WHAT IS IT WORTH TO YOU? EXAMINING THE EFFECTS OF ENGAGING IN EXTRA- 

ROLE ORGANIZATIONAL DIVERSITY WORK 

By 

Lauren A. Collier 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A DISSERTATION  

Submitted to 

Michigan State University 

in partial fulfillment of the requirements  

for the degree of 

Psychology-Doctor of Philosophy 

2021 

 

 

 

WHAT IS IT WORTH TO YOU? EXAMINING THE EFFECTS OF ENGAGING IN EXTRA-

ROLE ORGANIZATIONAL DIVERSITY WORK 

ABSTRACT 

 

 

 

By 

Lauren A. Collier 

 

To date, in the field of organizational psychology there has been no critical examination of who 

is engaging in diversity and inclusion work and what effect this work has on one’s career-related 

outcomes. The present investigation examined the perceptions, value, and career impacts of 

engaging in extra-role work with a particular focus on how diversity work is perceived as similar 

to and different from affiliation and challenge oriented OCBOs. The three studies herein were 

designed to address four main aims: (1) develop and test a new theoretical framework to explain 

why diversity work may be devalued by majority group members, (2) compare how individuals 

from marginalized racial and ethnic groups and individuals from societally privileged racial 

groups are perceived when they are engaging in diversity work, (3) examine employee 

perceptions of how diversity work should be compensated and whether the degree of 

compensation varies depending on race of the person engaging in the work and (4) examine 

whether there are differential career-related outcomes related to doing diversity work compared 

to engaging in other OCBs and learn whether these differential outcomes are exacerbated for 

members of marginalized racial and ethnic groups in the workplace. It was revealed that 

diversity work is viewed similarly to affiliation oriented OCBOs. In addition, how White 

employees conceptualize their own racial identity was found to impact perceptions of diversity 

work and the allocation outcomes. Implications, limitations, and future directions are discussed.    

Keywords: diversity work, organizational citizenship behavior, resource allocation.

 

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

 

I am immensely thankful for everyone who has supported me over the course of my 

academic journey. I first thank my advisor, Dr. Ann Marie Ryan, for her excellence as a guide, 

mentor, person, and role-model throughout the course of my doctoral study. Her support and 

willingness to wander into new research territories with me has allowed me to grow as a 

researcher and get a chance to learn more about the topics dearest to me. I also thank my 

dissertation committee members, Quinetta Roberson Connally, Christy Koval and Daisy Chang 

for their thoughtful insights that helped enhance the ideas and content of this dissertation.  

Several of my friends and colleagues also contributed to this dissertation in a variety of 

ways. First, I would like to thank my fellow lab members: Sam Shi, Connor Eichenaur, Sarah 

Kuang, for such prompt and helpful feedback on my dissertation surveys. I would like to thank 

my friends Dana and Libby for taking time out of their extremely hectic work schedules to 

review my surveys as well. I would also like to thank my friends Dana, Libby, Ashton, Megan, 

Ayat, Xi, Jen, Drea, Michela (AKA Mae Mae) and Emily for always being an incredible support 

system through this graduate school experience and life in general. I am also thankful for Aya 

and Moses, my fellow interns and dissertation writing friends for helping me stay focused and 

for motivating me to keep writing. A particularly huge thank you to Ajay Somaraju for always 

making time to talk with me about statistics and the theory behind them which has been 

instrumental to multiple graduate school milestones. I would also like to thank my graduate 

school friends Caitlin Briggs, Sarah Kuang and Ajay Somaraju for our long chats about life, 

research and everything in between. I thank God and all of my friends and family members for 

their unyielding support.  

 

iii 

 

There are also so many people to thank for getting me to graduate school in the first 

place, many of whom are not here to see this day. First, I would like to thank my mom, my first 

teacher, for always instilling the value of education in me and for fully believing I would make it 

to and through this doctoral degree. Second, I would like to thank my friend Mikki McCall for 

helping me get into psychological research in the first place and for her encouragement when I 

felt like I did not belong in undergrad. This dissertation is for both of us. I also thank Beverly 

“Bev” Tyler, my former manager for always getting on to me when I was not studying for the 

GRE and asking every day about the progress I was making (or not making) in terms of my grad 

school applications. And once again, a huge thank you to all of my previous mentors: Dr. Grey 

Gundaker, Dr. Cheryl Dickter, Dr. Catherine Forestell and Dr. Mike Furr for each helping me to 

become a stronger researcher and for supporting me in my career decisions and a similarly huge 

thank you to Dr. Kyra Sutton, my CEMA mentor for all of her support during the last few years 

of graduate school.  

And last, but certainly not least, I would like to thank my best friend and husband, 

Rodwin Spruel, for his support and kindness throughout our decade of friendship and years of 

marriage. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

iv 

 

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ vii 

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... ix 

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 
Diversity Work in Organizations ........................................................................................... 3 
Diversity Work at the Individual Level. ................................................................................ 5 
Diversity Work at the Organizational Level. ......................................................................... 6 
Boundary Conditions on the Construct of Diversity Work ................................................... 9 
Diversity Work as Extra-Role Behavior .............................................................................. 11 
Why Diversity Work May Be Perceived as Less Valuable: Theoretical Possibilities ........ 23 
Differential Valuation of Work by Race .............................................................................. 33 
Social Dominance Orientation as a Moderator .................................................................... 36 

STUDY 1 METHOD .................................................................................................................... 38 
Participants........................................................................................................................... 39 
Extra Role Work Evaluation Measures ............................................................................... 40 
Exploratory Individual Differences Measures ..................................................................... 42 
Additional Individual Difference Measures ........................................................................ 43 
Procedure ............................................................................................................................. 44 

STUDY 1 RESULTS .................................................................................................................... 46 
Data Cleaning ...................................................................................................................... 46 
Data Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 50 

STUDY 1 DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................. 58 

STUDY 2 METHOD .................................................................................................................... 60 
Participants........................................................................................................................... 60 
Measures .............................................................................................................................. 61 
Procedure ............................................................................................................................. 63 

STUDY 2 RESULTS .................................................................................................................... 64 
Data Cleaning ...................................................................................................................... 64 
Data Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 64 

STUDY 2 DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................. 73 

STUDY 3 METHOD .................................................................................................................... 74 
Participants........................................................................................................................... 74 

 

v 

 

Measures .............................................................................................................................. 75 
Procedure ............................................................................................................................. 80 

STUDY 3 RESULTS .................................................................................................................... 81 
Data Cleaning....................................................................................................................... 81 
Data Analysis ....................................................................................................................... 82 
Exploratory Analyses ........................................................................................................... 96 

STUDY 3 DISCUSSION .............................................................................................................. 98 

GENERAL DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................... 100 
The Impact of Extra-Role Work Type on Perceptions and Allocation Outcomes ............ 101 
The Impact of Racial Minority Status on Perceptions of Worker and Career Outcomes .. 104 
The Role of White Identity on Perceptions of Diversity Work and Allocation Outcomes 107 
Differential Findings for Fox et al., 2011 and Lee et al., 2002 AOCBOs ......................... 109 
Limitations and Considerations ......................................................................................... 110 
Future Directions  .............................................................................................................. 114 

CONCLUSION. .......................................................................................................................... 117 
 

APPENDICES. ........................................................................................................................... 118 
Appendix A: Work Type Manipulations. .......................................................................... 119 
Appendix B: Distributive Justice Subscale. ....................................................................... 121 
Appendix C: Diversity Work Questions. ........................................................................... 122 
Appendix D: Affiliation Oriented OCBO Measures. ........................................................ 123 
Appendix E: Challenge Oriented OCBO Measure. ........................................................... 124 
Appendix F: Social Dominance Orientation Scale ............................................................ 125 
Appendix G: Demographic and Work Background Questions ......................................... 126 
Appendix H: Qualification and Attention Checks ............................................................. 129 
Appendix I: Informed Consent Form for All Studies ........................................................ 130 
Appendix J: Debriefing Form for All Studies ................................................................... 140 
Appendix K: Months Since Last Raise and Promotion ..................................................... 141 
Appendix L: White Racial Consciousness Development Scale Revised .......................... 142 
Appendix M: Intergroup Contact Quantity Scale. ............................................................. 143 
Appendix N: Valanced Intergroup Contact Measure. ....................................................... 144 
Appendix O: Measure of Perceived Self Interest .............................................................. 145 
Appendix P: Collective Self-Esteem Scale. ....................................................................... 146 

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 147 
 

 

 

 

 

vi 

 

 

 

 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Diversity Work In Organizations By Level. ................................................................... 4 

Table 2. Synthesizing Diversity Work and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors Outlined in 
Podsakoff Et Al. (2014). .............................................................................................................. 13  
 
Table 3. Table of Dissertation Studies. ....................................................................................... 37 
 
Table 4. Manovas Between Subjects Results for Study 1 Perception and Fairness Outcomes by 
Demographic Variables. .............................................................................................................. 47 
 
Table 5. Descriptive Statistics for Study 1. ................................................................................. 49 
 
Table 6. MANOVA Between Subjects Results for Study 1 Perception and Fairness Outcomes 
by Extra-Role Work Condition. .................................................................................................. 51 
 
Table 7. Moderation of Social Dominance Orientation on the Relationship Between Extra-Role 
Work Condition and Outcomes. .................................................................................................. 53 
 
Table 8. Descriptive Statistics for Study 2 . ................................................................................ 66 
 
Table 9. Multiple Regression Analyses with Extra-Role Work Predicting Time Since Last Raise 
and Time Since Last Promotion. ................................................................................................. 67 
 
Table 10. Relative Weights Analysis of Predictors in Study 2. .................................................. 69 
 
Table 11. Moderation of Racial Minority Status on The Relationship Between Diversity Work 
and Outcomes. ............................................................................................................................. 70 
 
Table 12. Descriptive Statistics for Study 3. ............................................................................... 83 
 
Table 13. MANOVA Between Subjects Results for Study 3 Perception and Fairness Outcomes 
by Actor Race. ............................................................................................................................. 85 
 
Table 14. MANOVA Between Subjects Results for Study 3 Perception and Fairness Outcomes 
by Actor Race with Non-Specified Condition. ........................................................................... 86 
 
Table 15. Moderation of Social Dominance Orientation on the Relationship Between Actor 
Race and Outcomes. .................................................................................................................... 89 
 
Table 16. Regression Analyses of White Identity Predicting Outcomes . .................................. 91 

vii 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Table 17. Path Estimates, Standard Errors and P-Values of Final Path Model Linking Individual 
Differences to Devaluation of Diversity Work. .......................................................................... 95 
 
Table 18. Exploratory Multiple Regression of Collective Self-Esteem Predicting Outcomes. .. 97 

 

 

 

 

viii 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Applying ASA in the Context of Diversity Work………………………………..……9 
 
Figure 2. Model Examining Differential Value and Fairness Perceptions of Extra Role Work . 19 
 
Figure 3. Model Examining the Moderating effect of Minority Status on the Relationship 
Between Extra-Role Work and Work Outcomes……………………………………………..... 23 
 
Figure 4. Theory of Diversity Work Devaluation by White Employees Framework…… ......... 32 
 
Figure 5. Examining the Moderating Effect of Social Dominance Orientation on the 
Relationship Between Race and Fairness Perceptions and Work Outcomes…………… .......... 36 
 
Figure 6. Interaction of Extra-Role Work Condition on the Relationship Between Participant 
SDO and Warmth Perceptions, Study 1………………………………………. ......................... 54 
 
Figure 7. Interaction of Extra-Role Work Condition on the Relationship Between Participant 
AOCBOs and Competence Perceptions, Study 1…………………………….. .......................... 56 
 
Figure 8. Interaction of Extra-Role Work Condition on the Relationship Between Participant 
AOCBOs and Warmth Perceptions, Study 1………………………………. .............................. 57 
 
Figure 9. Interaction of Racial Minority Status on the Relationship Between COBCOs and 
Promotion, Study 2……………… .............................................................................................. 72 
 
Figure 10. Updated Theoretical Model…………………………………………………………93 

ix 

 

 

INTRODUCTION 

Recently, many organizations have reaffirmed their commitment to diversity and 

inclusion through a variety of statements, promises and monetary forms of support (Friedman, 

2020; Garcia, 2020; Kerber et al., 2020). Some have outlined specific actions they wish to take in 

addressing injustices within their own systems, policies and culture in an attempt to increase 

inclusion. While a plethora of ideas and initiatives have been proposed, there has been little 

discussion as to who will be doing the work and how individuals who are asked to engage in this 

work in addition to their role-related work will be compensated for their time (Miller, 2020). In 

academia, discussions have surfaced that a great deal of this work may fall to members of 

marginalized groups (Melaku & Beeman, 2020) and a recent national survey confirms this 

concern (Jimenez et al., 2019). While there is some research in the higher education literature 

that has considered the impact of engaging in diversity work on faculty career outcomes 

(Wijesingha & Ramos, 2017), sadly, empirical research has yet to consider the impact of 

engaging in extra-role diversity work in organizations. In addition, little to no research has 

compared the effects of engaging in diversity work to other extra-role work (e.g., organizational 

citizenship behavior; OCBs). There has also been very little examination of the degree to which 

the perceived value of this work depends on the characteristics of the person engaging in the 

work and very little in the way of theory explaining why individuals from societally privileged 

groups (e.g., White employees) may devalue diversity work.  

In the present paper, I propose a new theoretical framework to explain why diversity 

work may be devalued by societally privileged group members. Second, I seek to examine how 

individuals from marginalized racial and ethnic groups and individuals from societally privileged 

racial groups are perceived when they are engaging in diversity work. Third, I will examine 

 

1 

 

employee perceptions of how diversity work should be compensated and whether the degree of 

compensation varies depending on race of the person engaging in the work. Fourth, I will 

examine the ramifications of engaging in this work and examine whether there are differential 

career-related outcomes related to doing this work compared to engaging in other OCBs. Lastly, 

I will examine whether these differential outcomes are exacerbated for members of marginalized 

groups in the workplace.  

This project has the potential to contribute to the literature in at least two ways. First, the 

present study proposes a new explanatory mechanism through which diversity work and those 

who engage in it may be devalued by majority group members. Although other researchers in 

this area have proposed alternative explanations based on other theoretical lenses (e.g., Hekman 

et al. 2014), these theories do not necessarily explain the causal mechanisms through which 

White individuals come to these unconscious assessments towards diversity initiatives and work 

aimed at increasing the diversity and inclusion of individuals from marginalized racial groups in 

organizations. To that end, I synthesize tenants of Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; 

Branscombe et al., 1999) with White Racial Identity Theory (Helms, 1984) to propose an 

alternative explanation as to why White employees may devalue this specific form of extra-role 

work. 

Second, the present study will be the first to examine how organizational efforts to 

increase diversity and inclusion may contribute to workplace inequity when the burden of this 

work is placed on employees from marginalized groups. To date, in the field of organizational 

psychology there has been no critical examination of who is engaging in diversity and inclusion 

work and what effect this work has on career-related outcomes. It is particularly important to 

address this research question because this work tends to fall on the shoulders of already 

 

2 

 

marginalized employees to complete regardless of whether it is part of their work role to do so. 

In addition to the psychological toll of engaging in this work in workplaces that often lack 

diversity, this work may also take a toll on the career outcomes of employees from marginalized 

groups. Pouring emotional and cognitive resources into diversity and inclusion efforts for one’s 

organization may result in fewer resources being left for role-related work which may negatively 

impact job performance, job satisfaction and ultimately indicators of career advancement (e.g., 

promotions and raises) for members of marginalized groups who take on diversity work. Thus, in 

an organization’s effort to increase diversity and inclusion, they may be inadvertently 

contributing to workplace inequity when diversity work is not distributed equitably.  

This document is organized into six main parts. First, I will outline and define diversity 

work in organizations. Second, I will discuss the ways in which diversity work is similar to and 

different from other forms of OCBs. Third, I will discuss my theoretical framing outlining why 

diversity work may be perceived as less valuable compared to other forms of OCBs. Fourth, I 

will discuss the role of the race and gender of the person engaging in the work and how it may 

result in differential value of diversity work. Fifth, I will highlight the role of social dominance 

orientation as a potential moderator. Lastly, I will discuss a series of studies to investigate the 

hypotheses outlined in this dissertation.  

Diversity Work in Organizations 

Diversity work is described as “the labor that one undertakes in trying to make an 

institution more diverse demographically and the labor one undergoes as part of being a member 

of a group that does not fit with an institution’s prevailing norms,” (Ahmed, 2012 pg 173-187 

summarized and quoted in Eng, 2019). A common form of diversity work is that of diversity 

initiatives which are described as “a set of formalized practices developed and implemented by 

 

3 

 

organizations to manage equality, diversity and inclusion,” (van den Brink, 2020) or “the 

implementation of one or more practices aimed at improving the workplace experiences and 

outcomes of groups that face disadvantage in both organizations and the broader society,” 

(Leslie, 2019). Drawing upon previous definitions (Ahmed, 2012; Leslie, 2019, van den Brink, 

2020), for the purposes of this dissertation, the term diversity work will refer to work conducted 

in an attempt to make an organization more diverse, inclusive and/or equitable in an attempt to 

increase the full participation of marginalized group members within the organization. In this 

section, I will outline various forms of diversity work drawing on Leslie’s (2019) taxonomy of 

diversity practices, and prior research on diversity initiatives including Ruggs et al.’s (2018) 

chapter on strategies to combat bias in the workplace and Wentling and Palma‐Rivas’ (1998) 

qualitative study on workplace diversity initiatives. The latter research included 12 interviews 

with diversity and inclusion experts in the United States with specific initiatives being discussed 

as ways to achieve organizational goals (see Table 1 for summary of Diversity Work examples). 

Table 1.  
Diversity Work in Organizations by Level 

 

Individual Level 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Description of Work 

Directly confronting the perpetrator 
of biased behavior 

Engaging in perspective taking and 
increasing empathy towards 
marginalized group members 

Description of Worker 
Both* 

Majority Group 
Member Employee 

Allies showing support and positive 
attitudes for marginalized group 
members 

Majority Group 
Member Employee 

Serving as a mentor for employees 
from marginalized groups 

Both 

Identity Management 

Marginalized Group 
Member Employee 

4 

 

Table 1. (cont’d) 
Organizational Level 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Recruiting individuals from diverse 
backgrounds 

Making a formal company policy 
about diversity to signal that the 
organization values it to outsiders 

Both 

Both 

Zero-tolerance policies towards 
racial harassment with consequences 

Both 

Examining and strengthening the 
climate for diversity  

Developing and administering 
training for addressing biases and 
biased behavior 

Having commitment from top 
management to reduce bias and serve 
as a role model for all employees 

Supporting career development 
through programming for members 
of marginalized groups 

Both 

Both 

Both 

Both 

Diversity initiatives (i.e. employee 
resource groups) 

Both 

Note: Description of worker refers to majority group member or marginalized group member in describing who is 
more likely to engage in that form of work; * = research from Rattan & Dweck (2016) found that when individuals 
from marginalized racial groups confront prejudice, only those who are high in growth mindset tended to have more 
positive outcomes from confronting prejudice (greater degree of belonging and satisfaction at work).  

 

Diversity Work at the Individual Level. Ruggs et al. (2018) identified individual level 

strategies for addressing bias. Individual level strategies that were particularly relevant to 

combating biases towards members of racial or ethnic marginalized groups included: directly 

confronting the biased behavior of the perpetrator (Ashburn-Nardo et al., 2008; Rattan & Dweck, 

2016) which can be done by individuals who are third parties to the behavior and are intervening 

on behalf of the person effected (Ashburn-Nardo et al., 2008) or they can be done by the person 

on the receiving end of the biased behaviors (Rattan & Dweck, 2016), engaging in perspective 

taking with the goal of increasing empathy towards marginalized group members (Lindsey et al., 

 

5 

 

2014), and having allies exhibit positive attitudes and support for marginalized employees which 

may impact the overall organizational culture and social norms. In addition, there are tactics that 

marginalized group members can engage in to combat biases that fall into the category of 

identity management. Marginalized group members engage in identity management to combat 

the discrimination they face and cope with the effects of their identity being stigmatized in work 

environments. Shih et al. (2013) outline four strategies marginalized group members may engage 

in including: identity switching which can involve deemphasizing the target identity and/or 

recategorizing to a positively valued identity or engaging in identity redefinition. Examples of 

the latter include engaging in stereotype reassociation in which one changes emphasis among 

stereotypes in an attempt to dissociate oneself from negative stereotypes and lean in to positive 

stereotypes from their group or engaging in stereotype regeneration in which individuals may 

redefine the characteristics that are associated with an identity that is negatively stereotyped 

societally. When marginalized group members engage in identity management, it may allow 

them to perform better (Shih et al., 1999; Shih et al, 2002) and may result in positive 

psychological outcomes (Shih et al., 2013). However, there is also evidence that when one is 

trying to engage in identity management when cognitive load is high, this may be related to 

negative emotions towards the outgroup, particularly for individuals high in ingroup self-esteem 

(Martiny & Kessler, 2014). In addition to these, Wentling and Palma‐Rivas (1998) suggest that 

mentorship for individuals from marginalized groups may be another way to help them feel 

included in the workplace and assist in helping them reach their career goals (Kram, 1985). 

Diversity Work at the Organizational Level. Ruggs et al., (2018) also suggest several 

organizational level-strategies including: recruitment of individuals from diverse backgrounds 

and making the company policy regarding diversity known to applicants to discourage  

 

6 

 

individuals who do not value diversity or those who may engage in racial harassment from 

applying (see Bell et al., 2002 for a similar argument regarding sexual harassment), zero-

tolerance organizational policies backed by actual consequences for the person engaging in 

harassment (Hurley et al., 2016; O’Leary-Kelly et al., 2000), examining the current diversity 

climate in the organization, developing relevant training for addressing biases (Burley & Lessig, 

1999) and having commitment from top management to reduce biases at the managerial level as 

well as serve as behavioral role models for employees of all levels (Dobbin & Kalev, 2013). In 

addition to these, Wentling and Palma‐Rivas (1998) suggest that organizationally supported 

career development for members of marginalized groups could be an additional avenue for 

fostering inclusion and career support. Other organizational diversity initiatives may help 

provide a sense of identity safety and belonging for members of marginalized groups. For 

example, some initiatives serve as standing structures (i.e., employee resource groups, Welborne 

et al., 2018) and allow members to form networks and be around others in the organization with 

a tacit understanding of their daily experience or other individuals who are committed to 

understanding their experience (e.g., prospective allies). 

Leslie’s (2019) taxonomy of diversity practices can also serve as a useful framework for 

considering the range of activities that may fall into the category of organization level diversity 

work. To develop this heuristic for thinking about diversity work, Leslie (2019) drew from prior 

large-scale studies (Kalev et al., 2006; Konrad & Linneham, 1995; Richard et al., 2013). In her 

taxonomy, diversity initiatives fall into three categories: nondiscrimination practices (merit-

based decision making, diversity training), resource practices (preferential treatment, targeted 

recruitment, diversity statements, targeted training, diversity networking groups, diversity 

 

7 

 

mentoring programs) and accountability practices (diversity plans, diversity performance 

evaluations, diversity positions, grievance systems). 

These different forms of work are key for increasing diversity and inclusion at various 

portions of the work life cycle. Applying Leslie’s taxonomy to Schneider’s (1987) Attraction-

Selection-Attrition Model, it becomes evident that diversity work impacts who may be attracted 

to the organization, who is ultimately selected into the organization and the degree to which 

people wish to separate from the organization. Through acts such as targeted recruitment, 

signaling identity safety cues in diversity statements and signaling externally that diversity is 

important through making diversity plans, individuals from marginalized racial backgrounds 

may be more attracted to the organization. Instituting merit-based decision making, engaging in 

preferential treatment, and engaging targeted training initiatives may increase the likelihood that 

individuals from marginalized backgrounds are selected into the organization. Diversity training, 

diversity networking groups and properly functioning and accessible grievance systems can 

serve as mechanisms for inclusion in organizations which may buffer against tendencies towards 

attrition. Thus, as illustrated in Figure 1, diversity work has the potential to impact who remains 

in the organization and thus the organizational climate. If these climate perceptions become 

solidified within the organization’s culture, this may result in a less homogenized organization.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8 

 

Figure 1.  
Applying ASA in the Context of Diversity Work 

 

Boundary Conditions on the Construct of Diversity Work 

 

Because diversity work is defined broadly and is thus comprised of a multitude of actions 

and behaviors, I will discuss the boundary conditions of this construct for the purposes of this 

dissertation. For the present investigation I will limit the scope of the study to individuals who 

are engaging in diversity work outside of their designated work role (i.e., not those in DEI roles). 

This will allow me to compare the completion of diversity work to that of other OCBs which are 

also completed outside of one’s official work role. While diversity work that is done in one’s 

work role may result in similar affective outcomes, particularly if the person engaging in the 

work is a member of a marginalized group, it is likely that in-role diversity work would not 

impact the career related outcomes of interest in the present study in the same way that they may 

impact the career related outcomes of an individual engaging in this work outside of their official 

work role. Second, I will limit the scope of diversity work specifically to work that impacts the 

 

9 

 

organizational overall rather than work at the individual level. This is primarily due to the fact 

that the rewards and compensation considered in the present study would be allocated by the 

organization and would thus need to be something that the organization could quantify and 

monitor. For example, an organization could more easily identify an individual who is an active 

leader in an employee resource group or who helped develop a diversity training curriculum 

while quantifying allyship behavior would be more difficult and thus harder to reward in a 

similar manner. A secondary reason is that in comparing diversity work to forms of OCBs, 

previous reviews of the existing literature have revealed that some forms of OCBs are only 

conceptualized at the organizational level (e.g., Podsakoff et al. 2014; challenge-oriented OCBs). 

Thus, in order to engage in a true comparison of diversity work and the various forms of OCBs, I 

have decided to limit my examination to diversity work at the organizational level. Lastly, I will 

limit the present investigation to diversity work in the context of initiatives designed with 

marginalized racial groups as the target beneficiaries and consider the role of race specifically in 

examining who is engaging in the work as well. Although gender has also been shown to be a 

highly prevalent factor in terms of who is engaging in extra-role behaviors at work, particularly 

those that are more communal or affiliation-oriented (Allen & Jang, 2018; Guarino & Borden, 

2017) the focus of the present investigation is on diversity work specifically with regard to race. 

Unlike other demographic characteristics, in the United States, race tends to be a highly visible a 

characteristic that remains fixed for longer periods of time and is linked to several systematic 

disparities in employment including differences in income (Wilson, 2020), hiring (Fernandez & 

Greenberg, 2013) and job longevity (Weller & Fields, 2011). Extra-role work for racial 

minorities who must already contend with societal inequities may be more taxing given that there 

is no reprieve of race-based privilege to fall back on compared to others who have intersectional 

 

10 

 

identities featuring whiteness as a component. Thus, I will focus on the impact of the race of the 

person engaging in the work as one of my primary research questions. This work will be drawn 

from Leslie’s (2019) taxonomy, specifically the non-discrimination practices and resource 

practices and will include: taking a leading role in a diversity workshop or training, engaging in 

targeted recruitment efforts to increase numeric representation of individuals from marginalized 

groups, engaging in targeted training efforts aimed at increasing the likelihood that individuals 

from marginalized groups are included, participation or leadership in an employee resource 

group (ERGs), serving on a diversity and inclusion committee within the organization or 

providing ad-hoc support on organizational inclusion initiatives and projects.  

Diversity Work as Extra-Role Behavior 

 

Discussion of extra-role work within the diversity sphere warrants a discussion of extra-

role behaviors broadly as well as what makes diversity work similar to and different from 

organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs). OCBs are characterized as “individual behavior 

that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that 

in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization” (Organ 1988; p. 4). In 

their review, Podsakoff et al., (2014) summarize the various forms of OCBs from previous 

conceptualizations. First, there are the OCBIs which are classified as affiliation-oriented OCBs 

that benefit individuals in the organization. Examples of OCBs of this form include: 

interpersonal helping, altruism, courtesy, peacekeeping, cheerleading, interpersonal facilitation, 

interpersonal harmony (Podsakoff et al., 2014). Second, there are the OCBOs which are 

classified as affiliation-oriented OCBs engaged in for the benefit of the organization broadly 

construed. Examples of this form of OCB include: organizational loyalty, loyal boosterism, 

organizational identification, endorsement, support and defense of the organization, spread of 

 

11 

 

goodwill, promotion of company image, sportsmanship, compliance, organizational obedience, 

protection of company resources, compliance to organizational rules and procedures, and civic 

virtue (which involves attending meetings and functions that are not required as well as reading 

organizational announcements to stay up to date; Podsakoff et al., 2014). Lastly, there are the 

challenge oriented OCBOs that are considered to be OCBs directed towards the organization in a 

way that challenges the status quo (Van Dyne & LePine, 1998). Examples of this form of OCB 

include voice behavior, making constructive suggestions, civic virtue in the context of voice, 

principled dissent, advocacy participation, organizational participation, issue selling and taking 

charge (Podsakoff et al., 2014).  

Although categorized as work existing outside of one’s role, meta-analytic research on the 

outcomes of OCBs revealed that engaging in affiliation-oriented OCBs is positively related to 

certain organizational level outcomes including things such as productivity, efficiency, reduced 

organizational costs, customer satisfaction and unit level turnover (Podsakoff et al., 2009). In 

addition, despite the fact that this work is conducted outside of one’s work role, engaging in 

affiliation-oriented OCBs was found to be positively related to reward allocation decisions and 

managerial ratings of performance such that this behavior accounted for similar or greater 

variance in performance evaluations than task-role behaviors (Podsakoff et al., 2009).  

