (2004) 

 

41 

 

also include a third dimension (i.e., pan-Asian American culture) to reflect the existence of pan-

ethnic culture (in the U.S.) emerging from categorization by the majority group (i.e., the majority 

group treating all Asian American cultures as a monolith). The current study used the original 6-

point scale, 1 = not very much to 6 = very much. The original measure used 15 items, but the 

current study used a relevant subset of 10 of these items. A sample item is “How much do you 

actually practice the traditions and keep the holidays of the following groups? [Your culture of 

origin, Other Asian Americans, European Americans]. For acculturation toward one’s country of 

origin the reliabilities were acceptable, αStudy1A = .85, αStudy1B = .78. For acculturation toward 

Asian Americans broadly the reliabilities were also within standards, αStudy1A = .81, αStudy1B = .84. 

For acculturation towards European Americans the reliabilities were αStudy1A = .79, αStudy1B = .84. 

In Study 1B, White women participants did not fill out the acculturation measures. 

Perceived workplace flexibility. This variable was intended to measure a construct that 

would be unrelated to cue condition (i.e., the predictor) in this study in order to establish 

discriminant validity. This 2-item measure was originally used by Jones, Scoville, Hill, Childs, 

Leishman, and Nally (2008) with a 4-point scale, 1 = none to 4 = a large degree of control. A 

slightly adapted sample item is “If you were to work at Smith & Johnson, how much control do 

you think you would have over…WHEN you would be able to work.” The reliabilities were as 

follows: αStudy1A = .77, αStudy1B = .75. 

 

 

 

42 

 

Study 1A Results 

STUDY 1 RESULTS 

Means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations of variables are displayed in Table 

1. Notably, the identity safety outcome variables (feelings of belonging, procedural justice, P-O 

fit, and attraction to organization) were highly intercorrelated (.41 to .77). An exploratory factor 

analysis using principal axis factoring was conducted with items from all four outcome variable 

measures. Based on eigenvalues greater than 1.0, eight factors were extracted accounting for 

75% of the variance. The first 4 factors accounted for 60% of the variance explained. 

Additionally, when examining the factor loadings, a majority of the 37 items loaded onto the first 

4 factors strongly, while the latter 4 factors only had zero to 2 items primarily loading onto each 

of them, in no discernable pattern. Moreover, the sample size for Study 1B (N = 246) was much 

larger compared to Study 1A (N = 81). An EFA conducted with Study 1B data yielded 4 factors 

based on eigenvalues greater than 1.0. Thus, in an effort to align both studies, the analyses for 

Study 1A proceeded for the four outcome variables as planned.  

Multivariate ANOVA was conducted to determine whether there were statistically 

significant relationships between cue condition (i.e., presence of a racial safety cue vs. no cue), 

stigmatized status (Asian American woman vs. Asian American man), and outcomes (feelings of 

belonging, procedural justice, PO fit, attraction to the organization). Feelings of belonging 

[F(1,75) = .10, MSE = .08, p =  .754], procedural justice [F(1,75) = .14, MSE = .06, p =  .711], P-

O fit [F(1,75) = .18, MSE = .13, p =  .669], and attraction to the organization [F(1,75) = .67, 

MSE = .29, p =  .417], were not significantly different by condition. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was not 

supported. Table 2 displays mean outcomes by conditions and t-tests between conditions. Note 

 

43 

 

that the means in Table 2 may be slightly different than those presented in the text, as MANOVA 

statistics are presented in the text while t-test statistics are presented in Table 2. 

Furthermore, there were no significant differences for feelings of belonging [F(1,75) = 

.72, MSE = .57, p =  .398], procedural justice [F(1,75) = .05, MSE = .02, p =  .817], P-O fit 

[F(1,75) = .01, MSE = .01, p =  .927], and attraction to the organization [F(1,75) = .19, MSE = 

.08, p =  .667] by stigmatized identity of the participant. There were also no significant 

interactions between cue condition and stigmatized identity based on MANOVA analyses 

[feelings of belonging: F(1,75) = .11, MSE = .00, p = .741; procedural justice: F(1,75) = .00, 

MSE = .00, p = .959; P-O fit: F(1,75) = .01, MSE = .01, p = .931; attraction to organization: 

F(1,75) = .69, MSE = .29, p = .410]. Please refer to Table 2 for mean variable scores by 

condition as well as independent t-test results between the two cue conditions and genders.  

While not hypothesized, independent t-test results indicated that participants in the cue 

condition reported significantly [t(79) = 3.04, p = .003] higher levels of stigma consciousness for 

race (M = 3.02, SD = .77) compared to those in the ‘no cue’ condition (M = 2.47, SD = .84). This 

result could be expected given that participants in the cue condition were shown a racial identity 

safety cue and then asked to answer stigma consciousness items at the end of the survey. 

 

A second MANOVA was conducted to establish relationships between cue condition, 

stigmatized status, and the mediators (perceived SDO, authenticity at work; see Table 2 for 

means by condition). Neither the cue–perceived SDO link [F(1,78) = .08, MSE = .14, p =  .780] 

nor the cue–authenticity at work link [F(1,78) = .03, MSE = .03, p =  .872] was significant. 

Perceived SDO [F(1,78) = 1.55, MSE = 2.70, p = .217] and authenticity at work [F(1,78) = .02, 

MSE = .02, p = .894] did not significantly differ by stigmatized identity as well, and neither were 

there any significant interactions between cue condition and stigmatized identity using 

 

44 

 

MANOVA [perceived SDO: F(1,78) = .55, MSE = .96, p = .459; authenticity at work: F(1,78) = 

.23, MSE = .27, p = .632]. Thus, Hypotheses 2 and 3 were not supported. 

Hypothesis 4a proposed that stigmatized status (single vs. double) would moderate the 

relationship between identity safety cues and perceived SDO such that the relationship strength 

would be attenuated for double-stigmatized identities. A hierarchical regression (Step 1: cue 

condition, stigmatized status, Step 2: interaction term; both predictors were effect coded) 

revealed that the interaction between stigmatized status and cue condition was not significant, b 

= .11, SE = .15, p = .470. Hypothesis 4a was not supported (see Table 3). Similarly, Hypothesis 

4b proposed that stigmatized status would moderate the relationship between safety cues and 

authenticity at work such that the relationship would be attenuated for double-stigmatized 

identities. Another hierarchical regression (Step 1: cue condition, stigmatized status, Step 2: 

interaction term; both predictors were effect coded) was conducted and the interaction term was 

not significant, b = -.07, SE = .13, p = .592. So, Hypothesis 4b was not supported. See Table 3 

for this set of regression analyses as well. 

 

Analyses for Hypothesis 5a, Research Question 1, and Hypothesis 6 were not pursued 

because neither perceived SDO nor authenticity at work had a significant relationship with cue 

condition based on the initial MANOVA.  

 

Hypothesis 7a stated that racial stigma consciousness would moderate the relationship 

between cue condition and perceived SDO such that this relationship would be attenuated for 

those high on racial stigma consciousness. A hierarchical regression (Block 1: cue condition, 

racial stigma consciousness, Block 2: interaction term; cue condition was effect coded, racial 

stigma consciousness was grand mean-centered) determined the interaction between racial 

stigma consciousness and cue condition was not significant, b = .06, SE = .18, p = .732. 

 

45 

 

Hypothesis 7a was not supported (see Table 4 for further statistics). Notably, the main effect of 

racial stigma consciousness predicting perceived SDO was marginally significant (b = -.35, SE = 

.18, p = .05). This relationship suggests that greater awareness of racial stigma in general 

predicted lower perceived SDO of the company. That is, one’s awareness of racial stigma made 

it more likely that he/she would score the company as valuing group hierarchy to a lesser extent. 

 

Hypothesis 7b stated that racial stigma consciousness would moderate the relationship 

between cue condition and authenticity at work such this relationship would be attenuated for 

those high on racial stigma consciousness. A hierarchical regression (Block 1: cue condition, 

racial stigma consciousness, Block 2: interaction term; cue condition was effect coded, racial 

stigma consciousness was grand mean-centered) determined the stigma consciousness by cue 

condition interaction was not significant, b = .03, SE = .16, p = .860. Hypothesis 7b was not 

supported. See Table 4 for these regression coefficients. 

Study 1A Exploratory Analyses 

Trait authenticity, acculturation, and perceived workplace flexibility were measured but 

relationships were not hypothesized. See Table 5 for variable means by condition for trait 

authenticity and acculturation. 

 

Trait authenticity, an individual difference, was positioned as a moderator of the link 

between cue condition and the mediators (perceived SDO, authenticity at work), similar to 

stigmatized status. A hierarchical regression with steps very similar to Hypothesis 7 displayed no 

significant interaction effects (cue condition was effect coded, trait authenticity was grand mean-

centered), but trait authenticity remained a significant predictor of both perceived SDO (b = -.52, 

SE = .13, p = .000) and authenticity at work (b = .74, SE = .08, p = .000), after accounting for the 

nonsignificant interaction effects. Specifically, predisposition toward being authentic led 

 

46 

 

individuals to perceive lower SDO and higher authenticity at work. This latter result is 

unsurprising given that we would expect trait authenticity to predict one’s authenticity in the 

workplace. See Table 6 for these regression analyses. 

 

Acculturation was also analyzed as a moderator of the relationship between cue condition 

and the mediators (perceived SDO, authenticity at work) using hierarchical regression with steps 

similar to Hypothesis 7 (cue condition was effect coded, acculturation dimensions were each 

grand mean-centered). Each cultural dimension of acculturation (country of origin, Asian 

Americans, European Americans) was analyzed in a separate regression equation. Of the six 

equations, the only significant main effect was that acculturation for one’s country of origin 

significantly predicted perceived SDO (b = -.43, SE = .16, p = .008) in the presence of the 

interaction term (See Table 7). That is, being more acculturated toward one’s country of origin 

was associated with lower perceptions of SDO for the company, meaning individuals felt the 

company was promoting group hierarchy (group inequality) to a lesser extent. 

The only significant interaction effect was found in the regression equation where cue 

condition and acculturation for European American culture predicted authenticity at work (b = 

.35, SE = .15, p = .026; See Table 8 and Figure 3). Simple slopes showed that individuals highly 

acculturated toward European American (Western) culture who saw the racial identity safety cue 

were more likely to believe they could be authentic in the imagined workplace compared to 

individuals also highly acculturated toward European American culture but who did not see an 

identity safety cue. In a reversal of this pattern, individuals low on acculturation toward 

European American culture who saw the racial identity safety cue were less likely to perceive 

authenticity at work compared to individuals also low on acculturation for European American 

culture who did not see a racial cue. Put another way, being presented with a racial identity 

 

47 

 

safety cue (vs. not) led individuals highly immersed in Western culture to perceive they could be 

themselves at the workplace to a greater extent. On the other hand, being presented with a racial 

identity safety cue (vs. not) led individuals who were less immersed in Western culture to 

perceive less ability to be themselves at work.     

 

Perceived workplace flexibility was not analyzed because the other outcomes in this 

study did not differ by cue condition. As a result, there was no need to use this variable to 

establish discriminant validity. 

Study 1B Results 

Means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations of variables are displayed in Table 

9. As in Study 1A, the identity safety outcome variables in Study 1B were highly intercorrelated. 

An exploratory factor analysis using principal axis factoring of items from all four measures 

extracted four factors based on eigenvalues greater than 1.0 that accounted for 70% of the 

variance, so analyses for the original four outcome variables proceeded as planned. 

Multivariate ANOVA was conducted to determine whether there were statistically 

significant relationships between cue condition (i.e., presence of a gender safety cue vs. no cue), 

stigmatized status (Asian American woman vs. White woman), and outcomes (feelings of 

belonging, procedural justice, attraction to the organization). Only feelings of belonging 

[F(1,221) = 4.76, MSE = 4.55, p = .030] was significantly different by cue condition, while 

procedural justice [F(1,221) = 3.16, MSE = 1.43, p = .077], P-O fit [F(1,221) = 2.75, MSE = 

2.52, p = .099], and attraction to the organization [F(1,221) = 1.57, MSE = .76, p = .211] were 

not significantly different by cue condition. Mean feelings of belonging were higher in the 

gender safety cue condition (M = 4.75, SD = .93) compared to the no cue condition (M = 4.50, 

SD = 1.02). Thus, Hypothesis 1 was partially supported. Additionally, procedural justice 

 

48 

 

perceptions based on stigmatized status (Asian American woman vs. White woman) were 

significantly different [F(1,221) = 7.81, MSE = 3.55, p  = .006] such that Asian American 

women (M = 3.55, SD =  .63) perceived lower procedural justice compared to White women (M 

=3.87, SD = .67). Feelings of belonging [F(1,221) = .95, MSE = .91, p = .331], P-O fit [F(1,221) 

= .11, MSE = .10, p = .743], and attraction to the organization [F(1,221) = .26, MSE = .13, p = 

.608] did not show significant differences by stigmatized status in the multivariate analyses. 

Based on MANOVA, there were no significant interaction effects for cue condition by 

stigmatized identity [feelings of belonging: F(1,221) = 1.24, MSE = 1.18, p = .267; procedural 

justice: F(1,221) = 1.16, MSE = .53, p = .282; PO fit: F(1,221) = .90, MSE = .83, p = .343; 

attraction to the organization: F(1,221) = 1.49, MSE = .72, p = .224]. Mean scores for variables 

by condition are displayed in Table 10 as well as independent t-test statistics between cue 

conditions and race. Note that the means in Table 10 may be slightly different than those 

presented in the text, as MANOVA statistics are presented in the text while t-test statistics are 

presented in Table 10. 

 

A second MANOVA was conducted to establish relationships between cue condition, 

stigmatized status, and the mediators (perceived SDO, authenticity at work). Only authenticity at 

work was significantly different by cue condition [F(1,235) = 4.50, MSE = 5.15, p = .035]. Mean 

authenticity at work was higher for individuals presented with the gender safety cue (M = 5.09, 

SD = 1.02) than for those presented with no cue (M = 4.79, SD = 1.14). Hypothesis 2 was not 

confirmed, but Hypothesis 3 was partially supported. Additionally, authenticity at work was 

significantly different by stigmatized identity [F(1,235) = 7.76, MSE = 8.87, p = .006]. Mean 

authenticity at work was lower for Asian American women compared (M = 4.56, SD = 1.05) to 

White women (M = 5.03, SD = 1.08). The interaction effects for cue condition by stigmatized 

 

49 

 

identity predicting perceived SDO and authenticity at work were not significant [perceived SDO: 

F(1,235) = .93, MSE = 1.87, p = .337; authenticity at work: F(1,235) = .30, MSE = .34, p = .586]. 

Hypothesis 4a proposed that stigmatized status (single vs. double) would moderate the 

relationship between safety cues and perceived SDO such that the relationship strength would be 

attenuated for double-stigmatized identities. A hierarchical regression (Step 1: cue condition, 

stigmatized status, Step 2: interaction term; both predictors were effect coded) revealed that the 

interaction between stigmatized status and cue condition was not significant (b = -.12, SE = .12, 

p = .361). Hypothesis 4a was not supported. See Table 11 for these regression statistics. 

Hypothesis 4b proposed that stigmatized status would moderate the relationship between 

safety cues and authenticity at work such that the relationship would be attenuated for double-

stigmatized identities. Another hierarchical regression (Step 1: cue condition, stigmatized status, 

Step 2: interaction term; both predictors were effect coded) was conducted to determine whether 

the interaction between stigmatized status and cue condition would significantly predict 

authenticity at work. Hypothesis 4b was not supported as the interaction term was not significant 

(b = .06, SE = .09, p = .489). See Table 11 for the full results. Both cue condition (b = .18, SE = 

.09, p = .041) and stigmatized status (b = -.25, SE = .09, p = .005) remained significant predictors 

after adding the interaction term in step 2. This aligns with the MANOVA results above. 

 

Hypothesis 5a and the research question were not considered because perceived SDO did 

not have a significant relationship with cue condition based on the MANOVA.  

Hypothesis 6 stated that authenticity at work would mediate the relationship between cue 

condition (dummy coded) and various identity safety variables. Mediation analyses using Hayes’ 

(2013) PROCESS Macro SPSS syntax for Model 4 were conducted for the identity safety 

variable that had a significant relationship with cue condition in Hypothesis 1 (feelings of 

 

50 

 

belonging; see Table 12). Authenticity at work was a significant mediator (i.e., no zero in the 

95% confidence interval) of the relationship between cue condition and feelings of belonging (b 

= .13, SE = .07, CI = .003, .277). After accounting for the indirect effect, the direct effect 

contained a zero in the confidence interval (b = .12, SE = .11, CI = -.09, .34), indicating that 

anticipated authenticity fully mediated the link between cue condition—feelings of belonging. 

Approximately, 28% of the variance was accounted for by the mediator (R2 = .28).  

 

Hypothesis 7a stated that gender stigma consciousness would moderate the relationship 

between cue condition and perceived SDO such that this relationship would be attenuated for 

those high on gender stigma consciousness. A hierarchical regression (Step 1: cue condition – 

effect coded at 1 = cue present, -1 = no cue, gender stigma consciousness – grand mean-centered, 

Step 2: interaction term) determined the interaction between gender stigma consciousness and 

cue condition was not significant (b = -.02, SE = .09, p = .830). Hypothesis 7a was not supported. 

Please see Table 13 for full results. 

 

H7b stated that gender stigma consciousness would moderate the relationship between 

cue condition and authenticity at work such this relationship would be attenuated for those high 

on gender stigma consciousness. A hierarchical regression (Step 1: cue condition – effect coded 

at 1 = cue present, -1 = no cue, stigma consciousness – grand mean-centered, Step 2: interaction 

term) determined the stigma consciousness by cue condition interaction was not significant (b = -

.05, SE =.07, p = .532). Hypothesis 7b was not supported. See Table 13 for full results. 

Study 1B Exploratory Analyses 

 

Although relationships were not hypothesized, trait authenticity, acculturation, and 

perceived workplace flexibility variables were measured. Please refer to Table 14 for means 

scores for trait authenticity and acculturation by condition, as well as t-tests for differences 

 

51 

 

between conditions. Only trait authenticity exhibited a significant difference between racial 

groups. Asian American women (M = 5.12, SD = 1.18) registered significantly lower trait 

authenticity scores than White women [M = 5.64, SD = .90; t(239) = -3.37, p = .001]. 

 

As an individual difference, trait authenticity was analyzed as a moderator of the link 

between cue condition and the mediators (perceived SDO, authenticity at work) using 

hierarchical regression with steps very similar to Hypothesis 7 (cue condition was effect coded, 

trait authenticity was grand mean-centered). As in Study 1A, results indicated no significant 

interaction effects, but trait authenticity remained a significant predictor of both mediators when 

accounting for the nonsignificant interaction effects (perceived SDO: b = -.44, SE = .09, p = 

.000; authenticity at work: b = .65, SE = .06, p = .000). Specifically, those higher on trait 

authenticity were less likely to view the company as endorsing social hierarchy and more likely 

to anticipate being able to be authentic at work. See Table 15 for these regression analyses. 

 

Similar to trait authenticity, acculturation was analyzed as a moderator of the relationship 

between cue condition and the mediators (perceived SDO, authenticity at work) using 

hierarchical regression with steps similar to Hypothesis 7 (cue condition was effect coded, each 

acculturation dimension was grand-mean centered). Each cultural dimension of acculturation 

(country of origin, Asian Americans, European Americans) was analyzed separately. While no 

interaction terms were significant when predicting either mediator, results showed that 

acculturation toward European American culture (Western culture) remained a significant 

predictor of both perceived SDO (b = -.62, SE = .23, p = .012) and authenticity at work (b = .56, 

SE = .18, p = .004) after accounting for the interaction effects (See Table 16). Additionally, 

acculturation for country of origin was a significant predictor of authenticity at work in Step 1 (b 

= .42, SE = .20, p = .043) but was not significant after accounting for the interaction term in Step 

 

52 

 

2 (b = .38, SE = .21, p = .078; See Table 17). Lastly, while acculturation toward Asian American 

culture was not predictive of authenticity at work, in that same regression model cue condition 

was a marginally significant predictor of authenticity at work in Step 1 (b = .32, SE = .16, p = 

.055). When the interaction term (acculturation toward Asian American culture by cue condition) 

was added in Step 2, cue condition became a significant predictor of authenticity at work (b = 

.33, SE = .16, p = .046). Please see Table 18 for the full model.  

 

Again, perceived workplace flexibility was not examined as almost all outcomes did not 

relate to cue condition.  

 

 

 

53 

 

STUDY 1 DISCUSSION 

Study 1 was unable to establish strong findings regarding the link between identity safety 

cues and most outcomes (i.e., feelings of belonging, procedural justice, person-organization fit, 

and attraction to the organization) and the hypothesized moderators failed to yield significant 

interactions. Analyses in Study 1A indicated that stigma consciousness for race was significantly 

higher in the racial cue condition compared to no cue, which may indicate that viewing the 

identity safety cue may have made participants in Study 1A more aware of racial stigma. 

Importantly, in Study 1B the relationship between identity safety cue and the outcome of feelings 

of belonging was fully mediated by individuals’ anticipated perceptions of authenticity in the 

workplace.  

