APPLYING CONSTRUAL LEVEL THEORY TO STORYTELLING FOR DIVERSITY TRAINING By Caitlin Q. Briggs A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Psychology – Doctor of Philosophy 2023 ABSTRACT A growing number of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) trainings and initiatives are implementing storytelling as a means for reducing prejudice and bias. The primary aims of this investigation were to elucidate theoretical pathways (integrating the Common Ingroup Identity Model, Intergroup Contact Theory, empathy research, and Construal Level Theory) by which storytelling (i.e., the telling of personal narratives) used in DEI training may have beneficial outcomes, as well as under what conditions (higher or lower state construal levels), and provide empirical support for the use or disuse of storytelling in DEI training. This experimental vignette study was a 2 (DEI training condition: storytelling vs. no storytelling) x 2 (Construal manipulation: higher vs. lower) between-subjects factorial design, with variables assessed at two time points to mitigate common method bias. Results provided limited support for the proposed moderated serial mediation model; a path analysis of the full theoretical model did not show acceptable fit. MANOVA analyses demonstrated some support for the interaction of storytelling and higher construal on empathy variables (i.e., DEI training with storytelling and under a higher-level construal resulted in greater empathy). Haye’s PROCESS macro analyses revealed support for the role of cognitive empathy (operationalized as a perspective-taking measure) as a mediator of the relationship between DEI training containing storytelling and outcomes (willingness to engage with the outgroup and intentions to help the outgroup). Mediation analyses also revealed relationships in directions opposite to hypotheses, highlighting a complex relationship between storytelling and DEI training outcomes. KEYWORDS: Storytelling, personal narratives, diversity training, construal level theory, cognitive empathy, affective empathy, perspective-taking This dissertation is dedicated to my partner, Mattias, and my rescue pup, Vega. Thank you for always supporting me. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There have been so many that have helped me in this journey, whether they are aware of it or not; no one gets anywhere by themselves. I will always be grateful for the Michigan State Organizational Psychology program (2017-2023), faculty and peers, for providing a community that I could lean on during the marathon of grad school. I will also always be thankful for the supervisors and coworkers whom I encountered through applied projects and internships that supplemented my graduate school career with the highest quality experiences. While it is inevitable that our paths diverge, I feel so lucky to have known each of you and I count on our paths continuing to cross. In particular, I am deeply indebted to my advisor and mentor, Dr. Ann Marie Ryan, who has only ever been encouraging, supportive, and consistent. I continue to be in awe of her ability to support the I-O psychology and MSU communities broadly as a distinguished scholar and leader, yet still provide detailed attention to each of her graduate students and junior colleagues. I can only hope to be this sort of mentor one day and I am proud to be her student. I would also like to thank my committee members, Dr. Quinetta Roberson, Dr. Daisy Chang, and Dr. Kevin Ford for their helpful insights and encouragement not only during my proposal and defense, but throughout my time at MSU. To my parents, Douglas and Elizabeth Briggs, thank you for providing everything possible for me to achieve my goals. To my partner, Mattias, thank you for building a life with me in which I can be the best version of myself. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1 CHAPTER 2: A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF DIVERSITY TRAINING ..................................... 7 CHAPTER 3: DEFINING STORIES ....................................................................................... 11 CHAPTER 4: RELEVANT STORYTELLING LITERATURE ........................................... 16 CHAPTER 5: CONSTRUAL LEVEL THEORY .................................................................... 31 CHAPTER 6: EMPATHY AS A MEDIATOR ........................................................................ 39 CHAPTER 7: SOCIAL IDENTITY THREAT AND INTERGROUP ANXIETY AS MEDIATORS .............................................................................................................................. 45 CHAPTER 8: STORYTELLING MECHANISMS ................................................................. 50 CHAPTER 9: HYPOTHESES................................................................................................... 54 CHAPTER 10: MATERIALS DESIGN ................................................................................... 63 CHAPTER 11: STUDY METHOD ........................................................................................... 72 CHAPTER 12: STUDY RESULTS ........................................................................................... 82 CHAPTER 13: DISCUSSION ................................................................................................. 103 BIBLIOGRAPHY ..................................................................................................................... 120 APPENDIX A: TABLES AND FIGURES ............................................................................. 138 APPENDIX B: BACKGROUND STUDY MATERIALS ..................................................... 210 APPENDIX C: STUDY MATERIALS AND MEASURES .................................................. 216 v CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Many diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts take the form of presentations, panels, discussion groups, and various other types of diversity training events. In the course of such activities, speakers or participants may be expected, or coaxed, to share their perspectives, narratives, and/or personal stories about bias and exclusion. One example of a company that has embraced storytelling is the global pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly and Company. Eli Lilly has made extensive use of employee personal narratives regarding bias in the workplace. Highlights of Eli Lilly’s approach include stories and the use of “Innovation Labs” (Catalyst, 2019). Eli Lilly gathers real life experiences of its women and minority employees and creates professionally produced videos of these stories using actors. Using these videos, they invite their employees to interact with the “journeys” of these employees. Additionally, their “Innovation Labs” are spaces where leaders and employees share their own experiences and work to create actionable change. For their efforts, the company has received numerous diversity and inclusion accolades, including a coveted award from Catalyst in 2019 (Krentz, 2020) and placement in the top three of DiversityInc’s (2020) Top 50 Companies for Diversity. Eli Lily may be at the forefront of DEI storytelling, and perhaps the most committed to formalizing it, but there are others attempting this approach, such as Oscar Health, an insurance company that started a social media storytelling campaign highlighting its Black employee resource or affinity group (Payne, 2020), as well as numerous DEI consultants promoting it to clients (e.g., Brown, n.d.; Dawson, 2021, a LinkedIn Learning course; Rezvani & Gordon, 2021). It is likely that other companies are attempting storytelling as well based on the groundswell of companies holding “listening sessions” after the murder of George Floyd and subsequent social unrest in May 2020 (Taylor, 2021; e.g., Newman-Bremang, 2020). These listening sessions are 1 potential spaces for DEI storytelling to unfold (Rezvani & Gordon, 2021). Additionally, googling “storytelling for diversity and inclusion” leads to plenty of recent articles and even podcasts suggesting that companies include DEI storytelling as a best practice (e.g., Colleta, 2020, “How Storytelling can Drive D&I; Epler, 2021, “The Power of Storytelling to Create Change with Cynthia Overton – Episode 55”; Williamson, 2021, “Increasing Inclusion Through Employee-Driven Storytelling”). However, these popular press articles and thought pieces lack empirical evidence to back up these claims. The assumption is that stories are more impactful because employee reactions are better but there is a lack of empirical data to support that assertion. We do find storytelling research (specifically, storytelling intervention research) in other areas, such as business communication and health communication disciplines. Another area where storytelling is researched is formal education, though the focus is generally on children learning. Typically, industrial-organizational (IO) psychology and organizational behavior (OB) disciplines have focused on storytelling as it relates to organizational culture (e.g., organizational myths). In terms of the organizational training literature, there are several commonly used, evidence-based learning methods that would suggest storytelling is a useful method for training at work, including case studies, scenario-based training, roleplay, and training simulations (Andrews et al., 2009; Ford, 2020; Lim, 2018). However, is important to note the uniquely challenging context of diversity training at work compared to other types of work training. Diversity training is emotionally charged and mixes subjective and objective matters. Moreover, diversity training contends with pre-existing attitudes toward diversity that are deeply ingrained in individuals (Alderfer, 1992; Paluck, 2006). 2 Storytelling as a feature of diversity training efforts is not explicitly studied in IO psychology, but there are bodies of literature surrounding perspective-taking and empathy from which to draw. Perspective-taking as a tool for diversity training has accumulated some evidence for its effectiveness. For example, Lindsey et al. (2015) compared diversity training approaches based on perspective-taking, goal setting, and stereotype discrediting. Their results demonstrated that only the perspective-taking condition had a positive effect on attitudes towards LGB individuals, though the effect failed to replicate for African Americans. Literature on empathy generally holds that empathy has positive effects on attitudes and behavior, especially increased helping behaviors, and empathy-oriented practices are often examined in intergroup relations programs (Stephan & Finlay, 1999). Showcasing personal stories has the potential to connect us. People trust what and who is similar to them (e.g., Cialdini et al., 2002; Maner et al., 2002; Park & Schaller, 2005). How similar we perceive ourselves to be to the storyteller or whoever the story is about may influence our reactions to the story (i.e., perceived similarity bias). However, this is less straightforward when translated to diversity training at work. Just because someone is your coworker does not mean you view them as sufficiently similar to you. As a result, there is little theoretical explanation as to how stories would be effective in diversity training, specifically.1 There are three contributions this dissertation makes to understanding storytelling in diversity training. First, stories and construal level are tied to a common construct invoked by storytelling: empathy. Presumably, an individual sharing a story of their own experience allows the listener to ‘see the other person’s side’ and understand their outlook on the situation. This 1 Scholars of Critical Race Theory (CRT) discuss storytelling and narratives as ways members of society view the world and address competing stories or narratives in society (Solórzano & Yosso, 2002). The focus of the current investigation (at the level of training interventions) is distinct from the use of storytelling in CRT. 3 study positions cognitive and affective empathy as mediators of storytelling and diversity training outcomes. Second, an individual sharing a story can also be considered an intergroup contact event if the storyteller and listener(s) are from different groups. This investigation incorporates social identity threat and intergroup anxiety, which are typical outcomes of intergroup contact (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008), as additional mediators of storytelling and diversity training outcomes. Third, how one construes a target is intertwined with any perspective-taking process and is likely to moderate the relationship between storytelling and diversity training outcomes. This investigation considers when storytelling is going to be most impactful for diversity training outcomes. I argue that how one construes the story (i.e., under higher or lower construal; Trope & Liberman, 2003; 2010) influences the extent to which stories affect the listeners’ attitudes and behaviors. Construal Level Theory (CLT) maintains that the way individuals construct mental representations of objects such as people or events can vary on a continuum of abstraction (Trope & Liberman, 2003, 2010). If an individual has a higher construal level regarding a certain target or object, then that person is applying a mental representation that is considered relatively abstract or broad. Conversely, having a lower construal level involves applying a mental representation that is relatively concrete, detailed, and narrow. A common metaphor used in the literature to describe the differences between higher and lower construals is ‘losing the forest in the trees’. That is, a lower-level construal is akin to losing the forest in the trees as you are focusing on the individual trees in detail. On the other hand, a higher-level construal is like capturing the forest as a whole, but not differentiating each tree. Thus, I argue that CLT can be applied to storytelling for diversity training such that a listener construing the story at a higher 4 level will lead to more beneficial diversity training outcomes as it influences the individual’s ability to think about higher level concepts and values related to DEI. In this investigation I conducted an experiment manipulating participants’ construal level and exposed them to a diversity training vignette that varied whether storytelling was incorporated, while measuring proximal outcomes (empathy, social identity threat, and intergroup anxiety) that in turn were hypothesized to mediate the relationship between diversity training with storytelling and diversity training outcomes. It was hypothesized that lower vs. higher level construal will have differential impacts across these mediators. I also conducted an initial background study where I documented DEI storytelling in the workplace via interviews which also informed the design of the experiment manipulations. In this way, I provide more information on how individuals perceive stories for diversity training, as well as demonstrate a theoretical pathway by which stories impact diversity training outcomes. In sum, I hypothesized that diversity training incorporating storytelling would lead to beneficial diversity training outcomes and this relationship should be mediated by empathy, threat perceptions, and intergroup anxiety. Further, how one construes the storytelling should have an impact. A higher (vs. lower) level construal should help individuals understand the perspective of the storyteller by traversing psychological distance, which increases empathy and positive outcomes. Further, a lower construal level leads one to focus inwardly and on concrete details, increasing threat perceptions and anxiety and in turn negative outcomes. To provide a more granular inspection of relationships, I also hypothesized and tested further mediational links between storytelling and the aforementioned mediators. I argue that the storytelling mechanisms of transportation (i.e., how immersed on is in the story) and identification (i.e., how much one identifies with the story or storyteller) provide the links between storytelling and empathy, identity threat, and intergroup 5 anxiety. Besides providing an empirical test of the effectiveness of stories for diversity training, the current study provides theoretical grounding for the use of stories in diversity training. In the following pages I provide a brief overview of diversity training literature (Chapter 2), define and situate stories in the context of diversity training and this investigation (Chapter 3), review relevant literature on stories within IO psychology and other disciplines (Chapter 4), describe and apply Construal Level Theory (Chapter 5), incorporate empathy as a mediator (Chapter 6), incorporate social identity threat and intergroup anxiety as additional mediators (Chapter 7), and introduce storytelling mechanisms (Chapter 8). Then, I present my hypotheses (Chapter 9), outline my study design and method (Chapters 10 and 11), and present results (Chapter 12). Finally, I discuss the findings and the theoretical and practical contributions of this investigation (Chapter 13).2 2 Note that ‘diversity training/outcomes’ and ‘DEI training/outcomes’ are used interchangeably throughout this document. Additionally, ‘DEI storytelling’ means the act of a personal story/narrative, related to DEI topics, being shared. This encompasses diversity training that incorporates storytelling (i.e., someone’s personal story/narrative related to DEI topics is shared during a diversity training). 6 CHAPTER 2: A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF DIVERSITY TRAINING In their meta-analysis of 40 years of diversity training evaluation, Bezrukova et al. (2016) defined diversity training as “a distinct set of instructional programs aimed at facilitating positive intergroup interactions, reducing prejudice and discrimination, and enhancing skills, knowledge, and motivation of participants to interact with diverse others” (p. 1228). Anand and Winters (2008) provide a chronological overview of the evolution of diversity training, starting with its roots in compliance training (e.g., adherence to anti-discrimination labor laws). Many diversity trainings in recent times highlight empathy or perspective-taking with the aim of making people aware of underprivileged others’ worldviews and experiences (Anand & Winters, 2008) or they may attempt to show trainees how their unacknowledged and unintended actions impact others and how to manage them (e.g., unconscious bias trainings; Pendry et al., 2007). Diversity training delivery and design can vary on a number of factors (Bezrukova et al., 2012; 2016), but an important distinction is that some trainings are awareness-based (awareness of own and others’ assumptions, values, biases), behavior-based (skill-building), or both awareness and behavior-based. Diversity training can take the form of lectures, videos, simulation exercises, etc. Almost two decades ago, Esen (2005) reported that 67% of US organizations implemented diversity training. More recently, a 2021 survey by WorldatWork reported that 83% of US organizations implemented some form of diversity training or initiative (Los Angeles Times, 2021). Despite widespread implementation spanning decades, it has been levied that diversity trainings are ineffective (Anand & Winters, 2008; Dobbin & Kalev, 2018; Pendry et al., 2007), especially unconscious bias trainings (Noon, 2018). This may in part be due to fuzzy training objectives and evaluations on the level of individual training programs (Anand & 7 Winters, 2008; Bezrukova et al., 2016), as well as the shifting of diversity training aims in general over time. Bezrukova et al. (2016) and Kalinoski et al. (2013) conducted meta-analyses of diversity training outcomes. These studies found small- to medium-sized effects on learning outcomes (cognitive, attitudinal, behavioral) for diversity training. Bezukova et al. (2016) found an8veralll mean effect size of g = .38. Thus, these meta-analyses are particularly notable for concluding that diversity training can be successful despite the recent criticisms. The meta-analysis by Bezrukova et al. (2016), which built upon a framework developed in a previous narrative review (Bezrukova et al., 2012), examined diversity training context, design, and participant characteristics to give a better idea of what effective diversity trainings look like. Ultimately, they found partial support for several hypotheses. Diversity training was more impactful when the training was more aligned with the overall mission of the organization, when the training was more integrated within the organization (part of a large diversity program/initiative) rather than a one-off training, and when the training was longer rather than shorter. Moreover, diversity training was more impactful using multi-instructional training (e.g., uses lecture and simulation exercises) rather than only using one instructional method. It did not matter whether diversity training was focused on a particular social or identity group versus being inclusive of all sorts of differences. Trainings that focused on awareness, as opposed to behavior-based or a combined approach, were least impactful. Training had a greater impact on behavior if it was mandatory for trainees, but reactions to the training where more favorable if it was voluntary for trainees. Trainee characteristics only mattered for gender and the outcome of trainee reactions (more positive for women). Both meta-analyses by Bezrukova et al. (2016) and Kalinoski et al. (2013) hypothesized and found support for stronger and longer lasting effects of cognitive learning outcomes as 8 compared to behavioral or attitudinal/affective learning outcomes in diversity training. They both categorized diversity training outcomes into attitudinal/affective (e.g., attitudes and reactions towards diversity/outgroups), behavior/skill (e.g., ability to resolve conflicts, ability to contribute to effective diversity management at work), and cognitive (e.g., knowledge, awareness) outcomes, as well as reactions to the training and/trainer.3 However, as Kalinoski et al. (2013) noted, there is a great deal of focus on attitude change in diversity training literature, which perhaps impacts our ideas of the effectiveness of diversity training. Bezrukova et al. (2016) hypothesized that cognitive learning outcomes would have more persistent effects over behavioral and attitudinal/affective learning outcomes based on prompting theory approaches (Sitzman et al., 2010). Interestingly, Bezrukova and colleagues reasoned that repeated environmental stimuli reinforce cognitive-based learning, hence the strong effects for cognitive learning, but that attitudes (and corresponding behavioral dispositions) can toggle between favorable and unfavorable depending on environmental stimuli encountered, rather than only growing stronger in one direction (e.g., after a training, stimuli such as “a media report or political speech that casts immigrants in a negative light may cause [trainees] to reevaluate how they interact with immigrants,” gravitating back toward pre-training attitudes as they question what was learned; Bezrukova et al., 2016, p. 12). Kalinoski et al.’s (2013) meta-analysis found that diversity training features such as social interaction and trainee motivation (e.g., how important and relevant the training is thought to be) resulted in stronger affective-based outcomes. Relating to the current investigation, storytelling holds the possibility of facilitating greater social interaction, especially due to its immersive qualities (Green & Brock, 2000), and may increase motivation in trainees as learning 3 Diversity/DEI training outcomes in the rest of this paper refer to these types of outcomes. 9 from “real” stories may make the training seem more important and relevant. The next chapter provides a definition and theoretical background on storytelling. 10 CHAPTER 3: DEFINING STORIES What is a Story? Generally, stories have been defined as discrete episodes or events that have a beginning, middle, and end (i.e., a plot; Green & Brock, 2000, Kreuter et al., 2007); however, Boje (1991a) defines a story as a performance involving multiple people in which an experience (actual or anticipated) is interpreted. Other extant definitions note that stories have built-in values, beliefs, or other messages (Driscoll & McKee, 2006; Soundy & Reid, 2019). One clarification to make is whether personal narratives are stories. Several researchers equate the term narrative with storytelling (e.g., Green & Brock, 2000; Kreuter et al., 2007; Murphy et al., 2013). Houston, Cherrington et al. (2011) describes narratives as recollections of actual events, though they also equate narrative communication and storytelling. The act of telling a story (i.e., storytelling) is also described in multiple ways. Storytelling has been described as a form of communication (e.g., Narrative Paradigm Theory, NPT; Cragan & Shields, 1998; Fisher, 1984), a way of explaining, (i.e., sensemaking, interpreting reality; Boje, 1991a; Bormann et al., 2001), a vehicle to transmit values and beliefs (e.g., Barker & Gower, 2010), and as something to be performed by way of dialogical processes (e.g., Abma, 2003). Given that telling stories is a way to communicate, explain, and transmit values and beliefs, then it may be a feasible way to achieve the goals of diversity training. The focus of diversity training is to increase awareness, change attitudes, and alter behaviors in hopes of increasing participants’ ability to interact with diverse others and creating an inclusive space for all individuals (Bezrukova et al., 2016). Anand and Winters (2008) chronicled the evolution of diversity training, from a compliance-focus to a present focus on diversity as a competency for business performance. In between these eras, they note that 11 specifically the late 1980s to late 1990s was characterized by a philosophy of awareness and sensitivity towards others’ needs and differences. During this time, a popular and effective exercise was theater-based learning, which employs actors so participants can watch scenarios play out or allows participants to jump-in and roleplay to learn about themselves (self- awareness) and others’ perspectives (Anand & Winters, 2008). This exercise approximates stories and storytelling. Across eras, it has often been a goal of diversity training to build cross- cultural competency, which includes competency in perspective-taking. Additionally, research in the 21st century has focused on the “inclusion” part of ‘diversity and inclusion’ (Shore et al., 2011). This has created an emphasis on not just making diverse individuals feel like they belong by highlighting similarities, but also simultaneously honoring and valuing what makes them unique (i.e., belonging without assimilation). Thus, to pursue greater inclusion in an organization would again necessitate an acknowledgement and understanding of others’ perspectives and their importance. Given this, stories in a diversity training context should align with empathy and perspective-taking to facilitate participants’ ability to understand others’ experiences, which translates most closely to personal narratives (i.e., recollections of an individual’s past experiences). Importantly, this is not to limit storytelling in diversity training to individuals recounting their personal narratives face-to-face with others, though mode could affect the strength of effects. Storytelling as personal narratives in diversity training can likely be done digitally via film (such as in health education; e.g., Goddu et al., 2015) or textually (such as in studies on perspective-taking with written vignettes; e.g., McCarthy et al., 2010). Though some have defined personal narratives as recalling actual events (Houston, Cherrington et al., 2011), it may be sufficient to model events that are simply very realistic or a combination of actual events. For 12 instance, Abma (2003), with the aim of fostering a learning perspective in healthcare professionals, gathered real nurses’ stories, and used these to create different versions of convincing stories for discussion and reflection in a storytelling workshop. It could also be sufficient to recount a personal narrative from a third-person perspective rather than a first- person perspective if the story clearly focuses on one person’s perspective. For the current investigation, a boundary is placed around what a story is. In this case, a story or personal narrative is limited to the recounting of a discrete event as opposed to an autobiography or one’s life story. This boundary has been placed to make the use of stories in a diversity training context more manageable and also more realistic. For one, to truly share one’s life story would take a long time and the storyteller would need to be willing to share their life story at a diversity training. These are unrealistic expectations for the workplace. Additionally, such a comprehensive narrative would make it hard to pinpoint what exactly is meant to be communicated in terms of the diversity training and to share a condensed version of a life story would potentially leave out important aspects. Research on workplace trainings has established that clear training objectives are key to learning outcomes (Ford, 2020). Limiting a story to a discrete, personal event (e.g., someone describing how another’s insensitive comments made them feel) is something that can be communicated in the space of a diversity training exercise and can be chosen based on the content’s fit with the diversity training goals. Thus, in the current paper, storytelling in a diversity training context is bounded to the telling of personal narratives, or the recounting of actual, perceived, or realistic personal events; although such narratives do not need to be delivered via a particular medium (e.g., face-to-face, textual, digitally) and do not need to be told in the first-person perspective. Additionally, in this investigation, a “story” is the recounting of a bounded event with a beginning, middle, and end 13 (i.e., a discrete event; Green & Brock, 2000, Kreuter et al., 2007) rather than an individual’s autobiography or life story. What is a Good Story? It is also relevant to consider what makes for a “good” or compelling story. Perhaps there is certain content in the story that influences how the story is viewed. Yet, there is a lack of research that provides a systematically derived description of compelling stories in diversity training. One starting place for describing compelling stories are models of storytelling intervention for behavior and attitude change in the health education space. Both Lee et al. (2016) and Larkey and Hecht (2010) include transportation and identification in their storytelling influence models for health communication. Transportation describes the way in which storytelling can allow the listener to be “transported” into the world of the storyteller or how engaged or immersed the listener is in the story (Green & Brock, 2000). The more a story transports the listener, the more influence the story can have on the listener. Identification refers to the extent the listener can empathize with the storyteller, or the character in the story, (Murphy et al., 2013). It is presumed that the more a listener can identify with the character, then the more effective the story will be at imparting its built-in values and beliefs. This identification mechanism has been justified under the umbrella of Bandura’s (1977) social cognitive and social learning theories, particularly the idea that individuals learn by observing others and modeling behaviors. Lee et al. (2016) also includes a third mediating mechanism alongside transportation and identification, called realism (how much the story adheres to the real world). In reviewing literature for their case study on organizational change, Wilson (2019) identified several important elements to storytelling for organizational change (p. 388). Listeners need to believe the applicability and relevancy (e.g., timeliness) of the story, believe that it is 14 truthful, and have a positive emotional reaction. Storytellers should focus on the essence of the story rather than details, meaning they may take some creative license to get their point across (Boje & Durant, 2006). Lastly, the story needs to permit dialogue and have a call for action. One other helpful starting point comes from the organizational learning literature as well. In the context of managers utilizing stories, Taylor et al. (2002) asked ‘what makes a good (effective) story?’ and expounded upon the aesthetics of management storytelling, irrespective of truthfulness, identifying three aspects: felt meaning (the story “feels right”, p. 316), feelings of connectedness (the story resonates with us), and enjoyment (the story holds our attention). The authors caution that a good story does not need to be beautiful or funny. Conversely, a bad story, rather than one that showcases a negative experience, is one that lacks any aesthetic experience. Across the previously mentioned interdisciplinary literature, it appears that a compelling story should be entertaining, engaging, and/or transporting. That is, it needs to be able to hold the listener’s attention. Additionally, a compelling story needs to allow the listener to identify with the person telling the story or whom the story is about. Third, listeners desire the truth, or at least what feels true or right. An understanding of what makes a story compelling or effective would be helpful in developing stories for diversity training. 15 CHAPTER 4: RELEVANT STORYTELLING LITERATURE This chapter first provides a brief overview of storytelling as covered in diversity training. Research on storytelling for diversity training is limited, but some storytelling research can be found in organizational culture, organizational leadership, organization learning and change, and organizational training, as well as other disciplines like business communication and health education. Further subsections provide a brief overview of each of these in turn. Storytelling for Diversity Training This section considers how storytelling or closely related practices (e.g., reading narratives and perspective-taking) are discussed in the diversity training literature or other literature focused on changing attitudes toward stigmatized groups. Diversity training’s gradual shift away from compliance-oriented practices, towards perspective-taking, inclusion, and ‘diversity as a competency’ (Anand & Winters, 2008) helps set the stage for storytelling-related practices in diversity training. Additionally, Paluck and Green (2009) reviewed prejudice reduction intervention studies (though not focused on organizational training or the workplace), noting that cooperative learning (i.e., “students must teach and learn from one another”, p. 352), especially narrative communication approaches (akin to storytelling) have been relatively successful. Nevertheless, research explicitly addressing storytelling for diversity training is not common. A search in the ProQuest system accessing 153 databases in September 2023 using the terms “diversity training” and “storytelling” or “story” did not reveal relevant scholarly journal articles in the workplace; however, some papers utilize storytelling in their study designs (e.g., Papouli, 2021; Shook, 2022). Similarly, a Google Scholar search in September 2023 yielded only 16 a few relevant results for scholarly articles (e.g., Grant & Bolin, 2016; Paluck & Green, 2009; Sugiyama et al., 2022). One article by Schor et al. (1996), while not an experimental study, describes the authors’ use of storytelling in the education of management students. They claim they were able to increase students’ sensitivity to the value of diversity through self-reflection on one’s own experiences with diversity, identification and acknowledgement of feelings, discussion of experiences and feeling with peers, and discussion of power dynamics. In their review of diversity training methods, Pendry et al. (2007) indicated that there was indirect evidence to suggest that diversity training approaches were more effective when encouraging empathy via perspective-taking. Perspective-taking is the active consideration of another’s psychological experience (Todd et al., 2011). Additionally, Anand and Winters (2008) noted that a popular and effective approach to diversity training is theater-based learning, in which actors are used to model workplace environments, allowing for vicarious experiences and/or roleplay for trainees. These experiences may be impactful because they allow participants to understand another’s perspective. Perspective-Taking in Diversity Training Given that stories are defined as personal narratives in this study (See Chapter 3), it is appropriate to consider literature on the effectiveness of perspective-taking (e.g., reading narratives) for changing attitudes toward stigmatized groups. For instance, Finlay and Stephan (2000) presented participants (American college students) with first-person essays about everyday discrimination that Black students face (vs. discrimination against American students abroad) and instructed participants to empathize (vs. observe details). Their results indicated that those exposed to first-person essays by Black students showed less bias toward Black people 17 than those in the American student condition. Additionally, participants who were instructed to empathize (vs. observe details) showed less bias regardless of which essay condition. The authors speculated that it may be possible to “sensitize” individuals to the effects of discrimination by showing that their own groups may be affected too. Batson et al. (1997) found that participants instructed to empathize (vs. being objective) when listening to the perspectives of a young woman with AIDS (Study 1), a homeless individual (Study 2), and a murderer (Study 3) showed more positive attitudes towards the target individuals, as well as the larger groups to which the targets belonged. Their research was replicated by a later study where the target was a drug addict (Batson et al., 2002). While not actually told of another’s perspective, Madera et al. (2011) took an intervention approach where participants underwent a perspective-taking exercise to model what it is like to be a non-English speaker in the US. Participants reported improved attitudes toward non-English speakers in post-tests compared to pre-tests. In an experimental study, McCarthy et al. (2010), using a Solomon Four-Group experimental design, demonstrated that participants who read first-person, true narratives of non-speaking persons had more positive attitudes toward the stigmatized group compared to participants in a control condition where unrelated passages were read. Similarly, across multiple experiments, Shih et al. (2009) investigated whether perspective-taking generalized to other members of the target outgroup. They found that watching a movie clip where a character describes the struggles of growing up Asian American and being told to take this person’s perspective resulted in greater liking for an imagined Asian college applicant (Study 2) and that participants were more likely to engage in helping behavior toward an Asian confederate (Study 3). The authors concluded that perspective- taking for one outgroup member could improve attitudes toward that specific outgroup as a whole but not a different outgroup. Todd et al. (2011) also experimentally manipulated 18 perspective-taking, but their outcome of focus was automatic racial bias as opposed to other studies with explicit bias measures. The researchers demonstrated across five studies that participants who adopted the perspective of a Black target (i.e., participants were shown a video of a-day-in-the-life of a Black man) showed attenuated bias on racial IATs, expressed more approach-oriented reactions toward pictures of Black faces and Black names, and had better interracial interactions with a Black confederate. While there is a dearth of literature on storytelling in the diversity training context specifically, ‘stories’ can be found in other research areas. In the following sections, I briefly review how stories have been studied elsewhere in I-O psychology and other fields in order to demonstrate the potential effects that stories and storytelling could have on relevant diversity training outcomes. Storytelling in Organizational Culture Research Organizational culture consists of the shared norms and assumptions about beliefs and values that form ‘the way we do things’ in an organization (Verbeke, et al., 1998). Culture is easily linked to storytelling as myths and stories are thought to be important, surface-level (i.e., easily observable) elements of organizational culture (Zohar & Hofmann, 2012). Hansen and Kahnweiler (1993) also tout the potential for stories to help us understand corporate culture, and as echoed in other literatures, they note how useful stories are for communicating organizational norms. They also talk about stories as “cultural code” that help one to make sense of an organization, further highlighting how stories and culture are intertwined. Boyce’s (1996) critical review also highlights the use of stories to understand as well as to change organizations. Taking an interdisciplinary perspective, Boyce (1996) notes how storytelling in organizations can be understood through the lenses of social constructivist theory (meaning-making is done by various 19 organizational members and groups), organizational symbolism (meaning is expressed in various ways), and critical theory (certain stories are sustained or suppressed based on power dynamics). Furthermore, Dailey and Browning (2014) discuss the retelling or repetition of stories in organizations and recommend this aspect of storytelling as an entry point to organizational culture. Because this literature examines storytelling at group or organizational levels, it is ill- suited for studying storytelling for diversity training as an interpersonal interaction, which is the focus of this investigation. Storytelling in Organizational Leadership Research What a leader is, says, and does can be tied to organizational outcomes (e.g., upper echelons theory; Hambrick & Mason, 1984). As such, leaders can be construed as closely tied to organizational culture (e.g., Steve Jobs and Apple; Sharma & Grant, 2011). Numerous articles link leadership and storytelling, specifically the power leaders can wield to gain the commitment of followers through their use of stories. For instance, Boyce (1996) would suggest that leaders are critical to storytelling because of their status and power to propagate certain stories that are advantageous to their positions. Boal and Schultz (2007) argue that strategic leaders use storytelling to aid in organizational learning and adaptation, directly sculpting the shared meaning, or culture, experienced by organizational members. Furthermore, taking a historical perspective and drawing on exemplars, Forster et al. (1999) emphasize that the ability to effectively tell stories is an essential managerial skill, connecting it to successful leaders’ possession of clear “visions” for their organizations. Salicru (2018) states that sensemaking is a core capability when considering leadership for contemporary complex, uncertain, and dynamic environments and asserts that storytelling is a natural way to make meaning. Grisham (2006) discusses how metaphor, poetry, and storytelling can help a leader build trust and show empathy 20 when attempting to inspire across cultures. Storytelling and narrative may be especially important for charismatic leaders and as explanations for their influence (Sharma & Grant, 2011). Taylor et al. (2002) also defended the role of storytelling as a powerful tool for managers, describing several functions of storytelling. Managers can use stories to help develop a vision or shared purpose. They can use stories to make employees aware of or help employees make sense of changes in the organization or its environment. They can also use storytelling as part of decision processes. For example, Taylor et al. (2002) note that managers can use stories in mediating between parties. For the purposes of the current investigation, the focus is not on a leader but rather general employee (coworker) interactions. Instead of examining the influence of a leader sharing their vision or story, this investigation’s focus is typical employees sharing their stories of discrimination or bias and the impact that might have on