As previously mentioned, diversity work could be conceptualized as being directed 

towards the person and the organization. Various forms of diversity work may also be 

conceptualized as affiliation and challenge oriented in a similar manner to OCBs (see Table 2).  

 

 

 

12 

 

Table 2.  
Synthesizing Diversity Work and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors Outlined in Podsakoff et al. (2014) 

 
OCBI 

OCBO 

Affiliation-Oriented 

Challenge-Oriented 

Interpersonal Helping 

• 
•  Altruism 
•  Altruism Toward Colleagues 
•  Courtesy 
•  Peacekeeping 
•  Cheerleading 
• 
• 

Interpersonal Facilitation 
Interpersonal Harmony 

 

•  Organizational Loyalty 
•  Loyal Boosterism 
•  Organizational Identification 
•  Endorsement, Support and Defense of the Organization 
•  Spread of Goodwill 
•  Promotion of Company Image 
•  Sportsmanship 
•  Compliance 
•  Organizational Obedience 
•  Protection of Company Resources 
•  Compliance to Organizational Rules and Procedures 
•  Civic Virtue (attending functions that are not required, keeping up with 

organizational announcements) 

•  Voice 
•  Making Constructive Suggestions 
•  Civic Virtue (when referring to Voice 
•  Principled Dissent 
•  Advocacy Participation 
•  Organizational Participation 
• 
•  Taking Charge 

Issue Selling 

DWI 

•  Engaging in perspective taking and increasing empathy towards 

•  Directly confronting the perpetrator of 

marginalized group members 

biased behavior 

•  Allies showing support and positive attitudes for marginalized group 

•  Voicing concerns to management 

members 

•  Serving as a mentor for employees from marginalized groups 
• 

Identity Management 

about issues of bias 

•  Reporting issues of bias and 

discrimination to HR 

 
 

 
 

 

 

 

13 

 

Table 2. (cont’d) 
 
DWO 

Affiliation-Oriented 

•  Recruiting individuals from diverse backgrounds 
•  Making a formal company policy about diversity to signal that the 

organization values it to outsiders 

•  Creating zero-tolerance policies towards racial harassment with 

consequences 

•  Examining and strengthening the climate for diversity  
•  Developing and administering training for addressing biases and biased 

behavior 

•  Advocating for buy-in from top management to reduce bias and serve as 

a role model for all employees 

•  Supporting career development through programming for members of 

marginalized groups 

•  Organizational Diversity Initiatives (i.e. employee resource groups) 

Challenge-Oriented 

•  Calling for changes to biased hiring 

policies and practices  

•  Requesting that changes be made to 

reporting systems to make them more 
accessible  

 

Note: Drawn from Ashburn-Nardo et al., (2008), Leslie (2019), Lindsey et al. (2014), Podsakoff et al. (2014), Rattan & Dweck (2016), Ruggs et al., (2018), Shih et al., (2013), 
Wentling & Palma-Rivas (1998) and van den Brink, 2020. OCBI = organizational citizenship behavior directed towards the individual, OCBO = organizational citizenship directed 
towards the individual, DWI = diversity work directed towards the individual, DWO = diversity work directed towards the organization. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

14 

 

Many of the examples provided in Table 1 align with an affiliation-oriented 

conceptualization in that they involve creating and facilitating a more harmonious work 

environment and including employees who are marginalized. In addition, some behaviors may be 

more challenge-oriented when they involve directly confronting the perpetrator of biased 

behavior (individual) or calling for changes to organizational systems or structures that facilitate 

inequities (organizational). However, despite the nuances outlined in Table 2, it is possible that 

overall, diversity work may fit particularly well with the conceptualization of challenge-oriented 

OCBs due to the fact that it inherently challenges the status quo and calls attention to the fact that 

work environments may not be as diverse or inclusive as they believe themselves to be. Thus, it 

is an open question as to whether all diversity work is conceptualized in a similar manner or 

whether others perceive differences between affiliation-oriented diversity work and challenge-

oriented diversity work.  

 

Whether there are benefits allotted to those who engage in extra-role diversity work in a 

similar manner to those who engage in affiliation-oriented OCBs also remains an open question. 

Research in higher education suggests that diversity work may not necessarily result in career-

relevant benefits. For example, using a nationwide survey, Jimenez et al.’s (2019) research 

revealed not only that faculty from underrepresented racial identities were more likely to be 

engaging in diversity work than their White counterparts; but that there was no career-related 

acknowledgement of this work (e.g., consideration of diversity work in the tenure process). 

Rodriguez et al. (2015), in considering similar disparities between unrepresented racial 

minorities the field of academic medicine, argued that one factor contributing to the promotion 

disparity for individuals from underrepresented marginalized groups was the fact that they were 

spending more time on diversity initiatives and work. They then mentioned how promotion 

 

15 

 

disparities were linked to lower pay for these individuals because salary is linked to rank in many 

institutions (Rodriguez et al., 2015). However, diversity work may not be unique in this regard. 

Research on organizational citizenship and career outcomes in an outcome-based control system 

revealed that time spent on task-related performance was deemed to be more important than 

OCBs in determining career-related outcomes including: salary increase, promotion and 

advancement speed (Bergeron et al., 2013). In addition, when Bergeron et al. (2013) controlled 

for time spent on performance type for task performance and OCBs they found that employees 

who spent more time engaging in OCBs had lower increases in their salaries and were promoted 

at a much slower rate compared to employees who spent less time on OCBs.  

Whether diversity work may or may not be rewarded or valued to the same degree as 

challenge-oriented OCBs is also not yet known. In the research literature, there has been little 

discussion as to the individual and group level outcomes for challenge-oriented OCBs. 

Mackenzie et al., (2011) found that challenge-related OCBs (operationalized as voice behavior) 

had an inverted U-shaped relationship with unit level performance that was moderated by 

affiliation-oriented OCBs. Other work has identified that challenge-related OCBs may be 

particularly helpful for allowing groups to come up with more creative solutions (Farh, Lee, and 

Farh, 2010) and may keep groups from inadvertently reaching premature consensus (De Dreu & 

West, 2001). Although there are some organizational level benefits for employees engaging in 

challenge-oriented OCBs, these behaviors are also linked to interpersonal consequences such as 

negatively impacting employee relationships with managers (Morrison & Milliken, 2000) and 

negatively impacting task performance and coworker relationships in one’s work group (Fay & 

Frese, 2001). Diversity work inherently challenges the status quo in organizations which is a 

conceptualization that best aligns with challenge-oriented OCBs. To date, there is little to no 

 

16 

 

known research on the rewards for challenge-oriented OCBs at the individual level. Returning to 

the illustration in Figure 1 and the examples in Tables 1 and 2, each example of diversity work is 

generally completed to address an inequity in a pre-existing organizational structure or process. 

For example, recruiting more members of racially marginalized groups in a company is spurred 

by recognizing a lack of numeric representation. Targeted recruitment efforts, in this case, would 

implicitly challenge the demographic composition of the hypothetical company at present. Thus, 

I posit that diversity work may be more likely to fall into the conceptualization of challenge-

oriented OCBs which may contribute to its decreased likelihood of being recognized and 

rewarded accordingly.  

While diversity work can be characterized as a specific form of OCB, one distinction 

between this work and OCBs more broadly is that this work can be assigned. Indeed, the 

phenomenon of marginalized group members being “voluntold” to engage in extra-role diversity 

work has been documented and discussed in the popular press (Caruso & Pandya, 2020; Mercer, 

2020). Assigned diversity work would be inherently different from other OCBs for two reasons. 

First, assigned work is not voluntary which is considered to be a key element of the traditional 

OCB definition by Organ (1988, p.4): “individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or 

explicitly recognized by the formal reward system.” When work is assigned, it is no longer 

discretionary. Second, and in tandem, when work is assigned by those with decision-making 

power such as bosses or supervisors, these individuals may find the work to be more salient and 

it may be directly or indirectly considered in performance evaluations. Voluntary work may or 

may not allow employees to reap that same benefit.  

 

Thus, another reason extra-role diversity work may not be valued is because this work 

may be classified as invisible labor. Invisible labor is defined as work that is completed for little 

 

17 

 

to no compensation or benefit (Wiedhaas, 2017). This term has often been applied in the context 

of work women engage in with caretaking, parenting and housekeeping responsibilities being 

disproportionately completed by them (see Allen, 2012 for discussion). However, diversity work 

in organizations can similarly be completed in addition to one’s work role for little to no 

additional compensation nor recognition. When individuals spend several hours a week engaging 

in this work that is treated as invisible, it may result in those who do the work feeling 

undervalued. This may lead to a variety of outcomes including (a) ceasing to engage in diversity 

work, (b) feelings of dissatisfaction with work more broadly and (c) turnover. Each of these 

outcomes has the potential to harm organizational goals such as negatively impacting financial 

performance (Heavey et al., 2013), losing employees to competitors which may impact the 

organization’s survival (Agarwal et al., 2009) or may result in turnover contagion (Felps et al., 

2009).  

Despite arguments that compensating for extra-role diversity work is needed, it is 

possible that some may worry about the fairness of compensating employees for work completed 

outside of their work role given that it is completed voluntarily. Research on pay satisfaction 

revealed that employees can become dissatisfied when coworkers earn more than they do and 

particularly so if they perceive themselves to be similar to higher earning co-workers on reward-

relevant characteristics (Card et al., 2012; Clark & Oswald, 1996). When people who complete 

their job-relevant work are being compensated at a lower rate than those who complete both their 

job-relevant work and extra-role work, the former group may perceive this as inequitable and 

unfair if they are meeting the requirements of their role-relevant work. Thus, because certain 

forms of extra-role work, particularly diversity work, may be less visible and perceived as 

voluntary and is likely to challenge the status quo, it is hypothesized that (see Figure 2): 

 

18 

 

H1: Individuals will (a) allocate a higher bonus, (b) allocate more non-

monetary benefits and (c) perceive compensating the extra-role behavior to 

be more fair when they are rating affiliation-oriented OCBOs compared to 

challenge-oriented OCBOs and diversity work. 

Figure 2.  
Model Examining Differential Value and Fairness Perceptions of Extra Role Work 

 

In addition to the open question of whether challenge-oriented OCBOs and diversity work 

are rewarded differently at an individual level compared to affiliation-oriented OCBOs, the 

demographic identity of the individual engaging in these extra-role behaviors may also impact 

the degree to which these behaviors are rewarded. Research in higher education revealed that 

women who were faculty members engage in significantly more internal service activities than 

men when controlling for rank, race and ethnicity and field of study (Guarino & Borden, 2017) 

though this work is less likely to be weighted heavily in promotion decisions (Jimenez et al.’s 

2019). Other organizational research aligns with this finding in that employees who are women 

are more likely to engage in OCB helping behavior and were less likely to view altruism related 

behaviors at work as optional compared to employees who were men (Farrel & Finkelstien, 

 

19 

 

2007; Heilman & Chen, 2005). A more recent study by Allen and Jang (2018) found that while 

women reported engaging in more communal OCBs and men reported engaging in more agentic 

OCBs, supervisors did not rate men and women differently on OCB performance. However, the 

authors note in their review of previous literature that the lack of differences in some previous 

studies may be due to the way in which OCBs are measured with significant differences being 

more frequent in studies where participants were asked to self-report and when multidimensional 

measures were used (Allen & Jang, 2018). As noted in other research, the lack of differences 

between genders in supervisor ratings of OCBs may be due to the fact that OCB performance is 

not considered or noticed when completed by women but rewarded for men (Heilman & Chen, 

2005) potentially stemming from gender stereotypes (Kidder, 2002; Steele, 2016). 

The racial identity of the person engaging in diversity work may also be related to 

differential work outcomes when engaging in extra-role work. One of the earlier studies to 

consider racial differences in OCBs found that individuals from marginalized racial groups were 

more likely to self-report the OCB of altruism and less likely to be rated by supervisors to be 

high on the OCB of compliance and that this relationship was partially mediated by coworker 

support and job satisfaction and negative affectivity (Jones & Schaubroek, 2004). One other 

known study considered the relationship between race and engaging in OCBs (Thau et al., 2008). 

Using the negative adaption hypothesis as a guiding framework, they posited that because Black 

employees were more likely to experience injustice and mistreatment compared to White 

employees, when non-contingent punishment occurred in the workplace, it would have no 

bearing on whether Black employees engaged in OCBs. Indeed, they found in their own study 

that non-contingent punishment from supervisors was negatively related to engaging in OCBs for 

White employees but not Black employees (Thau, et al., 2008). Although these findings 

 

20 

 

highlight factors that impact when individuals from marginalized groups engage in OCBs, more 

research is needed to make concrete assertions as to the impact of engaging in these behaviors 

for underrepresented racial groups in the workplace.  

Despite the relative dearth of information on race and engaging in OCBs, I posit that the 

characteristics of diversity work may pose particular detriments to members of marginalized 

racial groups compared to other OCBs. Many of the individuals who engage in diversity work 

are underrepresented in their professions (Jimenez et al., 2019; Campbell & Rodriguez, 2019). 

This may result in the same, few, individuals being top of mind when organizations elect to make 

strides in this area. Comparatively, for other OCBs there would hypothetically be a broader range 

of employees that could be called upon. In addition to underrepresentation, individuals from 

marginalized racial groups are also contending with several environmental disparities. Referring 

to work examining medical school faculty members, Rodriguez et al., (2015) noted that in 

addition to spending additional time on diversity-related work, these scholars also face racism 

which contributes to job dissatisfaction, isolation which limits the likelihood of collaborating 

with others for scholarly activity, a lack of mentorship, and lower engagement in valued task-

related work (e.g., less scholarly work and more community and clinical work). All of these 

factors contribute to promotion disparities which in turn result in pay disparities (Rodriguez et 

al., 2015). In addition to these factors, individuals from marginalized racial groups also contend 

with the cognitive load of constantly surveilling the work environment for threatening situational 

cues that their social identities will be devalued (Murphy et al., 2007; Purdie-Vaughns et al., 

2008). In sum, members of marginalized racial and ethnic groups in the workplace often bear the 

brunt of discriminatory treatment. Doing diversity work for the organization in addition to this 

may result in feelings of being overburdened which may result in negative career relevant 

 

21 

 

outcomes. This may mean that individuals from marginalized groups who engage in diversity 

work may have worse work outcomes compared to individuals from societally privileged racial 

groups who engage in the work. Thus, it is hypothesized that: 

 H2: Racial minority status will moderate the relationship between diversity 

work and work outcomes such that individuals who are racial minorities will 

have (a) more time since their last raise and (b) more time since their last 

promotion when they engage in diversity work compared to White workers. 

In addition, I also hope to better understand the degree to which various forms of OCBs 

are valued and learn whether outcomes for individuals who engage in OCBOs are different than 

for individuals who engage in diversity work broadly. Diversity work’s potential status as a 

challenge-oriented OCB and as a form of invisible labor may negatively contribute to the 

likelihood of valuing the behavior. Thus, it is hypothesized that:  

H3: Individuals engaging in diversity work will have (a) a longer time period 

since their last raise and (d) a longer time period since their last promotion 

compared to those who engage in other forms of OCBs. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

22 

 

Figure 3.  
Model Examining the Moderating effect of Minority Status on the Relationship 
Between Extra-Role Work and Work Outcomes 

 

However, these assertions beg the larger question of why else diversity work would be 

considered less valuable, particularly by individuals who are in societally privileged racial 

groups in organizations. In the next section, I propose a potential rationale explaining why this 

may be the case.   

Why Diversity Work May Be Perceived as Less Valuable: Theoretical Possibilities 

 

In this section of the proposal, I will discuss potential reasons why diversity work may be 

perceived as less valuable than other forms of organizational OCBs. First, I will discuss the 

framing posed by Hekman et al., (2017) in their work on diversity valuing behavior in which 

they argued that negative perceptions of diversity work may be a result of stereotyping. Then, I 

will propose my own theoretical framing. To do this, I will integrate Helm’s (1990) White Racial 

Identity Theory and Social Identity Theory. 

 

One reason diversity work in organizations may be devalued compared to other OCBs is 

due to the fact that those who engage in the work would be aligning themselves with a low status 

identity. Hekman et al. (2017) drew on the relational demography, social dominance orientation 

 

23 

 

and stereotyping literature for framing their work on diversity-valuing behaviors and leadership 

perceptions. They proposed that low status groups (e.g., marginalized racial groups and women) 

align themselves with their low status identity when they engage in diversity valuing behavior 

(behaviors that promote demographic balance in an organization that are commensurate with the 

broader region in which the organization is located). When individuals from low status groups 

engage in diversity valuing behavior, they may be seen as socially competitive particularly if one 

holds the view that members of different demographic groups are competing for status in a zero-

sum format (Chattopadhyay et al., 2004; Sidanius et al., 1994). They further posit that engaging 

in diversity valuing behavior as a member of a marginalized group makes one’s demographic 

characteristics more salient thus activating negative stereotypes of their group. This, in turn 

results in perceived incompetence of the person engaging in diversity valuing behavior (Hekman 

et al., 2014). Although this framing could be useful for considering why diversity work more 

broadly may be devalued compared to other OCBs, this framing does not particularly consider 

the root cause of stereotyping nor address why White individuals, who may be more likely to be 

the majority group members in organizations, may or may not devalue the work. Through 

synthesizing tenants of White Racial Identity Theory and Social Identity Theory, I hope to 

illustrate the underlying mechanism that may explain why diversity work is more likely to be 

devalued by White, majority group individuals in organizations.  

 

White Racial Identity Theory (WRID; Helms, 1990; 2005) posits that the racial identity 

of White individuals is exemplified within a set of linearly delineated statuses that include (a) 

unawareness of the systematic presence of Whiteness, one’s race and the existence of racism 

(contact), feelings of shame and guilt due to being challenged by new information about the 

White identity that was previously viewed positively (disintegration) (c) the idealization of being 

 

24 

 

White and denigrating individuals in marginalized racial groups (reintegration), (d) intellectual 

acceptance of one’s race and racial privilege (pseudo-independent) (e) internalized positive anti-

racist White identity and flexible interactions with individuals in marginalized racial groups 

(immersion) and finally, (f) the individuals fully understand their White identity while 

simultaneously working to pursue social justice (autonomy; Helms, 2005; Mallot et al., 2015). 

Helms (2005) argues that there are two things that must be completed in order to obtain a healthy 

White identity. One must first shun institutional racism and individual racism (which is involved 

in statuses a-c) and must second define a positive identity for themselves (statuses d-f). The most 

recent conceptualization of this theory retains only the four statuses of contact, reintegration, 

pseudo-independence and autonomy (Helms, 2005; Ponterrotto & Park-Taylor, 2007). Although 

this theory was originally proposed as a stage model, this conceptualization was not supported 

and in later versions of the theory, these stages were relabeled as statuses (Helms, 1984; Helms, 

2005). Research examining this theory suggests that White individuals may tap into various 

statuses simultaneously rather than making a linear progression through the statuses (Ponterrotto 

& Park-Taylor, 2007). Although this theory has been critiqued for a myriad of reasons including 

failing to describe how White individuals develop their own White identity, instead focusing on 

White attitudes towards other racial groups (Rowe, Bennett & Atkinson, 1994), little evidence 

supporting the statuses outlined (Rowe, 2006) and lacking detail in terms of how to live an anti-

racist life (Miller & Fellows, 2007), there are tenants within the theory that may be useful for 

constructing an alternative explanatory framework for the devaluation of diversity work and 

those who engage in this work in organizations. 

 

This theory highlights at least two reasons why White employees, managers and higher-

level leaders may devalue diversity work in organizations. First, in accordance with the contact 

 

25 

 

status of WRID theory, White individuals in organizations may take a colorblind approach 

towards racism and may not acknowledge racism nor racial privileges. These individuals may 

fail to see a need for diversity work due to the fact that they do not acknowledge the impact of 

discrimination and prejudice as existing barriers to inclusion. Second, in accordance with the 

disintegration and reintegration statuses, once White individuals become aware of new 

information that challenges their view of their identity, they may feel shame and guilt. This may 

result in White employees idealizing their own ingroup and denigrating marginalized racial 

groups as a defense mechanism so as not to question their beneficial position. This then 

contributes to negative attitudes towards diversity work and diversity initiatives as individuals 

with this status of WRID may feel that this work may result in unfair benefits and assistance 

being given to marginalized individuals who are undeserving in their perspective. This position 

aligns with Intergroup Threat Theory (ITT; Stephan et al., 2009) which outlines two forms of 

threats that impact an identity group and an individual: (a1) realistic threats to the group which 

impact the group’s power, resources and welfare, (a2) realistic threats to the individual which 

have to do with actual harm to an individual such as torture, pain or death, (b1) symbolic threats 

to the group in which values, beliefs, philosophy and worldview of the group are threatened and 

(b2) symbolic threats to the individual in which the self-esteem and the self-identity of the 

individual is threatened. These threats need to only be perceived to influence emotions, 

cognitions and behaviors (Stephan et al., 2009). Thus, White employees may perceive that their 

status in the workplace is threatened when individuals engage in diversity work which may 

contribute to being less likely to value it and a decreased likelihood of viewing those who engage 

in this work in a positive manner.    

 

26 

 

 

The contact status may be best explained by a colorblind orientation towards diversity 

and lack of intergroup contact. Colorblindness is the belief that racial differences and categories 

do not matter, should be disregarded and that everyone should instead be treated as an individual 

(Plaut et al., 2009). The thought behind this approach at the organizational level is that any focus 

on the differential categorization of individuals into different groups may increase conflict and 

may also increase prejudice towards marginalized groups (Gündemir et al., 2019). However, 

research on this ideology has found that it may be harmful for the inclusion and success of 

individuals from marginalized racial groups. Plaut et al., (2009) found that when majority group 

members in an organization endorsed a colorblind diversity ideology in their unit, individuals 

from marginalized racial groups reported reduced psychological engagement. Holoien and 

Shelton (2012) found a similar decrement in engagement on a cognitive task in which they 

posited that this decrement was due to more perceived bias from majority group members. 

Holding a colorblind ideology may thus be one contributor to the contact status of WRID. 

Another contributor to this status may be a lack of intergroup contact. The contact hypothesis 

(Allport, 1954) states that when individuals from different social identities have similar 

background statuses (e.g., education, wealth), common goals, engage in intergroup cooperation 

and that societal laws and authorities support this contact, intergroup contact may result in 

decreased prejudice. A recent meta-analysis (Pettigrew et al., 2011) on intergroup contact has 

revealed that these conditions are not essential but do indeed facilitate the positive effects of 

intergroup contact. Pettigrew et al. (2011) also found among other things that positive intergroup 

contact with one member of a group transferred to positive appraisals of the outgroup more 

broadly and that even indirect or imagined contact can be effective at reducing prejudice towards 

outgroups. Lack of intergroup contact may contribute to the contact status as without contact 

 

27 

 

with other groups the likelihood that one may be aware of societal inequities faced by individuals 

from marginalized groups is lessened.    

 

I argue that the reintegration status is best explained by Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & 

Turner, 1986). This theory posits that individuals are motivated to make sure that their groups 

are perceived positively. When individuals perceive that identity groups they belong to are 

evaluated negatively, they may experience social identity threat (Walton & Cohen, 2007). This 

theory is normally applied in explaining the impact of discrimination and exclusion on members 

of marginalized groups (Davies et al., 2005; Emerson & Murphy, 2014); however, it is possible 

that White individuals also experience threat to their identities or feel that their identity is 

devalued. In their chapter, Branscombe et al. (1999) highlight four classes of identity threat. 

These include: (a) categorization threat or the degree to which one is categorized into a social 

group against their will, (b) distinctiveness threat or the degree to which being viewed as distinct 

from one’s social group is prevented or undermined, (c) threats to the value of one’s social 

identity in which one’s group is devalued as incompetent or immoral, and (d) acceptance threat 

in which one’s position in their own identity group is undermined. Of these classes of social 

identity threat, I posit that value threat is the driving force behind White individuals experiencing 

the reintegration phase of WRID. This threat may be due in part to their perceived status loss 

when diversity work occurs in organizations. Diversity work and initiatives have long been 

considered cues that impact the identity safety of individuals from marginalized racial groups in 

the workplace (Welborne et al., 2018; Purdie-Vaughns et al., 2008). These same cues that signify 

safety may simultaneously contribute to feelings of identity threat for individuals with the 

reintegration status of White racial identity.  

 

28 

 

I will highlight two ways through which this identity threat may come to fruition. First, 

the very existence of organizational level diversity work can be seen as a signal that 

organizations place value on diversity, making room for and considering the needs of individuals 

who are not White. Organizational valuation of diverse racial groups through this work may 

result in White organization members perceiving that their racial identity is unrepresented in 

these efforts and is thus not valued. Furthermore, this threat may be exacerbated by the belief 

that some individuals have that demographic groups are in competition with other demographic 

groups such that when other groups gain status, their own group suffers status loss (Sidanius et 

al., 1994). White individuals, who are generally not hindered from advancement, discriminated 

against or otherwise disenfranchised from opportunities in the work environment on the basis of 

their race, may not be attentive of the experiences faced on a daily basis by individuals from 

marginalized racial groups, nor their advantages they receive as a member of a societally 

privileged group. Instead, White employees may be more likely to perceive the more salient 

organizational symbols of inclusion (e,g., diversity initiatives, diversity work) and those with the 

reintegration status may perceive these symbols as not including them which they may view as a 

form of status loss. This status loss, then contributes to feelings of threat which may result in the 

devaluation of diversity work and those who engage in it by proxy. Second, in terms of value 

threat on a moral dimension, White individuals may wrestle with the realization that they are 

privileged and may have received unearned benefits due to their racial group membership from 

harms against other groups by individuals who share their racial identity at timepoints prior and 

in the present day (Branscombe et al., 1998). Rather than confront this, they may cognitively 

avoid this and instead resort to reappraising their beneficial societal position through denigrating 

outgroups and, in essence, blaming them for their lower status in society. Negative intergroup 

 

29 

 

contact and a lack of positive intergroup contact may contribute to this appraisal (Pettigrew et al., 

2014). Vezzali et al., (2017) found that when majority group members experience negative 

intergroup contact, they were less supportive of social policies aimed at assisting minority 

groups. In a European sample, Graf et al., (2014) found that negative contact was more 

influential in shaping majority attitudes towards outgroups but that positive contact was more 

commonly reported. Because negative intergroup contact could confirm the denigrative coping 

of individuals with the reintegration status, it too may contribute to said status. Similarly, with a 

lack of positive intergroup contact to provide information to challenge the views of those with 

the reintegration status, it is possible that these views may be bolstered. In order to better tease 

out the valanced effects of intergroup contact, I will consider positive and negative contact with 

marginalized group members to be separate constructs following the example of previous work 

in this area (Barlow et al., 2012; Pettigrew, 2008; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011; see Lolliot et al., 

2015 for review) 

 

Thus, in considering these theoretical lenses together, I propose a new, dual process 

theoretical model to explain the mechanisms through which White employees devalue diversity 

work and those who engage in it. Drawing from the statuses of WRID, I posit that White 

individuals who devalue diversity work and those who engage in it may not have high degrees of 

the “healthier” statuses of Helms’ WRID theory (e.g., pseudo-independence and autonomy) but 

instead have higher degrees of the contact status and the reintegration status. I posit that holding 

a colorblind ideology and having a lack of intergroup contact contributes to racial identity 

unawareness or avoidance (e.g., the contact status of WRID) in which differences between racial 

groups are not acknowledged. Due to not acknowledging that there are differences in the 

sociohistorical legacies of different racial groups, individuals with high racial identity 

 

30 

 

unawareness or avoidance may not see a need for diversity work in organizations, may not see 

the impact of this work for individuals from marginalized racial groups within their organization, 

and may not see the value that this work brings to the organization.  

Conversely, those high on denigrative coping (e.g., the reintegration status in WRID) not 

only realize that there are group differences between racial groups but also perceive that there is 

a loss of status when organizations attempt to move the needle on diversity or inclusion in any 

form or fashion. This may be due to the fact that White individuals are accustomed to societal 

systems and processes that were built with their best interests and identity in mind and the 

benefits they receive exist outside of their conscious awareness. For example, in salary 

negotiations, it has been posited that women and individuals from marginalized racial identities 

do not negotiate while men and White individuals do, which contributes to pay inequities. 

However, this view oversimplifies the unique intersectional barriers faced at the negotiation 

table. Indeed, recent research suggests that hiring evaluators were less likely to make negotiation 

concessions to Black applicants who negotiated more (Hernandez et al., 2019). However, 

individuals high on denigrative coping would view failing to negotiate properly as the primary 

reason for pay inequities rather than considering the discrimination and bias faced by individuals 

from marginalized groups in the selection process. When diversity work is proposed or 

completed in organizations, individuals high on denigrative coping may feel social identity 

threat. Though this threat differs from that which has been previously defined in the context of 

marginalized group members feeling devalued in performance settings (Davies et al., 2005), this 

form of social identity threat nonetheless reveals that White individuals may feel as though their 

identity is not valued due to their identity group status when diversity work is done in 

organizations. In the present study, I will consider colorblindness, intergroup contact and the two 

 

31 

 

“unhealthy” statuses of the WRID model as predictors of perceptions of diversity work and those 

who engage in diversity work.   