Also in Study 1B, outcome mean scores by stigmatized identity (double-stigmatized vs. 

single-stigmatized, i.e., Asian American women vs. White women) indicated that for procedural 

justice perceptions and authenticity at work, Asian American women (double-stigmatized 

identity) perceived less identity safety than White women single-stigmatized identity, as 

represented by these variables.  

Study 1B exhibited more of the hypothesized effects than Study 1A, specifically the 

mediation effect of authenticity at work on the relationship from identity safety cue to feelings of 

belonging. This may have been fueled by the current national concerns around gender equality 

and sexual harassment in the workplace. Movements such as “Time’s Up” and “#MeToo” 

highlight disadvantages and harmful situations that women may encounter in the workplace 

despite high status positions (Langone, 2018). Such a spotlight may have affected the way 

female participants thought about identity safety cues and how their perceptions of the ability to 

be authentic at work relate to feeling welcomed in the workplace. Notably, at the time of the 

 

54 

 

study, there did not appear to be a movement for Asian American workers that matched the 

scope of ongoing women’s movements. 

 

Ultimately, the majority of hypotheses were not supported. This may be due to a number 

of limitations. First, obtaining Asian American participants for both parts of Study 1 proved 

difficult. Overall, Study 1A (N = 81, Asian American men and women) was underpowered given 

that an a priori power analysis for a medium effect size at alpha = .05 indicated that a sample of 

128 participants was needed. Moreover, Study 1B had an adequate sample size overall (N = 246), 

but the sample of Asian American women within Study 1B was small (n = 48; less than 30 in 

each cue condition). Thus, analyses of differences between Asian American women in the cue 

and no cue conditions may have been underpowered.  

Second, the identity safety cue manipulations may not have been strong enough to evoke 

identity safety, or the manipulations may not have been trusted. Though company diversity 

awards are commonly displayed at top companies, the manipulation, lacking context because it 

was an imaginary company, may have failed to convince participants that this company would 

support an identity safe environment. At the same time, other researchers have used similar 

manipulations and achieved the hypothesized effects (e.g., Chaney et al., 2016). However, these 

studies did not use a sample of Asian Americans or Asian American women, though they used 

other single-stigmatized identities (e.g., women, Black or Latino men). Speculating, there may be 

a unique aspect of Asian American or Asian American women’s identity that suppresses the 

intended effects of company awards as identity safety cues. Additionally, it may be that cues that 

tap only one dimension (race or gender) of a double-stigmatized identity like ‘Asian American 

woman’ do not trigger any identity safety outcomes to a greater extent than the absence of these 

cues. 

 

55 

 

 

Exploratory analyses uncovered several findings. In Study 1A, there was a significant 

interaction between cue condition (race cue vs. no cue) and acculturation for European American 

(Western) culture. Individuals highly acculturated to Western culture perceived greater ability to 

be authentic at work when shown the racial identity safety cue compared to no cue, while 

individuals minimally acculturated to Western culture perceived less ability to be authentic at 

work when shown the racial identity safety cue compared to no cue. Speculating, it could be that 

individuals more immersed in Western culture are more trusting of blatant identity safety cues 

(i.e., the racial award) while those less acculturated to the West are unaffected or suspicious of 

the presentation of blatant cues.  

It may also be important to note that in Study 1B Asian American women on average 

scored significantly lower on trait authenticity, as well as authenticity at work, as compared to 

White women. This aligns with the hierarchical regression that found stigmatized status 

predicted authenticity at work in Study 1B only. Regression analyses also demonstrated that trait 

authenticity predicted lower perceived SDO and greater authenticity at work; however, trait 

authenticity did not moderate the effect of cue condition. Thus, if Asian American women on 

average are less likely to feel they can be authentic (by disposition or situationally), it may be 

that they need to be treated differently than White women when attempting to enact identity 

safety cues, given that authenticity at work mediated the relationship between the identity safety 

cue and feelings of belonging, and trait authenticity predicted authenticity at work. Relatedly, the 

literature on impression management and culture points to differences in attitudes towards faking 

(Fell, König, & Kammerhoff, 2016) and differences in use of impression management tactics 

between ethnic minorities and majorities (Derous, 2017), which signals a need to look further 

into felt authenticity and culture. Such a difference in authenticity was not found between Asian 

 

56 

 

American women and men (Study 1A). Speculating, it may be that managing a gender identity, 

as opposed to a racial identity, is more easily done.  

 

Study 1 did not find differences between how individuals with single-stigmatized and 

double-stigmatized identities react to identity safety cues. One possible interpretation of this 

finding is that identity safety cues that tap only one identity do not affect Asian American men, 

White women, or Asian American women. That is, for all study participants, a cue that only 

tapped their racial or gender identity was not enough to make them feel more identity safety than 

a non-cue situation. It could still be that Asian American women respond to various types of 

identity safety cues (ones that tap more than race or gender identities separately) in different 

ways. Study 2 primarily explored whether different types of identity safety cues would have 

differential effects on Asian American women, a double-stigmatized identity. 

 

 

 

57 

 

STUDY 2 METHOD 

Study 2 was designed to explore how individuals possessing double-stigmatized identities 

react to single vs. multiple identity safety cues (the procedure was similar to Study 1). Thus, the 

type of identity safety cues presented were manipulated. This was a 4 (cue type presented: racial 

cue vs. gender cue vs. double cue vs. intersected cue) x 1 between-subjects experimental survey 

design using a sample of Asian American women.2 Given 80% power for a medium effect size at 

.05 statistical significance, at least 179 participants were needed to power the 4 x 1 design for 

Study 2 based on a priori calculations using G*Power version 3.1 software (Faul et al., 2007).  

Participants 

Similar to Study 1, participants met racial and gender requirements (i.e., were Asian 

American women) via prescreening questions, were 18 years or older, and were at least 

moderately proficient in English language (See Appendix A for prescreening questions). In 

Study 1, participants were required to have resided in the U.S. for 10 years or more; however, 

because it was hard to attract more Asian American women participants in Study 2 this 

requirement was dropped to 5 years or more. This sample was recruited via an email blast to 

students who identify as Asian and female at a large midwestern university. The email recipients 

were encouraged to take the survey themselves, as well as to send the survey to others who 

would also be eligible (i.e., Asian American women). A similar email message was also sent to 

the listserv of the Asian American Psychological Association at the same time. Thus, this data 

collection was in part a snowball method effort. Participants were told that the first 120 

individuals to answer the survey and pass all prequalifying and attention checks would receive 

$5.00 USD gift cards to the online retailer Amazon. 

 

58 

 

Attention and manipulation checks were used to filter the data as in Study 1. The final 

sample analyzed for Study 2 was N = 212 participants (purposely all female-identifying) which 

was 31.8% of the original sample. Participants identified as Asian American but could identify as 

multiple races/ethnicities at the end of the survey. As such, 43.9% identified as Far East Asian, 

5.2% as North Asian, 42.9% as Southeast Asian, 13.2% as Asian - Indian subcontinent, and a 

combined 18.5% as African American, Hispanic or Latino/a, Native Hawaiian or Pacific 

Islander, Native American or American Indian, White, or Other. About 67.5% reported being 

native-born U.S. citizens, 21.7% were immigrants or naturalized U.S. citizens, and 10.9% were 

green card holders or long-term U.S. residents who had resided in the U.S. for 5 years or more. 

The majority (81.6%) indicated that English was their native language. For age, M = 23.48 (SD = 

6.30) years. Most participants (83.1%) identified as heterosexual. Participants had a mix of 

employment levels, with 25% indicating full-time employment, 38.7% indicating part-time 

employment, and 34.4% indicating unemployment.  

Procedure 

 

Study 2 procedures were nearly identical to the procedures used in Study 1. The 

appendices noted previously for Study 1 apply to Study 2. Places where the procedure diverged 

are noted in the text below and in the appendices. 

In Study 2, after viewing an informed consent page (See Appendix B), participants were 

presented with information on a fictional company and told to imagine they may possibly apply 

for a leadership position at this organization for which they are hypothetically qualified (See 

Appendix C). Participants were provided with further background information on the company 

(e.g., how long the company has been in business; See Appendix D) as well as awards the 

company has accrued (i.e., identity safety cues; See Appendix E). Some of these awards were 

 

59 

 

irrelevant to the focus social groups (e.g., #1 in Customer Acquisition or Retention) while others 

were specific manipulations. Unlike Study 1A and 1B, which only showed racial or gender 

identity safety cues versus no identity safety cues, participants in Study 2 were randomly 

assigned to one of four different identity safety cue groups when viewing awards. They were 

informed that the company was awarded either a racial diversity award (e.g., “One of America’s 

Top Companies for Asian American Executives” by the National Association for Asian 

American Executives), a gender diversity award (e.g., “One of America’s Top Companies for 

Women Executives” by the National Association for Female Executives—used in Chaney et al., 

2016 and Kaiser et al., 2013), both racial and gender diversity awards (i.e., they were told the 

company has won awards for these two domains separately), or an award specific to Asian 

American women (e.g., “One of America’s Top Companies for Asian American Women 

Executives” by the National Association for Asian American Women Executives). After, 

participants were presented with a job description for Director of Marketing (developed using 

Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2018a; Workable.com, n.d.; See Appendix F). They then answered a 

series of measures pertaining to their anticipated feelings of belonging at the company, the 

procedural fairness of the company, anticipated P-O fit, to what extent the company is perceived 

as promoting social hierarchy (perceived SDO), their anticipated authenticity at the workplace, 

and manipulation and attention checks (See Appendix G). Lastly, participants viewed a 

debriefing form (See Appendix H). 

Measures 

Study 2 employed the same measures as Study 1, including the demographic items used 

to screen participants and manipulation checks (specifically tailored for the cue conditions in 

Study 2). Stigmatized status was not a variable in Study 2 because all participants were Asian 

 

60 

 

American women. Study 2 reliabilities for each measure on a Likert scale are provided in Table 

19 along with means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations. Please see the appendices at 

the end for full scales. 

 

Cue condition. Study 2 contained 4 cue conditions where either a racial cue, gender cue, 

two cues (one racial, one gender; also called the double cue condition), or an intersected cue (one 

cue reflecting race and gender) were presented. Cue condition was dummy coded for MANOVA 

analyses and effect coded for regression analyses with the referent category being the intersected 

cue condition. 

 

Stigma consciousness for gender, race, and gender-race combined. In Study 2, 

participants (Asian American women) received 3 stigma consciousness measures for identity as a 

woman, as an Asian American, and as an Asian American woman modelled from those used in 

Study 1. Respectively, αgender = .78, αrace = .77, αgender-race = .77. These three measures were 

significantly correlated (p < .01), with intercorrelations ranging from r = .59 to .88. Examining 

the internal consistency of all three measures combined into one measure, Cronbach’s α = .90 

(indicated in Table 19). Thus, this combined score was used in analyses involving the variable 

stigma consciousness for Study 2, rather than analyzing each shorter measure separately.  

 

 

 

61 

 

 

Descriptive statistics, including means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations 

STUDY 2 RESULTS 

between variables for the overall sample are displayed in Table 19. Please refer to Table 20 for 

means and standard deviations of mediators and outcomes by cue condition. As in Study 1, the 

identity safety outcome variables were highly intercorrelated. An exploratory factor analysis 

using principal axis factoring determined there were 7 factors with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 

that accounted for 65% of the variance. The first four factors accounted for 55% of the variance. 

A majority of the 37 items primarily loaded onto the first 4 factors. The latter 3 factors had 4 

(with one item loading .3 to .4 for 5 factors), 2, and zero items primarily loading onto them, 

respectively. In an effort to keep the analyses for all three datasets in the current investigation 

aligned, and because the first 4 factors accounted for most of the variance, the four outcome 

variables were tested as hypothesized in Study 2. 

 

Multivariate ANOVA analyses determined that there were no significant differences in 

identity safety outcomes (feelings of belonging: F(1,206) = .76, MSE = .54, p = .521; procedural 

justice: F(1,206) = 1.07, MSE = .29, p = .363; P-O fit: F(1,206) = 1.29, MSE = .87, p = .280; 

attraction to the organization: F(1,206) = .24, MSE = .09, p = .871) by cue condition. 

Hypotheses 8a and 8b stated that double cue and intersected cue conditions would result 

in lower levels of perceived SDO and higher levels of authenticity at work compared to racial 

cue and gender cue conditions. Analyses did not support these hypotheses. Independent t-tests 

indicated that there were no differences on perceived SDO, t(207) = -.39, p = .697, or 

authenticity at work, t(208) = 1.04, p = .300, between the double cue and intersected cue 

conditions. Refer back to Table 20 to see variable means by condition. 

Hypotheses 9a and 9b predicted that the intersected cue condition would result in lower 

levels of perceived SDO and higher levels of authenticity at work compared to a double cue. 

 

62 

 

These hypotheses were not supported as independent t-tests demonstrated no significant 

differences between these two conditions on perceived SDO, t(.107) = .30, p = .765, and 

authenticity at work, t(110) = .21, p = .834. Again, please refer back to Table 20 to see means by 

condition. 

 

Hypothesis 10a stated that stigma consciousness would interact with identity safety cues 

such that individuals high on stigma consciousness would register lower perceived SDO scores 

in the intersected cue condition while registering higher perceived SDO scores in all other 

conditions compared to individuals low on stigma consciousness. Stigma consciousness was 

represented by combining the stigma consciousness measures for gender (woman), race (Asian 

American), and gender-race (Asian American woman) as these three were highly intercorrelated 

and had high internal consistency when combined. Stigma consciousness was also grand-mean 

centered. Cue condition was effect coded with the intersected cue condition as the referent (-1, -

1, -1, -1) group. A hierarchical linear regression with two steps (Step 1: stigma consciousness 

and race cue, gender cue, and double cue effect coded variables; Step 2: stigma consciousness 

and effect coded race cue x stigma consciousness, gender cue x stigma consciousness, and 

double cue x stigma consciousness interaction variables) was conducted. This regression did not 

yield any significant interaction terms. Please refer to Table 21 for regression coefficients. 

Hypothesis 10b stated that stigma consciousness would interact with identity safety cues 

such that individuals high on stigma consciousness will register higher authenticity at work 

scores in the intersected cue condition while registering lower authenticity at work scores in all 

other conditions compared to individuals low on stigma consciousness. These analyses were 

carried out in an identical procedure to Hypothesis 10a, predicting authenticity at work scores in 

 

63 

 

place of perceived SDO. This regression also did not result in significant interaction terms. Table 

22 displays full regression results. 

Exploratory Analyses 

Exploratory analyses included the variables of trait authenticity and acculturation. Mean 

scores of these variables by cue condition are displayed in Table 23. 

Trait authenticity was examined as a moderator of the link between cue condition and 

perceived SDO (Table 24). A hierarchical linear regression with two steps (Step 1: trait 

authenticity and race cue, gender cue, and double cue effect coded variables; Step 2: trait 

authenticity and the three interaction terms) indicated that trait authenticity negatively predicted 

perceived SDO in the presence of the interaction terms (b = -.35, SE = .09, p = .000), but no 

other predictors were significant. That is, individuals predisposed to authenticity perceived the 

company as endorsing social hierarchy less. 

Trait authenticity was also analyzed as a moderator of the cue condition – authenticity at 

work link. A hierarchical linear regression (shown in Table 25) with two steps (Step 1: trait 

authenticity, and race cue, gender cue, and double cue as effected coded variables; Step 2: trait 

authenticity, and the three interaction terms) revealed that the double cue interaction term 

(double cue effect coded by trait authenticity) was a significant predictor of authenticity at work 

(b = .20, SE = .10, p = .048). This suggests that the effect of cue condition differs by level of trait 

authenticity.  

 

To analyze simple slopes for this interaction, the hierarchical linear regression was run 

four more times using dummy coded variables. Each group was treated as the comparison group 

once (Aiken & West, 1991). These simple regression results are presented in Table 26. Figure 4 

depicts the interaction between cue condition and trait authenticity. The trait authenticity variable 

 

64 

 

is presented at one standard deviation above and below the mean. Taken together, Table 26 and 

Figure 4 demonstrate that for all cue conditions, individuals high on trait authenticity reported 

higher levels of anticipated authenticity at work; however, this relationship was especially 

pronounced for the double cue condition. That is, for individuals low on trait authenticity the 

double cue (separate identity safety cues for race and gender presented simultaneously) is not 

leading individuals to feel they can be authentic.  

The three acculturation dimensions (country of origin, Asian Americans, and European 

Americans) were also analyzed as moderators of the cue condition – perceived SDO and cue 

condition – authenticity at work links. The same hierarchical regression analyses used to 

examine trait authenticity as a moderator were used for these analyses by substituting the 

acculturation variables in place of trait authenticity. None of these analyses yield significant 

changes in R2. However, a regression analysis predicting authenticity at work demonstrated 

significant regression coefficients.  

A hierarchical linear regression with two steps including European American 

acculturation and cue condition (Step 1: European American acculturation and race cue, gender 

cue, and double cue effect coded variables; Step 2: European American acculturation and the 

three interaction variables) found that the interaction term for European American acculturation 

by effect coded gender identity safety cue condition was a significant predictor of authenticity at 

work (b = .271, SE = .12, p = .027). Full regression coefficients are displayed in Table 27. This 

suggests that anticipated authenticity at work differed depending on an individual’s level of 

acculturation toward European American culture. To interpret this further, simple slope analyses 

were conducted whereby the regression was run four additional times using dummy codes with 

each cue condition treated as the comparison group one at a time (Aiken & West, 1991). These 

 

65 

 

simple slope analyses are displayed in Table 28. Figure 5 depicts the interaction between cue 

condition and acculturation toward European American culture. Table 28 and Figure 5 indicate 

that at higher levels of Western acculturation, individuals in the gender cue and intersected cue 

conditions reported higher levels of anticipated authenticity at work than individuals lower on 

Western acculturation; yet, for individuals in the racial cue and double cue conditions this 

relationship was reversed (though the relationship was very small for the racial cue condition). 

For these individuals, higher levels of acculturation were associated with lower levels of 

anticipated authenticity at work compared to individuals with lower levels of acculturation. 

However, only the coefficient for the slope of the gender cue condition was significant. Thus, the 

key finding in Figure 3 is that individuals in the gender identity safety cue condition who are low 

on Western acculturation report significantly lower anticipated authenticity at work compared to 

those high on Western acculturation. 

 

 

 

66 

 

 

STUDY 2 DISCUSSION 

Results from Study 2 did not support the hypothesized effects. Previously, Study 1 was 

also not able to show any significant differences for Asian American women between cue 

conditions. It may be that Asian American women as a group are simply not very receptive of 

identity safety cues in the form of company awards.  

 

Nevertheless, exploratory analyses revealed interesting interactions between cue 

condition and multiple individual differences (trait authenticity and acculturation toward 

European American culture). The unsurprising main effect of trait authenticity on authenticity at 

work was that those low on trait authenticity were also lower on authenticity at work compared 

to those with high levels of trait authenticity. However, this main effect differed based on cue 

condition. At high levels of trait authenticity, individuals’ anticipated authenticity at work was 

relatively similar, but at low levels of trait authenticity single identity safety cues (race or gender 

cues) were associated with greater authenticity at work compared to double or intersectional 

cues, especially the racial safety cue. This effect may reflect support for the ethnic prominence 

perspective—Asian American women may react most favorably to racial cues (i.e., anticipate 

greater ability to be authentic at work) if they are low on trait authenticity. 

 

Cue condition also interacted with acculturation toward European American culture. For 

racial cue and double cue conditions, individuals low on acculturation (toward European 

American culture) reported greater anticipated authenticity at work compared to gender cue and 

intersected cue conditions. Notably, for individuals high on Western acculturation the gender cue 

condition was associated with the greatest levels of anticipated authenticity at work. Yet, for 

individuals low on Western acculturation, the gender cue elicited the least authenticity at work 

across conditions. This effect indicates that gender identity safety cues may play out very 

 

67 

 

differently for individuals of different cultures. This may be expected as gender egalitarianism 

(gender equality) is a national value often used to differentiate cultures (House, Javidan, Hanges, 

& Dorfman, 2002).  

 

Study 2 had its own limitations as well. For one, Study 2 lacked a control condition; all 

participants saw some sort of identity safety cue, so the study was not able to replicate the 

mediation of the cue – outcome relationship by authenticity at work that was found in Study 1B. 

Second, Study 2 used a different source for participants. Participants were recruited from a large, 

midwestern university via email blast, so it is likely that a large number of participants were 

college students. Indeed, the mean age is markedly lower than that of Study 1. Having a largely 

student sample is problematic because participants may not have much work experience. Older 

workers may be able to more vividly envision a hypothetical workplace and how they would feel 

given the context of the vignette. 

 

While the study hypotheses were not supported, Study 2 sheds light on important 

individual differences (trait authenticity and acculturation toward European American culture) 

that interact with different types of identity safety cues.  

 

 

 

68 

 

 

GENERAL DISCUSSION 

This series of studies investigated whether organizational identity cues operate differently 

for single vs. double-stigmatized identities, as well as whether different types of identity cues 

resulted in different outcomes for a double-stigmatized identity (i.e., Asian American women). It 

also examined the possibility of anticipated authenticity at work as an alternative mechanism for 

cue transfer. Results did not reveal differences between reactions to cues based on single- or 

double-stigmatized identities (Study 1) nor different reactions based on the type of cue (Study 2). 