their coworkers or colleagues. Storytelling in Organizational Learning and Change Research Having a hand in both organizational culture and leadership, it is natural that storytelling has also been applied in an organizational learning or change context. While writing about the aesthetics of management storytelling Taylor et al. (2002) wrote, “But stories are more than just sources of information about an organization, they are a central part of the action of the organization” (p. 318), meaning that stories are part of how things get done rather than just describing the organization. Brown and Duguid (1991) point to the use of stories that facilitate learning in communities of practice (e.g., in diagnosing what is wrong with a piece of machinery employees work together to build a story of what happened in order to fix it, p. 45). Stories foster learning “in situ”, allowing the work to continue when formal trainings or trainers are not 21 available or sufficient, and may end up influencing innovation (Brown & Duguid, 1991). In fact, stories play an important role in Crossan et al.’s (1999) comprehensive framework for the process of organizational learning, specifically at their third phase (interpreting) they note the significance of storytelling in the learning process. In terms of change, one of the three key functions of organizational stories is to generate commitment (Wilkins & Martin, 1979, as cited in Boyce, 1996), an important part of organizational readiness for change (Weiner, 2009). For example, Abma (2003) discusses how storytelling interventions can be used for organizational learning. The author states that counter stories, those that deviate from dominant organizational culture, have the potential to be pivotal; “if taken seriously they may stimulate a process of reflection and perhaps reconstruction of the values implicit” (Abma, 2003, p. 224). The author details a case study in which real stories were collected (via interviews) and then used in a storytelling workshop as an organizational learning intervention. The stories were used to stimulate dialogue and thus the sharing of participants’ own stories. The ultimate aim was to foster a learning perspective in a group of healthcare professionals. The workshop in the case study was ultimately successful in that participants developed a learning perspective, however, Abma (2003) notes that the workshops are less successful if the participants are not willing to participate. Wilson (2019) evaluated storytelling for organizational change in an educational context. The researcher interviewed several school administrators regarding changes precipitated by the jump from No Child Left Behind (NCLB) policies to the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). After the interviews, Wilson (2019) concluded that stories about the teachers’ impact on children were seen as valuable for engagement and commitment to the new legislation, though they were only part of the process. A quote from one participant was, “I believe that this method allows for 22 initiatives to be implemented with better understanding and creates a picture of what the conclusions and outcomes will look like. [Storytelling] gets to people’s hearts. Once you have that then you are better able to change minds and instructional practices” (Wilson, 2019, p. 391). The research on organizational learning and change appears to support the current investigation. Indeed, some diversity trainings look very similar to what is described in Abma (2003; i.e., employees participating in discussion groups). That stories can serve to facilitate transformative reflection throughout an organization is another testament to the power of storytelling. Yet, much of this research takes place at the organizational level, much like organizational climate, or in terms of leader stories. At the same time, storytelling for organizational change is somewhat in its infancy, lacking clear definitions, but not critics given its qualitative approaches (Brown et al., 2009). Storytelling in Organizational Training Research Storytelling in organizational training is sparse, but the notion of storytelling is implicit in common instructional methods, such as scenario-based and simulation training (Andrews et al., 2009; Lim, 2018; Ford, 2020). Scenario-based learning is supported by work on task-centered and problem-based learning, while simulation learning has accumulated evidence in the arena of healthcare training (Lim, 2018). While such learning methods seem amenable to stories, there is perhaps a reticence to calling these methods ‘storytelling’ as the term evokes childishness (Beigi, 2013; Lim, 2018). There are several articles touting the benefits of incorporating storytelling based on consultants’ anecdotal experiences or case studies (e.g., Beigi, 2013; Boje, 1991c; Boje et al., 2015; Stroud, 2015; Vance, 1991). They tend to pull from other areas (e.g., cognitive psychology) suggesting that stories are more memorable, attention-grabbing, and enjoyable (e.g., 23 Zemke, 1990). A few articles have proposed theoretical foundations for why stories are effective in training, including constructivist learning theory, social learning theory, and cognitive mechanisms like pattern recognition and heuristics (e.g., Lim, 2018; Swap et al., 2001). Lim (2018) writes that the inherent value of storytelling comes from the personal meaning that it imbues in the training. Swap et al. (2001) expound upon the use of storytelling as an effective mechanism for training transfer; however, they claim that storytelling is not likely to translate critical, deep knowledge skills. Instead, they argue formal education is needed for critical skills, while stories are more suited to communicating managerial systems (how things get done), norms, and values (i.e., areas where sensemaking are involved). On the other hand, a NIOSH research project for the effective safety training of miners found some success in presenting stories from experienced miners in training videos (Cullen, 2008). Eiris et al. (2020) used an immersive storytelling approach for safety hazard training, involving the use of 360-degree panoramas, but did not find any appreciable impacts of storytelling except for time-savings. All in all, the literature on organizational training would support the use of storytelling for diversity training based on the proximity of storytelling to scenario-based instruction, though scenario-based instruction does not necessarily include personal narratives. That is, broader workplace training that utilizes example scenarios or is task/problem-based does not necessarily mean perspective-taking for another’s view is utilized. Summary Stories in some shape or form have been used to facilitate assimilation into organizational culture, to influence followers, and to enable organizational learning or change. The literature on organizational culture demonstrates that stories can be quite powerful as they move through a group or unit, while research on leadership suggests that leader-to-subordinates storytelling can 24 be effective at influencing others. Case studies of storytelling for organizational learning showcase the possibility that it can lead to real transformation. Research on scenario-based or simulation training methods suggests the utility of stories for at least some types of learning. However, organizational culture, leadership, and learning research applies to the group, organizational, or leader-level, for the most part. Stories as a tool for diversity training, where the goal is to influence individuals’ attitudes and subsequent behavior (Bezrukova et al., 2016) are applicable at the level of coworker interactions. Other Disciplines In the next sections, relevant literature on storytelling in the fields of business communication and health education are briefly discussed. Business communication is highlighted because of its proximity to organizational behavior and organizational psychology. It is also relevant due to its focus on influencing existing attitudes and behaviors in employees. The health education literature is highlighted because of its focus on using storytelling interventions as a way to impart information, change attitudes, and alter behaviors, which is very similar to the aim of many diversity trainings.4 Business Communication In the realm of business communication, storytelling is harnessed to facilitate effective communication across diverse groups. Often referenced in this area are the writings of Boje (1991ab, 1995), Bormann et al. (2001; Symbolic Convergence Theory), Fisher (1984; Narrative Paradigm Theory), Cragan and Shields (1998; Narrative Paradigm Theory), and Barker and Gower (2010). 4 While the use of storytelling in education as a pedagogical tool is widespread, the nature of this context (formal education programs for children) does not lend itself to easy comparison with diversity training, so it is not reviewed. Moreover, much of this research occurs in school age children rather than adults. 25 Boje (1991ab; 1995) is credited with the introduction of storytelling as a tool for business communication and business education. His ethnographic studies on organizations examine how stories emerge and spread in corporate environments. For example, Boje (1991a) details how the stories that employees tell themselves and each other to make sense of and navigate the organization are fluid and prone to reinterpretation or revision based on one’s goal (e.g., to gain political advantage). Predating Boje (1991b), Bormann and colleagues developed the Symbolic Convergence Theory (SCT), a general communication theory that has been applied to groups and organizations (See Bormann et al., 2001 for a review). SCT is based on the idea that human beings are prone to fantasize or dramatize, and such fantasizing helps us construct our reality, in tandem with others, which ultimately affects our actions (Bormann et al., 2001). These researchers state that fantasizing, in combination with the human need to provide explanation, is the cause of “consciousness-creating, -raising, and -sustaining communication” (p. 277). More recently, Barker and Grower (2010) presented their “model of storytelling as a complete organizational communication tool” (p. 295), based on Narrative Paradigm Theory (NPT; Cragan & Shields, 1998; Fisher, 1984). NPT suggests that stories and/or narratives efficiently communicate information about values which triggers action in the form of beliefs or behavior. Barker and Gower (2010) focus on the application of storytelling to improve organizational communication over national and cultural boundaries. Their Storytelling Model of Organizational Communication (STMOC) depicts storytelling as leading to organizational level outcomes (e.g., improved communication and productivity) via social exchange. In the STMOC, storytelling is a tool to develop “swift communication” (p. 301) which leads to behavior that is advantageous for the organization. Using stories is key to the “swift” in swift communication 26 because under NPT humans are already innate storytellers (such as in SCT), making stories an efficient communication aid. Health Education Health education (aka health promotion) refers to “the combination of educational and environmental supports for actions and conditions of living conducive to health” (Green & Kreuter, 1991, p. 4). Health education can be targeted at different levels (e.g., individual, community) to develop health knowledge, attitudes, skills, and behavior (Kent State University, 2020). In recent years, researchers have tested the effectiveness of storytelling interventions in the development or promotion of health-related knowledge, attitudes, and behavior (Lee et al., 2016). This push is an attempt to make health knowledge more digestible to lay people (e.g., to inform them of risk factors), as well as to persuade individuals to take up healthy habits (e.g., getting regular health screenings). The focus of numerous intervention studies is on specific racial-ethnic groups for whom modern health advice is contrary to cultural practices or who are distrustful of health professionals (e.g., Lipsey et al., 2020; Nguyen et al., 2017). The goal is to reduce health disparities between majority and minority, advantaged and disadvantaged populations. Storytelling is posited to be more amenable to certain cultures given their histories of oral traditions (Haigh & Hardy, 2011). Storytelling interventions in the health education sphere have been used to encourage healthy behaviors in individuals with diabetes (Goddu et al., 2015), discourage smoking behavior (Houston, Cherrington et al., 2011), encourage behaviors that improve individuals’ blood pressure (Houston, Allison et al., 2011), promote cancer screenings (Larkey & Gonzalez, 2007; Manglona et al., 2010), and increase engagement in health services (Berkley-Patton et al., 2009), among many others. To elaborate on one example, Larkey and Gonzalez (2007) compared the 27 effectiveness of two health promotion efforts aimed at cancer prevention: a storytelling educational intervention vs. a numeric risk tool intervention (a typical tool used to communicate one’s risk of contracting a disease based on one’s risk factors). Participants were randomly assigned to groups and the information in the interventions was matched so as to compare delivery methods. In the storytelling condition, participants listened to a vignette about a family dealing with a relative’s cancer diagnosis. In the numeric risk tool condition, participants completed a survey of risk factors which culminated in their personal at-risk score for cancer. The researchers found that individuals in the storytelling condition were more likely to express an intent to change their behavior (i.e., eat more vegetables, exercise for longer) compared to those receiving the typical health education intervention. While storytelling health interventions are still not widespread, Lipsey et al. (2020) recently conducted a scoping review of 22 first-person storytelling interventions (with control groups) and concluded that the interventions improved health attitudes, knowledge, behaviors, and clinical outcomes. Summary In sum, the literatures on storytelling associated with business communication and health education disciplines demonstrate the potential power of stories. Scholarly work in business communication alludes to the malleability of stories (i.e., stories can be revised for certain purposes, Boje, 1991ab; 1995; stories can be dramatized, Bormann et al., 2001). Health education studies provide evidence that stories can influence attitudes and behaviors when it comes to individuals’ health. Both literatures note storytelling as a promising pathway for communication, whether that be because humans are innate storytellers or that certain cultures have strong oral storytelling traditions. However, both literatures also have drawbacks. Business 28 communication studies are often qualitative (e.g., case studies), while health education studies have a heavy focus on the applicability and effectiveness of such interventions as opposed to theory. The business communication theories of Symbolic Convergence Theory (SCT) and Narrative Paradigm Theory (NPT) do not provide a sufficient explanation for testing storytelling mechanisms in diversity training. SCT has the broad aim to provide an “account of how consciousness is created, raised, and sustained and how it affects human action” (Bormann et al., 2001, p. 274). SCT is oriented toward explaining how human talk contributes to the emergence of a shared consciousness (Bormann et al., 2001, p. 274). NPT, which is related to SCT (Fisher, 1984), posits humans can communicate efficiently through storytelling (humans are innate storytellers and humans can rationally evaluate the stories being told; Barker & Grower, 2010; Fisher, 1984) and tries to explain how people can rationally support notions that are illogical via stories they tell themselves. As very broad theories, SCT and NPT provide a general theoretical basis for why humans find stories so compelling and suggest that stories should be effective in a diversity training setting; nevertheless, they do not provide a granular enough approach to help us identify the specific mechanisms by which storytelling is effective in this context. Furthermore, a standout feature of diversity training compared to other workplace training is how emotionally laden the topics are (Alderfer, 1992; Paluck, 2006). Due to this context, storytelling for diversity training deserves specific attention. This also echoes the research in the health education sphere, as those topics can be extremely emotional (e.g., life-threatening illness) and involve changing health habits or lifestyles that are deeply ingrained (e.g., drinking, dietary, exercise). 29 As earlier mentioned, there exists some interest in storytelling for diversity training or changing attitudes toward stigmatized groups even if it is not explicit. Additionally, this research is generally housed in social psychology as opposed to I-O psychology or business communication, which seem to focus on the effects of storytelling at a unit or group level as opposed to individuals’ reactions and behavior. Workplace training literature encourages the use of stories for training as they are engaging for trainees and effective for scenario-based paradigms. Storytelling intervention studies in the health education literature most closely approximate the literature on perspective-taking and changing attitudes toward stigmatized groups as they also deal with intervention and emotionally charged topics, though the aim is to change health behaviors. Ultimately, the trajectory of diversity training toward fostering sensitivity for others’ experiences and indirect support by way of perspective-taking, empathy, theater-based learning, etc. makes stories an interesting avenue to pursue. The next chapter proposes that Construal Level Theory (Trope & Liberman, 2010) can illuminate conditions under which storytelling is apt to produce perspective-taking and/or empathy. 30 CHAPTER 5: CONSTRUAL LEVEL THEORY Introducing modern Construal Level Theory (CLT), Trope and Liberman (2010) posited that individuals’ mental representations, the way they code and retrieve information, as applied to people or events, can be more or less abstract. A higher-level construal level refers to a more abstract construal, meaning that one is applying a mental representation that is broad or general (e.g., seeing the bigger picture). An abstract construal may also refer to stable traits of the target (e.g., personality, if the target is a person). Conversely, a lower-level construal level means one is applying a mental representation that is narrow or concrete (e.g., focused on details and context-dependent). Construal level was conceptualized as malleable and dependent on the psychological distance between an individual and the target (Trope & Liberman, 2010; Wiesenfeld et al., 2017). There is also limited research regarding domain-specific (e.g., work vs. personal domains) construal levels (Reyt & Wisenfeld, 2015) and intrapersonal changes in construal level (i.e., construal level ambidexterity; Wiesenfeld et al., 2017). Trope and Liberman (2010) described psychological distance along four dimensions: temporal distance (time), spatial distance (physical space), social distance (dissimilarity between oneself and another person), and hypotheticality (how probable an event is, also the difference between what is real and imagined). Thus, targets are more psychologically distant if they are farther in the future or in the distant past, farther away in physical space, more dissimilar or foreign to the individual, as well as less likely to happen due to probability or fantasy. Importantly, the level at which one is construing a target is not just a function of psychological distance but can also help the individual “traverse” psychological distance. 31 Specifically, the more abstractly an individual construes a target, the more they are able to see beyond their immediate experience (Trope & Liberman, 2003; Wiesenfeld, et al., 2017). Construal levels, which are based on cognition and mental mindsets/frames, are grounded in well-developed cognitive psychology literatures; however, CLT and its forerunner, Temporal Construal Theory (which focused on temporal psychological distance; Liberman & Trope, 1998), developed a continuum of abstraction (high to low construal) and introduced the concept of psychological distance. Since the publishing of Trope and Liberman’s (2010) theory paper, it has been cited over five thousand times, indicating its popularity across social science disciplines. For example, it is found in consumer psychology (e.g., Fiedler, 2007), communication (Lee, 2019), health communication (e.g., Ahn, 2015; Lutchyn & Yzer, 2011), clinical psychology (e.g., Delara et al., 2013; Galfin & Watkins, 2012), neuroscience (e.g., Stillman et al., 2017), social psychology (e.g., Schwartz et al., 2018; Wakslak, 2012), and organizational behavior (Wiesenfeld et al., 2017). Construal Level Theory and Organizational Behavior In their recent review of how CLT has been and can be leveraged in organizational behavior research, Wiesenfeld et al. (2017) noted that CLT is especially pertinent to the field given the theory’s assumption that construals are functional adaptations to contextual demands, which dovetails with the goal-directed behavior of organizations, and its easy application to social phenomena (e.g., virtual teams, communication between coworkers). Weisenfeld et al. (2017) also delineated CLT’s similarities with expectancy-valence theory (EVT), a foundational motivation theory. They link a higher-level construal to desirability (valence) and a lower construal to feasibility (expectancy), though note that CLT and EVT would lead to diverging hypotheses. 32 In terms of outcomes, lower- and higher-level construals tend to predict diverging effects. Higher-level construal predicts the ends (superordinate goals, the “why”), while lower-level construal predicts the means (subordinate goals, the “how”; Action Identification Theory; Vallacher & Wegner, 1987; Wakslak et al., 2006). Thus, the best construal level will be a function of the target criterion (ends or means). Higher-level construal will lead individuals to focus on broad, superordinate, or long- term goals, again, emphasizing the ends or the end-state goal. Higher construal level also predicts creativity and innovation (e.g., Liberman et al., 2012; Polman & Emich, 2011). The dark side of higher-level construal is that a lack of focus on nitpicky details could lead to misestimation and negative outcomes when the situation calls for nuance (e.g., Armor & Sackett, 2006; Trope & Liberman, 2010). Lower-level construal helps individuals make accurate predictions about the future (Armor & Sackett, 2006), allow us to detect nuance, and lead us to focus on concrete goals (e.g., time-sensitive goal). At the same time, lower-level construal can cause individuals to become overwhelmed with detail stimuli, negatively affecting confidence or creating a distraction (Nussbaum et al., 2003; Vallacher & Selz, 1991). Construal Level Theory and Storytelling for Diversity Training CLT can help us understand when stories, the telling of narratives, compels the listener to change their attitudes and/or behaviors. One way of interpreting how CLT can apply to storytelling in diversity training is to consider that, under CLT, individuals need to be operating at higher-level construal levels in order to highlight the values and concepts commonly invoked by diversity trainings. Abstraction (higher-level construal) allows people to travel psychological (specifically, social) distance to understand the perspective of the storyteller and how they were treated with 33 bias or stigmatized. On the other hand, thinking at a lower-level construal level would mean focusing on more concrete, narrow details, as well as understanding another’s perspective to a lesser degree. It prompts people to focus on minute details that give way to more contextual explanations (e.g., ‘That person wasn’t stereotyping you when they assumed you have kids. The topic of kids came up, so it was natural they assume that.’). Thus, we can apply CLT to storytelling for diversity training and posit that storytelling under a higher-level (vs. lower-level) construal will lead to more beneficial diversity training outcomes as the individual has been primed to think about higher level concepts and values, such as bias, stigma, fairness, equity, and justice. Importantly, I am suggesting that recounting a story or narrative under a higher or lower construal will have different diversity training outcomes rather than suggesting that storytelling itself predicts a certain construal level. Research indirectly supports this notion. Tumasjan et al. (2011) asserted that observers will tend to see individuals who mistreat others as less moral when they have a higher dispositional construal level. In a more rigorous study, van Houwelingen et al. (2015) found that leaders punished followers who committed moral transgressions more often when the leaders had higher dispositional construal levels. As Jones et al. (2013) noted, concepts such as fairness and justice commonly appeal to morality, so findings that higher construal levels make individuals more likely to judge others harshly when committing a moral transgression lend some support the idea that individuals listening to a story or narrative about bias, which can be connected to outcomes or perceptions of unfairness of injustice, will be more amenable to attitudes supporting the storyteller (i.e., the target of stigmatization or injustice). Higher-level construal has also been found to influence people to apply justice more generally to others. Mentovich et al. (2016) found that U.S. participants experiencing greater levels of psychological distance and higher- 34 level construal were more likely to want to protect the rights of non-U.S. citizens and terrorists compared to those experiencing less psychological distance and lower-level construal. This further supports the notion that hearing a story under higher-level construal will lead to more positive diversity training outcomes. In addition, research largely supports the notion that higher construal levels encourage creativity, innovation, learning, and change (Hess et al., 2018). Therefore, it follows that interpreting a story at a higher construal level will leave one more open to considering new ideas and perspectives. If we follow this interpretation of CLT and apply it to storytelling, we can begin to understand which construal level may be most appropriate when attempting to use stories to influence individuals to change attitudes or behaviors in favor of diversity training outcomes. We may expect that when participants are under a higher-level construal, then they will be more impacted by diversity training, including positive attitudes and behaviors toward the target (i.e., the storyteller or main actor in the story). Prior research supports the link between one’s attitudes toward an outgroup member generalizing to other outgroup members (Capozza et al., 2010). In comparison, at lower-level construal processing, we would expect participants to react to storytelling with less positive attitudes and behaviors. However, other CLT literature suggests that higher-level construal processing can be detrimental to diversity and inclusion (Hess et al., 2018). For example, Linville et al. (1996) found that higher-level construal contributed to increased stereotyping (greater perceived outgroup homogeneity). Additionally, Rim et al. (2009) found that abstract thinking led to greater fundamental attribution errors (i.e., blaming the individual over the context) resulting in greater stereotyping and biases. 35 Based on this thinking, it is possible to apply CLT to storytelling such that lower-level construal should lead to better diversity training outcomes. Having a lower level of construal could be seen as helpful for understanding why the storyteller reacted to the event in the way they did as the receiver of the story is getting a clearer, more detailed picture of the particular situation. In this sense, the receiver is able to empathize to a greater degree given more context and detail, making them less susceptible to the fundamental attribution error. Pushing back at this, Holt et al. (2020) argued that one needs to have more expansive processing in order to see the situation from another person’s perspective, necessitating a higher- level construal. Their study found evidence that other-oriented perspective-taking as induced by higher-level construal manifested in greater interpersonal justice behaviors when an individual was delivering negative feedback to someone else. They argued that even though a higher-level (vs lower-level) construal is more “decontextualized” that does not mean that all details, including salient, vital details, are overlooked. They contend that understanding the other person’s needs is central to the situation (in their case, giving performance feedback) and these are not the type of details that would disappear under higher-level construal processing. In contrast, a lower-level construal would allow “peripheral and idiosyncratic details” to distract the individual, causing them to be less responsive to the other person’s perspective. Similar to Holt et al. (2020), this dissertation argues that individuals need a higher-level construal in order to traverse psychological (social) distance and see another’s perspective. In other support, while details are generally thought to be the domain of lower-level construal, Trope and Liberman (2003) stated that some features are going to be closer to the “essence” of the events (i.e., the primary goal) than others, and that these features will be represented abstractly at higher construal levels. On the other hand, lower-level construal would be left with 36 the more “incidental, goal-irrelevant features” (Trope & Liberman, 2003, p. 405). This fits with Holt et al.’s (2020) assertion that the key details of the situation will not be lost at higher levels of construal. Additionally, Hess et al. (2018) noted that the mixed findings regarding construal level and prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination may be due to whether the emphasis is on abstract concepts (e.g., fairness) or ingroup/outgroup membership. For storytelling in the context of diversity training (e.g., panels, dialogue) there is an explicit focus on abstract concepts such as bias and stigma, and their connections to unequal outcomes, fairness, and justice. It should follow that higher-level construal thinking will be most beneficial to allow individuals to connect to another person’s story and to connect another person’s story to overarching, abstract values and concepts. This thinking is supported by Yogeeswaran and Dasgupta (2014) where the researchers specifically manipulated how a prejudice-related concept (multiculturalism) was being construed, as opposed to general higher- versus lower-level construal mindsets. They found that having the participant construe the concept of multiculturalism at a higher level (why should we achieve multiculturalism) as opposed to a lower level (how we should achieve multiculturalism) led to decreased anti-Hispanic attitudes. Using this interpretation of CLT, where higher-level construal can help decrease bias attitudes, lower-level construal may also explain why individuals question the target of a bias incident after the target tells their story. For example, a woman sharing a story about sexual harassment in the workplace may be met with remarks such as, “Perhaps you were wearing something provocative” and “You said ____, they could have taken that as a sign you were interested in something more.” This desire for peripheral detail and context falls into lower-level construal thinking. The perceiver is focusing on this one event and has lost the forest in the trees. 37 To conclude, I am positing that the construal level at which one interprets the story will affect the storytelling’s impact on diversity training outcomes. A higher-level construal will better transcend psychological distance between the individual and another person’s story as compared to a lower-level construal, allowing the individual to highlight abstract concepts such as fairness, justice, inclusion and bias, which are common themes in DEI stories.5 I have made the theoretical case above that the relationships between diversity training with storytelling and subsequent outcomes are moderated by construal level. In the next chapter, I introduce diversity training outcomes and further explicate the links between storytelling diversity training and its proximal and distal outcomes. Construal level then moderates the link between storytelling and more proximal outcomes. 5 It is also likely that a higher-level construal would lend itself to better processing of other types of abstract concepts presented in training. A trainee under higher-level construal may have better learning outcomes for an open skill where the actions are highly variable and prone to different interpretations compared to a closed skill where there is only one way to respond. For example, Holt et al. (2020) focused on a potential conflict scenario that managers could be trained on: delivering negative feedback to a direct report. They found that a higher-level construal led to more effective behavior (feedback delivered in a just manner). 38 CHAPTER 6: EMPATHY AS A MEDIATOR A common construct invoked by storytelling and narratives is empathy. Presumably, an individual recounting a story of their own experience allows the listener to ‘see their side’ and understand another’s outlook on the situation. Thus, empathy is seen as a direct outcome of being exposed to a narrative. In their review of organizational research on empathy, Clark et al. (2019) gave a multidimensional conceptualization of empathy, including affective empathy, cognitive empathy, and behavioral empathy. Affective empathy is the experience of an affective state congruent (as a matter of degree and not necessarily an exact match) to another person’s affective state. Cognitive empathy is understanding another’s internal state, including their thoughts and affect. Note that perspective-taking is thought to be part of the process of cognitive empathy (Clark et al., 2019). Finally, behavioral empathy (a dimension less frequent in the literature) refers to the performance of behaviors that demonstrate affective and/or cognitive empathy. Each of these dimensions can be conceptualized as both a trait and state (Clark et al., 2019). Empathy is related to helping behavior (Batson, 1991; Eisenberg & Miller, 1987). Specifically, work-related consequences of empathy include job performance and interpersonal outcomes. Job performance as an outcome of empathy is most often investigated as organizational citizenship and helping behaviors (OCBs; e.g., Bettencourt et al., 2001; Ho & Gupta, 2012; Joireman et al., 2006; Pohl et al., 2015), but some evidence exists for empathy as a predictor of task performance (e.g., Ployhart & Hakel, 1998) and counterproductive work behaviors (CWBs; e.g., Detert et al., 2008). Interpersonal outcomes of empathy include positive communication behavior (e.g., Patient & Skarlicki, 2010) and better coworker relationship quality (e.g., Daniels et al., 2014). These results should be accepted with caution in light of 39 critiques regarding the conceptualization (e.g., unidimensional vs multidimensional empathy) and measurement (e.g., measuring trait vs. state; using measures of sympathy or other related concepts in place of empathy) of empathy in the literature as a whole (Clark et al., 2019). Research on empathy and intergroup interactions links empathy and DEI-related outcomes. The next sections will briefly review literature on empathy and diversity training outcomes and how construal level may impact empathy. Empathy and Diversity Training Outcomes There is a body of evidence suggesting that empathy is associated with positive attitude and behavior change toward outgroup members or individuals with stigmatized identities. For instance, in their chapter on empathy and intergroup relations Dovidio et al. (2010) highlight the most-studied, traditional model in which anti-bias interventions affect intergroup attitudes (e.g., prejudice reduction) via empathy for another individual (an interpersonal process). For example, empathy is related to greater positive relations between disadvantaged groups (Cortland et al., 2017), increased sensitivity to injustice for others (Decety & Yoder, 2016), greater recognition of discrimination (in the case of institutional sexism, Simon et al., 2019), and reduced bias against or increased support for outgroup members (e.g., Asian Americans, Shih et al., 2013; immigrants, Miklikowska, 2018; LGB folk, Lindsey et al., 2015). The focus of this investigation falls under Dovidio et al.’s (2010) model (i.e., a diversity training intervention in the form of storytelling will have effects on an individual’s attitudes and behavior). Other research mentioned in Chapter 4 described previous research related to the use of storytelling for DEI-related aims (e.g., Batson et al., 2002; Finlay & Stephan, 2000; Madera et al., 2011; Shih et al., 2009). These studies demonstrated that perspective-taking (e.g., reading first-person narratives) resulted in decreased bias, increased positive attitudes (e.g., greater 40 liking), and increased helping behavior toward the outgroup. Several of these also examined empathy. In sum, empathy has been studied extensively in the context of intergroup interactions in the hopes of understanding how to facilitate more positive attitudes and behaviors between groups. This body of research generally finds that greater empathy will have more beneficial intergroup outcomes, aligning this literature with diversity training outcomes. Additionally, empathy is often positioned as a mediator between an intervention or group membership and intergroup outcomes (Dovidio et al., 2010). Empathy and Construal Level A considerable amount of intergroup research focuses on empathy, social categorization, and the Common Ingroup Identity Model (Capozza et al., 2010; Dovidio et al., 2010; Mackie et al., 2016; Stürmer et al., 2006). This perspective suggests that creating or activating a superordinate identity that is shared with outgroup members is key to increasing empathy for outgroup members. This is supported by research showing that individuals are less likely to feel empathy for or to offer help to outgroup members as opposed to ingroup members (Dovidio et al., 1997; Stürmer et al., 2006; Tarrant et al., 2009) and it is theorized that they are more likely to want additional evidence of wrongdoing when outgroup members are mistreated (Miron & Branscombe, 2008). Other research directly tests whether activation of a superordinate identity suppresses this ingroup-favoring bias and finds support (e.g., Capozza et al., 2010; Dovidio et al., 1997; Gordijn et al., 2001; Nier et al., 2001). Moreover, neuroscientific studies show differential brain activation for empathy toward ingroup vs outgroup members (Cikara & Fiske, 2011; Gutsell & Inzlicht, 2010; 2012; Krautheim, et al., 2019; Richins et al., 2019; Ruckmann et al., 2015). 41 To understand how construal level might relate to this process, we might consider a higher-level construal will be more amenable to creating or activating a superordinate identity with outgroup members. Higher level construal is associated with abstraction, seeing the bigger picture, as well as the ability to see another’s perspective (Trope & Liberman, 2010). In order to create a superordinate identity with an outgroup member, an individual needs to identify a category that is abstract or inclusive enough to subsume themself and the outgroup member. They need to be able to estimate the outgroup member’s position or perspective such that they can identify characteristics or goals of the outgroup member that would facilitate the identification of this more inclusive category as well. Moreover, they need to be able to see the big picture goal, which is to find ways they are similar to the other person without getting bogged down by extraneous details. Research posits that when an outgroup member (vs. ingroup) has been wronged or needs help, individuals require more evidence of wrongdoing or need, and undergo more careful weighing of costs and benefits before offering their assistance (Miron & Branscombe, 2008; Pryor et al., 2004; Stürmer et al., 2005). This desire for nuance, detail, and context is more characteristic of lower-level construal. Indeed, Levy et al. (2002) found that a tendency to construe abstractly (trait construal level) led people to see greater similarity between themselves and outgroup members compared to those with a tendency to construe concretely. They attributed this effect to the ability of abstract-minded people to divert attention away from discriminating details between individuals. Moreover, they found that trait construal level was positively related to both perspective-taking and empathic concern (i.e., feelings of empathy). 42 As noted above, empathy has been conceptualized as multidimensional, most often split along cognitive and affective pathways (Clark et al., 2019).6 Construal level is generally thought of in the cognitive sense—Trope and Liberman (2010) drew upon theories of categorization and action identification to define construals as mental representations (p. 2)—making the link between construal level and cognitive empathy apparent. We can also link studies on intergroup interaction to affective reactions and mechanisms under contact theory and Intergroup Emotions Theory. In the contact theory literature, emotions like anxiety and affective empathy are key to improved intergroup relations (Brown & Hewstone, 2005; Hewstone & Swart, 2011; Mackie et al., 2015). In their meta-analysis of three key mediators of the intergroup contact-prejudice relationship, Pettigrew and Tropp (2008) identified both intergroup anxiety and affective empathy as having strong mediating effects, though they could not disentangle affective empathy from cognitive empathy. Brown and Hewstone (2005) note in their review that while intergroup anxiety is extremely integral to intergroup contact, a focus on positive affective mechanisms is also needed. Capozza et al. (2010) incorporated affective mechanisms (anxiety and empathy) in their test of the Common Ingroup Identity Model. Specifically, they tested a serial mediation where contact with the outgroup (immigrants) predicted individuals’ emotional reactions toward known outgroup members via creation of a common ingroup identity, then emotional reactions toward known outgroup members mediated the relationship between common ingroup identity and reactions toward outgroup members in general. Further, under Intergroup Emotions Theory (IET) Mackie and colleagues (see chapter review by Mackie et al., 2016) posit intergroup emotions stem from the processes of social 6 Because the focus of most research that examines multidimensional empathy is on cognitive and affective empathy rather than behavioral empathy, I highlight the former two dimensions. 43 categorization and intergroup appraisal. In terms of social categorization, studies indicate that individuals will experience different intergroup emotions depending on whichever of their identities is currently most salient (Ray et al., 2008; Mackie et al., 2016). Additionally, individuals of the same ingroup can exhibit a convergence of their emotional reactions (a group norm; Leonard, Mackie et al., 2011; Leonard, Moons, 2011; Moons et al., 2009; Tarrant et al., 2009). Similarly, intergroup appraisal is affected by salient group identity and, in turn, this appraisal leads to intergroup emotions (Mackie et al., 2016). Hence, IET supports the notion that social categorization, such as the creation of a superordinate, common ingroup identity, will lead to affective reactions. Having established that empathy is associated with positive attitude and behavior change toward outgroup members or individuals with stigmatized identities, as well as that higher-level (vs. lower) construal should be associated with the formation of a superordinate identity categorization that facilitates greater cognitive and affective empathy, this investigation argues that both empathy pathways are key mediators between storytelling and diversity training outcomes, and that construal level moderates the first leg of the mediation. While storytelling as a perspective-taking exercise or intervention should lead to empathy under higher-level construal, it is pertinent to further differentiate storytelling under higher- vs. lower-level construal level. The next chapter again connects storytelling to intergroup contact theory, suggesting that storytelling as a contact event should be negatively related to perceived social identity threat and intergroup anxiety, but that this relationship should be moderated by construal level. 