Figure 4.  
Theory of Diversity Work Devaluation by White Employees Framework 

 

 

Although the proposed framework in Figure 4 is posited to hold in predicting attitudes 

towards the valuation of diversity work, it is not thought that this mechanism would influence 

affiliation oriented OCBOs nor challenge oriented OCBOs as neither of these latter forms of 

behaviors would have theoretical relationships with the preceding constructs in the model. Thus, 

it is hypothesized that:  

H4: Low intergroup contact and endorsing a colorblind orientation will both 

positively predict unawareness avoidance.  

H5: Low positive intergroup contact and high negative intergroup contact with 

both positively predict denigrative coping. 

H6a: Participants higher in unawareness avoidance and denigrative coping will 

(a) allocate a lower bonus and (b) allocate fewer non-monetary benefits.  

 

32 

 

H6b Participants higher in denigrative coping will evaluate the person engaging 

in diversity work as being (a) less competent and (b) less warm compared to 

those lower on these characteristics. 

For the purposes of this dissertation, examination of perceived status demotion and social 

identity threat will not be directly measured or examined. This is primarily due to the fact that 

measures of social identity threat are thought to be widely affected by reactivity and may 

provoke defensive reactions in which those who may hold a high level of identity threat rate 

themselves as being low on said measure (see Scheepers & Elleners, 2005 for discussion). 

In the next section, I will consider the degree to which engaging in diversity work may be 

valued differently and considered to be differentially fair depending on the racial identity of the 

person who is engaging in the work. 

Differential Valuation of Work by Race  

 

Devaluation of work and wage gaps for in-role work have often been discussed in the 

context of gender (Reid, 1998) and race (Patten, 2016). White women make an average of 79 

cents for every dollar earned by their male counterparts. Asian women (90 cents on the dollar), 

Black women (62 cents on the dollar), American Indian women (57 cents on the dollar) and 

Latina women (54 cents on the dollar) all receive differential payment for their work that is 

differentiated from the amount earned by both White men and women (National Partnership for 

Women and Families, 2020). Similarly, White men out earn Black and Latino men (Patten, 

2016).  

 

Research on executives and employees engaging in diversity valuing behavior sheds 

further light on the nuanced impact of engaging in diversity-related work specifically as women 

and members of marginalize racial identities. Hekman et al. (2017) found in both a lab and a 

 

33 

 

field study that when women and members of marginalized racial identities at the executive level 

engage in diversity valuing behaviors (e.g., behaviors that increase diversity in their organization 

through having an equal number of men and women in the organization or a percentage of 

specific racial groups commensurate with the demographic percentage in the company’s 

surrounding region), they are perceived as less competent and rated as performing worse 

compared to those who do not engage in diversity valuing behaviors. White men who were 

executives in their study received no such negative penalty to their perceptions for engaging in 

diversity work. As mentioned previously, Heckman et al., (2017) posited that these perceptions 

of individuals from marginalized backgrounds engaging in diversity valuing behavior may be 

due to aligning themselves with a more stigmatized identity thus making said identity more 

salient. The salience of the stigmatized identity was argued to be related to negative perceptions 

of women and marginalized racial identities who engage in diversity work.   

 

Engaging in diversity work as a member of a marginalized racial group may be perceived 

differently because the work may be seen as more beneficial to that person as opposed to a 

person in the majority group. Recent research by Gardner and Ryan (2020) revealed that when 

diversity initiative promoters were Black, they were perceived as more self-interested compared 

to White promoters. This, in turn, predicted less positive attitudes and less support towards the 

initiative when the promoter was Black as opposed to White. In a follow up study, they found 

that when diversity initiative promoters share a demographic characteristic with the group they 

were promoting, they were perceived as being more self-interested than individuals who were 

advocating for an initiative for a demographic group outside of their own group. Gardner and 

Ryan (2020) frame their work in the context of Attribution Analysis of Persuasion Theory (Eagly 

& Chaiken, 1975; Eagly, Wood & Chaiken, 1978) which states that when a communicator 

 

34 

 

advocates for a position that they are not expected to given their characteristics or due to 

elements of the situation, there is a stronger perception that the message said individual is trying 

to convey is closer to reality while the reverse is said to be true when a communicator advocates 

for a position that would be expected based on their characteristics.  

Although this theory has been used to explain persuasion of messages, the underlying 

mechanism may be relevant for perceptions of diversity work and those who engage in said 

work. Indeed, those who are demographically underrepresented engaging in diversity work may 

be perceived as more self-interested, particularly if they are engaging in this work for their 

specific demographic group. This perception of self-interest may then lead White employees to 

devalue diversity work in these instances and may result in White employees implicitly 

devaluing the work more broadly. This may also impact allocation decisions towards individuals 

from marginalized identities who engage in diversity work such that they receive lower degrees 

of recognition or compensation for this work because the work already benefits them. However, 

when White employees engage in diversity work on behalf of individuals from marginalized 

racial groups in organizations, the fact that this is considered to be less self-interest based may 

result in individuals in this racial group being allocated more monetary and non-monetary 

resources. Considering all things together, it is thus hypothesized that: 

H7: Individuals will (a) allocate a higher bonus, (b) allocate more non-

monetary benefits (c) will evaluate compensating for that work to be more fair 

and (d) evaluate the target as more competent when the person engaging in 

diversity work is White compared to other racial groups. 

 

35 

 

 

In addition, it may also be fruitful to consider whether the warmth perceptions of the 

person engaging in diversity work differs as a result of race, though this research question will 

be exploratory as directionality is unclear at present: 

  RQ 1: Do warmth perceptions of the target engaging in diversity work differ 

as a result of the target’s race? 

Figure 5.  
Examining the Moderating Effect of Social Dominance Orientation on the 
Relationship Between Race and Fairness Perceptions and Work Outcomes  

 

Social Dominance Orientation as a Moderator 

 

Social dominance orientation (SDO) represents the degree to which an individual prefers 

group-based inequality and is comfortable with using force to maintain the inequitable status quo 

(Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). This belief has been linked to higher levels of ethnocentrism, anti-

Black racism and being in opposition to policies and practices that promote racial equity (Jost & 

Thompson, 2004; Pratto et al., 1994; Sidanius, Pratto & Bobo, 1996). Due to the links between 

 

36 

 

SDO and attitudes that run counter to the purposes of diversity work, it is possible that 

individuals who are higher in SDO will be less likely to view diversity work as valuable and 

more likely to perceive that it is unfair to compensate for such work. 

H8: The relationship between diversity work and monetary allocations, non-

monetary allocations and fairness perceptions will be moderated by SDO such 

that those who are higher in SDO will (a) allocate a lower bonus, (b) allocate 

fewer non-monetary benefits, (c) will evaluate compensating for that work to 

be less fair, and (d) will evaluate the target as less competent compared to 

individuals lower in SDO. 

 

In review, the goal of this series of dissertation studies is to examine the effects 

of engaging in extra-role work in organizations, discover whether diversity work is 

valued differently compared to other OCBOs, and consider factors that may affect the 

degree to which diversity work is valued differently. For a summary of studies, see 

Table 3.  

Table 3.  
Table of Dissertation Studies 

 
 
Study 1  H1: Individuals will (a) allocate a higher bonus, (b) allocate more non-monetary 

Hypotheses 

 

benefits and (c) perceive compensating the extra-role behavior to be more fair 
when they are rating affiliation-oriented OCBOs compared to challenge-oriented 
OCBOs and diversity work. 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

37 

 

Table 3. (cont’d) 
Study 2  H2: Racial minority status will moderate the relationship between diversity work 
and work outcomes such that individuals who are racial minorities will (a) more 
time since their last raise and (b) more time since their last promotion when they 
engage in diversity work compared to White workers. 
 
H3: Individuals engaging in diversity work will have (a) a longer time period 
since their last raise and (b) a longer time period since their last promotion 
compared to those who engage in other forms of OCBs. 
 
 

Study 3  H4: Low intergroup contact and endorsing a colorblind orientation will both 

positively predict unawareness avoidance.  
 
H5: Low positive intergroup contact and high negative intergroup contact with 
both positively predict denigrative coping. 
 
H6a: Participants higher in unawareness avoidance and denigrative coping will (a) 
allocate a lower bonus, (b) allocate fewer non-monetary benefits and c) will 
evaluate compensating for diversity work to be less fair.  
 
H6b Participants higher in denigrative coping will evaluate the person engaging in 
diversity work as being (a) less competent and (b) less warm compared to those 
lower on these characteristics. 
 
H7: Individuals will (a) allocate a higher bonus, (b) allocate more non-monetary 
benefits, (c) will evaluate compensating for that work to be more fair (d) evaluate 
the target as more competent when the person engaging in diversity work is White 
compared to other racial groups. 
 
H8: The relationship between diversity work and monetary allocations, non-
monetary allocations and fairness perceptions will be moderated by SDO such that 
those who are higher in SDO will (a) allocate a lower bonus, (b) allocate fewer 
non-monetary benefits, (c) will evaluate compensating for that work to be less fair, 
and (d) will evaluate the target as less competent compared to individuals lower in 
SDO. 
 

 

 

 

38 

 

STUDY 1 METHOD 

The purpose of the first study was to examine whether there are differences in 

perceptions between diversity work, affiliation-oriented OCBs and challenge-oriented OCBs 

broadly. 

Participants 

 

For the first study, 328 participants were recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk 

(Mturk). Screening questions were implemented to determine whether interested participants 

qualified. All participants indicated that they were at least 18 years of age, American citizens 

who had been living in the U.S. for the past five years and were fluent in English. All 

participants also indicated that they worked more than 30 hours per week and were not self-

employed. Participants who met all of these criteria were selected to participate in this study. 

Mturk participants received $1.65 for their participation in this 10-minute survey which is 

slightly higher than a rate of rate of $9.65 per hour for their work in accordance with the State of 

Michigan’s minimum wage. 

The 328 participants (Mage = 41, SD = 11.90) were all full-time employees. With 

consideration to race and ethnicity, 73.8% were White American, 10.1% were Black American, 

7.9% were Asian American, 5.2% were Hispanic or Latino American, 1.2% belonged to two or 

more racial/ethnic identity groups, 0.9% were American Indian and 0.9% indicated that their 

identification was not listed and specified in the blank (e.g., human). With consideration to 

sexual orientation, 88.4% of participants identified as heterosexual, 3% as gay or lesbian, 5.5% 

as bisexual, 0.6% as asexual 0.3% as pansexual and 1.9% identified as asexual, and 2.1% of 

participants indicated that they preferred not to answer. With consideration to gender identity, 

50.5% identified as men, 48.8% as women, and 0.9% preferred not to answer with no 

 

39 

 

participants identifying as transgender or non-binary. On average, participants made 60,000-

69,000 USD annually and 67.3% completed their bachelor’s degree or higher.  

Extra Role Work Evaluation Measures 

Work Type Manipulation. Participants were randomly assigned to view one of three 

vignette manipulations depicting an individual engaging in either diversity work, affiliation-

oriented OCBOs or challenge-oriented OCBOs. These manipulation types were developed using 

the item content from OCBO measures and the diversity work measure created for this study 

(Appendix A).   

 

Evaluation Questions. To examine perceptions of the actor in the vignette, participants 

completed competence and warmth perception questions. These 12 items were drawn from a pre-

existing questionnaire by Fiske et al.’s (2002). Instructions were adapted such that participants 

were asked about the specific individual portrayed in the scenario rather than about a group of 

people: “To what extent do you think that the following attributes describe this person?” Using a 

“1” (Strongly Disagree) to “7” (Strongly Agree), participants rated the actor in the scenario on 

the following attributes representing competence: Capable, Competent, Efficient, Skillful, 

Intelligent, Confident; and warmth: Friendly, Well-Intentioned, Trustworthy, Warm, Good-

Natured, Sincere. Responses to each subscale were averaged together to create indices of 

competence and warmth respectively. Higher scores indicated a greater degree of that evaluative 

perception. These measures exhibited sufficient internal consistency (competence α = .95; 

warmth α =.95) 

 

Monetary Allocation. To assess the numerical value that participants place on diversity 

work, a monetary allocation slider was presented. Participants were asked where they felt the 

actor completing the extra-role work should receive a monetary bonus (yes/no). To 

 

40 

 

operationalize value, participants were asked to indicate the amount of bonus monetary 

compensation they believed should be given to the actors in the vignettes based on the additional 

extra-role work they engage in. The slider response options ranged from zero dollars to $5,000 

dollars on a continuous scale. The annual salary of the actor in the vignette ($55,000) was 

provided as a baseline. 

 

Non-Monetary Allocation. To assess the non-numerical value that participants place on 

diversity work, two sliders were presented. Participants were asked where they felt the actor 

completing the extra-role work should receive a non-monetary bonus (yes/no). To operationalize 

value, participants were asked to indicate the number of days of paid time off per month on a 

slider from 1-12, and the number of paid lunch passes per month on a slider from 1-12.   

 

Compensation Fairness Perception. To assess the degree to which participants find 

compensating each of the forms of extra-role work, I adapted the distributive justice subscale 

from Colquitt (2001) and adapted a single item-stem from Edwards et al., (2006). For the former, 

participants were asked to respond to four items using a “1” (To a small extent) to “5” (to a large 

extent) scale. An example item includes: “Does compensating this work reflect the effort put into 

it?” Responses to these four items were averaged together to create an index of compensation 

fairness perceptions with higher scores indicating a greater degree of perceived fairness. These 

items demonstrated sufficient reliability (α =.93). For the single item measure, participants were 

asked to read the following stem: “Some people believe it is more fair or less fair to provide 

payment for work done in the organization outside of one’s official job—we want to know how 

much you personally feel this is fair for the work described above,” and asked them to respond to 

this item using a “1” (Completely Unfair) to “7” (Completely Fair) scale. Responses to this 

 

41 

 

single item measure served as a secondary index of perceived fairness of compensating extra-

role work with higher scores indicating a greater degree of perceived fairness (Appendix B). 

Exploratory Individual Differences Measures 

Diversity Work Questions. To learn more about the diversity work participants engage 

in, 10 items were used to assess the degree to which participants engage in diversity work. Item 

content was drawn from my literature review on diversity work in organizations with a specific 

focus on work towards the organization rather than the individual (e.g., Leslie, 2019; Ruggs et 

al., 2018; Wentling & Palma‐Rivas, 1998). Using a “1” (Never) to “5” (Frequently) scale, 

participants responded to items such as: “Led or co-led a diversity training event or workshop.” 

These items demonstrated sufficient reliability (α =.96). These items were created for this study 

(Appendix C). 

Organizational Citizenship Behavior Towards the Organization (OCBO). In order to 

assess the degree to which participants engage in affiliation-oriented OCBOs, 13 items from the 

42 item OCB checklist (Fox, et al., 2011) and the eight-item organizational subscale of the 

OCBO measure by Lee and Allen (2002) were administered (Appendix D). Participants 

responded to the first set of items using a “1” (Never) to “5” (Every Day) scale. Example items 

include: I… “came in early or stayed late without pay to complete a project or task,” and “drove, 

escorted, or entertained company guests, clients, or out-of-town employees.” For the second 

measure, participants responded to the item set using a “1” (Never) to “7” (Always) scale. An 

example item includes: “Defend the organization when other employees criticize it.” Responses 

to each item were averaged together to create two indices of affiliation oriented OCBOs with the 

Lee and Allen (2002) measure included to be a more specific index. Higher scores on these 

 

42 

 

measures indicate engaging in these behaviors to a higher degree. Both measures demonstrated 

sufficient reliability (Fox et al. α =.91; Lee and Allen α =.93).   

Challenge-Oriented Organizational Citizenship Behavior (Voice). Challenge-oriented 

OCBOs were measured using the most prominent conceptualization in the literature (Makenzie 

et al., 2011) though voice behaviors (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998). Participants responded to an 

edited set of six items using a “1” (Strongly Disagree) to “7” (Strongly Agree). Example items 

include: “I speak up and encouraged others at work to get involved in issues that affect 

employees,” and “I communicate my opinions about work issues to others even if my opinion is 

different from those around me.” Responses to each item were averaged together to create an 

index of challenge oriented OCBOs. Higher scores on this measure indicate engaging in these 

behaviors to a higher degree. This measure demonstrated sufficient reliability (α =.94) and is 

available in Appendix E. 

Additional Individual Difference Measures 

Social Dominance Orientation (SDO). To measure the degree to which individuals 

prefer hierarchy within society and are not bothered by the oppression of low-status groups, the 

Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) scale was implemented (Pratto et al., 1994). Participants 

responded to 16 items using a “1” (Very Negative) to “7” (Very Positive) scale. Example items 

include: “Some groups of people are simply inferior to other groups,” and “Inferior groups 

should stay in their place.” Responses to each item were averaged together to create a single 

index of social dominance orientation. This measure demonstrated sufficient reliability (α =.96). 

Higher scores are indicative of a greater degree of social dominance orientation. This measure is 

available in Appendix F.     

 

43 

 

Demographic Questionnaire. Lastly, a demographic questionnaire asking about the 

participants’ age, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, education and occupation were 

administered (Appendix G). Exploratory MANOVAs were conducted to see whether there were 

significant differences between demographic groups on key variables (see Table 4). While the 

overall MANOVA was not significant for gender comparisons on the set of variables (Wilks 

Lambda = .95, F(12, 312) = 1.29, p = .23) the test of between subjects revealed that women 

perceived the person engaging in extra-role work to be more competent compared to men. The 

MANOVA comparing employees from marginalized racial groups and White employees on key 

variables was significant (Pillai’s Trace = .13, F(12, 312) = 3.91,  p <.01). The test of between 

subjects effects revealed that White employees engaged in more AOCBOs and COCBOs 

compared to employees from marginalized groups while employees from marginalized racial 

groups engaged in more diversity work and allocated more paid time off to the person engaging 

in extra-role work compared to White employees. The MANOVA comparing younger workers 

(39 and younger) to older workers (40 +) was also significant (Wilks Lambda = .92, F(12, 314) = 

2.41,  p < .01). Younger workers engaged in more diversity work and allocated a greater number 

of paid lunches and paid time off compared to older workers.  

Procedure 

 

Participants completed a series of prescreening questions in order to determine whether 

they qualified for the study (Appendix H). Qualifying participants were then forwarded on to the 

informed consent (Appendix I). Participants were randomly assigned to one of three work type 

conditions and asked to complete monetary and non-monetary allocation questions about the 

work type and the fairness perception questions and several questions regarding any extra-role 

work they engaged in. They were also asked to complete a measure of SDO. Lastly, participants 

 

44 

 

were asked to complete demographic questions before receiving their payment code before being 

debriefed (Appendix J).   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

45 

 

Data Cleaning 

STUDY 1 RESULTS 

 

In order to ensure the quality of the data a series of data cleaning steps were completed 

before analysis. Four-hundred and eighty-nine participants submitted a response to the survey. 

Participants were removed from the data for the following reasons: 107 participants falsified 

their responses to the screening questions by entering the survey multiple times and provided 

different responses in an attempt to qualify for the screening, 50 participants provided a 

questionable response to our qualitative questions (e.g., gibberish response, non-response, 

copying and pasting the question into the blank), and four participants failed one of the two 

attention check questions. In total, 328 participants remained for analysis (see Table 4). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

46 

 

Table 4.  
MANOVAs Between Subjects Results for Study 1 Perception and Fairness Outcomes by Demographic Variables  

 

 

Men  

Women 

White 

Marginalized Racial 

39 or Younger 

40 or Older 

 

N = 165 

N = 160 

N = 242 

Groups 

N = 83 

N = 173 

N = 154 

Competence 
Perceptions 

5.98* (1.04) 

6.24* (0.97) 

6.17 (0.87) 

6.02 (1.22) 

6.04 (1.07) 

6.19 (0.95) 

Warmth Perceptions 

5.95 (1.01) 

6.06 (1.08) 

6.05 (0.94) 

5.95 (1.18) 

5.99 (1.04) 

6.02 (1.05) 

Distributive Justice 

3.97 (1.06) 

4.12 (1.06) 

4.11 (1.03) 

3.88 (1.09) 

4.06 (0.96) 

4.00 (1.18) 

General Fairness 

5.69 (1.48) 

5.81 (1.68) 

5.81 (1.56) 

5.64 (1.63) 

5.82 (1.38) 

5.68 (1.78) 

Diversity Work 

1.98 (1.13) 

1.83 (1.00) 

1.81** (1.00) 

2.20** (1.21) 

2.09** (1.14) 

1.70** (0.94) 

AOCBO Fox 

2.62 (0.83) 

2.56 (0.77) 

2.64* (0.77) 

2.44* (0.87) 

2.61 (0.84) 

2.55 (0.76) 

AOCBO Lee 

4.44 (1.55) 

4.51 (1.57) 

4.63** (1.43) 

4.10** (1.83) 

4.41 (1.58) 

4.54 (1.55) 

COCBO 

SDO 

5.05 (1.40) 

5.04 (1.55) 

5.21** (1.37) 

4.63** (1.61) 

4.90 (1.42) 

5.19 (1.54) 

2.42 (1.23) 

2.27 (1.33) 

2.38 (1.33) 

2.21 (1.09) 

2.32 (1.22) 

2.36 (1.35) 

Monetary Allocation 

2001.38 
(1539.03) 

1722.86 
(1313.93) 

1855.95 
(1375.86) 

1960.77  
(1626.41) 

1998.24 
(1440.02) 

1715.60 
(1444.17) 

Paid Lunches 

3.73 (3.62) 

3.16 (3.20) 

3.27 (3.24) 

4.01 (3.88) 

3.83* (3.33) 

3.04* (3.53) 

Paid Time Off 

2.84 (2.88) 

2.49 (2.59) 

2.45** (2.51) 

3.39** (3.23) 

3.17** (2.90) 

2.12** (2.47) 

Note: * = p <.05, ** = p <.01, AOBCO = affiliation oriented organizational citizenship behavior towards the organization, COBCO = challenge oriented 
organizational citizenship behavior towards the organization, SDO = social dominance orientation, F value refer to those of the full corrected model; Means are 
presented in the table with standard deviation in parentheses; Means not sharing a superscript are significant different from each other. 

 

 

 

47 

 

In reviewing the descriptive statistics (see Table 5), an expected pattern of correlations 

occurred. The ACOBO measures were correlated highly as expected (r = .61), general fairness 

and distributive justice were also highly correlated (r = .81), and the warmth and competence 

perceptions of the person engaging in extra-role work were also correlated highly (r = .81) 

suggesting an overall, positive (or negative) evaluation. The proposed moderator SDO was 

inversely correlated with all perceptions and outcomes though its relationship with paid time off 

allocated was non-significant. Interestingly, SDO was positively related to participants engaging 

in AOCBOs as measured using the Fox et al. (2011) measure but inversely and non-significantly 

related to participants engaging in AOCBOs as measured using the Lee et al., (2002) measure. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

48 

 

Table 5.  
Descriptive Statistics for Study 1 

 
 

 

M 

SD 

1 

2  

3 

4 

5 

6 

7  

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

1. Competence 

6.11 

1.01 

[.95] 

 

2. Warmth 

6.01 

1.04 

.81** 

[.94] 

 

 

4.04 

1.07 

.54** 

.49** 

[.93] 

5.75 

1.58 

.45** 

.42** 

.81** 

[N/A] 

5. Diversity Work 

1.90 

1.07 

-.01 

.03 

.04 

.03 

[.96] 

2.59 

.80 

.06 

.07 

.09 

.07 

.54** 

[.91] 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Distributive 
Justice  

4. General 
Fairness 

6. AOCBO Fox 

7. AOCBO Lee 

8. COCBO 

9. SDO 

10. Paid Lunch 

11. Monetary 

4.47 

1.57 

.23** 

.23** 

.18** 

.10 

.43** 

.61** 

[.93] 

5.04 

1.48 

.16** 

.15** 

.16** 

.11* 

.21** 

.49** 

.72** 

[.94] 

2.34 

1.28 

-.22** 

-.19** 

-.26** 

-.23** 

.11 

.16** 

-.11 

-.15** 

[.95] 

3.47 

3.45 

.03 

.11* 

.20** 

.24** 

.19** 

.10 

.03 

.01 

-.12* 

[N/A] 

1867.07  1444.89 

.21** 

.28** 

.44** 

.44** 

.19** 

.05 

.12* 

.08 

-.15** 

.38** 

[N/A] 

12. Paid Time Off 

2.70 

2.78 

.03 

.10 

.14** 

.19** 

.36** 

.16** 

.12* 

.04 

-.07 

.52** 

.37** 

[N/A] 

Note: M = mean, SD = standard deviation, *p<.05, **p<.01, reliability presented in brackets on the diagonal. AOBCO = affiliation oriented organizational citizenship behavior towards the organization, 
COBCO = challenge oriented organizational citizenship behavior towards the organization, SDO = social dominance orientation. Response scale ranges: Competence (1-7), Warmth (1-7), Distributive 
Justice (1-5), General Fairness (1-7), Diversity Work (1-5), AOCBO Fox (1-5), AOCBO Lee (1-5), COCBO (1-7), SDO (1-7), Paid Lunch (0-12), Monetary Allocation (0-5000), Paid Time Off = (0-12).  

 

 

 

49 

 

Data Analysis 

In order to test whether allocation related outcomes and competence perceptions differ as 

a result of the type of work, a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted (see 

Table 6). The type of extra-role work (Affiliation OCBOs, Challenge OCBOs and Diversity 

Work) was entered into the model as an independent variable and the allocation-related 

outcomes, competence and warmth perceptions and the fairness perceptions were entered as 

dependent variables. The overall MANOVA was significant (Wilks’ Lambda = .91; F(12, 642) = 

2.68,  partial η2 = .05, p < .01) suggesting that the outcomes differed depending on the work 

condition. Examining the between subjects effects reveal that there were significant differences 

between groups on warmth perceptions (F(2, 325) = 7.90, p < .01), the paid lunch allocation 

(F(2, 325) = 3.50, p = .03), and the monetary allocation (F(2, 325) = 5.47, p < .01). To determine 

which mean differences were driving the effects, a Tukey Post-Hoc test was conducted (see 

Table 6).  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

50 

 

Table 6.  
MANOVA Between Subjects Results for Study 1 Perception and Fairness Outcomes by Extra-Role Work Condition  

 

 

Dependent 
Variable 

Competence 
Perceptions 

Warmth 
Perceptions 

Distributive 
Justice 

General 
Fairness 

Affiliative  

Challenge 

Diversity 

Work 

Total 

Partial 
Eta2 

F 

Sig. 

N=113 

N=105 

N=110 

N= 328 

 

 

 

6.20a (0.94) 

5.99a (1.03) 

6.13a (1.07) 

6.11 (1.01) 

.01 

1.28 

.28 

6.24a (0.89) 

5.70b (1.04) 

6.05 a (1.12) 

6.01 (1.04) 

.04 

7.90 

<.01 

4.16a (1.00) 

3.87a (1.13) 

4.06a (1.07) 

4.04 (1.07) 

.01 

2.02 

.13 

5.90a (1.34) 

5.48a (1.76) 

5.86a (1.60) 

5.75 (1.58) 

.02 

2.41 

.09 

Monetary 
Allocation 

2039.60a 
(1363.16) 

1487.90b  
(1378.57) 

2051.76a 
(1528.64) 

1867.07 
(1444.89) 

.03 

5.47 

<.01 

Paid Lunches 

3.63ab (3.47) 

2.77a (2.88) 

3.97b (3.82) 

3.47 (3.45) 

.02 

3.50 

.03 

Paid Time Off 

2.96a (2.85) 

2.19a (2.50) 

2.92a (2.90) 

2.70 (2.78) 

.02 

2.61 

.08 

Note: Partial Eta Squared scores and F value refer to those of the full corrected model; Means are presented in the table with standard deviation in 
parentheses; Means not sharing a superscript are significant different from each other. 

 

 

51 

 

This analysis revealed that participants allocated a significantly greater number of paid 

lunches to the person engaging in extra-role work in the diversity work condition (M = 3.97, SD 

= 3.82) compared to the challenge OCB condition (M = 2.77, SD = 2.88) while neither group 

differed significantly from the affiliative OCB condition (M = 3.63, SD = 3.47). It also revealed 

that participants in the challenge OCBO condition (M = 1487.90, SD = 1378.57) allocated a 

significantly lower monetary bonus compared to both the affiliation OBCO condition (M = 

2039.60, SD = 1363.16) and the diversity work condition (M = 2051.76, SD = 1528.64) though, 

these latter two conditions were not significantly different from each other. Lastly, this analysis 

revealed that those in the challenge OCBO condition (M = 5.70, SD = 1.04) rated the person 

engaging in the extra-role work as being significantly less warm than those in both the affiliation 

OCBO condition (M = 6.24, SD = .89) and the diversity work condition (M = 6.05, SD = 1.12), 

though these latter two conditions were not significantly different from each other. Thus, 

Hypothesis 1 was not supported.  

 

In order to examine whether participant individual differences influence the relationships 

between the work types and the outcomes, a series of moderated multiple regression analysis 

were conducted. The condition type was dummy coded and served as the predictor with 

affiliation oriented OCBOs serving as the reference variable, SDO was mean centered and was 

entered in as the moderator and the outcome variables were each entered into their own model 

(Table 7).  