Some evidence for anticipated authenticity at work as a mediator of the cue – outcome 

relationship was found. 

Specifically, the relationship between cue and the identity safety outcome of feelings of 

belonging was fully mediated by individuals’ anticipated authenticity at work for the all-female 

sample (White women and Asian American women) in Study 1B. Previously, Chaney et al. 

(2016) hypothesized and found evidence for the perceived Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) 

of the target organization mediating the relationship between cue and outcomes in the context of 

cue transfer. Cue transfer refers to perceiving identity safety as a result of a cue that is 

incongruent with one’s identity (Chaney et al, 2016). Perceived SDO is a more distal mediator in 

comparison to one’s perceptions of the ability to be authentic at work. Perceived SDO as a 

mediator presumes that individuals would have formed certain beliefs about the organization at 

the unit level based on the information available, and that this information then influences the 

beliefs they have about whether they would feel welcome in the organization as an individual. In 

contrast, authenticity at work directly refers to an individual’s beliefs about how he/she will be 

able to act in the workplace. Thus, authenticity at work is more proximal to outcomes of 

individuals’ identity safety (e.g., individual-level feelings of belonging) than unit-level perceived 

 

69 

 

SDO. The finding in Study 1B that authenticity at work fully mediates the relationship between 

cue and feelings of belonging indicates that authenticity at work may be an important path to 

further examine. 

While there was little support for hypothesized effects, exploratory analyses revealed 

significant effects of trait authenticity and Western acculturation (acculturation toward European 

American culture). Beginning with trait authenticity, it was found that trait authenticity 

positively predicted authenticity at work and negatively predicted perceived SDO across Study 

1A and Study 1B. The former is an expected relationship: individuals who are naturally inclined 

to act authentically believe they will be more likely to act authentically in the workplace. The 

latter relationship suggests that a natural inclination toward authenticity is associated with 

perceiving the company as having less of a social dominance orientation. In a search of the 

literature, no studies were found directly testing the relationship between trait authenticity and 

social dominance orientation; however, a study by Pinto, Maltby, Wood, and Day (2012) found 

that individuals who behave authentically are less-likely to be aggressive in unfair situations 

compared to individuals who live less authentically. This may explain why individuals high on 

trait authenticity in the current study were less likely to endorse the company as high on SDO. 

That is, rating the company as high on perceived SDO may be seen as an aggressive action (at 

some level they would have been accusing the company of being unfair or supporting unequal 

groups), so individuals high on trait authenticity avoided appearing aggressive by rating the 

company low on perceived SDO. 

In Study 2, a similar pattern for trait authenticity across cue conditions emerged. Overall, 

individuals higher on trait authenticity also perceived higher authenticity at work. However, this 

main effect was qualified by cue condition. At high levels of trait authenticity, authenticity at 

 

70 

 

work was relatively similar for all cue conditions, but at low levels of trait authenticity, the 

intersected and double cue conditions (where both racial and gender identities were tapped) were 

associated with the lowest levels of authenticity at work. The racial cue condition was associated 

with the highest level of authenticity at work at low levels of trait authenticity. These analyses 

point to the racial identity safety cue being the most effective cue for those low on trait 

authenticity, providing support for the ethnic prominence perspective (prominence of race over 

gender identity in women of color) under certain conditions (i.e. low trait authenticity).  

Turning to acculturation as a moderator, multiple effects emerged across studies. These 

effects were only determined for Asian American participants as White women participants did 

not complete the acculturation measures. In this study, acculturation was assessed along three 

dimensions: toward country of origin, toward Asian American culture broadly (pan-ethnic), and 

toward European American culture (Western acculturation). Acculturation toward a pan-ethnic 

Asian American culture did not produce any significant effects, but acculturation toward country 

of origin was a positive predictor of authenticity at work (Study 1B only; note that Study 1B 

includes scores from only Asian American women) and a negative predictor of perceived SDO 

(Study 1A only; note that Study 1A includes scores from Asian American men and women). 

Additionally, Western acculturation showed similar effects in Study 1B (again, only Asian 

American women scores) for authenticity at work and perceived SDO. Taken together, it seems 

that acculturation toward country of origin and Western acculturation both lead to favorable 

outcomes for identity safety (less perceived SDO, greater authenticity at work). While the 

implications of this finding are unclear, it may suggest that how confident one is in one’s 

identity, as reflected by how strongly one is acculturated to a culture, may result in greater 

identity safety outcomes. 

 

71 

 

Furthermore, Western acculturation produced two interaction effects. First, in Study 1A 

(sample: Asian American men and women) authenticity at work differed as a function of cue 

condition and Western acculturation. Individuals high on Western acculturation responded more 

positively (i.e., greater authenticity at work perceptions) in the racial identity safety cue 

condition compared to the no cue condition. Meanwhile, those low on Western acculturation 

showed the opposite pattern. They responded more positively in the no cue condition compared 

to the racial identity safety cue condition. This may indicate that a racial identity safety cue is 

only effective for Asian American individuals highly acculturated to Western culture.  

In Study 2 (sample: Asian American women) authenticity at work also differed as a 

function of cue condition and Western acculturation. Interestingly, racial and double cue 

conditions had opposite relationships with Western acculturation compared to gender and 

intersected cue conditions. The former categories predicted higher authenticity at work for those 

low on Western acculturation (vs. high), and the latter categories predicted higher authenticity at 

work for those high on Western acculturation (vs. low). However, the slope for the racial cue 

condition demonstrated little to no relationship. On the other hand, the gender cue condition 

demonstrated the strongest difference between individuals with low and high Western 

acculturation. Taken together with Study 1A (sample: Asian American men and women), these 

results suggest that identity safety cues operate differently for Asian American individuals based 

on how acculturated they are to a Western way of life. Though less research on diversity exists 

outside of the U.S. context, a study by Holladay and Quiñones (2005) indicates that workers 

from collectivistic cultures perceive diversity training less favorably than those from 

individualistic cultures. This thinking could extend to other aspects of diversity and inclusion 

that U.S. companies try to signal. Eastern cultures are generally regarded as more collectivistic 

 

72 

 

than Western cultures, thus the Asian American participants in the current study who were more 

acculturated to Western culture may have been more receptive to certain identity safety cues. 

Further, perhaps this indicates that identity safety cues that tap cultural values (e.g., collectivism) 

may add value beyond racial and/or gender cues. 

Moreover, the strongest difference between those high and low on Western acculturation 

was demonstrated in the gender cue condition. Individuals low on Western acculturation were 

less likely to anticipate being authentic at work compared to those high on Western acculturation 

in the gender cue condition. This result is consistent with the finding that Western cultures 

generally endorse the cultural value of gender egalitarianism at greater levels compared to 

African and Asian cultures (Stankov, 2015). That is, individuals less acculturated to the West 

may also endorse gender equality to a lesser degree than those more acculturated to the West, 

leading them to ignore the gender identity safety cue. 

Though many of the hypothesized identity safety cue effects were not supported, the 

exploratory analyses discussed above support the idea that identity cues still have important 

implications for organizations. Members within disadvantaged groups hold individual 

differences (e.g., acculturation levels and trait authenticity) that affect how they perceive the cues 

or signals that an organization gives off, even if the organization gives these off unintentionally 

(Emerson & Murphy, 2014). Therefore, organizations must acknowledge that identity safety cues 

meant to signal inclusion for individuals of a certain demographic may not uniformly impact 

perceptions. Organizations may seek to harness the power of identity cues, and at the very least 

they should be aware of the consequences of cues they already give off (Emerson & Murphy, 

2014). 

 

73 

 

It is also interesting to note that the reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha) for feelings of 

belonging and stigma consciousness were markedly lower for Study 1A compared to Study 1B. 

Women are stereotypically more likely to be concerned with communal aspects at work than 

men, so they may have more similar responses to a measure of feelings of belonging than men 

(Study 1B was entirely female while Study 1A was a mixture of male and female participants). 

For stigma consciousness, the fact that women’s movements are at the forefront of news and 

media in recent times (e.g., “Time’s Up” and #MeToo; Langone, 2018) may have influenced 

stigma consciousness scores in Study 1B which sampled only women. In contrast, Study 1A 

stigma consciousness was directed at race (Asian American identity) and at the time of the study 

there did not appear to be a comparable national conversation around Asian American identity. 

These attributions make further sense in light of the fact that the reliability values of feelings of 

belonging and stigma consciousness in Study 2 (a sample of Asian American women) are closer 

to the reliability values in Study 1B. 

Theoretical Implications 

One theoretical contribution of the current study is the finding that authenticity at work 

served as a mechanism of cue transfer. The initial goal of this work was to examine cue transfer 

in the context of double-stigmatized identities, specifically Asian American women. However, 

there is an issue as to whether a racial identity safety cue or a gender identity safety cue can 

create the conditions for cue transfer in Asian American women. Intersectionality research is 

rooted in Crenshaw’s (1989) seminal work which highlights the erasure of women of color when 

referring to gender (i.e., gender diversity is presumed to refer to women of the dominant group). 

Thus, if one subscribes to the double jeopardy perspective, a racial or gender identity safety cue 

could trigger cue transfer since the ‘Asian American woman’ identity would be considered 

 

74 

 

unique from ‘woman’ (i.e., ‘woman’ would refer to women of the majority—White women). 

Otherwise, if these two identities are not viewed as unique, then Study 1’s design only 

investigates how racial identity safety cues operate across gender groups and how gender identity 

safety cues operate across racial groups (no differences were found across cue conditions so the 

manipulation may not have worked). With this particular perspective, a limitation of this study is 

that there was no condition with an identity safety cue that did not match the general Asian 

American woman identity (e.g., disabled LGBT identity; or at least a cue that was ‘further’ away 

from ‘Asian American woman’ in psychological space); thus cue transfer could not happen and 

the current study is an investigation of different identity safety cues rather than specifically cue 

transfer (the identity safety effects of cues incongruent with identity). 

The current study also contributes to existing research surrounding double jeopardy and 

ethnic prominence perspectives on multiply stigmatized identities. While Study 1A (sample: 

Asian American men and women) demonstrated null results for all differences between single- 

and double-stigmatized identities, Study 1B (sample: White women and Asian American 

women) displayed significant differences by stigmatized identity for procedural justice 

perceptions and anticipated authenticity at work (though stigmatized identity was not a 

significant moderator of the cue-authenticity at work link). Asian American women registered 

significantly lower levels of procedural justice and authenticity at work compared to White 

women. The lack of differences in identity safety variables between Asian American women and 

Asian American men and the presence of differences between White women and Asian 

American women suggest support for the ethnic prominence perspective (i.e., women of color 

prioritize racial identity over gender identity; Levin et al., 2002).  

 

75 

 

The exploratory analyses also provided some support for the ethnic prominence 

perspective. Again, in Study 2 (Asian American women) at high levels of trait authenticity, 

individuals’ anticipated authenticity at work was relatively similar, but at low levels of trait 

authenticity single identity safety cues (race cue or gender cue) were associated with greater 

authenticity at work compared to double or intersectional cues, especially the racial safety cue. 

As mentioned above, one of the initial goals of this study was to compare ethnic prominence and 

double jeopardy perspectives. Although these results were not hypothesized, they indicate 

support for the ethnic prominence perspective over the double jeopardy perspective. 

While this investigation hypothesized support for the double jeopardy perspective, there 

is a body of support for the ethnic prominence perspective (e.g., Apfelbaum, Stephens, & 

Reagans, 2016; Bartkoski, Lynch, Witt, & Rudolph, 2018; Foynes Shipherd, & Harrington, 

2013; Gay & Tate, 1998; Levin et al., 2002), including studies that simultaneously show 

evidence for double jeopardy and ethnic prominence perspectives (e.g., Buchanan & Fitzgerald, 

2008; Derous et al., 2012; Johnson, Pietri, Fullilove, & Mowrer, 2019; Malcarne, Chavira, 

Fernandez, & Liu, 2006; Settles, 2006; Kang & Chasteen, 2009; Taylor, Charlton, & Ranyard, 

2012). Additionally, Kulik et al. (2007) and Rattan, Steele, and Ambady (2019) indicated that, at 

least for observers, individuals are likely to activate only one dominant category of identity that 

primarily influences behavior such as hiring decisions. Therefore, the findings of the current 

investigation fall in line with established literature. 

The double jeopardy perspective is a popular hypothesis in intersectionality literature, but 

the prevalence of evidence for competing perspectives such as the ethnic prominence hypothesis, 

as seen in the current study and others, sways support away from it. Despite this, the concept of 

double jeopardy has taken off in popular media spaces and is arguably conflated with 

 

76 

 

intersectionality itself when explaining ideas of intersectional feminism (e.g., see a blogpost by 

popular website Upworthy, Ramsey, 2015; and an article about ‘double discrimination’ featured 

in BuzzFeed.News, Ashton, 2018). However, the assumption that the intersectionality of 

stigmatized identities always results in additive or multiplicative negative effects does not leave 

room for studies that find that holding multiple stigmatized identities buffers against negative 

effects (e.g., Martin et al., 2018) or studies like the current investigation which fail to find 

differences between genders within racial minorities.  

Practical Implications 

Practically, the results across studies can guide organizations in how to create identity 

safety for workers. For one, the finding that authenticity at work fully mediates cue transfer 

indicates that organizations may be able to influence the identity safety that individuals 

experience by affecting variables more proximal to the individual, rather than only trying to 

affect perceived SDO, individuals’ perceptions of the organization overall.  

Second, this study suggests that women of color, a double-stigmatized identity (in this 

case, Asian American women), may be more likely to respond to identity safety cues that tap 

racial identity (i.e., the ethnic prominence perspective). That is, Asian American women may 

experience more positive identity safety outcomes if an emphasis on including Asian Americans 

(rather than women generally or Asian American women specifically) is made. Thus, 

organizations may be able to make environments more welcoming for Asian American men and 

women without having to use different cues for these groups.  

More broadly, the outcomes of this investigation may suggest that individuals with 

intersected identities are more responsive to cues tapping one of their identities rather than 

multiple identities simultaneously. The ethnic prominence perspective highlights the intersection 

 

77 

 

of race and gender, but for other identities, such as LGBT women, research provides much less 

guidance on which of these identities is expected to take center stage. 

Third, Western acculturation matters. Companies should acknowledge that identity safety 

cues may not operate in the same manner for Asian Americans high and low on Western 

acculturation. This differentiation is beyond Asian immigrants and U.S.-born Asian Americans. 

Asian Americans can differ in how acculturated they are to Western culture in a variety of ways. 

For example, Asian Americans who live in cultural enclaves (e.g., Chinatowns) may have very 

different perspectives than those who live as a minority in areas dominated by the majority or 

other racial minority groups. Again, thinking more broadly, this may also indicate that 

companies need to accommodate differences in Western acculturation for all immigrant groups 

and even those considered “1.5 generation” or “second generation” (i.e., the children or 

grandchildren of immigrants) as these groups might still be expected to vary in their 

acculturation levels. 

Fourth, a notable feature of this study was its focus on Asian American women in 

leadership. As expanded upon in the introduction, representation of Asian American women in 

leadership positions in the U.S. is abysmal, which already cues identity threat for Asian 

American women leadership candidates. The results of this study provide some information on 

whether a blatant identity safety cue such as a company award would be useful for attracting 

Asian American women to leadership positions. Moreover, this study found differences in 

company perceptions between White women and Asian American women. Organizations should 

consider that while both groups are female, they may have diverging responses to aspects of the 

company. This potentially impacts beyond the leadership context and White and Asian American 

 

78 

 

women. For example, this research should cause STEM companies to consider whether Black 

men and Black women perceive companies differently.  

Lastly, a practical challenge facing those attempting to address intersectional identities in 

the workplace is the sheer number of unique intersected identities that may exist. As noted by 

Ryan and Briggs (2019), company work-life policies that would attempt to cover all identities 

with broad language may be seen as less supportive (e.g., a color-blind ideology), but attempting 

to acknowledge all possible identities is likely impossible. One can see how this could be 

extended to other identity safety cues. For one, a company may receive an award for its laudable 

treatment of minority employees, but this may not signal identity safety to specific minority 

groups under the double jeopardy perspective. On the other hand, garnering company awards for 

every single specific minority group does not seem feasible. The ethnic prominence perspective 

(as well as cue transfer) would perhaps provide a more positive outlook for these efforts because 

they would predict that an organization does not need to signal support for every single 

intersection of identity.  

Limitations 

 

Importantly, the current study had a number of limitations. First, it consisted of multiple 

cross-sectional, vignette experiments. This limitation prevents any conclusions about causality 

and calls into question how realistic the experimental scenarios were for participants. 

Additionally, all measures were self-reported, putting responses at risk of single source bias. 

Nevertheless, this study was able to obtain samples of Asian American men and women—

populations that are understudied, partly because they are hard to reach in certain geographic 

areas. 

 

79 

 

 

Indeed, sampling Asian American men and women proved difficult, so the current study 

did not reach the preferred sample sizes based on a priori power analyses. Participants from 

Studies 1A and 1B were recruited via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk platform; however, in order to 

obtain a large enough sample of Asian American women for Study 2, an email was sent to all 

individuals flagged as Asian and female in the records of a large, midwestern university. As a 

result, many Study 2 respondents were likely college students. This speculation is supported by 

the low mean age of respondents in Study 2 compared to the previous two studies. Additionally, 

about a third of Study 2 respondents were unemployed. This difference makes comparisons 

between Study 1 and 2 more difficult. It is possible that students do not consider the same 

aspects of a company that more experienced, older workers do.  

 

In addition, it is important to acknowledge that Asian Americans are not a monolith and 

come from a variety of different backgrounds. While this study asked for more fine-grained 

categorizations of Asian American identities in its demographic questions, analyses were not 

possible between Asian American subgroups. Relatedly, the focus on Asian Americans makes 

the perspective of this study a decidedly U.S./Eurocentric one, so the conclusions drawn may not 

be generalizable to other contexts. 

 

As addressed in previous discussion sections, it is possible that the identity safety cue 

manipulations were not strong enough to elicit differences between cue and no cue conditions in 

Study 1, though similar manipulations appeared to influence results in other researchers’ studies 

(e.g., Chaney et al., 2016). Yet, these other studies did not utilize samples of Asian Americans. 

Instead, samples of white women and men of color (Black and Latino) were used. Due to the 

national conversations of recent years surrounding women’s movements (e.g., Langone, 2018), 

the treatment of black and brown men by the U.S. justice system (e.g., the Netflix documentary 

 

80 

 

“13th”; Kruger, 2016), and the passage of undocumented Latino migrants and asylum seekers at 

the southern U.S. border (e.g., The Conversation, 2019), racial identities such as these have been 

thrust into the spotlight. At the time of the current study (summer and early fall of 2019), there 

did not appear to be attention on Asian Americans in the same way. Thus, perhaps the groups 

used in other studies in the literature felt that their identities were more likely to affect their 

treatment in the workplace because of these national conversations. In comparison, Asian 

American men and women as a group may not have felt their identities would be as impactful on 

the way others treat them at the time.  

An aspect to further consider is whether the identity safety cue (a situational cue) 

manipulation in this study was enough to override one’s trait authenticity. Results did show in 

one instance (Study 2) that trait authenticity interacted with cue condition to predict authenticity 

at work. Thus, there is some support for identity safety cues having an effect beyond trait 

authenticity. 

Additionally, the ‘no cue’ conditions may not be considered “neutral” conditions. They 

were awards related to customer service or customer retention. The very fact that the company 

received awards at all could have boosted the positive valence surrounding the company, making 

it less likely to detect differences in the perceptions between cue conditions. 

Pivoting away from the identity safety cue itself, another point to contemplate is whether 

the leadership context (i.e., participants were told they were to imagine applying to a leadership 

position in the company) produced the identity threat effect that was intended. Earlier in this 

paper, research on role incongruities and implicit leadership theories were referenced to support 

a leadership context as threatening to Asian American women per their race and gender 

 

81 

 

identities. It could be the case that the identity safety cues had no effect because an identity threat 

situation was not perceived.  

It may also be important to note that in the studies by Chaney et al. (2016; Chaney & 

Sanchez, 2018), there was no manipulated threat context. The studies compared women and 

minorities’ perceptions of inclusion, fairness, and group hierarchy (perceived SDO) in general 

rather than in response to a manipulated threat context like in the current study. This difference 

could account for the current study’s lack of findings as the threat manipulation could have 

suppressed differences between cue conditions.  

Addressing the lack of interaction effects hypothesized for stigma consciousness, it is key 

to note that the stigma consciousness measures were mostly uncorrelated with other variables. 

The measure of stigma consciousness used in the current investigation was nearly identical to the 

measure used in Pietri et al. (2018), with the exception of substituting focal social identity 

groups. Pietri et al. (2018) had adapted the measure from Pinel (1999). At least in Study 1A, the 

lack of effects may be due to the mean value of stigma consciousness being relatively low 

compared to the scores garnered in Pietri et al.’s (2018) study. The mean in Study 1A was 2.76, 

while the means in Pietri et al. (2018) ranged from 3.25-3.41. Current studies 1B and 2 had 

similar or higher means for stigma consciousness compared to Pietri et al. (2018). 