44 CHAPTER 7: SOCIAL IDENTITY THREAT AND INTERGROUP ANXIETY AS MEDIATORS Storytelling in the context of diversity training, where presumably an individual from a particular identity group is sharing a story about bias or discrimination with another person who does not share that identity, can be considered an instance of intergroup contact. Intergroup contact theory (Allport, 1954) posits that increased contact between groups will lead to better intergroup relations. While research largely supports this (see meta-analysis by Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006), several conditions or caveats to this relationship have been introduced. For example, contact situations in which social identity is threatened or in which negative, “hot” emotions between groups are stimulated (e.g., intergroup anxiety) will lead to negative intergroup relations (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008; Stephan et al., 2016). Perceived Social Identity Threat Social identity and self-categorization theories (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner et al., 1987) suggest that people perceive the ingroup more positively than the outgroup. Intergroup threat occurs when an individual perceives that another group may cause some sort of harm to one’s own group or themselves (Stephan et al., 2016). Intergroup threats can be toward the group or the individual, and they can be realistic (physical and material) or symbolic (Stephan & Renfro, 2002). Research on threat that potentially affects a group’s status has included both tangible (resources) and intangible aspects (esteem; Jetten et al., 2002; Branscombe et al., 2002). The perceived social identity threat that an individual or group experiences has been linked to cognitive biases (e.g., stereotypes), negative affective responses (e.g., fear, anger, resentment, lack of empathy), as well as negative behavioral responses (e.g., discrimination, hostility, harassment; see handbook chapter by Stephan et al., 2016). So, there is a clear negative 45 relation between identity threat and beneficial diversity training outcomes. I posit that identity threat will mediate the relationship between storytelling and diversity training outcomes. Storytelling as both a contact event, and as a perspective-taking intervention, should have an overall positive relationship with diversity training outcomes based on contact theory (Allport, 1954) and perspective-taking research (Lindsey et al., 2015), such that storytelling should result in greater beneficial diversity training outcomes; however, I expect that storytelling paired with a lower-level construal will be associated with greater levels of social identity threat compared to higher-level construal. As such, storytelling under lower-level construal will lead to fewer beneficial diversity training outcomes (i.e., identity threat would further negatively mediate the relationship). I suggest that a lower-level construal will lead to greater levels of identity threat compared to a higher construal because it will cause individuals to think more concretely and narrowly about the ‘how’ invoked by another’s story of bias, which is associated with a focus on oneself (short psychological social distance) and immediate consequences (short psychological temporal distance; Trope & Liberman, 2010). So, at a lower construal, someone will be more likely to highlight the ways in which the story of discrimination or bias may affect themself or their ingroup. For example, under lower construal a White coworker upon hearing a Black coworker share a story about being passed over for a well-deserved promotion by a White manager, may construe this as an attack on the esteem or positive image of the White ingroup and react negatively. Under a higher construal, the White coworker is more amenable to focusing on abstract aspects such as the injustice of the promotional system or on the feelings of the other person who was adversely affected, both of which are farther away in psychological distance. 46 In their study on abstract vs. concrete construals of the concept of multiculturalism and the mediating role of national identity threat (social identity threat), Yogeeswaran and Dasgupta (2014) make a similar argument. Citing research by Förster (2009), Levy et al. (2002), and McCrea et al. (2012), they note that a higher construal should prime people to perceive greater similarity between the self and other and activate more inclusive categorization (a superordinate category). A lower construal should prime the opposite: people would be more likely to perceive dissimilarity and less likely to have empathy. The authors compared this to the “principle- implementation gap” in which people have positive attitudes toward abstract egalitarian principles but are loathe to support concrete policy in support of those principles (e.g., Dixon et al., 2010). Given that a lower-level construal primes dissimilarity perceptions, they argued it is likely to activate social identity threat as people are already motivated to have an ingroup bias under social identity and self-categorization theories (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner et al., 1987). Specifically in the authors’ study context, this meant preserving the ideal prototype of ‘American’ national identity as the ‘White/European American’ national identity; thus, introducing multiculturalism at a lower construal with concrete steps of how it is to be carried out would pose a threat (i.e., the White American identity might be supplanted). However, at an abstract level, higher construal would focus on the value of inclusiveness which is a value espoused by both American culture and multiculturalism proponents. Ultimately, Yogeeswaran and Dasgupta (2014) showed across three studies that concrete construal resulted in the highest levels of prejudice toward the outgroup (compared to abstract construal and a control) and that identity threat mediated between construal level and prejudicial attitudes and behavior. 47 Intergroup Anxiety Intergroup anxiety is “a negative affective process that is integral to the contact situation” and it “stems from the expectation of negative consequences for oneself in intergroup interactions, such as embarrassment, rejection, discrimination, or misunderstanding” (Brown & Hewstone, 2005, p. 285-286; Stephan & Stephan, 1985). It is one of the key mediators of contact and intergroup outcomes (see chapters and reviews by Brown & Hewstone, 2005; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006; Wilder & Simon, 2001). For example, studies have found that intergroup anxiety negatively mediates the relationships between contact and evaluations of the outgroup and perceptions of variability in the outgroup (Hewstone et al., 2005; Islam & Hewstone, 1993), while it positively mediates the relationship between contact and outgroup prejudice (Paolini et al., 2004). Across a series of published articles, Wilder and others (see review chapter by Wilder & Simon, 2001) supported the notion that intergroup anxiety increased stereotyping even when an outgroup member was behaving very counter-stereotypically. Moreover, anxiety unrelated to intergroup relations has been shown to increase stereotyping of others (e.g., anxiety from visiting the dentist, Baron et al., 1992). Is higher- or lower-level construal more likely to lead to intergroup anxiety? Past research has suggested that sometimes higher-level construal will contribute to greater stereotyping and bias as situational details, such as individuating information, will not be attended (Hess et al., 2018); yet, in other instances, higher construal will result in decreased bias due to the activation of abstract concepts like fairness and justice and activation of superordinate identity (e.g., Luguri et al., 2012; Yogeeswaran & Dasgupta, 2014). In this proposal, I argue the latter, that a lower-level (vs. higher) construal will be associated with greater levels of intergroup anxiety. 48 In support of this, Trope and Liberman (2010) assert that psychological distance is “egocentric”, with a starting point of oneself (p. 440). CLT posits that a higher construal is needed to bridge the psychological distance from one’s immediate self to things farther in time, physical space, social space, and probability. Lower-level construal will preclude an individual from running too far astray from a self-focus. Intergroup anxiety is characterized by anticipation of negative consequences for oneself or ingroup (Brown & Hewstone, 2005, p. 285-286). Thus, an individual operating under a lower construal will be more likely to experience intergroup anxiety (i.e., tunnel vision for what affects the self and ingroup) because of an intergroup contact event like storytelling for diversity training. In turn, increased intergroup anxiety (negative affect) has a detrimental effect on intergroup relations (e.g., increased bias, reduced differentiation between outgroup members), as anxiety further narrows one’s perception and makes stereotyping more likely (see chapter review by Wilder & Simon, 2001). In the preceding sections, I have shown that there is a strong case for the possible effectiveness of storytelling on diversity training outcomes under perspective-taking and intergroup contact literature, though there has been little research directly testing storytelling for diversity training. This relationship is likely affected by psychological construal level such that more proximal outcomes like empathy, social identity threat, and intergroup anxiety are affected, thus impacting more distal diversity training outcomes. In the next chapter, I introduce storytelling mechanisms as mediators of the relationships between storytelling and proximal outcomes such as those detailed above (empathy, identity threat, intergroup anxiety). 49 CHAPTER 8: STORYTELLING MECHANISMS In Chapter 3, the concept of a “good” or “compelling” story was briefly discussed. Previous research has established storytelling influence models (Larkey & Hecht, 2010; Lee et al., 2016) that include mechanisms of transportation and identification. Transportation is considered the hallmark of storytelling (Green & Brock, 2000). Transportation theory (Green & Brock, 2000, p. 701) describes transportation as a convergent process by which one’s focus is directed to the story at hand. As a result, the “real world” is less accessible as one is immersed in the narrative world. I posit that in storytelling for diversity training this storytelling mechanism can be interpreted as how engaged one is with a story. A second storytelling mechanism discussed in the literature is identification. Identification is the extent to which the listener can perceive similarity between themselves and characters in the story and/or feel like they “know” the characters (Murphy et al., 2013).7 This mechanism is especially pertinent in health communication research, as the hope is that providing stories of health behaviors enacted by someone similar will persuade one to take these behaviors up themselves. Bandura’s social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1977; 2002) posits that humans will be more likely to enact behaviors that have been modeled, especially by those we think are similar to ourselves. Humanizing an individual who is different from oneself, as telling 7 A third storytelling mechanism mentioned in the literature is realism. Realism refers to how “real” the story appears to the listener. Importantly, while a story that includes features from the “real world” will likely contribute to the realism of a story, this is not the only aspect that influences how real a story appears to the listener. The transportation that occurs during storytelling can also cause a listener to view the story is “real” despite not being a part of the listener’s real world (Green & Brock, 2000). According to transportation theory, the transportation aspect of storytelling allows listeners to suspend their disbelief or suspicions as part of the immersion. Thus, this should have some effect on realism. A sense of realism is important in that storytelling puts the listener in the mindset of having a direct experience, which has as much to do with emotions and feelings as facts, as opposed to concretely measuring how real a story matches one’s true world experience (Green & Brock, 2000). Because this mechanism is difficult to disentangle from transportation it is not included as its own separate mechanism in this investigation. 50 a story from their perspective is often intended to do, may be one way identify with another person. Earlier, this investigation positioned construal level as moderating the link between diversity training type (storytelling vs. no storytelling) and mediators, including empathy (cognitive and affective), intergroup anxiety, and social identity threat. The current section further argues that at a more granular level storytelling mechanisms are an intermediate link between diversity training type and these mediators. This intervening link is then moderated by construal level. In general, diversity trainings are intended to promote positive interactions between diverse others (Bezrukova et al., 2016), implying that individuals need to be open to learning about each other’s backgrounds and understanding another’s perspective or story. Thus, diversity training that incorporates information on another’s perspective in the form of storytelling should be more likely to result in transportation and identification as opposed to diversity training that does not incorporate storytelling. Storytelling Mechanisms and Their Relationship to Diversity Training Outcomes Transportation and identification are expected to be the processes of storytelling for diversity training. The next paragraphs will lay out the rationale for how these mechanisms influence proximal diversity training outcomes such as empathy (cognitive and affective), perceived social identity threat, and intergroup anxiety. Empathy As defined earlier, affective empathy is when one experiences affect congruent to the affect of another (Clark et al., 2019). Cognitive empathy is when one has an understanding of another’s internal, affective state (Clark et al., 2019). The storytelling mechanism of 51 transportation is likely to positively influence both affective and cognitive empathy because it involves intense focus on the story (i.e., the other person’s story). This should directly translate to higher levels of cognitive empathy as increased attention should be associated with greater understanding of the other person’s internal affective state. Likewise, a greater understanding of another’s emotions will allow an individual to better empathize or reflect back that same emotion (affective empathy). Identification as a storytelling mechanism should also positively influence affective and cognitive empathy. The more one identifies with another person or sees the similarities between themselves and another, the more likely they will be willing to and actually reflect the same affect and take the perspective of another. Identity Threat and Intergroup Anxiety Transportation should also have a relationship with negative outcomes of storytelling for diversity training. In theory, higher levels of transportation due to a story format would necessarily reduce an egocentric focus as the attention is drawn to the other person and/or the story at hand. Thus, at lower levels of transportation one is more prone to perceiving social identity threat and intergroup anxiety which involve hyperfocus on consequences for oneself/one’s ingroup (i.e., on alert for intergroup threat; Stephan et al., 2016). In the context of storytelling for diversity training, this may mean that instead of trying to understand another’s perspective, one becomes preoccupied with what the story means for oneself/one’s group (i.e., does this make my ingroup look bad). Lower levels of identification should also lead to greater social identity threat and intergroup anxiety. The less one perceives similarity with others, then the more likely one will 52 view others (the outgroup) unfavorably (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner et al., 1987). This ingroup bias makes it easier to view the outgroup as a threat and breeds intergroup anxiety. Storytelling Mechanisms and Construal Level Theory Construal level is likely to intersect with transportation and identification. As described by Green and Brock (2000), transportation is a state in which one suspends their disbelief and is immersed in the story at hand. To be immersed in a story is to forgo where you are presently so that you are “transported” to another realm. A higher-level construal level allows one to travel psychological distance (Trope & Liberman, 2010) and thus should be associated with this ability to “transport” realities (i.e., one’s present state and the story). A lower-level construal would be an obstacle to transportation because it would prevent one from suspending disbelief and keeps the focus on one’s present state and reality. A person with a lower construal will not be free to travel the psychological distance needed to be immersed in the story. Identification (i.e., identification with the person in the story) is most closely aligned to the social dimension in Construal Level Theory (CLT; Trope & Liberman, 2010). CLT posits that a higher-level construal lets one cross the psychological distance between oneself and another person, particularly based on the dissimilarity between oneself and the other (e.g., a family member vs a stranger). As such, a higher-level construal should allow one to identify with a dissimilar person while a lower-level construal would make it more difficult to identify with or take the perspective of someone dissimilar. With the addition of storytelling mechanisms to the model, Figures 1 and 1.1 describe the overall theoretical arguments in this investigation. The next chapter provides the specific hypotheses associated with the model. 53 CHAPTER 9: HYPOTHESES Research on perspective-taking interventions suggests that being exposed to narratives of outgroup members will increase positive attitudes and behaviors toward the outgroup. Given that storytelling also involves sharing another’s perspective, I hypothesize that a DEI training featuring storytelling will be related to even greater DEI training outcomes than a DEI training without storytelling. DEI training outcomes can be categorized as attitudinal learning, cognitive learning, behavioral learning, or reactions (see Chapter 2; meta-analyses by Bezrukova et al., 2016 and Kalinoski et al., 2013). This proposal will focus on select behavioral outcomes (willingness to engage with the outgroup, intentions to help the outgroup, learning from the diversity training). H1: DEI training outcomes will be more beneficial (i.e., greater willingness to engage with the outgroup, greater intentions to help the outgroup, greater learning) when the DEI training incorporates storytelling (vs. no storytelling). Next, I hypothesize that being exposed to DEI training under a higher (vs. lower) construal level will have a positive influence on reactions toward the target (i.e., the storyteller or main actor in the story)8 and other DEI training outcomes. Beneficial DEI training outcomes should be contingent on the activation of higher level, abstract concepts such as bias and inclusion. Higher construal level is congruent with these types of concepts, while the province of lower construal level is concrete, narrow thinking (e.g., peripheral details). Additionally, in the context of storytelling, it is imperative that the listener have the ability to traverse psychological 8 Going forward, I will only refer to the target as the storyteller; however, as mentioned in Chapter 2, stories in diversity training may not need to be told by the person whose perspective is central in the story in order to be effective. 54 distance to thoroughly understand the storyteller’s perspective. Without a higher level of construal, this is not possible. Thus, I hypothesize a two-way interaction: H2: DEI training outcomes will be most beneficial when the diversity training incorporates storytelling (vs. no storytelling) and when the participant is under higher- level construal (vs. lower-level construal). Even if it is not stated, having empathy for other people is an implicit goal of modern diversity training (Anand & Winters, 2008). Based on perspective-taking research, DEI training incorporating storytelling should lead to empathy because a personal narrative is communicated. I further hypothesize that cognitive and affective empathy toward the storyteller or an outgroup member will mediate the relationship between type of DEI training (storytelling vs not) and outcomes. Following from Chapter 6, research largely supports the notion that greater empathy leads to helping behaviors and more positive attitudes toward outgroup members (e.g., Batson, 1991; Eisenberg & Miller, 1987; Lindsey et al., 2015; Miklikowska, 2018; Shih et al., 2013). Moreover, research supports the notion that attitudes toward one outgroup member generalize to other outgroup members (Batson et al., 1997; Capozza et al., 2010). Accordingly, H3a: Cognitive empathy toward the storyteller/outgroup member will mediate the relationship between DEI training type (storytelling vs not) and DEI training outcomes. H3b: Affective empathy toward the storyteller/outgroup member will mediate the relationship between DEI training type (storytelling vs not) and DEI training outcomes. Again, while any diversity training may increase cognitive empathy for the outgroup (e.g., DEI trainings aim to increase “awareness” of disadvantages others have), a diversity training that incorporates storytelling should have an even stronger effect on cognitive empathy 55 as providing information on another’s perspective should contribute to the cognitive processing needed for perspective-taking (i.e., the process thought to lead to empathy; Clark et al., 2019) Further, I specifically hypothesize that under a higher-level construal one should experience greater cognitive empathy compared to lower-level construal, as higher-level construal facilitates traversing the psychological social distance between oneself and another’s perspective (Trope & Liberman, 2010). A lower-level construal will have a weaker relationship with cognitive empathy because lower-level construal theoretically does not facilitate bridging psychological distance; however, because lower-level construal in the context of storytelling may still communicate certain details of another’s experience, participants are likely to experience more cognitive empathy in either of the storytelling conditions compared to conditions without storytelling. H4a: Cognitive empathy will be greatest when the DEI training incorporates storytelling (vs. no storytelling) and when the participant is under higher-level construal (vs lower- level construal). I expect a similar relationship for affective empathy. The DEI training conditions containing a storytelling component should lead to greater affective empathy than those conditions without storytelling because another’s perspective is directly communicated. Moreover, contact theory literature and Intergroup Emotions Theory support the idea that identifying a superordinate, common ingroup identity with the outgroup should influence affective reactions, such as affective empathy. So, a higher-level construal level is more likely to facilitate the creation of a common ingroup identity as theoretically this requires abstraction. Combining these ideas, a two-way interaction between training condition and construal level is also hypothesized for affective empathy. 56 H4b: Affective empathy will be greatest when the DEI training incorporates storytelling (vs. no storytelling) and when the participant is under higher-level construal (vs. lower- level construal). Besides examining cognitive and affective empathy as mediators of the relationship between DEI training, storytelling, and outcomes, it is worthwhile to assess common negative mechanisms that may explicate the differential effects of higher and lower-level construal and storytelling. Perceived identity threat (cognitive) and intergroup anxiety (affective) are two further mechanisms offered as key in the literature for relationships between intergroup contact and outcomes (contact theory, Allport, 1954; intergroup threat theory, Stephan et al., 2016; intergroup emotions theory, Mackie et al., 2016). These literatures suggest that intergroup contact will have a negative relationship with (i.e., reduce) social identity threat and intergroup anxiety. Research on indirect intergroup contact would suggest that imagining one is being told a story by an outgroup member can be classified as a contact event (Crisp & Turner, 2009; Wright et al., 2008). DEI training in which one is learning about the outgroup, but has no direct contact, may also influence identity threat and intergroup anxiety as it is providing information about the outgroup. It may even spur thoughts of extended (someone from the ingroup knows an outgroup member), imagined, or vicarious (an observed direct contact event between others) contact based on what one already knows about the outgroup. Because DEI training with a storytelling component would be exposing participants to the narrative of an outgroup member (i.e., likely a stronger contact situation compared to receiving only information about the outgroup), I expect the negative relationship between DEI storytelling training and perceived social identity threat to be stronger compared to non-storytelling conditions. 57 H5a: Perceived social identity threat will mediate the relationship between DEI training type (storytelling vs. not) and DEI training outcomes. H5b: Intergroup anxiety will mediate the relationship between DEI training type (storytelling vs. not) and outcomes DEI training outcomes. I also expect construal level to interact with DEI training condition. In their chapter on intergroup threat theory, Stephan et al., (2016) state that contact occurring in interpersonal contexts where situational variables have more sway pertain to more realistic (more tangible, individual outcomes) rather than symbolic (less tangible, group outcomes) identity threats. This suggests that social identity threat can be construed at different levels. I argue that a lower-level construal will make individuals more apt to perceive social identity threat compared to a higher- level construal because a lower-level construal would make one more likely to zero-in on concrete outcomes that affect oneself immediately and possibly negatively (also proposed in Berson et al., 2021, where they examined leader construal). Indeed, Yogeeswaran and Dasgupta (2014) argue that lower-level construal of the concept of multiculturalism is more likely to induce national identity threat (i.e., social identity threat) as it activates a concern regarding the preservation of prototypical ingroup values, culture, etc. In the context of their study regarding multiculturalism, the idea is that lower-level construal will make more salient the changes to the ingroup culture that will be needed if multiculturalism is embraced. On the other hand, construing multiculturalism at a higher level will make salient ingroup values that promote inclusivity. Across multiple studies, the researchers found support for concrete (lower-level) construal of multiculturalism leading to more prejudicial attitudes and less willingness to engage with the outgroup, as mediated by social identity threat. Thus, I hypothesize a two-way interaction between DEI training condition and construal level: 58 H6a: Social identity threat will be lowest when the DEI training incorporates storytelling (vs. no storytelling) and when the participant is under higher-level construal (vs. lower- level construal). In intergroup contact theory research, it is well established that intergroup contact has a beneficial influence on intergroup relations via a reduction in intergroup anxiety (Brown & Hewstone, 2005; Hewstone & Swart, 2011; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2008). So, similar to identity threat, because DEI training with a storytelling component would be a stronger contact situation, I expect the negative relationship between DEI training and intergroup anxiety to be stronger compared to non-storytelling conditions too. Applying CLT, we can expect that individuals undergoing the DEI training at a lower- level (vs. higher-level) construal will have a stronger positive relationship with intergroup anxiety. This is because a lower construal will cause individuals to be egocentric and focus on concrete details (Trope & Liberman, 2010), the “how”, as well as to reject the uncertain (e.g., Sagristano et al., 2002), which has been linked to greater anxiety (Yogeeswaran & Dasgupta, 2014). Additionally, more concrete thinking leads individuals to have more intense emotions and negative thoughts (Williams et al., 2013). Capozza et al. (2010) also tested a model that found the contact-anxiety relationship was fully mediated by superordinate group perceptions such that greater superordinate group perceptions were negatively related to anxiety (and positively related to empathy).9 The formation of superordinate group perceptions should be associated with abstract thinking and higher-level, rather than lower-level, construal, which then leads to lower levels of anxiety. Thus, I hypothesize a two-way interaction involving DEI training condition and construal level for intergroup anxiety. 9 Capozza et al. (2010) specifically focused on anxiety in reference to known outgroup members. 59 H6b: Intergroup anxiety will be lowest when the DEI training incorporates storytelling (vs. no storytelling) and when the participant is under higher-level construal (vs. lower- level construal). The final part of the conceptual model are the intermediary links between storytelling and mediators of cognitive empathy, affective empathy, social identity threat, and intergroup anxiety. I hypothesize that the storytelling mechanisms of transportation and identification are the processes by which storytelling influences these proximal outcomes (i.e., the aforementioned mediators). A DEI training that incorporates storytelling will be more likely to lead to transportation, the process by which one’s focus is brought to the story—to the point of immersion, because stories are more likely to demand or draw our attention than a non-narrative (e.g., informative) form. In turn, greater levels of transportation are hypothesized to lead to greater attention to and understanding of another person’s state (i.e., cognitive and affective empathy). H7a: Transportation will partially mediate the links between DEI training with storytelling (vs. no storytelling) and cognitive and affective empathy. Likewise, greater levels of transportation are also hypothesized to lead to lower levels of social identity threat and intergroup anxiety. Transportation would reduce an egocentric focus which is inherent in identity threat and intergroup anxiety where there is a hyperfocus on one’s ingroup. H7b: Transportation will partially mediate the links between DEI training storytelling (vs. no storytelling) and social identity threat and intergroup anxiety. Further, a DEI training that incorporates storytelling (vs. not) will be more likely to lead to identification with the storyteller or main character of a story because sharing another’s 60 perspective is a way to familiarize oneself with them. Then, greater levels of identification are hypothesized to engender greater levels of cognitive and affective empathy (i.e., understanding for the cognition and affect of others). H8a: Identification will partially mediate the links between DEI training with storytelling (vs. no storytelling) and cognitive and affective empathy. Lastly, the more one can identify with another, it would follow that one would experience less social identity threat and intergroup anxiety, as perceptions of a superordinate group are more likely to form. H8b: Identification will partially mediate the links between DEI training with storytelling (vs. no storytelling) and social identity threat and intergroup anxiety. Construal level is also hypothesized to moderate the link between storytelling and these two storytelling mechanisms. A higher level of construal will likely amplify the effects of transportation and identification, as individuals would have a greater ability to travel psychological distance, whether that be transporting oneself to the reality of the story or traversing social distance between oneself and another. H9a: Transportation will be greatest when the DEI training incorporates storytelling (vs. no storytelling) and when the participant is under higher-level construal (vs. lower-level construal). H9b: Identification will be greatest when the DEI training incorporates storytelling (vs. no storytelling) and when the participant is under higher-level construal (vs. lower-level construal). Please refer back to Figures 1 (simplified model) and 1.1 (full model) for hypotheses articulated above. Prior to testing the model, an initial background study, described in the next 61 section, gathered detail-rich, qualitative data on real-world stories and provided a basis for the manipulation materials used in the main study. The hallmarks of compelling stories, described at the end of Chapter 3, were used as a framework for thinking about the stories that were gathered. 62 CHAPTER 10: MATERIALS DESIGN A qualitative background study was conducted to aid in the design of study materials for the current investigation. Qualitative Background Study The background study consisted of 10 in-depth interviews in which participants were asked to describe a time when a non-White individual from their workplace (e.g., a coworker, a direct report) recounted to them a DEI storytelling event (i.e., recounted a time when the individual was the target of a bias- or exclusion-related experience based on their race).10 One interview was dropped because the participant noted that the storyteller they were describing was a family member as well as a coworker; thus, the final N = 9. The interviews were conducted May-June 2022. The aim of this study was to develop a rich picture of what DEI stories and storytelling look like at work and to elucidate themes. This study specifically targeted DEI storytelling focused on race to provide a more focused analysis. Information gleaned from this study informed the development of manipulations in the experimental vignette study. A descriptive, thematic analysis was conducted by the author to identify evidence of construal level, empathy, and storytelling mechanisms (i.e., transportation, identification). Sample Participants were recruited to participate in a live, audio-only interview via Prolific (https://prolific.com), a platform that helps connect researchers with participants. Prolific prescreening criteria were used to filter for a sample of white, U.S. adults (ages ranged from 27 years to 55 years; Mage = 38.4 years, SD = 9.67) currently located in the U.S. who are full time employees. The sample consisted of 4 men, 4 women, and 1 nonbinary/agender participant with 10 The interview protocol was also pilot-tested for understandability on college-aged participants from the MSU HPR SONA Pool in Spring 2022. 63 6 identifying as straight. Participants’ current jobs ranged from anesthetist to content writer to project manager, spanning industries such as finance, hospitality, and professional and business services. Participants’ current organizations ranged from less than 15 employees to greater than ten thousand. Two-thirds of the sample participated in remote work at least ‘once a month or less’. Participants were required to be able to recall and elaborate on a time when they experienced a DEI storytelling event where the storyteller was non-White (see Appendix B for the background study materials). Procedure After agreeing to an audio-recorded, 60-minute interview on Zoom, participants scheduled their interview via a combination of a Qualtrics survey (which also contained a copy of the informed consent) and communicating with the researcher through the anonymous Prolific messaging system. At the start of the scheduled interview time, the interviewer confirmed that the participant saw the informed consent as well as the participant’s correct anonymous Prolific ID. The interviewer also read aloud key sections of the informed consent, confirmed participant consent for recording audio, as well as read aloud the full instructions for study eligibility before beginning the interview. The interviewer then proceeded with the predetermined question route while asking clarifying and probing questions as necessary. At the end of the questioning route, participants were instructed to fill out a Qualtrics survey using an anonymous link (posted to the Zoom chat) to record demographic information. To conclude the interview, the interviewer sent the participant a copy of the debriefing and asked if the participant had any questions. In exchange for the 60-minute interview, participants received a one-time payment of $20.00 USD. 64 Measures A copy of the full question route is provided in Appendix B. Participants were asked questions designed to elicit information about 6 areas: story description, transportation, emotional reactions to the story, identification, story impact, and believability. Results Story Description. In 8 out of 9 participant stories, the storyteller’s racial identity was Black (the remaining one was Indian). In 6 out 10 participant stories, the storyteller was a man (4 were women). Most (5 out of 9) participants recounted a story from a coworker whom they frequently work with while the 2 out of 9 participants recounted a story from a direct report, indicating that these stories were coming from people who participants interacted with routinely.11 Three participants said the story was told to them while they were working with the storyteller, 5 participants said they heard the story during lunch or drink after work (e.g., happy hour), and one story was heard during a work-sponsored DEI workshop. Most participants (7 out of 9) heard the story in a one-on-one setting with the storyteller and (7 out of 9) did not feel that they were ever distracted or that their focus shifted away from the storyteller. Thus, most participants’ DEI storytelling events occurred in more intimate contexts. Table 1 provides summaries of the stories that participants recounted. Participants communicated a diverse set of stories with two highlighting blatant racism (See Interviews 2-3, Table 1) while others were more subtle. Most (7 out of 9) stories were about an incident related to the workplace or profession shared by the storyteller and participant. The remaining incidents occurred in the context of the storyteller’s second job. Most incidents (7 out of 9) reflected instances of bias, with one incident reflecting inclusion/exclusion and one incident consisting of 11 The last participant recounted a story from a peer worker whom they did not know before hearing the story. 65 elements of both bias and inclusion/exclusion. Probing questions helped to uncover body language or nonverbal cues given off by the storyteller. Eight out of 9 participants were able to describe the body language or nonverbal cues of the storyteller. Of these, four noted that the storyteller was higher energy (e.g., “animated,” making a lot of hand gestures, “re-enacting” the story) and four noted the storyteller was lower energy (e.g., slumped shoulders, quietly crying, quivering voice, serious tone). One participant reported that the storyteller showed a range of body language, from more animated at first to lower energy (e.g., sitting back, arms crossed) when talking about the part of the story that really “sucks” for him (the storyteller). When participants were asked why they remembered the story, their responses touched on attributions like the novelty of the situation or idea (e.g., one participant was surprised that one’s Facebook profile photo could lead to discrimination when selling on Facebook Marketplace), being appalled at the events in the story (e.g., one participant was shocked to hear the storyteller was the target of blatant racism, “This is 2022, like it should not be happening anymore.”), the fact that it had happened to someone they know and/or like (e.g., “I really liked him. I felt like he was a very kind man…He had a good personality, he was very nice, and he was just very open.”), and for some, the story recounted was still very recent (e.g., “Because it just happened a month ago…It's very easy to not forget what happened. Or what’s happening. I mean, he's still in the same group as us right now.”) Emotional Reactions. Participants were asked about their emotions in reaction to the person sharing the story12 and emotions right after the storytelling. For the former, participants largely recounted negative emotions such as outrage, disbelief, pity for the storyteller, shock, disgust towards the perpetrator, anger, sadness, confusion, hopelessness, etc. Thus, participants 12 Responses to the two questions, “What emotions did you feel in response to the other person sharing their story?” and “What emotions did you feel in the moment as the story was being shared?” were combined due to similarity. 66 were reflecting back the negative emotions that were part of the stories of discrimination and bias. When asked about their emotions after the storytelling, participants mentioned still feeling those negative emotions, but also some neutral or positive emotions such as being contemplative, numbness, compassion for the storyteller (e.g., “love for my friend”), hopefulness/determination to not behave in a discriminatory or biased fashion themselves, and feeling good in the sense that the participant felt their relationship/friendship with the storyteller had deepened as a result of sharing such personal thoughts. Thus, participants were able to differentiate to some degree between their feelings towards the story and their feelings towards the conversation with the storyteller. Story Impact. Participants were asked what impact hearing the story had on their actions and/or views afterwards. Examples of answers included: they are more likely to speak up if they hear or see discrimination or bias, they are more aware of everyday discrimination and bias, they strive to be less like the perpetrators of bias in the stories, and they are more receptive when others come to them with similar stories. Some participants mentioned very specific actions they took or would have taken, but the storyteller did not give permission, such as making a formal complaint to management, talking directly to the perpetrator(s) of bias or exclusion, or making a point to have more open and honest communication with direct reports. A few participants noted that hearing the story changed their view of the company and/or management negatively (if the story was related to their shared employer with the storyteller). Transportation. Participants were asked to verbally rate three adjectives (engaging, interesting, compelling) describing the story (Please rate how engaging/interesting/compelling you found this story?) on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = not at all, 4 = neutral, 7 = extremely so). These adjectives were chosen based on Green and Brock’s (2000) transportation theory which 67 emphasized a strong interaction between the story and listener (the listener undergoes strong emotions/motivations, the listener’s attitudes may be changed). Overall, participants rated the transportation adjectives relatively high, but with variability. The average ratings on a 7-opint scale for how engaging and interesting participants found the story were 5.67 (SD = 1.12) and 6.00 (SD = .87), respectively. The average rating for how compelling participants found the story was 5.89 (SD = 1.62). Another aspect of Green and Brock’s (2000) transportation theory is that listeners are immersed in the story. As previously mentioned, most participants felt that their attention never wavered from the storyteller.13 When participants were asked what point in the conversation they felt “invested” in/like they really cared about what the person had to say, participants gave three main answers. They reported being invested in the story: (1) when the story mentioned something novel or shocking (e.g., an aspect of everyday racism they had not known or blatant racism), (2) when they realized how emotional or serious the person was about the incident, or (3) the whole time because they liked the person or had a duty to help them (e.g., the storyteller was a direct report). Identification. Participants were asked whether they felt like they had anything in common with the storyteller. In general, participants noted that they did have things in common with the storyteller (e.g., working at the same company, having been in similar circumstances like being pulled over for speeding or using Facebook Marketplace), but they simultaneously noted that they could not share in the specific nature of the incident (i.e., being the victim of racism or racial bias as they are White). One participant felt they were the target of racial bias 13 7 out of 9 participants said that they were never distracted during the story. One participant said their attention was not always fully on the storyteller because they had the conversation during an involved task at work. Another participant said their attention was not initially on the storyteller but shifted to the storyteller. 