 

 

 

52 

 

Table 7. 
Moderation of Social Dominance Orientation on the Relationship Between Extra-Role Work Condition and Outcomes 

 

Competence 

Warmth 

Distributive 

Paid Lunch 

Paid Time 

General 
Fairness 

 

Monetary 
Allocation 

 

 

Step 1 

Dummy Coded Diversity  

Dummy Coded Challenge 

R2 
p of R2 Change 
 
Step 2 

Mean Centered SDO 

R2 
p of R2 Change 
 
Step 3 

Diversity x SDO 
Challenge x SDO 

 

 

Justice 

 

Off 

 

-.06 (.13) 

-.11 (.13) 

-.07 (.14) 

-.04 (.21) 

-.01 (189.50) 

.04 (.46) 

-.01 (.37) 

-.09 (.13) 

-.24** (.14) 

-.12* (.14) 

-.12* (.21) 

-.18** (191.23) 

-.12 (.46) 

-.13* (.38) 

.01 

.28 

 

 

-.10 (.07) 

.05** 

<.01** 

 

 

-.14* (.11) 

-.07 (.10) 

.05** 

<.01** 

 

 

.01 

.13 

 

 

.02** 

.09 

 

 

.03** 

<.01** 

 

 

.02* 

.03* 

 

 

.02 

.08 

 

 

-.10 (.07) 

-.21* (.07) 

-.15 (.10) 

-.12 (96.75) 

-.21* (.23) 

-.12 (.19) 

.08** 

<.01** 

 

 

-.16* (.11) 

-.01 (.10) 

.08** 

<.01** 

 

 

-.11(.11) 

.01(.10) 

.07** 

<.01** 

 

 

.05** 

.01* 

 

 

.03* 

.04* 

 

 

.02 

.22 

 

 

-.15* (.17) 

-.10 (157.21) 

-.01 (.15) 

.05 (141.04) 

.01 (.38) 

.14 (.34) 

.05 (.31) 

.04 (.28) 

R2 
p of R2 Change 
Note:  * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01. SDO = Social Dominance Orientation. All values represent final model Betas from step 3. Values in parentheses are the standard errors of the 
regression estimates. Step 2 is a regression in which mean centered social dominance orientation is predicting outcome variables. The reference group = 0 is affiliation oriented 
OCBO. 

.09** 

.07** 

.02 

.75 

.10** 

.046* 

.06** 

.15 

.08** 

.08 

.05** 

.12 

.11 

.19 

 

 

 

 

53 

 

SDO moderated the relationship between extra-role work and warmth perceptions such 

that individuals with higher levels of SDO in the diversity work condition rated the person as 

were less warm than those who were high in SDO in the affiliation OCBO condition. Those with 

lower levels of SDO in the diversity work and affiliation OCBO conditions rated the person in 

their scenario as similarly warm (see Figure 6) which partially aligns with hypothesized 

predictions. Though SDO did not moderate the relationship between condition type and any of 

the other outcomes in the present study there was a significant and negative main effect of SDO 

on all outcomes with the exception of paid time off. 

Figure 6. 
Interaction of Extra-Role Work Condition on the Relationship Between Participant SDO and 
Warmth Perceptions, Study 1 

 

54 

 

 

 

To see whether participant engagement in extra-role behavior influenced the relationship 

between the extra-role work conditions and the outcomes, additional, exploratory moderated 

regression analyses were conducted. Extra-role work was dummy coded with affiliation oriented 

OCBOs serving as the reference variable. Types of participant extra-role work (e.g., AOCBO 

Fox, AOCBO Lee, COCBO and Diversity Work) were all mean centered as the moderators. 

These moderators were entered into their own models along with perspective outcomes. Fox 

AOCBO moderated the relationship between extra-role work and competence such that those 

who engaged in high levels of AOCBOs in the challenge OCBO condition, rated the person as 

being less competent compared to those in the affiliation OCBO condition while those who 

engaged in low levels of AOCBOs in the challenge OCBO condition rated the person as being 

more competent than those in the affiliation OCBO condition (R2 = .05, p = <.01, F Change = 

6.56, p <.01, β = -.21, SEb = .17, p = <.01). Fox AOCBO moderated the relationship between 

extra-role work and warmth such that those who engaged in higher levels of AOCBOs in the 

challenge OCBO condition rated the person as being less warm compared to those in the 

affiliation OCBO condition (R2 = .06, p = <.01, F Change = 5.16, p <.01, β = -.14, SEb = .18, p = 

<.01). Those low on AOCBOs in the challenge OCBO condition also rated the person as less 

warm compared to the affiliation OCBO condition, but this difference was less stark. For figures 

detailing these relationships, see Figures 7 and 8. Participant responses to the Lee ACOBO 

measure, COCBOs and diversity work did not moderate the relationships between the conditions 

and variables examined in this study. 

 

 

 

 

55 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 7.  
Interaction of Extra-Role Work Condition on the Relationship Between Participant AOCBOs 
and Competence Perceptions, Study 1 

56 

 

Figure 8.  
Interaction of Extra-Role Work Condition on the Relationship Between Participant AOCBOs 
and Warmth Perceptions, Study 1 

 

 

 

 

57 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

STUDY 1 DISCUSSION 

Contrary to hypotheses, diversity work was not found to be perceived as significantly 

different from affiliation oriented OCBOs in terms of actor perceptions and valuation. Rather, 

affiliation oriented OCBOs and diversity work were found to differ from challenge oriented 

OCBOs. This may have occurred because the diversity measure created for this study featured 

forms of diversity work that, in hindsight, may be more affiliation-oriented compared to the 

challenge-oriented forms of diversity work (see Table 2). While there were no differences 

between the three groups in terms of competence perceptions, justice and fairness perceptions 

and the amount of paid time off allocated, participants in the challenge oriented OCBO condition 

perceived the actor as being significantly less warm and allocated a lower monetary bonus than 

those in both the affiliation oriented OCBO condition and the diversity work condition. 

Participants in the diversity work condition allocated a higher number of paid lunches to those in 

the diversity work condition than those in the challenge OCBO condition but this amount was 

not significantly different than the amount participants allocated in the affiliation oriented OCBO 

condition. The relationship between the extra-role work conditions and perception outcomes was 

moderated by SDO and the participant’s own engagement in extra-role work. Specifically, 

individuals higher in SDO in the affiliation oriented OCBOs condition rated the person as 

warmer than those who were higher in SDO in the diversity work condition while those lower in 

SDO rated the individuals engaging in extra-role work in the diversity work and affiliation 

OCBOs conditions as being similarly warm. Individuals who engaged in higher levels of 

ACOBOs (using the Fox measure) in the affiliation OCBO condition rated the person as more 

competent compared to those in the challenge OCBO condition while those who engaged in 

lower levels of AOCBOs in the challenge OCBO condition rated the person as more competent 

 

58 

 

than those with lower levels of AOCBOs in the affiliation OCBO condition. Individuals who 

engaged in higher levels of ACOBOs (using the Fox measure) in the affiliation OCBO condition 

rated the person as warmer compared to those in the challenge OCBO condition and while this 

pattern held for those who engaged in lower levels of AOCBOs in the challenge OCBO 

condition, it was less stark. 

 

These results suggest that, overall, affiliation-oriented diversity work may be perceived 

as more similar to affiliation oriented OCBOs than challenge oriented OCBOs and that this work 

is not inherently valued less than other forms of extra-role work.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

59 

 

STUDY 2 METHOD 

The purpose of the second study was to examine the effect of doing extra-role work (e.g., 

affiliation-oriented OCBs, challenge-oriented OCBs and diversity work) on employees’ work 

attitudes and career-related outcomes. 

Participants 

 

For the second study, 211 participants were recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk 

(Mturk). All participants were at least 18 years of age, American citizens who have been living 

in the U.S. for the past five years and were fluent in English. Participants also reported working 

more than 30 hours per week and none could be self-employed or work in an official DEI role to 

qualify. Participants who met all of these criteria were selected to participate in this study. For 

this study, all participants also indicated that they engaged in at least one form of extra-role work 

(diversity initiatives at work or affiliative or challenge related OCBOs) in their workplace. 

Participants who indicated that they engaged in these efforts outside of work were excluded from 

participation. Lastly, I engaged in purposive sampling such that half of the participants were 

members of marginalized racial groups and were also a racial minority in their place of work. 

Mturk participants received $1.95 for their participation in this 12-minute survey which was 

slightly higher than a rate of $9.65 per hour for their work in accordance with the State of 

Michigan minimum wage. 

The 211 participants (Mage = 37.56, SD = 11.78) were all full-time employees. With 

consideration to race and ethnicity, 51.2% were White American, 18.0% were Black American, 

11.8% were Asian American, 7.1% were Hispanic or Latino American, 8.5% belong to two or 

more racial/ethnic identity groups, 2.4% were American Indian and 0.9% were Middle Eastern 

American. With consideration to sexual orientation, 86.3% of participants identified as 

 

60 

 

heterosexual, 1.9% as gay or lesbian, 8.1% as bisexual, 0.5% as asexual 1.4% as pansexual, and 

1.9% of participants indicated that they preferred not to answer. With consideration to gender 

identity, 41.2% identified as men, 57.8% as women, and 0.9% preferred not to answer with no 

participants identifying as transgender or non-binary. On average, participants made 60,000-

69,000 USD annually and 71.1% completed their bachelor’s degree or higher.  

Measures 

 

Qualitative qualification check. To ensure that participants qualify for the study, an 

open-ended question was asked. Participants were asked to detail the extra-role work they 

engaged in at work and provide examples (Appendix H). This was used as an additional 

screening technique to detect bot responses as well. Participants were given the option to select 

which form of extra-role work they engaged in (Diversity work, AOCBOs COCBOs, or more 

than one). An example of an AOCBO response is: “I have started up a group where workers can 

come together and discuss their conflicts openly in a safe place. It's an option to work out 

conflicts outside of going to HR.” An example of a COCBO response is: “During one of my 

team's section meetings, I voiced my concern over a specific way we were handling permit 

applications in the office. My supervisor explained how we would split up permit applications 

and I suggested a different method. Essentially, my method was to allow people that were more 

familiar with the type of project to select which applications they wanted as opposed to being 

randomly assigned.” An example of diversity work is: “Volunteered to sit on a panel to answer 

questions about diversity in the workplace. As 1 of 5 African Americans in my department, I saw 

it as an opportunity to speak to and address racial issues some had questions about (BLM, 

political issues, stereotypes, etc.).” And lastly, an example of engaging in more than one 

behavior is: “I'm constantly a cheerleader at work, or a "champion for greatness" as we like to 

 

61 

 

call it. I'm a trainer and enjoy following my rookie graduates and their progress. I've suggested a 

few changes to procedures, most of which have been implemented.” 

 

Quantitative qualification check. To ensure that participants qualify for the study, a 

follow up quantitative question was asked. This question asked participants to select where they 

were engaging in the extra-role work, they described in the previous open-ended question. If any 

answer other than “at work” was selected, participants were directed to the end of the survey 

(Appendix H).  

Diversity Work Questions. To learn more about the diversity work participants engage 

in, 10 items from Study 1 were used to assess the degree to which participants engage in 

diversity work. (Appendix C). This measure demonstrated sufficient reliability (α = .94). 

Organizational Citizenship Behavior Towards the Organization (OCBO). In order to 

assess the degree to which participants engage in affiliation-oriented OCBOs, 13 items from the 

OCB checklist (Fox, Spector, Goh, Bruursema, & Kessler, 2011) and the eight-item 

organizational subscale of the OCBO measure by Lee and Allen (2002) from Study 1were 

administered (Appendix D). Higher scores on these measures indicate engaging in these 

behaviors to a higher degree. These measures demonstrated sufficient reliability (Fox α = .87; 

Lee α = .88). 

Challenge-Oriented Organizational Citizenship Behavior (Voice). Challenge-oriented 

OCBOs were measured using voice behaviors (LePine & Van Dyne, 1998) that were examined 

in Study 1. Higher scores on this measure indicate engaging in these behaviors to a higher degree 

(Appendix E). This measure demonstrated sufficient reliability (α = .91). 

Months since last raise and promotion. Participants were asked to provide the number 

of months since they last received a raise and the number of months since they were last 

 

62 

 

promoted. These numbers were collected to serve as a proxy for career advancement rate 

(Appendix K).  

Demographic and Work Background Questionnaire. Lastly, a demographic 

questionnaire asking about the participants’ age, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, 

education and occupation was administered (Appendix G). 

Procedure 

 

Participants completed a series of prescreening questions in order to determine whether 

they qualified for the study (Appendix H). Qualifying participants were forwarded on to the 

informed consent (Appendix I). If they chose to participate, participants were asked several 

questions about their experiences engaging in diversity work or OCBs in addition to their work 

role. Lastly, participants were asked to complete demographic questions before receiving their 

payment code before being debriefed (Appendix J).   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

63 

 

Data Cleaning 

STUDY 2 RESULTS 

 

In order to ensure the quality of the data a series of data cleaning steps were completed 

before analysis. Three-hundred and forty-one individuals submitted a response to the survey. 

Participants were removed from the data for the following reasons: 88 participants falsified their 

responses to the screening questions by entering the survey multiple times and providing 

different responses in an attempt to qualify for the screening, 10 participants provided a 

questionable response to our qualitative questions (e.g., gibberish response, non-response, 

copying and pasting the question into the blank), 26 participants did not complete the survey, 2 

participants failed the attention check question and four participants falsified their racial identity 

to qualify but later identified as a different race during the demographic question at the end of 

the survey (e.g., identifying as “White” in the pre-screening questions and then identifying as 

“Black” in the demographic questions). In total, 211 participants remained for analysis (103 

participants from marginalized racial groups 108 participants from the racial majority group). 

Data Analysis  

In order to test whether engaging in diversity work and OCBs are related to differential 

work outcomes, two multiple regression models were conducted. Diversity work, affiliation-

oriented OCBs and challenge-oriented OCBs served as predictors in both models and work-

related variables serve as outcomes (see Table 8 for descriptive statistics). This analysis accounts 

for the potential that individuals who engage in one set of behaviors may also engage in one or 

more of the other forms of behavior which was indeed found to be the case for many participants 

in this study as 46% of them indicated that they engaged in more than one form of extra-role 

work. The first model revealed that engaging in affiliation oriented OCBOs positively predicted 

 

64 

 

time since one’s last raise. Individuals who engaged in higher levels of these behaviors had 

significantly more time since their last raise (see Table 9). The second model revealed that 

engaging in diversity work was inversely predictive of one’s time since last promotion while 

challenge oriented OCBOs was positively related to time since last promotion (see Table 9). 

Individuals who engaged in lower levels of diversity work and higher levels of challenge 

oriented OCBOs had significantly more time since their last promotion. Thus, Hypothesis 3 was 

not supported.  

 

 

 

 

 

65 

 

Table 8.  
Descriptive Statistics for Study 2 

 
 

 

 

 

Minority 

Majority 

Total 

 

M 

SD 

M 

SD 

M 

SD 

1 

 

2  

1. Diversity Work 

2.23 

.97 

1.89 

.94 

2.06 

.97 

[.94] 

 

2. AOCBO Fox 

2.81 

.71 

2.85 

.62 

2.83 

.66 

.55** 

[.87] 

 

3 

 

 

3. AOCBO Lee 

4.66 

1.21 

5.00 

1.08 

4.83 

1.16 

.25** 

.48** 

[.88] 

 

4 

 

 

 

4. COCBO 

5.05 

1.20 

5.40 

1.13 

5.23 

1.18 

.22** 

.40** 

.52** 

[.91] 

 

5 

 

 

 

 

 

6 

 

 

 

 

 

5. Time Since Last 
Raise 

6. Time Since Last 
Promotion 

11.41 

9.19 

13.35 

11.83 

12.40  10.64 

-.16* 

.22** 

.07 

.07 

[N/A] 

25.96  34.79 

32.72 

37.63 

29.42  36.35 

-.14* 

.02 

.01 

.12 

.24** 

[N/A] 

Note: M = mean, SD = standard deviation, *p<.05, **p<.01, reliability presented in brackets on the diagonal. AOBCO = affiliation oriented organizational citizenship behavior towards the organization, 
COBCO = challenge oriented organizational citizenship behavior towards the organization, Diversity Work (1-5), AOCBO Fox (1-5), AOCBO Lee (1-5), COCBO (1-7), Time since last raise in months 
(0-60), Time since last promotion in months = (0-312).  

 

 

 

 

66 

 

Table 9.  
Multiple Regression Analyses with Extra-Role Work Predicting Time Since Last Raise and Time Since Last Promotion 

 

Time Since Last Raise 

Time Since Last Promotion 

Predictor 

B 

SEB 

t 

Beta 

B 

SEB 

T 

Beta 

Diversity Work 

.57 

.90 

.63 

.05 

-6.98 

3.07 

-2.27* 

-.19* 

AOCBO Fox 

3.39 

1.46 

2.31* 

.21* 

2.45 

5.02 

.49 

.04 

AOCBO Lee 

-.38 

.78 

-.49 

-.04 

-1.89 

2.67 

-.71 

-.06 

Challenge OCBO 

-.02 

.73 

-.03 

.00 

5.45 

2.51 

2.17* 

.18* 

R2 

 

 

 

.05* 

 

 

 

.05** 

Note:  * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01. Values in parentheses are the standard errors of the regression estimates.

 

67 

 

To account for potential multicollinearity in the predictors, relative importance analyses 

were conducted. Using the tool developed by Tonidandel and LeBreton (2015), raw and rescaled 

relative weights were obtained for each of the different forms of extra role work (see Table 10). 

In terms of relative weights, engaging in diversity work and the Fox et al., (2011) measure of 

AOCBOs exhibited the largest weights when predicting time since one’s last raise. Diversity 

work and challenge oriented OCBOs exhibited the largest weights when predicting one’s time 

since last promotion. However, for all of these weights, the confidence interval contained zero, 

thus, despite the descriptive size of the rescaled weights, these predictors cannot be considered 

significantly different from each other (Tonidandel & LeBreton, 2015). 

To examine whether different levels of participant individual differences result in 

different relationships between diversity work and the outcomes, two moderated regression 

analyses were conducted to test Hypothesis 2. Diversity work was entered into the model as a 

predictor, racial minority status as it relates to the workplace was entered in as a dichotomous 

moderator and time since promotion and time since one’s last raise were entered into the model 

as outcomes. The results of both models revealed that racial minority status did not moderate the 

relationship between diversity work and the two outcomes considered in the present study (see 

Table 11). Thus, Hypothesis 2 was not supported. 

 

 

 

 

 

68 

 

Table 10. 
Relative Weights Analysis of Predictors in Study 2 

 

Predictor 

Diversity Work 

AOCBO Fox 

AOCBO Lee 

Challenge OCBO 
R2 
Note: Raw = raw weights, RS = rescaled weights 

Time Since Last Raise 

Time Since Last Promotion 

Raw 

0.01 

0.03 

<0.01 

<0.01 

 

RS 

25.22 

66.55 

4.36 

3.87 
0.05 

Raw 

0.02 

<0.01 

<0.01 

0.02 

 

RS 

48.55 

5.61 

3.95 

41.89 
0.05 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

69 

 

Table 11.  
Moderation of Racial Minority Status on the Relationship Between Diversity Work and Outcomes 

 

Time Since Last  

Time Since Last Promotion 

Step 1 

Mean Centered Diversity Work 

R2 
p of R2 Change 
 
Step 2 

Effects Coded Minority Status 

R2 
p of R2 Change 
 
Step 3 

Diversity Work x Minority Status 

Raise 

 

.18 (.76) 

.03* 
.02* 

 
 

-.12 (.73) 

.04* 
.07 

 
 

-.02 (.76) 

 

-.13 (2.61) 

.02* 
.05* 

 
 

-.07 (2.52) 

.02 
.30 

 
 

.06 (2.61) 

R2 
p of R2 Change 
Note:  * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01. All values represent final model from step 3. Values in parentheses are the standard errors of the regression estimates. Step 1 is a regression in which 
diversity work is predicting outcome variables. The reference group = 0 is White. 

.04* 
.81 

.03 
.41 

 

70 

 

As an additional, exploratory analysis, I considered whether racial minority status 

moderated the relationship between the other forms of extra-role work and the outcomes. The 

extra-role work (ACOBO Fox, AOCBO Lee and COCBO) were each entered into their own 

models as predictors, racial minority status as it relates to the workplace was entered in as a 

dichotomous moderator in all three models and time since promotion and time since one’s last 

raise were entered into the three models as outcomes. While the majority of these exploratory 

moderation analyses were non-significant, minority status emerged as a moderator of the 

relationship between COCBOs and one’s time to promotion (see Figure 9). For minority 

employees, engaging in higher levels of COCBOs had a longer time to promotion compared to 

majority employees who engaged in a high level of COCBOs. Conversely, minority employees 

who engaged in low levels of COCBOs had a shorter time to promotion than majority employees 

who engaged in low levels of COCBOs (R2 = .04, p = <.01, F Change = 5.15, p <.01, β = 2.13, 

SEb = .18, p = 02). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

71 

 

Figure 9. 
Interaction of Racial Minority Status on the Relationship Between COBCOs and Promotion, 
Study 2 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

72 

 

 

STUDY 2 DISCUSSION 

The results of Study 2 indicated that individuals who engage in higher levels of affiliation 

oriented OCBOs (as measured by the Fox et al. (2011) measure) had more time since their last 

raise and that individuals who engage in lower levels of diversity work and higher levels of 

challenge oriented OCBOs had more time since their last promotion. Racial minority status did 

not moderate the relationship between diversity work and the career related outcomes examined 

in the present study. 

 

These results suggest that engaging in greater levels of diversity work was related to 

more positive work outcomes in the case of time since last promotion and was not related to 

worse work outcomes in the case of time since last raise. Thus, contrary to the hypotheses posed, 

diversity work does not appear to lead to worse career-related outcomes in the case of the present 

study. As observed in Table 6, individuals in the minority sample tended to have lower times to 

both raise and promotion which may have impacted the results of this study. Interestingly, 

minorities who engaged in a greater degree of COCBOs were found to have a longer time to 

promotion while majority group members who engaged in these behaviors reported less time to 

promotion while the inverse was true in the case of low COCBOs.  

 

 

 

 

73 

 

 

STUDY 3 METHOD 

The purpose of the third and final study was to examine whether the race of the person 

engaging in diversity work impacts perceptions of the work’s value and perceptions of the 

worker. In addition, I aimed to test the Devaluing Diversity Theory presented in this dissertation.  

Participants 

 

For the third study, 494 participants were recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk 

(Mturk). All participants were at least 18 years of age, American citizens who have been living 

in the U.S. for the past five years and were fluent in English. Participants also reported working 

more than 30 hours per week and had to identify as White (European heritage). Participants also 

indicated that they were not self-employed. Participants who met all of these criteria were 

selected to participate in this study. Mturk participants received $2.45 for their participation in 

this 15-minute survey which was slightly higher than a rate of $9.65 per hour for their work in 

accordance with Michigan minimum wage. 

The 494 participants (Mage = 38.25, SD = 10.42) were White. With consideration to race 

and ethnicity, 100% were White American. With consideration to sexual orientation, 86.8% of 

participants identified as heterosexual, 4.5% as gay or lesbian, 5.3% as bisexual, 0.8% as asexual 

1.6% as pansexual and 1.0% of participants indicated that they preferred not to answer. With 

consideration to gender identity, 53.6% identified as men, 44.7% as women, 0.2% identified as 

transgender women, 0.6% identified as non-binary and 0.8% preferred not to answer. On 

average, participants made 60,000-69,000 USD annually and 62.1% completed their bachelor’s 

degree or higher.  

 

74 

 

Measures 

Diversity Worker Manipulation. To examine whether there was differential valuation 

assigned to individuals who engage in diversity work by race, I developed an experimental 

manipulation in which the race of the actor varied but the text description of the person engaging 

in the work remained the same. Participants were randomly assigned to view one of the five text 

descriptions with four of them being accompanied by an image of a man in business dress (four 

race conditions [Asian, Black, Hispanic/Latino, White] and a non-specified condition containing 

only text for comparison). These images were pilot tested and matched on age and attractiveness. 

Participants were asked to respond to a series of follow up questions after being presented with 

the stimuli corresponding to their experimental condition (Appendix A).   

Social Dominance Orientation (SDO). To measure the degree to which individuals 

prefer hierarchy within society and are not bothered by the oppression of low-status groups, the 

Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) scale from Study 1 was implemented (Pratto et al., 1994; 

Appendix F). This demonstrated sufficient internal consistency (α = .96).     

Evaluation Questions. To examine perceptions of the actor in the vignette, participants 

completed the same competence and warmth perception questions from Study 1 (Fiske et al. 

2002). These demonstrated sufficient internal consistency (warmth α = .94; competence α = .94).     

Monetary Allocation. To assess the numerical value that participants place on diversity 

work, a monetary allocation slider was presented similar to the one described in Study 1.  

 

Non-Monetary Allocation. To assess the non-numerical value that participants place on 

diversity work, two sliders for paid lunch and paid time off were presented similar to Study 1.  

 

Compensation Fairness Perception. To assess the degree to which participants find 

compensating each of the forms of extra-role work, the adapted distributive justice subscale from 

 

75 

 

Colquitt (2001) and the adapted a single item-stem from Edwards et al., (2006) from Study 1 

were used. The former measure demonstrated sufficient internal consistency (α = .92). 

 

White Racial Identity. Measures of White racial identity have been criticized for low 

reliability (Choney & Rowe, 1994) or questions regarding validity (Behrens, 1997; Bennett, 

Behrens, & Rowe, 1993; Choney & Rowe, 1994). Lee et al., (2007) developed a measure 

designed to address these concerns for the four statuses of the updated version of Helms’ (2005) 

theory known as the White Racial Consciousness Development Scale, Revised (WRCDS-R). 

While this original measure positioned White identity in relation to experience with Black 

individuals, this measure has been adapted in the present study so that items referring to Black 

individuals was broadened to reflect non-White marginalized racial groups broadly. Questions 

including content regarding slavery were edited to refer to “the past” to apply more broadly 

across groups. Participants were asked to respond to 22 items (8 avoidance and unawareness; 14 

denigrative coping) using a “1” (Strong Disagree) to “5” (Strong Agree) scale that have been 

adapted. Example items include: “I don’t have any non-White friends” (contact / avoidance and 

unawareness), “Affirmative action is just reverse discrimination” (reintegration / denigrative 

coping). Responses to each item were averaged together within each subscale to create indices of 

each construct measured by the WRCDS-R with higher scores being indicative of a higher 

degree of that construct. I have obtained the measure and permission to use this measure through 

personal correspondence with Dr. Sang Min Lee, first author of the WRCDS-R validation paper 

(Appendix L). These two subscales demonstrated sufficient reliability (Avoidance\Unawareness 

α = .84; Denigrative Coping α = .94, r = .34) and decent to moderate fit when modeled as distinct 

(CFI = .89, TLI =.88,  RMSEA =.08  SRMR = .08). 

 

76 

 

 

Colorblind-Orientation. To assess the endorsement of a color-blind ideology, four 

questions developed by Ryan et al. (2007) were administered. These items were developed 

following a review of relevant literature on color-blindness as an individual level orientation 

(Ryan et al. (2007) reviewed Doane & Bonilla-Silva, 2003; Plaut, 2002; Wolsko et al., 2000 

among others). Participants were asked to respond to these items using a “1” (Strongly Disagree) 

to “5” (Strong Agree). These items were as follows: “(1) I wish people in this society would stop 

obsessing so much about race, (2) People who become preoccupied by race are forgetting that we 

are all just human, (3) Putting racial labels on people obscures the fact that everyone is a unique 

individual, (4) Race is an artificial label that keeps people from thinking freely as individuals. 

Responses to these items were averaged together to create a single index of color-blind ideology. 

Higher scores were indicative of a greater endorsement of the colorblind orientation (α = .93). 

 

General Intergroup Contact Measure. In order to measure the degree to which 

participants had contact with individuals from marginalized racial and ethnic groups, three items 

from the quantity subscale of the General Intergroup Contact Quantity and Contact Quality 

(CQCQ) were adapted (Islam & Hewstone, 1993). Participants responded to three items using a 

“1” (None at all) to “7” (A great deal) scale. An example item includes: “How much contact do 

you have with Black people at work?” These items were adapted and increased to 12 total items 

to reflect contact with statistically prevalent (5% or greater) racial and ethnic identities in the 

United States including: African American or Black, Asian, Hispanic or Latino and White. 

Responses to each item reflecting a marginalized identity group were averaged together to create 

an index of intergroup contact with individuals from marginalized racial and ethnic identities 

(Appendix M). This measure demonstrated sufficient reliability (α = .83). 

 

77 

 

 

Valanced Intergroup Contact Measure. In order to measure the degree to which 

participants reported positive and negative contact with members of marginalized racial and 

ethnic groups, the Valanced Contact Scale (Barlow et al., 2012) was adapted. This original two-

item measure asked participants to respond to the following items using a “1” (Never) to “7” 

(Extremely Frequently): “On average, how often do you have negative or bad contact with Black 

people,” and “On average, how often do you have positive or good contact with Black people?”. 

I expanded the number of questions to eight to reflect contact with statistically prevalent (5% or 

greater) racial and ethnic identities in the United States including: African American or Black, 

Asian, Hispanic or Latino and White. Responses to each item reflecting a marginalized identity 

group will be averaged together within each valence type to reflect indices of positive and 

negative valence towards individuals from marginalized racial and ethnic groups (Appendix N). 

These measures demonstrated sufficient reliability and were slightly correlated in the expected 

direction (negative α = .74, positive α = .78, r = -.29). 

Perceived Self and Other Motivation Questions. To assess perceptions of the 

motivations for engaging in diversity work for the person described in the vignette, participants 

were asked to respond to six items using a “1” (Highly Unlikely) to “5” (Highly Likely) scale. 