 

High intercorrelations between identity safety outcome variables (i.e. feelings of 

belonging, procedural justice, person-organization fit, attraction to the organization) also limit 

interpretations of the current study. The decision was made to proceed with the four 

hypothesized outcome variables based on the eigenvalue rule-of-thumb (i.e., eigenvalues over 

1.0). Study 1B, with the largest sample size, indicated 4 factors based on this guideline, and 

because items did not load onto factors in a consistent pattern in the other studies, the decision 

 

82 

 

was made to keep the number of variables consistent across studies. Additionally, the scree plot 

rule-of-thumb (number of factors above the “scree” or elbow of the graph) indicated that in each 

study there were at least 2 factors, thought the items did not load primarily onto any two factors. 

This combined with results from the eigenvalue guideline support the conclusion that the 

outcome variables were not one general factor.  

Future studies may consider other potential identity safety outcome variables to measure. 

For example, psychological safety (perceptions of interpersonal risks at work) was distinguished 

from authenticity earlier in this paper. Due to the design of this study, psychological safety was 

not an appropriate focus (i.e., the current focus was on potential job applicants, whereas 

psychological safety is best studied via organizational insiders; Edmondson & Lei, 2014). 

Nevertheless, psychological safety may still be an important proximal outcome of identity safety 

cues for individuals who are already part of an organization, and it is considered an antecedent of 

important outcomes such as employee voice and engagement (Edmondson & Lei, 2014). 

 

Lastly, this study was also limited in that there was a lack of continuity across 

experiments. As aforementioned, Studies 1A and 1B used MTurk samples, while Study 2 utilized 

a university sample. Additionally, Studies 1A and 1B were designed with a control condition (no 

cue condition) allowing testing for mediators (Perceived SDO and authenticity at work) between 

cue and identity safety outcomes. Study 2 lacked this control condition so mediation analyses 

could not be pursued. 

Future Directions 

 

Future research can build upon the current study by improving the study design and 

addressing the limitations mentioned above. Two important directions for research include 

investigating the potential nuances of Asian American women as a double-stigmatized identity 

 

83 

 

and clarifying when and where the cue transfer, double jeopardy, and ethnic prominence 

perspectives operate. 

 

Research using Asian American samples is sparse compared to White samples, and 

oftentimes research utilizing Asian individuals uses an international sample rather than Asian 

Americans. Moreover, research on diversity in the U.S. rarely focuses on Asian Americans. The 

fact that many of the study’s hypotheses were not supported may be due to unique circumstances 

surrounding Asian American identity. For example, in contrast to Black American identities 

which are more often studied in the literature, Asian Americans are often referred to as a “model 

minority”. Leong and Grand (2008) described the model minority thesis as a positive stereotype 

that represents Asian Americans as high-achieving, industrious, and determined individuals. 

However, such representation can result in negative consequences, such as being perceived as 

“robotic” (unemotional), being held to unrealistic performance standards, and being seen as 

competition for jobs (Leong & Grand, 2008). 

 

Further research on identity cues can also uncover when and where cue transfer, double 

jeopardy, or ethnic prominence perspectives dominate. The findings Pietri et al. (2018) seem to 

align with the double jeopardy perspective. These researchers found that the most effective 

identity safety cue for a Black woman was an image on a company’s website of a Black woman 

or an image of a White woman explicitly supporting Black women. Yet, in the current study, 

there was no evidence of a similar intersectional cue having a more positive effect for Asian 

American women over single identity cues. Instead there is some support for an ethnic 

prominence perspective in that the racial identity safety cue showed the strongest effect on 

authenticity at work for individuals low on trait authenticity in Study 2 (sample: Asian American 

women). Although, it is important to note that Pietri et al. (2018) used a more personal, image-

 

84 

 

based identity safety cue in contrast to the textual, company award identity safety cue used in the 

present investigation. It is likely pertinent that more research examines the differential effects of 

cue types (i.e., image vs. text, etc.). 

Additionally, an original goal of this study was to manipulate the context of the vignette 

such that there would be a condition in Study 2 where only one identity held by Asian American 

women would be threatened. This would be accomplished by changing the company in the 

vignette from marketing to engineering (STEM). Because Asian Americans are well-represented 

in STEM, it would be expected that applying for a leadership position in a STEM company 

would only threaten Asian American women in terms of their gender identity. Unfortunately, the 

current endeavor could not recruit enough Asian American women participants to carry out the 

full study design and the sample for this condition as not collected. Nevertheless, future research 

attempts could utilize a similar study design with this condition, allowing for a test of whether a 

cue transfer or double jeopardy perspective holds. A purely cue transfer perspective would 

predict that any cue condition would lead to identity safety because perceptions of the 

organization’s treatment of one group should generalize to others. Yet, a double jeopardy 

perspective would predict a significant difference between the effects of double identity safety 

cues (double and intersected cues) and single identity safety cues (racial and gender cues) such 

that the double cues would have more favorable outcomes. 

Another future research direction would be to incorporate the Multidimensional Model of 

Racial Identity (MMRI) by Sellers, Smith, Shelton, Rowley, and Chavous (1998). This model is 

primarily concerned with African American racial identity, but it is noted by the authors that 

parts can be generalized to other groups. The MMRI defines racial identity as “the significance 

and qualitative meaning that individuals attribute to their membership within the Black racial 

 

85 

 

group within their self-concepts.” (p. 23; Sellers, et al., 1998). The MMRI posits four dimensions 

of racial identity: salience, centrality, regard, and ideology. Salience and centrality focus on how 

individuals define themselves, while regard and ideology focus on how the individuals perceive 

their racial group and how individuals perceive others view their racial group. The MMRI 

assumes that identities can be influenced by the environment and that an individual holds 

multiple identities which are then ranked in importance. Thus, identity safety cues fit within this 

framework, specifically under the salience dimension which refers to the degree to which race is 

relevant in a given moment based on the interaction of situational cues and individual 

differences. Further research using the MMRI framework may be particularly informative, 

especially in light of the relationships between acculturation and identity safety outcomes (i.e., 

authenticity at work, perceived SDO) found in the current investigation which can be interpreted 

as hinting at the importance of identity salience or centrality. 

A third way to improve upon the study design, and that may account for some of the 

observed effects of the current investigation, would be to use more culturally appropriate 

measures of authenticity. In their seminal article, Markus and Kitayama (1991) elaborated on 

independent (i.e., self is derived from one’s unique configuration of internal attributes) and 

interdependent (i.e., self is derived from social relationships and contingent on context) self-

construals that characterize Western and Eastern societies, respectively. While their assumptions 

have been met with some criticism (Matsumoto, 1991), Markus and Kitayama (1991) highlight 

the importance of possible cultural differences in how individuals interpret and respond to the 

same information (e.g., survey materials). Thus, we would be unable to interpret the findings of 

Study 1B in the way hypothesized if the authenticity measures used were not measuring the 

“same” authenticity construct in Asian American and White women participants (i.e., construct 

 

86 

 

validity in one culture should not lead one to assume a measure has construct validity in another 

culture). Indeed, Markus and Kitayama (1991) would assert that while White women would have 

responded to the authenticity measures as intended, as the measures were created by Western 

researchers, Asian American women, possessing more interdependent self-construals, would 

fundamentally understand the items in a different way as they would be based on context (e.g., 

who is asking me to take this survey). In some support of this, results of the current study 

indicated that White women scored significantly higher than Asian American women on both 

situational and dispositional authenticity measures. This line of thinking could also be applied to 

the identity safety cue manipulations used. Previous studies (e.g., Chaney et al., 2016), showed 

that these manipulations were effective, but only in non-immigrant U.S. samples. Thus, 

interdependent self-construals may have led the Asian American participants in the current 

investigation to respond differently to cue manipulations.  

Conclusion 

 

The current study contributes to the existing literature evidence that authenticity at work 

is a viable mediator for cue—identity safety outcome relationships. The study design also 

focused on Asian American women, an underrepresented group in research. Furthermore, the 

current research compares multiple theoretical perspectives (cue transfer, double jeopardy, ethnic 

prominence) on the issue of multiple stigmatized identities. While strong evidence did not 

emerge for any of these perspectives, important questions are raised as to when and where each 

perspective is most likely to find support. Lastly, it is important to consider whether there are any 

unique aspects of Asian American identity that may have resulted in these findings. Notably, 

Asian Americans are a diverse ethnic group within the U.S. which may muddle interpretations of 

findings as well as diverge from our understandings of Asian individuals internationally. 

 

87 

 

 

1.  Originally, Study 2 was also meant to investigate whether individuals with double-

ENDNOTES 

stigmatized identities will maintain a double jeopardy expectation despite being in a 

context that supposedly should not pose an identity threat to one dimension of their 

identity. Determining what the differences across cue conditions are for a work context 

that is ostensibly only a threat to one stigmatized identity of a double-stigmatized 

individual may strengthen or weaken support for cue transfer and the double jeopardy 

hypothesis.  

The study design called for varying whether participants (i.e., Asian American 

women) were presented with a marketing or STEM leadership position for which they 

could possibly apply. A marketing context would involve a double identity threat and in 

turn, according to the double jeopardy hypothesis, the need for identity cues that tap both 

stigmatizations (racial and gender). A STEM context differs in that Asian American 

women may not feel that their racial identity is threatened as STEM fields have a strong 

representation of Asian scientists (Leong & Gupta, 2007; Sy et al., 2010), though their 

gender identity may still be threatened due to the low representation of women in STEM. 

What would this mean for the effect of different cues?  

Cue transfer phenomenon (Chaney et al., 2016) would posit that any of the cue 

conditions would lead to identity safety in either marketing or STEM because perceptions 

of the organization’s treatment of one group should generalize to other groups. The 

double jeopardy hypothesis would be more specific and predict that the double cue and 

particularly the intersected cue conditions would lead to more advantageous identity 

safety outcomes, even for the STEM condition. That is to say, evidence for the double 

jeopardy hypothesis would be demonstrated if both the marketing and STEM conditions 

88 

 

 

showed that double cue and intersected cue conditions resulted in greater advantageous 

outcomes (i.e., proximal outcomes such as perceived SDO and authenticity at work) 

compared to racial cue and gender cue conditions. This result would support the idea that 

Asian American women see their experience as unique, so even though STEM may have 

a representative population of scientists of Asian descent, they would not see this racial 

cue as supporting them. Given these competing predictions, the following question would 

have been posed: 

Research Question 2. Will there be an effect of context on the relationships between 

identity safety cues and perceived SDO and anticipated authenticity? 

Again, this question could not be tested due to limitations in data collection which 

led to dropping this leadership context manipulation. 

2.  Extreme difficulties in obtaining samples of Asian Americans using Amazon’s 

Mechanical Turk in Study 1 precipitated the need to find other participant pools of Asian 

American women for Study 2. In one attempt, Asian American interest groups were 

contacted and asked to take the survey in exchange for donations to charity, but this effort 

yielded only 8 usable responses, as the majority of attempted responses were ineligible 

based on the screening questions.  

The final attempt to obtain a sample of Asian American women involved 

contacting university email addresses of individuals flagged as Asian American and 

female by the registrar’s office at a large midwestern university. At the same time, an 

identical message was sent out to the listserv of the Asian American Psychological 

Association. Because the 8 responses from the previous attempt were such a small 

amount and from a different source, these were not included in the final analyses. 

89 

 

 

 

APPENDICES

90 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX A 

 

Prescreening Questions 

 

91 

 

Participants in Study 1A/B were asked questions 1-5. Participants in Study 2 were asked 
questions i-5, and in Question 2 the wording was changed to [5 years]. 

Because Study 2 could not be recruited via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk like in Study 1, 
participants in Study 2 were asked to confirm that they had not seen an image from the study 
before (question i) and to confirm that they had not completed any HITs on Amazon’s 
Mechanical Turk in the prior 3 months (question ii). 

 

 

 

i. 

 
Have you seen this image, or one very similar to this image, before? 

a.  Yes 
b.  No 
c.  I don’t remember 

ii.  Have you completed any work (i.e., HITs) on Amazon's Mechanical Turk platform in the 

last 3 months? 

a.  Yes 
b.  No 

1.  Are you 18 years of age or older? 

A.  Yes 
B.  No 

2.  Which of the following describes you? 

A.  Native-born U.S. citizen 
B.  Immigrant or Naturalized U.S. citizen 
C.  Green card holder and has resided in the U.S. for 10 [5] years or more 
D.  Green card holder and has resided in the U.S. for less than 10 [5] years 
E.  Long term U.S. resident (has resided in the U.S. for 10 [5] years or more) 
F.  Short term U.S. resident (has resided in the U.S. for less than 10 [5] years) 

3.  Which of the following best describes you? 

A.  Native English language speaker 

92 

 

 

 

B.  Highly proficient in the English language 
C.  Moderately proficient in the English language 
D.  Knows basic English language 
E.  Does not know English language 

4.  Which gender do you prefer to identify as? 

A.  Man 
B.  Woman 
C.  Transgender 

5.  What is your primary race/ethnicity?  

A.  African-American 
B.  Hispanic or Latino/a 
C.  Asian (Far East Asian) 
D.  Asian (North Asia) 
E.  Asian (Southeast Asian) 
F.  Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 
G.  Native American or American Indian or Alaska Native 
H.  Middle Eastern (Middle East) 
I.  Middle Eastern (North Africa) 
J.  Middle Eastern (Arab world) 
K.  White/Caucasian (Not of Hispanic or Latino/a origins) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

93 

 

 

 

APPENDIX B  

 

Informed Consent 

 

94 

 

Participants in Study 1A and 1B saw the following informed consent: 

 

Informed Consent 

Perceptions of Organizations and Leadership Positions 

The purpose of this research study is to understand how people perceive organizations and 
leadership positions and what affects these perceptions. In this study, you will read and answer 
questions about a company and whether you would like to apply to a leadership job at this 
company. At the end, you will be asked to fill out a few demographic questions, such as how old 
you are. 

This research study will take approximately 15 minutes to complete, and you will receive a one-
time payment of $1.25 for your participation at the end of the session which will be delivered via 
the Amazon Mechanical Turk system.  Your participation is voluntary and greatly appreciated. If 
you choose not to participate, simply return this HIT. You may refrain from participating in 
certain procedures or answering certain questions, and you may discontinue your participation at 
any time throughout the survey. Doing so will not affect the treatment you will receive; however, 
your payment may be impacted if one of the 'Compensation Rules' below is violated. Also, you 
have the right to request that your responses not be used in the data analyses.   

Compensation Rules 

The following are reasons why we would not be able to compensate you for your participation. 
By following these compensation rules, we hope to be as fair as possible to survey respondents 
who meet the study criteria, who access the survey only once, and who provide quality data for 
our study. Please note: 

·       If you do not include your MTurk ID in the online survey we cannot identify you and so 
you will not be compensated if you fail to correctly enter your Mturk ID in the online survey. If 
we have no record of your Mturk ID in our data, we cannot compensate you. 

·       If you are not eligible to take this research survey based on the prescreening questions, we 
cannot compensate you for your participation. The quality of our scientific study depends on 
participants meeting these criteria. If we find that you have re-entered the survey multiple times 
after initially failing the prescreening questions, we also cannot compensate you. 

·       If your survey responses include poor qualitative (written) responses, we cannot 
compensate you for your participation. Poor quality qualitative responses include, but are not 
limited to, nonsensical text or lines copied and pasted from other internet sources. The rigor of 
our scientific study depends on high quality data. 

·       If you type the wrong survey code into the Mturk survey code box, we cannot compensate 
you for your participation as we cannot ensure you are a human participant who is eligible for 
this research survey. 

 

95 

 

·       If you fail the CAPTCHA check, we cannot compensate you for your participation as we 
cannot ensure you are a human participant who is eligible for this research survey. 

·       If you do not correctly answer attention check items, we cannot compensate you for your 
participation as we cannot be sure you have provided quality data. 

 

Participation in this research study does not involve any foreseeable risks. The benefit of 
participating in this research study, however, is that you have the opportunity to learn more about 
the research process and also help contribute to scientific advancement. 
  

This study is confidential. Your answers will only be associated with an anonymous ID. To help 
us protect your confidentiality, please do not write or give your name or any other identifying 
information during the study. Your confidentiality will be protected to the maximum extent 
allowed by law. All data will be stored on the hard drive of a secure computer and will only be 
accessed by trained experimenters. Data will be stored for five years after the publication of 
research stemming from this project---as specified by the American Psychological Association. 

  

At the conclusion of this research, you will be provided with an explanation of the survey. It is 
our goal that you learn about the research you participated in today. Furthermore, the investigator 
will be happy to answer any questions you have about the research.  

  

Caitlin Briggs, a graduate student in the Department of Psychology at Michigan State is 
conducting this scientific study under the advisement of Dr. Ann Marie Ryan, a professor in the 
Department of Psychology. If you have questions about the study, contact Ann Marie Ryan, 
Ph.D., Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, phone: 
517-353-8855, e-mail: ryanan@msu.edu.  If you have questions or concerns about your role and 
rights as a research participant, 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 4000 
Collins Rd., Suite 136, Lansing, MI 48910. 

  

Your continued participation in this survey indicates your consent to participate in this study. 

 

 

 

 

96 

 

Participants in Study 2 saw the following informed consent page: 

Informed Consent 

Perceptions of Organizations and Leadership Positions 

The purpose of this research study is to understand how people perceive organizations and 
leadership positions and what affects these perceptions. In this study, you will read and answer 
questions about a company and whether you would like to apply to a leadership job at this 
company. At the end, you will be asked to fill out a few demographic questions, such as how old 
you are. 
 
This research study will take approximately 10-15 minutes to complete. Several strategies are 
being used to recruit participants. In the final stages of data collection, some participants will be 
compensated via a $5.00 electronic gift card. Earlier in the stages of data collection, some 
participants will be compensated via a donation to charity. At the start of data collection, 
participants received a one-time payment of $1.25 for participation delivered via the Amazon 
Mechanical Turk system. Participation is voluntary and greatly appreciated. If you are an MTurk 
worker and choose not to participate, simply return this HIT. 
 
Any participant may refrain from participating in certain procedures or answering certain 
questions, and you may discontinue your participation at any time throughout the survey. Doing 
so will not affect the treatment you will receive; however, your compensation may be impacted if 
one of the 'Compensation Rules' below is violated. Also, you have the right to request that your 
responses not be used in the data analyses.  
 
Compensation Rules for Participants Compensated by Gift Card 
 
The following are reasons why we would not be able to compensate you (i.e., donate to charity) 
for your participation. Having these rules ensures the scientific rigor of our study. Please note: 
  

If you are not eligible to take this research survey based on the prescreening questions, we 
cannot compensate you for your participation. 

  

The quality of our scientific study depends on participants meeting certain criteria. If we find that 
you have re-entered the survey multiple times after initially failing the prescreening questions, 
we also cannot compensate you. 
 
If your survey responses include poor qualitative (written) responses, we cannot compensate you 
for your participation. Poor quality qualitative responses include, but are not limited to, 
nonsensical text or lines copied and pasted from other internet sources. The rigor of our scientific 
study depends on high quality data. 
 

 

97 

 

If you survey responses include poor quantitative (multi-choice) responses, we cannot 
compensate you for your participation. Poor quantitative responses include patterned responding, 
such as choosing the same answers for a great number of items in a row when the wording of the 
items would suggest that this would not be possible (i.e., some items are positively worded and 
some are negatively worded). The rigor of our scientific study depends on high quality data. 
 
If you fail the CAPTCHA check, we cannot compensate you for your participation as we cannot 
ensure you are a human participant who is eligible for this research survey. 
 
If you do not correctly answer attention check items, we cannot compensate you for your 
participation as we cannot be sure you have provided quality data. If you have completed HITs 
on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk platform in the past 3 months, we cannot compensate you for 
participation because we cannot ensure you haven’t already taken a version of this experimental 
survey. 
 
Participation in this research study does not involve any foreseeable risks. The benefit of 
participating in this research study, however, is that you have the opportunity to learn more about 
the research process and also help contribute to scientific advancement. 

  
This study is confidential. Your answers will only be associated with an anonymous ID. To help 
us protect your confidentiality, please do not write or give your name or any other identifying 
information during the study. Your confidentiality will be protected to the maximum extent 
allowed by law. All data will be stored on the hard drive of a secure computer and will only be 
accessed by trained experimenters. Data will be stored for five years after the publication of 
research stemming from this project---as specified by the American Psychological Association. 
 
At the conclusion of this research, you will be provided with an explanation of the survey. It is 
our goal that you learn about the research you participated in today. Furthermore, the investigator 
will be happy to answer any questions you have about the research.  
 
Caitlin Briggs, a graduate student in the Department of Psychology at Michigan State is 
conducting this scientific study under the advisement of Dr. Ann Marie Ryan, a professor in the 
Department of Psychology. If you have questions about the study, contact Ann Marie Ryan, 
Ph.D., Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, phone: 
517-353-8855, e-mail: ryanan@msu.edu.  If you have questions or concerns about your role and 
rights as a research participant, 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 4000 
Collins Rd., Suite 136, Lansing, MI 48910. 
  