68 before, but acknowledged it was not similar in magnitude to the storyteller’s incident (“I've had a little bit of minor, very minor reverse racism…but I don't, I really don't like to compare that to anything even remotely close to what she would go through”). Another participant said that they were targeted at the same workplace, but for identifying as non-binary, and so felt able to relate to the storyteller’s experience of derogatory racial remarks. When asked if the story caused them to empathize with the storyteller, all participants answered affirmatively. Believability. Participants were asked why they believed the storyteller. Participants consistently reported that the storyteller’s emotions made the story believable (e.g., “What made me believe her was the emotion that she had before. Again, I did ask her what was wrong, but even if I didn't ask her…you could tell the way she was talking with all the emotion in her voice, the looks on her face, her body language…You could tell she was telling the truth. It came from her heart not her mind.”). Other attributions included the amount of detail with which the storyteller described the incident or supported their view (e.g., “What made me believe them was just the amount of detail, the research that they brought. As I mentioned, it wasn't just them emotionally venting.”) and simply not having any reason not to believe the storyteller. Additionally, more than one participant mentioned that the incident was not something someone would fabricate (e.g., “it’s such a small thing”). Background Study Discussion The background study provided a foundation of real-world stories rich in detail from which to craft study materials. An in-depth exploration of the stories offers a preliminary look into this investigation’s focal storytelling mechanisms as well as other aspects. 69 Interestingly, several participants connected the story to broader racism and inequality beyond the one instance (e.g., “…because it represents bigger problems in the world…”). While this study cannot confirm when participants made this connection (e.g., as a result of the story or as a result of other events occurring before or after the story), the ability to make this connection to broader, more abstract ideas is indicative of a higher-level construal. This signals that higher- level construal may play a role in how listeners interpret DEI storytelling events. In terms of the storytelling mechanism of transportation (i.e., the listener is fully engaged in the story), participants described the storytelling events as happening in mostly intimate settings (i.e., one-on-one, privately) and that they did not feel they were distracted. The fact that most stories occurred in this type of context hints that DEI storytelling events may be most impactful when they occur in intimate contexts that promote transportation. Participants also rated the stories as relatively engaging, interesting, and compelling. Asking whether participants felt they identified with the storyteller and/or story garnered unclear responses. A recurring theme was that participants felt they identified with the storyteller on obvious, one-to-one aspects such as the fact they worked at the same company or in the same profession, that they had similar interests (e.g., anime), or that they had also been pulled over for speeding at some time in their life. Yet, participants simultaneously acknowledged that they did not have things in common with the storyteller, such as never worrying about their profile picture online, never having someone question their natural hair, and never experiencing racism to the same degree. Conversely, all participants unequivocally felt they empathized with the storyteller. The storytellers’ emotions were oft referenced and highlighted by participants in various parts of the interview (e.g., when they were asked to describe their own emotions, when they were asked why they remembered the story). Additionally, several participants reported that their closeness 70 with, general attraction to, or obligation to (e.g., storyteller was a direct report) the storyteller played an important role in why they listened to or were invested in the story. In conclusion, the background study established that employees are hearing these stories in relation to the workplace and that they can recall them in detail. The study demonstrated the presence of transportation and signals there is a certain nuance to be uncovered around identification. Additionally, the information learned in this background study informed the creation of the vignettes used in the current investigation. 71 CHAPTER 11: STUDY METHOD This experiment sought to demonstrate the effect of storytelling on DEI training outcomes and a theoretical pathway by which stories impact DEI training outcomes, incorporating storytelling with Construal Level Theory, Common Ingroup Identity Model, empathy research, and intergroup contact theory (Figures 1 and 1.1). This study was an online experimental vignette survey. The study was a 2 (condition: DEI training with storytelling vs. no storytelling) x 2 (construal level manipulation: higher vs. lower) between-subjects factorial design. The study also incorporated the use of multiple time points (two) to reduce common method bias. Specifically, Time 1 consisted of the condition manipulations (construal level and storytelling), an open-ended item to assess reactions and to act as a quality check, mediating variable measures (storytelling mechanisms: transportation and identification), proximal outcomes (state cognitive empathy, state affective empathy, social identity threat, intergroup anxiety), demographic items, and the outcome of learning (information learned from the DEI training). Time 2 (approximately one week later) consisted of a second assessment of storytelling mechanisms and proximal outcomes, as well as more distal outcome measures (willingness to engage with outgroup members, intentions to help the outgroup, learning from the DEI training) as well as trait empathy measures (cognitive and affective). Incorporating multiple time points helps to mitigate the effect of common method bias. Importantly, information from the background study informed the design of the vignettes. Sample Using Prolific filters, the sample for the main study included adults (18+ years old) currently residing in the US with US nationality and English as a first language who worked full- time. Participation was restricted to individuals who identify as White while the focal identity 72 group in the diversity training materials shown to participants was Black workers. Participants were recruited via Prolific using a number of best practices, such as determining criteria a priori, accounting for attrition beforehand, using attention and quality checks to screen, responding promptly to participant concerns, approving/denying payment promptly, etc. (Aguinis et al., 2021). An initial sample of N = 363 responses was collected at Time 1 (November 2022). Time 2 data collection (approximately 7 days later) resulted in n = 355 (attrition of 2.2%). Nine responses were dropped for incompletion and five more responses were dropped due to failed attention checks resulting in usable data from n = 341 respondents.14 The sample was 59.8% men (39% women, 1.2% non-binary/transgender) and 85.9% identified as straight. The average age was 39.8 years old (SD = 11.2 years). Participation was restricted to those who identified as White using Prolific filters, but a survey demographic item allowing participants to select multiple races showed that 1.8% identified as multi-racial (none as Black or African American). Participants averaged 3.34 (SD = 1.80) on a 7-point political orientation measure (1 = very liberal, 7 = very conservative). Participants worked on average 41.8 hours a week and job titles ranged broadly (e.g., analyst, illustrator, custodian, operations manager, VP of sales, veterinary assistant). The top five industries participants worked in included: Other (16.7%), Information and Technology (13.8%), Education (12.9%), Professional and Business Services (11.4%), and Retail (10.3%). Approximately 16.4% worked in large organizations (greater than 10,000 employees), 17.6% reported worked in medium-sized 14 This study initially sought to recruit approximately 100 participants for each condition, for 400 participants total. This estimate was deemed sufficient as G*Power 3.1.9.2. software (Faul et al., 2007) indicates that to detect a medium effect of f = .25 (with α = .05, power = .80) the total sample size should be at least 179. The goal for recruitment was significantly higher than this in case of attrition from quality and attention checks and between timepoints. 73 organizations (1,000 to 9,999 employees), 32.8% reported working small to medium-sized organizations (100 to 999 employees), 31.7% reported working in small organizations (less than 100 employees), and 1.5% responded they did not know the size of their organization. Approximately 21.4% of participants reported almost always or always working remote, 10% reported most of the time, 19.4% reported more than once a week, 8.5% reported once a week, 5.3% reported once a month or less, and 35.5% reported never. Procedure A copy of all materials presented to participants including condition manipulation materials is presented in Appendix C. After participants elected to take the survey on the Prolific platform, they were directed toward the Qualtrics survey platform to take Part One (Time 1) of the study. They first read and consented to the informed consent page. They were informed of the two-part nature of the study. Next, participants completed the construal manipulation task (modelled upon the tasks used in Fujita et al., 2006, Experiment 3). They were randomly assigned to either the higher- level or lower-level construal task. Briefly, the construal manipulation task presented participants with a list of 20 common words. In the lower-level construal condition, participants were asked to generate answers to the question “An example of X is what?” for each word. In the higher- level construal condition, participants were asked to generate answers to the question “X is an example of what?” for each word. After completing the construal manipulation task, participants were randomly assigned to a short DEI training video that was either informational (i.e., facts about discrimination against Black workers) or incorporated a narrative story from a Black woman coworker (“Monique”) detailing a time she felt put down by her supervisor prior to a big presentation for wearing a natural hairstyle at work. The training was delivered via a video 74 showing static stock photos with a voiceover. Both videos were about one and a half minutes in length. Then, all participants, regardless of condition, viewed a second, two-minute diversity training video detailing introductory DEI concepts (“DEI Basics”) such as the definition of terms such as diversity, equity, and inclusion. At the conclusion of the diversity training information, a construal manipulation check (i.e., the Behavior Identification Form; Vallacher & Wegner, 1989) was administered to all participants. Then, participants were presented with a qualitative item to prompt them to reflect on their initial reactions to the stimuli and to serve as a quality check (“Please write in 1-2 sentences your initial reactions to the DEI training”). Next, participants answered several multiple-choice items to assess storytelling mechanisms and mediating and outcome variable measures. Lastly, participants were assessed on how much information they learned via multiple choice items covering the content they learned about in the DEI Basics video previously, and then answered demographic items. They were informed there would be a Part Two (Time 2) and then paid $7.00 each via the Prolific platform for completing Part One (Time 1) of the study (estimated completion time = 35 minutes; mean completion time = 27.5 minutes). One week (7 days) later, participants were invited back to take Part Two (Time 2) of the survey via the Prolific platform. Participants were sent multiple reminders to complete the survey within 7 days of the release of Part Two. Again, they were redirected to the Qualtrics platform to take an online survey. At Time 2, they answered a second assessment of all mediating variables and two additional outcome variable measures as well as trait cognitive and affective empathy measures. After finishing Time 2 of the survey, they were presented with a debriefing page explaining the purpose of the study and directing them to further educational resources. They 75 received a payment of $3.00 each via the Prolific platform for completing Part Two, which took 14.3 minutes to complete on average (estimated completion time = 15 minutes). Measures A copy of the main study materials including measures is presented in Appendix C. Time 1 Construal Manipulation Check. The Behavioral Identification Form by Vallacher and Wegner (1989) was administered as a construal manipulation check (KR20 = .91; 25 items). Participants are asked to select the description (of two choices) that best describes a behavior. An example item is “Making a List….A) Getting organized or B) Writing things down.” (coded as 1 = higher construal, 0 = lower construal). While cell means trended in the expected directions (high BIF scores for diversity training with storytelling [vs. no storytelling] and higher BIF scores for the higher construal manipulation condition [vs. lower construal condition]), an analysis of variance (ANOVA) demonstrated no significant effects based on condition, F(1, 339) = 3.34, MSE = 142.54, p = .068. Transportation. Level of transportation (α = .74) was assessed using the 11-item, five- point Likert scale (1 = Not at All, 5 = Very Much) Transportation measure by Green and Brock (2000). Item wording was adapted for this study where appropriate. An example adapted item is, “Please think back to [when you were listening to the Black employee, Monique, who shared her story]15 [to the research you heard about Black employees at work]16...I was mentally involved in the [story] [information] while listening to it.” 15 Verbiage used in diversity training with storytelling condition. 16 Verbiage used in diversity training without storytelling condition. This format is used in subsequent measure descriptions to denote the adaptations for both conditions. 76 Identification. Identification was defined in Chapter 8 as “the extent to which the listener can perceive similarity between themselves and characters in the story and/or feel like they “know” the characters.” Identification was assessed using two subscale measures by McCroskey et al. (2006): Social Attraction (12 items, seven-point Likert scale 1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 Strongly Agree; α = .94) and Attitude Homophily (15 items, seven-point Likert scale 1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 Strongly Agree; α = .96). Only the subscales determined to be most applicable to identification as defined here were chosen (e.g., the physical attraction subscale was not chosen). Item wording was adapted for this study where appropriate. An example adapted item for Social Attraction “Please think back to [when you were listening to the Black employee, Monique, who shared her story] [to the research you heard about Black employees at work]…It would be difficult to meet and talk with [Monique] [a Black coworker]. An example adapted item for Attitude Homophily is “Please think back to [when you were listening to the Black employee, Monique, who shared her story] [to the research you heard about Black employees at work]…[Monique] [Black employees] think like me.” The social attraction and attitude homophily scales (r = .72 at Time 1, r = .75 at Time 2) were treated separately in analyses. State Cognitive Empathy. State cognitive empathy was measured with the Perspective- Taking subscale from the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI; Davis, 1980; α = .82; 4 items) which was originally developed for trait cognitive empathy. This scale was adapted in the current study to reflect state cognitive empathy and refer to an outgroup member. An example adapted item is “How strongly do you agree with the following statements about your reactions to the diversity training? I found it difficult to see things from [Monique’s] [a Black employee’s] point 77 of view.” The response scale was a seven-point Likert (1 = Strongly Disagree to 7 = Strongly Agree). This Perspective-Taking subscale was included as it gives a self-report measure of the participant’s level of perspective-taking, which is has been considered in the research as either the process that leads to cognitive empathy or cognitive empathy itself (Clark et al., 2019). Participants’ state cognitive empathy was also assessed using the Brief PANAS measure (Watson et al., 1988; αpositive affect = .92, αnegative affect = .91). The PANAS was originally developed as a measure of dispositional affect but is typically accepted as a measure of state affect in modified form (e.g., Rossi & Pourtois, 2012; Silvia & Warburton, 2006). The stem of the Brief PANAS was adapted to refer to the storyteller/outgroup member rather than oneself (example: “To what extent do you think Monique (the storyteller)/Black employees at work feel…Upset”). The response scale was a five-point Likert (1 = Very Slightly or Not at All to 7 = Extremely”; 10 items per subscale). The use of these measures, which assess the participant’s ability to correctly identify the other person’s emotions and to self-report their degree of understanding another’s emotions, follows from Clark et al.’s (2019, p. 168) definition of state cognitive empathy in which one is said to understand another person’s thoughts and affective state. Correct inference of other’s feelings is also how cognitive empathy was operationalized in Edele et al. (2013). State Affective Empathy. The Brief PANAS (Watson et al., 1988) was also adapted to measure state affective empathy (αpositive affect = .92, αnegative affect = .89). A sample item is “After having gone through this diversity training, to what extent do you feel: Distressed”. This measure identifies the extent to which participants are themselves experiencing positive and negative emotions. Experiencing less positive and greater negative affect would align participants with the storyteller/outgroup member that is presumably experiencing negative affect due to bias or 78 exclusion. That is, the extent to which one reports feeling emotions that reflect how one would expect the storyteller/outgroup member to feel in response to exclusion or bias would be an indication of state affective empathy. This follows from Clark et al.’s (2019, p. 168) definition of state affective empathy in which one experiences an affective state that is congruent with (but does not need to be exactly the same level in valence and intensity) another person’s affective state. Social Identity Threat. The perceived social identity threat measure was measured using a scale developed by Riek (2010) specifically targeting Black people as the outgroup. It consists of two dimensions (12 items per subscale): realistic (α = .97) and symbolic threat (α = .94). A sample adapted realistic item is, “Blacks hold too many positions of power and responsibility in this country.” A sample symbolic item, adapted for the target group, is, “Whites and Blacks have very different values.” The response scale was a ten-point Likert (1 = Strongly Disagree to 10 = Strongly Agree”). The realistic and symbolic subscales (r = .84 at Time 1, r = .85 at Time 2) were treated separately in analyses. Intergroup Anxiety. Participants’ intergroup anxiety was assessed via a measure by Stephan and Stephan (1985; α = .86). A sample item adapted for this study is, “If you were the only member of your race and were interacting with Black people (e.g., talking with them, working on a project with them), how would you feel compared to occasions when you are interacting with people from your own race?...Awkward”. The response scale was a ten-point Likert (1 = Strongly Disagree to 10 = Strongly Agree”; 10 items). Learning (dropped from analyses). Learning was assessed with a series of 7 multiple- choice questions developed based on the content participants saw in the second training video 79 (DEI Basics). The information required to answer the items was based on recall. Each item had one correct answer. Each correctly answered item was coded as a 1 (incorrect = 0) so that participants’ scores could range from 0 to 7 (eight-point scale). The reliability for this scale did not meet widely accepted thresholds for sufficient reliability (KR20 = .46). Examining item-total correlations did not show any obvious items to drop as all correlations were less than .30. The multiple-choice items consisted of a mix of 3-option and true/false items. Separating these two types of items for reliability analyses did not yield any improvements in the KR20 scores. As a result, the learning measure was dropped from all analyses. Demographic Items. Demographic items such as gender identity, sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, number or hours worked per week, current job title, industry, size of organization, and remote work were included. Time 2 Participants were first asked to describe what they remember about the Time 1 survey in an open-ended item to help them reflect and remember the prior survey. Participants then answered the following measures from Time 1 again at Time 2: transportation (α = .80), identification (social attraction, α = .95; attitude homophily, α = .97), state cognitive empathy (IRI, α = .75; positive affect, α = .93; negative affect, α = .91), state affective empathy (positive affect, α = .93; negative affect, α = .89), social identity threat (realistic, α = .97; symbolic, α = .95) and intergroup anxiety (α = .89). Following these, participants answered measures for two more outcome variables (willingness to engage in contact with outgroup members, intentions to help the outgroup) and a political orientation measure, as described below. Willingness to Engage with Outgroup Members. This variable was assessed using an adapted version of a two-item scale by Tropp and Bianchi (2006; α = .82). A sample item is “To 80 what extent are you interested in interacting with a Black person?” The scale is a seven-point Likert (1 = Not at All to 7 = Very Interested). Intended Helping Behavior Toward Outgroup. This variable was assessed using six items developed for this study (α = .93). A sample item is, “Going forward, I am likely to: Invest time in educating myself on how to better support Black people”. The scale used was a seven- point Likert (1 = extremely unlikely to 7 = extremely likely). Trait Cognitive Empathy. Cognitive empathy can also be a dispositional trait. It is appropriate to control for individuals’ natural tendencies to be cognitively empathetic given that state cognitive empathy is a focal variable. Trait cognitive empathy was assessed using Davis’s (1980) original, widely used Perspective-Taking subscale from the IRI (α = .82; 7 items). It consists of seven items and has a five-point Likert response scale (1 = Does not describe me well, 5 = Describes me very well). A sample item is, “When I’m upset at someone, I usually try to “put myself in his shoes” for a while.” Trait Affective Empathy. For similar reasons stated above for cognitive empathy, trait affective empathy was assessed in order to control for individuals’ natural tendencies to be affectively empathetic. Trait affective empathy was assessed using Davis’s (1980) original, widely used Personal Distress subscale from the IRI (α = .87; 7 items). It consists of seven items and has a five-point Likert response scale (1 = Does not describe me well, 5 = Describes me very well). A sample item is, “Being in a tense emotional situation scares me.” Political Orientation. Political Orientation was assessed with a 3-item measure by Pratto et al. (1994; α = .94). Participants were asked to indicate their political views on foreign policy issues, economic, issues, and social issues on a seven-point Likert scale (1 = Very liberal, 7 = Very conservative). 81 CHAPTER 12: STUDY RESULTS To test the individual hypotheses in the main study, I conducted MANOVA and regression (Haye’s PROCESS Macro) analyses. I then conducted a path analysis to test the overall model in Mplus8. To start, the data were cleaned such that only participants who passed attention, quality (e.g., no gibberish in the qualitative item), and manipulation checks are included in analyses. I recoded appropriate items (e.g., reverse coding), aggregated measures, and checked for acceptable reliability. Please see Table 2 for descriptive statistics (e.g., means, standard deviations).17 Tables 3 through 5 show bivariate correlations between variables (Time 1 variable bivariate correlations, Time 2 variable bivariate correlations, and Time 1 with Time 2 correlations, respectively). Table 6 shows correlations between measures and several demographic variables. Trait cognitive empathy and trait affective empathy were added as covariates in subsequent analyses as state cognitive empathy and state affective empathy were key variables in the model. Gender (binary coded, 1 = man, 0 = woman) was also added as a covariate in subsequent analyses since it was significantly correlated with several mediators (transportation, identification, cognitive empathy perspective-taking,18 social identity threat) and a prominent part of the identity of Monique, the Black woman coworker in the DEI storytelling condition vignette. Political orientation (7 point Likert scale; 1 = Very liberal to 7 = Very conservative) was also significantly correlated with several mediators and outcomes such that those who identified as more conservative reported lower levels of transportation, identification, cognitive empathy 17 Please use the second column in Table 2 to reference the constructs onto which various measures map. For example, the construct of cognitive empathy is operationalized with three scales (the IRI scale for perspective-taking as well as the two PANAS subscales for positive affect and negative affect). 18 ‘Cognitive empathy IRI’ and ‘cognitive empathy perspective-taking’ are equivalent terms and refer to the perspective-taking measure by Davis (1980) used to assess cognitive empathy. 82 perspective-taking (IRI), willingness to engage with members of the outgroup, and intentions of helping the outgroup, yet reported higher levels of social identity threat (realistic and symbolic) and intergroup anxiety. Political orientation was not considered a key trait variable to include or disentangle from other variables in the theoretical model. Below, I summarize each hypothesis and detail the analyses. MANOVA Analyses To test H1, H2, H4a, H4b, H6a, H6b, H9a, and H9b, a MANOVA in SPSS was conducted. Because all mediating variables were assessed at two time points (note, the two outcome variables were assessed at Time 2 only), two separate MANOVAs were conducted for Time 1 and Time 2 measures. The MANOVA for Time 1 was constructed such that diversity training condition (storytelling vs. no storytelling) and construal manipulation (higher vs. lower) were independent factors and the dependent variables were the mediating variables of transportation (Time 1), identification (Time 1 social attraction and attitude homophily), cognitive empathy19 (Time 1 IRI, PANAS positive affect, and PANAS negative affect), affective empathy20 (Time 1 PANAS positive affect and negative affect), social identity threat (Time 1 for realistic and symbolic dimensions), and intergroup anxiety (Time 1). Trait empathy variables (cognitive and affective; Time 2) and gender (binary) were added as covariates. The Time 1 MANOVA results demonstrated significant main effects between the DEI training conditions (storytelling vs. not) for social attraction (Time 1), attitude homophily (Time 1), cognitive empathy positive affect (Time 1), and cognitive empathy IRI (Time 1). Please see 19 Note that cognitive empathy was assessed using three different scales for perspective-taking (IRI; Davis, 1980), negative affect (PANAS negative affect scale), and positive affect (PANAS positive affect scale). 20 Note that affective empathy was assessed using two different scales for negative affect (PANAS negative affect scale) and positive affect (PANAS positive affect scale). 83 Table 7 for a full summary of the Time 1 MANOVA results. The effects of diversity training condition on cognitive empathy variables (positive affect, η2 = .22; IRI, η2 = .03)21 were in the expected directions such that participants in the storytelling condition had greater levels of cognitive empathy (i.e., identified lower positive affect in the storyteller, higher IRI perspective- taking scores) for the target (i.e., the storyteller in the storytelling condition or Black workers in the non-storytelling condition). The effect of diversity training condition on the identification measures (social attraction, η2 = .06 and attitude homophily, η2 = .02) was such that participants in the condition with storytelling were less likely to identify with the target of the story. Please see Table 7.1 for estimated marginal means for these significant main effects. While these results are not in the hypothesized directions, they resonate with the initial interviews conducted in which participants reported feeling empathy and/or sympathy for storytellers, but understood their experiences were very different from those of the storyteller. The Time 1 MANOVA demonstrated significant main effects of the diversity training condition and the construal manipulation separately on cognitive empathy negative affect (Time 1), but these effects were qualified by a significant interaction effect of diversity training condition and construal manipulation. Post hoc pairwise comparisons (LSD; Figure 2) revealed a significant difference (se = .10, p = .000) on cognitive empathy negative affect (Time 1) between participants in the diversity training condition with storytelling such that those who underwent the higher-level construal manipulation identified greater negative affect in the storyteller22 (M = 3.04, SD = .74) than those in the lower-level construal condition (M = 2.60, SD = .72; Cohen’s d 21 η2 = .01 indicates a small effect η2 = .06 indicates a medium effect η2 = .14 indicates a large effect 22 State cognitive empathy was previously defined in Chapter 11 as the “participant’s ability to correctly identify the other person’s emotions and to self-report their degree of understanding another’s emotions”. Thus, greater levels of cognitive empathy arise from identifying lower (higher) positive (negative) affect in the storyteller who is recounting a negative experience. 84 = .01). On the other hand, participants who were not in the diversity training with storytelling did not report a significant difference in negative affect experienced by the target group (Black workers) based on construal condition (Mhigher = 1.75, SDhigher = .63; Mlower = 1.80, SDlower = .59). These results provide support for H4a though the effect size was small. A second significant interaction effect of diversity training condition and construal manipulation was demonstrated for affective empathy (negative affect only). Post hoc pairwise comparisons (LSD; Figure 3) revealed a significant difference (se = .08, p = .025) in affective empathy negative affect between participants in the storytelling condition such that those in the higher-level construal condition reported experiencing greater negative affect themselves as a result of hearing the story (M = 1.47, SD = .60) than those in the lower-level construal condition (M = 1.29, SD = .48; Cohen’s d = .00). Yet, participants who were not in the storytelling condition did not show a significant difference in negative affect based on construal condition (Mhigher = 1.33, SDhigher = .42; Mlower = 1.38, SDlower = .51). These results provide support for H4b though the effect size was small. The MANOVA for Time 2 (Table 8) was constructed such that diversity training condition (storytelling vs. no storytelling) and construal level (higher vs. lower) were independent factors and the dependent variables were the mediating variables of transportation (Time 2), identification (Time 2 social attraction and attitude homophily), cognitive empathy (Time 2 PANAS positive affect, PANAS negative affect, and IRI), affective empathy (Time 2 PANAS positive affect and negative affect), social identity threat (Time 2 realistic and symbolic dimensions), and intergroup anxiety (Time 2). The outcomes of willingness to engage with the outgroup (Time 2) and intended helping behavior toward the outgroup (Time 2) were also 85 entered as dependent variables. Trait empathy variables (Time 2) and gender (binary) were again added as covariates. The Time 2 MANOVA demonstrated significant main effects for diversity training condition on transportation (Time 2), social attraction (Time 2), attitude homophily (Time 2), cognitive empathy positive affect (Time 2), cognitive empathy negative affect (Time 2), and affective empathy positive affect (Time 2). Please see Table 8.1 for estimated marginal means for these significant main effects. Results were similar to the Time 1 MANOVA in that the relationships between diversity training condition and cognitive variables (positive affect, η2 = .25; negative affect, η2 = .38;) were in the expected directions with greater levels of cognitive empathy (i.e., lower positive affect scores, higher negative affect scores) being reported by participants in the diversity training with storytelling (i.e., less positive affect, more negative affect); however there was no significant difference for cognitive empathy perspective-taking. Affective empathy positive affect levels were also in the expected directions (i.e., lower positive affect in the diversity training with storytelling, η2 =.01). This was also true of transportation (Time 2) where participants in the diversity training with storytelling reported greater levels of transportation, as hypothesized (η2 = .02). As with Time 1, the results for the identification variables (social attraction, η2 = .11 and attitude homophily, η2 = .07) were opposite of the expected directions, where participants in the diversity training with storytelling perceived lower identification with the target of the story. Moreover, across time points for these main effects, effect sizes remained relatively stable. When examining differences based on diversity training condition, cognitive empathy variables had relatively large effect sizes in both Time 1 and 2 MANOVAs while other variables had smaller effects across analyses. 86 Overall, MANOVA analyses for Time 1 and Time 2 variables provided support for H4a and H4b as the interaction of diversity training condition and construal manipulation was significant. MANOVA analyses did not support H1, H2, H6a, H6b, H9a, nor H9b as there were no significant interaction effects as hypothesized. Mediation Analyses Mediation Results for H3a (Cognitive Empathy as a Mediator) and H3b (Affective Empathy as a Mediator) Figure 4 is provided as a reference for understanding the relationships tested in H3a and H3b. H3a and H3b each stated that a variable (3a - cognitive empathy, 3b - affective empathy,) would mediate the DEI training condition-outcome relationships. These hypotheses were each analyzed using Hayes’ (2022) PROCESS macro v4.2 for SPSS (Model 4). A separate analysis was conducted for each combination of the measures at Time 123 with the two outcomes at Time 2 (willingness to engage in contact with the outgroup, intentions to help the outgroup). Please see Table 9 for a summary of the H3a and H3b mediation effects tested. See Tables 9.1-9.10 for full mediation results. Trait empathy variables and binary gender were added as covariates. Support for these hypotheses would be garnered if the confidence interval of the bootstrapped indirect effect for each analysis does not include zero. The majority of mediation combinations did not demonstrate significant indirect effects (i.e., zero was contained in the 95% confidence interval). H3b was not 23 Cognitive empathy was operationalized using three scales: the IRI, PANAS for positive affect, and PANAS for negative affect, so separate analyses were done for each. Similarly, affective empathy was operationalized using two scales: PANAS for positive affect and negative affect. 