Three of the items reflected self-oriented motivation: “wanted to look good, wanted to show they 

were not prejudiced, wanted to show off,” and three of the items reflected other-oriented 

motivation: “thought it would be helpful, cared about racial minorities, empathized with racial 

minorities.” Responses to these items were averaged together within each motivation type. 

Higher scores indicated that participants attributed a greater degree of self-oriented motivation 

and other-oriented motivation to the actor’s behavior respectively. These measures demonstrated 

 

78 

 

sufficient reliability (self α = .74, other α = .76, r = -.34) and these subscales are conceptually 

distinct though they correlate in the expected direction. 

Perceived Self-Interest. To measure the degree to which those engaging in diversity 

work were perceived to self-interested, a measure was adapted from Gerbasi & Prentice (2013) 

and Tseng & Fan (2011). Participants responded to six items using a “1” (Strongly Disagree) to 

“5” (Strongly Agree) scale. Example items include: “This person is looking for opportunities to 

achieve higher social status,” and “This person is protecting his/her own interests above other 

considerations.” Responses to these items were averaged together to create a single index of 

perceived self-interest. Higher scores on this measure represent a higher degree of perceived self-

interest (see Appendix O). This measure demonstrated sufficient reliability (α = .92). 

Collective Self-Esteem. To measure the degree to which individuals feel self-esteem 

with regard to their racial identity, the collective self-esteem scale (Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992) 

was implemented. Participants responded to 16 items that were tailored to refer only to the social 

group of race using a “1” (Strongly Disagree) to “7” (Strongly Agree) scale. This measure was 

designed to examine various facets of collective self-esteem including: membership esteem (“I 

am a worthy member of the social group I belong to”), public collective self-esteem (“Overall, 

my social group is considered good by others”) private collective self-esteem (“I often regret that 

I belong to the social group I do” (R)), and importance to identity (“In general, belonging to 

social group is an important part of my self-image”). Responses to each item were averaged 

together within each of the four respective subscales. Higher scores were indicative of a greater 

level of each respective sub-facet of collective self-esteem (Appendix P). These measures 

demonstrated sufficient reliability (membership α = .77, public α = .72, private α = .79, 

importance α = .87, r = .27 - .66). 

 

79 

 

Demographic Questionnaire. Lastly, a demographic questionnaire asking about the 

participants’ age, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, education and occupation was 

administered (Appendix G). 

Procedure  

Participants completed a series of prescreening questions in order to determine whether 

they qualify for the study (Appendix H). Qualifying participants were forwarded on to the 

informed consent (Appendix I). If they chose to participate, participants were randomly assigned 

to one of the five manipulation conditions. They were then asked to complete the evaluation 

questions based on the person depicted in the manipulation and asked to allocate benefits for 

engaging in the diversity work. These measures included self-oriented motivation perceptions, 

other-oriented motivation perceptions, self-interest perceptions, warmth and competence 

perceptions as well as the monetary and non-monetary allocation measures. Afterward, 

participants were asked to complete measures of intergroup contact, colorblindness orientation, 

White racial identity, social dominance orientation and collective self-esteem. Lastly, 

participants were asked to complete demographic questions before receiving their payment code 

before being debriefed (Appendix J).  

 

 

 

 

 

 

80 

 

Pilot Testing 

STUDY 3 RESULTS 

Prior to data collection for Study 3, pilot testing of pictorial stimuli was completed to be 

sure that the images selected to represent the individuals engaging in diversity work would be 

similarly matched across racial groups. Eighty students were surveyed on the attractiveness and 

age of potential pictures of men of the four different racial backgrounds for this study. Images 

selected were matched for attractiveness (M = 3.35-3.59, indicating a response between “neither 

like nor dislike” and “like somewhat”) and age (M = 2.48-2.96, indicating an age of early to mid-

30s). This pilot was completed to remove the potential confound of physical perceptions of those 

portrayed in the vignette from the study design.  

Data Cleaning 

 

In order to ensure the quality of the data, a series of data cleaning steps were completed 

before analysis. Seven-hundred and thirty-four participants submitted a response to the survey. 

Participants were removed from the data for the following reasons: 154 participants falsified 

their responses to the screening questions by entering the survey multiple times and providing 

different responses in an attempt to qualify for the screening, 40 participants provided a 

questionable response to our qualitative questions (e.g., gibberish response, non-response, 

copying and pasting the question into the blank), 26 participants did not complete the survey, 11 

participants failed the attention check question and nine participants falsified their racial identity 

to qualify but later identified as a different race during the demographic question at the end of 

the survey (e.g., identifying as “White” in the pre-screening questions and then identifying as 

“Black” in the demographic questions). In total, 494 participants remained for analysis. 

 

 

81 

 

Data Analysis 

 

In order to test whether the degree to which diversity work is valued and perceived 

differs as a result of demographic characteristics, a multivariate analysis of variance 

(MANOVA) was conducted as a test of Hypothesis 7 (for descriptives see Table 12). The racial 

demographic of the person engaging in diversity work served as the independent variable and the 

perceptions and allocation outcomes was entered in as the dependent variables (see Table 13 for 

analysis and Table 14 for the analysis including the non-specified race condition).

 

82 

 

Table 12.  
Descriptive Statistics for Study 3 

 

 

M 

SD 

1 

2  

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

1. Competence 

6.22 

.87 

[.94] 

 

2. Warmth 

6.20 

.89 

.81** 

[.94] 

 

 

3. Distributive 
Justice 

3.84 

1.20 

.47** 

.50** 

[.92] 

 

 

 

4. General Fairness 

5.44 

1.76 

.40** 

.43** 

.76** 

[N/A] 

 

 

 

 

5. SDO 

2.12 

1.19 

-.46** 

-.45** 

-.38** 

-.35** 

[.95] 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.84 

1.00 

-.30** 

-.35** 

-.26** 

-.27** 

.37** 

[.76] 

4.53 

.58 

.56** 

.63** 

.38** 

.33** 

-.46** 

-.34** 

[.76] 

2.97 

.96 

-.26** 

-.35** 

-.27** 

-.31** 

.39** 

.64** 

-.32** 

[.92] 

9. CSE Membership 

4.47 

.70 

.09* 

.13** 

.13** 

.07 

.10* 

-.01 

.13** 

.02 

[.77] 

5.16 

1.23 

.01 

.02 

-.01 

-.07 

.20** 

.00 

.03 

.04 

.57** 

[.79] 

5.12 

1.08 

.13** 

.15** 

.09 

.05 

-.05 

-.11* 

.19** 

-.08 

.36** 

.53** 

[.72] 

3.43 

1.59 

-.12** 

-.08 

-.03 

-.10* 

.33** 

.20** 

-.13** 

.20** 

.42** 

.47** 

.27** 

[.87] 

83 

6. Perceived Self-
Motivation 

7. Perceived Other-
Motivation 

8. Perceived Self-
Interest 

10. CSE Private 

11. CSE Public 

12. CSE Identity 

 

 

 

Table 12. (cont’d).  
SD 
 

M 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

13. 
Unawareness/A
voidance 

1.89 

.72 

-.23** 

-.21 

-.13** 

-.10* 

.44** 

.26** 

-.28** 

.27** 

.02 

.04 

-.04 

.28** 

[.84] 

 

14. Denigrative 
Coping 

2.51 

.96 

-.28** 

-.32** 

-.32** 

-.29** 

.68** 

.34** 

-.30** 

.33** 

.20** 

.37** 

.09 

.30** 

.34** 

[.94] 

 

 

15. Colorblind 

3.63 

1.31 

.00 

-.04 

-.18** 

-.14** 

.26** 

.12** 

-.05 

.11** 

.07 

.24** 

.08 

.06 

.03 

.57** 

[.92] 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16. Paid 
Lunches 

3.37 

3.51 

.14** 

.12** 

.24** 

.22** 

-.10** 

.02 

.02 

-.05 

-.16** 

-.19** 

-.08 

-.09 

-.01 

-.15** 

-.08 

[N/A] 

 

 

 

 

 

17. Monetary 
Allocation 

1706.
23 

1464.66 

.29** 

.30** 

.53** 

.47** 

-.24** 

-.18** 

.19** 

-.19** 

.05 

-.11** 

.01 

-.04 

-.08 

-.25** 

-.18** 

.34** 

[N/A] 

 

 

 

 

 

 

18. Paid Time 
Off 

2.47 

2.86 

.17** 

.12** 

.24** 

.23** 

-.05 

-.01 

.06 

-.03 

-.02 

-.12** 

-.02 

.07 

.01 

-.06 

-.07 

.56** 

.38** 

[N/A] 

 

19. General IC 

3.67 

1.27 

-.02 

.00 

.04 

.01 

-.07 

.04 

.01 

.00 

-.06 

-.10* 

-.08 

-.10* 

-.41** 

-.03 

.05 

.10* 

.13** 

.12** 

[.83] 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

20. Positive IC 

5.47 

1.09 

.29** 

.32** 

.20** 

.17** 

-.27** 

-.10* 

.24** 

-.15** 

.13** 

.05 

.13** 

-.07 

-.37** 

-.20** 

-.06 

.01 

.19** 

.09* 

.42** 

[.75] 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

21. Negative IC 

2.34 

0.96 

-.24** 

-.21** 

-.17** 

-.19** 

.28** 

.16** 

-.18** 

.16** 

-.11** 

-.12** 

-.16** 

.10* 

.17** 

.18** 

.02 

.06 

-.04 

.08 

.05 

-.29** 

[.78] 

Note: M = mean, SD = standard deviation, *p<.05, **p<.01, reliability presented in brackets on the diagonal. SDO = social dominance orientation, CSE = collective self-esteem, IC = intergroup 
contact).  Response scale ranges: Competence (1-7), Warmth (1-7), Distributive Justice (1-5), General Fairness (1-7), SDO (1-7), Perceived self-motivation (1-5), Perceived other motivation (1-5), 
Perceived self-interest (1-5), CSE Membership = Paid Lunch (0-12), Monetary Allocation (0-5000), Paid Time Off = (0-12), General IC (1.11-7), Negative IC (1-6.75) Positive IC (1-7). 

 

 

 

84 

 

Table 13.  
MANOVA Between Subjects Results for Study 3 Perception and Fairness Outcomes by Actor Race  

 

Asian  

Black 

Hispanic 

White 

Total 

Partial 
Eta2 

Dependent Variable 

N=104 

N=97 

N=89 

N=99 

N= 389 

 

F 

 

Sig. 

 

Competence 
Perceptions 

Warmth 
Perceptions 

Distributive 
Justice 

6.26a (0.75) 

6.35a (0.77) 

6.24a (0.84) 

6.05a (1.06) 

6.22 (0.87) 

.02 

2.16 

.09 

6.22a (0.74) 

6.22a (0.81) 

6.05a (0.74) 

6.11a (1.11) 

6.19 (0.87) 

.00 

.41 

.74 

3.82a (1.28) 

3.99a (1.08) 

3.78a (1.19) 

3.85a (1.18) 

3.86 (1.19) 

<.01 

.56 

.64 

General Fairness 

5.72a (1.79) 

5.6 a (1.59) 

5.35a (1.75) 

5.25a (1.79) 

5.49 (1.74) 

2.78a (1.05) 

2.63ab (0.99) 

2.96a (0.97) 

3.05ac (0.99) 

2.85 (1.01) 

.01 

.03 

1.59 

3.46 

.19 

.02 

Perceived Self-
Oriented 
Motivation 

Perceived Other-
Oriented 
Motivation 

4.55a (0.52) 

4.70a (0.42) 

4.59a (0.45) 

4.31b (0.79) 

4.54 (0.58) 

.06 

8.53 

<.01 

Self-Interest 

2.95a (0.95) 

2.99a (1.01) 

3.09a (1.00) 

3.00a (0.94) 

3.01 (0.97) 

<.01 

Monetary 
Allocation 

1843.00a  
(1616.29) 

1856.14a  
(1502.48) 

1832.49a 
(1552.90) 

1508.57a 
(1237.09) 

1758.76 
(1485.60) 

.01 

.31 

1.26 

.82 

.29 

Paid Lunches 

3.10a (3.71) 

3.44a (3.25) 

3.10a (3.71) 

3.44a (3.25) 

3.41 (3.52) 

<.01 

.45 

.72 

Paid Time Off 

2.32a (2.69) 

2.75a (2.93) 

2.56a (2.75) 

2.36a (2.88) 

2.49 (2.81) 

<.01 

.50 

.68 

Note: Partial Eta Squared scores and F value refer to those of the full corrected model; Means are presented in the table with standard deviation in parentheses; 
Means not sharing a superscript are significantly different from each other. 

 

 

 

85 

 

Table 14.  
MANOVA Between Subjects Results for Study 3 Perception and Fairness Outcomes by Actor Race with Non-Specified Condition  

 

Asian  

Black 

Hispanic 

White 

Non-

Specified 

Total 

Partial Eta2 

F 

 

Sig. 

 

N=104 

N=97 

N=89 

N=99 

N=103 

N= 492 

 

6.26a (0.75) 

6.35a (0.77) 

6.24a (0.84) 

6.05a (1.06) 

6.21a (0.87) 

6.22 (0.87) 

.01 

1.63 

6.22a (0.74) 

6.22a (0.81) 

6.05a (0.74) 

6.11a (1.11) 

6.21a (0.95) 

6.19 (0.89) 

<.01 

3.82a (1.28) 

3.99a (1.08) 

3.78a (1.19) 

3.85a (1.18) 

3.75a (1.25) 

3.84 (1.20) 

<.01 

5.72a (1.79) 

5.6 a (1.59) 

5.35a (1.75) 

5.25a (1.79) 

5.28a (1.83) 

5.45 (1.76) 

2.78a (1.05) 

2.63ab (0.99) 

2.96a (0.97) 

3.05ac (0.99) 

2.80a (0.94) 

2.84 (1.00) 

.01 

.02 

.31 

.61 

1.45 

2.72 

.17 

.87 

.66 

.22 

.03 

4.55a (0.52) 

4.70a (0.42) 

4.59a (0.45) 

4.31b (0.79) 

4.50b (0.58) 

4.53 (0.58) 

.05 

6.42 

<.01 

Dependent 
Variable 

Competence 
Perceptions 

Warmth 
Perceptions 

Distributive 
Justice 

General 
Fairness 

Perceived 
Self-Oriented 
Motivation 

Perceived 
Other-
Oriented 
Motivation 

Self-Interest 

2.95a (0.95) 

2.99a (1.01) 

3.09a (1.00) 

3.00a (0.94) 

2.81a (0.90) 

2.96 (0.96) 

Monetary 
Allocation 

1843.00a  
(1616.29) 

1856.14a  
(1502.48) 

1832.49a 
(1552.90) 

1508.57a 
(1237.09) 

1522.03a 
(1383.36) 

1709.21 
(1466.36) 

.01 

.01 

Paid Lunches 

3.10a (3.71) 

3.44a (3.25) 

3.10a (3.71) 

3.44a (3.25) 

3.24a (3.47) 

3.41 (3.52) 

<.01 

Paid Time Off 

2.32a (2.69) 

2.75a (2.93) 

2.56a (2.75) 

2.36a (2.88) 

2.40a (3.05) 

2.47 (2.86) 

<.01 

1.12 

1.51 

.38 

.38 

.35 

.20 

.82 

.82 

Note: Partial Eta Squared scores and F value refer to those of the full corrected model; Means are presented in the table with standard deviation in parentheses; 
Means not sharing a superscript are significantly different from each other. 

 

86 

 

The overall MANOVA was significant both when the non-specified condition was 

excluded (Wilks’ Lambda = .83; F(30, 1134) = 2.35,  partial η2 = .06, p < .01) and when it was 

included (Wilks’ Lambda = .84; F(40, 1814.38) = 2.08,  partial η2 = .04, p < .01) suggesting that 

the outcomes differed depending on the demographic condition. Examining the test of between 

subjects effects revealed that there were significant differences between groups on perceptions 

that the actor was self-motivated (non-specified excluded: F(3, 385) = 3.46, p =.02; non-

specified included: F(4, 487) = 2.72, p =.03) and perceptions that the actor was other motivated 

(non-specified excluded: F(3, 385) = 2.76, p < .01; non-specified included: F(4, 487) = 6.42, p < 

.01). To determine which mean differences were driving the effects, a Tukey Post-Hoc test was 

conducted. Both MANOVAs yielded similar post-hoc tukey test results. These analyses revealed 

the White actor (M = 3.05 SD = 0.99) was rated as being significantly more self-motivated than 

the Black actor (M = 2.78, SD = 1.05) and that the White actor (M = 4.31 SD = 0.79) was rated as 

being significantly less other-motivated than all actors from marginalized racial groups (Asian M 

= 4.55, SD = 0.52; Black M = 4.70, SD = 0.42; Hispanic M = 4.59, SD = 0.45) but did not differ 

from the non-specified group (M = 4.50, SD = 0.58) which went against the expected directions 

outlined in Hypothesis 7 (see Tables 13 and 14).   

 

To examine whether participant individual differences influence the relationships 

between the demographic manipulation and the outcomes, series of moderated multiple 

regression analyses were conducted as a test of Hypothesis 8. These models tested whether the 

participants high on social dominance orientation allocated differential monetary (e.g., the 

bonus) and non-monetary (e.g., paid time off per month, paid lunches per month) compensation 

to actors from marginalized racial groups compared to participants who are lower on social 

dominance orientation. The four specified race condition variables were dummy coded with the 0 

 

87 

 

values representing the White actor1. The moderator, SDO, was mean centered prior to these 

analyses. These models revealed that SDO did not moderate the relationship between the 

condition type and any of the three allocation outcomes (see Table 15), though there was a 

significant main effect of SDO on the monetary allocation and the paid lunch such that 

individuals higher on this characteristic allocated less money for the monetary bonus and fewer 

paid lunches compared to those lower on SDO. Thus, Hypothesis 8 was not supported. 

1 The unspecified race condition was omitted from this analysis. 

 

88 

 

 

Table 15. 
Moderation of Social Dominance Orientation on the Relationship Between Actor Race and Outcomes 

 

Monetary Allocation 

Paid Lunch 

Paid Time Off 

Step 1 

Mean Centered SDO 

R2 
p of R2 Change 
 
Step 2 

Dummy Coded Asian  

Dummy Coded Black 

Dummy Coded Hispanic  

R2 
p of R2 Change 
 
Step 3 

Asian x SDO 
Black x SDO 
Hispanic x SDO 

 

-.27** (80.09) 

.06** 
<.01** 

 
 

.09 (170.46) 

.10* (175.02) 

.08 (179.56) 

.07** 

.10 

 
 

.09 (143.99) 
-.02 (149.05) 
-.01 (157.32) 

 

-.16* (.20) 

.01* 
.02* 

 
 

-.03 (.42) 

.01 (.43) 

.04 (.45) 

.01 
.70 

 
 

.03 (.36) 
.06 (.37) 
.05 (.38) 

 

-.13 (.16) 

<.01 
.23 

 
 

-.01 (.34) 

.05 (.35) 

.02 (.36) 

<.01 
.65 

 
 

.06 (.29) 
.06 (.30) 
.07 (.31) 

R2 
p of R2 Change 
Note:  * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01. SDO = Social Dominance Orientation. All values represent final model from step 3. Values in parentheses are the standard errors of the regression 
estimates. Step 1 is a regression in which social dominance orientation is predicting outcome variables. The reference group = 0 is White. 

.01 
.47 

.02 
.61 

.08** 

.29 

 

89 

 

To test my operationalized theoretical model, path analysis using the lavann package in R 

was used. Before running these analyses, I used regression analyses to test the relationships 

between variables in my model. First, I examined the relationships between my exogenous 

variables and the mediating endogenous variables. In predicting the contact dimension of 

Unawareness/Avoidance, general contact with non-White individuals emerged as a significant 

predictor (β = -.42, SE = .02, p < .01) while colorblind orientation did not (β= 0.05, SE = .02, p 

=.22) and the model accounted for a moderate percent of the variance (R2 = .17) This provides 

partial support for hypothesis 4. In predicting Denigrative Coping, negative contact with non-

White individuals (β = 0.13, SE = .05, p <.01) and positive contact (β = -0.16, SE = .04, p <.01) 

with non-White individuals were both significant predictors and the model accounted for a small 

percent of the variance (R2 = .05) supporting hypothesis 5.  

I then tested the relationships between my endogenous variables and the perception and 

allocation outcomes. To account for differences in conditions, dummy coded condition variables 

were entered into the model as controls for all outcomes. As revealed in Table 16, 

Unawareness/Avoidance significantly predicted both actor perceptions. Individuals higher on 

Unawareness/Avoidance perceived the actor as less competent and warm than those who were 

lower on this individual difference. However, Unawareness/Avoidance did not significantly 

predict any of the allocation-related outcomes. Denigrative Coping significantly predicted all 

outcome variables with the exception of allocated paid time off (see Table 16) partially 

supporting hypothesis 6. Individuals higher on Denigrative Coping perceived the actor as less 

warm and less competent compared to the lower on this individual difference. They also 

allocated a lower amount for the bonus and fewer paid lunches to the actor compared to the 

lower on this individual difference.  

 

90 

 

Table 16.  
Regression Analyses of White Identity Predicting Outcomes 

Unawareness Avoidance 

 
Competence 
Warmth 
Monetary 
Allocation 
Paid Lunch 
Paid Time Off 

 

Denigrative Coping 

Beta 
-.23 
-.21 
-.08 

-.02 
.01 

SEb 
.05 
.06 
91.29 

.22 
.18 

T 
-5.22 
-4.76 
-1.85 

-.35 
.13 

Beta 
-.29 
-.33 
-.26 

 
Competence 
Warmth 
Monetary 
Allocation 
Paid Lunch 
Paid Time Off 
Note: Condition types were included in the model as dummy coded covariates with 0 = the White condition.

SEb 
.04 
.04 
66.10 

T 
-6.70 
-7.56 
-5.91 

-3.31 
-1.41 

-.15 
-.06 

-.15 
.13 

sig 
<.01 
<.01 
.06 

.73 
.90 

sig 
<.01 
<.01 
<.01 

<.01 
.16 

 

91 

 

 

To examine the fit of my theoretical model, I conducted a path analysis in R using the 

sem function within lavaan (Rosseel, 2012). Due to the fact that responses to the outcomes 

considered for this model did not differ across conditions (see Table 14), all participant 

responses were aggregated together to test this model. The model was specified such that (a) the 

degree of contact with individuals from marginalized racial groups and colorblindness predicted 

White Identity Contact (or Avoidance/Unawareness), (b) the degree of positive intergroup 

contact and negative intergroup contact predicted White Identity Reintegration (or Denigrative 

Coping) and (c) that Denigrative Coping and Avoidance/Unawareness predicted Devaluation of 

Diversity Work while Denigrative Coping predicted Devaluation of Diversity Worker. This 

model exhibited poor fit to the data (CHI2 = 439.98, p <.01, CFI = .77, TLI = .58, RMSEA =.18, 

SRMR = .12). Due to the poor fit of the model, there was no further examination of the path 

estimates.  

 

To examine the relationships within the model that were driving the poor fit, I reviewed 

the modification indices. Two notable relationships exhibited high modification indices. 

Specifically, colorblindness predicting Denigrative Coping (MI = 164.90) and 

Avoidance/Unawareness predicting Denigrative Coping (MI = 36.66). Although there are several 

valid criticisms of adjusting a model based on the modification indices (MacCallum et al., 1992) 

these indicated changes do not make substantial changes to the proposed theory. The second 

model examined (Figure 10 Below) was designed based on the modification indices but also due 

to post-hoc consideration that Avoidance/Unawareness is another measure of the degree to which 

participants had contact with non-White individuals. Thus, though it is considered to be a 

separate dimension of White Racial Identity (Helms, 1990; 2005; Lee et al., 2007) it is similar to 

the other contact measures. Because other measures of contact were posited to predict 

 

92 

 

Denigrative Coping, and because the size of the modification index indicated that fit would 

improve if this change were made, I elected to place Unawareness/Avoidance as a predictor of 

Denigrative Coping. In addition, the largest modification index suggested that colorblindness 

should predict Denigrative Coping. Previous research had also suggested that exposure to a 

colorblind ideology has been linked to greater implicit and explicit bias in White participants 

(Richeson & Nussbaum, 2004) and it has been linked to decreased sensitivity to racism and 

discrimination broadly (see Plaut et al., 2018 for discussion). Thus, in alignment with previous 

research and the modification index revealed in the present study, I elected to place 

colorblindness as a predictor of Denigrative Coping.  

Figure 10.  
Updated Theoretical Model 

 

The new model exhibited rather decent fit (CHI2 = 131.83, p <.01, CFI = .95, TLI = .90, 

RMSEA =.09, SRMR = .07) which allows for interpretation of the corresponding regression 

estimates (Table 17). Negative contact, colorblindness, lack of contact with non-White 

individuals and unawareness/avoidance emerged as significant and positive predictors of 

Denigrative Coping, though positive contact was non-significant. Denigrative Coping 

 

93 

 

significantly and negatively predicted monetary allocation, number of paid lunches, paid time off 

as well as warmth and competence perceptions (see Figure 10 and Table 17). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

94 

 

Table 17.  
Path Estimates, Standard Errors and P-Values of Final Path Model Linking Individual Differences to Devaluation of Diversity Work 

Path 

Estimate 

SE 

p 

Denigrative Coping 

 

Colorblindness 
Contact with non-White 
people 
Positive contact with non-
White people 
Negative Contact with non-
White people 
Unawareness/Avoidance 

Monetary Allocation 

Denigrative Coping 

Paid Time Off 

Denigrative Coping 

Paid Lunch 

Denigrative Coping 

Warmth 

Denigrative Coping 

Competence 

Denigrative Coping 

Note: SE = Standard error of the estimate. 

 

 

0.41 
0.07 

-0.05 

0.09 

0.44 

 
-.384.90 
 
-0.19 
 
-0.54 
 
-0.30 
 
-0.26 

 

0.03 
0.03 

0.04 

0.04 

0.05 

 
66.40 
 
0.13 
 
0.16 
 
0.04 
 
0.04 

< 0.01 
0.02 

0.18 

< 0.01 

< 0.01 

 
< 0.01 
 
< 0.01 
 
< 0.01 
 
< 0.01 
 
< 0.01 

 

95 

 

Exploratory Analyses 

To test the exploratory research question of whether the four facets of collective self-

esteem were related to outcome variables (monetary allocation, paid lunch, paid time off) a series 

of multiple regression analyses were conducted. Collective self-esteem facets were entered into 

the model as predictors while each of the outcomes previously described were entered in as 

outcomes (Table 18). These analyses revealed that individuals who scored higher on the private 

subscale allocated significantly less monetary and non-monetary allocations to the actor 

engaging in diversity work compared to individuals who scored lower on this sub facet. 

Individuals who scored higher on the membership sub-facet allocated fewer paid lunches 

compared to those high on this sub-facet. Individuals higher on the identity sub-facet allocated a 

greater amount of paid time off compared to those lower on that sub-facet. Taken together, these 

results indicate that when White individuals have a more positive evaluation of their racial 

ingroup (e.g., the private sub-facet), they tend to allocate fewer monetary and non-monetary 

resources to the individual engaging in diversity work. White individuals who see themselves as 

a valuable member of their racial group (e.g., the membership sub-facet), tended to allocate 

fewer paid lunches to the individual engaging in diversity work. Lastly, White individuals who 

viewed being White as important to the way they view themselves (e.g., the identity sub-facet) 

surprisingly allocated more paid time off to the person engaging in diversity work. These 

findings provide further support for the idea that White individuals’ racial identity impacts the 

degree to which diversity work is valued.      

 

 

 

 

 

96 

 

Table 18.  
Exploratory Multiple Regression of Collective Self-Esteem Predicting Outcomes 

Dependent 
Variable 

Predictor 

B 

SEb 

Beta 

t 

Competence  Membership 

 
 
 
 

Private 
Public 
Identity 

 

Warmth 

Membership 

 
 
 
 

Private 
Public 
Identity 

 

.05 
.05 
.04 
.03 

.05 
.05 
.04 
.03 

 

 

.23** 
-.14* 
.14** 
-.17** 
Model R2 
.23** 
-.15* 
.16** 
-.13** 
Model R2 
.08 
-.22** 
.09 
.01 
Model R2 
-.15** 
-.13* 
.07 
.01 
Model R2 
-.07 
-.19** 
.07 
.16** 
Model R2 

3.80 
-2.11 
2.67 
-3.41 

3.81 
-2.39 
3.07 
-2.73 

1.37 
-3.30 
1.62 
.18 

-2.54 
-2.05 
1.24 
.27 

-1.17 
-2.83 
1.25 
3.18 

.07* 

.07** 

.02* 

.05** 

.04** 

.17** 
-.10* 
.11** 
-.09** 
 

.18** 
-.11* 
.13** 
-.08** 
 
107.80 
-259.14** 
117.98 
8.29 
 
-.47** 
-.38* 
.21 
.03 
 
-.18 
-.43** 
.18 
.29** 
 

Monetary 
Allocation 

78.90 
78.58 
72.63 
46.57 
 
.19 
.19 
.17 
.11 
 
.15 
.15 
.14 
.09 
 
Note: * = p <.05, ** = p <.01. SEb = standard error of the slope. 