Your continued participation in this survey indicates your consent to participate in this study. 
  

 

98 

 

 

 

APPENDIX C  

 

Initial Directions for Participants 

 

99 

 

Participants in Study 1A/B and Study 2 read: 

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this study. Please read all sections carefully as you will 
be quizzed on this information later in the survey. 

In the following sections you will be provided with information about a company called the 
Smith & Johnson Corporation. You will be asked to imagine that you may potentially apply for a 
leadership position at Smith & Johnson Corporation and you will be given a job posting about 
this position. The questions that follow will pertain to your impressions of Smith & Johnson 
Corporation and how you feel regarding potentially working for this company. 

 

 

 

 

100 

 

 

 

APPENDIX D 

 

Company Description 

 

101 

 

The following manipulation was shown to all participants in Studies 1A/B and 2.  

Participants read: 

Below is a screenshot of a page on Smith & Johnson Corporation’s website. Smith & Johnson 
Corporation is a marketing firm. 

Figure 1. Company Description Presented in All Surveys 

 

 

 

 

102 

 

 

 

APPENDIX E 

 

Manipulations for Cue Conditions 

 

103 

 

Participants read: Below is a screenshot of an awards page on Smith & Johnson Corporation’s 
website to give you a better idea of how the company performs. 

Study 1A manipulations: Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 cue conditions: 

Figure 2. Study 1A No Identity Safety Cue Manipulation 

Figure 3. Study 1A Racial Identity Safety Cue Manipulation 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

104 

 

Study 1B manipulations: Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 cue conditions: 

Figure 4. Study 1B No Identity Safety Cue Manipulation

 

Figure 5. Study 1B Gender Identity Safety Cue Manipulation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

105 

 

Study 2 manipulations: Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 cue conditions below: 

Figure 6. Study 2 Racial Identity Safety Cue Manipulation

 

Figure 7. Study 2 Gender Identity Safety Cue Manipulation

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

106 

 

Figure 8. Study 2 Double Identity Safety Cue (Race and Gender Cues Separate) Manipulation

 

 

 

Figure 9. Study 2 Intersected Identity Safety Cue (Cue Specific to Asian American Women) 
Manipulation 

 

 

  

 

107 

 

 

 

APPENDIX F 

 

Job Description 

 

108 

 

Participants in Study 1A/B and Study 2 were shown a job posting for Director of Marketing. 

Posting:  Director of Marketing (developed from Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2018a; Workable, 
n.d.) 
 
This role will require an individual who is capable of fulfilling the duties outlined below: 

Initiate, lead, and develop new projects such as promotional and advertising campaigns  

• 
•  Hire and supervise departmental staff, including providing guidance and feedback 
•  Coordinate work with staff and managers from other departments 
•  Propose budgets for projects and programs 
•  Evaluate project progress made by staff  

 

 

 

109 

 

 

 

APPENDIX G 

 

Items and Measures 

 

110 

 

Item wording has been adapted for use in this study as described in the Measures section. 
The order of measures presented here is the order in which they were presented to 
participants. 

Participants in Study 1A/B and Study 2 saw the same items and measures, except where 
noted (see manipulation checks, stigma consciousness measures, and acculturation 
measures). 

Participants read: The next section will ask you questions related to your perceptions of the 
organization you just learned about. Please read carefully as there are attention checks to make 
sure you have fully understood the question. 

 

Open-Ended Item 

Participants were first asked to answer an open-ended question about their initial thoughts 
toward the organization and job. This item also served as an attention check (i.e., nonsense and 
gibberish answers were screened out). 

Participants read: 

Imagine you are potentially applying for the leadership position at Smith & Johnson described in 
the posting you just read. In 2-3 sentences below, please describe your initial thoughts about the 
organization and the job position. 

 

Anticipated Feelings of Belonging (adapted from Cook et al., 2012) 
 
Social Belonging Dimension Only 

1.  People in this organization would accept me. 
2.  I feel like I would belong in this organization. 
3.  I would feel like an outsider at this organization. (R) 
4.  I would feel comfortable at this organization. 
5.  People at this organization are a lot like me. 

Scale: 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree); no midpoint 

Procedural Justice (adapted from Colquitt et al., 2015) 

Instructions: The questions below refer to the procedures Smith & Johnson Corporation 
uses to make decisions about pay, rewards, evaluations, promotions, and so forth. If you were to 
work at this organization, to what extent: 
 

1.  Would you be able to express your views during those procedures? 
2.  Would your views go unheard during those procedures? (R) 
3.  Could you influence the decisions arrived at by those procedures? 
4.  Will the decisions arrived at by those procedures lack your input? (R) 

 

111 

 

5.  Would those procedures be applied consistently? 
6.  Would those procedures be applied unevenly? (R) 
7.  Would those procedures be free of bias? 
8.  Would those procedures be one-sided? (R) 
9.  Would those procedures be based on accurate information? 
10. Would those procedures be based on faulty information? (R) 
11. Would you be able to appeal the decisions arrived at by those procedures? 
12. Would the decisions arrived at by those procedures be “set in stone”? (R) 
13. Would those procedures uphold ethical and moral standards? 
14. Would those procedures be unprincipled or wrong? (R) 

Scale: 1 (To a very small extent) to 5 (To a very large extent) 

Person-Organization Fit (Cable & Judge, 1996) 

Instructions: The questions below refer to your perceptions of Smith & Johnson Corporation 
. 

1.  To what degree do you feel your values ‘match’ or fit this organization and the current 

employees in this organization?  

2.  My values match those of current employees in the organization? 
3.  Do you think the values and ‘personality’ of this organization reflect your own values and 

personality? 

Scale: 1 (not at all) to 5 (completely) 

Attraction to the Organization (Highhouse et al., 2003) 

Instructions: The questions below refer to your perceptions of Smith & Johnson Corporation. 

1.  For me, this company would be a great place to work. 
2.  I would not be interested in this company except as a last resort. 
3.  This company is attractive to me as a place for employment. 
4.  I am interested in learning more about this company. 
5.  A job at this company is very appealing to me. 
6.  I would accept a job offer from this company. 
7.  I would make this company one of my first choices as an employer. 
8.  If this company invited me to a job interview, I would go. 
9.  I would exert a great deal of effort to work for this company. 
10. I would recommend this company to a friend looking for a job. 
11. Employees are proud to say they work at this company. 
12. This is a reputable company to work for. 
13. This company has a reputation for being an excellent employer. 
14. I would find this company a prestigious place to work. 
15. There are probably many who would like to work at this company. 

Scale: 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) 

 

 

 

112 

 

Perceived Social Dominance Orientation (Pratto et al., 1994) 

Instructions: The statements below refer to the values of Smith & Johnson Corporation 
or its employees. Please indicate how you think a manager at this company would perceive these 
statements. 

1.  Some groups of people are simply not the equals of others. 
2.  Some people are just more worthy than others. 
3.  This country would be better off if we cared less about how equal all people were. 
4.  Some people are just more deserving than others. 
5.  It is not a problem if some people have more of a chance in life than others. 
6.  Some people are inferior to others. 
7.  To get ahead in life, it is sometimes necessary to step on others. 
8.  Increased economic equality. 
9.  Increased social equality. 
10. Equality. 
11. If people were treated more equally we would have fewer problems in this country. 
12. In an ideal world, all nations would be equal. 
13. We should try to treat one another as equals as much as possible. 
14. It is important that we treat other countries as equals. 

Scale: 1 (A manager would strongly oppose) to 7 (A manager would strongly favor) 

Anticipated Authenticity at work (adapted from van den Bosch & Taris, 2012) 

Instructions: Please imagine how you would feel and behave if you were to work at Smith & 
Johnson Corporation.  
  

1.  I would be true to myself at work in most situations. 
2.  At work, I would always stand by what I believe in. 
3.  I would behave in accordance with my values and beliefs in the workplace. 
4.  I would find it easier to get on with people in the workplace when I’m being myself. 
5.  At work, I would feel alienated. 
6.  I would not feel who I truly am at work. 
7.  At work, I would feel out of touch with the ‘‘real me’’. 
8.  In my working environment I would feel ‘‘cut off’’ from who I really am. 
9.  At work, I would feel the need to do what others expect me to do. 
10. I would be strongly influenced in the workplace by the opinions of others. 
11. Other people would influence me greatly at work. 
12. At work, I would behave in a manner that people expect me to behave. 

 

Scale: 1 (‘‘does not describe me at all’’) to 7 (‘‘describes me very well’’). 

Manipulation Checks 

Participants read: The next section will ask you questions related to the information you have 
seen previously. 

 

113 

 

A) marketing 
B) engineering 

Study 1A and 1B – all participants 
 
What type of business is Smith & Johnson Corporation? 
 
 
 
Study 1A – participants in the racial identity safety cue condition 
 
Which award does the Smith & Johnson corporation hold? 
 

A) “One of America’s Top Companies for Asian American Executives” by the National  
Association for Asian American Executives 
B) “One of America’s Top Companies for Women Executives” by the National  
Association for Female Executives 

 
Study 1A – participants in the no cue condition 
 
Which award does the Smith & Johnson corporation hold? 

A) “Agency of the Year” by CIM Marketing Excellence Awards 
B) “One of America’s Top Companies for Women Executives” by the National  
Association for Female Executives 

 
Study 1B – participants in the gender identity safety cue condition 
 
Which award does the Smith & Johnson corporation hold? 
 

A) “One of America’s Top Companies for Women Executives” by the National  
Association for Female Executives 
B) “One of America’s Top Companies for LGBT Executives” by the National  
Association for LGBT Executives 

 
Study 1B – participants in the no cue condition 
 
Which award does the Smith & Johnson corporation hold? 

A) “Agency of the Year” by CIM Marketing Excellence Awards 
B) “One of America’s Top Companies for LGBT Executives” by the National  
Association for LGBT Executives 
 

Study 2 – all participants 
 
What type of business is Smith & Johnson Corporation? 
 
 
 
Study 2 – racial identity safety cue condition manipulation check 

A) marketing 
B) engineering 

 

114 

 

 
Which award does the Smith & Johnson Corporation hold (read the choices carefully)? 

A) “One of America’s Top Companies for Asian American Executives” by the National  
Association for Asian American Executives 
B) “One of America’s Top Companies for Women Executives” by the National  
Association for Female Executives 

 
Study 2 – gender identity safety cue condition manipulation check 
 
Which award does the Smith & Johnson Corporation hold (read the choices carefully)? 

A) “One of America’s Top Companies for Asian American Executives” by the National  
Association for Asian American Executives 
B) “One of America’s Top Companies for Women Executives” by the National  
Association for Female Executives 

 
Study 2 – double identity safety cue condition manipulation check 
 
Which award does the Smith & Johnson Corporation hold (read the choices carefully)? 
A) “One of America’s Top Companies for Women Executives” by the National  
Association for Female Executives 
B) “One of America’s Top Companies for LGBT Executives” by the National  
Association for LGBT Executives 

 
Study 2 – intersected identity safety cue condition manipulation check 
 
Which award does the Smith & Johnson Corporation hold (read the choices carefully)? 

A) “One of America’s Top Companies for Asian American Women Executives” by the 
National Association for Asian American Executives 
B) “One of America’s Top Companies for LGBT Executives” by the National  
Association for LGBT Executives 

 
 
Trait (Dispositional) Authenticity (Wood et al., 2008) 

Instructions: The next section will ask you to think about how well each statement describes you 
personally. 

1.  I feel as if I don’t know myself very well. 
2.  I feel out of touch with the “real me.” 
3.  I feel alienated from myself. 
4.  I don’t know how I really feel inside. 
5.  I always stand by what I believe in. 
6.  I am true to myself in most situations. 
7.  I think it is better to be yourself, than to be popular. 

 

115 

 

8.  I live in accordance with my values and beliefs. 
9.  I usually do what other people tell me to do. 
10. Other people influence me greatly. 
11. I am strongly influenced by the opinions of others. 
12. I always feel I need to do what others expect me to do. 

Stigma Consciousness (adapted from Pietri et al., 2018; Pinel, 1999) 

Participants read: The next section will ask you questions related to your perceptions of the 
world in general. 

Participants in Study 1A took the stigma consciousness measure only once and only for racial 
stigma consciousness. Participants in Study 1B took the stigma consciousness measure only once 
and only for gender stigma consciousness. Participants in Study 2 took all three versions of this 
5-item scale corresponding to their race, gender, and race and gender combined. 

Racial Stigma Consciousness  

1.  Stereotypes about [Asian Americans] have not affected me personally. (R) 
2.  I never worry that my behaviors will be viewed as stereotypical of [Asian Americans]. 

(R) 

3.  When interacting with people, I feel like they interpret all of my behaviors in terms of my 

[race]. 

4.  Most people do not judge other people on the basis of their [race]. (R) 
5.  Being a [Asian American individual] does not influence how people act with me. (R) 

Gender Stigma Consciousness 

1.  Stereotypes about [women] have not affected me personally. (R) 
2.  I never worry that my behaviors will be viewed as stereotypical of [women]. (R) 
3.  When interacting with people, I feel like they interpret all of my behaviors in terms of my 

[gender]. 

4.  Most people do not judge other people on the basis of their [gender] [. (R) 
5.  Being a [woman] does not influence how people act with me. (R) 

Race and Gender Combined Stigma Consciousness (Asian American Women)  

1.  Stereotypes about [Asian American women] have not affected me personally. (R) 
2.  I never worry that my behaviors will be viewed as stereotypical of [Asian American 

women]. (R) 

3.  When interacting with people, I feel like they interpret all of my behaviors in terms of my 

[gender and race]. 

4.  Most people do not judge other people on the basis of their [gender and race]. (R) 
5.  Being a [Asian American woman] does not influence how people act with me. (R) 

Scale: 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) 

 
 
 

 

116 

 

Acculturation (adapted from Chung et al., 2004) 
 
In Study 1A and Study 2, all participants took the acculturation measures because they identified 
as Asian American. In Study 1B, only participants who identified as Asian American took the 
acculturation measures (i.e., White women did not take the acculturation measures). 
 
Participants read: Please write-in the name of the culture that you consider your culture of origin 
(e.g., Chinese, Japanese, Korean) 
 

Below you will be asked to answer each question in reference to 3 different groups: 

•  your culture of origin 
•  other Asian Americans in general 
•  European Americans 

 

1.  How much do you feel you have in common with people from the following groups? 
2.  How much do you interact and associate with people from the following groups? 
3.  How much do you identify with the following groups? 
4.  How much would you like to interact and associate with people from the following 

groups? 

5.  How much would you like to interact and associate with people from the following 

groups? 

6.  How negative do you feel about people from the following groups? 
7.  How knowledgeable are you about the culture and traditions of the following groups? 
8.  How knowledgeable are you about the history of the following groups? 
9.  How much do you actually practice the traditions and keep the holidays of the following 

groups? 

10. How often do you listen to music or look at movies and magazines of the following 

groups? 

 
Scale: 1 (not very much) to 6  (very much) 
 
Perceived Workplace Flexibility (Jones et al., 2008) 
 
Please answer the following questions with what you know about Smith & Johnson Corporation. 
  
If you were to work at Smith & Johnson, how much control do you think you would have over.... 
WHERE you would be able to work 
WHEN you would be able to work 
 
Scale: 1 (none) to 4 (a large degree of control) 

 

117 

 

Demographic Items 

 

What is your age in years? (please type you answer below) 
____ 
 
Which gender identity is yours? 

A.  Man 
B.  Woman 
C.  Transgender 
D.  Nonbinary 
E.  Please write-in an answer if you prefer: _____ 
F.  Prefer not to answer 

 
What is your sexual orientation (e.g., straight, gay, lesbian,, bisexual)? Please write-in your 
answer below. 
____________________ 
 
 
What is your race/ethnicity? (Check all that apply) 

A.  African-American 
B.  Hispanic or Latino/a 
C.  Asian (Far East) 
D.  Asian (North Asia) 
E.  Asian (Southeast Asia) 
F.  Asian (Indian subcontinent) 
G.  Native American or American Indian or Alaskan Native 
H.  Middle Eastern (Middle East) 
I.  Middle Eastern (North Africa) 
J.  Middle Eastern (Arab world) 
K.  White/Caucasian (Not of Hispanic/Latino/a origins) 
L.  Other (please specify): _________ 
M. Prefer not to answer 

 

 

Are you currently employed? 

1.  Part-time 
2.  Full-time 
3.  Unemployed 

 

 

 

 

118 

 

 
 

 

APPENDIX H 

 

Debriefing Form 

 

119 

 

All participants in Study 1A/B and Study 2 viewed the debriefing form below: 
 

Debriefing Form 

  

Thank you for participating in this study. Below you will find more information about the 
purpose of this study as well as a list of counseling and informational resources. 

The purpose of this study was to examine how identity safety cues, things like the company 
diversity awards presented in this study, affect different people’s perceptions of an organization. 
These perceptions included things such as how much the organization values group equality, 
whether a person feels they can be authentic at this organization, and whether the organization 
appears to have fair procedures. Your responses in this study will help inform researchers of the 
psychological mechanisms that could potentially affect how identity safety cues operate for 
different groups of people. 

If for any reason the study questions or participation made you feel in need of advice or 
counseling, please see the national resource listed below.  

Crisis Text Line - 24/7 Support 

Text 741741 for help 

https://www.crisistextline.org/  

Crisis Text Line is free, 24/7 support for those in crisis. Text 741741 from anywhere in the US to 
text with a trained Crisis Counselor.  

We would like to thank you again for your participation. Participants who are interested in 
learning more about the results of this study may send the researchers a request for a summary of 
the findings via email at briggs25@msu.edu. They may also send any comments, questions or 
concerns regarding the study to the principal investigator, Dr. Ann Marie Ryan at: Department of 
Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, E-mail: ryanan@msu.edu. 

To complete this survey, please press the arrow below. 

 

 

 

120 

 

 

 

APPENDIX I 

 

Tables and Figures 

 

121 

 

Figure 1. Model of Study 1 Hypotheses

 

 

122 

 

Figure 2. Model of Study 2 Hypotheses 

Note. Bolded hypotheses are new hypotheses addressed in Study 2

 

 

123 

 

Table 1. Study 1A Means, Standard Deviations, and Bivariate Correlations 

Variable 

M(SD) 

Likert  
Scale 

Feelings of 
Belonging 

4.60(.86) 

6 pt 

1 

 

Procedural Justice 

3.68(.61) 

5 pt 

.55** 

 

 

3.81(.81) 

5 pt 

.77** 

.41** 

4.05(.65) 

5 pt 

.70** 

.61** 

.68** 

2.91(1.33) 

7 pt 

-.45** 

-.49** 

-.45** 

-.42** 

4.69(1.07) 

7 pt 

.52** 

.60** 

.33** 

.42** 

-.52** 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trait Authenticity 

5.09(1.10) 

7 pt 

.37** 

.62** 

.20 

.45** 

-.40** 

.76** 

 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

Person-Organization 
Fit 

Attraction to 
Organization 

Perceived Social 
Dominance 
Orientation 

Authenticity at the 
Workplace 

Stigma 
Consciousness for 
Race 

Country of Origin 
Acculturation 

Asian American 
Acculturation 

European American 
Acculturation 

2.76(.85) 

5 pt 

.16 

.06 

.08 

.09 

-.21 

.11 

.03 

4.40(.96) 

6 pt 

.49** 

.07 

.42** 

.35** 

-.33** 

.16 

.07 

.17 

4.22(.83) 

6 pt 

.43** 

.17 

.50** 

.35** 

-.10 

.04 

-.06 

.10 

.64** 

4.07(.84) 

6 pt 

.09 

.09 

.22 

.23* 

.10 

-.02 

.08 

-.20 

.11 

.27* 

12  Work Flexibility 

2.88(.75) 

4 pt 

.32** 

.05 

.45** 

.32** 

-.11 

.11 

.11 

-.05 

.25** 

.38** 

.17 

13  Cue Condition 

.53(.50) 

n/a 

.03 

.04 

.05 

.06 

-.03 

-.03 

-.05 

.32** 

.04 

.02 

-.15 

.09 

14 

Stigmatized Status 
(Gender) 

.60(.49) 

n/a 

-.11 

-.05 

-.02 

-.03 

.11 

-.03 

-.03 

-.03 

.01 

.11 

.04 

.09 

.05 

 
 

 

124 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 1 (cont’d) 

Note. All Likert scales oriented such that higher numbers equal greater levels of the variable. Cue Condition coded as 1 = “Racial cue presented,” 0 = “No cue presented”. 
Stigmatized Status coded as 1 = double-stigmatized (Asian American women), 0 = single-stigmatized (Asian American men). Significant correlations are bolded. 