87 supported as affective empathy did not show any significant indirect effects (see Tables 9.7-9.10 for full results); however, the results for cognitive empathy (H3a) were more complex. When cognitive empathy for perspective-taking (IRI) was tested as a mediator, there was a significant indirect effect for the mediational path of DEI training condition→cognitive empathy IRI (Time 1)→willingness to engage with the outgroup (b = .23, se = .08, CI = [.08, .40]). Cognitive empathy IRI (Time 1) partially mediated the relationship between storytelling condition and willingness to engage in contact with the outgroup as the direct effect did not contain zero in the confidence interval (b = -.36, se = .17, CI = [-.70, -.02]). Storytelling was positively related to cognitive empathy perspective-taking which in turn was positively related to willingness to engage with the outgroup (see Table 9.1). This supports H3a. When cognitive empathy for perspective-taking (IRI) was tested as a mediator, there was a significant indirect effect for the mediational path of DEI training condition→cognitive empathy IRI (Time 1)→intentions to help the outgroup (b = .15, se = .06, CI = [.05, .29]). Cognitive empathy IRI (Time 1) fully mediated the relationship between storytelling condition and willingness to engage in contact with the outgroup as the direct effect contained zero in the confidence interval (b = -.29, se = .15, CI = [-.58, .00]). Storytelling was positively related to cognitive empathy as perspective-taking which in turn was positively related to intentions to help the outgroup (see Table 9.2). This supports H3a. When cognitive empathy positive affect (PANAS subscale) was tested as a mediator, there was a significant indirect effect (i.e., zero was not contained in the 95% confidence interval) for the mediational path of DEI training condition→cognitive empathy positive affect (Time 1)→willingness to engage in contact with the outgroup (b = -.31, se = .10, CI = [-.50, - .12]). Cognitive empathy positive affect (Time 1) fully mediated the relationship between DEI 88 training condition and willingness to engage in contact with the outgroup as the direct effect contained zero in the confidence interval (b = .17, se = .17, CI = [-.16, .51]). However, the effect was not in the hypothesized direction (H3a). While the storytelling condition had a negative effect on perceptions of cognitive empathy for positive affect (as hypothesized, hearing Monique’s narrative caused the participant to register Monique as having lower levels of positive affect), cognitive empathy for positive affect had a positive effect on willingness to engage with members of the outgroup (i.e., the “b path” of the mediation hypothesis was not supported; see Table 9.3). Thus, H3a was not supported when cognitive empathy positive affect was tested as a mediator in this relationship. Further, cognitive empathy positive affect did not show mediation for the relationship between DEI training condition and the other outcome of intentions to help the outgroup (see Table 9.4). Further, H3a was not supported when cognitive empathy negative affect (PANAS subscale) was tested as a mediator as the indirect effects contained zero in their confidence intervals (Tables 9, 9.5, and 9.6). Mediation Results for H5a (Social Identity Threat Dimensions as Mediators) and H5b (Intergroup Anxiety as a Mediator) Figure 5 is provided as a reference for understanding the relationships tested in H5a and H5b. H5a and H5b each stated that a variable (5a - social identity threat, 5b - intergroup anxiety) would mediate the DEI training condition-outcome relationships. These hypotheses were each analyzed using Hayes’ (2022) PROCESS macro v4.2 for SPSS (Model 4). A separate analysis was conducted for each combination of the assessments at Time 1 (social identity threat realistic dimension, social identity threat symbolic dimension, intergroup anxiety) with the two 89 outcomes at time 2 (willingness to engage in contact with the outgroup, intentions to help the outgroup). Trait empathy variables and binary gender were added as covariates. Please see Table 9 for a summary of the H5a and H5b mediation effects tested. H5a and H5b were not supported as social identity threat (both dimensions) and intergroup anxiety did not show significant indirect effects. Please see Tables 9.11-9.16 for full results. Mediation Results for H7a and H7b (Transportation as a Mediator) Figure 6 is provided as a reference for understanding the relationships tested in H7a and H7b, where transportation is a mediator of the relationships between DEI training condition and cognitive empathy, affective empathy, social identity threat dimensions, and intergroup anxiety. H7a and H7b each stated that transportation would mediate the DEI training condition- mediator (i.e., proximal outcomes of cognitive empathy, affective empathy, social identity threat, intergroup anxiety) relationships. These hypotheses were analyzed using Hayes’ (2022) PROCESS macro v4.2 for SPSS (Model 4). A separate analysis was conducted for each combination of the assessments, that is, transportation with each of the 8 proximal outcome measures.24 Trait empathy variables and gender (binary) were added as covariates. Table 10 shows a summary of these mediation analyses. Support for these hypotheses would be garnered if the confidence interval of the bootstrapped indirect effect for each analysis does not include zero. The predictor variable was DEI training condition. While all other variables in this analysis were measured at both time points, this analysis used the mediating variable at Time 1 (transportation) and the outcome variables at Time 2 to mitigate common method bias. 24 (1) cognitive empathy positive affect, (2) cognitive empathy negative affect, (3) cognitive empathy IRI, (4) affective empathy positive affect, (5) affective empathy negative affect, (6) social identity threat realistic dimension, (7) social identity threat symbolic dimension, (8) intergroup anxiety 90 All mediational paths for H7a and H7b where transportation (Time 1) was hypothesized to mediate between DEI training condition and an outcome were not significant (i.e., zero was contained in the confidence interval in Table 10; see Tables 10.1-10.8 for detailed results). Thus, H7a and H7b (transportation as a mediator) were not supported. Mediation Results for H8a and H8b (Identification as a Mediator) H8a and H8b each stated that a variable (H8 - identification) would mediate the DEI training condition-mediator (i.e., proximal outcomes of cognitive empathy, affective empathy, social identity threat, intergroup anxiety) relationships. These hypotheses were analyzed using Hayes’ (2022) PROCESS macro v4.2 for SPSS (Model 4). The construct of identification (mediator) was operationalized using two measures, social attraction and attitude homophily. A separate analysis was conducted for each combination of the assessments used for identification (social attraction, attitude homophily) and 8 proximal outcome measures.25 Trait empathy variables and gender (binary) were added as covariates. Table 10 shows a summary of these mediation analyses. Support for these hypotheses would be garnered if the confidence interval of the bootstrapped indirect effect for each analysis does not include zero. The predictor variable was DEI training condition. While all other variables in this analysis were measured at both time points, this analysis used the mediating variables at Time 1 (social attraction and attitude homophily) and the outcome variables at Time 2 to mitigate common method bias. The results for H8a (where the outcomes were empathy measures) and H8b (where the outcomes were social identity threat and intergroup anxiety) are summarized in the subsections below. Figure 7 is provided as a reference for understanding the relationships tested in H8a and H8b. See Tables 25 (1) cognitive empathy positive affect, (2) cognitive empathy negative affect, (3) cognitive empathy IRI, (4) affective empathy positive affect, (5) affective empathy negative affect, (6) social identity threat realistic dimension, (7) social identity threat symbolic dimension, (8) intergroup anxiety 91 10.9-10.13 and Tables 10.18-10.21 for full H8a results. See Tables 10.14-10.16 and Tables 10.22-10.24 for full H8b results. H8a Results H8a tested identification variables (social attraction, attitude homophily) as mediators of the relationships between DEI training condition and empathy outcomes (cognitive and affective). While several indirect effects were significant, none of the mediation results fully support H8a relationships in the hypothesized directions. Social Attraction. Operationalizing the identification variable using the social attraction measure (McCroskey et al., 2006) did not demonstrate significant mediation between DEI training condition and the proximal outcomes of cognitive empathy positive affect nor affective empathy negative affect. Still, there were significant mediation effects for DEI training condition and the outcomes of and cognitive empathy perspective-taking (IRI), cognitive empathy negative affect, and affective empathy positive affect. There was a significant indirect effect for the mediational path of DEI training condition→ social attraction (Time 1)→cognitive empathy perspective-taking (IRI) (Time 2) (b = -.21, se = .05, CI = [-.30, -.12]; see Table 10.9). Social attraction (Time 1) partially mediated the relationship between DEI training condition and cognitive empathy IRI as the direct effect remained significant (b = .38, se = .09, CI = [.20, .56]). While social attraction mediated this relationship, the effect of storytelling condition on cognitive empathy IRI (the “a path” of the mediation) was not in the expected direction. It was hypothesized that DEI training with storytelling would lead to higher levels of social attraction (i.e., hearing a story would lead participants to identify with the actor in the story to a higher degree). Instead, DEI training with storytelling was negatively related to social attraction (Time 1) which in turn was positively 92 related to cognitive empathy IRI (Time 2). Thus, H8a was not supported for these variables as mediation was not in the expected direction. There was a significant indirect effect for the mediational path of DEI training condition→social attraction (Time 1)→cognitive empathy negative affect (Time 2) (b = .05, se = .02, CI = [.01, .10]; see Table 10.11). Social attraction (Time 1) partially mediated the relationship between storytelling condition and cognitive empathy negative affect as the direct effect was significant (b = .93, se = .07, CI = [.79, 1.07]). While social attraction partially mediated this relationship, the “a” and “b paths” were not in the expected directions. It was hypothesized that the DEI training with storytelling would lead to greater social attraction and thus greater levels of cognitive empathy negative affect. Instead, DEI training with storytelling was negatively related to social attraction (Time 1) which in turn was negatively related to cognitive empathy negative affect (Time 2). Accordingly, H8a was not supported for these variables as the mediation was not in the expected direction. There was a significant indirect effect for the mediational path of DEI training condition→ social attraction (Time 1)→affective empathy positive affect (Time 2) (b = -.11, se = .04, CI = [-.19, -.05]; see Table 10.12). Social attraction (Time 1) fully mediated the relationship between DEI training condition and affective empathy positive affect as the direct effect was not significant (b = -.11, se = .10, CI = [-.31, .09]). While social attraction mediated this relationship, the effects of the “a” and “b paths” were not in the expected direction. It was hypothesized that DEI training with storytelling would lead to higher levels of social attraction (i.e., hearing a story would lead participants to identify more with the actor in the story) and that social attraction would lead to lower levels of affective empathy positive affect (i.e., identifying with the actor in the story would lead to feeling less positive affect as the story refers to a negative experience of 93 bias). Instead, storytelling was negatively related to social attraction (Time 1) which in turn was positively related to affective empathy positive affect (Time 2). Thus, H8a was not supported for these variables as the mediation was not in the expected direction. Social Attraction Summary. Though there were several significant indirect effects supporting mediation, H8a (mediation path: DEI training condition→identification [social attraction]→empathy measures) was not supported as the relationships were not in the hypothesized directions. Results showed that DEI training with storytelling was resulting in lower levels of identification, when it was hypothesized that storytelling would lead to greater identification. Also, greater identification was hypothesized to lead to higher negative affect and lower positive affect (to reflect that the participants were empathizing and understood Monique or Black workers were having negative experiences), but the opposite effects were found. Attitude Homophily. Operationalizing the identification variable using the attitude homophily measure (McCroskey et al., 2006) did not demonstrate significant mediation between DEI training condition and the proximal outcomes of cognitive empathy negative affect nor affective empathy negative affect. Still, there were significant mediation effects for cognitive empathy perspective-taking (IRI), cognitive empathy positive affect, and affective empathy positive affect. There was a significant indirect effect for the mediational path of DEI training condition→attitude homophily (Time 1)→cognitive empathy perspective-taking (IRI) (Time 2) (b = -.12, se = .05, CI = [-.23, -.03]; see Table 10.17). Attitude homophily (Time 1) partially mediated the relationship between storytelling condition and cognitive empathy (IRI) as the direct effect was significant (b = .29, se = .09, CI = [.11, .47]). While attitude homophily mediated this relationship, the relationship between DEI training condition and attitude 94 homophily (the “a path”) was not in the expected direction. It was hypothesized that DEI training with storytelling would lead to greater attitude homophily as well as greater cognitive empathy perspective-taking. Instead, DEI training with storytelling was negatively related to attitude homophily (Time 1) which in turn was positively related to cognitive empathy IRI (Time 2). Accordingly, H8a was not supported for these variables as the mediation was not in the expected direction. There was a significant indirect effect for the mediational path of DEI training condition→attitude homophily (Time 1)→cognitive empathy positive affect (Time 2) (b = -.03, se = .02, CI = [-.07, -.00]; see Table 10.18). Attitude homophily (Time 1) partially mediated the relationship between DEI training condition and cognitive empathy positive affect as the direct effect was significant (b = -.88, se = .09, CI = [-1.06, -.71]). While attitude homophily mediated this relationship, “a” and “b paths” were not in the expected directions as it was hypothesized that DEI training condition would lead to greater attitude homophily and thus lower levels of cognitive empathy positive affect. Instead, DEI training with storytelling was negatively related to attitude homophily (Time 1) which in turn was positively related to cognitive empathy positive affect (Time 2). Accordingly, H8a was not supported for these variables as the mediation was not in the expected direction. There was a significant indirect effect for the mediational path of DEI training condition→attitude homophily (Time 1)→affective empathy positive affect (Time 2) (b = -.08, se = .04, CI = [-.16, -.02]; see Table 10.20). Attitude homophily (Time 1) fully mediated the relationship between DEI training condition and affective empathy positive affect as the direct effect was not significant (b = -.13, se = .10, CI = [-.32, .05]). While attitude homophily mediated this relationship, the effects of the “a” and “b paths” were not in the expected 95 directions as it was hypothesized that DEI training with storytelling would lead to greater attitude homophily and in turn lower levels of affective empathy positive affect. Instead, DEI training with storytelling was negatively related to attitude homophily (Time 1) which in turn was positively related to affective empathy positive affect (Time 2). Accordingly, H8a was not supported for these variables as the mediation was not in the expected direction. Attitude Homophily Summary. The results where identification was operationalized as attitude homophily were similar to those where identification was measured with social attraction. Though there were several significant indirect effects supporting mediation, H8a (mediation path: DEI training condition→identification [attitude homophily]→empathy measures) was not supported as the relationships were not in the hypothesized directions. Results showed that DEI training with storytelling was resulting in lower levels of identification, when it was hypothesized that storytelling would lead to greater identification. Also, greater identification was hypothesized to lead to lower positive affect (to reflect that the participant understood that Monique or Black workers were having negative experiences), yet the opposite effects were found. Overall Summary of H8a Results. The results across the different operationalizations of identification (social attraction, attitude homophily) paralleled each other. Notably, DEI training with storytelling was related to lower levels of identification across the board (the opposite of hypotheses). Greater levels of identification also led to lower empathy when empathy was measured using the PANAS measures (also opposite to hypotheses). However, greater levels of identification did lead to greater perspective-taking, as expected. Overall, H8a was not supported due to the directions of these relationships. 96 H8b Results H8b tested identification variables (social attraction, attitude homophily) as mediators of the relationships between DEI training condition and the outcomes of social identity threat (two dimensions, realistic and symbolic) and intergroup anxiety. While several indirect effects were significant, none of the mediation results fully support H8b relationships in the hypothesized directions. Social Attraction. Operationalizing the identification variable using the social attraction measure demonstrated significant mediation between DEI training condition and the outcomes of social identity threat and intergroup anxiety, though not in the expected directions. There was a significant indirect effect for the mediational path of DEI training condition→social attraction (Time 1)→social identity threat (realistic) (Time 2) (b = .41, se = .10, CI = [.23, .61]; see Table 10.14). Social attraction (Time 1) partially mediated the relationship between DEI training condition and social identity threat (realistic) (Time 2) as the direct effect was significant (b = -.49, se = .19, CI = [-.87, -.11]). While social attraction (Time 1) mediated this relationship, the link between DEI training condition and social attraction (Time 1) (the “a path”) was not in the expected direction. It was hypothesized that DEI training with storytelling was positively related to social attraction which in turn was negatively related to social identity threat (realistic). Instead, DEI training with storytelling was negatively related to social attraction (Time 1) which in turn was negatively related to social identity threat (realistic) (Time 2). Accordingly, H8b was not supported for these variables as the mediation was not in the expected direction. There was a significant indirect effect for the mediational path of DEI training condition→social attraction (Time 1)→social identity threat (symbolic) (Time 2) (b = .40, se = 97 .09, CI = [.23, .59]; see Table 10.15). Social attraction (Time 1) fully mediated the relationship between DEI training condition and social identity threat (symbolic) (Time 2) as the direct effect was not significant (b = -.30, se = .20, CI = [-.69, .09]). While social attraction (Time 1) mediated this relationship, the link between storytelling condition and social attraction (Time 1) (the “a path”) was not in the expected direction. It was hypothesized that DEI training with storytelling was positively related to social attraction which in turn was negatively related to social identity threat (symbolic). Instead, DEI training with storytelling was negatively related to social attraction (Time 1) which in turn was negatively related to social identity threat (symbolic) (Time 2). Accordingly, H8b was not supported for these variables as the mediation was not in the expected direction. There was a significant indirect effect for the mediational path of DEI training condition→social attraction (Time 1)→intergroup anxiety (Time 2) (b = .23, se = .06, CI = [.12, .36]). Social attraction (Time 1) fully mediated the relationship between DEI training condition and intergroup anxiety (Time 2) as the direct effect was not significant (b = -.07, se = .16, CI = [- .38, .24]; see Table 10.16). While social attraction (Time 1) mediated this relationship, the link between storytelling condition and social attraction (Time 1) (the “a path”) was not in the expected direction. It was hypothesized that DEI training with storytelling was positively related to social attraction which in turn was negatively related to intergroup anxiety. Instead, DEI training with storytelling was negatively related to social attraction (Time 1) which in turn was negatively related to intergroup anxiety (Time 2). Accordingly, H8b was not supported for these variables. Social Attraction Summary. There were several significant indirect effects supporting mediation; however, H8b (mediation path: DEI training condition→identification [social 98 attraction]→social identity threat and intergroup anxiety outcomes) was not supported as the relationship between DEI training condition and identification was not as hypothesized. It was hypothesized that DEI training with storytelling would lead to greater levels of identification (social attraction), but this relationship was negative. The “b paths” of the mediations were as expected (i.e., greater identification was negatively related to the outcomes of social identity threat and intergroup anxiety). Thus, social attraction is having the hypothesized effect on DEI outcomes, but storytelling is not benefiting identification (social attraction) as expected. Attitude Homophily. Operationalizing the identification variable using the attitude homophily measure demonstrated significant mediation between DEI training condition and the proximal outcomes of in H8b (social identity threat and intergroup anxiety), though not in the expected directions. There was a significant indirect effect for the mediational path of DEI training condition→attitude homophily (Time 1)→social identity threat (realistic) (Time 2) (b = .20, se = .08, CI = [.06, .37]; see Table 10.22). Attitude homophily (Time 1) fully mediated the relationship between DEI training condition and social identity threat (realistic) (Time 2) as the direct effect was not significant (b = -.29, se = .19, CI = [-.67, .10]). While attitude homophily (Time 1) mediated this relationship, the link between DEI training condition and attitude homophily (Time 1) (“a path”) was not in the expected direction. It was hypothesized that DEI training with storytelling was positively related to social attraction which in turn was negatively related to social identity threat (realistic). Instead, DEI training with storytelling was negatively related to attitude homophily (Time 1) which in turn was negatively related to social identity threat (realistic) (Time 2). Accordingly, H8b was not supported for these variables as the mediation was not in the expected direction. 99 There was a significant indirect effect for the mediational path of DEI training condition→attitude homophily (Time 1)→social identity threat (symbolic) (Time 2) (b = .24, se = .09, CI = [.06, .42]; see Table 10.23). Attitude homophily (Time 1) fully mediated the relationship between DEI training condition and social identity threat (symbolic) (Time 2) as the direct effect was not significant (b = -.13, se = .19, CI = [-.51, .25]). While attitude homophily (Time 1) mediated this relationship, the link between DEI training condition and attitude homophily (Time 1) (the “a path”) was not in the expected direction. It was hypothesized that DEI training with storytelling was positively related to social attraction which in turn was negatively related to social identity threat (symbolic). Instead, DEI training with storytelling was negatively related to attitude homophily (Time 1) which in turn was negatively related to social identity threat (symbolic) (Time 2). Accordingly, H8b was not supported for these variables as the mediation was not in the expected direction. There was a significant indirect effect for the mediational path of DEI training condition→ attitude homophily (Time 1)→intergroup anxiety (time 2) (b = .15, se = .06, CI = [.04, .26]). Attitude homophily (Time 1) fully mediated the relationship between DEI training condition and intergroup anxiety (Time 2) as the direct effect was not significant (b = .01, se = .15, CI = [-.29, .32]; see Table 10.24). While attitude homophily (Time 1) mediated this relationship, the link between DEI training condition and attitude homophily (Time 1) (the “a path”) was not in the expected direction. It was hypothesized that DEI training with storytelling was positively related to social attraction which in turn was negatively related to intergroup anxiety. Instead, DEI training with storytelling was negatively related to attitude homophily (Time 1) which in turn was negatively related to intergroup anxiety (Time 2). Accordingly, H8b was not supported for these variables as the mediation was not in the expected direction. 100 Attitude Homophily Summary. As demonstrated with social attraction, there were also several significant indirect effects supporting mediation when attitude homophily was analyzed as a mediator; however, H8b (mediation path: DEI training condition→identification (attitude homophily)→social identity threat and intergroup anxiety outcomes) was not supported as the relationship between DEI training condition and identification was not as hypothesized. It was hypothesized that DEI training with storytelling would lead to greater levels of identification (attitude homophily), but this relationship was negative. Yet again, the “b paths” of the mediations were as hypothesized (i.e., greater identification was negatively related to the outcomes of social identity threat and intergroup anxiety). Thus, attitude homophily is having the hypothesized effect on DEI outcomes, but storytelling is not benefiting identification (attitude homophily) as expected. Overall Summary of H8b Results. Results for both social attraction and attitude homophily as mediators were virtually identical. While the hypothesized relationships between identification (both measures) were as expected (i.e., negative) with social identity threat and intergroup anxiety, the relationship with DEI training condition and identification was not expected (i.e., negative rather than in the expected positive direction). Path Analysis As a final analysis, the entire model in Figure 1 with, trait cognitive empathy, affective cognitive empathy, and binary gender as covariates, was analyzed using path analysis in Mplus8 (Table 11). While it is informative to test each link in the model separately, the family-wise error rate increases with each test. Conducting a path analysis is more rigorous, testing all variables in the model at once, and accounts for greater measurement error. 101 In line with the MANOVA (few significant effects) and PROCESS mediation (effects in directions other than hypothesized) results, the path analysis did not demonstrate good fit according to traditionally accepted cutoffs (RMSEA = .23; CFI = .62; TLI = -.18; SRMR = .10; χ2(51) = 982.92, p = .000). Further, examining the modification indices did not indicate any other models in line with theory. These results are in line with prior analyses, demonstrating that the full conceptual model (Figure 1.1) is not supported by the current investigation. 102 CHAPTER 13: DISCUSSION The overarching purpose of this dissertation was to elucidate and demonstrate support for theoretical pathways between DEI trainings using storytelling and beneficial DEI outcomes. I have described the theoretical underpinnings for how storytelling leads to DEI outcomes via first storytelling mechanisms (transportation, identification) and in turn empathy, social identity threat, and intergroup anxiety. I have also argued that one’s state construal level can play an important role in how impactful a DEI storytelling intervention is. While the results of this investigation provided limited support for the proposed model, the results themselves are interesting. While the DEI training condition (storytelling vs. no storytelling) resulted in a limited number of confirmed hypotheses, the lack of significant interaction effects was expected given an absence of significant bivariate relationships (see Tables 3 and 4) between construal manipulation and any variables at Time 1 or Time 2. One explanation for the lack of construal manipulation effects is that the manipulation itself was not strong enough. The Behavioral Identification Form (BIF; Vallacher & Wegner, 1989) was administered during the study as a manipulation check. Analyses revealed that though BIF responses trended in the hypothesized directions, the different conditions were not significantly different from each other. Though most interaction effects were not significant, the current investigation provided partial support for H4a and H4b interaction hypotheses whereby the effect of DEI training condition depended on manipulation construal for proximal outcomes of cognitive empathy negative affect and affective empathy negative affect. For both cognitive and affective empathy, negative affect did not differ based on construal manipulation for non-storytelling DEI training, but there was greater negative affect for those exposed to the higher (vs. lower) construal 103 manipulation who also underwent the storytelling DEI training. This meant participants in the storytelling training who were ostensibly primed to have a higher construal, including focusing on abstract concepts and the ability to bridge psychological distance, showed greater empathy for Monique, the storyteller, than those who were primed to have a lower construal (i.e., focus on concrete concepts and details, while being less likely to bridge psychological distance). Mediation analyses also provided some support for hypotheses, specifically regarding cognitive empathy as perspective-taking (IRI). Participants in the DEI training condition with storytelling indicated higher perspective-taking levels leading to greater willingness to engage with the outgroup (i.e., Black individuals) as well as intentions to help the outgroup. This finding supports the use of storytelling in DEI trainings and further bolsters literature showing the importance of perspective-taking for effective DEI trainings (e.g., Ku et al., 2015; Lindsey et al., 2015; Madera et al., 2011; Ragins & Ehrhard, 2021). The remaining mediation analyses showed more complex results, and often not in the hypothesized directions. Regarding H3 and H5 mediation hypotheses, where the effect of DEI training condition on distal outcomes (willingness to engage with outgroup, intentions to help outgroup) was hypothesized to be mediated by empathy (PANAS), none of these effects were supported. Cognitive empathy positive affect did mediate this relationship for willingness to engage with the outgroup; however, the second link of the mediation (the “b path”) was opposite to the hypothesized direction. Greater cognitive empathy positive affect led to willingness to engage with the outgroup even though it was hypothesized that lower positive affect should lead to this (i.e., it was hypothesized that participants would rate the storyteller, Monique, as showing lower positive affect when retelling a story about a negative experience; the participant would then be correctly identifying affect in another). One explanation for the opposite effect found 104 could be that participants in the DEI training condition with storytelling viewed Monique as actually having positive affect because in this scenario she was a coworker confiding in the participant about her negative experience. Participants may have inferred she was talking about a negative experience but in the moment having a positive experience (greater positive affect) in that she felt she could confide in them as a close coworker. Regarding H7 and H8 mediation hypotheses, where the effect of DEI training condition on proximal outcomes (empathy variables, social identity threat, and intergroup anxiety) was hypothesized to be mediated by storytelling mechanisms (transportation, identification), results were mixed. None of the mediations where transportation served as mediator showed significant indirect effects. Several of the mediation analyses involving the storytelling mechanism of identification, which was operationalized as social attraction and attitude homophily (each measure tested separately) showed significant partial or full mediation; however, the relationship between DEI training condition and both social attraction and attitude homophily measures (the first link of the mediation or the “a path”) was not in the expected direction. In fact, participants in the non-storytelling DEI training condition were more likely to say they identified with the target (Monique or Black workers depending on condition) when it was originally hypothesized that the storytelling training condition would lead to greater identification as the story would better familiarize the participant with the target. Interestingly, one explanation could be that participants who were sensitive to Monique’s experience in the storytelling condition felt they were not able to identify with Monique because, as White individuals, they may not have had an experience of bias based on their natural hair or something similar. This thinking is hinted at by results of the background study interviews (see Chapter 10). Multiple interview participants 105 made a point to emphasize how different their lived experiences were from storytellers or how they cannot truly understand the lived experiences of non-White storytellers as a White person. Looking at the “b paths” of the mediations where identification was the mediator, the proximal outcomes of cognitive empathy perspective-taking, social identity threat (realistic and symbolic dimensions), and intergroup anxiety all matched the hypothesized relationships such that identification led to greater perspective-taking, lower identity threat, and lower intergroup anxiety (all beneficial DEI outcomes). On the other hand, mediations involving cognitive empathy positive and negative affect as well as affective empathy positive affect were not in hypothesized directions. Greater identification was associated with identifying greater positive affect in the target (which is inaccurate given the negative experiences being portrayed, showing a lack of cognitive empathy) and the participant themselves feeling greater positive affect (a failure to reflect back the same emotion as the target, showing a lack of affective empathy). At the same time, greater identification was also related to participants identifying lower negative affect in the target (again showing a lack of cognitive empathy), despite the negative circumstances described in the training. Finally, the path analysis did not show good fit according to traditional cutoffs for fit indices, indicating that the proposed theoretical model was not supported. This was in line with mixed findings from MANOVA and mediation analyses. In sum, results show a limited amount of support for interaction hypotheses but were more promising for empathy outcomes; storytelling and higher-level construal interacted to have better empathy outcomes. Findings also support the positive effect of DEI training with storytelling (vs. no storytelling) on participants’ willingness to engage with and help outgroup members via perspective-taking. Additionally, though the relationship between the storytelling 106 mechanism of identification was not in the hypothesized direction, the relationships between identification variables and several proximal outcomes (perspective-taking, identity threat, intergroup anxiety) were beneficial. Theoretical and Practical Contributions The contributions of this investigation are both theoretical and practical. The focus of this investigation is upon a practical phenomenon—the use of storytelling in diversity training. However, the utility of this tactic is unclear, as well as the theoretical basis for its effectiveness. The current investigation makes a theoretical contribution to the literature by attempting to integrate Construal Level Theory, the Common Ingroup Identity Model, Intergroup Contact Theory, and empathy research to illuminate mechanisms by which storytelling is an effective tactic for diversity training at work, as well as under what conditions (e.g., construal level). Other work has also begun to integrate CLT with diversity literature (e.g., Hess et al., 2018; Yogeeswaran & Dasgupta, 2014) though not in the realm of coworker storytelling or narratives, so the current investigation continues to advance this subtopic. While results showed limited support for the model (Figures 1 and 1.1), they help point to needed theoretical development for DEI storytelling. For one, the integration of perspective- taking and empathy research was supported. Conversely, results surrounding storytelling mechanisms were difficult to interpret. Transportation did not have significant mediation effects. Identification had positive impacts on perspective-taking (cognitive empathy), social identity threat, and intergroup anxiety, but it was negatively related to storytelling. While storytelling could be classified as an intergroup contact event, storytelling in this study did not lead to seeing similarity with the other person; seemingly, they were not bolstering a common ingroup identity. 107 These mixed findings indicate that the role of the identification storytelling mechanism is not straightforward. It is possible that there are important features of a story or storytelling that must be satisfied (moderators) in order for it to result in greater identification that were not covered in this investigation. While it was not measured in this study, realism is a third storytelling mechanism found in the literature (Green & Brock, 2000), but it may also act as a moderator. Perhaps participants needed to find the story more realistic in order to identify with the target or empathize. When interviewees in the background study were asked about the “believability” of storyteller, they consistently answered that the storyteller’s emotions played a large role. The vignettes may not have been able to evoke this degree of emotion. On the flipside, while the non-storytelling condition was not developed for emotion, the authoritativeness of “research” being presented to participants may have made it believable. Alternatively, perhaps the sense of severity or urgency in a story matters. The story used was about a Black woman feeling put down for wearing her natural hair. Participants may have believed this story, but also felt the situation was not high in severity compared to losing one’s job or having one’s well- being at stake. While the vignette also included the context that the comment on her hair may have affected her performance in an important presentation, participants may have felt that was too far removed from a dire consequence (e.g., being passed up for promotion or being cut due to performance), or they did not notice it. Theoretically, the results around identification call into question whether contact theory (Allport, 1954) is correctly applied. It was argued that hearing a personal narrative from an outgroup member can humanize and familiarize an outgroup member, making one identify with them (i.e., form a common ingroup identity). Yet, stories of bias shared by a member of a disadvantaged group (outgroup) may mean highlighting impactful differences in experiences 108 between them and a member of the advantaged group. It is unlikely that this would lead a participant to feel like the outgroup member is “like” them (as an attitude homophily scale item asked) nor make them “like” the outgroup member as a person (as a social attraction scale item asked). Thus, a hypothesis suggesting that individuals in the storytelling condition, faced with an outgroup member’s story of bias, should identify less with the outgroup member (indicating an accurate appraisal of the situation) could also have been rationalized. Further, another conclusion may be that identification should not be viewed as a key component or mechanism for DEI storytelling. Identification may be helpful given its advantageous relationships with perspective- taking, social identity threat, and intergroup anxiety, but may not be necessary in these situations. Again, based on the background study, advantaged group members are able to recognize that their experiences may not lead them to identify with a disadvantaged group member’s experience. Thus, traditional storytelling mechanisms gleaned from transportation theory (Green & Brock, 2000) and other narrative research (see Chapters 4 and 8) need further refinement for application to DEI storytelling. It is possible that alternative storytelling mechanisms besides transportation and identification are key in situations of DEI storytelling. Yet, transportation and identification, including social attraction and attitude homophily, measures, were all moderately correlated with the DEI outcomes of willingness to engage with and intentions to help the outgroup (See Tables 3 and 4). In fact, the storytelling mechanisms had the strongest positive bivariate relationships with these DEI outcomes. This would continue to suggest these variables have a key role to play in predicting these more distal outcomes, though the current model was unsupported. It may be that storytelling mechanisms should be thought of as impacting DEI outcomes much more directly as opposed to through mediators like empathy, or there may be inconsistent mediation effects or other moderators affecting the relationships 109 examined in this study. Additionally, in order to suit the context of each condition (i.e., the context of Monique’s story in the storytelling condition versus the information on Black workers in the non-storytelling condition), the verbiage of the transportation measure items was adapted in notably different ways (See measures in Appendix C). This could have affected how participants responded to the items and the ability compare responses across conditions. A future iteration of this experiment may work to be more precise in measuring transportation across conditions. Additionally, state construal level did not have the expected interaction effects. Nevertheless, findings add to CLT literature that is currently extremely limited in the realm of diversity training and uncertain as to whether a higher construal level is beneficial or detrimental to DEI aims (Hess et al., 2018). Intriguingly, this investigation highlights a key limitation, or perhaps duality, of CLT in that the social dimension of construal level can be levied both ways. On the one hand, higher level construal allows an individual to bridge social distance and see oneself as more similar to someone else; on the other hand, higher level construal may also lead to greater fundamental attribution bias (Hess et al., 2018). Conversely, a lower level construal can help one see specific aspects of oneself in another person, but a lower level construal may lead someone to focus too much on truly peripheral details that detract from creating a superordinate identity. Further, this investigation’s focus on the listener's (i.e., the learner’s) construal level is an important feature. Many diversity trainings fail to take into consideration aspects of the learner and focus on content and context instead (Roberson et al., 2022). While these elements and factors are clearly important, it is vital to remember that especially in diversity trainings at work learners do not come as blank slates. It may be fruitful for diversity training research to better 110 account for how trainings interact with learners’ states at the time of training. The current investigation takes a step in this direction and encourages further research. Lastly, this investigation contributes to the literature on empathy by deliberately measuring state cognitive empathy and state affective empathy separately, while adhering to the definitions of cognitive and affective empathy in Clark et al. (2019; i.e., attempting to keep empathy separate from sympathy and other related concepts). Indeed, bivariate correlations of measures at Time 1 and 2 show cognitive and affective empathy variables as either unrelated or at most moderately correlated, demonstrating the importance of distinguishing between the two. In their critical review of organizational research on empathy, Clark et al. (2019) noted that it is hard to compare studies using empathy as many researchers use measures that are contaminated with items reflecting sympathy rather than empathy. The current investigation accounted for both state and trait empathy, allowing for analyses where trait empathy variables were covariates. A recent Harvard Business Review article advocated the use of storytelling to create inclusion and belonging in organizations (Rezvani & Gordon, 2021). The authors, who are inclusion consultants, assert that there is a need for a more human-centric approach to DEI as opposed to focusing on metrics like business cases and scorecards. They specifically tout the use of coworker or employee stories as opposed to stories coming from leadership, but they cite only two standalone studies, with one falling outside of diversity training (Lindsey et al., 2015; Martin, 2015). This may be taken as an indication that storytelling for diversity training and other DEI programs is only likely to continue to expand beyond extant research. While the results in this study do not provide explicit support for the use or disuse of storytelling, they signal that storytelling for DEI training should be approached cautiously. Though perspective- taking appears to be key in reaping the benefits of storytelling for DEI training outcomes, study 111 results also indicate that storytelling is not advantageous for heightening identification with the target group. As speculated above, the storytelling theory may need to be refined in cases of DEI storytelling where identity is particularly salient. Practically, the investment of time and money that organizations are sinking into diversity training should be justified (diversity training has become a billion-dollar industry; Brown, 2021). If storytelling for diversity training is the “next big thing”, it is of value to organizations to know whether it is truly impactful, or storytelling runs the risk of becoming the new unconscious bias training (i.e., widely used with little results and highly criticized; Fitzgerald et al., 2019; Noon, 2018). Furthermore, it is extremely important to consider that storytelling in diversity training is potentially costly to the storytellers in terms of their emotional labor, psychological safety, work- life boundaries, and privacy. Storytellers, especially as they are likely to have marginalized or stigmatized identities in the context of diversity training, may fear consequences for sharing a negative story relating to or that may impact the current workplace (i.e., risks of employee voice; Morrison, 2011). Just as some stories can be convincing, others are not and may actually present a risk to the storyteller. This has started to be criticized in the popular press as well (e.g., racial trauma as “commodified”; Asare, 2021). If organizations continue to implement and encourage the use of storytelling as a device to advance DEI in the workplace, it is of utmost importance that they consider whether the benefits outweigh these costs. Ideally, this study will aid in this decision. Specifically, this study demonstrated a number of conflicting findings making it more important than ever to understand if storytelling is beneficial for DEI training goals. In fact, several results from this investigation were opposite of hypotheses, possible reaping detrimental 112 effects. Most obviously, the relationship between DEI training condition (storytelling vs no storytelling) and identification variables is notably complex. Study Design Considerations While most hypotheses went unsupported, the results do not preclude the proposed model; further research is needed. Importantly, traditional training design research points to aspects of this investigation’s design that may have hampered support for hypotheses or the ability to draw further conclusions. For one, training literature emphasizes the importance of explicit learning objectives and goals at the start of training, which the current study’s design did not set forth (Ford, 2020). Additionally, learning objectives and goals are best formulated from a thorough needs assessment (e.g., an assessment of the knowledge, skills, abilities, and behaviors that employees’ need for effective performance), including as assessment of trainee readiness (Chrobot-Mason & Quiñones, 2002; Ford, 2020). This was not possible given the design of this experiment using a sample of Prolific workers. Further, a focus on active learning design (i.e., a learner-centered approach; Bell & Kozlowski, 2008) may have resulted in more effective training in this study’s training conditions. Training literature notes that even seemingly “boring” or unengaging trainings, such as lectures, can still be effective if active learning practices are utilized (Ford, 2020). To provide an active learning experience to the current study’s design, it may have been advantageous to add an aspect to the training that prompted the participants to reflect and interact on the training as it is happening, rather than passively taking in the information. A future iteration of this study design could involve asking participants reflective questions such as, “Why do you think Monique responded in this way?”, “What do you think you would have done in response to Monique?”, or “Now that you’ve heard Monique’s story, can you describe a time when you felt 113 similarly?”