Paid Lunch  Membership 
 
 
 
 
Paid Time 
Off 

Membership 
Private 
Public 
Identity 
 

Private 
Public 
Identity 
 
Membership 
Private 
Public 
Identity 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

97 

 

 

STUDY 3 DISCUSSION 

Counter to hypotheses, the White actor engaging in diversity work was perceived as 

engaging in the work for more self-oriented compared to the Black actor and was perceived as 

less other-oriented than the Asian, Black and Hispanic actors in terms of their perceived 

motivations. SDO did not emerge as a moderator of the relationship between the race of the 

person engaging in diversity work and the allocation outcomes in the present study. Facets of 

collective self-esteem were revealed to be predictive of some of the allocation outcomes. 

Membership CSE was inversely predictive of the number of paid lunches allocated to the actor 

engaging in diversity work. Identity CSE was positively predictive of the amount of paid time off 

allocated to the actor engaging in diversity work. Private CSE was inversely related to all three 

outcomes examined in study 3. 

 

In examining the relationships between elements of White racial identity and the 

outcomes in this study, Unawareness Avoidance inversely predicted competence and warmth 

perceptions of the person engaging in diversity work contrary to hypotheses while Denigrative 

Coping inversely predicted competence and warmth perceptions as well as the amount of 

monetary allocation for the work and the number of paid lunches, thus partially supporting the 

hypotheses. The finding regarding Unawareness/Avoidance may be best explained through the 

lens of formal versus subtle (i.e. less visible or interpersonal) discrimination (Jones et al., 2017) 

in that individuals higher on this characteristic were found to view the diversity worker more 

negatively in terms of interpersonal perception but this characteristic was not related to 

differential allocation outcomes. The modified theoretical model revealed that colorblindness as 

an orientation, negative contact with non-White individuals, general contact with non-White 

individuals in terms of quality and unawareness avoidance were all predictive of denigrative 

 

98 

 

coping. Denigrative coping was in turn inversely predictive of all outcomes. This model provides 

support for the idea that forms of interracial contact may be unique and contribute to the degree 

to which White individuals idealize their identity, denigrate individuals in marginalized racial 

groups and said identity may impact views and of diversity work and the individuals who engage 

in this work.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

99 

 

GENERAL DISCUSSION 

The present study examined how diversity work is perceived in comparison to other forms of 

extra-role work. Though many of the results were counter to hypotheses, this investigation has, 

nonetheless, yielded findings on this nascent line of research. In Study 1, diversity work, as 

measured with the items created for this dissertation, was found to be perceived as more similar 

to affiliation-oriented OCBOs and was found to be perceived as significantly different from 

challenge-oriented OCBOs in terms of the amount of monetary bonus allotted for the work and 

the warmth perceptions. SDO moderated the relationship between extra-role work type and 

warmth perceptions such that individuals higher in SDO rated the person engaging in affiliation 

oriented OCBOs as being significantly warmer compared to the person engaging in diversity 

work while those low in SDO rated those engaging in diversity work and affiliation oriented 

OCBOs as similarly warm. In addition, exploratory analyses revealed that participants own 

engagement in AOCBOs moderated the relationship between extra-role work type and 

competence and warmth perceptions of the person engaging in extra-role work such that 

individuals who engaged in high levels of affiliation oriented OCBOs (as measured by the Fox et 

al. (2011) measure) rated the person in the affiliation OCBO condition higher on warmth and 

competence than the person in the challenge oriented OCBO condition though a similar result 

emerged for the former when AOCBOs were low (though this difference was less stark). When 

individuals engaged in lower levels of AOCBOs, those in the challenge OCBO condition rated 

the individual as more competent than those in the affiliation OCBO condition. Study 2 revealed 

that individuals who engaged in more affiliation oriented OCBOs (as measured by the Fox et al. 

(2011) measure) also had a longer degree of time since their last raise while those who engaged 

in lower levels of diversity work and higher levels of challenge oriented OCBOs had a longer 

 

100 

 

degree of time since their last promotion which was contrary to the hypothesized direction. 

Exploratory analyses revealed that when racial minorities engaged in higher levels of challenge 

oriented OCBOs, they reported a longer time to promotion while those who engaged in low 

levels of challenge oriented OCBOs, reported a shorter time to promotion. Majority group 

participants’ level of challenge oriented OCBOs appeared to differ very slightly between the 

high and low challenge OCBO levels such that majority group participants who engaged in a 

higher level of challenge oriented OCBOs had slightly less time to promotion compared to 

majority group individuals who engaged in low levels. Lastly, the results of Study 3 revealed that 

those assigned to the White actor diversity work condition, rated said actor as higher on self-

oriented motivation (compared to the Black actor) and lower on other-oriented motivation 

compared to the Asian, Black, and Hispanic actors. The modified theoretical model revealed that 

White participants’ relationship with their own identity impacted the perception and allocation 

outcomes. Various forms of contact with marginalized racial groups (negative contact and 

general/close contact, unawareness/avoidance) along with holding a colorblind orientation were 

predictive of denigrative coping which was, in turn, inversely predictive of all outcomes. In 

addition, exploratory analyses revealed that facets of collective self-esteem predicted several of 

the perception and allocation outcomes in Study 3 with Private CSE being inversely predictive of 

all three outcomes. I will discuss findings in depth in the sections to follow. 

The Impact of Extra-Role Work Type on Perceptions and Allocation Outcomes 

 

Study 1 examined the relationship between extra-role work and outcomes related to the 

value of the work, the fairness of compensating the work and warmth and competence 

perceptions of the person engaging in the work. Ultimately, hypothesis 1 was not supported in 

that individuals in the diversity work condition allocated a greater number of paid lunches 

 

101 

 

compared to those in the challenge oriented OCBO condition and did not differ significantly on 

this outcome from the affiliation oriented OCBO condition and the monetary allocation did not 

differ significantly between the affiliation oriented OCBO condition and the diversity work 

condition, though participants in both conditions allocated significantly more than the challenge 

OCBO condition. In addition, participants rated those who engaged in diversity work and 

affiliation oriented OCBOs as similarly warm while those in the challenge oriented OCBO 

condition rated the person engaging in that work as significantly less warm. At first glance, it 

may appear as though diversity work was perceived as being more similar to affiliation oriented 

OCBOs. However, a post-hoc examination of Table 2 (which was created following the 

completion of data analysis) resulted in the realization that the measure of diversity work created 

for this study may have included only affiliation-oriented diversity work while challenge 

oriented diversity work was omitted from the present study.  

When SDO was entered in as a moderator, the relationship between diversity work and 

warmth perceptions emerged such that while warmth perceptions decreased for all forms of 

extra-role work for high SDO individuals compared to low SDO individuals, this dip was 

significantly lower for diversity work such that the rating was more akin to challenge oriented 

OCBOs. Thus, while hypothesis 1 was not supported, the exploratory moderator of SDO 

revealed that there may be certain individual differences that impact the view of individuals who 

engage in diversity work. Even though the present study examined affiliation oriented diversity 

work, those high in SDO still perceived the person engaging in this work as significantly less 

warm. Thus, future work on additional measures of biases may be particularly helpful for 

examining whether certain other individual differences may influence one’s perceptions of 

diversity work. Similarly, individual differences in behavior were found to impact perceptions of 

 

102 

 

the person engaging in extra-role work. Those who engaged in high levels of affiliation oriented 

OCBOs (as measured by Fox et al., 2011) rated the person engaging in affiliation oriented 

OCBOs as being more competent than those in the challenge condition while those in the 

challenge oriented OCBO condition who were low on AOCBOs rated that person as more 

competent than those who were low on AOCBOs in the affiliation OCBO condition. Those who 

engaged in higher levels of AOCBOs in the affiliation OCBO condition rated the person 

engaging in the work as more warm than those high on AOCBOs in the challenge OCBO 

condition. While this pattern of results held when AOCBOs were low, the differences were less 

stark. These results suggest that the behavior of the person evaluating other’s engagement of 

extra-role work may impact their views of other people who engage in extra-role work but not 

necessarily the degree to which they feel that the person should be compensated for their extra-

role work. These findings align with the propositions of the similarity attraction hypothesis 

(Byrne, 1971) which states that people tend to like and view others positively if those said others 

are similar to the person making the evaluation. One of the explanations often associated with 

this hypothesis is that people enjoy the company of others like themselves because it allows for 

the validation of one’s own worldview or way of thinking (Ries & Shaver, 1988). Thus, it is 

possible that individuals who engaged in more AOCBOs viewed those engaging in similar 

behaviors more positively due to the fact that they saw these individuals as being similar to 

themselves. It may also be possible that those who engaged in more AOCBOs were rated more 

positively due to the fact that these behaviors may have more to do with helping others and being 

a “good” person. This also aligns with previous work that found that morality is considered to be 

key for interpersonal evaluations such that those who are perceived as more moral are also more 

liked and respected (Hartley et al., 2016).   

 

103 

 

The Impact of Racial Minority Status on Perceptions of Worker and Career Outcomes 

 

The purpose of the second study was to examine the effects of engaging in diversity work 

on career outcomes compared to other forms of extra-role work (hypothesis 3) and examine 

whether racial minority status moderated the relationship between engaging in diversity work 

and the career outcomes (Hypothesis 2). This study revealed that individuals who engage in 

higher levels of affiliation oriented OCBOs had a longer time since their last raise while those 

who engaged in more diversity work had a shorter time since their last promotion, thus not 

supporting hypothesis 3. Post-hoc explanations for this finding are that those who engage in 

affiliation oriented OCBOs may be doing so at the expense of the quality of their core-task 

performance. Although staying late and engaging in additional work such as entertaining 

company guests is helpful to the organization overall (Organ, 1988) it may deplete the worker’s 

cognitive resources resulting in decrements in in-role work.  

However, this explanation begs the question of why this effect was found for affiliation 

oriented OCBOs and not challenge oriented OCBOs nor diversity work. For challenge oriented 

OCBOs, it is likely that, given item content for the measure used for this study, that very few if 

any of these behaviors were done outside of a normal business day and that their occurrences 

would be brief. For diversity work, it is likely that creating trainings or leading events would 

result in heightened periods of engaging in this work both during and outside of work hours, but 

perhaps there is a greater degree of structure in planning when this work will take place. 

Affiliation oriented OCBOs may have the dual characteristics of being less planned and may be 

more likely to pop into one’s schedule compared to the other forms of work, and similar to 

diversity work (but different from challenge OCBOs) this work takes place over longer periods 

of time. Being unable to plan for this work may increase its disruption to one’s regular work 

 

104 

 

cycle, thus increasing the time to one’s raise. Similarly, this work may have been unrelated to 

promotion because it may be viewed as communal in nature whereas challenge oriented OCBOs 

and diversity work as measured in the present study contained behaviors that are more associated 

with some forms of leadership (see Lord et al., 2017). Diversity work being inversely related to 

one’s time since their last promotion was particularly perplexing. Upon review of the descriptive 

statistics by sample, it is possible that there was a sample effect of this finding. Individuals who 

were marginalized racial groups and minorities in their workplace descriptively had lower times 

to their last raises and promotions compared to White workers who were also the majority in 

their workplace. Those in the former sample also engaged in more diversity work. Thus, this 

finding may have been an effect of sample. Alternatively, it may suggest that individuals who 

engage in higher levels of diversity work may do so as they advance along corporate lines. As 

one moves up the ladder at work, they may be expected to engage in more diversity work, or 

they have more control over their time and can allocate more of it to diversity work without 

being penalized for doing so.  

 

While racial minority status did not moderate the relationship between diversity work and 

the outcomes, an interesting exploratory moderation effect was found such that when racial 

minorities engaged in a low level of challenge oriented OCBOs, they had a lower time to 

promotion compared to White, majority group members. However, when racial minorities 

engaged in a high degree of challenge oriented OCBOs, they had a higher time to promotion 

compared to White, majority group members. Thus, while challenge oriented OCBOs were 

related to a greater time to promotion in general according to the multiple regression results, the 

moderation analysis revealed that racial minorities’ career advancement rates may be particularly 

harmed by engaging in behavior that may even be characterized as agentic. Although not a direct 

 

105 

 

comparison, research on women in leadership has long considered whether some individuals face 

backlash for engaging in behavior associated with a societal role that one does not inhabit. Role 

congruity theory posits that when one does not act in accordance with what is presumed of their 

societal role they are perceived negatively (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Eagly & Wood 2012). Thus, 

because the societal role of women was thought to be associated with more communal behaviors 

and less associated with leadership, it has been posited that these two factors would work against 

women in leadership roles, women who engaged in more agentic behaviors and women who held 

both non-stereotypical characteristics (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Rudman & Phelan, 2008) though 

more recent work has considered more nuance in these discussions (e.g., Rosette & Tost, 2010 

discussion of women’s leadership advantage and the intersectional advantage of agentic 

behaviors of Black women in leadership positions in Livingston et al., 2012). Although there is 

no direct research that considers the impact of role congruency or role incongruency on the 

treatment of marginalized racial groups, the recent agentic-communal model of advantage and 

disadvantage offers a potential explanation (Rucker et al., 2018), This model suggests that 

communality is associated with individuals who are societally marginalized (e.g. lower power, 

lower-class, women, non-White individuals) while agency is associated with those who are 

societally advantaged (e.g., higher-power, higher-class, men and White individuals). Considering 

this model in conjunction with role congruity theory, it is possible that when individuals 

categorized into marginalized racial groups engage in agentic behavior such as COCBOs, they 

are viewed negatively for doing so because that is incongruent with the behavior deemed 

acceptable for members of said group in the larger society. More research is needed to examine 

whether this is the case. 

 

 

106 

 

The Role of White Identity on Perceptions of Diversity Work and Allocation Outcomes 

 

Study 3 tested the proposed theory of devaluation of diversity work and its relationship 

with the perception and allocation outcomes (Hypotheses 4-6), examined whether the race of the 

person engaging in diversity work impacted perception and allocation outcomes (Hypothesis 7), 

and examined whether the relationship between diversity work and the outcomes was moderated 

by SDO (Hypothesis 8). Hypotheses 4 received partial support in that general contact with non-

White individuals did predict unawareness/avoidance but this was not predicted by 

colorblindness. Hypothesis 5 was supported in that both positive and negative contact with 

marginalized racial groups significantly predicted denigrative coping in the expected directions. 

Hypothesis 6 was partially supported such that individuals high on unawareness/avoidance did 

perceive the actor as less warm and competent that those low on this characteristic, though this 

characteristic did not predict allocation outcomes. Denigrative coping predicted both perception 

variables and allocation outcomes in the expected direction with the exception of the paid time 

off allocation in the regression (though it was found to be predictive in the path analysis). 

Although the original proposed model exhibited poor fit, examination of the modification indices 

presented theoretically plausible adjustments to be made, including the shift of colorblindness to 

a predictor of denigrative coping and the suggestion that the unawareness / avoidance construct 

was similar enough to the other contact measures that it too would serve better as a predictor of 

denigrative coping. Making these adjustments resulted in a well-fitting model in which the 

predictive relationships for denigrative coping mirrored the multiple regression results. These 

results provide preliminary evidence for the idea that White individual’s own racial identity 

impacts their view of people who engage in diversity work and the degree to which this work 

should be valued.  

 

107 

 

 

Counter to Hypothesis 7, the White actor was perceived as more motivated for self-

oriented reasons than the Black actor and less oriented for other-oriented reasons compared to 

actors of all other race. These results were particularly surprising given that previous research 

found that White individuals are perceived as less self-interested when advocating for diversity 

initiatives compared to Black diversity initiative advocates (Gardner & Ryan 2020) though this 

prior work was more centered around direct persuasion in favor of a diversity imitative rather 

than garnering responses about the diversity work the target completed. In the present study, it is 

possible that the White target engaging in this work was viewed less positively due to the 

perceived attempt at being a “White savior” or was viewed as opportunistically profiting from 

the heightened importance of diversity and inclusion in organizations as an attempt to get ahead. 

This assertion and the findings in the present study do align with upcoming research that 

compared White allies and Black self-advocates attending a racial justice event. This research 

found that White allies are perceived as significantly less moral, less authentic and less 

principled compared to the Black self-advocates (Ballard et al., under review). One other reason 

why this finding may have occurred in the present study may be due to the historical effects 

brought on by the sea change in racial justice following the murder of George Floyd in the 

summer of 2020. This may be particularly salient in the present study given that the Black actor 

was rated highest on mean warmth and distributive justice perceptions in terms of allocating any 

form of payment, was perceived to be the least motivated for self-oriented reasons, the most 

motivated by other-oriented reasons and was allocated the highest amount of all mean outcomes 

descriptively compared to other groups. Counter to Hypothesis 8, SDO did not moderate the 

relationship between conditions and outcomes in the present study. This suggests that 

individuals’ allocation decisions were not influenced by this particular characteristic. Future 

 

108 

 

work would do well to consider whether there are other individual differences that may influence 

differential distribution depending on the race of the person engaging in diversity work. 

Differential Findings for Fox et al., 2011 and Lee et al., 2002 AOCBOs 

 

Of note, the two measures of the same construct used in the present study yielded 

differential relationships with the outcomes. Specifically, the Fox et al. (2011) measure was 

related to outcomes and yielded relationships more frequently than the Lee et al. (2002) measure. 

Though the latter was included to ameliorate concerns about the degree to which the Fox et al. 

(2011) measure was concrete, upon reviewing the items within the Lee et al. (2002) it was 

revealed that the measure may have contained construct contamination. One item within the Lee 

et al. (2002) measure contained content that may be better characterized as challenge oriented 

OCBOs (“Offer ideas to improve the functioning of the organization”) while such content was 

removed in advance from the Fox measure. However, upon completing post hoc analyses, in 

which the item in question was removed, the results did not change. Indeed, the correlation 

between both renditions of the Lee et al., (2002) measure in which the questionable item was 

removed and the one in which it was not was almost 1 (Study 1 r = .995, Study 2 r = .991). This 

resulted in considering alternative explanations for the differences in the measures. Items within 

the Lee et al. (2002) may have asked for participant responses at a higher level of abstraction 

than the Fox et al. (2011) measure. The former asked whether an individual engaged in a 

behavior towards the whole organization rather than whether they engaged in specific behaviors 

that benefited the organization. Thus, the Lee et al., (2002) measure may have been more 

difficult to respond to given the increased level of abstraction.   

 

 

 

109 

 

Limitations and Considerations 

While the present work has contributed to knowledge surrounding the perceptions and 

allocation outcomes related to different forms of extra-role work, this study is not without 

limitations. Specifically, data in all three studies were cross-sectional and solicited self-reported 

information during a time of civil unrest and pandemic stressors, there were a limited number of 

outcomes considered in the present study, there were also a limited number of hypothesized 

moderators and the measures of White identity included in Study 3 did have a number of 

questions posed about them in the previous research literature. 

Cross-sectional data limits the ability of researchers to make causal attributions between any 

variables. Although examining the relationship between various forms of extra-role work and the 

outcomes in the present study yielded informative results, it cannot be said that predictors had a 

casual relationship on outcomes. In addition, the fact that all data were self-reported may have 

resulted in social desirability biases or other self-perception biases influencing the results. Lastly, 

these data were collected following the racial justice protests following the murder of George 

Floyd during the summer of 2020 and in the middle of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. I 

would be remiss to fail to mention that these historical effects may have impacted participant 

responses to measures and stimuli presented in this dissertation research. 

The present series of studies considered very few outcomes related to engaging in extra-role 

work. Study 2 particularly only examined the career-related outcomes of time to promotion and 

time to raise. It is highly possible that examination of other outcomes would yield different 

results. For example, more affective outcomes may have been impacted as a result of engaging in 

higher levels of diversity work. For the present studies, these outcomes were omitted from 

consideration due to the inability to distinguish affective outcomes like turnover intentions, 

 

110 

 

burnout, and job satisfaction from the history effects added by the collection of data during the 

COVID-19 pandemic which has been demarcated as a time of greater stress in general but also in 

the workplace (Kamal et al., 2020). At a later time, consideration of the relationship between 

different forms of extra-role work and affective outcomes is warranted. 

In addition, the overall effect sizes of R2 and Eta2 in the set of present studies are small (often 

~.05; Cohen, 1988), suggesting that there are many omitted additional variables to consider in 

predicting construct space in the outcomes examined. Though the goal was to examine a 

theoretically linked, parsimonious set of predictors to engage in one of the first quantitative 

investigations of diversity work, its impact on career outcomes and how it is perceived and 

valued, it is possible that parsimony resulted in excluding other relevant variables. Future studies 

could include additional measures of work behaviors such as additional facets of job 

performance to account for the additional variance that remained unexplained and consider 

whether there are other individual differences that would better predict extra-role work 

behaviors.  

These studies also examined a limited number of theoretically hypothesized moderators. It is 

possible that variables other than SDO and racial minority status impact the relationships 

between extra-role work and the outcomes examined in these studies. Indeed, through 

exploratory analyses, it was revealed that participants’ engagement in extra-role work did 

moderate some relationships in the present study. Beyond this, these studies did not examine the 

role of organizational level variables as moderators of the relationships between predictors and 

the outcomes which may have been particularly helpful in study 2. For example, the 

organization’s climate for diversity may be a particularly impactful organizational level 

moderator to consider as well as leadership support for diversity work. High quality climate for 

 

111 

 

diversity within organizations may signal that diversity and inclusion are valued and thus that 

any work conducted in service of these aims is valued (Bowen & Ostroff, 2004; Hofhuis et al., 

2016; Leslie, 2019). Thus, organizational climate for diversity may moderate the relationship 

between employee’s perceptions and the outcomes such that when said climate is good, 

individuals who engage in more diversity work would report better career outcomes (e.g., less 

time to raise and promotion) while those who engage in less diversity work would either not 

report better career outcomes or report worse when diversity climate is good. In a study of 

diversity management in the hospital setting, Dansky et al., (2003) found the degree to which 

leaders were sensitive to diversity (defined as "an organizational cognition, a mental model that 

influences how senior executives interpret the organization's environment," p. 245) influenced 

the relationship between external strategic orientation and diversity management practices such 

that leaders low on diversity-sensitive orientation were less likely to engage in good diversity 

management practices if the organization held an external strategic orientation (Dreachslin, 

2007). Thus, leadership characteristics may influence other elements of diversity and inclusion as 

well, particularly whether they support the work being done and allocate resources for this work 

and rewards for doing this work. 

 

Lastly, a number of items related to White racial identity and intergroup contact were 

questioned in terms of validity and reliability. As mentioned previously, White racial identity 

theory (Helms, 2003) has been critiqued on several fronts. One involves failing to describe the 

process through which this identity is formed and, instead, focusing on White individuals’ 

attitudes towards other racial groups (Rowe et al., 1994). Second, there has been little evidence 

supporting the statuses presented in the theory (Rowe, 2006) with four dimensions emerging 

empirically (Lee et al., 2007). Lastly, it has been critiqued for failing to contain information 

 

112 

 

related to living an anti-racist life (Miller & Fellows, 2007). Outside of the theoretical concerns, 

measures of White racial identity have historically suffered from low reliability (Choney & 

Rowe, 1994) or questions regarding the validity of available measures (Behrens, 1997; Bennett, 

Behrens, & Rowe, 1993; Choney & Rowe, 1994). For the present study, I elected to use the 

measure developed by Lee et al., (2007) after an extensive search for measures with higher 

quality psychometric characteristics. In their original study and in the present study, the measure 

exhibited sufficient reliability and there was factor analytic evidence that the two factors of 

interest were distinct. Thus, although measures of these constructs overall have been 

questionable at best, the present study made use of one of the highest quality measures available.  

Similarly, measures of intergroup contact were selected following an extensive search 

(see Lolliot et al., 2015 for discission). To measure the valanced effects of intergroup contact, 

positive and negative contact with marginalized group members were operationalized as separate 

constructs following the example of previous work in this area (Barlow et al., 2012; Pettigrew, 

2008; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2011). Similarly, a measure of general contact (neighbors, friends, and 

coworkers) was included to capture a different facet of contact. While these measures were brief 

and only accounted for participant responses with the most demographically prevalent 

marginalized racial groups in the United States, these measures did demonstrate sufficient 

reliability.  

A final measurement limitation involved the realization the measure of diversity work 

created for the present study may be best characterized as a measure of affiliation-oriented 

diversity work. When these studies were conceptualized, it was believed that diversity work 

would inherently challenge the status quo either directly by calling for change through the 

creation of organizational structures or events in order to be more inclusive for members of 

 

113 

 

marginalized groups. However, upon further reflection, the behaviors included in the measure 

seemed to align more with the conceptualization of affiliation oriented OCBOs which may have 

accounted for the relationship between diversity work and this particular form of OCBOs in the 

present study. Only after the completion of data analysis was it considered that some forms of 

diversity work would be more similar to challenge oriented OCBOs such as calling for a 

systematic change in the selection system to make procedures more inclusive or suggesting 

changes to HR reporting systems and structures designed to address discrimination in the 

workplace (see Table 2, which was created following the completion of data collection). As 

illustrated by these examples, such challenge-oriented forms of diversity work would be likely to 

(a) be more time consuming, (b) require a higher level of organizational influence and (c) be 

rarer. Individuals may more frequently have opportunities to engage in challenge-oriented 

diversity work at the individual level. For example, behaviors like challenging the perpetrators of 

discrimination or reporting perpetrators to HR would be possible at the individual level. Future 

research could continue to expand on the notion that perhaps, as with other OCBOs, diversity 

work may be both affiliative and challenge oriented. 

Future Directions 

There is a myriad of future directions that may further inform research beyond the present 

series of studies. First, future research could help elucidate additional theoretical 

conceptualizations of diversity work. Although this was post-hoc consideration, this work 

considered diversity work from the perspective of OCBOs and highlighted ways in which 

diversity work may theoretically be affiliation oriented and challenge oriented (Table 2). This 

work prepared a measure that leans heavily affiliation oriented but future research could consider 

the development of a measure of more challenge-oriented diversity work or use items from other 

 

114 

 

constructs that may best exemplify challenge-oriented diversity work behaviors. One example is 

that of the oppositional courage measure by Thoroughgood et al., (2020) which could be altered 

to measure this behavior on behalf of marginalized racial groups. This measure features 

behaviors such as: “confront prejudiced behavior toward LGBTQ+ employees, despite 

potentially significant consequences to themselves,” which could serve as challenge-oriented 

diversity work. In addition to addressing questions of measurement, future research in this vein 

could examine the relationship between the challenge-oriented diversity work and challenge 

oriented OCBOs and whether these two forms of extra-role work are perceived similarly or 

different and whether they are related to different outcomes to build upon the present study.  

As a second line of future research, considering the emotional toll of diversity work on those 

who engage in it and a specific examination of whether this toll may be particularly deleterious 

for members of underrepresented marginalized racial groups in the work environment is much 

needed. In the popular press and some research, recent articles have considered two types of tolls 

including (a) representation burnout which is defined as “the stress, fatigue and exhaustion of 

being the only person of a particular identity within a certain environment,” (Pollack, 2019) and 

(b) other forms of stressors from engaging in the work such as burnout and microaggressions in a 

sample of diversity educators (Miller et al., 2018). Very recent research presented at the 2021 

conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology did indeed find that for 

DEI professionals that role ambiguity, role conflict and subjective experiences of tokenism were 

all positively related to exhaustion and cynicism and inversely related to professional efficacy 

(Kisamore & Pemberton, 2021). Future research would do well to consider the interactive effects 

of representation burnout and engaging in diversity work to examine whether these effects 

compound and predict work outcomes such as turnover, job satisfaction and work engagement. 

 

115 

 

In addition, the consideration of the emotional toll of engaging in the work could be a fruitful 

moderator to consider for future studies on the relationship between extra-role work and career 

or job-related outcomes. Lastly, comparing the impact of extra-role work and in-role diversity 

work on emotion-related outcomes could yield additional knowledge.  

Examining the impact of engaging in diversity work longitudinally may yield useful results. 

All data in the present studies provided a cross-sectional snapshot on the influence of engaging 

in diversity work with self-reported outcomes by participants. Although outcomes were selected 

to be more objective and less impacted by the ongoing historical effects, a longitudinal 

investigation would allow researchers to examine whether there are different points in one’s 

career in which engaging in diversity work not only does not negatively impact career outcomes, 

but actually assists with career advancement. For example, an individual may be penalized for 

engaging in this work early on while those in advanced leadership positions may be viewed 

positively for engaging in some forms of affiliation-oriented diversity work (see Bolino et al., 

2013).   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

116 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONCLUSION 

 

The present investigation examined the perceptions, value and career impacts of engaging 

in extra-role work with a particular focus on how diversity work is perceived as similar to and 

different from affiliation and challenge oriented OCBOs. Through this work, it was revealed the 

diversity work is viewed similarly to affiliation oriented OCBOs, although this may be due to 

the types of diversity work considered in the present study. In addition, how White people 

conceptualize their own identity was found to impact perceptions of the person engaging in 

diversity work and the allocation outcomes. Future empirical research on the organizational 

factors influencing the value of diversity work, studies examining more specifically challenge 

oriented diversity work (e.g., reporting instances of bias and discrimination, calling out the 

perpetrator) and research considering more affective outcomes are much needed and would 

greatly contribute to this line of research. 

 

  

117 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDICES 

118 

 

Appendix A. 

Work Type Manipulations 

 
STUDY 1 
Please read the following description about work done outside of one’s work role by an 
employee in your workplace. 
 
Affiliation Oriented OCBO 
This person tends to put in extra work outside of work hours to complete a project. They 
volunteer for extra work and use their own supplies to complete work. They help new employees 
become acclimated to the work environment and will entertain company guests and out of town 
clients for the organization. They have also tried to recruit other people to come work for your 
organization. They speak well of your employer in front of others. They do all of these things 
very well. 
 