*p<.05 **p<.01 

 

125 

 

Table 2. Study 1A Mean Outcome and Mediator Scores by Condition with t-Tests 

Measure/Condition 

Feelings of Belonging 

Racial Cue 

No Cue 

Female 

Male 

Procedural Justice 

Racial Cue 

No Cue 

Female 

Male 

Person-Organization Fit 

Racial Cue 

No Cue 

Female 

Male 

Attraction to Organization 

Racial Cue 

No Cue 

Female 

Male 

Perceived SDO 

Racial Cue 

No Cue 

Female 

Male 

 

 

M(SD) 

t(df) 

 

 

p 

 

4.62(.86) 

.29(78) 

.775 

4.57(.87) 

  

  

4.72(.86) 

.98(78) 

.330 

4.52(.86) 

 

  

 

  

 

3.70(.68) 

.30(76) 

.762 

3.65(.53) 

  

  

3.72(.57) 

.453(76) 

.652 

3.65(.64) 

 

  

 

  

 

3.85(.77) 

.45(79) 

.652 

3.76(.86) 

  

  

3.82(.82) 

.15(79) 

.884 

3.80(.81) 

 

  

 

  

 

4.08(.67) 

.54(77) 

.591 

4.00(.63) 

  

  

4.07(.65) 

.29(77) 

.776 

4.03(.65) 

 

  

 

  

 

2.87(1.41) 

-.30(78) 

.769 

2.96(1.24) 

  

  

2.73(1.20) 

-1.00(78) 

.319 

3.04(1.40) 

 

  

 

  

 

n 

 

43 

37 

31 

49 

 

42 

36 

31 

47 

 

43 

38 

32 

49 

 

42 

37 

32 

47 

 

42 

38 

32 

48 

 

126 

 

 

 

 

Table 2 (cont’d) 

 

Authenticity at the Workplace 

Racial Cue 

No Cue 

Female 

Male 

Stigma Consciousness for Race 

Racial Cue 

No Cue 

Female 

Male 

 

 

 

42 

37 

32 

47 

 

43 

38 

32 

49 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.66(1.06) 

-.24(77) 

.813 

4.72(1.08) 

  

  

4.72(1.11) 

.23(77) 

.822 

4.66(1.04) 

 

  

 

  

 

3.02(.77) 

3.04(79) 

.003 

2.47(.84) 

  

  

2.79(.86) 

.26(79) 

.793 

2.74(.85) 

  

  

Note. Note that the means in this table may be slightly different than those presented in the 
text, as MANOVA statistics are presented in the text while t-test statistics are presented 
here. Perceived SDO = Perceived Social Dominance Orientation. Significant differences are 
bolded. 

 

127 

 

Table 3. Study 1A Hierarchical Regression Testing the Interaction of Cue Condition and 
Stigmatized Status 

  

  

  

Outcome: Perceived SDO 

Step 1 

Step 2 

 
Intercept 

Cue Condition 

Stigmatized Status 

Cue Condition* Stigmatized Status 

R2 

△R2 

Outcome: Authenticity at Work 

 
Intercept 

Cue Condition 

Stigmatized Status 

Cue Condition* Stigmatized Status 

R2 

△R2 

b(SE) 

2.89(.15)*** 

2.88(.15)*** 

-.05(.15) 

.15(.15) 

 

.01 

.02 

 

-.07(.15) 

.15(.15) 

.11(.15) 

.01 

.01 

 

b(SE) 

4.69(.12)*** 

4.70(.13)*** 

-.03(.12) 

-.03(.12) 

 

.01 

.01 

-.02(.13) 

-.02(.13) 

-.07(.13) 

.01 

.00 

Note. Standard errors in parentheses. Cue Condition coded as 1 = “Racial cue presented,” -1 = “No cue 
presented”. Significant values are bolded. 

***p<.001 

 

128 

 

 

 

 

Table 4. Study 1A Hierarchical Regression Testing the Interaction of Cue Condition and Racial 
Stigma Consciousness 

Outcome: Perceived SDO 

Step 1 

Step 2 

 

b(SE) 

Intercept 

Cue Condition 

Racial Stigma Consc 

Cue Condition* Racial Stigma Consc 

R2 

△R2 

Outcome: Authenticity at Work 

2.91(.15)*** 

2.89(.16)*** 

.05(.16) 

-.35(.18)Ϯ 

 

.05 

.05 

 

.05(.16) 

-.35(.18)Ϯ 

.06(.18) 

.05Ϯ 

.00 

 

 

b(SE) 

Intercept 

Cue Condition 

Racial Stigma Consc 

Cue Condition* Racial Stigma Consc 

R2 

△R2 

4.69(.12)*** 

4.68(.13)*** 

-.07(.13) 

.17(.15) 

 

.02 

.02 

-.07(.13) 

.17(.16) 

.03(.16) 

.02 

.00 

Note. Standard errors in parentheses. Cue Condition coded as 1 = “Racial cue presented,” -1 = “No cue 
presented”. Racial Stigma Consc = Racial Stigma Consciousness. Racial Stigma Consc = Racial 
Stigma Consciousness (grand mean-centered). Significant values are bolded. 

Ϯp=.05, ***p<.001 

 

 

 

 

129 

 

Table 5. Study 1A Exploratory Variable Means by Condition with t-Tests 

Measure/Condition 

Trait Authenticity 

Racial Cue 

No Cue 

Female 

Male 

n 

 

41 

35 

31 

45 

M(SD) 

t(df) 

 

 

p 

 

5.04(1.17) 

-.39(74) 

.695 

5.14(1.03) 

  

  

5.13(1.13) 

.25(74) 

.807 

5.06(1.09) 

  

Country of Origin Acculturation 

 

 

 

Racial Cue 

No Cue 

Female 

Male 

43 

36 

31 

48 

4.44(1.02) 

.39(77) 

.700 

4.35(.90) 

  

  

4.39(.82) 

-.09(77) 

.932 

4.41(1.05) 

  

  

 

  

 

  

 

Asian American Acculturation 

 

 

 

Racial Cue 

No Cue 

Female 

Male 

European American Acculturation 

Racial Cue 

No Cue 

Female 

Male 

42 

37 

31 

48 

42 

36 

29 

49 

4.24(.93) 

.13(77) 

.895 

4.21(.72) 

  

  

4.12(.85) 

-.93(77) 

.358 

4.29(.82) 

 

  

 

  

 

3.95(.86) 

-1.31(76) 

.194 

4.20(.81) 

  

  

4.03(.68) 

-.34(76) 

.738 

4.09(.93) 

  

Note. Perceived SDO = Perceived Social Dominance Orientation 

 

 

 

 

130 

 

Table 6. Study 1A Hierarchical Regression Testing the Interaction of Cue Condition and Trait 
Authenticity 

  

  

  

Outcome: Perceived SDO 

Step 1 

Step 2 

 

b(SE) 

Intercept 

Cue Condition 

Trait Authenticity 

Cue Condition* Trait Authenticity 

R2 

△R2 

Outcome: Authenticity at Work 

2.89  (.15)*** 

2.90 (.15)*** 

-.08 (.15) 

-.09 (.15) 

-.49 (13)*** 

-.52 (.13)*** 

 

.16 

.16*** 

 

.16 (.13) 

.18 

.02 

 

 

b(SE) 

Intercept 

Cue Condition 

Trait Authenticity 

Cue Condition* Trait Authenticity 

R2 

△R2 

4.72 (.08)*** 

4.72 (.08)*** 

.03 (.08) 

.03 (.08) 

.73 (.07)*** 

.74 (.08)*** 

 

.58 

.58*** 

-.07 (.08) 

.58 

.00 

Note. Standard errors in parentheses. Cue Condition coded as 1 = “Racial cue presented,” -1 = “No cue 
presented”. Trait Authenticity was grand mean-centered. Significant values are bolded.. 

***p<.001 

 

 

 

 

 

 

131 

 

Table 7. Study 1A Hierarchical Regression Testing the Interaction of Cue Condition and 
Acculturation Toward Country of Origin 

  

  

  

Outcome: Perceived SDO 

Step 1 

Step 2 

Intercept 

Cue Condition 

AccultOriginC 

Cue Condition* AccultOriginC 

R2 

△R2 

2.94 (.15)*** 

2.94 (.15)*** 

-.03 (.15) 

-.03 (.15) 

-.45 (.15)** 

-.43 (.16)** 

 

.11 

.11** 

-.11 (.16) 

.11 

.01 

Note. Standard errors in parentheses. AccultOriginC = acculturation toward country of origin (grand 
mean-centered). Cue Condition coded as 1 = “Racial cue presented,” -1 = “No cue presented”. 
Significant values are bolded. 

**p<.01, ***p<.001 

 

 

 

 

 

 

132 

 

Table 8. Study 1A Hierarchical Regression Testing the Interaction of Cue Condition and 
Acculturation Toward European American Culture 

Outcome: Authenticity at Work 

Step 1 

Step 2 

  

  

b(SE) 

4.68 (.13)*** 

4.71 (.12)*** 

-.01 (.13) 

-.03 (.16) 

 

.00 

.00 

-.02 (.12) 

-.05 (.15) 

.35 (.15)* 

.07 

.07* 

  

 

Intercept 

Cue Condition 

AccultEuroC 

Cue Condition* AccultEuroC 

R2 

△R2 

Note. Standard errors in parentheses. AccultEuroC = acculturation toward European American culture 
(grand mean centered). Cue Condition effect coded as 1 = “Gender cue presented,” -1 = “No cue 
presented”. Significant values are bolded. 

*p<.05, ***p<.001 

 

 

 

133 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3. Study 1A: The Interaction Between Cue Condition and Acculturation Toward 
European-American Culture on Perceived Ability to be Authentic in the Workplace 

 

Note. Standard error bars depicted. 

 

 

 

 

134 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

 

Table 9. Study 1B: Means, Standard Deviations, and Bivariate Correlations 

Variable 

M(SD) 

Likert 
Scale 

4.65(.99) 

6 pt 

3.83(.68) 

5 pt 

.71** 

1 

 

 

 

3.76(.96) 

5 pt 

.80** 

.60** 

4.15(.70) 

5 pt 

.79** 

.65** 

.79** 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.56(1.42) 

7 pt 

-.57** 

-.71** 

-.51** 

-.54** 

4.94(1.09) 

7 pt 

.53** 

.65** 

.46** 

.52** 

-.61** 

Trait Authenticity 

5.54(.98) 

7 pt 

.12 

.30** 

.01 

.10 

-.30** 

.59** 

3.15(.99) 

5 pt 

-.06 

-.16* 

-.11 

.04 

.02 

-.10 

-.08 

 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

Feelings of 
Belonging 

Procedural 
Justice 

Person-
Organization Fit 

Attraction to 
Organization 

Perceived Social 
Dominance 
Orientation 

Authenticity at 
the Workplace 

Stigma 
Consciousness 
for Gender 
Country of Origin 
Acculturation 

10 

11 

Asian American 
Acculturation 

European 
American 
Acculturation 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.65(.76) 

6 pt 

.28 

.32* 

.27 

.46** 

-.27 

.33* 

.18 

.03 

4.24(.89) 

6 pt 

.18 

.22 

.17 

.25 

-.21 

.15 

.16 

.06 

.52** 

4.01(.96) 

6 pt 

.47** 

.49** 

.33* 

.38* 

-.41** 

.45** 

.23 

-.09 

.35* 

.46** 

12  Work Flexibility 

2.46(.71) 

4 pt 

.45** 

.33** 

.52** 

.41** 

-.30** 

.22** 

-.15* 

-.22** 

.22 

.33* 

.26 

13  Cue Condition 

.49(.50) 

n/a 

.12 

.09 

.07 

.05 

-.07 

.12 

.07 

.03 

.08 

-.25 

.15 

.17* 

14 

Stigmatized 
Status (Race) 

.20(.40) 

n/a 

-.07 

-.19* 

-.02 

-.04 

.04 

-.17* 

-.21** 

-.07 

c 

c 

c 

.16* 

.03 

Note. All Likert scales oriented such that higher numbers equal greater levels of the variable. Cue Condition coded as 1 = “Gender cue  
presented,” 0 = “No cue presented”. Stigmatized Status coded as 1 = double-stigmatized (Asian American women), 0 = single- 

 

135 

 

Table 9 (cont’d) 

 

stigmatized (White women). Significant correlations are bolded. 

*p<.05 **p<.01 

c = variable was a constant; Acculturation measures were only given to Asian American participants so there is no correlation between identity and acculturation variables.

 

136 

 

Table 10. Study 1B: Mean Outcome and Mediator Scores by Condition with t-Tests 

  

Measure/Condition 

Feelings of Belonging 

Gender Cue 

No Cue 

  

n 

 

  

  

M(SD) 

t(df) 

 

 

  

p 

 

120 

4.77(.91) 

-1.92(241) 

.056Ϯ 

123 

4.53(1.06) 

  

  

Asian American 

47 

4.50(.87) 

-1.15(241) 

.251 

White 

196 

4.67(1.02) 

Procedural Justice 

 

 

  

 

  

 

Gender Cue 

No Cue 

118 

3.89(.66) 

-1.03(236) 

.193 

120 

3.78(.70) 

  

  

Asian American 

45 

3.57(.62) 

-2.90(236) 

.004** 

White 

193 

3.89(.68) 

Person-Organization Fit 

 

 

  

 

  

 

Gender Cue 

No Cue 

121 

3.83(.87) 

-1.11(244) 

.268 

125 

3.69(1.04) 

  

  

Asian American 

48 

3.72(.96) 

-.34(244) 

.735 

White 

198 

3.77(.96) 

Attraction to Organization 

 

 

  

 

  

 

Gender Cue 

No Cue 

114 

4.18(.71) 

-.01(227) 

.421 

115 

4.11(.70) 

  

  

Asian American 

46 

4.09(.55) 

-.56(227) 

.575 

White 

183 

4.16(.73) 

Perceived SDO 

 

 

  

 

  

 

Gender Cue 

No Cue 

118 

2.46(1.44)  1.08(237) 

.28 

121 

2.66(1.40) 

  

  

Asian American 

47 

2.68(1.27) 

.65(237) 

.516 

White 

192 

2.53(1.45) 

 

 

 

 

137 

  

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

Table 10 (cont’d) 

 

Authenticity at the Workplace 

Gender Cue 

No Cue 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

119 

5.07(1.02) 

-1.93(240) 

.055Ϯ 

123 

4.80(1.13) 

  

  

Asian American 

47 

4.56(1.04) 

-2.70(240) 

.007** 

White 

195 

5.03(1.08) 

Stigma Consciousness for Gender 

 

  

 

  

 

Gender Cue 

No Cue 

120 

3.17(.95) 

.43(241) 

.668 

123 

3.12(1.04) 

  

  

Asian American 

47 

3.01(.79) 

-1.06(241) 

.292 

White 

196 

3.18(1.03) 

  

  

Note. Note that the means in this table may be slightly different than those 
presented in the text, as MANOVA statistics are presented in the text while t-
test statistics are presented here. Significant differences are bolded. Perceived 
SDO = Perceived Social Dominance Orientation 

Ϯp=.05, *p<.05, **p<.01 

 

 

 

 

 

138 

 

Table 11. Study 1B: Hierarchical Regression Testing the Interaction of Cue Condition and 
Stigmatized Status 

  

  

  

Outcome: Perceived SDO 

Step 1 

Step 2 

 
Intercept 

Cue Condition 

Stigmatized Status 

Cue Condition* Stigmatized Status 

R2 

△R2 

Outcome: Authenticity at Work 

 
Intercept 

Cue Condition 

Stigmatized Status 

Cue Condition* Stigmatized Status 

R2 

△R2 

b(SE) 

2.60(.12)*** 

2.61(.12)*** 

-.10(.09) 

.08(.12) 

 

.01 

.00 

 

-.17(.12) 

.09(.12) 

-.12(.12) 

.01 

.00 

 

b(SE) 

4.80 (.09)*** 

4.79 (.09)*** 

.14 (.07)* 

.18 (.09)* 

-.24 (.09)* 

-.25 (.09)** 

 

0.05 

.03** 

.06 (.09) 

0.05 

.00 

Note. Standard errors in parentheses. Cue Condition coded as 1 = “Gender cue presented,” -1 = “No 
cue presented”. Stigmatized Status coded as 1 = double-stigmatized (Asian American women), -1 = 
single-stigmatized (White women). Significant values are bolded. 

*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 

 

 

 

139 

 

 

 

 

Table 12. Study 1B: Authenticity at Work as a Mediator of the Relationship Between Identity 
Safety Cue and Feelings of Belonging  

b 

4.80** 

.28* 

 

2.25** 

.12 

Std. Error 

.10 
.14 

 

.26 
.11 
.05 

  
Note. Cue Condition dummy coded as 1 = “Gender cue presented,” 0 = “No cue presented”. 
Significant values are bolded. 

.48** 

Models 

Variables 

Model 1  Constant 

 
 

Cue Condition 
 

Model 2  Constant 

 

Cue Condition 
Authenticity at Work 

*p < .05, *** p < .001  

 

 

 

140 

 

Table 13. Study 1B: Hierarchical Regression Testing the Interaction of Cue Condition and 
Gender Stigma Consciousness 

  

  

  

Outcome: Perceived SDO 

Step 1 

Step 2 

 
Intercept 

Cue Condition 

Gender Stigma Consc 

Cue Condition* Gender Stigma Consc 

R2 

△R2 

Outcome: Authenticity at Work 

b(SE) 

2.56(.09)*** 

2.56(.09)*** 

-.10(.09) 

.03(.09) 

 

.01 

.01 

 

-.10(.09) 

.02(.09) 

-.02(.09) 

.00 

.00 

 

 

b(SE) 

Intercept 

Cue Condition 

Gender Stigma Consc 

Cue Condition* Gender Stigma Consc 

R2 

△R2 

4.93(.07)*** 

4.93(.07)*** 

.13(.07) 

-.11(.07) 

 

.02 

.01 

0.13(.07) 

-.11(.07) 

-.05(.07) 

.03 

.00 

Note. Standard errors in parentheses. Cue Condition coded as 1 = “Gender cue presented,” -1 = “No 
cue presented”. Gender Stigma Consc = Gender Stigma Consciousness. Significant values are bolded. 

***p<.001 

 

 

 

 

 

 

141 

 

Table 14. Study 1B: Exploratory Variable Means by Condition with t-Tests 

  

  

  

Measure/Condition 

n 

M(SD) 

  

t(df) 

p 

  

 

Country of Origin Acculturation 

 

Trait Authenticity 

Gender Cue 

No Cue 

Asian American 

White 

Gender Cue 

No Cue 

Asian American 

White 

Asian American Acculturation 

Gender Cue 

No Cue 

Asian American 

White 

European American Acculturation 

Gender Cue 

No Cue 

Asian American 

White 

 

 
119  5.60(.98) 

-1.03(239) 

122  5.47(.98) 

 

 
.305 

 

47 

5.12(1.18) 

-3.37(239) 

.001 

194  5.64(.90) 

 
22 

4.71(.66) 

-0.51(42) 

.614 

22 

4.59(.87) 

44 

4.65(.76) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

n/a 

 
22 

22 

44 

n/a 

21 

21 

4.01(.98) 

1.70(42) 

.096 

4.46(.73) 

 

4.24(.89) 

0.89332 

 

 

 

 

 

4.15(1.19) 

-.93(40) 

.359 

3.87(.67) 

42 

4.01(.96) 

n/a 

 

 

 

 

Note. White women participants did not take the acculturation measures. Significant differences are 
bolded. 

 

 

 

 

142 

 

Table 15. Study 1B: Hierarchical Regression Testing the Interaction of Cue Condition and Trait 
Authenticity 

  

  

  

Outcome: Perceived SDO 

Step 1 

Step 2 

 
Intercept 

Cue Condition 

Trait Authenticity 

Cue Condition* Trait Authenticity 

R2 

△R2 

Outcome: Authenticity at Work 

 
Intercept 

Cue Condition 

Trait Authenticity 

Cue Condition* Trait Authenticity 

R2 

△R2 

b(SE) 

2.57 (.09)*** 

2.57 (.09)*** 

-.06 (.09) 

-.06 (.09) 

-.44 (.09)*** 

-.44 (.09)*** 

 

0.09 

.09*** 

 

-.04 (.09) 

0.09 

.00 

 

b(SE) 

4.94 (.06)*** 

4.94 (.06)*** 

.08 (.06) 

.08 (.06) 

.65 (.06)*** 

.65 (.06)*** 

 

.35 

.34*** 

-.00 (.06) 

.35 

.00 

Note. Standard errors in parentheses. Cue Condition coded as 1 = “Gender cue presented,” -1 = “No 
cue presented”. Significant values are bolded. 

***p<.001 

 

 

 

143 

 

 

 

 

Table 16. Study 1B: Hierarchical Regression Testing the Interaction of Cue Condition and 
Acculturation Toward European American Culture 

  

  

  

Outcome: Perceived SDO 

Step 1 

Step 2 

 
Intercept 

Cue Condition 

AccultEuroC 

Cue Condition* AccultEuroC 

R2 

△R2 

Outcome: Authenticity at Work 

 
Intercept 

Cue Condition 

AccultEuroC 

Cue Condition* AccultEuroC 

R2 

△R2 

b(SE) 

2.77 (.19)*** 

2.75 (.19)*** 

-.17 (.19) 

-.16 (.19) 

-.53 (.20)* 

-.62 (.23)* 

 

.19 

.15* 

 

.17 (.23) 

.20 

0.01 

 

b(SE) 

4.46 (.15)*** 

4.48 (.15)*** 

.19 (.15) 

.18 (.15) 

.45 (.15)** 

.56 (.18)** 

 

.23 

.18** 

-.20 (.18) 

.26 

.03 

Note. AccultEuroC = European American Acculturation (grand mean-centered). Standard errors in 
parentheses. Cue Condition coded as 1 = “Gender cue presented,” -1 = “No cue presented”. Significant 
values are bolded. 