. These prompts could have resulted in an impact on construal or other measures. Moreover, an interesting avenue would be to test storytelling study designs based on whether they engage different learner profiles or personas, such as those suggested by Roberson et al. (2022). Psychological fidelity is also an important element of traditional training design. While low fidelity trainings are not necessarily ineffective (Ford, 2020), a higher fidelity simulation for the current study’s design could have impacted the observed effects. For example, how might having a video of an actor portraying Monique affected participant responses as opposed to a picture? Relatedly, the stock images used in the study conditions may have influenced participant responses as the image used in the storytelling condition (a Black woman worker with strong negative facial expressions) versus the image in the non-storytelling condition (a group of Black workers speaking to each other but not showing strong negative facial expressions) were not equivalent. Traditional training and active learning literatures have much to offer the research on DEI training. While DEI training literature has not focused much on how it can integrate these extant literatures, some inroads are being made (See Roberson et al., 2022). Limitations, Strengths, and Future Directions Beyond the study design considerations addressed in the preceding subsection, the current study also faced several notable, traditional limitations. First, while data were collected across multiple time points, the time points were only separated by 1 week. In this way, the study design mitigated common method bias, but with a relatively short time frame I cannot make meaningful conclusions on the longevity of study effects for diversity training. Diversity training meta-analyses (Bezrukova et al., 2016) also point out the problem of attenuated effects over 114 time. It may be that storytelling diversity training should be augmented with periodic refresher trainings. If storytelling for diversity training can be considered an intergroup contact event (as argued in Chapters 6 and 7), repeated trainings involving personal narratives would be hypothesized to strengthen intergroup relations (contact theory; Allport, 1954). Second, the primary distal outcomes of willingness to engage with and intentions to help the outgroup were self-reported and hypothetical. While intentions and attitudes inform actions, these measures alone do not provide enough information to infer whether meaningful behavior change can be expected. Behavioral change is extremely valuable for diversity training aimed at reducing behaviors that perpetuate inequitable outcomes and building skills for cultural competency. Third, a key aspect that affected reactions to the storyteller when initial interviews were conducted was one’s relationship to the storyteller. My experimental vignette study could not replicate this relationship, leaving out a key element to this type of interaction. Fourth, the construal manipulation may not have been strong enough to have meaningful effects to show support for hypotheses though some interaction effects were present. Fifth, the DEI training condition containing storytelling focused on the experience of Monique, a Black woman coworker. This intersectional identity may have affected especially women participants’ perceptions in ways not initially theorized given this shared part of their identity. The current study also featured several strengths. First, the sample contained attentive, engaged participants. Few participants were dropped due to attention checks and there was little attrition between time points. Second, the use of two time points mitigated common method bias. Third, the DEI training conditions contained several aspects that increased fidelity, including the use of audio and visuals. Fourth, multiple operationalizations of cognitive empathy (PANAS, IRI) and identification (social attraction, attitude homophily) were used, reducing the risk of 115 effect depending on a certain measure. Additionally, cognitive and affective empathy were distinguished from one another, allowing for separate inferences. Fifth, trait cognitive empathy, trait affective empathy, and gender were entered as control variables in analyses allowing for inferences based on holding these variables constant. The results of this study open a range of intriguing future directions. First, my results indicated an unexpected relationship between the use of storytelling in DEI training and the storytelling mechanism of identification. Initial interviews conducted to support the development of this study hinted that at least some participants have an awareness for how their experience differs from others, which may influence their perceptions of identification (i.e., lowering levels of identification) even if they remain sympathetic or empathetic to others’ experiences. Future studies can further explicate this complex relationship. Additionally, this study focused on two storytelling mechanisms, transportation and identification, but there may be others worth investigating that are more appropriate for DEI storytelling. For example, some existing literature points to “realism” as another mechanism (e.g., Lee et al., 2016). Another future research direction would be to expand beyond the particular mediators, outcomes, and moderators used in this study. I have focused on empathy, social identity threat, and intergroup anxiety as proximal outcomes and willingness to engage and help the outgroup as more distal outcomes; as we learn more, it will be imperative to understand the effects of DEI storytelling on objective and/or other-reported behavioral outcomes over longer periods of time.26 Moreover, the third distal outcome of learning initially assessed in this study (i.e., the 26 An exploratory repeated measures ANOVA was conducted using the two timepoints from the current study’s data, showing that the effects on certain outcomes, including cognitive empathy negative affect, perspective-taking, and identification decreased across the two-week time period. Cognitive empathy negative affect decreased between time points particularly when the DEI training condition contained storytelling and the participant underwent the higher construal manipulation. Identification variable scores decreased over time particularly in the DEI training condition with storytelling. Perspective-taking decreased over time regardless of condition or manipulation. 116 amount learned in the diversity training intervention) could not be analyzed as the knowledge measure created was not viable based on traditional reliability cutoffs. It would be beneficial to understand whether the use of storytelling in DEI training increases the information learned during training, and there are multiple types of learning that can be assessed (e.g., cognitive, behavioral, attitudinal/affective). Other moderators besides construal manipulation are also important to understanding when storytelling will be most beneficial to diversity training goals. For example, Ragins and Ehrhardt (2021) found whether participants had close cross-race friendships was key to the effectiveness of the diversity training. Bezrukova et al.’s (2016) meta-analysis on diversity training studies provides several context and training design moderators that would be interesting to investigate in regards to DEI storytelling such as length of the training, type of training (awareness, behavior-based, or combined) and setting (organizational vs educational), among others. It may be advantageous to consider the role of specific content in DEI storytelling. In this investigation, the study design was modelled on one of the initial interview study stories (Table 1, Row 8). The study was modelled on this story because it took place during a DEI training in the workplace, most closely mirroring the goal setting as opposed to other stories that happened more casually (e.g., over drinks after work hours). Further, the topic of Black individuals wearing their natural hair (or wearing hair in traditional Black hairstyles such as in dreadlocks) has been a topic frequently brought up in national news in recent years (e.g., Asmelash, 2020; Barratt, 2020; Harris, 2020), making it likely to resonate with and increase the fidelity of the story for the listener. Thus, this study focused on stories of bias and discrimination based on race, a negatively-valenced event, but would a positively-valenced event (e.g., a story relaying a 117 time with the storyteller was aided by an ally) have had similar effects? It could be argued that similar relationships would be upheld. Listening to a positive story of an ally supporting a disadvantaged group member in order to avoid or mitigate bias should also result in greater transportation and identification as it is still a storytelling event. It may result in greater identification especially as the ally or outgroup member is mentioned, making the listener (a potential ally) able to see themselves in the story. A positive story should also result in greater empathy as a perspective is being shared and made explicit. It follows that a positive story would lead to less social identity threat and intergroup anxiety as it is modelling a positive intergroup interaction. In turn, a positive story should then lead to greater willingness to engage with and help the outgroup. In support of this perspective, traditional training research would suggest that modelling both negative and positive scenarios would have the strongest impact on training outcomes (Ford, 2020). Moreover, findings from the initial interview study suggest another impactful moderator of DEI storytelling: the storyteller’s ability to tell the story well. For example, several of the participants noted the way in which the storyteller relayed their experience. The ability of the storyteller to truly capture the listener’s attention and paint a picture of the experience is likely to affect storytelling mechanisms (transportation, identification) and in turn storytelling outcomes. Follow-on research should consider ways to distinguish the storyteller’s “presentation” of events or skill in relaying information/capturing attention as compared to the story’s actual content. Lastly, this study focused on the perceptions of White participants toward Black coworkers. Other ingroup-outgroup combinations, as well as intersectional identities, should be examined in the future. 118 Conclusion The growing trend to use employee stories for DEI trainings and initiatives is often met with positive reactions and an inference that it is transformative, but it should be implemented with caution while research “catches up” to show empirical evidence of such transformative effects. This study contributed to theoretical development by testing an initial framework for the effects of DEI storytelling using Construal Level Theory, the Common Ingroup Identity Model, Intergroup Contact Theory, and empathy research. Study results provided limited support for this model and demonstrated a complex picture; DEI training with storytelling showed a few beneficial effects (e.g., willingness to engage or help the outgroup via perspective-taking), but in others, storytelling did not show meaningful differences. Future research can continue to refine the theoretical pathways by which DEI storytelling interventions affect diversity training outcomes. 119 BIBLIOGRAPHY Abma, T. A. (2003). Learning by telling: Storytelling workshops as an organizational learning intervention. Management Learning, 34(2), 221-240. Aguinis, H., Villamor, I., & Ramani, R. S. (2021). MTurk research: Review and recommendations. Journal of Management, 47(4), 823-837. Ahn, S. J. (2015). Incorporating immersive virtual environments in health promotion campaigns: A construal level theory approach. Health Communication, 30(6), 545-556. Alderfer, C. P., Alderfer, C. J., Bell, E. L., & Jones, J. (1992). The race relations competence workshop: Theory and results. Human Relations, 45(12), 1259-1291. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley. Anand, R., & Winters, M. F. (2008). A retrospective view of corporate diversity training from 1964 to present. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(3), 365-372. Andrews, D. H., Hull, T. D., & Donahue, J. A. (2009). Storytelling as an instructional method: Descriptions and research questions. The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 3(2), 6-23. Armor, D. A., & Sackett, A. M. (2006). Accuracy, error, and bias in predictions for real versus hypothetical events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(4), 583. Asare, J. G. (2021, November 28). Does resharing past experiences with racism lead to systemic changes? Probably not. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/janicegassam/2021/11/28/does-resharing-past-experiences- with-racism-lead-to-systemic-changes-probably-not/?sh=4e822413741c Asmelash, L (2020, March 8). Black students say they are being penalized for their hair, and experts say every student is worse off because of it. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/08/us/black-hair-discrimination-schools-trnd/index.html Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavior change. Psychology Review, 84(2), 191-215. Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Applied Psychology, 51(2), 269- 290. Barker, R. T., & Gower, K. (2010). Strategic application of storytelling in organizations: Toward effective communication in a diverse world. Journal of Business Communication, 47(3), 295-312. Baron, R. S., Inman, M. L., Kao, C. F., & Logan, H. (1992). Negative emotion and superficial 120 social processing. Motivation and Emotion, 16(4), 323-346. Barratt, B. (2020, June 19). The microaggressions towards Black women you might be complicit in at work. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/biancabarratt/2020/06/19/the- microaggressions-towards-black-women-you-might-be-complicit-in-at- work/?sh=75528ab22bda Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social-psychological answer. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Batson, C. D., Polycarpou, M. P., Harmon-Jones, E., Imhoff, H., Mitchener, E. C., Bednar, L. L., Klein, T. R., & Highberger, L. (1997). Empathy and attitudes: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group improve feelings toward the group? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 105-118. Batson, C. D., Chang, J., Orr, R., & Rowland, J. (2002). Empathy, attitudes, and action: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatised group motivate one to help the group. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1656-1666. Beigi, M. (2014). Using fictional stories to facilitate training and development. Human Resource Development International, 17(4), 491-496. Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. (2008). Active learning: Effects of core training design elements on self-regulatory processes, learning, and adaptability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 296. Berkley-Patton, J., Goggin, K., Liston, R., Bradley-Ewing, A., & Neville, S. (2009). Adapting effective narrative-based HIV-prevention interventions to increase minorities’ engagement in HIV/AIDS services. Health Communication, 24(3), 199-209. Berson, Y., Oreg, S., & Wiesenfeld, B. (2021). A construal level analysis of organizational change processes. Research in Organizational Behavior, Available online 3 December 2021. Bettencourt, L. A., Gwinner, K. P., & Meuter, M. L. (2001). A comparison of attitude, personality, and knowledge predictors of service-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 29. Bezrukova, K., Jehn, K. A., & Spell, C. S. (2012). Reviewing diversity training: Where we have been and where we should go. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 11(2), 207-227. Bezrukova, K., Spell, C. S., Perry, J. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2016). A meta-analytical integration of over 40 years of research on diversity training evaluation. Psychological Bulletin, 11, 1227-1274. 121 Boal, K. B., & Schultz, P. L. (2007). Storytelling, time, and evolution: The role of strategic leadership in complex adaptive systems. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 411-428. Boje, D. M. (1991a). The storytelling organization: A study of story performance in an office- supply firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 106-126. Boje, D. M. (1991b). Consulting and change in the storytelling organization. Journal of Organizational Change, 4(3), 7-17. Boje, D. M. (1991c). Learning storytelling: Storytelling to learn management skills. Journal of Management Education, 15(3), 279-294. Boje, D. M. (1995). Stories of the storytelling organization: A postmodern analysis of Disney as “Tamara-Land”. Academy of Management Journal, 38(4), 997-1035. Boje, D., & Durant, R. (2006). Free stories!. Tamara: Journal for Critical Organization Inquiry, 5(3). Boje, D. M., Rosile, G. A., Saylors, J., & Saylors, R. (2015). Using storytelling theatrics for leadership training. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 17(3), 348-362. Bormann, E. G., Cragan, J. F., & Shields, D. C. (2001). Three decades of developing, grounding, and using symbolic convergence theory (SCT). Annals of the International Communication Association, 25(1), 271-313. Boyce, M. E. (1996). Organizational story and storytelling: A critical review. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 9(5), 5-26. Branscombe, N. R., Spears, R., Ellemers, N., & Doosje, B. (2002). Intragroup and intergroup evaluation effects on group behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 744-753. Brown, J. (n.d.). Using your diversity story to connect in the workplace. Jennifer Brown Consulting. https://jenniferbrownconsulting.com/blog/using-your-diversity-story-to- connect-in-the-workplace/ Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40-57. Brown, A. D., Gabriel, Y., & Gherardi, S. (2009). Storytelling and change: An unfolding story. Organization, 16(3), 323-333. Brown, R., & Hewstone, M. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 255-343. 122 Capozza, D., Vezzali, L., Trifiletti, E., Falvo, R., & Favara, I. (2010). Improving intergroup relationships within and outside the contact situation: The role of common ingroup identity and emotions of empathy and anxiety. TPM-Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 17(1), 17-36. Catalyst. (2019, January 17). Case study: Eli Lilly and Company – Employee journeys and people strategy. Catalyst. https://www.catalyst.org/research/eli-lilly-and-company- employee-journeys-and-people-strategy/ Chrobot-Mason, D., & Quinones, M. A. (2002). Training for a diverse workplace. In K. Kraiger (Ed.), Creating, implementing and managing effective training and development: 117- 159, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Cialdini, R. B., Brown, S. L., Lewis, B. P, Luce, C., & Neuberg, S. L. (1997). Reinterpreting the empathy-altruism relationship: When one into one equals into one equals oneness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 481-494. Cikara, M., & Fiske, S. T. (2011). Bounded empathy: Neural responses to outgroup targets' (mis) fortunes. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23(12), 3791-3803. Clark, M. A., Robertson, M. M., & Young, S. (2019). “I feel your pain”: A critical review of organizational research on empathy. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(2), 166-192. Colletta, J. (2020, June 30). How storytelling can drive D&I. Human Resource Executive. https://hrexecutive.com/how-storytelling-can-drive-di/ Cortland, C. I., Craig, M. A., Shapiro, J. R., Richeson, J. A., Neel, R., & Goldstein, N. J. (2017). Solidarity through shared disadvantage: Highlighting shared experiences of discrimination improves relations between stigmatized groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(4), 547. Cragan, J. F., & Shields, D. C. (1998). Understanding communication theory: The communicative forces for human action. Allyn & Bacon. Crisp, R. J., & Turner, R. N. (2009). Can imagined interactions produce positive perceptions? Reducing prejudice through simulated social contact. American Psychologist, 64(4), 231– 240. Crossan, M. M., Lane, H. W., & White, R. E. (1999). An organizational learning framework: From intuition to institution. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 522-537. Cullen, E. T. (2008). Tell Me a Story Using Stories to Improve Occupational Safety Training. Professional Safety, 53(07). Dailey, S. L., & Browning, L. (2014). Retelling stories in organizations: Understanding the functions of narrative repetition. Academy of Management Review, 39(1), 22-43. 123 Daniels, K., Glover, J., & Mellor, N. (2014). An experience sampling study of expressing affect, daily affective well‐being, relationship quality, and perceived performance. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 87, 781–805. Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85. Dawson, L. (2021, May 17). How employee stories can help you build a more inclusive workplace. LinkedIn Talent Blog. https://www.linkedin.com/business/talent/blog/talent- acquisition/employee-stories-build-more-inclusive-workplace Decety, J., & Yoder, K. J. (2016). Empathy and motivation for justice: Cognitive empathy and concern, but not emotional empathy, predict sensitivity to injustice for others. Social Neuroscience, 11(1), 1-14. Delara, M., Ghofranipour, F., Fallah, P. A., Tavafian, S. S., Kazemnejad, A., Montazeri, A., A. R., Sani, & Kooshki, M. (2013). Coping strategy in adolescents with premenstrual syndrome: application of the construal level theory and the precaution adoption process model. Psychology, health & medicine, 18(2), 203-212. Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., & Sweitzer, V. L. (2008). Moral disengagement in ethical decision making: A study of antecedents and outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 374– 391. DiversityInc (2020). The 2020 DiversityInc top 50 companies for diversity. DiversityInc. https://www.diversityinc.com/the-2020-top-50-diversityinc/ Dixon, J., Durrheim, K., Tredoux, C. G., Tropp, L. R., Clack, B., Eaton, L., & Quayle, M. (2010). Challenging the stubborn core of opposition to equality: Racial contact and policy attitudes. Political Psychology, 31(6), 831-855. Dobbin, F., & Kalev, A. (2018). Why doesn’t diversity training work? The challenge for industry and academia. Anthropology Now, 10(2), 48-55. Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Validzic, A., Matoka, K., Johnson, B., & Frazier, S. (1997). Extending the benefits of re-categorization: Evaluations, self-disclosure and helping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 401-420. Dovidio, J. F., Johnson, J. D., Gaertner, S. L., Pearson, A. R., Saguy, T., & Ashburn-Nardo, L. (2010). Empathy and intergroup relations. In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior: The better angels of our nature (pp. 393– 408). American Psychological Association. Driscoll, C., & McKee, M. (2006). Restorying a culture of ethical and spiritual values: A role for leader storytelling. Journal of Business Ethics, 73, 205-217. 124 Edele, A., Dziobek, I., & Keller, M. (2013). Explaining altruistic sharing in the dictator game: The role of affective empathy, cognitive empathy, and justice sensitivity. Learning and Individual Differences, 24, 96-102. Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. A. (1987). The relation of empathy to prosocial and related behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 91–119. Eiris, R., Jain, A., Gheisari, M., & Wehle, A. (2020). Safety immersive storytelling using narrated 360-degree panoramas: A fall hazard training within the electrical trade context. Safety Science, 127, 104703. EnglishClub. (n.d.) 25 most common nouns. https://www.englishclub.com/vocabulary/common-nouns-25.php Epler, M. B. (Host). (2021, September 28). The power of storytelling to create change with Cynthia Overton (No. 55) [Audio podcast episode]. In Leading with Empathy & Allyship. Change Catalyst. https://changecatalyst.co/cynthia-overton/ Esen, E. (2005). "Workplace Diversity Practices Survey Report." Alexandria, VA: Society for Human Resource Management. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-191. Fiedler, K. (2007). Construal level theory as an integrative framework for behavioral decision‐ making research and consumer psychology. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2), 101-106. Finlay, K. A., & Stephan, W. G. (2000). Improving intergroup relations: The effects of empathy on racial attitudes 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(8), 1720-1737. Fisher, W. R. (1984). Narration as a human communication paradigm: The case of public moral argument. Communications Monographs, 51(1), 1-22. Fitzgerald, C., Martin, A., Berner, D., & Hurst, S. (2019). Interventions designed to reduce implicit prejudices and implicit stereotypes in real world contexts: a systematic review. BMC Psychology, 7(1), 1-12. Ford, J. K. (2020). Learning in Organizations: An Evidence-Based Approach. Routledge. Förster, J. (2009). Relations between perceptual and conceptual scope: How global versus local processing fits a focus on similarity versus dissimilarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 138, 88–111. 125 Forster, N., Cebis, M., Majteles, S., Mathur, A., Morgan, R., Preuss, J., Tiwari, V., & Wilkinson, D. (1999). The role of story-telling in organizational leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 20(1), 11-17. Fujita, K., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Levin-Sagi, M. (2006). Construal levels and self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(3). 351-367. Galfin, J. M., & Watkins, E. R. (2012). Construal level, rumination, and psychological distress in palliative care. Psycho‐Oncology, 21(6), 680-683. Goddu, A. P., Raffel, K. E., & Peek, M. E. (2015). A story of change: The influence of narrative on African-Americans with diabetes. Patient Education and Counseling, 98, 1017-1024. Gordijn, E. H., Wigboldus, D., & Yzerbyt, V. (2001). Emotional consequences of categorizing victims of negative outgroup behavior as ingroup or outgroup. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 4(4), 317-326. Grant, N. S., & Bolin, B. L. (2016). Digital storytelling: A method for engaging students and increasing cultural competency. Journal of Effective Teaching, 16(3), 44-61. Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 701-721. Green, L. W., & Kreuter, M. W. (1991). Health promotion planning: An educational and environmental approach. Mayfield. Grisham, T. (2006). Metaphor, poetry, storytelling and cross-cultural leadership. Management Decision, 44(4), 486-503. Gutsell, J. N., & Inzlicht, M. (2010). Empathy constrained: Prejudice predicts reduced mental simulation of actions during observation of outgroups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(5), 841-845. Haigh, C., & Hardy, P. (2011). Tell me a story – A conceptual exploration of storytelling in healthcare education. Nurse Education Today, 31, 408-411. Hancock, B., Manyika, J., Williams, M., & Yee, L. (2021, April 15). The Black experience at work in charts. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured- insights/diversity-and-inclusion/the-black-experience-at-work-in-charts Hancock, B., Williams, M., Manyika, J., Yee, L., & Wong, J. (2021, February 21). Race in the workplace: The Black experience in the US private sector. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inclusion/race-in-the- workplace-the-black-experience-in-the-us-private-sector Hansen, C. D., & Kahnweiler, W. M. (1993). Storytelling: An instrument for understanding the 126 dynamics of corporate relationships. Human Relations, 46(12), 1391-1409. Hambrick, D. C., & Mason, P. A. (1984). Upper echelons: The organization as a reflection of its top managers. Academy of Management Review, 9(2), 193-206. Harris, K. (2020, July 2). Commentary: As a Black woman, I faced hair discrimination on my second day in the Navy. The San Deigo Union-Tribune. https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/opinion/commentary/story/2020-07- 02/commentary-as-a-black-woman-i-faced-hair-discrimination-on-my-second-day-in-the- navy Hayes, A. F. (2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Hess, Y. D., Carnevale, J. J., & Rosario, M. (2018). A construal level approach to understanding interpersonal processes. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 12(8), e12409. Hewstone, M., Cairns, Voci, A., Paolini, S., McLernon, F., Crisp, R., & Niens, U. (2005). Intergroup contact in a divided society: Challenging segregation in Northern Ireland. In D. Abrams, J. M. Marques, & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), The social psychology of inclusion and exclusion (pp. 265–292). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press. Hewstone, M., & Swart, H. (2011). Fifty‐odd years of inter‐group contact: From hypothesis to integrated theory. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50(3), 374-386. Ho, V. T., & Gupta, N. (2012). Testing an empathy model of gues-directed citizenship and counterproductive behaviours in the hospitality industry: Findings from three hotels. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 85, 433-453. Holt, L., Bobocel, D. R., & Chen, V. (2020). Delivering bad news fairly: Higher construal level promotes interactional justice enactment through perspective taking. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 42, 708-725. Houston, T. K., Allison, J. J., Sussman, M., Horn, W., Holt, C. L., Trobaugh, J., Salas, M., Pisu, M., Cuffee, Y. L., Larkin, D., Person, S. D., Barton, B., Kiefe, C. I., & Hullett, S. (2011). Culturally appropriate storytelling to improve blood pressure: A randomized rial. Annals of Internal Medicine, 154, 77-84. Houston, T. K., Cherrington, A., Coley, H. L., Robinson, K. M., Trobaugh, J. A., Williams, J. H., Foster, P. H., Ford, D. E., Gerber, B. S., Shewchuck, R. M., Allison, J. J. (2011). The art and science of patient storytelling – Harnessing narrative communication for behavioral Islam, M. R., & Hewstone, M. (1993). Dimensions of contact as predictors of intergroup anxiety, perceived out-group variability, and out-group attitude: An integrative model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 700–710. 127 Jetten, J., Postmes, T., & McAuliffe, B. J. (2002). “We’re all individuals”: Group norms of individualism and collectivism, levels of identification and identity threat. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 189-207. Joireman, J., Kamdar, D., Daniels, D., & Duell, B. (2006). Good citizens to the end? It depends: empathy and concern with future consequences moderate the impact of a short-term time horizon on organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(6), 1307. Jones, K. P., King, E. B., Nelson, J., Geller, D. S., & Bowes‐Sperry, L. (2013). Beyond the business case: An ethical perspective of diversity training. Human Resource Management, 52(1), 55-74. Kalinoski, Z. T., Steele-Johnson, D., Peyton, E. J., Leas, K. A., Steinke, J., & Bowling, N. A. (2013). A meta-analytic evaluation of diversity training outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, 1076–1104. Kent State University. (2020). Health education and promotion. Kent State University. https://www.kent.edu/ehhs/hs/hedp Krautheim, J. T., Dannlowski, U., Steines, M., Neziroğlu, G., Acosta, H., Sommer, J., Straube, B., & Kircher, T. (2019). Intergroup empathy: enhanced neural resonance for ingroup facial emotion in a shared neural production-perception network. Neuroimage, 194, 182- 190. Krentz, M. (2020, June 23). More than ever, diversity and inclusion matter at Eli Lilly and Company. Boston Consulting Group. https://www.bcg.com/en-us/capabilities/diversity- inclusion/matter-more-than-ever-at-eli-lilly-conversation-with-ceo-dave-ricks Kreuter, M. W., Green, M. C., Cappella, J. N., Slater, M. D., Wise, M. E., Storey, D., Clark, E. M., O’Keefe, D. J., Erwin, D. O., Holmes, K., Hinyard, L. J., Houston, T., & Woolley, S. (2007). Narrative communication in cancer prevention and control: A framework to guide research and application. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 33(3), 221-235. Ku, G., Wang, C. S., & Galinsky, A. D. (2015). The promise and perversity of perspective-taking in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 35, 79-102. Larkey, L. K., & Gonzalez, J. (2007). Storytelling for promoting colorectal cancer prevention and early detection among Latinos. Patient Education and Counseling, 67, 272-278. Larkey, L. K., & Hecht, M. (2010). A model of effects of narrative as culture-centric health promotion. Journal of Health Communication, 15(2), 114-135. Lee, S. J. (2019). The role of construal level in message effects research: A review and future directions. Communication Theory, 29(3), 319-338. 128 Lee, H., Fawcet, J., & DeMarco, R. (2016). Storytelling/narrative theory to address health communication with minority populations. Applied Nursing Research, 30, 58-60. Leonard, D. J., Mackie, D. M., & Smith, E. R. (2011). Emotional responses to intergroup apology mediate intergroup forgiveness and retribution. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 1198–1206. Leonard, D. J., Moons, W. G., Mackie, D. M., & Smith, E. R. (2011). We’re mad as hell and we’re not going to take it anymore: Anger self-stereotyping and collective action. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 14, 99–111. Levy, S. R., Freitas, A. L., & Salovey, P. (2002). Construing action abstractly and blurring social distinctions: Implications for perceiving homogeneity among, but also empathizing with and helping, others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1224–1238. Liberman, N., Polack, O., Hameiri, B., & Blumenfeld, M. (2012). Priming of spatial distance enhances children’s creative performance. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 111(4), 663-670. Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (1998). The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. Journal of personality and social psychology, 75(1), 5. Lim, H. (2018). Scenario-Based Workplace Training as Storytelling. In B. Hokanson, G. Clinton, & K. Kaminski (Eds.), Educational Technology and Narrative: Story and instructional design (pp. 65-72). Springer, Cham. Lindsey, A., King, E., Hebl, M., & Levine, N. (2015). The impact of method, motivation, and empathy on diversity training effectiveness. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30(3), 605-617. Linville, P. W., Fischer, G. W., & Yoon, C. (1996). Perceived covariation among the features of ingroup and outgroup members: The outgroup covariation effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 421–436. Lipsey, A. F., Waterman, A. D., Wood, E. H., & Balliet, W. (2020). Evaluation of first-person storytelling on changing health-related attitudes, knowledge, behaviors, and outcomes: a scoping review. Patient Education and Counseling, 103(10), 1922-1934. Los Angeles Times. (2021, December 15). Majority of U.S. employers have implemented DEI initiatives in 2021. https://www.latimes.com/b2b/diversity/story/2021-12-15/majority-of- u-s-employers-have-implemented-dei-initiatives-in-2021 Luguri, J. B., Napier, J. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2012). Reconstruing intolerance: Abstract thinking reduces conservatives' prejudice against nonnormative groups. Psychological Science, 23, 756–763. 129 Lutchyn, Y., & Yzer, M. (2011). Construal level theory and theory of planned behavior: Time frame effects on salient belief generation. Journal of health communication, 16(6), 595- 606. Mackie, D. M., Maitner, A. T., & Smith, E. R. (2016). Intergroup emotions theory. In T. D. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (2nd ed., pp. 149- 174). Psychology Press, New York, NY. Madera, J. M., Neal, J. A., & Dawson, M. (2011). A strategy for diversity training: Focusing on empathy in the workplace. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 35(4), 469-487. Maner. J. K., Luce, C. L., Neuberg, S, L, Cialdini, R. B., Brown, S., & Sagarin. B. J. (2002). The effects of perspective taking on motivations for helping: Still no evidence for altruism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1601-1610. Manglona, R. D., Robert, S., Isaacson, L. S. N, Garrido, M., Henrich, F. B., Santos, L. S., Le, D., & Peters, R. (2010). Promoting breast cancer screening through storytelling by Chamorro cancer survivors. California Journal of Health Promotion, 8(Spec Issue), 90-95. Martin, S. R. (2015). Stories about values and valuable stories: A field experiment of the power of narratives to shape newcomer’s actions. Academy of Management Journal, 59(5). McCarthy, J. W., Donofrio-Horwitz, L. M., & Smucker, L. M. D. (2010). The effects of reading personal narratives written by an individual who uses AAC on the attitudes of pre- professionals in business. Augmentative and Alternative Communications, 26(2), 61-74. McCrea, S. M., Wieber, F., & Myers, A. L. (2012). Construal level mind-sets moderate self- and social stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 51–68. McCroskey, L. L., McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (2006). Analysis and improvement of the measurement of interpersonal attraction and homophily. Communication Quarterly, 54(1), 1-31. Mentovich, A., Yudkin, D., Tyler, T., & Trope, Y. (2016). Justice without borders: The influence of psychological distance and construal level on moral exclusion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(10), 1349-1363. Miklikowska, M. (2018). Empathy trumps prejudice: The longitudinal relation between empathy and anti-immigrant attitudes in adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 54(4), 703-717. Miron, A. M., & Branscombe, N. R. (2008). Social categorization, standards of justice, and collective guilt. In A. Nadler, T. Malloy, & J. Fisher (Eds.). Social psychology of intergroup reconciliation, (pp 77-96). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Moons, W. G., Leonard, D. J., Mackie, D. M., & Smith, E. R. (2009). I feel our pain: 130 Antecedents and consequences of emotional self-stereotyping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 760–769. Morrison, E.W. (2011). Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future research. The Academy of Management Annals, 5(1), 373-412. Murphy, S. T., Frank, L. B., Chatterjee, J. S., & Baezconde-Garbanti, L. (2013). Narrative versus nonnarrative: The role of identification, transportation, and emotion in reducing health disparities. Journal of Communication, 63, 116-137. Newman-Bremang, K. (2020, October 6). White people, are you done “listening & learning” yet? Refinery29. https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2020/10/10076177/listen-learn- racism-at-work-diversity-training Nguyen, H. L., Allison, J. J., Ha, D. H., Chiriboga, G., Ly, H. N., Tran, H. T., Nguyen, C. K., Dang, D. M., Phan, N. T., Vu, N. C., Nguyen, Q. P., & Goldberg, R. J. (2017). Culturally adaptive storytelling intervention versus didactic intervention to improve hypertension control in Vietnam: A cluster-randomized controlled feasibility trial. Pilot and Feasibility Studies, 3(22), 1-11. Nier, J. A., Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Banker, B. S., & Ward, C. M. (2001). Changing interracial evaluations and behavior: The effects of a common group identity. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 4, 299-316. Noon, M. (2018). Pointless diversity training: Unconscious bias, new racism, and agency. Work, Employment, and Society, 32(1), 198-209. Nussbaum, S., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Creeping dispositionism: The temporal dynamics of behavior prediction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(3), 485. Paluck, E. L. (2006). Diversity training and intergroup contact: A call to action research. Journal of Social Issues, 62, 577-595. Paluck, E. L., & Green, D. P. (2009). Prejudice reduction: What works? A review and assessment of research and practice. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 339-367. Paolini, S., Hewstone, M., Cairns, E., & Voci, A. (2004). Effects of direct and indirect crossgroup friendships on judgments of Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland: The mediating role of an anxiety-reduction mechanism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 770–786. Papouli, E. (2021). Understanding diversity through collaborative and creative workshops and across different contexts. Practice: Social Work in Action, 33(3), 171-190. Park, J. H., & Schaller, M. (2005). Does attitude similarity serve as a heuristic cue for kinship? 131 Evidence of an implicit cognitive association. Evolution of Human Behavior, 26, 158- 170. Patel, J. (n.d.). Hispanic and Latinx diversity and inclusion in the workplace. People Scout. https://www.peoplescout.com/insights/hispanic-and-latinx-diversity-and-inclusion/ Patient, D. L., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2010). Increasing interpersonal and informational justice when communicating negative news: The role of the manager's empathic concern and moral development. Journal of Management, 36, 555–578. Payne, E., (2020, October 23). Inclusive storytelling: Highlighting the Black voices in your workforce. BenefitsPRO. https://www.benefitspro.com/2020/10/23/inclusive-storytelling- highlighting-the-black-voices-in-your-workforce/ Pendry, L. F., Driscoll, D. M., & Field, S. C. T. (2007). Diversity training: Putting theory into practice. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 27-50. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta‐ analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(6), 922-934. Ployhart, R. E., & Hakel, M. D. (1998). The substantive nature of performance variability: Predicting interindividual differences in intraindividual performance. Personnel Psychology, 51, 859–901. Pohl, S., Dal Santo, L., & Battistelli, A. (2015). Empathy and emotional dissonance: Impact on organizational citizenship behaviors. European Review of Applied Psychology, 65(6), 295-300. Polman, E., & Emich, K. J. (2011). Decisions for others are more creative than decisions for the self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(4), 492-501. 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, 67, 741–763. Pryor, J. B., Reeder, G. D., Yeadon, C., & Hesson-McInnis, M. (2004). A dual-process model of reactions to perceived stigma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(4), 436. Ragins, B. R., & Ehrhardt, K. (2021). Gaining perspective: The impact of close cross-race friendships on diversity training and education. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(6), 856. Ray, D. G., Mackie, D. M., Rydell, R. J., & Smith, E. R. (2008). Changing categorization of self 132 can change emotions about out-groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1210–1213. Reyt, J. N., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (2015). Seeing the forest for the trees: Exploratory learning, mobile technology, and knowledge workers’ role integration behaviors. Academy of Management Journal, 58(3), 739-762. Rezvani, S., & Gordon, S. A. (2021, November 1). How sharing our stories builds inclusion. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2021/11/how-sharing-our-stories-builds-inclusion Richins, M. T, Barreto, M., Karl, A., & Lawrence, N. (2019) Empathic responses are reduced to competitive but not non-competitive outgroups. Social Neuroscience, 14(3), 345-358. Riek, B. M., Mania, E. W., Gaertner, S. L., McDonald, S. A., & Lamoreaux, M. J. (2010). Does a common ingroup identity reduce intergroup threat?. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13(4), 403-423. Rim, S., Uleman, J. S., & Trope, Y. (2009). Spontaneous trait inference and construal level theory: Psychological distance increases nonconscious trait thinking. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 1088–1097. Roberson, Q., Moore, O. A., & Bell, B. S. (2022). An active learning approach to diversity training. Academy of Management Review. Rossi, V., & Pourtois, G. (2012) Transient state-dependent fluctuations in anxiety measured using STAI, POMS, PANAS or VAS: A comparative review. Anxiety, Stress & Coping, 25(6), 603-645. Ruckmann, J., Bodden, M., Jansen, A., Kircher, T., Dodel, R., & Rief, W. (2015). How pain empathy depends on ingroup/outgroup decisions: A functional magnet resonance imaging study. Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging, 234, 57-65. Sagristano, M. D., Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2002). Time-dependent gambling: odds now, money later. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 131(3), 364-376. Salicru, S. (2018). Storytelling as a leadership practice for sensemaking to drive change in times of turbulence and high velocity. Journal of Leadership, Accountability, and Ethics, 15(2), 130-140. Schor, S. M., Sims, R. R., & Dennehy, R. F. (1996). Power and diversity: Sensitizing yourself and others through self-reflection and storytelling. Journal of Management Education, 20(2), 242-257. Schwartz, A., Eyal, T., & Tamir, M. (2018). Emotions and the big picture: The effects of 133 construal level on emotional preferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 78, 55-65. Sharma, A., & Grant, D. (2011). Narrative, drama and charismatic leadership: The case of Apple’s Steve Jobs. Leadership, 7(1), 3–26. Shih, M. J., Stotzer, R., & Gutiérrez, A. S. (2013). Perspective-taking and empathy: Generalizing the reduction of group bias towards Asian Americans to general outgroups. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 4(2), 79-83. Shih, M., Wang, E., Trahan Bucher, A., & Stotzer, R. (2009). Perspective taking: Reducing prejudice towards general outgroups and specific individuals. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 12(5), 565-577. Shook, C. (2022). Teaching tip: Vignettes to support diversity training in information. Journal of Information Systems Education, 33(1), 15-22. Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., Holcombe Ehrhart, K., & Singh, G. (2011). Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research. Journal of management, 37(4), 1262-1289. Silvia, P. J., & Warburton, J. B. (2006). Positive and Negative Affect: Bridging States and Traits. In J. C. Thomas, D. L. Segal, & M. Hersen (Eds.), Comprehensive Handbook of Personality and Psychopathology, Vol. 1. Personality and Everyday Functioning (pp. 268–284). John Wiley & Sons Inc. Simon, S., Magaldi, M. E., & O’Brien, L. T. (2019). Empathy versus evidence: Does perspective-taking for a discrimination claimant bias judgments of institutional sexism?. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 22(8), 1109-1123. Sitzman, T., Ely, K., Brown, K., & Bauer, K. (2010). Self-assessment of knowledge: A cognitive learning or affective measure? Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9, 169– 191. Solórzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2002). Critical race methodology: Counter-storytelling as an analytical framework for education research. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 23-44. Soundy, A., & Reid, K. (2019). The psychosocial impact and value of participating in a storytelling intervention for patients diagnosed with cancer: An integrative review. Open Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, 7, 35-77. Stephan, W. G., & Finlay, K. (1999). The role of empathy in improving intergroup relations. Journal of Social issues, 55(4), 729-743. Stephan, W. G., & Renfro, C. L. (2002). The role of threats in intergroup relations. In D. Mackie & E. R. Smith (Eds.), From prejudice to intergroup emotions (pp. 191-208). New York: 134 Psychology Press. Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1985). Intergroup anxiety. Journal of Social Issues, 41(30), 157-175. Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., & Rios, K. (2016). Intergroup threat theory. In T. D. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 255–278). Psychology Press. Stillman, P. E., Lee, H., Deng, X., Unnava, H. R., Cunningham, W. A., & Fujita, K. (2017). Neurological evidence for the role of construal level in future-directed thought. Social cognitive and affective neuroscience, 12(6), 937-947. Stroud, K. (2015). Once upon a time at work: discovering the stories in workplace training. Industrial and Commercial Training, 47(1), 31-35. Sugiyama, K., Ladge, J. J., & Bilimoria, D. (2022). Calling Oneself and Others In: Brokering Identities in Diversity Training. Academy of Management Journal. Stürmer, S., Snyder, M., Kropp, A., & Siem, B. (2006). Empathy-motivated helping: The moderating role of group membership. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(7), 943-956. Stürmer, S., Snyder, M., & Omoto, A. M. (2005). Prosocial emotions and helping: the moderating role of group membership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(3), 532. Swap, W., Leonard, D., Shields, M., & Abrams, L. (2001). Using mentoring and storytelling to transfer knowledge in the workplace. Journal of Management Information Systems, 18(1), 95-114. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). California: Brooks & Cole. Tarrant, M., Dazeley, S., & Cottom, T. (2009). Social categorization and empathy for outgroup members. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48(3), 427-446. Taylor, D. B. (2021, November 5). George Floyd protests: A timeline. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/article/george-floyd-protests-timeline.html Taylor, S. S., Fisher, D., & Dufresne, R. L. (2002). The aesthetics of management storytelling: A key to organizational learning. Management Learning, 33(3), 313-330. 135 Todd, A. R., Bodenhausen, G. V., Richeson, J. A., & Galinsky, A. D. (2011). Perspective taking combats automatic expressions of racial bias. Journal of personality and social psychology, 100(6), 1027. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110(3), 403. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological review, 117(2), 440-463. Tropp, L. R., & Bianchi, R. A. (2006). Valuing diversity and interest in intergroup contact. Journal of Social Issues, 62(3), 533-551. Tumasjan, A., Strobel, M., & Welpe, I. (2011). Ethical leadership evaluations after moral transgression: Social distance makes the difference. Journal of Business Ethics, 99(4), 609-622. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell. Vallacher, R. R., & Selz, K. (1991). Who's to blame? Action identification in allocating responsibility for alleged rape. Social Cognition, 9(2), 194-219. Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1987). What do people think they’re doing? Action identification and human behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 3–15. Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1989). Levels of personal agency: Individual variation in action identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(4), Vance, C. M. (1991). Formalising storytelling in organisations: A key agenda for the design of training. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 4(3) 52-58. van Houwelingen, G., van Dijke, M., & De Cremer, D. (2015). Getting it done and getting it right: Leader disciplinary reactions to followers’ moral transgressions are determined by construal level mindset. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(5), 878-891. Verbeke, W., Volgering, M., & Hessels, M. (1998). Exploring the conceptual expansion within the field of organizational behavior: Organizational climate and organizational culture. Journal of Management Studies, 35, 303-329. Wakslak, C. J. (2012). The experience of cognitive dissonance in important and trivial domains: A construal-level theory approach. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(6), 1361-1364. Wakslak, C. J., Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Alony, R. (2006). Seeing the forest when entry is 136 unlikely: probability and the mental representation of events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 135(4), 641. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1063-1070. Weiner, B. J. (2009). A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implementation Science, 4(67), 1-9. Wiesenfeld, B. M., Reyt, J. N., Brockner, J., & Trope, Y. (2017). Construal level theory in organizational research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 367-400. Wilder, & Simon, (2001). Affect as a cause of intergroup bias. In R. Brown & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intergroup processes (pp. 153-172). Blackwell Publishing. Wilkins, A. and Martin, J. (1979), “Organizational legends”, unpublished research paper, No. 521, Graduate School of Business, Stanford University, Stanford, CA. Williams, L., E., Stein, R., & Galguera, L. (2013). The distinctive affective consequences of psychological distance and construal level. Journal of Consumer Research, 40, 1123- 1138. Williamson, J. (2021, March 31). Increasing inclusion through employee-driven storytelling. Altered. https://www.longdash.co/altered/increasing-inclusion-through-employee-driven- storytelling/ Wilson, A. O. (2019). The role of storytelling in navigating through the storm of change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 32(3), 385-395. Wright, S. C., Aron, A., & Brody, S. M. (2008). Extended contact and including others in the self: Building on the Allport/Pettigrew legacy. In U. Wagner, L. R. Tropp, G. Finchilescu & C. Tredoux (Eds.), Improving intergroup relations: Building on the legacy of Thomas F. Pettigrew (pp. 143–159). Oxford: Blackwell. Yogeeswaran, K., & Dasgupta, N. (2014). The devil is in the details: Abstract versus concrete construals of multiculturalism differentially impact intergroup relations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 772–789. Zemke, R. (1990). Storytelling: Back to a basic. Training, 27(3), 44. Zohar, D., & Hofmann, D. A. (2012). Organizational climate and culture. The Oxford handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 137 APPENDIX A: TABLES AND FIGURES Table 1. Story summaries from the background interview study Interview # Story Summary 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The storyteller (a healthcare provider) described a time when they were pulled over for speeding on the way to an emergency and received a ticket. The storyteller was told no other White colleagues who had been in the same situation had this experience. The storyteller described being the target of racist comments from a manager. The storyteller described being racially harassed by a customer at their second job. The storyteller described trying to buy and sell items on Facebook Marketplace. The storyteller had a hard time getting responses from buyers, but received more responses when they obscured their racial identity. The storyteller described being excluded by the immediate workgroup during work tasks and conversations. The storyteller described being passed over for a promotion for reasons indirectly related to race. The storyteller described being passed over for a promotion and talked about a pattern of Black workers at the company not being promoted. The storyteller described a manager making a negative comment about their natural hair. The storyteller described being mistaken for being a foreigner. NOTE. Summarized here are brief descriptions of the stories recounted by participants in the background study interviews. To keep these stories anonymous, certain aspects of the stories are not included. 138 Table 2. Measure descriptives Variable 1. DEI Training Condition 2. Construal Manipulation 3. Transportation T1 4. Transportation T2 5. Identif: Social Attraction T1 6. Identif: Social Attraction T2 7. Identif: Attitude Homophily T1 8. Identif: Attitude Homophily T2 9. Cog Emp Persp Taking T1 10. Cog Emp Persp Taking T2 11. Cog Emp Positive T1 12. Cog Emp Positive T2 13. Cog Emp Negative T1 14. Cog Emp Negative T2 15. Aff Emp Positive T1 16. Aff Emp Positive T2 17. Aff Emp Negative T1 18. Aff Emp Negative T2 19. Soc Id Threat: Realistic T1 20. Soc Id Threat: Realistic T2 21. Soc Id Threat: Symbolic T1 22. Soc Id Threat: Symbolic T2 23. Intergroup Anxiety T1 24. Intergroup Anxiety T2 25. Willing to Engage T2 26. Intentions to Help T2 27. Trait Cog Empathy T2 28. Trait Aff Empathy T2 NOTE. Identif = Identification, Cog Emp Persp Taking = Cognitive Empathy Perspective-Taking, Cog Emp Pos Aff = Cognitive Empathy Positive Affect, Cog Emp Neg Aff = Cognitive Empathy Negative Affect, Aff Emp Pos Aff = Affective Empathy Positive Scale/Code 0 = no storytelling, 1 = storytelling 0 = lower construal, 1 = higher construal 5 pt Likert 5 pt Likert 7 pt Likert 7 pt Likert 7 pt Likert 7 pt Likert 7 pt Likert 7 pt Likert 5 pt Likert 5 pt Likert 5 pt Likert 5 pt Likert 5 pt Likert 5 pt Likert 5 pt Likert 5 pt Likert 10 pt Likert 10 pt Likert 10 pt Likert 10 pt Likert 10 pt Likert 10 pt Likert 7 pt Likert 7 pt Likert 5 pt Likert 5 pt Likert Construct/Type of Variable Condition Condition Transportation/Mediator Transportation/Mediator Transportation/Mediator Identification/Mediator Identification/Mediator Identification/Mediator Cognitive Empathy/Mediator Cognitive Empathy/Mediator Cognitive Empathy/Mediator Cognitive Empathy/Mediator Cognitive Empathy/Mediator Cognitive Empathy/Mediator Affective Empathy/Mediator Affective Empathy/Mediator Affective Empathy/Mediator Affective Empathy/Mediator Social Identity Threat/Mediator Social Identity Threat/Mediator Social Identity Threat/Mediator Social Identity Threat/Mediator Intergroup Anxiety/Mediator Intergroup Anxiety/Mediator Outcome Outcome Trait Trait M .50 .49 3.44 3.25 5.99 5.82 5.05 5.01 5.73 5.58 2.77 2.90 2.29 2.13 2.85 2.75 1.37 1.41 2.07 2.11 2.86 2.99 3.28 3.40 5.10 4.07 4.08 2.30 SD .50 .50 .64 .66 1.02 1.09 1.13 1.19 1.12 1.10 .93 .92 .86 .82 .92 .93 .51 .54 1.82 1.92 1.89 2.00 1.56 1.62 1.52 1.80 .71 .98 N 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 340 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 341 139 Table 2 (cont’d) Affect, Aff Emp Neg Aff = Affective Empathy Negative Affect, Soc Id Threat = Social Identity Threat, Willing to Engage = Willingness to Engage with Outgroup, Intentions to Help = Intentions to Help Outgroup, Trait Cog Empathy = Trait Cognitive Empathy, Trait Aff Empathy = Trait Affective Empathy 140 Table 3. Bivariate correlations: Time 1 measures including time 2 outcomes 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Variable 1. DEI Training Condition 2. Construal Manipulation 3. Transportation T1 4. Identif: Social Attraction T1 5. Identif: Attitude Homophily T1 1 (-) -.03 .09 -.23 -.13 6. Cog Emp Persp Taking (IRI) T1 .13 7. Cog Emp Pos Aff T1 8. Cog Emp Neg Aff T1 9. Aff Emp Pos Aff T1 10. Aff Emp Neg Aff T1 11. Soc Id Threat: Realistic T1 12. Soc Id Threat: Symbolic T1 13. Intergroup Anxiety T1 -.46 .60 -.06 .01 -.02 .02 .04 (-) .01 -.01 .06 -.01 -.03 .10 .01 .07 -.01 -.01 .05 (.74) .39 .41 .58 .26 .04 .58 .12 -.25 -.31 -.26 14. Willing to Engage T2 -.06 -.01 .41 (.94) .72 .58 .29 (.96) .53 .31 -.28 -.22 .31 -.22 -.48 -.50 -.41 .52 .35 -.13 -.44 -.50 -.41 .49 (.82) .11 .00 .32 -.04 -.59 -.58 -.34 .45 (.92) -.48 (.91) .59 -.01 -.03 -.13 -.23 .26 -.09 (.92) .33 .05 .13 .17 -.09 .02 -.03 -.08 -.29 .35 (.89) .03 .02 .15 .02 (.97) .84 .41 -.49 (.94) .48 -.49 (.86) -.48 (.82) .41 .00 -.04 .21 .49 15. Intentions to Help T2 NOTE. Reliabilities listed on the diagonal. Bolded values are statistically significant at p<.05. Identif = Identification, Cog Emp Persp Taking = Cognitive Empathy Perspective-Taking, Cog Emp Pos Aff = Cognitive Empathy Positive Affect, Cog Emp Neg Aff = Cognitive Empathy Negative Affect, Aff Emp Pos Aff = Affective Empathy Positive Affect, Aff Emp Neg Aff = Affective Empathy Negative Affect, Soc Id Threat = Social Identity Threat, Willing to Engage = Willingness to Engage with Outgroup, Intentions to Help = Intentions to Help Outgroup, Trait Cog Emp = Trait Cognitive Empathy, Trait Aff Emp = Trait Affective Empathy (.93) -.54 -.38 -.51 .14 .44 .49 .03 .55 .27 141 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Table 4. Bivariate correlations: Time 2 measures Variable 1. DEI Training Condition 2. Construal Manipulation 3. Transportation T2 4. Identif: Social Attraction T2 5. Identif: Attitude Homophily T2 6. Cog Emp Persp Taking (IRI) T2 1 (-) -.03 .14 -.30 -.23 .07 (-) -.03 -.01 .05 .00 7. Cog Emp Pos Aff T2 -.49 -.02 8. Cog Emp Neg Aff T2 9. Aff Emp Pos Aff T2 10. Aff Emp Neg Aff T2 11. Soc Id Threat: Realistic T2 12. Soc Id Threat: Symbolic T2 13. Intergroup Anxiety T2 .59 -.11 .03 -.01 .03 .04 .06 .00 .01 .00 -.02 .09 14. Willing to Engage T2 -.06 -.01 (.80) .41 .40 .59 .15 .14 .52 .21 -.24 -.27 -.25 .39 (.95) .75 .60 .29 -.29 .34 -.05 -.47 -.50 -.42 .51 (.97) .58 .32 -.22 .38 -.02 -.48 -.55 -.49 .52 (.75) .15 -.01 .34 .00 -.49 -.52 -.43 .47 (.93) -.43 (.91) .58 .02 -.07 -.14 -.19 .26 -.15 (.93) .39 .06 .12 .23 -.10 .02 -.10 -.13 -.26 .35 (.89) .06 .05 .24 .03 (.97) .85 .49 -.51 (.95) .56 -.52 (.89) -.50 (.82) .00 -.04 .51 15. Intentions to Help T2 NOTE. Reliabilities listed on the diagonal. Bolded values are statistically significant at p<.05. Identif = Identification, Cog Emp Persp Taking = Cognitive Empathy Perspective-Taking, Cog Emp Pos Aff = Cognitive Empathy Positive Affect, Cog Emp Neg Aff = Cognitive Empathy Negative Affect, Aff Emp Pos Aff = Affective Empathy Positive Affect, Aff Emp Neg Aff = Affective Empathy Negative Affect, Soc Id Threat = Social Identity Threat, Willing to Engage = Willingness to Engage with Outgroup, Intentions to Help = Intentions to Help Outgroup, Trait Cog Emp = Trait Cognitive Empathy, Trait Aff Emp = Trait Affective Empathy (.93) -.56 -.52 -.40 .45 .15 .22 .51 .55 .01 .55 .30 142 Table 5. Bivariate correlations: Time 1 and time 2 measures Variable T1-T2 Correlati on T1 Correlation with Trait Cog Emp T2 Correlation with Trait Cog Emp T1 Correlation with Trait Aff Emp T2 Correlation with Trait Aff Emp 1. Transportation 2. Identif: Social Attraction 3. Identif: Attitude Homophily 4. Cog Emp Persp Taking (IRI) 5. Cog Emp Pos Aff 6. Cog Emp Neg Aff 7. Aff Emp Pos Aff 8. Aff Emp Neg Aff 9. Soc Id Threat: Realistic 10. Soc Id Threat: Symbolic 11. Intergroup Anxiety 12. Willing to Engage T2 13. Intentions to Help T2 14. Trait Cog Emp T2 .78 .84 .82 .73 .76 .72 .83 .58 .92 .82 .76 .34 .38 .33 .47 .17 -.09 .25 -.03 -.31 -.35 -.38 -.06 -.10 -.04 -.07 -.10 .10 -.15 .13 .04 .08 .34 .31 .37 .38 .56 .20 -.13 .21 -.06 -.26 -.31 -.38 .42 .34 .03 -.08 -.08 -.06 -.08 .20 -.15 .21 .01 .09 .34 -.13 -.06 -.29 -.29 15. Trait Aff Emp T2 NOTE. Bolded values are statistically significant at p<.05. Identif = Identification, Cog Emp Persp Taking = Cognitive Empathy Perspective-Taking, Cog Emp Pos Aff = Cognitive Empathy Positive Affect, Cog Emp Neg Aff = Cognitive Empathy Negative Affect, Aff Emp Pos Aff = Affective Empathy Positive Affect, Aff Emp Neg Aff = Affective Empathy Negative Affect, Soc Id Threat = Social Identity Threat, Willing to Engage = Willingness to Engage with Outgroup, Intentions to Help = Intentions to Help Outgroup, Trait Cog Emp = Trait Cognitive Empathy, Trait Aff Emp = Trait Affective Empathy 143 Table 6. Bivariate correlations: Measures with select demographic variables Variable 29. Gender (Binary) 30. Age (Yrs) 31. Number of Weekly Work Hours 32. Organization Size (Employees) 1. DEI Training Condition 2. Construal Manipulation 3. Transportation T1 4. Transportation T2 5. Identif: Social Attraction T1 6. Identif: Social Attraction T2 7. Identif: Attitude Homophily T1 8. Identif: Attitude Homophily T2 9. Cog Emp Persp Taking T1 10. Cog Emp Persp Taking T2 11. Cog Emp Pos Aff T1 12. Cog Emp Pos Aff T2 13. Cog Emp Neg Aff T1 14. Cog Emp Neg Aff T2 15. Aff Emp Pos Aff T1 16. Aff Emp Pos Aff T2 17. Aff Emp Neg Aff T1 18. Aff Emp Neg Aff T2 19. Soc Id Threat: Realistic T1 20. Soc Id Threat: Realistic T2 21. Soc Id Threat: Symbolic T1 22. Soc Id Threat: Symbolic T2 23. Intergroup Anxiety T1 24. Intergroup Anxiety T2 25. Willing to Engage T2 -.11 .05 -.17 -.20 -.20 -.19 -.20 -.26 -.16 -.17 -.02 -.03 .00 -.02 -.06 -.05 .07 .05 .08 .07 .15 .12 .08 .07 -.03 -.02 -.07 -.01 -.04 -.05 .00 -.06 -.05 -.05 -.01 -.03 -.01 -.04 .03 -.04 -.04 .02 .02 .06 .02 .03 -.01 -.01 -.02 .03 -.04 .02 .09 .05 -.04 -.07 -.04 -.05 -.08 -.08 .22 .20 -.09 -.12 .19 .16 -.12 -.19 .09 .05 .04 .03 .00 -.02 -.01 144 -.09 .04 .02 -.04 -.02 -.01 .02 .02 -.07 -.05 .11 .07 -.03 .00 .06 .03 .07 .02 .03 .02 .04 .07 .01 .05 .08 33. Extent of Remote Work .01 -.01 .07 .02 .03 .03 .03 .01 .06 .11 .05 .08 -.01 .07 .03 .04 .02 .04 -.04 -.07 -.10 -.13 .01 .00 .09 34. Political Orientation (α = .94) -.01 -.04 -.13 -.15 -.26 -.27 -.28 -.33 -.38 -.35 .05 .02 -.05 -.02 .08 .03 -.12 -.11 .54 .56 .56 .58 .19 .29 -.26 -.14 -.07 -.11 Table 6 (cont’d) 26. Intentions to Help T2 27. Trait Cog Empathy T2 28. Trait Aff Empathy T2 NOTE. Bolded values are statistically significant at p<.05. Gender was coded as 1 = man, 0 = woman. The scale for political orientation was 1 = Very liberal to 7 = Very conservative. Identif = Identification, Cog Emp Persp Taking = Cognitive Empathy Perspective-Taking, Cog Emp Pos Aff = Cognitive Empathy Positive Affect, Cog Emp Neg Aff = Cognitive Empathy Negative Affect, Aff Emp Pos Aff = Affective Empathy Positive Affect, Aff Emp Neg Aff = Affective Empathy Negative Affect, Soc Id Threat = Social Identity Threat, Willing to Engage = Willingness to Engage with Outgroup, Intentions to Help = Intentions to Help Outgroup, Trait Cog Emp = Trait Cognitive Empathy, Trait Aff Emp = Trait Affective Empathy -.17 .00 -.13 .00 .04 -.06 .05 -.06 -.10 -.60 -.13 -.04 .10 .01 .00 145 Table 7. MANOVA results time 1 variables Intercept Measure Transportation T1 Identif: Social Attraction T1 Identif: Attitude Homophily T1 Cog Emp Persp Taking (IRI) T1 Cog Emp Pos Aff T1 Cog Emp Neg Aff T1 Aff Emp Pos Aff T1 Aff Emp Neg Aff T1 Soc Id Threat: Realistic T1 Soc Id Threat: Symbolic T1 Intergroup Anxiety T1 DEI Training Condition Transportation T1 Identif: Social Attraction T1 Identif: Attitude Homophily T1 Cog Emp Persp Taking (IRI) T1 Cog Emp Pos Aff T1 Cog Emp Neg Aff T1 Aff Emp Pos Aff T1 Aff Emp Neg Aff T1 Soc Id Threat: Realistic T1 Soc Id Threat: Symbolic T1 Intergroup Anxiety T1 Construal Manipulation Transportation T1 Identif: Social Attraction T1 Identif: Attitude Homophily T1 Cog Emp Persp Taking (IRI) T1 Cog Emp Pos Aff T1 Cog Emp Neg Aff T1 MSE 29.36 109.25 58.99 37.55 34.81 26.12 23.23 6.62 183.16 245.02 135.26 1.05 18.25 7.89 8.85 61.83 92.85 1.37 0.12 1.82 0.05 1.36 0.32 0.11 3.49 0.53 0.39 2.91 F 84.08 134.14 55.26 40.00 52.75 59.10 29.25 26.17 60.31 78.14 69.03 3.00 22.41 7.39 9.43 93.69 210.06 1.73 0.46 0.60 0.02 0.69 0.91 0.14 3.26 0.57 0.59 6.58 p 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.084 0.000 0.007 0.002 0.000 0.000 0.190 0.496 0.440 0.895 0.406 0.342 0.710 0.072 0.451 0.444 0.011 df 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 146 η2 0.20 0.29 0.14 0.11 0.14 0.15 0.08 0.07 0.15 0.19 0.17 0.01 0.06 0.02 0.03 0.22 0.39 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 Table 7 (cont’d) Interaction Aff Emp Pos Aff T1 Aff Emp Neg Aff T1 Soc Id Threat: Realistic T1 Soc Id Threat: Symbolic T1 Intergroup Anxiety T1 Transportation T1 Identif: Social Attraction T1 Identif: Attitude Homophily T1 Cog Emp Persp Taking (IRI) T1 Cog Emp Pos Aff T1 Cog Emp Neg Aff T1 Aff Emp Pos Aff T1 Aff Emp Neg Aff T1 Soc Id Threat: Realistic T1 Soc Id Threat: Symbolic T1 Intergroup Anxiety T1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.28 0.26 1.47 1.94 0.28 0.11 1.24 0.94 0.94 0.90 5.24 0.06 1.17 1.51 4.24 1.54 0.35 1.05 0.48 0.62 0.14 0.30 1.53 0.88 1.00 1.36 11.86 0.07 4.64 0.50 1.35 0.78 0.554 0.307 0.487 0.432 0.708 0.583 0.217 0.349 0.318 0.245 0.001 0.789 0.032 0.482 0.246 0.377 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 NOTE. Bolded values are statistically significant at p<.05. Identif = Identification, Cog Emp Persp Taking = Cognitive Empathy Perspective-Taking, Cog Emp Pos Aff = Cognitive Empathy Positive Affect, Cog Emp Neg Aff = Cognitive Empathy Negative Affect, Aff Emp Pos Aff = Affective Empathy Positive Affect, Aff Emp Neg Aff = Affective Empathy Negative Affect, Soc Id Threat = Social Identity Threat, Willing to Engage = Willingness to Engage with Outgroup, Intentions to Help = Intentions to Help Outgroup, Trait Cog Emp = Trait Cognitive Empathy, Trait Aff Emp = Trait Affective Empathy 147 Table 7.1. MANOVA time 1 estimated marginal means for significant effects DEI Training Variable Identification: Social Attraction T1 Identification: Attitude Homophily T1 Cognitive Empathy: Perspective-Taking T1 Cognitive Empathy: Positive Affect T1 NOTE. Controls were for trait cognitive empathy, trait affective empathy, and gender (binary). Non-storytelling 6.22 5.22 5.57 3.21 Storytelling 5.75 4.91 5.90 2.34 Scale 7 pt 7 pt 7 pt 5 pt η2 .06 .02 .03 .22 148 Table 8. MANOVA results time 2 variables Intercept Measure Transportation T2 Identif: Social Attraction T2 Identif: Attitude Homophily T2 Cog Emp Persp Taking (IRI) T2 Cog Emp Pos Aff T2 Cog Emp Neg Aff T2 Aff Emp Pos Aff T2 Aff Emp Neg Aff T2 Soc Id Threat: Realistic T2 Soc Id Threat: Symbolic T2 Intergroup Anxiety T2 Willing to Engage T2 Intentions to Help T2 DEI Training Condition Transportation T2 Identif: Social Attraction T2 Identif: Attitude Homophily T2 Cog Emp Persp Taking (IRI) T2 Cog Emp Pos Aff T2 Cog Emp Neg Aff T2 Aff Emp Pos Aff T2 Aff Emp Neg Aff T2 Soc Id Threat: Realistic T2 Soc Id Threat: Symbolic T2 Intergroup Anxiety T2 Willing to Engage T2 Intentions to Help T2 MSE 22.60 92.96 53.75 19.63 31.17 20.39 26.26 6.51 177.26 234.90 143.99 14.34 2.85 2.38 37.73 27.78 2.26 68.29 81.38 3.66 0.23 0.65 0.89 2.60 1.29 1.18 df 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 149 F 60.22 103.80 51.29 24.19 49.23 49.87 32.40 24.21 51.03 64.72 68.15 7.38 0.99 6.35 42.13 26.52 2.79 107.86 199.05 4.51 0.84 0.19 0.25 1.23 0.67 0.41 p 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.007 0.320 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.096 0.000 0.000 0.034 0.359 0.666 0.621 0.268 0.415 0.521 η2 0.15 0.24 0.13 0.07 0.13 0.13 0.09 0.07 0.13 0.16 0.17 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.11 0.07 0.01 0.25 0.38 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Table 8 (cont’d) Construal Manipulation Transportation T2 Interaction Identif: Social Attraction T2 Identif: Attitude Homophily T2 Cog Emp Persp Taking (IRI) T2 Cog Emp Pos Aff T2 Cog Emp Neg Aff T2 Aff Emp Pos Aff T2 Aff Emp Neg Aff T2 Soc Id Threat: Realistic T2 Soc Id Threat: Symbolic T2 Intergroup Anxiety T2 Willing to Engage T2 Intentions to Help T2 Transportation T2 Identif: Social Attraction T2 Identif: Attitude Homophily T2 Cog Emp Persp Taking (IRI) T2 Cog Emp Pos Aff T2 Cog Emp Neg Aff T2 Aff Emp Pos Aff T2 Aff Emp Neg Aff T2 Soc Id Threat: Realistic T2 Soc Id Threat: Symbolic T2 Intergroup Anxiety T2 Willing to Engage T2 Intentions to Help T2 0.05 0.10 3.40 1.18 0.16 3.01 0.15 0.17 0.25 0.77 1.50 0.14 0.45 0.21 1.48 1.11 0.57 0.07 1.22 1.65 0.06 0.96 2.50 0.22 0.32 1.59 0.829 0.749 0.066 0.277 0.691 0.084 0.699 0.680 0.614 0.381 0.222 0.705 0.501 0.646 0.225 0.293 0.452 0.798 0.271 0.200 0.803 0.328 0.115 0.636 0.572 0.209 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.09 3.56 0.96 0.10 1.23 0.12 0.05 0.88 2.80 3.16 0.28 1.30 0.08 1.33 1.16 0.46 0.04 0.50 1.34 0.02 3.33 9.08 0.47 0.62 4.56 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 150 Table 8 (cont’d) NOTE. Bolded values are statistically significant at p<.05. Identif = Identification, Cog Emp Persp Taking = Cognitive Empathy Perspective-Taking, Cog Emp Pos Aff = Cognitive Empathy Positive Affect, Cog Emp Neg Aff = Cognitive Empathy Negative Affect, Aff Emp Pos Aff = Affective Empathy Positive Affect, Aff Emp Neg Aff = Affective Empathy Negative Affect, Soc Id Threat = Social Identity Threat, Willing to Engage = Willingness to Engage with Outgroup, Intentions to Help = Intentions to Help Outgroup, Trait Cog Emp = Trait Cognitive Empathy, Trait Aff Emp = Trait Affective Empathy 151 Table 8.1. MANOVA time 2 estimated marginal means for significant effects DEI Training Storytelling Non-storytelling Variable Transportation T2 Identification: Social Attraction T2 Identification: Attitude Homophily T2 Cognitive Empathy: Positive Affect T2 Cognitive Empathy: Negative Affect T2 Affective Empathy: Positive Affect T2 NOTE. Controls were for trait cognitive empathy, trait affective empathy, and gender (binary). 3.17 6.16 5.32 3.36 1.63 2.86 3.34 5.48 4.74 2.45 2.62 2.65 Scale 5 pt 7 pt 7 pt 5 pt 5 pt 5 pt η2 .02 .11 .07 .25 .38 .01 152 Table 9. Summary of H3a, H3b, H5a, and H5b mediation analyses Predictor (DEI Training) - > Mediator (T1) -> Hyp H3a Cog Emp Persp Taking (IRI) Willing to Engage Outcome (T2) H3a Cog Emp Persp Taking (IRI) Intentions to Help H3a Cog Emp Pos Aff H3a Cog Emp Pos Aff H3a Cog Emp Neg Aff H3a Cog Emp Neg Aff H3b Aff Emp Pos Aff H3b Aff Emp Pos Aff H3b Aff Emp Neg Aff H3b Aff Emp Neg Aff Willing to Engage Intentions to Help Willing to Engage Intentions to Help Willing to Engage Intentions to Help Willing to Engage Intentions to Help H5a Soc Id Threat: Realistic Willing to Engage H5a Soc Id Threat: Realistic Intentions to Help H5a Soc Id Threat: Symbolic Willing to Engage H5a Soc Id Threat: Symbolic Intentions to Help H5b Intergroup Anxiety H5b Intergroup Anxiety Willing to Engage Intentions to Help Direct Effect Indirect Effect b -.36 -.29 .17 .00 -.05 -.41 -.08 -.08 -.14 -.16 -.18 -.20 -.12 -.12 -.09 -.09 SE .17 .15 .17 .21 .19 .23 .15 .18 .15 .18 .14 .17 .14 .16 .14 .18 t -2.08 p .038 LLCI ULCI -.02 -.70 -1.97 .050 1.02 .02 -.26 .308 .988 .795 -1.75 .081 -.52 -.45 -.90 -.89 .601 .650 .367 .373 -1.33 .185 -1.18 .237 -.89 -.72 -.60 -.49 .374 .472 .547 .628 -.58 -.16 -.41 -.43 -.87 -.37 -.44 -.44 -.52 -.46 -.52 -.40 -.44 -.36 -.44 .00 .51 .42 .33 .05 .21 .28 .16 .19 .09 .13 .15 .20 .19 .26 b .23 .15 -.31 -.14 -.08 .28 -.06 -.05 .00 .03 .05 .06 -.01 -.01 -.05 -.05 SE .08 .06 .10 .11 .13 .15 .05 .04 .01 .05 .07 .09 .06 .09 .06 .06 LLCI ULCI .08 .05 -.50 -.34 -.34 -.03 -.16 -.14 -.02 -.06 -.08 -.10 -.14 -.19 -.16 -.16 .40 .29 -.12 .08 .17 .57 .03 .02 .03 .12 .18 .23 .12 .16 .06 .07 See Table* 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.9 9.10 9.11 9.12 9.13 9.14 9.15 9.16 NOTE. Bolded p-values are statistically significant at p<.05. Bolded confidence internals (LLCI, ULCI) do not contain zero. Trait cognitive empathy, trait affective empathy, and gender were included as covariates. All continuous mediators were grand mean- centered. *for detailed results see this table Identif = Identification, Cog Emp Persp Taking = Cognitive Empathy Perspective-Taking, Cog Emp Pos Aff = Cognitive Empathy Positive Affect, Cog Emp Neg Aff = Cognitive Empathy Negative Affect, Aff Emp Pos Aff = Affective Empathy Positive Affect, Aff Emp Neg Aff = Affective Empathy Negative Affect, Soc Id Threat = Social Identity Threat, Willing to Engage = Willingness to Engage with Outgroup, Intentions to Help = Intentions to Help Outgroup, Trait Cog Emp = Trait Cognitive Empathy, Trait Aff Emp = Trait Affective Empathy 153 Table 9.1. PROCESS Model 4 results of DEI training condition predicting willingness to engage with outgroup through cognitive empathy perspective taking (IRI) Outcome Cognitive Empathy Perspective-Taking (T1) Intercept DEI Training Condition Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender Willingness to Engage with Outgroup (T2) Intercept DEI Training Condition Cog Emp Persp Taking (IRI) T1 Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender b -.02 .32 .78 .08 -.23 b 5.18 -.29 .47 .51 -.06 .10 SE .10 .11 .08 .06 .11 SE .14 .15 .07 .12 .08 .15 t p LLCI ULCI -.18 .855 -.22 3.04 .003 9.98 .000 .11 .62 1.34 .182 -.04 .19 .53 .93 .19 -2.14 .033 -.45 -.02 t p LLCI ULCI 36.56 .000 4.90 5.46 -1.97 .050 -.58 6.36 .000 4.25 .000 .33 .27 -.81 .416 -.21 .64 .526 -.20 .00 .62 .75 .09 .39 NOTE. Cog Emp Persp Taking = Cognitive Empathy Perspective-Taking, Trait Cog Emp = Trait Cognitive Empathy, Trait Aff Emp = Trait Affective Empathy 154 Table 9.2. PROCESS Model 4 results of DEI training condition predicting intentions to help the outgroup through cognitive empathy perspective taking (IRI) Outcome Cognitive Empathy Perspective-Taking (T1) b SE t p LLCI ULCI Intercept DEI Training Condition Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender -.02 .10 -.18 .855 -.22 .32 .11 3.04 .003 .11 .78 .08 9.98 .000 .62 .08 .06 1.34 .182 -.04 .19 .53 .93 .19 -.23 .11 -2.14 .033 -.45 -.02 Intentions to Help Outgroup (T2) b SE t p LLCI ULCI Intercept DEI Training Condition Cog Emp Persp Taking (IRI) T1 Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender 4.40 .17 26.24 .000 4.07 4.73 -.36 .17 -2.08 .038 -.70 -.02 .70 .09 7.97 .000 .53 .31 .14 2.15 .032 .03 -.01 .09 -.14 .892 -.19 -.26 .18 -1.45 .147 -.61 .88 .59 .17 .09 NOTE. Cog Emp Persp Taking = Cognitive Empathy Perspective-Taking, Trait Cog Emp = Trait Cognitive Empathy, Trait Aff Emp = Trait Affective Empathy 155 Table 9.3. PROCESS Model 4 results of DEI training condition predicting willingness to engage with outgroup through cognitive empathy positive affect Outcome Cognitive Empathy Positive Affect (T1) Intercept DEI Training Condition Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender Willingness to Engage with Outgroup (T2) Intercept DEI Training Condition Cog Emp Pos Aff T1 Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender b .52 -.86 .16 -.08 -.14 SE .09 .09 .07 .05 .09 t 5.96 p LLCI ULCI .000 .35 .69 -9.65 .000 -1.04 -.69 2.46 .014 .03 -1.65 .100 -.17 -1.56 .120 -.32 .29 .02 .04 b 4.99 t SE .15 32.28 p LLCI ULCI 5.29 4.68 .000 .17 .36 .82 .00 .04 .17 .09 .11 .08 .16 1.02 .308 -.16 3.88 .000 7.44 .000 .18 .60 .01 .23 .989 -.16 .819 -.27 .51 .54 1.04 .16 .34 NOTE. Cog Emp Pos Aff = Cognitive Empathy Positive Affect, Trait Cog Emp = Trait Cognitive Empathy, Trait Aff Emp = Trait Affective Empathy 156 Table 9.4. PROCESS Model 4 results of DEI training condition predicting intentions to help the outgroup through cognitive empathy positive affect Outcome Cognitive Empathy Positive Affect (T1) Intercept DEI Training Condition Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender Intentions to Help Outgroup (T2) Intercept DEI Training Condition Cog Emp Pos Aff T1 Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender b .52 -.86 .16 -.08 -.14 b 4.30 .00 .16 .83 .05 -.40 SE .09 .09 .07 .05 .09 SE .19 .21 .11 .14 .10 .19 t 5.96 -9.65 2.46 -1.65 -1.56 p .000 .000 .014 .100 .120 LLCI ULCI .35 -1.04 .03 -.17 -.32 .69 -.69 .29 .02 .04 t p LLCI ULCI 22.41 .02 1.39 6.02 .54 -2.08 .000 .988 .167 .000 .593 .039 3.92 4.68 -.41 -.07 .56 -.14 -.78 .42 .38 1.09 .25 -.02 NOTE. Cog Emp Pos Aff = Cognitive Empathy Positive Affect, Trait Cog Emp = Trait Cognitive Empathy, Trait Aff Emp = Trait Affective Empathy 157 Table 9.5. PROCESS Model 4 results of DEI training condition predicting willingness to engage with outgroup through cognitive empathy negative affect Outcome Cognitive Empathy Negative Affect (T1) Intercept DEI Training Condition Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender Willingness to Engage with Outgroup (T2) Intercept DEI Training Condition Cog Emp Neg Aff T1 Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender b -.61 1.05 -.04 .09 .14 b 5.12 -.05 -.08 .88 -.02 .00 t SE .07 -8.31 .07 14.04 -.67 .05 2.27 .04 1.79 .08 t SE .16 31.07 -.26 .19 -.72 .11 7.83 .11 -.24 .08 -.03 .16 p LLCI ULCI -.47 1.20 .07 .17 .29 -.75 .90 -.14 .01 -.01 .000 .000 .502 .024 .074 p LLCI ULCI 5.45 .33 .14 1.10 .14 .31 4.80 -.43 -.30 .66 -.18 -.32 .000 .795 .473 .000 .811 .977 NOTE. Cog Emp Neg Aff = Cognitive Empathy Negative Affect, Trait Cog Emp = Trait Cognitive Empathy, Trait Aff Emp = Trait Affective Empathy 158 Table 9.6. PROCESS Model 4 results of DEI training condition predicting intentions to help the outgroup through cognitive empathy negative affect Outcome Cognitive Empathy Negative Affect (T1) Intercept DEI Training Condition Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender Intentions to Help Outgroup (T2) Intercept DEI Training Condition Cog Emp Neg Aff T1 Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender b -.61 1.05 -.04 .09 .14 b 4.54 -.41 .26 .86 .02 -.46 SE .07 .07 .05 .04 .08 SE .20 .23 .14 .14 .10 .19 t -8.31 14.04 -.67 2.27 1.79 p .000 .000 .502 .024 .074 LLCI ULCI -.47 -.75 .90 -.14 .01 -.01 1.20 .07 .17 .29 t p LLCI ULCI 22.72 -1.75 1.94 6.34 .17 -2.39 .000 .081 .054 .000 .865 .017 4.15 4.94 -.87 -.00 .59 -.18 -.84 .05 .53 1.13 .21 -.08 NOTE. Cog Emp Neg Aff = Cognitive Empathy Negative Affect, Trait Cog Emp = Trait Cognitive Empathy, Trait Aff Emp = Trait Affective Empathy 159 Table 9.7. PROCESS Model 4 results of DEI training condition predicting willingness to engage with outgroup through affective empathy positive affect Outcome Affective Empathy Positive Affect (T1) Intercept DEI Training Condition Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender Willingness to Engage with Outgroup (T2) Intercept DEI Training Condition Aff Emp Pos Aff T1 Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender b .15 -.13 .28 -.09 -.12 b 5.11 -.08 .44 .75 .01 .04 SE .10 .10 .07 .05 .10 SE .14 .15 .08 .11 .08 .15 t 1.54 -1.33 3.95 -1.72 -1.23 t 35.34 -.52 5.36 6.87 .16 .26 p .123 .183 .000 .086 .219 p .000 .601 .000 .000 .871 .797 LLCI ULCI -.04 -.32 .14 -.19 -.32 .34 .06 .42 .01 .07 LLCI ULCI 5.39 4.82 .21 -.37 .60 .28 .97 .54 .17 -.14 .34 -.26 NOTE. Aff Emp Pos Aff = Affective Empathy Positive Affect, Trait Cog Emp = Trait Cognitive Empathy, Trait Aff Emp = Trait Affective Empathy 160 Table 9.8. PROCESS Model 4 results of DEI training condition predicting intentions to help the outgroup through affective empathy positive affect Outcome Affective Empathy Positive Affect (T1) Intercept DEI Training Condition Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender b .15 -.13 .28 -.09 -.12 SE .10 .10 .07 .05 .10 t 1.54 -1.33 3.95 -1.72 -1.23 p .123 .183 .000 .086 .219 LLCI ULCI -.04 -.32 .14 -.19 -.32 .34 .06 .42 .01 .07 Intentions to Help Outgroup (T2) b 4.33 -.08 .39 .74 .08 -.38 NOTE. Aff Emp Pos Aff = Affective Empathy Positive Affect, Trait Cog Emp = Trait Cognitive Empathy, Trait Aff Emp = Trait Affective Empathy Intercept DEI Training Condition Aff Emp Pos Aff T1 Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender LLCI ULCI 4.68 3.97 .28 -.44 .59 .18 1.01 .47 .27 -.12 .00 -.75 t 24.06 -.45 3.76 5.43 .77 -1.99 p .000 .650 .000 .000 .441 .048 SE .18 .18 .10 .14 .10 .19 161 Table 9.9. PROCESS Model 4 results of DEI training condition predicting willingness to engage with outgroup through affective empathy negative affect Outcome Affective Empathy Negative Affect (T1) Intercept DEI Training Condition Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender Willingness to Engage with Outgroup (T2) Intercept DEI Training Condition Aff Emp Neg Aff T1 Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender b -.08 .03 .02 .07 .10 b 5.18 -.14 .10 .88 -.03 -.03 SE .05 .06 .04 .03 .06 SE .15 .15 .15 .11 .08 .16 t -1.47 .62 .41 2.41 1.71 t 34.42 -.90 .67 7.85 -.41 -.16 p .143 .538 .685 .017 .089 p .000 .367 .506 .000 .679 .872 LLCI ULCI -.19 .03 -.08 -.06 .01 -.02 .14 .10 .13 .21 LLCI ULCI 5.48 4.88 -.44 -.20 .66 -.20 -.34 .16 .40 1.10 .13 .29 NOTE. Aff Emp Neg Aff = Affective Empathy Negative Affect, Trait Cog Emp = Trait Cognitive Empathy, Trait Aff Emp = Trait Affective Empathy 162 Table 9.10. PROCESS Model 4 results of DEI training condition predicting intentions to help the outgroup through affective empathy negative affect Outcome Affective Empathy Negative Affect (T1) Intercept DEI Training Condition Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender Intentions to Help Outgroup (T2) Intercept DEI Training Condition Aff Emp Neg Aff T1 Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender b -.08 .03 .02 .07 .10 b 4.45 -.16 .82 .84 -.02 -.50 SE .05 .06 .04 .03 .06 SE .18 .18 .18 .13 .10 .19 t -1.47 .62 .41 2.41 1.71 t 24.99 -.89 4.57 6.33 -.18 p .143 .538 .685 .017 .089 p .000 .373 .000 .000 .858 LLCI ULCI -.19 .03 -.08 -.06 .01 -.02 .14 .10 .13 .21 LLCI ULCI 4.80 4.10 -.52 .46 .58 -.21 .19 1.17 1.10 .17 -2.68 .008 -.87 -.13 NOTE. Aff Emp Neg Aff = Affective Empathy Negative Affect, Trait Cog Emp = Trait Cognitive Empathy, Trait Aff Emp = Trait Affective Empathy 163 Table 9.11. PROCESS Model 4 results of DEI training condition predicting willingness to engage with outgroup through social identity threat: realistic Outcome Social Identity Threat: Realistic (T1) Intercept DEI Training Condition Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender Willingness to Engage with Outgroup (T2) b -.03 -.14 -.82 -.08 .18 SE .19 .19 .14 .10 .20 t -.15 -.75 -5.83 -.81 .91 p .882 .455 .000 .420 .363 LLCI ULCI -.40 -.52 -1.09 -.28 -.21 .34 .23 -.54 .12 .57 LLCI ULCI b 5.43 4.90 5.16 .09 -.46 -.18 -.26 -.42 -.34 .81 .39 .60 .09 -.20 -.06 .33 -.24 .05 NOTE. Soc Id Threat = Social Identity Threat, Trait Cog Emp = Trait Cognitive Empathy, Trait Aff Emp = Trait Affective Empathy Intercept DEI Training Condition Soc Id Threat: Realistic T1 Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender t 38.07 -1.33 -8.64 5.65 -.75 .32 p .000 .185 .000 .000 .455 .749 SE .14 .14 .04 .11 .07 .14 164 Table 9.12. PROCESS Model 4 results of DEI training condition predicting intentions to help the outgroup through social identity threat: realistic Outcome Social Identity Threat: Realistic (T1) Intercept DEI Training Condition Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender Intentions to Help Outgroup (T2) Intercept DEI Training Condition Soc Id Threat: Realistic T1 Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp b -.03 -.14 -.82 -.08 .18 b 4.37 -.20 -.44 .49 .00 SE .19 .19 .14 .10 .20 SE .16 .17 .05 .13 .09 t -.15 -.75 -5.83 -.81 .91 t 26.83 -1.18 -9.30 3.84 .05 p .882 .455 .000 .420 .363 p .000 .237 .000 .000 .961 LLCI ULCI -.40 .34 -.52 .23 -1.09 -.54 -.28 -.21 .12 .57 LLCI ULCI 4.69 4.05 -.52 -.54 .24 -.17 .13 -.35 .74 .18 Gender -.34 NOTE. Soc Id Threat = Social Identity Threat, Trait Cog Emp = Trait Cognitive Empathy, Trait Aff Emp = Trait Affective Empathy -2.00 .046 -.01 -.68 .17 165 Table 9.13. PROCESS Model 4 results of DEI training condition predicting willingness to engage with outgroup through social identity threat: symbolic Outcome Social Identity Threat: Symbolic (T1) Intercept DEI Training Condition Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender Willingness to Engage with Outgroup (T2) Intercept DEI Training Condition Soc Id Threat: Symbolic T1 Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp b -.31 .03 -.92 -.01 .50 b 5.07 -.12 -.33 .58 -.03 SE .19 .19 .14 .10 .20 SE .14 .14 .04 .11 .07 t -1.63 .17 -6.48 -.06 2.47 t 37.02 -.89 -8.36 5.35 -.39 p .104 .865 .000 .956 .014 p .000 .374 .000 .000 .698 LLCI ULCI -.69 .06 -.35 .42 -1.20 -.64 -.21 .10 .20 .89 LLCI ULCI 5.34 4.80 -.40 -.40 .36 -.17 .15 -.25 .79 .12 Gender .43 .15 NOTE. Soc Id Threat = Social Identity Threat, Trait Cog Emp = Trait Cognitive Empathy, Trait Aff Emp = Trait Affective Empathy .312 1.01 -.14 .14 166 Table 9.14. PROCESS Model 4 results of DEI training condition predicting intentions to help the outgroup through social identity threat: symbolic Outcome Social Identity Threat: Symbolic (T1) Intercept DEI Training Condition Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender b -.31 .03 -.92 -.01 .50 SE .19 .19 .14 .10 .20 t -1.63 .17 -6.48 -.06 2.47 p .104 .865 .000 .956 .014 LLCI ULCI -.69 -.35 -1.20 -.21 .10 .06 .42 -.64 .20 .89 Intentions to Help Outgroup (T2) b 4.24 -.12 -.45 .43 .04 -.20 NOTE. Soc Id Threat = Social Identity Threat, Trait Cog Emp = Trait Cognitive Empathy, Trait Aff Emp = Trait Affective Empathy Intercept DEI Training Condition Soc Id Threat: Symbolic T1 Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender LLCI ULCI 3.92 4.56 -.44 .20 -.54 -.36 .18 .68 -.13 .21 -.54 .14 t 26.20 -.72 -9.75 3.40 .44 -1.16 p .000 .472 .000 .001 .663 .246 SE .16 .16 .05 .13 .09 .17 167 Table 9.15. PROCESS Model 4 results of DEI training condition predicting willingness to engage with outgroup through intergroup anxiety Outcome Intergroup Anxiety (T1) Intercept DEI Training Condition Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender Willingness to Engage with Outgroup (T2) Intercept DEI Training Condition Intergroup Anxiety T1 Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp b .24 -.13 .64 -.42 -.29 b 5.08 -.09 .38 .63 .13 SE .15 .15 .11 .08 .16 SE .14 .14 .05 .11 .08 t 1.60 -.84 5.72 p .112 .400 .000 -5.19 .000 -1.84 .067 t 36.49 -.60 7.53 5.86 1.72 p .000 .547 .000 .000 .087 LLCI ULCI -.06 .54 -.43 .42 -.59 -.60 .17 .86 -.26 .02 LLCI ULCI 5.35 4.81 -.36 .28 .42 -.02 .19 .48 .85 .29 .38 .10 NOTE. Trait Cog Emp = Trait Cognitive Empathy, Trait Aff Emp = Trait Affective Empathy Gender .518 -.19 .65 .15 168 Table 9.16. PROCESS Model 4 results of DEI training condition predicting intentions to help the outgroup through intergroup anxiety Outcome Intergroup Anxiety (T1) Intercept DEI Training Condition Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender Intentions to Help Outgroup (T2) Intercept DEI Training Condition Intergroup Anxiety T1 Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender b .24 -.13 .64 -.42 -.29 b 4.30 -.09 .36 .62 .19 -.32 SE .15 .15 .11 .08 .16 SE .18 .18 .06 .14 .10 .18 t p LLCI ULCI 1.60 .112 -.84 .400 5.72 .000 -5.19 .000 -1.84 .067 -.06 -.43 .42 -.59 -.60 .54 .17 .86 -.26 .02 t p LLCI