Challenge Oriented OCBO 
This person tends to speak up and make recommendations about issues at work. They get 
involved in issues that affect the quality of work life and share ideas for new projects in your 
organization. They also encourage other people to get involve in issues that affect employees. 
Even if their opinion is different from other people in your work environment, this person will 
communicate their opinion with others. They do all of these things very well. 
 
Diversity Work OCBO 
This person tends to voluntarily help design diversity training workshops and workplace events 
related to diversity and inclusion. On occasion they also lead these events. They also mentor 
employees from racial and ethnic minority groups and serve on task forces related to increasing 
inclusion in the organization. They lead career development workshops aimed at increasing 
equity for racial and ethnic minorities and actively work to recruit these individuals to your 
organization. They do all of these things very well. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

119 

 

STUDY 3 
Please read the following description about work done outside of one’s work role by an 
employee in your workplace. 

Appendix A. (cont’d) 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

120 

 

Colquitt (2001) 

Appendix B. 

Distributive Justice Subscale 

Using the scale provided, how fair do you feel it is to compensate this work that has been done 
outside of one’s work role?: “1” (to a small extent) to “5” (to a great extent) scale. 

•  Does compensating this work reflect the effort this person put into it? 
• 
•  Does compensating this work reflect what this person has contributed to the 

Is it appropriate to compensate the work that has been completed? 

• 

organization? 
Is compensating this work justified, given the performance of the person who 
completed it? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

121 

 

Appendix C. 

Diversity Work Questions2 

 

Question Stem: How often have you voluntarily done each of the following things on your 
present job?  

(“1” = Never, “2” = Rarely “3” = Sometimes, “4” Often “5” = Frequently) 

1.  Voluntarily planned or designed a diversity training event or workshop  
2.  Attended employee resource group, business resource group or affinity group meeting for 

members of racial or ethnic minorities 

3.  Voluntarily planned or designed a diversity related special event at work 
4.  Served on a diversity task force or committee 
5.  Worked on efforts related to recruiting racial or ethnic minorities to your organization 
6.  Participated as a mentor in a formal mentoring program for racial and ethnic minority 

groups at work 

7.  Actively participated in a diversity training session 
8.  Led or co-led a career development session for members of racial or ethnic minority 

groups 

9.  Led or co-led a diversity training event or workshop 
10. Led or co-led employee resource group, business resource group or affinity group 

meeting for members of racial or ethnic minorities 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 Items for making a formal company policy about commitment to diversity, creating a zero tolerance policy 
towards harassment, examining the climate for diversity and having commitment from top management to reduce 
biases were not included due to the fact that only employees in high positions would be likely to have the option 
to engage in these behaviors. Participation in a formal mentoring program was included because formal mentoring 
could be an organization level initiative. 

 

122 

 

 

Appendix D. 

Affiliation-Oriented OCBO Measures 

Fox & Spector 2011 

Question Stem: How often have you done each of the following things on your present job?  

(“1” = Never, “2” = Once or Twice, “3” = Once or Twice Per Month, “4” Once or Twice Per 
Week “5” = Every Day) 

Items 5 and 6 appear to be challenge items so they were removed from this measure for the 
purposes of this dissertation. 

 

 

1.  Drove, escorted, or entertained company guests, clients, or out-of-town employees. 
2.  Helped co-worker learn new skills or shared job knowledge. 
3.  Helped new employees get oriented to the job. 
4.  Used own vehicle, supplies or equipment for employer’s business. 
5.  Came in early or stayed late without pay to complete a project or task. 
6.  Volunteered for extra work assignments. 
7.  Tried to recruit a person to work for your employer. 
8.  Worked weekends or other days off to complete a project or task. 
9.  Brought work home to prepare for next day. 
10. Volunteered to attend meetings or work on committees on own time. 
11. Said good things about your employer in front of others. 
12. Gave up meals and other breaks to complete work. 
13. Volunteered to work at after-hours or out-of-town events. 

Lee et al., 2002 

Question Stem: How often do you engage in each of the behaviors listed below with respect to 
your place of work?  

(“1” = Never, “7” = Always) 

1.  Attend functions that are not required but that help the organizational image. 
2.  Keep up with developments in the organization. 
3.  Defend the organization when other employees criticize it. 
4.  Show pride when representing the organization in public. 
5.  Offer ideas to improve the functioning of the organization. 
6.  Express loyalty toward the organization. 
7.  Take action to protect the organization from potential problems. 
8.  Demonstrate concern about the image of the organization. 

 

123 

 

LePine & Van Dyne (1998) 

Question Stem: At work I… 

Appendix E. 

Challenge Oriented OCBO Measure 

 

“1” (Strongly Disagree) to “7” (Strongly Agree) response options 

1.  Develop and make recommendations concerning issues that affect my work group 
2.  Speak up and encourage others in the work group to get involved in issues that affect the 

group 

3.  Communicate my opinions about work issues to others in my work group even if my 

opinion is different and others in the group disagree with me 

4.  Keep well informed about issues where my opinion may be useful to my work group 
5.  Get involved in issues that affect the quality of work life in my work group 
6.  Speak up in my work group with ideas for new projects or changes in procedures 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

124 

 

 

Pratto et al., 1994 

 

Appendix F. 

Social Dominance Orientation Scale 

Instructions: “Which of the following objects or statements do you have a positive or negative 
feeling towards? Beside each object or statement, select a number from '1' to '7' which represents 
the degree of your positive or negative feeling." The scale was labeled very 
positive (7), positive (6), slightly positive (5), neither positive nor negative (4), slightly 
negative (3), negative (2), and very negative (1). 

 

1. Some groups of people are simply inferior to other groups. 

2. In getting what you want, it is sometimes necessary to use force against other groups. 

3. It's OK if some groups have more of a chance in life than others. 

4. To get ahead in life, it is sometimes necessary to step on other groups. 

5. If certain groups stayed in their place, we would have fewer problems. 

6. It's probably a good thing that certain groups are at the top and other groups are at the bottom. 

7. Inferior groups should stay in their place. 

8. Sometimes other groups must be kept in their place. 

9. It would be good if groups could be equal. 

10. Group equality should be our ideal. 

11. All groups should be given an equal chance in life. 

12. We should do what we can to equalize conditions for different groups. 

13. Increased social equality is beneficial to society. 

14. We would have fewer problems if we treated people more equally. 

15. We should strive to make incomes as equal as possible. 

16. No one group should dominate in society. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

125 

 

Appendix G. 

Demographic and Work Background Questions 

 

Have there been any changes in your normal work due to the pandemic?  

•  Yes, I have a new job/place of employment 
•  Yes, my hours have increased 
•  Yes, my hours have decreased 
•  Yes, I am currently working from home when I was not before 
•  No, there have not been any changes in my work 

 
Did you participate in any marches or public protests related to racial injustices?    

•  Yes 
•  No 

Did you participate in any of the following activities after the rise of public protests (June-
Present)? 

•  Posted on social media my views regarding these events 
•  Engaged in discussions with family and friends regarding these events 
•  Read books or other material regarding racism 
•  Donated to racial justice organizations 
•  Volunteering in racial justice organizations 

 
What is your age in years? (please type your answer below) 
 
How would you describe your gender identity? 

•  Man 
•  Woman 
•  Transgender Man 
•  Transgender Woman 
•  Nonbinary 
•  Not Listed (please specify if you prefer) ____________________ 
•  Prefer not to answer 

 
Which of these categories best describe you?  

•  Lesbian 
•  Gay 
•  Bisexual 
•  Pansexual 
•  Asexual 
•  Not Listed (please specify if you prefer) _________________ 
•  Prefer not to answer 

 

126 

 

Which of these categories best describe you (select all that apply)? 

•  American Indian or Native Alaskan 
•  Asian (Far East, North Asia, Southeast Asia, and the Indian subcontinent) 
•  African American, Black, Afro-Caribbean, African  
•  Hispanic or Latino or Spanish Origin of any race 
•  Middle Eastern (Middle East, North Africa) 
•  White (Western, Eastern, Northern and Southern Europe; any European Heritage) 
•  Multi-racial 
•  Not Listed (please specify if you prefer) _____________________ 

 
Which the following statements best describes the characteristics of others in your workplace: 

•  Most people in my workplace share my racial or ethnic background 
•  Most people in my workplace do NOT share my racial or ethnic background 

Do you work part-time or full-time? 

•  Part-Time (20 hours a week) 
•  Full-Time (35+ hours per week) 
•  Unemployed 

 
How many hours do you work per week? 

• 

Fill in the blank 

Which industry do you work in? 
How long have you worked at your current job (in years)? 
How long have you worked in your current industry (in years)? 
 
During the last three months, what percentage of your work has been working remotely?    

•  Less than 10% 
•  10% 
•  20% 
•  30% 
•  40% 
•  50% 
•  60% 
•  70% 
•  80% 
•  90% 
•  100% 

What is your total household income? 

• 
• 

 Less than $10,000 
$10,000 to $19,999 

 

127 

 

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

$20,000 to $29,999 
$30,000 to $39,999 
$40,000 to $49,999 
$50,000 to $59,999 
$60,000 to $69,999 
$70,000 to $79,999 
$80,000 to $89,999 
$90,000 to $99,999 
$100,000 to $149,999 
$150,000 or more 

 
Education- What is the highest degree or level of school you have completed? If currently 
enrolled, highest degree received. 

Some high school, no diploma 

Some college credit, no degree 

•  No schooling completed 
•  Elementary to 8th grade 
• 
•  High school graduate, diploma or the equivalent (for example: GED) 
• 
•  Trade/technical/vocational training 
•  Associate degree 
•  Bachelor’s degree 
•  Master’s degree 
• 
•  Doctorate degree 

Professional degree 

 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

128 

 

Appendix H. 

Qualification and Attention Checks 

Attention checks included in longer item sets like OCBO checklist items, Voice questions and 
SDO. 

•  “Please select “2” to show you are paying attention 
•  “Please select “7” to show that you are paying attention 
•  “Please select “3” to show that you are paying attention 

Qualification check questions 

•  OCB content drawn from Podsakoff et al., 2014 

o  Some people engage in behaviors in their workplaces that are not part of their job. 
Please read the following descriptions and indicate whether you engage in any of 
the following behaviors OUTSIDE of your official role while at work: 

Voluntarily helping others with or preventing problems at work (like altruism 
or kindness, courtesy, peacekeeping and cheerleading) 
Making innovative suggestions for change and recommending modifications 
to standard procedures even when others disagree 
Engaging in work related to increasing diversity and inclusion 
▪ 
▪ 

I engage in more than one of these behaviors 
I engage in none of these behaviors 

•  You mentioned that you engaged in the following behavior(s)  

o  [behavior will be piped in via Qualtrics piped text] 
o  Please provide a specific example of a time you engaged in this behavior at work 

(1-2 sentences required). 

•  Where did you engage in the behaviors you just described? 

o  School 
o  Home 
o  Work 
o  Another place 

•  Do you work in a role that specializes in diversity, equity or inclusion (DEI)? 

o  Yes 
o  No 

Pre-screening questions 

•  Have you lived outside of the U.S. for the past 5 years? (R) 
•  Please select the option that best describes your fluency with regard to the English 

language. 

•  Are you 18 years of age or older? 
•  Do you work more than 30 hours a week? 
•  Are you a robot? 
•  Are you self-employed? 

129 

 

 

 

 

Appendix I. 

Informed Consent Form for All Studies 

 

STUDY 1 CONSENT FORM 
 

Research Participant Information and Consent Form 

 
 
Study Title: Examining the Effects of Engaging in Extra-Role Work in Organizations 
Researcher and Title: Lauren Collier, Graduate Student, Ann Marie Ryan, PhD 
Department and Institution: Psychology, Michigan State University  
Contact Information: colli719@msu.edu 
Sponsor: None 
 
BRIEF SUMMARY  
You  are  being  asked  to  participate  in  a  research  study.  Researchers  are  required  to  provide  a 
consent form to inform you about the research study, to convey that participation is voluntary, to 
explain  risks  and  benefits  of  participation  including  why  you  might  or  might  not  want  to 
participate, and to empower you to make an informed decision. You should feel free to discuss 
and ask the researchers any questions you may have.  
 
You are being asked to participate in a research study of work done in addition to one’s formal 
job role in organizations. Your participation in this study will take about 10 minutes You will be 
randomly assigned to view a description of work done outside of one’s official work role and to 
share your perceptions of this work and what types of things you feel should be given to 
individuals who do this work. We will also ask you to answer questions about your personality 
and demographics. 
 
The most likely risks of participating in this study are minimal in that we are only asking you about 
your perceptions of positive extra-role work like helping others and speaking up to improve things 
in your organization.  
 
You will not directly benefit from your participation in this study. However, your participation in 
this study may contribute to the understanding more about perceptions of extra-role work, what 
people receive for this work and what people feel that this work is worth in organizations. 
 
PURPOSE OF RESEARCH 
The purpose of this research study is to learn more about the work people do that is not part of 
their work role in the organization. 
 
WHAT YOU WILL BE ASKED TO DO 
After you read this form, and if you agree with its contents, you will be forwarded on to the main 
study. In this study, you will be randomly assigned to view a description of work done outside of 
one’s official organizational role to help the organization. We will then ask you to answer 
questions about your perceptions of this work and what you feel an individual who does this 
work should receive or not receive for doing this work We will then ask you questions about 

 

 

 

130 

 

 

your personality. Lastly, we will ask you questions about your demographic information and 
work background before providing a final page of the survey with information about our study 
and additional resources for you if you would like to learn more about research in this area. You 
are free to skip any questions and participation is only expected to be 10 minutes. 
 
 
POTENTIAL BENEFITS            
You may not benefit personally from being in this study. However, we hope that, in the future, 
other people might benefit from this study because this research will help us learn more about 
what positive work done in addition to one’s official role is worth. 
POTENTIAL RISKS                        
There are no foreseeable risks to participating in this study. 
 
PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY 
This study is confidential. Although we collect your MTurk ID for the purposes of compensating 
you, after data collection is completed your ID will be removed from your responses. 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. 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. 
 
YOUR RIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE, SAY NO, OR WITHDRAW    
You have the right to say no to participate in the research. You can stop at any time after it has 
already started. There will be no consequences if you stop and you will not be criticized. You 
will not lose any benefits that you normally receive. 
 
COSTS AND COMPENSATION FOR BEING IN THE STUDY 
There are no costs to participating in this study. Participants who meet the qualifications will 
receive $1.90 for participation in this 10-minute study. This exceeds the minimum wage for work 
in the State of Michigan. To be sure that work is compensated fairly we review responses to 
make sure that participants qualify for the study and provide quality responses. Reasons why a 
participant would not receive compensation are outline below Please read them thoroughly to 
decide whether you would like to participate in the study. 
 
Compensation Rules (PLEASE READ) 
  
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. 

 

 

131 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

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 your survey responses include poor quantitative (bubbles) responses, we cannot 
compensate you for your participation. Poor quality quantitative responses include, but 
are not limited to, selecting the same numerical answer choice over and over again (e.g., 
3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3) and answering in a way that does not make psychological sense 
given the questions asked. 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. 

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. 

 
FUTURE RESEARCH  
Your Mturk ID is collected as part of the research to help us compensate you and to be sure you 
qualify for the study. This information that identifies you will be removed immediately following 
data collection and will not be used or distributed for future research studies. 
 
 
CONTACT INFORMATION  
If you have concerns or questions about this study, such as scientific issues, how to do any part 
of it, or to report an injury, please contact the researcher (Lauren Collier: 316 Psychology Rd, 
Room 262, East Lansing, MI 48824, colli719@msu.edu). 
 
If you have questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant, would like 
to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this study, you 
may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University’s Human Research 
Protection Program at 517-355-2180, Fax 517-432-4503, or e-mail irb@msu.edu or regular mail 
at 4000 Collins Rd, Suite 136, Lansing, MI 48910. 
 
DOCUMENTATION OF INFORMED CONSENT. 
 

 

 

132 

 

Selecting “I Agree” and entering today’s date below means that you voluntarily agree to 
participate in this research study. If you do not agree, please exit out of this tab in your browser 
at this time.   
I Agree 
 
 
Date_____________________________ 
You will be given a copy of this form to keep. Please email Lauren Collier at colli719@msu.edu 
for a copy of this form. 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

STUDY 2 CONSENT FORM 
 

Research Participant Information and Consent Form 

 
 
Study Title: Examining the Effects of Engaging in Extra-Role Work in Organizations 
Researcher and Title: Lauren Collier, Graduate Student, Ann Marie Ryan, PhD 
Department and Institution: Psychology, Michigan State University  
Contact Information: colli719@msu.edu 
Sponsor: None 
 
BRIEF SUMMARY  
You  are  being  asked  to  participate  in  a  research  study.  Researchers  are  required  to  provide  a 
consent form to inform you about the research study, to convey that participation is voluntary, to 
explain  risks  and  benefits  of  participation  including  why  you  might  or  might  not  want  to 
participate, and to empower you to make an informed decision. You should feel free to discuss 
and ask the researchers any questions you may have.  
 
You are being asked to participate in a research study of work done in addition to one’s formal 
job role in organizations. Your participation in this study will take about 12 minutes You will be 
asked to share about work you do in addition to your official work role and whether you have 
been compensated for this work over the course of this survey and answer questions about your 
personality and demographics. 
 
The most likely risks of participating in this study are minimal in that we are only asking you about 
your perceptions of positive extra-role work like helping others and speaking up to improve things 
in your organization.  
 
You will not directly benefit from your participation in this study. However, your participation in 
this study may contribute to the understanding more about perceptions of extra-role work, what 
people receive for this work and what people feel that this work is worth in organizations. 
 
PURPOSE OF RESEARCH 
The purpose of this research study is to learn more about the work people do that is not part of 
their work role in the organization. 
 

 

 

133 

 

 

 

WHAT YOU WILL BE ASKED TO DO 
After you read this form, and if you agree with its contents, you will be forwarded on to the main 
study. In this study, you will be asked to share information about the work you do that is outside 
of your official work role and describe how you feel about this work. We will then ask you 
questions about any career-related positive events that have occurred and about how you feel 
about your job overall. Lastly, we will ask you questions about your demographic information 
and work background before providing a final page of the survey with information about our 
study and additional resources for you if you would like to learn more about research in this area. 
You are free to skip any questions and participation is only expected to be 12 minutes. 
 
 
POTENTIAL BENEFITS            
You may not benefit personally from being in this study. However, we hope that, in the future, 
other people might benefit from this study because this research will help us learn more about 
what positive work done in addition to one’s official role is worth. 
 
POTENTIAL RISKS                        
There are no foreseeable risks to participating in this study. 
 
PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY 
This study is confidential. Although we collect your MTurk ID for the purposes of compensating 
you, after data collection is completed your ID will be removed from your responses. 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. 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. 
 
YOUR RIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE, SAY NO, OR WITHDRAW    
You have the right to say no to participate in the research. You can stop at any time after it has 
already started. There will be no consequences if you stop and you will not be criticized. You 
will not lose any benefits that you normally receive. 
 
COSTS AND COMPENSATION FOR BEING IN THE STUDY 
There are no costs to participating in this study. Participants who meet the qualifications will 
receive $1.90 for participation in this 12-minute study. This exceeds the minimum wage for work 
in the State of Michigan. To be sure that work is compensated fairly we review responses to 
make sure that participants qualify for the study and provide quality responses. Reasons why a 
participant would not receive compensation are outline below Please read them thoroughly to 
decide whether you would like to participate in the study. 
 
Compensation Rules (PLEASE READ) 
  
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: 

    

 

134 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

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 your survey responses include poor quantitative (bubbles) responses, we cannot 
compensate you for your participation. Poor quality quantitative responses include, but 
are not limited to, selecting the same numerical answer choice over and over again (e.g., 
3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3) and answering in a way that does not make psychological sense 
given the questions asked. 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. 

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. 

 
FUTURE RESEARCH  
Your Mturk ID is collected as part of the research to help us compensate you and to be sure you 
qualify for the study. This information that identifies you will be removed immediately following 
data collection and will not be used or distributed for future research studies. 
 
 
CONTACT INFORMATION  
If you have concerns or questions about this study, such as scientific issues, how to do any part 
of it, or to report an injury, please contact the researcher (Lauren Collier: 316 Psychology Rd, 
Room 262, East Lansing, MI 48824, colli719@msu.edu). 
 
If you have questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant, would like 
to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this study, you 
may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University’s Human Research 

 

 

135 

 

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. 
 
DOCUMENTATION OF INFORMED CONSENT. 
 
Selecting “I Agree” and entering today’s date below means that you voluntarily agree to 
participate in this research study. If you do not agree, please exit out of this tab in your browser 
at this time.   
I Agree 
 
 
Date_____________________________ 
You will be given a copy of this form to keep. Please email Lauren Collier at colli719@msu.edu 
for a copy of this form. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

STUDY 3 CONSENT FORM 
 

Research Participant Information and Consent Form 

 
 
Study Title: Examining the Effects of Engaging in Extra-Role Work in Organizations 
Researcher and Title: Lauren Collier, Graduate Student, Ann Marie Ryan, PhD 
Department and Institution: Psychology, Michigan State University  
Contact Information: colli719@msu.edu 
Sponsor: None 
 
BRIEF SUMMARY  
You  are  being  asked  to  participate  in  a  research  study.  Researchers  are  required  to  provide  a 
consent form to inform you about the research study, to convey that participation is voluntary, to 
explain  risks  and  benefits  of  participation  including  why  you  might  or  might  not  want  to 
participate, and to empower you to make an informed decision. You should feel free to discuss 
and ask the researchers any questions you may have.  
 
You are being asked to participate in a research study of work done in addition to one’s formal 
job role in organizations. Your participation in this study will take about 15 minutes You will be 
randomly assigned to view a description of work done outside of one’s official work role and to 
share your perceptions of this work, the person doing the work and what types of things you feel 
should be given to individuals who do this work. We will also ask you to answer questions about 
your personality and demographics. 
 
The most likely risks of participating in this study are minimal in that we are only asking you about 
your perceptions of positive extra-role work like helping others and speaking up to improve things 
in your organization.  
 
You will not directly benefit from your participation in this study. However, your participation in 
this study may contribute to the understanding more about perceptions of extra-role work, what 
people receive for this work and what people feel that this work is worth in organizations. 
 

 

136 

 

 

 

PURPOSE OF RESEARCH 
The purpose of this research study is to learn more about the work people do that is not part of 
their work role in the organization. 
 
WHAT YOU WILL BE ASKED TO DO 
After you read this form, and if you agree with its contents, you will be forwarded on to the main 
study. In this study, you will be randomly assigned to view a description of work done outside of 
one’s official organizational role to help the organization. We will then ask you to answer 
questions about your perceptions of this work, the person who does the work and what you feel 
an individual who does this work should receive or not receive for doing this work We will then 
ask you questions about your personality. Lastly, we will ask you questions about your 
demographic information and work background before providing a final page of the survey with 
information about our study and additional resources for you if you would like to learn more 
about research in this area. You are free to skip any questions and participation is only expected 
to be 15 minutes. 
 
POTENTIAL BENEFITS            
You may not benefit personally from being in this study. However, we hope that, in the future, 
other people might benefit from this study because this research will help us learn more about 
what positive work done in addition to one’s official role is worth. 
POTENTIAL RISKS                        
There are no foreseeable risks to participating in this study. 
 
PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY 
This study is confidential. Although we collect your MTurk ID for the purposes of compensating 
you, after data collection is completed your ID will be removed from your responses. 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. 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. 
 
YOUR RIGHTS TO PARTICIPATE, SAY NO, OR WITHDRAW    
You have the right to say no to participate in the research. You can stop at any time after it has 
already started. There will be no consequences if you stop and you will not be criticized. You 
will not lose any benefits that you normally receive. 
 
COSTS AND COMPENSATION FOR BEING IN THE STUDY 
There are no costs to participating in this study. Participants who meet the qualifications will 
receive $2.40 for participation in this 15-minute study. This exceeds the minimum wage for work 
in the State of Michigan. To be sure that work is compensated fairly we review responses to 
make sure that participants qualify for the study and provide quality responses. Reasons why a 
participant would not receive compensation are outline below Please read them thoroughly to 
decide whether you would like to participate in the study. 
 
Compensation Rules (PLEASE READ) 
  

    

 

 

137 

 

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 your survey responses include poor quantitative (bubbles) responses, we cannot 
compensate you for your participation. Poor quality quantitative responses include, but 
are not limited to, selecting the same numerical answer choice over and over again (e.g., 
3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3) and answering in a way that does not make psychological sense 
given the questions asked. 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. 

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. 

 
FUTURE RESEARCH  
Your Mturk ID is collected as part of the research to help us compensate you and to be sure you 
qualify for the study. This information that identifies you will be removed immediately following 
data collection and will not be used or distributed for future research studies. 
 
 
CONTACT INFORMATION  
If you have concerns or questions about this study, such as scientific issues, how to do any part 
of it, or to report an injury, please contact the researcher (Lauren Collier: 316 Psychology Rd, 
Room 262, East Lansing, MI 48824, colli719@msu.edu). 

 

 

138 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you have questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant, would like 
to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this study, you 
may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University’s Human Research 
Protection Program at 517-355-2180, Fax 517-432-4503, or e-mail irb@msu.edu or regular mail 
at 4000 Collins Rd, Suite 136, Lansing, MI 48910. 
 
DOCUMENTATION OF INFORMED CONSENT. 
 
Selecting “I Agree” and entering today’s date below means that you voluntarily agree to 
participate in this research study. If you do not agree, please exit out of this tab in your browser 
at this time.   
I Agree 
 
 
Date_____________________________ 
You will be given a copy of this form to keep. Please email Lauren Collier at colli719@msu.edu 
for a copy of this form. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

139 

 

Appendix J. 

Debriefing Form for All Studies 

 

Debriefing Form  

 

Thank you for participating in our study. This form is designed to provide you with information 
about the purpose and importance of this study. 
  
The purpose of this study was to learn more about compensation individuals receive for engaging 
in different types of work that are not part of their formal job roles. In some industries this is 
referred to as service work, organizational citizenship behaviors or helping behaviors. We also 
wanted to learn what people felt would be fair to compensate people for this work or if any 
compensation would be considered fair.  
 
To read more about how work of this type has been discussed, please see the websites below: 
•  https://hbr.org/2018/07/why-women-volunteer-for-tasks-that-dont-lead-to-promotions 
•  https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/27/why-women-should-stop-volunteering-for-non-

promotable-tasks-at-work.html 

•  https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/12/business/corporate-diversity-black-employees.html 

 
The experimental design was relatively straightforward and is of the type often encountered in 
psychological research. Although there are no or few projected risks for participants completing 
this study, we wanted to provide additional resources that can be found below: 
  

American Psychological Association: Coping with Workplace Stress 
CDC: How to Cope with Job Stress During the COVID-19 Pandemic 

National suicide hotline (phone: 1-800-273-8255) 

Emergency number (phone: 911) 

 

Additionally, if you have questions or concerns regarding this study, please do not hesitate to 
contact the investigators. Additionally, if you would like more information about the study or 
have further questions about it, please feel free to contact: 
  
Lauren Collier, Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, 
e-mail: colli719@msu.edu. 
  

OR 

  
Ann Marie Ryan, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 
MI 48824, phone: 517-355-0203, e-mail: ryanan@msu.edu 
  
 

 

 

 

 

140 

 

 

Appendix K. 

Months Since Last Raise and Promotion  

Instructions: Please type your answers to the following questions into the blanks below. 

•  How many months has it been since your last raise at work? 
•  How many months has it been since your last promotion? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

141 

 

Lee et al., (2007) 

White Racial Consciousness Development Scale Revised 

Appendix L. 

 

Choose the response option that most fits you or your experience. 1 = Strongly Disagree (SD); 2 
= Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; and, 5 = Strongly Agree (SA). 

1.  I have had little or no contact with Non-White individuals other than seeing them at 

work.  

2.  Non-White individuals should not be allowed to continue in school unless able to 

perform at the same level as Whites.  

3.  I greatly enjoy cross-racial (involving Non-White and White individuals together) 

activities and I try to participate in them often.  

4.  Reverse discrimination is a big problem for White individuals in America. 
5.  I do not understand why Non-White individuals are so resentful of White people. 
6.  I am afraid that minorities are taking over American society.  
7.  I have lived in close proximity to Non-White individuals. 
8.  Non-White individuals have brought many of their problems on themselves.  
9.  I have Non-White friends.  
10. Non-White individuals are responsible for their lot in life.  
11.  The past was a long time ago, Non-White people should just get over it.  
12. I have never had much contact with Non-White individuals. 
13. Racism continues because Non-White individuals people dwell on the past.  
14. In America, people pretty much decide their own fate.  
15. I would feel uncomfortable living near Non-White individuals.  
16. If Non-White individuals weren’t so lazy, they wouldn’t be in the position they’re in.  
17. There are more Non-White individuals on welfare than Whites. 
18. I do not have any Non-White friends.  
19. Affirmative action is just reverse discrimination. 
20. If Non-White people wanted to change things, they could take action themselves.  
21. I feel comfortable when I am in close contact with Non-White people.  
22. Non-White individuals must get over the past so that we can move on.  

 

142 

 

Appendix M. 

Intergroup Contact Quantity Scale 

 

Islam & Hewstone (1993) 

Instructions: Please answer the questions provided honestly and accurately. 

Scaled from “1” = none at all to “7” = a great deal 

 

How much contact do you have with Asian people? 

1.  At work 
2.  As neighbors 
3.  As close friends 

How much contact do you have with Black people? 