*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 

 

 

 

144 

 

 

 

 

Table 17. Study 1B: Hierarchical Regression Testing the Interaction of Cue Condition and 
Acculturation Toward Country of Origin 

  

  

  

Outcome: Authenticity at Work 

Step 1 

Step 2 

 
Intercept 

Cue Condition 

AccultOriginC 

Cue Condition* AccultOriginC 

R2 

△R2 

b(SE) 

4.54 (.15)*** 

4.55 (.15)*** 

.22 (.15) 

.42 (.20)* 

 

.15 

.09* 

.22 (.15) 

.38 (.21) 

-.17 (.21) 

.17 

.01 

Note. AccultOriginC = Country of Origin Acculturation (grand mean-centered). Standard errors in 
parentheses. Cue Condition coded as 1 = “Gender cue presented,” -1 = “No cue presented”. 
AccultOriginC  = acculturation toward country of origin (grand mean centered). Significant predictor 
coefficients are bolded. 

*p<.05, ***p<.001 

 

 

 

145 

 

 

 

 

Table 18. Study 1B: Hierarchical Regression Testing the Interaction of Cue Condition and 
Acculturation Toward Asian American Culture  

  

  

  

Outcome: Authenticity at Work 

Step 1 

Step 2 

Intercept 

Cue Condition 

AccultAAC 

Cue Condition* AccultAAC 

R2 

△R2 

4.53 (.16)*** 

4.48 (.16)*** 

.32 (.16)Ϯ 

.27 (.18) 

 

.11 

.05 

.33 (.16)* 

.33 (.19) 

-.19 (.19) 

.13 

.02 

Note. AccultAAC = Asian American Acculturation (grand mean-centered). Standard errors in 
parentheses. Cue Condition coded as 1 = “Gender cue presented,” -1 = “No cue presented”. 
AccultOriginC  = acculturation toward country of origin (grand mean centered). Significant values are 
bolded. 

Ϯp=.05, *p<.05, ***p<.001 

 

 

 

146 

 

 

 

 

Table 19. Study 2 Means, Standard Deviations, and Bivariate Correlations 

Variable 

M(SD) 

Likert 
Scale 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

 

4.28(.85) 

6 pt 

(.86) 

 

3.53(.52) 

5 pt 

.59** 

(.86) 

 

 

3.14(.83) 

5 pt 

.70** 

.63** 

(.89) 

 

 

 

3.64(.62) 

5 pt 

.73** 

.56** 

.74** 

(.93) 

 

 

 

 

2.47(1.16)  7 pt 

-.40** 

-.53** 

-.43** 

-.36** 

(.93) 

 

 

 

 

 

4.63(.95) 

7 pt 

.56** 

.58** 

.50** 

.49** 

-.57** 

(.89) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.79(.76) 

5 pt 

-.05 

-.17* 

-.13 

-.05 

.02 

-.07 

(.90) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.05(.89) 

7 pt 

.19** 

.31** 

.12* 

.16* 

-.28** 

.52** 

.02 

(.86) 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

Feelings of  
Belonging 
 
Procedural 
Justice 
 
Person-Organization 
Fit 
 
Attraction to 
Organization 
 
Perceived Social 
Dominance 
Orientation 
Authenticity at the 
Workplace 
Stigma  
Consciousness 
 
Trait  
Authenticity 
 
Country of Origin 
Acculturation 
Asian American 
Acculturation 
European American 
Acculturation 
Work  
Flexibility 

4.18(1.07)  6 pt 

3.90(1.00)  6 pt 

3.76(1.00)  6 pt 

.04 

.03 

.07 

.05 

.01 

.06 

.11 

.09 

.06 

.08 

.08 

-.06 

.14* 

-.07 

-.02 

(.89) 

-.04 

.01 

.03 

-.03 

.42** 

(.87) 

-.01 

-.04 

.08 

-.16* 

-.04 

-.21** 

-.08 

-.83 

2.49(.66) 

4 pt 

.48** 

.48** 

.43** 

.44** 

-.34** 

.43** 

-.16* 

.11 

.11 

.05 

.05 

(.77) 

*p<.05 **p<.01 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

147 

 

Table 20. Study 2 Mean Outcome and Mediator Scores by Condition 

 
Measure/Condition 

Feelings of Belonging 

Racial Cue 

Gender Cue 

Double Cue 

Intersected Cue 

Procedural Justice 

Racial Cue 

Gender Cue 

Double Cue 

Intersected Cue 

Person-Organization Fit 

Racial Cue 

Gender Cue 

Double Cue 

Intersected Cue 

Attraction to Organization 

Racial Cue 

Gender Cue 

Double Cue 

Intersected Cue 

Perceived SDO 

Racial Cue 

Gender Cue 

Double Cue 

Intersected Cue 

 

  

SD 

 

.69 

.88 

.85 

.93 

 

.44 

.52 

.58 

.51 

 

.70 

.86 

.86 

.85 

 

.58 

.61 

.65 

.64 

 

1.03 

1.31 

1.13 

1.16 

  

M 

 

4.43 

4.34 

4.23 

4.15 

 

3.62 

3.57 

3.44 

3.49 

 

3.35 

3.18 

3.01 

3.06 

 

3.71 

3.64 

3.60 

3.61 

 

2.37 

2.50 

2.53 

2.47 

  

n 

 

48 

52 

55 

57 

 

47 

51 

55 

57 

 

48 

52 

55 

57 

 

47 

51 

54 

56 

 

48 

52 

54 

55 

148 

 

Table 20 (cont’d) 

 

Authenticity at the Workplace 

Racial Cue 

Gender Cue 

Double Cue 

Intersected Cue 

Stigma Consciousness 

Racial Cue 

Gender Cue 

Double Cue 

Intersected Cue 

 

 

48 

50 

55 

57 

47 

51 

53 

55 

 

 

4.75 

4.66 

4.59 

4.55 

 

3.63 

3.67 

3.87 

3.98 

 

 

.77 

1.01 

.98 

1.01 

 

.84 

.76 

.65 

.75 

Note. There were no significant differences by cue condition based on MANOVA. Perceived SDO = 
Perceived Social Dominance Orientation. Double cue refers to the condition where participant was 
simultaneously presented with separate racial and gender identity safety cues. Intersected cue refers to the 
condition where participant was presented with one cue that tapped both race and gender (i.e., Asian 
American female) 

 

 

 

 

149 

 

Table 21. Study 2 Hierarchical Regression Testing the Interaction of Cue Condition and Stigma 
Consciousness (Outcome: Perceived SDO) 

  

Model 

Outcome: Perceived SDO 

b 

SE 

p 

R2 

△R2 

(Constant) 

StigConscC 

1 

Race Cue 

Gender Cue 

Double Cue 

(Constant) 

StigConscC 

Race Cue 

Gender Cue 

Double Cue 

2 

StigConscC*Race Cue 

StigConscC*Gender Cue 

2.44 

.02 

-.09 

.03 

.01 

2.42 

.04 

-.10 

.05 

.00 

-.26 

-.02 

StigConscC*Double Cue 

.21 

.08 

.11 

.15 

.14 

.14 

.08 

.11 

.15 

.14 

.14 

.18 

.19 

.21 

.000 

.877 

.553 

.810 

.971 

.000 

.731 

.507 

.712 

.988 

.154 

.925 

.306 

.00 

.00 

.01 

.01 

Note. Dependent Variable: PercSDO = Perceived Social Dominance Orientation. StigConscC = 
combined stigma consciousness measures for gender, race, and gender-race (grand mean-centered). 
Significant values are bolded. 

 

 

 

 

150 

 

Table 22. Study 2 Hierarchical Regression Testing the Interaction of Cue Condition and Stigma 
Consciousness (Outcome: Authenticity at Work) 

 

 

Model 

Outcome: Authenticity at 
Work 

b 

SE 

p 

R2 

△R2 

(Constant) 

StigConscC 

1 

Race Cue 

Gender Cue 

Double Cue 

(Constant) 

StigConscC 

Race Cue 

Gender Cue 

Double Cue 

2 

4.66 

.07 

-.07 

.08 

.02 

-.03 

.09 

.12 

.12 

.11 

4.65 

.07 

-.08 

.09 

.09 

.02 

.12 

.12 

-.01 

.12 

StigConscC*Race Cue 

.06 

.15 

StigConscC*Gender Cue 

-.17 

.16 

StigConscC*Double Cue 

-.03 

.17 

.01 

.01 

.02 

.01 

.000 

.410 

.518 

.842 

.829 

.000 

.372 

.442 

.897 

.925 

.683 

.284 

.845 

Note. Dependent Variable: Authenticity at Work. StigConscC = combined stigma consciousness 
measures for gender, race, and gender-race (grand mean-centered). Significant values are bolded. 

 

151 

 

Table 23. Study 2 Exploratory Variable Means by Condition 

Measure/Condition 

Trait Authenticity 

Racial Cue 

Gender Cue 

Double Cue 

Intersected Cue 

Country of Origin Acculturation 

Racial Cue 

Gender Cue 

Double Cue 

Intersected Cue 

Asian American Acculturation 

Racial Cue 

Gender Cue 

Double Cue 

Intersected Cue 

European American Acculturation 

Racial Cue 

Gender Cue 

Double Cue 

Intersected Cue 

n 

 

48 

52 

54 

56 

 

48 

52 

55 

57 

 

46 

52 

55 

57 

 

48 

52 

54 

56 

M 

 

4.88 

5.20 

5.05 

5.06 

 

SD 

 

.86 

.77 

.99 

.91 

 

4.50 

.87 

4.03 

1.16 

3.99 

1.06 

4.24 

1.12 

 

 

4.13 

.84 

3.76 

1.07 

3.81 

1.03 

3.90 

1.02 

 
3.76 

3.96 

 
.88 

.95 

3.64 

1.13 

3.70 

1.00 

Note. Perceived SDO = Perceived Social Dominance Orientation. Double cue refers to 
the condition where participant was simultaneously presented with separate racial and 
gender identity safety cues. Intersected cue refers to the condition where participant was 
presented with one cue that tapped both race and gender (i.e., Asian American female) 

 

 

 

 

152 

 

Table 24. Study 2 Hierarchical Regression Testing the Interaction of Cue Condition and Trait 
Authenticity (Outcome: Perceived SDO) 

  

Model 

Outcome: Perceived SDO  b 

(Constant) 

AuthTraitC 

1 

Race Cue 

Gender Cue 

Double Cue 

(Constant) 

AuthTraitC 

Race Cue 

Gender Cue 

Double Cue 

2 

AuthTraitC*Race Cue 

AuthTraitC*Gender Cue 

2.47 

-.38 

-.17 

.08 

.06 

2.47 

-.35 

-.15 

.05 

.07 

.06 

.21 

AuthTraitC*Double Cue 

-.16 

SE 

.08 

.09 

.14 

.14 

.13 

.08 

.09 

.14 

.14 

.13 

.16 

.17 

.14 

   p 

.000 

.000 

.225 

.539 

.651 

.000 

.000 

.290 

.699 

.627 

.724 

.228 

.273 

R2 

△R2 

.09 

.09** 

.10 

.01 

Note. Dependent Variable: PercSDO = Perceived Social Dominance Orientation. AuthTraitC = Trait 
Authenticity (grand mean-centered). Significant values are bolded. 

**p<.01 

 

 

 

153 

 

Table 25. Study 2 Hierarchical Regression Testing the Interaction of Cue Condition and Trait 
Authenticity (Outcome: Authenticity at Work) 

Model  Outcome: Authenticity at Work 

b 

(Constant) 

AuthTraitC 

1 

Race Cue 

Gender Cue 

Double Cue 

(Constant) 

AuthTraitC 

Race Cue 

Gender Cue 

Double Cue 

2 

AuthTraitC*Race Cue 

AuthTraitC*Gender Cue 

AuthTraitC*Double Cue 

4.63 

.56 

.22 

-.05 

-.04 

4.63 

.53 

.19 

-.02 

-.04 

-.16 

-.12 

.20 

R2 

△R2 

.28 

.28*** 

.30 

.02 

SE 

.06 

.06 

.10 

.10 

.10 

.06 

.06 

.10 

.10 

.10 

.12 

.12 

.10 

p 

.000 

.000 

.032 

.637 

.678 

.000 

.000 

.066 

.820 

.702 

.162 

.342 

.048 

Note. Dependent Variable: Authenticity at Work. AuthTrait = Trait Authenticity (grand mean-
centered). Significant values are bolded. 

***p<.001 

 

154 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 26. Study 2: Simple Regression Results for Predicting 
Authenticity at Work for Each Cue Condition 

  

Intercept 

Slope for Trait Authenticity 

Racial Cue 

4.81 

.36 

Gender 
Cue 

4.60 

.41 

 
Double 
Cue 

 
Intersected 
Cue 

4.59 

.73* 

4.50 

.60 

Note.  Trait authenticity was grand mean-centered prior to analyses. Significant slope values 
are bolded. 

*p< .05   

 

 

 

 

 

155 

 

Figure 4. Study 2: Predicting Authenticity at Work as a Function of Trait Authenticity Separately 
for Cue Condition   

Note. Low trait authenticity is defined as 1 SD below the mean and high trait authenticity is 
defined as 1 SD above the mean 

 

 

 

 

156 

 

Table 27. Study 2 Hierarchical Regression Testing the Interaction of Cue Condition and 
Acculturation Toward European American Culture 

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

Model 

Outcome: Authenticity at Work 

b 

(Constant) 

AccultEuroC 

1 

Race Cue 

Gender Cue 

Double Cue 

(Constant) 

AccultEuroC 

Race Cue 

Gender Cue 

Double Cue 

2 

AccultEuroC*Race Cue 

AccultEuroC*Gender Cue 

AccultEuroC*Double Cue 

4.63 

.07 

.12 

.02 

-.04 

4.61 

.09 

.14 

-.02 

-.04 

-.11 

.27 

-.19 

R2 

△R2 

.01 

.01 

.05 

.03 

SE 

.07 

.07 

.12 

.12 

.11 

.07 

.07 

.12 

.12 

.11 

.13 

.12 

.11 

p 

.000 

.305 

.308 

.866 

.759 

.000 

.206 

.234 

.874 

.736 

.396 

.027 

.068 

Note. Dependent Variable: Authenticity at Work. AccultEuroC = Acculturation toward European 
American Culture (grand mean-centered). Significant values are bolded. 

 

 

 

 

157 

 

 

 

 

Table 28. Study 2: Simple Regression Results for Predicting Authenticity at Work for Each 
Cue Condition 

  

Intercept 

Slope for Acculturation  

Racial Cue 

Gender Cue 

Double Cue 

4.75 

-.02 

4.59 

.36* 

4.57 

-.11 

Intersected 
Cue 

4.53 

.12 

Note.  Acculturation (i.e., toward European American culture) was grand mean-centered prior 
to analyses. Significant slope values are bolded. 

*p< .05   

 

 

 

 

 

158 

 

Figure 5. Study 2: Predicting Authenticity at Work as a Function of Acculturation Toward 
European American Culture Separately for Cue Condition   

Note. Low acculturation toward European American culture is defined as 1 SD below the mean 
and high acculturation is defined as 1 SD above the mean 

 

 

 

159 

 

 

 

REFERENCES 

160 

 

REFERENCES 

 

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.  

Newbury Park: Sage. 

Apfelbaum, E. P., Stephens, N. M., & Reagans, R. E. (2016). Beyond one-size-fits-all: Tailoring  

diversity approaches to the representation of social groups. Journal of Personality and 
Social Psychology, 111(4), 547-566. 

Aranda, F., Matthews, A. K., Hughes, T. L., Muramatsu, N., Wilsnack, S. C., Johnson, T. P., &  

Riley, B. B. (2014). Coming out in color: racial/ethnic differences in the relationship 
between level of sexual identity disclosure and depression among lesbians. Cultural 
diversity & ethnic minority psychology, 21(2), 247-57.  

 
Ashton, E. (2018, Jan 18). This new sexual harassment inquiry wants to hear from women who  

experience “double discrimination,” Retrieved from 
https://www.buzzfeed.com/emilyashton/this-new-sexual-harassment-inquiry-wants-to-
hear-from-women   

 
Autin, F., Branscombe, N. R., & Croizet, J. (2014). Creating, closing, and reversing the gender  

gap in test performance: How selection policies trigger social identity threat among 
women and men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38(3), 327-339. 

 
Avolio, B. J., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of  

positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 315–338. 

 
Baca Zinn, M., & Thornton Dill, B. (1996). Theorizing difference from multiracial feminism.  

Feminist Studies, 22(2), 321-331. 

 
Bartkoski, T., Lynch, E., Witt, C., & Rudolph, C. (2018). A meta-analysis of hiring  

discrimination against Muslims and Arabs. Personnel Assessment and Decisions, 4(2), 1-
16. 

 
Beale, F. (1979). Double jeopardy: To be black and female. In T. Cade (Ed.), The Black Woman  

(pp. 90-100). New York: New American Library. 

 
Berdahl, J. L., & Moore, C. (2006). Workplace harassment: Double jeopardy for minority  

women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(2), 426-436. 

 
Bolton, S. C. (2015, March 11). Why there are so many female managers but so few CEOs. The  

Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/ 
wp/2015/03/11/why-there-are-so-many-female-managers-but-so-few- 
ceos/?utm_term=.6e9b58ff369e 

 

 

161 

 

Buchanan, N. T., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (2008). Effects of racial and sexual harassment on work and  

the psychological well-being of African American women. Journal of Occupational 
Health Psychology, 13(2), 137-151. 

 
Buchanan, N. T., Settles, I. H., Wu, I. H. C., & Hayashino, D. S. (2018). Sexual harassment,  
racial harassment, and well-being among Asian American women: An intersectional 
approach. Women & Therapy, 41(3-4), 261-280. 

 
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source  

of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3-5. 

 
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2018a). Advertising, promotions, and marketing managers.  

Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/ooh/management/advertising-promotions-and-
marketing-managers.htm#tab-2 

 
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2018b). What architectural and engineering managers do. Retrieved  

from https://www.bls.gov/ooh/management/architectural-and-engineering-
managers.htm#tab-2 

 
Burris, K., Ayman, R., Che, Y., & Min, H. (2013). Asian Americans’ and Caucasians’ implicit  
leadership theories: Asian stereotypes, transformational, and authentic leadership. Asian 
American Journal of Psychology, 4(4), 258-266. 

 
Cable, D. M., & Judge, T. A. (1996). Person-organization fit, job choice decisions, and  

organizational entry. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(3), 
294-311. 

 
Chaney, K. E., & Sanchez, D. T. (2018). Gender-inclusive bathrooms signal fairness across  

identity dimensions. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(2), 245-253. 

 
Chaney, K. E., Sanchez, D. T., & Remedios, J. D. (2016). Organizational identity safety cue  

transfers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(11), 1564-1576. 

 
Chin, J. L. (2013). Introduction: Special section on Asian American leadership. Asian American  

Journal of Psychology, 4(4), 235-239. 

 
Chung, G., Ruth, H., Kim, B. S., & Abreu, J. M. (2004). Asian American multidimensional 

acculturation scale: development, factor analysis, reliability, and validity. Cultural 
diversity and ethnic minority psychology, 10(1), 66. 

 
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the 

behavioral sciences (2nd Ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. 

 
Collins, P. H. (1990). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of  

empowerment. Boston: Unwin Hyman. 

 

 

162 

 

Colquitt, J. A., Long, D. M., Rodell, J. B., & Halvorsen-Ganepola, M. D. K. (2014). Adding the  

“in” to justice: A qualitative and quantitative investigation of the differential effects of 
justice rule adherence and violation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(2), 278-297. 

 
The Conversation. (2019, July 3). “Mexicans in US routinely confront legal abuse, racial  

profiling, ICE targeting and other civil rights violations,” Retrieved from 
http://theconversation.com/mexicans-in-us-routinely-confront-legal-abuse-racial-
profiling-ice-targeting-and-other-civil-rights-violations-114479  

 
Cook, J. E., Purdie-Vaughns, V., Garcia, J., & Cohen, G. L. (2012). Chronic threat and  

contingent belonging: Protective benefits of values affirmation on identity development. 
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(3), 479-496. 

 
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist 

critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. 
University of Chicago Legal Forum, 140, 139-167. 

 
Crenshaw, K. W. (1994/2005). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and  

violence against women of color. In M. A. Fineman, & R. Mykitiuk (Eds.), The public 
nature of private violence (pp. 93–118). New York: Routledge. 

 
Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of  

stigma. Psychological Review, 96(4), 608-630. 

 
Crocker, J., Voelkl, K., Testa, M., & Major, B. (1991). Social stigma: The affective  

consequences of attributional ambiguity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 
60(2), 218. 

 
Cundiff, J. L, Ryuk, S., & Cech, K. (2018). Identity-safe or threatening? Perceptions of women- 

targeted diversity initiatives. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21(5), 745-766. 