1.  At work 
2.  As neighbors 
3.  As close friends 

How much contact do you have with Hispanic or Latinx people? 

1.  At work 
2.  As neighbors 
3.  As close friends 

How much contact do you have with White people? 

1.  At work 
2.  As neighbors 
3.  As close friends 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

143 

 

 

Appendix N. 

Valanced Intergroup Contact Measure3 

Barlow et al., (2012) 

Instructions: Please answer the questions provided honestly and accurately. 

Scaled from “1” Never to “7” Extremely Frequently 

1.  On average, how often do you have negative or bad contact with Asian people?  
2.  On average, how often do you have positive or good contact with Asian people? 
3.  On average, how often do you have negative or bad contact with Black people?  
4.  On average, how often do you have positive or good contact with Black people? 
5.  On average, how often do you have negative or bad contact with Hispanic or Latinx 

people?  

6.  On average, how often do you have positive or good contact with Hispanic or Latinx 

people? 

7.  On average, how often do you have negative or bad contact with White people?  
8.  On average, how often do you have positive or good contact with White people? 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 These items will assess global perceptions toward statistically prevalent marginalized racial groups in America as 
well as White people and may thus not be reflective of actual contact but rather perceived contact from the 
perspective of the participant. 

 

144 

 

 

Appendix O. 

Measure of Perceived Self Interest 

Adapted from Gerbasi & Prentice (2013) and Tseng & Fan (2011) 

Instructions: Please respond to the following statements openly and honestly. 

Scaled from “1” Strongly Disagree to “5” Strongly Agree 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.  This person is looking for opportunities to achieve higher social status. 
2.  This person is looking for ways to get ahead. 
3.  This person is keeping an eye out for his/her interests. 
4.  This person, by and large, is pursuing his/her own interest. 
5.  This person is protecting his/her own interests above other considerations. 
6.  This person is acting self-interestedly. 

145 

 

 

Appendix P.  

Collective Self-Esteem Scale 

Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992 

Instructions: We are all members of different social groups or social categories. For the 
following questions, we would like you to consider your membership in your racial or ethnic 
group and respond to the following statements on the basis of how you feel about that group and 
your membership in that group. There are no right or wrong answers to any of these statements; 
we are interested in your honest reactions and opinions. 

Scaled from “1” Strongly Disagree to “7” Strongly Agree 

1.  I am a worthy member of the social group I belong to. 
2.  I often regret that I belong to the social group I do. 
3.  Overall, my social group is considered good by others. 
4.  Overall, my group membership has very little to do with how I feel about myself. 
5.  I feel I don't have much to offer to the social group I belong to. 
6.  In general, I'm glad to be a member of the social group I belong to. 
7.  Most people consider my social group, on the average, to be more ineffective than other 

social groups. 

8.  The social group I belong to is an important reflection of who I am. 
9.  I am a cooperative participant in the social group I belong to. 
10. Overall, I often feel that the social group of which I am a member is not worthwhile. 
11. In general, others respect the social group that I am a member of. 
12. The social group I belong to is unimportant to my sense of what kind of a person I am. 
13. I often feel I'm a useless member of my social group. 
14. I feel good about the social group I belong to. 
15. In general, others think that the social group I am a member of is unworthy. 
16. In general, belonging to my social group is an important part of my self image. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

146 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REFERENCES 

147 

 

 

 

REFERENCES 

Ahmed, S. (2012). On Being Included: Racism and Diversity in Institutional Life. 

https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822395324 

 
Allen, T. D. (2012). The work and family interface. In The Oxford handbook of organizational 

psychology, Vol. 2. (pp. 1163–1198). Oxford University Press. 

 
Allen, T. D., & Jang, S. “Rachel.” (2018, August 25). Gender and organizational citizenship 

behavior. The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Citizenship Behavior. 
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190219000.013.12 

 
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice (pp. xviii, 537). Addison-Wesley. 
 
Ashburn-Nardo, L., Morris, K. A., & Goodwin, S. A. (2008). The confronting prejudiced 
responses (CPR) model: Applying CPR in organizations. Academy of Management 
Learning & Education, 7(3), 332–342. 

 
Ballard, Collier-Spruel, Luke, Hawkins, Hamza, & Fleeson (under review) Judging intentions 

for racial justice civic engagement across racial in- and out-groups: Do “allies” get judged 
positively? 

 
Barlow, F. K., Paolini, S., Pedersen, A., Hornsey, M. J., Radke, H. R. M., Harwood, J., Rubin, 

M., & Sibley, C. G. (2012). The contact caveat: Negative contact predicts increased 
prejudice more than positive contact predicts reduced prejudice. Personality and Social 
Psychology Bulletin, 38(12), 1629–1643. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212457953 

 
Behrens, J. T., & Rowe, W. (1997). Measuring white racial identity: A reply to Helms (1997). 

Journal of Counseling Psychology, 44(1), 17–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
0167.44.1.17 

 
Bell, M. P., Quick, J. C., & Cycyota, C. S. (2002). Assessment and prevention of sexual 

harassment of employees: An applied guide to creating healthy organizations. 
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10(1–2), 160–167. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00203 

 
Bennett, E. K., Behrens, J. T., & Rowe, W. (1993, August). The White Racial Identity Scale: 

Validity and factor structure. Paper presented at the meeting of the American 
Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada 

 
Bergeron, D. M., Shipp, A. J., Rosen, B., & Furst, S. A. (2013). Organizational citizenship 

behavior and career outcomes: The cost of being a good citizen. Journal of Management, 
39(4), 958–984. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311407508 

 

 

148 

 

Branscombe, N. R., Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (1999). The context and content of 

social identity threat. In Social identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 35–58). 
Blackwell Science. 

 
Branscombe, N. R., Schiffhauer, K., & Valencia, L. (1998). Effects of thinking about White 

privilege or disadvantage and degree of White racial identification for feelings about the 
ingroup and outgroup. Un-published manuscript, University of Kansas, Lawrence 

 
Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press. 
 
Bolino, M. C., Klotz, A. C., Turnley, W. H., & Harvey, J. (2013). Exploring the dark side of 

organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(4), 542–559. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1847 

 
Burley, K. M., & Lessig, L. R. (1999). Supervisors, employees and harassment. Human 
Resource Professional, 12, 28–32. 
 
Campbell, K. M., & Rodríguez, J. E. (2019). Addressing the minority tax: Perspectives from 

two diversity leaders on building minority faculty success in academic medicine. 
Academic Medicine, 94(12), 1854–1857. 
https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000002839 

 
Card, D., Mas, A., Moretti, E., & Saez, E. (2012). Inequality at work: The effect of peer salaries 

on job satisfaction. American Economic Review, 102(6), 2981–3003. 
https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.102.6.2981 

 
Caruso, E., & Pandya, A. (2020, October 6). How to use diversity inclusion task force | 

HRExecutive.com. Human Resource Executive. https://hrexecutive.com/so-you-set-up-a-
dei-task-force-now-what/ 

 
Chattopadhyay, P., Tluchowska, M., & George, E. (2004). Identifying the ingroup: A closer 

look at the influence of demographic dissimilarity on employee social identity. Academy 
of Management Review, 29(2), 180–202. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2004.12736071 

 
Choney, S. K., & Rowe, W. (1994). Assessing White racial identity: The White racial 

consciousness development scale (WRCDS). Journal of Counseling & Development, 
73(1), 102–104. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.1994.tb01718.x 

 
Clark, A. E., & Oswald, A. J. (1996). Satisfaction and comparison income. Journal of Public 

Economics, 61(3), 359–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2727(95)01564-7 

 
Cohen J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York, NY: 

Routledge Academic. 

 
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of 

a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386–400. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.86.3.386 

 

 

149 

 

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. Journal of Personality 
and Social Psychology, 88(2), 276–287. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.2.276 

 
De Dreu, C. K. W., & West, M. A. (2001). Minority dissent and team innovation: The 

importance of participation in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 
1191–1201. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.6.1191 

 
Doane, A. W., & Bonilla-Silva, E. (2003). White out: The continuing significance of racism. 

Psychology Press. 

 
Dobbin, F., & Kalev, A. (2013). The origins and effects of corporate diversity programs. In Q. 

M. Roberson, (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of diversity and work (pp. 253–281). New 
York, NY: Oxford University Press. 

 
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1975). An attribution analysis of the effect of communicator 

characteristics on opinion change: The case of communicator attractiveness. Journal of 
Personality and Social Psychology, 32(1), 136–144. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076850 

 
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. 

Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.109.3.573 

 
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2012). Social role theory. In Handbook of theories of social 

psychology, Vol. 2 (pp. 458–476). Sage Publications Ltd. 
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249222.n49 

 
Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Chaiken, S. (1978). Causal inferences about communicators and 

their effect on opinion change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(4), 424–
435. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.4.424 

 
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. 
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035403 

 
Farh, J.-L., Lee, C., & Farh, C. I. C. (2010). Task conflict and team creativity: A question of 

how much and when. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(6), 1173–1180. 
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020015 

 
Farrell, S. K., & Finkelstein, L. M. (2007). Organizational citizenship behavior and gender: 

Expectations and attributions for performance. North American Journal of Psychology, 
9(1), 81–95. 

 
Fay, D., & Frese, M. (2001). The concept of personal initiative: An overview of validity studies. 

Human Performance, 14(1), 97–124. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327043HUP1401_06 

 

 

150 

 

 

 

Felps, W., Mitchell, T. R., Hekman, D. R., Lee, T. W., Holtom, B. C., & Harman, W. S. (2009). 

Turnover contagion: How coworkers’ job embeddedness and job Search behaviors 
influence quitting. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 545–561. 
https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.41331075 

 
Fernandez, R. M., & Greenberg, J. (2013). Race, network hiring, and statistical discrimination. 

In S. Mcdonald (Ed.), Networks, Work and Inequality (Vol. 24, pp. 81–102). Emerald 
Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0277-2833(2013)0000024007 

 
Fiske, S., Cuddy, A., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: 

Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. 
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902. 
https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.82.6.878 

 
Fox, S., Spector, P. E., Goh, A., Bruursema, K., & Kessler, S. R. (2012). The deviant citizen: 

Measuring potential positive relations between counterproductive work behaviour and 
organizational citizenship behaviour. Journal of Occupational and Organizational 
Psychology, 85(1), 199–220. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.2011.02032.x 

 
Friedman, G. (2020, August 23). Here’s what companies Are promising to do to fight racism. 
The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/article/companies-racism-george-floyd-
protests.html 

 
Gerbasi, M. E., & Prentice, D. A. (2013). The self- and other-interest inventory. Journal of 

Personality and Social Psychology, 105(3), 495–514. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033483 

 
Garcia, T. (2020, June 9). Companies are speaking out against racial injustice after the killing 

of George Floyd, but they have to back it up with action—MarketWatch. MarketWatch. 
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/companies-are-speaking-out-against-racial-injustice-
after-the-killing-of-george-floyd-but-they-have-to-back-it-up-with-action-2020-06-05 

 
Gardner, D. M., & Ryan, A. M. (2020). What’s in it for you? Demographics and self-interest 
perceptions in diversity promotion. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(9), 1062–1072. 
https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000478 

Graf, S., Paolini, S., & Rubin, M. (2014). Negative intergroup contact is more influential, but 
positive intergroup contact is more common: Assessing contact prominence and contact 
prevalence in five central European countries. European Journal of Social Psychology, 
44(6), 536–547. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2052 

 
Guarino, C., & Borden, V. (2017). Faculty service loads and gender: Are women taking care of 
the academic family? Research in Higher Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-017-
9454-2 

 
Gündemir, S., Martin, A. E., & Homan, A. C. (2019). Understanding diversity ideologies from 

the target’s perspective: A review and future directions. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. 
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00282 

151 

 

 

Heilman, M. E., & Chen, J. J. (2005). Same behavior, different consequences: Reactions to 

men’s and women’s altruistic citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 
431–441. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.3.431 

 
Hekman, D. R., Johnson, S. K., Der Foo, M., & Yang, W. (2017). Does diversity-valuing 

behavior result in diminished performance ratings for non-White and female leaders? 
Academy of Management Journal, 60(2), 771–797. 
http://dx.doi.org.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/10.5465/amj.2014.0538 

 
Helms, J. E. (1984). Toward a theoretical explanation of the effects of race on counseling: A 

Black and White model. The Counseling Psychologist, 12(3–4), 153–165. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000084124013 

 
Helms, J. E. (Ed.). (1990). Contributions in Afro-American and African studies, No. 129.Black 

and White racial identity: Theory, research, and practice. Greenwood Press. 

 
Helms, J. E. (2005). Challenging some misuses of reliability as reflected in evaluations of the 

White Racial Identity Attitude Scale (WRIAS). In Handbook of racial-cultural psychology 
and counseling, Vol 1: Theory and research (pp. 360–390). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 

 
Helms, J. E. (2014). A review of White racial identity theory: The sociopolitical implications of 

studying White racial identity in psychology. In Psychology serving humanity: 
Proceedings of the 30th International Congress of Psychology, Volume 2: Western 
psychology (pp. 12–27). Psychology Press. 

 
Hernandez, M., Avery, D. R., Volpone, S. D., & Kaiser, C. R. (2019). Bargaining while Black: 
The role of race in salary negotiations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104(4), 581–592. 
https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000363 

 
Hofhuis, J., van der Rijt, P. G. A., & Vlug, M. (2016). Diversity climate enhances work 

outcomes through trust and openness in workgroup communication. SpringerPlus, 5(1). 
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40064-016-2499-4 

 
Holoien, D. S., & Shelton, J. N. (2012). You deplete me: The cognitive costs of colorblindness 

on ethnic minorities. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(2), 562–565. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.09.010 

 
Hurley, J., Hutchinson, M., Bradbury, J., & Browne, G. (2016). Nexus between preventive 

policy inadequacies, workplace bullying, and mental health: Qualitative findings from the 
experiences of Australian public sector employees. International Journal of Mental Health 
Nursing, 25(1), 12–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/inm.12190 

 
Islam, M. R., & Hewstone, M. (1993). Intergroup attributions and affective consequences in 

majority and minority groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(6), 936–
950. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.6.936 

 

 

152 

 

 

 

Jimenez, M. F., Laverty, T. M., Bombaci, S. P., Wilkins, K., Bennett, D. E., & Pejchar, L. 

(2019). Underrepresented faculty play a disproportionate role in advancing diversity and 
inclusion. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 3(7), 1030–1033. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-
019-0911-5 

 
Jones, J. R., & Schaubroeck, J. (2004). Mediators of the relationship between race and 

organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Managerial Issues, 16(4), 505–527. 

 
Jones, K. P., Arena, D. F., Nittrouer, C. L., Alonso, N. M., & Lindsey, A. P. (2017). Subtle 

discrimination in the workplace: A vicious cycle. Industrial and Organizational 
Psychology, 10(1), 51–76. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2016.91 

 
Jost, J. T., & Thompson, E. P. (2000). Group-based dominance and opposition to equality as 
independent predictors of self-esteem, ethnocentrism, and social policy attitudes among 
African Americans and European Americans. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 
36(3), 209–232. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1999.1403 

Kamal, R., Panchal, N., & Garfield, R. (2020, December 22). Both remote and on-site workers 

are grappling with serious mental health consequences of COVID-19. KFF. 
https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/both-remote-and-on-site-workers-are-grappling-with-
serious-mental-health-consequences-of-covid-19/ 

 
Kerber, Coster, & McLymore. (2020, June 11). U.S. companies vow to fight racism but face 

critics on diversity. Reuters. https://br.reuters.com/article/us-minneapolis-police-
companies-insight-idUSKBN23H1KW 

 
Kidder, D. L. (2002). The Influence of gender on the performance of organizational citizenship 

behaviors. Journal of Management, 28(5), 629–648. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630202800504 

 
Konrad, A. M., & Linnehan, F. (1995). Formalized HRM structures: Coordinating equal 

employment opportunity or concealing organizational practices? Academy of Management 
Journal, 38(3), 787–820. https://doi.org/10.2307/256746 

 
Kram, K. (1985). Mentoring at work: Developmental relationships in organisational life. 

Administrative Science Quarterly, 30. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392687 

Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: 

The role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 131–142. 
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.131 

 
Lee, S. M., Puig, A., Pasquarella-Daley, L., Denny, G., Rai, A. A., Daltape, A., & Parker, W. 

M. (2007). Revising the White racial consciousness development scale. Measurement and 
Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 39(4), 194–208. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/07481756.2007.11909798 

 

 

153 

 

 

 

Leslie, L. M. (2018). Diversity initiative effectiveness: A typological theory of unintended 

consequences. Academy of Management Review, 44(3), 538–563. 
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2017.0087 

Lindsey, A., King, E., Hebl, M., & Levine, N. (2014). The impact of method, motivation, and 

empathy on diversity training effectiveness. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-014-9384-3 

 
Livingston, R., Rosette, A., & Washington, E. (2012). Can an agentic black woman get ahead? 

The impact of race and interpersonal dominance on perceptions of female leaders. 
Psychological Science, 23, 354–358. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611428079 

 
Lord, R., Day, D., Zaccaro, S., Avolio, B., & Eagly, A. (2017). Leadership in Applied 

Psychology: Three Waves of Theory and Research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102. 
https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000089 

 
Lolliot, S., Fell, B., Schmid, K., Wölfer, R., Swart, H., Voci, A., Christ, O., New, R., & 

Hewstone, M. (2015). Measures of intergroup contact. In Measures of personality and 
social psychological constructs (pp. 652–683). Elsevier Academic Press. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-386915-9.00023-1 

 
MacCallum, R. C., Roznowski, M., & Necowitz, L. B. (1992). Model modifications in 

covariance structure analysis: The problem of capitalization on chance. Psychological 
Bulletin, 111, 490-504. 

 
Mackenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, P. M., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2011). Challenge-oriented 

organizational citizenship behaviors and organizational effectiveness: Do challenge-
oriented behaviors really have an impact on the organization’s bottom line? Personnel 
Psychology, 64(3), 559–592. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01219.x 

 
Malott, K. M., Paone, T. R., Schaefle, S., Cates, J., & Haizlip, B. (2015). Expanding White 

racial identity theory: A qualitative investigation of Whites engaged in antiracist action. 
Journal of Counseling & Development, 93(3), 333–343. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/jcad.12031 

 
Martiny, S. E., & Kessler, T. (2014). Managing one’s social identity: Successful and 

unsuccessful identity management. European Journal of Social Psychology, 44(7), 748–
757. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2056 

 
Mercer. (2020). The time is now: Addressing diversity, equity and inclusion in the workplace. 

Marsh and McLennan Companies. 
https://www.mercer.us/content/dam/mercer/attachments/north-america/us/us-2020-
mercer-dei-perspective.pdf 

 
Melaku, T. M., & Beeman, A. (2020, June 25). Academia isn’t a safe haven for conversations 

about race and racism. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2020/06/academia-isnt-a-
safe-haven-for-conversations-about-race-and-racism 

154 

 

 

 
Miller, A. N., & Fellows, K. L. (2007). Negotiating white racial identity in multicultural 

courses: A model. In Whiteness, pedagogy, performance: Dis/placing race (pp. 49–66). 
Lexington Books/Rowman & Littlefield. 

 
Miller, R. A., Jones, V. A., Reddick, R. J., Lowe, T., Flunder, B. F., Hogan, K., & Rosal, A. I. 

(2018). Educating Through Microaggressions: Self-Care for Diversity Educators. Journal 
of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 55(1), 14–26. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2017.1358634 

 
Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000). Organizational silence: A barrier to change and 

development in a pluralistic world. The Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 706–725. 
https://doi.org/10.2307/259200 

 
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01995.x 

 
National Partnership for Women and Families. (2020). Quantifying America’s gender wage gap 

by race/ethnicity. https://www.nationalpartnership.org/our-work/resources/economic-
justice/fair-pay/quantifying-americas-gender-wage-gap.pdf 

O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., Paetzold, R. L., & Griffin, R. W. (2000). Sexual harassment as 

aggressive behavior: An actor-based perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 
25(2), 372–388. https://doi.org/10.2307/259019 

 
Organ, D. W. (1988). Organizational citizenship behavior: The good soldier syndrome (pp. xiii, 

132). Lexington Books/D. C. Heath and Com. 

 
Patten, E. (2016, July 1). Racial, gender wage gaps persist in U.S. despite some progress. Pew 
Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/01/racial-gender-wage-
gaps-persist-in-u-s-despite-some-progress/ 

 
Pettigrew, T. F. (2008). Future directions for intergroup contact theory and research. 

International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32(3), 187–199. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2007.12.002 

 
Pettigrew, T. F., Tropp, L. R., Wagner, U., & Christ, O. (2011). Recent advances in intergroup 

contact theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35(3), 271–280. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.03.001 

 
Pettigrew, T. F., Tropp, L. R. (2011). Intergroup contact as one of many predictors of prejudice. 

In Pettigrew, T. F., Tropp, L. R. (Eds.), When groups meet: The dynamics of intergroup 
contact (Essays in Social Psychology) (Chap. 10). New York, NY: Psychology Press. 

 

 

155 

 

Plaut, V. C. (2002). Cultural models of diversity in American: The psychology of difference and 

inclusion. In Engaging cultural differences: The multicultural challenge in liberal 
democracies (pp. 365–395). Russell Sage Foundation. 

 
Plaut, V. C., Thomas, K. M., Hurd, K., & Romano, C. A. (2018). Do Color Blindness and 

Multiculturalism Remedy or Foster Discrimination and Racism? Current Directions in 
Psychological Science, 27(3), 200–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721418766068 

 
Plaut, V. C., Thomas, K. M., & Goren, M. J. (2009). Is multiculturalism or color blindness 

better for minorities? Psychological Science, 20(4), 444–446. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02318.x 

 
Podsakoff, N. P., Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. B., Maynes, T. D., & Spoelma, T. M. (2014). 

Consequences of unit-level organizational citizenship behaviors: A review and 
recommendations for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35(S1), S87–
S119. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/26610876 

 
Podsakoff, N., Whiting, S., Podsakoff, P., & Blume, B. (2009). Individual- and organizational-
level consequences of organizational citizenship behaviors: A meta-analysis. Journal of 
Applied Psychology, 94. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013079 

 
Pollack, S. (2019, August 12). There’s Something Called “Representation Burnout” And You 

Might Be Suffering from It. Thrive Global. https://thriveglobal.com/stories/representation-
burnout-diversity-career-work-well-being/ 

 
Ponterotto, J. G., & Park-Taylor, J. (2007). Racial and ethnic identity theory, measurement, and 

research in counseling psychology: Present status and future directions. Journal of 
Counseling Psychology, 54(3), 282–294. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.54.3.282 

 
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: 
A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and 
Social Psychology. https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/3207711 

 
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), 615–630. 
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.4.615 

 
Rattan, A., & Dweck, C. (2018). What happens after prejudice is confronted in the workplace? 
How mindsets affect minorities’ and women’s outlook on future social relations. Journal 
of Applied Psychology, 103. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000287 

 
Reid, L. L. (2016). Devaluing women and minorities: The effects of race/ethnic and sex 

composition of occupations on wage levels. Work and Occupations. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888498025004005 

 

 

156 

 

 

Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In S. W. Duck (Ed.), 

Handbook of personal relationships (pp. 367–389). New York: Wiley 

 
Richeson, J. A., & Nussbaum, R. J. (2004). The impact of multiculturalism versus color-

blindness on racial bias. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(3), 417–423. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2003.09.002 

 
Richard, O. C., Roh, H., & Pieper, J. R. (2013). The link between diversity and equality 

management practice bundles and racial diversity in the managerial ranks: Does firm size 
matter? Human Resource Management, 52(2), 215–242. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21528 

 
Rodríguez, J. E., Campbell, K. M., & Pololi, L. H. (2015). Addressing disparities in academic 

medicine: What of the minority tax? BMC Medical Education, 15(1), 6. 
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-015-0290-9 

 
Rosette, A. S., & Tost, L. P. (2010). Agentic women and communal leadership: How role 

prescriptions confer advantage to top women leaders. Journal of Applied Psychology, 
95(2), 221–235. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018204 

 
Rowe, W., Bennett, S. K., & Atkinson, D. R. (1994). White racial identity models: A critique 

and alternative proposal. The Counseling Psychologist, 22(1), 129–146. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000094221009 

 
Rucker, D. D., Galinsky, A. D., & Magee, J. C. (2018). The agentic–communal model of 

advantage and disadvantage: How inequality produces similarities in the psychology of 
power, social class, gender, and race. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 71–
125. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2018.04.001 

 
Rudman, L. A., & Phelan, J. E. (2008). Backlash effects for disconfirming gender stereotypes in 

organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 61–79. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.003 

 
Ruggs, E., Harrington, N., Brown, D., Park, L., Marshburn, C., & R., M. (2018). Understanding 

bias in the workplace and strategies to combat it (pp. 191–210). 
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315194868-9 

 
Ryan, C., Hunt, J. S., Weible, J. A., Peterson, C. R., & Casas, J. (2007). Multicultural and 

colorblind ideology, stereotypes, and Ethnocentrism among Black and White Americans. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430207084105 

 
Scheepers, D., & Ellemers, N. (2005). When the pressure is up: The assessment of social 

identity threat in low and high status groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 
41(2), 192–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2004.06.002 

 
Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40(3), 437–453. 

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1987.tb00609.x 

157 

 

 

 

 

 
Shih, M., Ambady, N., Richeson, J. A., Fujita, K., & Gray, H. M. (2002). Stereotype 

performance boosts: The impact of self-relevance and the manner of stereotype activation. 
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(3), 638–647. 

 
Shih, M., Pittinsky, T. L., & Ambady, N. (1999). Stereotype susceptibility: Identity salience and 

shifts in quantitative performance. Psychological Science, 10(1), 80–83. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00111 

 
Shih, M., Young, M. J., & Bucher, A. (2013). Working to reduce the effects of discrimination: 
Identity management strategies in organizations. American Psychologist, 68(3), 145–157. 
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032250 

 
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy 

and oppression (pp. x, 403). Cambridge University Press. 
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139175043 

 
Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., & Bobo, L. (1996). Racism, conservatism, affirmative action, and 

intellectual sophistication: A matter of principled conservatism or group dominance? 
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 476–490. 
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.476 

 
Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., & Mitchell, M. (1994). In-group identification, social dominance 

orientation, and differential intergroup social allocation. The Journal of Social 
Psychology, 134(2), 151–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1994.9711378 

Steele, C. R. (2016). The impact of gender role stereotypes on the evaluation of organizational 

citizenship behaviors. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2016(1), 14883. 
https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2016.14883abstract 

 
Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., & Morrison, K. R. (2009). Intergroup threat theory. In Handbook of 

prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 43–59). Psychology Press. 

 
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin, 
& S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-37). Monterey, 
CA: Brooks/Cole. 

 
Thau, S., Aquino, K., & Bommer, W. H. (2008). How employee race moderates the relationship 

between non-contingent punishment and organizational citizenship behaviors: A test of 
the negative adaptation hypothesis. Social Justice Research, 21(3), 297–312. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-008-0072-1 

Tseng, F.-C., & Fan, Y.-J. (2011). Exploring the influence of organizational ethical climate on 

knowledge management. Journal of Business Ethics, 101, 325–342. 
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-010-0725-5 

 

158 

 

van den Brink, M. (2020). “Reinventing the wheel over and over again”. Organizational 

learning, memory and forgetting in doing diversity work. Equality, Diversity and 
Inclusion: An International Journal; Birmingham, 39(4), 379–393. 
http://dx.doi.org.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/10.1108/EDI-10-2019-0249 

 
Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of 

construct and predictive validity. The Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 108–119. 
JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/256902 

 
Vezzali, L., Andrighetto, L., Bernardo, G. A. D., Nadi, C., & Bergamini, G. (2017). Negative 

intergroup contact and support for social policies toward the minority outgroup in the 
aftermath of a natural disaster. The Journal of Social Psychology, 157(4), 407–415. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2016.1184126 

 
Walton, G. M., & Cohen, G. L. (2007). A question of belonging: Race, social fit, and 

achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(1), 82–96. 
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.82 

 
Weidhaas, A. D. (2017). Invisible labor and hidden work. In The International Encyclopedia of 

Organizational Communication (pp. 1–10). American Cancer Society. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118955567.wbieoc095 

 
Welbourne, T., Rolf, S., & Schlachter, S. (2017). The case for employee resource groups: A 
review and social identity theory-based research agenda. Personnel Review, 46, 00–00. 
https://doi.org/10.1108/PR-01-2016-0004 

 
Weller, C. E., & Fields, J. (2011). The Black and White Labor Gap in America. Center for 

American Progress. 
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2011/07/25/9992/the-black-
and-white-labor-gap-in-america/ 

 
Wentling, R. M., & Palma‐Rivas, N. (1998). Current status and future trends of diversity 

initiatives in the workplace: Diversity experts’ perspective. Human Resource Development 
Quarterly, 9(3), 235–253. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.3920090304 

 
Wijesingha, R., & Ramos, H. (2017). Human capital or cultural taxation: What accounts for 

differences in tenure and promotion of racialized and female faculty? Canadian Journal of 
Higher Education, 47(3), 54–75. 

 
Wilson, V. (2020, September 16). Racial disparities in income and poverty remain largely 

unchanged amid strong income growth in 2019. Economic Policy Institute. 
https://www.epi.org/blog/racial-disparities-in-income-and-poverty-remain-largely-
unchanged-amid-strong-income-growth-in-2019/ 

 

 

 
 

 

159 

 

 
 
 
 
 
 

 

160