 
Davies, P. G., Spencer, S. J., & Steele, C. M. (2005). Clearing the air: Identity safety moderates  

the effects of stereotype threat on women’s leadership aspirations. Interpersonal 
Relations and Group Processes, 88(2), 276-287. 

 
Derous, E. (2017). Ethnic minorities’ impression management in the interview: Helping or  

hindering. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1321. 

 
Derous, E., Ryan, A. M., & Nguyen, H. (2012). Multiple categorization in resume screening:  

Examining effects on hiring discrimination against Arab applicants in field and lab 
settings. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(4), 544-570. 

 
Diamond, L. M. (2003). Was it a phase? Young women’s relinquishment of lesbian/bisexual  

identities over a 5-year period. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 352– 
364. 

 

 

163 

 

Diamond, L. M., & Butterworth, M. (2008). Questioning gender and sexual identity: Dynamic  

links over time. Sex Roles, 59(5-6), 365-376. 

 
Dover, T. L., Major, B., & Kaiser, C. R. (2016). Members of high status groups are threatened by  

pro-diversity organizational messages. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 62, 
58-67. 

 
Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2007). Right wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation  
and the dimensions of generalized prejudice. European Journal of Personality, 21, 113- 
130. 

 
Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale,  

NJ: Erlbaum. 

 
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders.  

Psychological Review, 109(3), 573-598. 

 
Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Zhike. (2014). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and  
future of an interpersonal construct. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and 
Organizational Behavior, 1, 23-43. 

 
Emerson, K. T. U., & Murphy, M. C. (2014). Identity threat at work: How social identity threat  

and situational cues contribute to racial and ethnic disparities in the workplace. Cultural 
Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 20(4), 508-520. 

 
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power  
analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research 
Methods, 39, 175-191.  

 
Fell, C. B., Kӧnig, C. J., Kammerhoff, J. (2016). Cross-cultural differences in the attitude toward  

applicants’ faking in job interviews. Journal of Business Psychology, 31, 65-85.  

 
Feloni, R. (2016, February 11). Here's the presentation Google gives employees on how to spot  

unconscious bias at work. Business Insider. Retrieved from  
https://www.businessinsider.com/google-unconscious-bias-training-presentation-2015-12 

 
Fingerhut, A. W., & Abdou, C. M. (2017). The role of healthcare stereotype threat and social  

identity threat in LGB health disparities. Journal of Social Issues, 73(3), 493-507. 

 
Foynes, M. M., Shipherd, J. C., & Harrington, E. F. (2013). Race and gender discrimination in  

the Marines. Cultural Diversity and Ethic Minority Psychology, 19(1), 111-119. 

 
Funk, C., & Parker, K. (2018, January 9). Blacks in STEM jobs are especially concerned about  

diversity and discrimination in the workplace. Pew Research Center: Social & 
Demographic Trends. Retrieved from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2018/01/09/ 

 

164 

 

blacks-in-stem-jobs-are-especially-concerned-about-diversity-and-discrimination-in-the-
workplace/ 

 
Gay, C., & Tate, K. (1998). Doubly Bound: The impact of gender and race on the politics of  

Black women. Political Psychology, 19(1), 169-184. 

 
Gee, B., & Peck, D. (2017). The illusion of Asian Success: Scant progress for minorities in  

cracking the glass ceiling from 2007–2015. New York, NY: The Ascend Foundation, 
2017. 

 
Gilbert, J. A., Stead, B. A., & Ivancevich, J. M. (1999). Diversity management: A new  

organizational paradigm. Journal of Business Ethics, 21(1), 61-76.  

 
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. New York: Prentice- 

Hall. 

 
Goldman, B. M., & Kernis, M. H. (2002). The role of authenticity in healthy psychological  

functioning and subjective well-being. Annals of the American Psychotherapy 
Association, 5, 18-20. 

 
Gündemir, S., Carton, A. M., & Homan, A. C. (2018). The impact of organizational performance  

on the emergence of Asian American leaders. Journal of Applied Psychology. Advance 
online publication.  

 
Hansen, A. (2018). Asian American women 2018: Often the professional, too rarely the  
executive. Retrieved from http://theglasshammer.com/2018/05/17/asian-american-
women-2018-often-the-professional-too-rarely-the-executive/ 

 
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. 

New York, NY: Guilford Press.  

 
Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., Martell, R. F., & Simon, M. C. (1989). Has anything changed?  

Current characterizations of men, women, and managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 
74, 935–942. 

 
Hendricks, K. B., & Singhal, V. R. (2001). The long-run stock price performance of firms with  

effective TQM programs. Management Science, 47(3), 359-368. 

 
Henrich, J., Heine, S.J., Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world?. Behavioral  

and Brain Sciences, 33, 62–135. 

 
Highhouse, S., Lievens, F., & Sinar, E. F. (2003). Measuring attraction to organizations.  

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63(6), 986–1001.  

 
Holladay, C. L., & Quiñones, M. A. (2005). Reactions to diversity training: An international  

comparison. Human Resource Development Quarterly,16, 529–545. 

 

165 

 

House, R., Javidan, M., Hanges, P., & Dorfman, P. (2002). Understanding cultures and implicit  

leadership theories across the globe: An introduction to project GLOBE. Journal of 
World Business, 37, 3-10. 

 
Hoyt, C. L., & Murphy, S. E. (2016). Managing to clear the air: Stereotype threat, women, and  

leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(3), 387-399. 

 
Hyun, J. (2005). Breaking the bamboo ceiling: Career strategies for Asians. New York, NY:  

Harper Collins. 

 
IBM. (n.d.). IBM: Diversity and inclusion. Retrieved from https://www-03.ibm.com/employment 

/inclusion/inclusive-ibm.html 

 
Johnson, I. R., Pietri, E. S., Fullilove, F., Mowrer, S. (2019). Exploring identity-safety cues and  

allyship among Black women students in STEM environments. Psychology of Women 
Quarterly, 43(2), 131-150. 

 
Jones, S. (2017, June 9). White men account for 72% of corporate leadership at 16 of the Fortune  

500 companies. Fortune. Retrieved from http://fortune.com/2017/06/09/white-men-
senior-executives-fortune-500-companies-diversity-data/ 

 
Jones, B. L., Scoville, D. P., Hill, E. J., Childs, G., Leishman, J. M., & Nally, K. S. (2008).  
Perceived versus used workplace flexibility in Singapore: Predicting work-family fit. 
Journal of Family Psychology, 22(5), 774. 

 
Kaiser, C. R., Major, B., Jurcevic, I., Dover, T. L., Brady, L. M., & Shapiro, J. R. (2013).  

Presumed fair: Ironic effects of organizational diversity structures. Journal of Personality 
and Social Psychology, 104, 504-519. 

 
Kang, S. K., & Chasteen, A. L. (2009). Beyond the double-jeopardy hypothesis: Assessing  

emotion on the faces of multiply-categorizable targets of prejudice. Journal of 
Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 1281-1285. 

 
Kawahara, D. M., Pal, M. S., & Chin, J. L. (2013). The leadership experiences of Asian  

Americans. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 4(4), 240-248. 

 
Kernis, M. H. (2003). Toward a conceptualization of optimal self-esteem. Psychological Inquiry,  

14, 1–26. 

 
King, K. R. (2003). Racism or sexism? Attributional ambiguity and simultaneous membership in  

multiple oppressed groups. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(2), 223-247. 

 
Klonoff, A., Landrine, H., & Scott, J. (1995). Double jeopardy: Ethnicity and gender in health  

research. In H. Landrine (Ed.), Bringing cultural diversity to feminist psychology: 
Theory, research, and practice (pp. 335–360). Washington, DC, US: American 
Psychological Association. 

 

166 

 

Koch, A. J., D’Mello, S. D., & Sackett, P. R. (2015). A meta-analysis of gender stereotypes and  

bias in experimental simulations of employment decision making. Journal of Applied  
Psychology, 100(1), 128-161. 

 
Kokalitcheva, K. (2017, August 9). Google's diversity efforts fall flat. Axios. Retrieved from  
https://www.axios.com/googles-diversity-efforts-fall-flat-1513304728-60fd8127-a0c0-
485e-9bf4-a89d6337fc8e.html 

 
Kruger, P. (2016, Oct 6). “Netflix’s ‘13th’ Explores ‘Modern Slavery’ in Incendiary New  

Documentary”, Retrieved from https://fortune.com/2016/10/06/13th-netflix-
documentary-ava-duvernay/ 

 
Kulik, C. T., Roberson, L., & Perry, E. L. (2007). The multiple-category problem: Category  

activation and inhibition in the hiring process. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 
529-548. 

 
Landrine, H. (1985). Race x class stereotypes of women. Sex Roles, 13(1/2), 65-75. 
 
Landrine, H., Klonoff, E. A., Alcaraz, R., Scott, J., & Wilkins, P. (1995). Multiple variables in  

discrimination. In B. Lott & D. Maluso (Eds.), The social psychology of interpersonal 
discrimination (pp. 183-224). New York, NY: Guilford. 

 
Langone, A. (2018, March 22). “#MeToo and Time’s Up Founders Explain the Difference  

Between the 2 Movements – And How They’re Alike,” Retrieved from 
https://time.com/5189945/whats-the-difference-between-the-metoo-and-times-up-
movements/  

 
Larnell, G. V., Boston, D., & Bragelman, J. (2014). The stuff of stereotypes: Toward unpacking  

identity threats amid African American students’ learning experiences. The Journal of 
Education, 194(1), 49-57. 

 
 Leong, F. T. L., & Grand, J.A. (2008). Career and work implications of the Model Minority  

Myth and other stereotypes for Asian Americans. In G. Li & L. Wang (Eds.), Model 
Minority Myths revisited: An interdisciplinary approach to demystifying Asian American 
education experiences. (pp. 91-115) Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. 

 
Leong, F. T. L., & Gupta, A. (2007). Career development and vocational behaviors of Asian  

Americans. In F. T. L. Leong, A. Ebreo, L. Kinoshita, A. G., Inman, L. H. Yang (Eds.), 
Handbook of Asian American psychology (2nd ed., pp. 159–178). Thousand Oaks, CA: 
Sage. 

 
Leong, F.T.L., Park, Y., & Kalibatseva, Z. (2013). Disentangling immigrant status: An 

exploration of psychological protective and risk factors among Latino and Asian 
American immigrants using the NLAAS. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 83, 361-
371. 

 

 

167 

 

Levin, S., Sinclair, S., Veniegas, R. C., & Taylor, P. L. (2002). Perceived discrimination in 

the context of multiple group memberships. Psychological Science, 13, 557–560. 

 
Leventhal, G. S., Karuza, J., & Fry, W. R. (1980). Beyond fairness: A theory of allocation  

preferences. In G. Mikula (Ed.) Justice and social interaction (pp. 167-218). New York: 
Springer-Verlag. 

 
Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J., & Phillips, J. S. (1982). A theory of leadership categorization. In J. G.  

Hunt, U. Sekaran, & C. Schriesheim (Eds.), Leadership: Beyond establishment views (pp. 
104-121). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University. 

 
Malcarne, V. L., Chavira, D. A., Fernandez, S., & Liu, P. (2006). The scale of ethnic experience:  

development and psychometric properties. Journal of Personality Assessment, 86(2), 
150-161. 

 
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion,  

and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253. 

 
Martin, A. E., North, M. S., & Phillips, K. W. (2018). Intersectional escape: Older women elude  

agentic prescriptions more than older men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 
00(0), 1-18. 

 
Matheson, K., & Cole, B. M. (2004). Coping with a threatened group identity: Psychosocial and  

neuroendocrine responses. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 777-786. 

 
Matsumoto, D. (1999). Culture and self: An empirical assessment of Markus and Kitayama’s  

theory of independent and interdependent self-construals. Asian Journal of Social 
Psychology, 2, 289-319. 

 
Mendoza-Denton, R., Downey, G., Purdie, V. J., Davis, A., & Pietrzak, J. (2002). Sensitivity to  

status-based rejection: Implications for African American students' college experience. 
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(4), 896–918. 

 
Metin, U. B., Taris, T. W., Peeters, M. C. W., & van Beek, I. (2016). Authenticity at work—a  

job-demands resources perspective. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(2), 483-499. 

 
Mukkamala, S., & Suyemoto, K. L. (2018). Racialized sexism/sexualized racism: A multimethod  

study of intersectional experiences of discrimination for Asian American women. Asian 
American Journal of Psychology, 9(1), 32-46. 

 
Murphy, M. C., Steele, C. M., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Signaling threat: How situational cues affect  

women in math, science, and engineering settings. Psychological Science, 18(10), 879- 
885. 

 
Nguyen, H. D., & Ryan, A. M. (2008). Does stereotype threat affect test performance of  

 

168 

 

minorities and women? A meta-analysis of experimental evidence. Journal of Applied 
Psychology, 93(6), 1314-1334. 

 
Paolacci, G., Chandler, J., & Ipeirotis, P. G. (2010). Running experiments on Amazon  

Mechanical Turk. Judgment and Decision Making, 5(5), 411-419. 

 
Parker, K., & Funk, C. (2017, December 4). Gender discrimination comes in many forms for  

today’s working women. Pew Research Center: Fact Tank. Retrieved from 
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/12/14/gender-discrimination-comes-in-
many-forms-for-todays-working-women/ 

 
Peterson, R. A. (2001). On the use of college students in social science research: Insights form a  

second-order meta-analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 28, 450-461. 

 
Pietri, E. S., Johnson, I. R., & Ozgumus, E. (2018). One size may not fit all: Exploring how the  

intersection of race and gender and stigma consciousness predict effective identity-safe 
cues for Black women. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 74, 291-306. 

 
Pinel, E. C. (1999). Stigma consciousness: The psychological legacy of social stereotypes.  

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(1), 114–128. 

 
Pinto, D. G., Maltby, J., Wood, & Day, L. (2012). A behavioral test of Horney’s linkage between  

authenticity and aggression: People living authentically are less likely to respond 
aggressively in unfair situations. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 41-44. 

 
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A  

personality variable predicting social and political variables. Journal of Personality and 
Social Psychology, 67(4), 741-763. 

 
Purdie-Vaughns, V., & Eibach, R. P. (2008). Intersectional invisibility: The distinctive  

advantages and disadvantages of multiple subordinate-group identities. Sex Roles, 59, 
377-391. 

 
Purdie-Vaughns, V., Steele, C. M., Davies, P. G., Ditlmann, R., & Crosby, J. R. (2008). Social  
identity contingencies: How diversity cues signal threat or safety for African Americans  
in mainstream institutions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(4), 615-530. 

 
Purdie-Vaughns, V., & Walton, G. M. (2011). Is multiculturalism bad for African-Americans?  
Redefining inclusion through the lens of identity safety. In L. R. Tropp & R. K. Mallett 
(Eds.), Moving beyond prejudice reduction: Pathways to positive intergroup relations 
(pp. 159–177). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 

 
Pew Research Center. (2015, January 14). Women and leadership: Public says women are 

equally qualified, but barriers persist. Pew Research Center: Social & Demographic Trends. 
Retrieved from http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/01/14/women-and-leadership/ 

 

 

169 

 

Quillian, L., Pager, D., Hexel, O., & Midtbøen, A. H. (2017). Meta-analysis of field experiments 

shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time. Proceedings of the National 
Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, PNAS Early Edition. 

 
Ramsey, F. (2015, May 1). “It’s an area of feminism often overlooked. This pizza analogy nails  

it,” Retrieved from https://www.upworthy.com/its-an-area-of-feminism-often-
overlooked-this-pizza-analogy-nails-it 

 
Rattan, A., Steele, J., Ambady, N. (2019). Identical applicant but different outcomes: The impact  
of gender versus race salience in hiring. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 22(1), 
80-97. 

 
Rosette, A. S., & Livingston, R. W. (2012). Failure is not an option for Black women: Effects of  

organizational performance on leaders with single versus dual-subordinate identities. 
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 1162-1167. 

 
Rudman, L. A. (1998). Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: The costs and benefits of  

counterstereotypical impression management. Journal of Personality and Social 
Psychology, 74(3), 629-645. 

 
Rudman, L. A., Moss-Racusin, C. A., Phelan, J. E., & Nauts, S. (2012). Status incongruity and  

backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female 
leaders. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 165-179. 

 
Ryan, A. M., & Briggs, C. Q. (2019). Improving work-life policy and practice with an  

intersectionality lens. Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion: An International Journal. 

 
Ryan, A. M., & Nguyen, H. D. (2017). Publication bias and stereotype threat research: A reply to  

Zigerell. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(8), 1169-1177. 

 
Sackett, P. R., Hardison, C. M., & Cullen, M. J. (2004). On interpreting stereotype threat as  

accounting for African American—White differences on cognitive tests. American 
Psychologist, 59(1), 7-13. 

 
Schein, V. E. (1975). Relationships between sex role stereotypes and requisite management  

characteristics among female managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 340–344. 

 
Schein, E.H., & Bennis, W. (1965). Personal and Organizational Change Through Group  

Methods. New York: Wiley 

 
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40, 437–453. 
 
Sesko, A. K., & Biernat, M. (2010). Prototypes of race and gender: The invisibility of Black  

women. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 356-360. 

 
Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., Rawsthorne, L. J., & Ilardi, B. (1997). Trait self and true self:  

 

170 

 

Cross-role variation in the big-five personality traits and its relations with psychological 
authenticity and subjective wellbeing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 
1380–1393. 

 
Shnabel, N., Purdie-Vaughns, V., Cook, J. E., Garcia, J., & Cohen, G. L. (2013). Demystifying  

values-affirmation interventions: Writing about social belonging is a key to buffering 
against identity threat. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(5), 663-676. 

 
Sellers, R. M., Smith, M. A., Shelton, J. N., Rowley, S. A., & Chavous, T. M. (1998).  

Multidimensional model of racial identity: A reconceptualization of African American 
racial identity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(1), 18-39. 

 
Settles, I. H. (2006). Use of an intersectional framework to understand Black women’s racial and  

gender identities. Sex Roles, 54, 589-601. 

 
Singh, A. A. (2013). Transgender youth of color and resilience: Negotiating oppression and  

finding support. Sex Roles, 68, 690-702. 

 
Stankov, L. (2015). Four GLOBE dimensions of perceived social norms in 33 countries.  

Learning and Individual Differences, 41, 30-42. 

 
Steele, C.M. & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of  

African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797-811. 

 
Steele, C. M., Spencer, S. J., & Aronson, J. (2002). Contending with group image: The  

psychology of stereotype and social identity threat. Advances in Experimental Social 
Psychology, 34, 379-440. 

 
Sy, T., Shore, L. M., Strauss, J., Shore, T. H., Tram, S., Whiteley, P., & Ikeda-Muromachi, K.  
(2010). Leadership perceptions as a function of race-occupation fit: The case of Asian 
Americans. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 902–919. 

 
Taylor, S. D., Charlton, J. P., Ranyard, R. (2012). Ethnic and gender differences in the labour  

market perceptions of post-higher education jobseekers: ‘Double jeopardy’ or ‘ethnic 
prominence’? Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 85, 353-369. 

 
Townsend, S. S. M., Major, B., Gangi, C. E., & Mendes, W. B. (2011). From “in the air” to  
“under the skin”: Cortisol responses to social identity threat. Personality and Social 
Psychology Bulletin, 37(2), 151-164. 

 
United Nations (n.d). Retrieved from https://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/gender- 

equality/ 

 
van den Bosch, R., & Taris, T. W. (2013). Authenticity at work: The development and validation  

of an individual authenticity measure at work. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15, 1-18. 

 

 

171 

 

Warner, L. R. (2008). A best practices guide to intersectional approaches in psychological  

research. Sex Roles, 59(5-6), 454-463. 

 
Warner, L. R., & Shields, S. A. (2013). The intersections of sexuality, gender, and race: Identity  

research at the crossroads. Sex Roles, 68, 803-810. 

 
Williams, J. C., Phillips, K. W., & Hall, E. V. (2014). Double jeopardy? Gender bias against  

women of color in science. San Francisco: University of California Hastings College of  
Law. Retrieved from https://worklifelaw.org/publications/Double-Jeopardy-
Report_v6_full_web-sm.pdf 

 
Wood, A. M., Linley, P. A., Maltby, J., Baliousis, M., & Joseph, S. (2008). The authentic  

personality: A theoretical and empirical conceptualization, and the development of the 
Authenticity Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55, 385–399. 

 
Workable.com. (n.d.). Marketing director job description. Retrieved from  
https://resources.workable.com/marketing-director-job-description 

 
Xin, K. R. (2004). Asian American managers: An impression gap? an investigation of  

impression management and supervisor-subordinate relationships. Journal of Applied 
Behavioral Science, 40(2), 160-181. 

 
Zarya, V. (2018, May 21). The share of female CEOs in the Fortune 500 dropped by 25% in  

2018. Fortune. Retrieved from http://fortune.com/2018/05/21/women-fortune-500-2018/ 

 
Zigerell, L. J. (2017). Potential publication bias in stereotype threat literature: Comment on  

Nguyen and Ryan (2008). Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(8), 1159-1168. 

 
Zohar, D. M. & Hofmann, D. A. (2012). Organizational culture and climate. In S. W. J.  

Kozlowski (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of organizational psychology (pp. 643-666). New 
York: Oxford University Press. 

 

 

 

172