ULCI 24.51 .000 3.95 4.64 -.49 .628 -.44 5.69 .000 4.54 .000 1.97 .049 .24 .35 .00 -1.72 .086 -.68 .26 .49 .89 .39 .05 NOTE. Trait Cog Emp = Trait Cognitive Empathy, Trait Aff Emp = Trait Affective Empathy 169 Table 10. Summary of H7 and H8 direct and indirect effects Direct Effect Indirect Effect Outcome (T2) b SE t p LLCI ULCI b SE LLCI ULCI Predictor (DEI Training) -> Mediator (T1) -> Hyp H7a Transportation Cog Emp Persp Taking (IRI) .09 .09 1.05 H7a Transportation Cog Emp Pos Aff -.95 .08 -11.24 H7a Transportation Cog Emp Neg Aff .98 .07 13.80 H7a Transportation Aff Emp Pos Aff -.31 .08 -3.71 .43 -.14 .83 1.17 H7a Transportation Aff Emp Neg Aff .02 .06 H7b Transportation Soc Id Threat: Realistic -.03 .20 H7b Transportation Soc Id Threat: Symbolic H7b Transportation H8a Identif: Social Attraction Intergroup Anxiety Cog Emp Persp Taking (IRI) .17 .19 .21 .16 .38 .09 4.09 H8a Identif: Social Attraction Cog Emp Pos Aff -.88 .09 -9.74 H8a Identif: Social Attraction Cog Emp Neg Aff .93 .07 12.88 H8a Identif: Social Attraction Aff Emp Pos Aff -.11 .10 -1.11 H8a Identif: Social Attraction Aff Emp Neg Aff .01 .06 .24 H8b Identif: Social Attraction Soc Id Threat: Realistic -.49 .19 -2.52 H8b Identif: Social Attraction Soc Id Threat: Symbolic -.30 .20 -1.50 .296 .000 .000 .000 .667 .886 .408 .243 .000 .000 .000 .270 .813 .012 .136 .653 -.08 -1.12 .84 -.48 -.09 -.43 -.24 -.13 .20 -1.05 .79 -.31 -.10 -.87 -.69 -.38 .27 -.78 1.12 -.15 .14 .37 .58 .50 .56 -.70 1.07 .09 .13 -.11 .09 .24 .08 .04 .00 .09 .02 .05 .02 .01 .05 .01 -.05 .04 -.07 .05 -.03 .02 -.21 .05 -.04 .02 .05 .02 -.11 .04 .03 .41 .40 .23 .02 .10 .09 .06 -.01 -.01 -.01 -.01 -.00 -.14 -.17 -.09 -.30 -.08 .01 -.19 -.01 .23 .23 .12 .17 .09 .02 .20 .05 .01 .01 .01 -.12 .01 .10 -.05 .06 .61 .59 .36 See Table* 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.5 10.6 10.7 10.8 10.9 10.10 10.11 10.12 10.13 10.14 10.15 10.16 H8b H8a H8a H8a H8a Identif: Social Attraction Identif: Attitude Homophily Identif: Attitude Homophily Identif: Attitude Homophily Identif: Attitude Homophily Intergroup Anxiety Cog Emp Persp Taking (IRI) -.07 .16 -.45 .29 .09 3.24 .001 .11 .47 -.12 .05 -.23 -.03 10.17 Cog Emp Pos Aff -.88 .09 -10.08 .000 -1.06 -.71 -.03 .02 -.07 -0.00 10.18 Cog Emp Neg Aff .96 .07 13.52 .000 .82 1.10 .02 .02 -.00 .06 10.19 Aff Emp Pos Aff -.13 .10 -1.41 .158 -.32 .05 -.08 .04 -.16 -.02 10.20 170 Table 10 (cont’d) H8a H8b H8b Identif: Attitude Homophily Identif: Attitude Homophily Identif: Attitude Homophily Identif: Attitude Homophily Aff Emp Neg Aff .04 .06 .76 .445 -.07 Soc Id Threat: Realistic -.29 .19 -1.47 .143 -.67 Soc Id Threat: Symbolic -.13 .19 -.67 .501 -.51 .16 .10 .25 .00 .01 -.03 .20 .08 .06 .24 .09 .06 .02 .37 .42 10.21 10.22 10.23 .15 .01 .10 Intergroup Anxiety H8b NOTE. Bolded p-values are statistically significant at p<.05. Bolded confidence internals (LLCI, ULCI) do not contain zero. Trait cognitive empathy, trait affective empathy, and gender were run as covariates. All continuous mediators were grand mean-centered. *for detailed results see this table Identif = Identification, Cog Emp Persp Taking = Cognitive Empathy Perspective-Taking, Cog Emp Pos Aff = Cognitive Empathy Positive Affect, Cog Emp Neg Aff = Cognitive Empathy Negative Affect, Aff Emp Pos Aff = Affective Empathy Positive Affect, Aff Emp Neg Aff = Affective Empathy Negative Affect, Soc Id Threat = Social Identity Threat, Willing to Engage = Willingness to Engage with Outgroup, Intentions to Help = Intentions to Help Outgroup, Trait Cog Emp = Trait Cognitive Empathy, Trait Aff Emp = Trait Affective Empathy 10.24 .924 -.29 .06 .32 .04 .26 .15 171 Table 10.1. PROCESS Model 4 results of DEI training condition predicting cognitive empathy perspective-taking through transportation Outcome Transportation (T1) Intercept DEI Training Condition Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender Cognitive Empathy Perspective-Taking (T2) Intercept DEI Training Condition Transportation T1 Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp p LLCI ULCI b .05 .11 .31 .02 SE .06 .06 .05 .03 t .83 .406 -.07 1.71 .089 -.02 6.56 .000 .22 .60 .547 -.05 .18 .24 .40 .09 -.18 .07 -2.65 .008 -.31 -.05 b 5.62 t SE .09 64.68 p LLCI ULCI 5.80 5.45 .000 .09 .69 .69 .09 .09 .07 .07 .05 1.05 .296 -.08 9.24 .000 9.97 .000 1.91 .057 .54 .55 .00 .27 .84 .82 .18 .05 NOTE. Trait Cog Emp = Trait Cognitive Empathy, Trait Aff Emp = Trait Affective Empathy Gender -1.46 .146 -.13 -.32 .09 172 Table 10.2. PROCESS Model 4 results of DEI training condition predicting cognitive empathy positive affect through transportation Outcome Transportation (T1) Intercept DEI Training Condition Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender Cognitive Empathy Positive Affect (T2) Intercept DEI Training Condition Transportation T1 Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp b .05 .11 .31 .02 -.18 b 3.43 -.95 .35 .09 -.06 SE .06 .06 .05 .03 .07 SE .08 .08 .07 .07 .04 t .83 p LLCI ULCI .406 -.07 1.71 .089 -.02 6.56 .000 .22 .60 .547 -.05 .18 .24 .40 .09 -2.65 .008 -.31 -.05 t 41.45 p LLCI ULCI 3.59 3.26 .000 -11.24 .000 -1.12 -.78 4.96 .000 .21 1.39 .164 -.04 -1.25 .212 -.14 .49 .22 .03 .09 NOTE. Trait Cog Emp = Trait Cognitive Empathy, Trait Aff Emp = Trait Affective Empathy Gender .356 -.08 -.25 -.92 .09 173 Table 10.3. PROCESS Model 4 results of DEI training condition predicting cognitive empathy negative affect through transportation Outcome Transportation (T1) Intercept DEI Training Condition Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender Cognitive Empathy Negative Affect (T2) Intercept DEI Training Condition Transportation T1 Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender b .05 .11 .31 .02 -.18 b 1.57 .98 .03 -.06 .17 .11 SE .06 .06 .05 .03 .07 t .83 1.71 6.56 .60 -2.65 t SE .07 22.59 .07 13.80 .43 .06 -1.07 .05 4.44 .04 1.52 .07 p LLCI ULCI .406 .089 .000 .547 .008 -.07 -.02 .22 -.05 -.31 .18 .24 .40 .09 -.05 p LLCI ULCI 1.71 1.12 .14 .05 .24 .26 1.43 .84 -.09 -.17 .09 -.03 .000 .000 .666 .286 .000 .130 NOTE. Trait Cog Emp = Trait Cognitive Empathy, Trait Aff Emp = Trait Affective Empathy 174 Table 10.4. PROCESS Model 4 results of DEI training condition predicting affective empathy positive affect through transportation Outcome Transportation (T1) Intercept DEI Training Condition Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender Affective Empathy Positive Affect (T2) Intercept b .05 .11 .31 .02 -.18 b 2.89 SE .06 .06 .05 .03 .07 t .83 p LLCI ULCI .406 -.07 1.71 .089 -.02 6.56 .000 .22 .60 .547 -2.65 .008 -.05 -.31 t SE .08 35.30 p LLCI ULCI 3.05 2.73 .000 DEI Training Condition -.31 .08 -3.71 .000 -.48 -.15 Transportation T1 .82 .07 11.69 .000 .69 Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp -.03 -.11 .06 .04 -.48 .630 -.16 -2.55 .011 -.20 -.03 .18 .24 .40 .09 -.05 .96 .10 .21 NOTE. Trait Cog Emp = Trait Cognitive Empathy, Trait Aff Emp = Trait Affective Empathy Gender .678 -.13 .04 .09 .42 175 Table 10.5. PROCESS Model 4 results of DEI training condition predicting affective empathy negative affect through transportation Outcome Transportation (T1) Intercept DEI Training Condition Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp b .05 .11 .31 .02 SE .06 .06 .05 .03 t p LLCI ULCI .83 .406 -.07 1.71 .089 -.02 6.56 .000 .22 .60 .547 -.05 .18 .24 .40 .09 Gender -.18 .07 -2.65 .008 -.31 -.05 Affective Empathy Negative Affect (T2) b SE t p LLCI ULCI Intercept 1.32 .06 23.58 .000 1.21 1.43 DEI Training Condition Transportation T1 .02 .16 .06 .05 .43 .667 -.09 3.30 .001 .06 Trait Cog Emp -.05 .04 -1.08 .281 -.13 Trait Aff Emp Gender .12 .11 .03 .06 3.85 .000 1.90 .058 .06 .00 .14 .25 .04 .18 .23 NOTE. Trait Cog Emp = Trait Cognitive Empathy, Trait Aff Emp = Trait Affective Empathy 176 Table 10.6. PROCESS Model 4 results of DEI training condition predicting social identity threat (realistic) through transportation Outcome Transportation (T1) Intercept DEI Training Condition Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender Social Identity Threat: Realistic (T2) Intercept b .05 .11 .31 .02 -.18 b 2.09 DEI Training Condition -.03 Transportation T1 Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender -.47 -.61 -.12 .07 SE .06 .06 .05 .03 .07 SE .20 .20 .17 .16 .11 .21 t .83 p .406 LLCI ULCI -.07 .18 1.71 .089 -.02 6.56 .000 .22 .60 .547 -2.65 .008 -.05 -.31 .24 .40 .09 -.05 t 10.50 p .000 LLCI ULCI 2.48 1.70 -.14 .886 -2.73 .007 -3.85 .000 -1.11 .268 .32 .753 -.43 -.81 -.92 -.33 -.35 .37 -.13 -.30 .09 .48 NOTE. Trait Cog Emp = Trait Cognitive Empathy, Trait Aff Emp = Trait Affective Empathy 177 Table 10.7. PROCESS Model 4 results of DEI training condition predicting social identity threat (symbolic) through transportation Outcome Transportation (T1) Intercept DEI Training Condition Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender Social Identity Threat: Symbolic (T2) Intercept b .05 .11 .31 .02 -.18 b 2.72 DEI Training Condition .17 Transportation T1 Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender -.61 -.67 .04 .30 SE .06 .06 .05 .03 .07 SE .20 .21 .17 .16 .11 .22 t .83 p .406 LLCI ULCI -.07 .18 1.71 .089 -.02 6.56 .000 .22 .60 .547 -2.65 .008 -.05 -.31 .24 .40 .09 -.05 t 13.44 .83 p .000 .408 -3.50 .001 -4.20 .000 .34 .733 1.40 .164 LLCI ULCI 3.12 2.32 -.24 -.95 -.99 -.18 -.12 .58 -.27 -.36 .25 .72 NOTE. Trait Cog Emp = Trait Cognitive Empathy, Trait Aff Emp = Trait Affective Empathy 178 Table 10.8. PROCESS Model 4 results of DEI training condition predicting intergroup anxiety through transportation Outcome Transportation (T1) Intercept DEI Training Condition Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender Intergroup Anxiety (T2) Intercept DEI Training Condition Transportation T1 Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender b .05 .11 .31 .02 -.18 b 3.16 .19 -.25 -.59 .44 .24 SE .06 .06 .05 .03 .07 SE .16 .16 .14 .12 .08 .17 t .83 1.71 6.56 .60 -2.65 t 20.15 1.17 -1.81 -4.76 5.17 1.42 p .406 .089 .000 .547 .008 p .000 .243 .071 .000 .000 .156 LLCI ULCI -.07 .18 -.02 .22 -.05 -.31 .24 .40 .09 -.05 LLCI ULCI 3.47 2.85 -.13 -.51 -.83 .27 -.09 .50 .02 -.35 .61 .56 NOTE. Trait Cog Emp = Trait Cognitive Empathy, Trait Aff Emp = Trait Affective Empathy 179 Table 10.9. PROCESS Model 4 results of DEI training condition predicting cognitive empathy perspective-taking through social attraction Outcome Identif: Social Attraction (T1) Intercept DEI Training Condition Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender b .49 -.47 .49 -.03 -.43 SE .10 .10 .07 .05 .10 t 5.04 p LLCI ULCI .000 .30 .68 -.28 .64 .08 -4.77 .000 -.67 6.81 .000 .35 -.52 .604 -.13 -4.16 .000 -.63 -.22 Cognitive Empathy Perspective-Taking (T2) Intercept b 5.45 t SE .09 59.99 p LLCI ULCI 5.62 5.27 .000 DEI Training Condition Identif: Social Attraction T1 Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender .38 .44 .68 .12 -.07 .09 .05 .07 .05 .09 4.09 .000 8.91 .000 9.83 .000 2.46 .015 .20 .34 .55 .02 -.74 .458 -.26 .56 .54 .82 .21 .12 NOTE. Identif = Identification, Trait Cog Emp = Trait Cognitive Empathy, Trait Aff Emp = Trait Affective Empathy 180 Table 10.10. PROCESS Model 4 results of DEI training condition predicting cognitive empathy positive affect through social attraction Outcome Identif: Social Attraction (T1) Intercept DEI Training Condition Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender Cognitive Empathy Positive Affect (T2) Intercept DEI Training Condition Identif: Social Attraction T1 Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender b .49 -.47 .49 -.03 -.43 b 3.41 -.88 .08 .16 -.05 -.11 SE .10 .10 .07 .05 .10 t 5.04 -4.77 6.81 -.52 -4.16 t SE .09 38.52 -9.74 .09 1.59 .05 2.41 .07 -1.01 .05 -1.21 .09 p LLCI ULCI .000 .000 .000 .604 .000 .30 -.67 .35 -.13 -.63 .68 -.28 .64 .08 -.22 p LLCI ULCI 3.58 -.70 .17 .30 .04 .07 3.23 -1.05 -.02 .03 -.14 -.29 .000 .000 .114 .017 .314 .227 NOTE. Identif = Identification, Trait Cog Emp = Trait Cognitive Empathy, Trait Aff Emp = Trait Affective Empathy 181 Table 10.11. PROCESS Model 4 results of DEI training condition predicting cognitive empathy negative affect through social attraction Outcome Identif: Social Attraction (T1) Intercept b .49 SE .10 t 5.04 p LLCI ULCI .000 .30 .68 DEI Training Condition -.47 .10 -4.77 .000 -.67 -.28 Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender .49 -.03 .07 .05 6.81 .000 .35 -.52 .604 -.13 .64 .08 -.43 .10 -4.16 .000 -.63 -.22 Cognitive Empathy Negative Affect (T2) Intercept b 1.63 t SE .07 22.85 p LLCI ULCI 1.77 1.49 .000 DEI Training Condition .93 .07 12.88 .000 .79 1.07 Identif: Social Attraction T1 -.11 .04 -2.89 .004 -.19 -.04 Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender .00 .16 .06 .05 .04 .07 .08 .933 -.10 4.42 .000 .09 .81 .421 -.09 .11 .24 .21 NOTE. Identif = Identification, Trait Cog Emp = Trait Cognitive Empathy, Trait Aff Emp = Trait Affective Empathy 182 Table 10.12. PROCESS Model 4 results of DEI training condition predicting affective empathy positive affect through social attraction Outcome Identif: Social Attraction (T1) Intercept b .49 SE .10 t p LLCI ULCI 5.04 .000 .30 .68 DEI Training Condition -.47 .10 -4.77 .000 -.67 -.28 Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender .49 .07 6.81 .000 .35 -.03 .05 -.52 .604 -.13 .64 .08 -.43 .10 -4.16 .000 -.63 -.22 Affective Empathy Positive Affect (T2) b SE t p LLCI ULCI Intercept 2.82 .10 28.74 .000 2.63 3.01 DEI Training Condition -.11 .10 -1.11 .270 -.31 Identif: Social Attraction T1 Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender .23 .11 .05 4.32 .000 .13 .08 1.48 .139 -.04 -.09 .05 -1.75 .081 -.19 -.01 .10 -.12 .906 -.21 .09 .34 .26 .01 .19 NOTE. Identif = Identification, Trait Cog Emp = Trait Cognitive Empathy, Trait Aff Emp = Trait Affective Empathy 183 Table 10.13. PROCESS Model 4 results of DEI training condition predicting affective empathy negative affect through social attraction Outcome Identif: Social Attraction (T1) Intercept b .49 SE .10 t 5.04 p LLCI ULCI .000 .30 .68 DEI Training Condition -.47 .10 -4.77 .000 -.67 -.28 Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender .49 -.03 .07 .05 6.81 .000 .35 -.52 .604 -.13 .64 .08 -.43 .10 -4.16 .000 -.63 -.22 Affective Empathy Negative Affect (T2) Intercept b 1.35 t SE .06 23.15 p LLCI ULCI 1.47 1.24 .000 DEI Training Condition .01 .06 .24 .813 -.10 Identif: Social Attraction T1 -.06 .03 -1.87 .063 -.12 Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender .03 .12 .06 .04 .03 .06 .69 .490 -.06 3.87 .000 .06 .98 .330 -.06 .13 .00 .12 .18 .18 NOTE. Identif = Identification, Trait Cog Emp = Trait Cognitive Empathy, Trait Aff Emp = Trait Affective Empathy 184 Table 10.14. PROCESS Model 4 results of DEI training condition predicting social identity threat (realistic) through social attraction Outcome Identif: Social Attraction (T1) Intercept DEI Training Condition Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender Soc Id Threat: Realistic (T2) Intercept DEI Training Condition Identif: Social Attraction T1 Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp b .49 -.47 .49 -.03 -.43 b 2.49 -.49 -.84 -.34 -.15 SE .10 .10 .07 .05 .10 SE .19 .19 .10 .15 .10 t 5.04 p .000 LLCI ULCI .30 .68 -4.77 .000 -.67 -.28 6.81 .000 .35 -.52 .604 -4.16 .000 -.13 -.63 .64 .08 -.22 t 13.01 p .000 LLCI ULCI 2.86 2.11 -2.52 .012 -.87 -8.06 .000 -1.05 -2.34 .020 -1.53 .128 -.63 -.35 -.11 -.64 -.05 .04 Gender .19 NOTE. Identif = Identification, Trait Cog Emp = Trait Cognitive Empathy, Trait Aff Emp = Trait Affective Empathy -1.01 .313 -.20 -.59 .20 185 Table 10.15. PROCESS Model 4 results of DEI training condition predicting social identity threat (symbolic) through social attraction Outcome Identif: Social Attraction (T1) Intercept b .49 SE .10 t p LLCI ULCI 5.04 .000 .30 .68 DEI Training Condition -.47 .10 -4.77 .000 -.67 -.28 Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender .49 -.03 .07 .05 6.81 .000 .35 -.52 .604 -.13 .64 .08 -.43 .10 -4.16 .000 -.63 -.22 Soc Id Threat: Symbolic (T2) Intercept b 3.11 SE .20 t p LLCI ULCI 15.87 .000 2.72 3.49 DEI Training Condition -.30 .20 -1.50 .136 -.69 .09 Identif: Social Attraction T1 -.85 .11 -7.98 .000 -1.06 -.64 Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender -.44 .15 -2.95 .003 -.74 -.15 .00 .05 .10 .20 .01 .23 .988 -.20 .818 -.35 .20 .45 NOTE. Identif = Identification, Soc Id Threat = Social Identity Threat, Trait Cog Emp = Trait Cognitive Empathy, Trait Aff Emp = Trait Affective Empathy 186 Table 10.16. PROCESS Model 4 results of DEI training condition predicting intergroup anxiety through social attraction Outcome Identif: Social Attraction (T1) Intercept DEI Training Condition Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender Intergroup Anxiety (T2) Intercept DEI Training Condition Identif: Social Attraction T1 Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender b .49 -.47 .49 -.03 -.43 b 3.39 -.07 -.49 -.43 .42 .07 SE .10 .10 .07 .05 .10 SE .16 .16 .08 .12 .08 .16 t p LLCI ULCI 5.04 .000 .30 .68 -4.77 .000 -.67 -.28 6.81 .000 .35 -.52 .604 -.13 .64 .08 -4.16 .000 -.63 -.22 t p LLCI ULCI 21.76 .000 3.08 3.69 -.45 .653 -.38 .24 -5.78 .000 -.66 -3.56 .000 -.66 5.17 .000 .26 .45 .656 -.25 -.32 -.19 .58 .39 NOTE. Identif = Identification, Trait Cog Emp = Trait Cognitive Empathy, Trait Aff Emp = Trait Affective Empathy 187 Table 10.17. PROCESS Model 4 results of DEI training condition predicting cognitive empathy perspective-taking (IRI) through attitude homophily Outcome Identif: Attitude Homophily (T1) Intercept b .44 SE .11 t p LLCI ULCI 3.93 .000 .22 .66 DEI Training Condition -.31 .11 -2.76 .006 -.54 -.09 Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender .51 .08 6.09 .000 .34 .03 .06 .56 .576 -.09 .67 .15 -.45 .12 -3.83 .000 -.68 -.22 Cognitive Empathy Perspective-Taking (T2) b SE t p LLCI ULCI Intercept 5.49 .09 61.49 .000 5.32 5.67 DEI Training Condition .29 .09 3.24 .001 .11 Identif: Attitude Homophily T1 .39 .04 9.01 .000 .30 Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender .71 .07 10.29 .000 .57 .09 .05 1.93 .054 .00 -.08 .09 -.89 .374 -.27 .47 .47 .84 .18 .10 NOTE. Identif = Identification, Trait Cog Emp = Trait Cognitive Empathy, Trait Aff Emp = Trait Affective Empathy 188 Table 10.18. PROCESS Model 4 results of DEI training condition predicting cognitive empathy positive affect through attitude homophily Outcome Identif: Attitude Homophily (T1) Intercept DEI Training Condition Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender Cognitive Empathy Positive Affect (T2) Intercept b .44 -.31 .51 .03 -.45 b 3.41 SE .11 .11 .08 .06 .12 SE .09 t p LLCI ULCI 3.93 .000 .22 .66 -2.76 .006 -.54 -.09 6.09 .000 .34 .56 .576 -.09 .67 .15 -3.83 .000 -.68 -.22 t p LLCI ULCI 39.17 .000 3.24 3.58 DEI Training Condition -.88 .09 -10.08 .000 -1.06 -.71 Identif: Attitude Homophily T1 Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender .09 .15 -.05 -.10 .04 .07 .05 .09 2.19 .029 2.32 .021 .01 .02 -1.12 .262 -.14 -1.12 .262 -.28 .17 .29 .04 .08 NOTE. Identif = Identification, Trait Cog Emp = Trait Cognitive Empathy, Trait Aff Emp = Trait Affective Empathy 189 Table 10.19. PROCESS Model 4 results of DEI training condition predicting cognitive empathy negative affect through attitude homophily Outcome Identif: Attitude Homophily (T1) Intercept DEI Training Condition Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender Cognitive Empathy Negative Affect (T2) Intercept DEI Training Condition Identif: Attitude Homophily T1 Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender b .44 -.31 .51 .03 -.45 b 1.60 .96 -.07 -.02 .17 .08 p LLCI ULCI SE .11 .11 .08 .06 .12 t 3.93 .000 .22 -2.76 .006 -.54 6.09 .000 .34 .56 .576 -3.83 .000 -.09 -.68 .66 -.09 .67 .15 -.22 t SE .07 22.70 p LLCI ULCI 1.74 1.46 .000 .07 13.52 .000 .82 1.10 .03 .05 .04 .07 -2.07 .039 -.28 .779 -.14 -.12 4.54 .000 .10 1.02 .308 -.07 .00 .09 .24 .22 NOTE. Identif = Identification, Trait Cog Emp = Trait Cognitive Empathy, Trait Aff Emp = Trait Affective Empathy 190 Table 10.20. PROCESS Model 4 results of DEI training condition predicting affective empathy positive affect through attitude homophily Outcome Identif: Attitude Homophily (T1) Intercept DEI Training Condition Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender Affective Empathy Positive Affect (T2) Intercept DEI Training Condition Identif: Attitude Homophily T1 Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender b .44 -.31 .51 .03 -.45 b 2.82 -.13 .27 .09 -.11 .01 SE .11 .11 .08 .06 .12 t 3.93 -2.76 6.09 .56 -3.83 t SE .09 29.76 -1.41 .10 5.89 .05 1.24 .07 -2.09 .05 .10 .10 p LLCI ULCI .000 .006 .000 .576 .000 .22 -.54 .34 -.09 -.68 .66 -.09 .67 .15 -.22 p LLCI ULCI 3.00 .05 .36 .23 -.01 .21 2.63 -.32 .18 -.05 -.20 -.19 .000 .158 .000 .217 .037 .918 NOTE. Identif = Identification, Trait Cog Emp = Trait Cognitive Empathy, Trait Aff Emp = Trait Affective Empathy 191 Table 10.21. PROCESS Model 4 results of DEI training condition predicting affective empathy negative affect through attitude homophily Outcome Identif: Attitude Homophily (T1) Intercept DEI Training Condition Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender Affective Empathy Negative Affect (T2) Intercept DEI Training Condition Identif: Attitude Homophily T1 Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender b .44 -.31 .51 .03 -.45 b 1.32 .04 .01 .00 .12 .09 p LLCI ULCI SE .11 .11 .08 .06 .12 t 3.93 .000 .22 -2.76 .006 -.54 6.09 .000 .34 .56 .576 -3.83 .000 -.09 -.68 .66 -.09 .67 .15 -.22 t SE .06 22.79 p LLCI ULCI 1.44 1.21 .000 .06 .03 .04 .03 .06 .76 .28 .445 .777 -.05 .959 -.07 -.05 -.09 3.89 .000 .06 1.45 .149 -.03 .16 .06 .09 .18 .21 NOTE. Identif = Identification, Trait Cog Emp = Trait Cognitive Empathy, Trait Aff Emp = Trait Affective Empathy 192 Table 10.22. PROCESS Model 4 results of DEI training condition predicting social identity threat (realistic) through attitude homophily Outcome Identif: Attitude Homophily (T1) Intercept DEI Training Condition Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender Soc Id Threat: Realistic (T2) Intercept DEI Training Condition Identif: Attitude Homophily T1 Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp b .44 -.32 .50 .03 -.45 b 2.35 -.29 -.63 -.43 -.11 SE .11 .11 .08 .06 .12 SE .19 .19 .09 .15 .10 t 3.96 p .000 .22 LLCI ULCI -2.81 .005 -.55 6.06 .000 .56 .574 -3.79 .000 .34 -.09 -.68 .66 -.10 .67 .15 -.21 t 12.18 p .000 LLCI ULCI 2.73 1.97 -1.47 .143 -6.83 .000 -2.94 .004 -1.06 .291 -.67 -.81 -.73 -.31 .10 -.45 -.14 .09 Gender .27 NOTE. Identif = Identification, Soc Id Threat = Social Identity Threat, Trait Cog Emp = Trait Cognitive Empathy, Trait Aff Emp = Trait Affective Empathy .520 -.13 -.53 -.64 .20 193 Table 10.23. PROCESS Model 4 results of DEI training condition predicting social identity threat (symbolic) through attitude homophily Outcome Identif: Attitude Homophily (T1) Intercept b .44 SE .11 t p LLCI ULCI 3.93 .000 .22 .66 DEI Training Condition -.31 .11 -2.76 .006 -.54 -.09 Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender .51 .03 .08 .06 6.09 .000 .34 .56 .576 -.09 .67 .15 -.45 .12 -3.83 .000 -.68 -.22 Soc Id Threat: Symbolic (T2) Intercept DEI Training Condition b 3.02 -.13 SE .19 .19 t p LLCI ULCI 15.66 .000 2.64 3.40 -.67 .501 -.51 .25 Identif: Attitude Homophily T1 -.75 .09 -8.07 .000 -.93 Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender -.48 .15 -3.27 .001 -.78 .05 .07 .10 .20 .49 .36 .625 -.15 .719 -.33 -.56 -.19 .25 .47 NOTE. Identif = Identification, Soc Id Threat = Social Identity Threat, Trait Cog Emp = Trait Cognitive Empathy, Trait Aff Emp = Trait Affective Empathy 194 Table 10.24. PROCESS Model 4 results of DEI training condition predicting intergroup anxiety through attitude homophily Outcome Identif: Attitude Homophily (T1) Intercept DEI Training Condition Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender Intergroup Anxiety (T2) Intercept DEI Training Condition Identif: Attitude Homophily T1 Trait Cog Emp Trait Aff Emp Gender b .44 -.31 .51 .03 -.45 b 3.35 .01 SE .11 .11 .08 .06 .12 SE .15 .15 t p LLCI ULCI 3.93 .000 .22 .66 -2.76 .006 -.54 -.09 6.09 .000 .34 .56 .576 -.09 .67 .15 -3.83 .000 -.68 -.22 t p LLCI ULCI 22.03 .000 3.05 3.65 .10 .924 -.29 .32 -.46 .07 -6.35 .000 -.61 -.32 -.43 .45 .07 .12 .08 .16 -3.70 .000 -.66 -.20 5.58 .000 .29 .45 .652 -.24 .61 .39 NOTE. Identif = Identification, Trait Cog Emp = Trait Cognitive Empathy, Trait Aff Emp = Trait Affective Empathy 195 Table 11. Standardized Mplus path analysis coefficients for the overall model incorporating storytelling mechanisms (figure 1.1) Outcome Predictor Willing to Engage (T2) Transportation (T1) Identif: Social Attraction (T1) Identif: Attitude Homophily (T1) Cog Emp Persp Taking (IRI) (T2) Cog Emp Pos Aff (T2) Cog Emp Neg Aff (T2) Aff Emp Pos Aff (T2) Aff Emp Neg Aff (T2) Soc Id Threat: Realistic (T2) Soc Id Threat: Symbolic (T2) Intergroup Anxiety (T2) DEI Training Condition Trait Cog Empathy (T2) Trait Aff Empathy (T2) Gender (Binary) Intentions to Help (T2) Transportation (T1) Identif: Social Attraction (T1) Identif: Attitude Homophily (T1) Cog Emp Persp Taking (IRI) (T2) Cog Emp Pos Aff (T2) Cog Emp Neg Aff (T2) Aff Emp Pos Aff (T2) Aff Emp Neg Aff (T2) Soc Id Threat: Realistic (T2) Soc Id Threat: Symbolic (T2) Intergroup Anxiety (T2) DEI Training Condition Trait Cog Empathy (T2) Trait Aff Empathy (T2) Gender (Binary) DEI Training Condition MANIP INTER Trait Cog Empathy (T2) Trait Aff Empathy (T2) 196 Transportation (T1) Estimate .15 .21 .07 -.07 .06 .05 .08 .10 -.22 -.03 -.25 .02 .16 .02 .10 .13 -.18 -.02 .08 -.03 .01 -.15 -.16 -.18 -.12 .21 -.11 .12 -.04 -.05 .06 .02 .05 .35 .03 SE .06 .07 .07 .06 .06 .06 .06 .05 .08 .08 .06 .06 .05 .05 .04 .07 .08 .08 .08 .08 .08 .08 .06 .10 .10 .07 .07 .07 .06 .05 .07 .07 .09 .05 .05 p .014 .001 .256 .263 .302 .458 .174 .045 .004 .684 .000 .685 .002 .673 .027 .079 .028 .818 .279 .684 .921 .056 .009 .060 .232 .002 .144 .071 .511 .347 .391 .771 .581 .000 .523 Table 11 (cont’d) Identif: Social Attraction (T1) Identif: Attitude Homophily (T1) Cog Emp Persp Taking (IRI) (T2) Gender (Binary) DEI Training Condition MANIP INTER Trait Cog Empathy (T2) Trait Aff Empathy (T2) Gender (Binary) DEI Training Condition MANIP INTER Trait Cog Empathy (T2) Trait Aff Empathy (T2) Gender (Binary) DEI Training Condition Transportation (T1) Identif: Social Attraction (T1) Identif: Attitude Homophily (T1) Trait Cog Empathy (T2) Trait Aff Empathy (T2) Gender (Binary) Cog Emp Pos Aff (T2) DEI Training Condition Transportation (T1) Identif: Social Attraction (T1) Identif: Attitude Homophily (T1) Trait Cog Empathy (T2) Trait Aff Empathy (T2) Gender (Binary) Cog Emp Neg Aff (T2) DEI Training Condition Transportation (T1) Identif: Social Attraction (T1) Identif: Attitude Homophily (T1) Trait Cog Empathy (T2) Trait Aff Empathy (T2) Gender (Binary) Aff Emp Pos Aff (T2) DEI Training Condition Transportation (T1) 197 -.14 -.29 -.04 .10 .35 -.02 -.21 -.18 .04 .08 .33 .03 -.20 .13 .30 .20 .18 .38 .09 .00 -.51 .23 -.03 .05 .07 -.06 -.04 .55 .07 -.14 -.03 -.01 .19 .04 -.15 .53 .05 .006 .07 .07 .08 .05 .05 .05 .07 .07 .09 .05 .05 .05 .04 .04 .06 .06 .04 .04 .04 .04 .05 .07 .07 .05 .05 .05 .04 .05 .06 .06 .05 .04 .04 .05 .05 .000 .534 .210 .000 .631 .000 .008 .534 .342 .000 .543 .000 .002 .000 .001 .001 .000 .029 .949 .000 .000 .676 .463 .192 .191 .391 .000 .129 .025 .642 .822 .000 .373 .001 .000 Table 11 (cont’d) Identif: Social Attraction (T1) Identif: Attitude Homophily (T1) Trait Cog Empathy (T2) Trait Aff Empathy (T2) Gender (Binary) Aff Emp Neg Aff (T2) DEI Training Condition Soc Id Threat: Realistic (T2) Soc Id Threat: Symbolic (T2) Intergroup Anxiety (T2) Transportation (T1) Identif: Social Attraction (T1) Identif: Attitude Homophily (T1) Trait Cog Empathy (T2) Trait Aff Empathy (T2) Gender (Binary) DEI Training Condition Transportation (T1) Identif: Social Attraction (T1) Identif: Attitude Homophily (T1) Trait Cog Empathy (T2) Trait Aff Empathy (T2) Gender (Binary) DEI Training Condition Transportation (T1) Identif: Social Attraction (T1) Identif: Attitude Homophily (T1) Trait Cog Empathy (T2) Trait Aff Empathy (T2) Gender (Binary) DEI Training Condition Transportation (T1) Identif: Social Attraction (T1) Identif: Attitude Homophily (T1) Trait Cog Empathy (T2) Trait Aff Empathy (T2) Gender (Binary) -.04 .18 -.05 -.13 .04 -.03 .23 -.26 .11 -.02 .20 .07 -.13 .00 -.35 -.16 -.12 -.07 -.06 -.07 -.04 -.26 -.26 -.14 .01 .00 -.02 .03 -.16 -.23 -.18 .27 .01 .07 .07 .05 .05 .05 .05 .06 .07 .07 .06 .05 .05 .05 .06 .07 .07 .06 .05 .05 .05 .06 .07 .07 .05 .05 .05 .05 .05 .07 .07 .05 .05 .05 .540 .008 .330 .006 .403 .608 .000 .000 .152 .711 .000 .158 .015 .969 .000 .031 .033 .158 .235 .197 .526 .001 .000 .013 .778 .935 .650 .568 .026 .001 .001 .000 .811 NOTE. Bolded p-values are statistically significant at p<.05. Trait cognitive empathy, trait affective empathy, and gender were run as covariates. All continuous mediators were grand mean-centered. 198 Table 11 (cont’d) Identif = Identification, Cog Emp Persp Taking = Cognitive Empathy Perspective-Taking, Cog Emp Pos Aff = Cognitive Empathy Positive Affect, Cog Emp Neg Aff = Cognitive Empathy Negative Affect, Aff Emp Pos Aff = Affective Empathy Positive Affect, Aff Emp Neg Aff = Affective Empathy Negative Affect, Soc Id Threat = Social Identity Threat, Willing to Engage = Willingness to Engage with Outgroup, Intentions to Help = Intentions to Help Outgroup, Trait Cog Emp = Trait Cognitive Empathy, Trait Aff Emp = Trait Affective Empathy 199 Figure 1. Simplified conceptual model without storytelling mechanisms (H1, H2, H3, H4, H5, H6) NOTE. Bolded = measured at Time 1 and Time 2. Normal text = measured at Time 1 only. Italics = measured at Time 2 only. Learning was measured as an outcome, but not used in analyses. 200 DEI Training(Storytellingvs.Non Storytelling)Construal Manipulation(Higher vs. Lower) ntended elping to ardOutgroupH3a H5a Manipulation Check:Behavioral IdentificationFormWillingness to ngage ith Outgroup ontrol Trait ogniti e mpathy ontrol Trait ffecti e mpathyControl: Binary GenderH3b H5b H1H2H4aH4bH6aH6b Figure 1.1. Full conceptual model incorporating storytelling mechanisms (H7, H8, H9) NOTE. Bolded = measured at Time 1 and Time 2. Normal text = measured at Time 1 only. Italics = measured at Time 2 only. Learning was measured as an outcome, but not used in analyses. 201 DEI Training(Storytellingvs.Non Storytelling)ConstrualManipulation(Highervs.Lower) ntended elpingto ardOutgroup ManipulationCheck:BehavioralIdentificationFormWillingness to ngage ith Outgroup ontrol Trait ogniti e mpathy ontrol Trait ffecti e mpathyControl: Binary Gender H9aH9a Figure 2. Interaction of DEI training condition and construal manipulation on cognitive empathy negative affect (time 1) NOTE. Post hoc pairwise comparisons revealed the difference between construal manipulation was only significant for those in the DEI training condition with storytelling (Cohen’s d = .01). 202 Figure 3. Interaction of DEI training condition and construal manipulation on affective empathy negative affect (time 1) NOTE. Post hoc pairwise comparisons revealed the difference was only significant for those in the DEI training condition with storytelling (Cohen’s d = .00). 203 Figure 4. H3a/H3b mediation model 204 DEI Training Condition : Perspective Taking (IRI) Positive Affect (PANAS) Negative Affect (PANAS) : Willing to Engage Intentions to HelpDEI Training Condition : Positive Affect (PANAS) Negative Affect (PANAS) : Willing to Engage Intentions to Help Figure 5. H5a/H5b mediation model 205 DEI Training Condition : Realistic Threat Dimension Symbolic Threat Dimension : Willing to Engage Intentions to HelpDEI Training ConditionIntergroup Anxiety : Willing to Engage Intentions to Help Figure 6. H7a/H7b mediation model 206 DEI Training ConditionTransportation : Cognitive Empathy Measures Perspective Taking (IRI) Positive Affect (PANAS) Negative Affect (PANAS) Affective Empathy Measures Positive Affect (PANAS) Negative Affect (PANAS)DEI Training ConditionTransportation : Social Identity ThreatMeasures Realistic Threat Symbolic Threat Intergroup Anxiety Figure 7. H8a/H8b mediation model 207 DEI Training Condition : Social Attraction Attitude Homophily : Cognitive Empathy Measures Perspective Taking (IRI) Positive Affect (PANAS) Negative Affect (PANAS) Affective Empathy Measures Positive Affect (PANAS) Negative Affect (PANAS)DEI Training Condition : Social Attraction Attitude Homophily : Social Identity ThreatMeasures Realistic Threat Symbolic Threat Intergroup Anxiety Figure 8. Static Picture Shown During Video in Storytelling Condition NOTE. This is a royalty free stock photo from https://stock.adobe.com/. 208 Figure 9. Static Picture Shown During Video in Non-Storytelling Condition NOTE. This is a royalty free stock photo from https://stock.adobe.com/. 209 APPENDIX B: BACKGROUND STUDY MATERIALS Research Participant Information and Consent Form 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. PURPOSE OF RESEARCH The purpose of this research study is to examine perceptions related to hearing other people’s stories about bias, diversity, equity, and inclusion. WHAT YOU WILL BE ASKED TO DO After scheduling your session time, your participation in this study will take about 60 minutes. You will be recorded via Zoom and whatever appears on your Zoom (e.g., your profile picture, video content if camera is turned on). You will be asked to recall an interaction where someone told you a story about a time when they perceived they were the target of bias based on their identity as a non-White person (e.g., the person who told you the story is Black, Latino, Asian, Native American, etc.). This does not mean that you agree with them. On Zoom, the researcher will interview you and verbally ask several open-ended and multiple choice questions about this interaction. During the session, the interviewer will send you a short online survey to anonymously gather demographic information during the scheduled time. Participation in this online survey is voluntary. You may withdraw or skip questions at any time without penalty. 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 may help us create better ways to present bias, diversity, equity, and inclusion information at work. POTENTIAL RISKS The most likely risks of participating in this study are feeling uncomfortable (e.g., embarrassed) depending on the type of interaction you decide to recall. PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY This study is anonymous. No identifying information will be collected. To help us protect your anonymity, please do not write or give your name or any other identifying information during the study. Only trained research staff and the MSU Human Research Protection Program will have access to your questionnaire, and all data will be stored on a password protected computer kept in a 210 locked laboratory room. Every effort will be made to keep your information safe. 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 You will be compensated with $20.00 upon completion of the survey, to be paid out via the Prolific platform. 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: (removed). 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. Continuing with this study indicates that you voluntarily agree to participate in this research study and meet the eligibility criteria. If you would like extra copies of this consent form, please contact the researchers using the information provided above. If you do not wish to participate, please return this task and/or email the researcher saying you are withdrawing. 211 Interview Question Route/Procedure Used with Participants [Information in brackets was not read aloud to participants] Hello, Thank you for agreeing to participate in this study on DEI storytelling. As a reminder, this interview is going to be recorded. You may change your name/picture on Zoom so that this information is not captured. I will now start recording [START THE RECORDING] Prior to this interview you should have received an informed consent form that explained what you are expected to do in this session. Have you read this form? [confirm they have read it] I will briefly go over the most important parts of this form with you: [pull up the informed consent and summarize it to them] Before we go any further, can you confirm your Prolific ID for me? You can copy and paste it into the chat. [make sure to record the prolific ID somewhere off zoom] Now I will give you the directions for our session today: We are interested in understanding the role that storytelling plays in bias, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, programs, and/or trainings in the workplace. Specifically, we are talking about when someone at work shares a personal story of a time when they felt they were the target of bias or when they did not feel included on the basis of their social identity as a non- white person (i.e., the person is Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, etc.). This does not mean that you agreed or disagreed with them. Again, we particularly want to know about storytelling that occurs in a workplace setting. A good example of this is when you hear a story about bias or someone being excluded as part of a formal diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) program or training. However, we are also very interested in storytelling that occurs informally in the workplace. For example, this could have happened between you and your coworker on break/lunch, or between you and a work client. You can provide an example of either. In this interview you will be asked to recall and talk about a time, within the last two years, when someone told you this type of story. You must have heard this story directly from the person to whom it happened. This means the person was explaining what happened in first-person language. You must have heard this story in a work-related setting (e.g., in a diversity training or from a coworker), but the actual story recounted does not need to be about work. For example, your coworker may have told you over lunch about a time they were the target of a discriminatory comment at the bus station. 212 Keep in Mind: • You must have been told this story in a work-related setting (e.g., during a formal DEI training, with coworkers or clients) within the last year or two approximately. • The person telling you the story must have been nonwhite. • You must have heard the story directly from the person to whom it happened, but this could be in-person, on a conference call, or in a recorded video. Do you have any questions before we start the interview? We would like you to answer these questions to the best of your ability. Some of these questions might sound repetitive or might not exactly fit your situation, but please try your best. Okay, let’s get started: [Questions about the Story/Story Description] First, I will ask you a few questions about the story itself and the person who told it to you. 1. Think of your DEI storytelling example. a. Can you please describe the storyteller’s identity that was important to the story they told you? b. What was your relationship to the storyteller? c. Can you please describe the context in which you heard the story. Use as much detail as you can. d. Example if needed: For example, was this during a regular day at work, a DEI training, a special work event, a happy hour, etc.? 2. Please describe the story that the person recounted to you? Use as much detail as you can. a. Probe: What was the main topic of the story? b. Probe: What else do you remember about hearing the story? 3. Why do you think you remembered this story? [Questions about Transportation] Next, I am going to ask you a few questions about whether you viewed the story as engaging, interesting, or compelling. Some stories we listen to are very engaging and some are less so. 4. Please rate how engaging you found this story on a 7 point scale where 1 = Not at all, 4 = neutral, 7 = Extremely so. 5. Why did you rate the story as you did? 6. Please rate how interesting you found this story on a 7 point scale where 1 = Not at all, 4 = neutral, 7 = Extremely so. 7. Why did you rate the story as you did? 8. Please rate how compelling you found this story on a 7 point scale where 1 = Not at all, 4 = neutral, 7 = Extremely so. 9. Why did you rate the story as you did? 10. Was there a point in the conversation when you felt “invested” in/like you really cared about what the person had to say? a. Why at that point? Or why do you think you were not invested? 213 11. Sometimes a story really pulls us in; other times we are listening but our mind is elsewhere. When the person was telling you the story or what happened to them, was there any point at which you were distracted, interrupted, or when your focus shifted away from the other person? a. Why? a. Probe/Reword: Why was or wasn’t your attention focused on the other person when they recounted their story? b. Probe/Reword: Were there any points during the storytelling when you wished you didn’t have to listen further or could leave? [Questions about Emotional Reactions] Next, I am going to ask a few questions about how the story made you feel. Some stories bring out strong emotions in us whereas others really do not. 12. What emotions did you feel in response to the other person sharing their story? a. Examples: (e.g., neutral, shocked, unsurprised, content, annoyed) 13. What emotions did you feel in the moment as the story was being shared? 14. What emotions did you feel right after the person finished what they had to say? [Questions about Identification] Some stories are ones where we feel like we can relate to the storyteller, but for other stories we do not feel as connected. 15. Did you feel like you had things in common with the storyteller after hearing what they had to say? a. In what ways? 16. Do you feel like hearing the story caused you to empathize with the person? a. In what ways, or why not? [Questions about Story Impact] Next, I will ask you a few questions about the impact of the story on you. Some stories have a lasting impact on us and lead us to change something or view the world differently; other stories are memorable, but we don’t really change ourselves because of them. 17. What was the impact of hearing the story on your actions afterwards? a. Examples if needed: For example, you may have decided to avoid this person. On the other hand, you may have felt like spending more time with the storyteller (e.g., eat lunch with them in the breakroom). You might have shared the story with others. 18. Did you think of or view anything differently as a result of the other person sharing their story? a. Examples if needed: the story topic, your organization, other people, etc. [Questions about Believability] Finally, some stories can seem vivid and realistic when the storyteller recounts them, whereas others may feel like they are unlikely to reflect what really happened. 19. Realism: What was it about the storyteller or story that made you believe or not believe them? 214 20. Did you believe everything the storyteller said, or were some parts less convincing? a. Probe/Reword: Did you question anything the storyteller was saying? That was my last question for you today. Do you have any questions that I can answer for you? Okay, the last task for this session is for you to complete a very short questionnaire gathering demographic information anonymously. I will paste the Qualtrics survey link to the chat box. Please fill this out right now and let me know when it is complete. It should only take a moment or two. Then I can give you the debriefing and we will be done. Thank you again for your participation and engagement with this study! I am attaching the debriefing form here for you to read. This concludes the interview. Goodbye! [Debriefing is provided at the end of Appendix C] 215 APPENDIX C: STUDY MATERIALS AND MEASURES Participants saw the materials in this order: 1. Qualtrics Survey Time 1 a. Informed Consent b. Construal Level Manipulation (High vs. Low) c. Video 1 - DEI Training Manipulation Exercise (Storytelling vs. No) d. Video 2- DEI Basics e. Construal Level Manipulation Check f. Measures Time 1 i. Transportation ii. Identification: Social Attraction iii. Identification: Attitude Homophily iv. State Cognitive Empathy: PANAS v. State Cognitive Empathy: Perspective-Taking Scale vi. State Affective Empathy: PANAS vii. Social Identity Threat viii. Intergroup Anxiety ix. Learning x. Demographic Items 2. Qualtrics Survey Time 2 a. Measures Time 2 i. Intended Heling Toward the Outgroup ii. Willingness to Engage with the Outgroup iii. Trait Cognitive Empathy iv. Trait Affective Empathy v. Political Orientation b. Debriefing 216 Qualtrics Survey Time 1 - Informed Consent Participants read and agreed to the informed consent before proceeding with the study. 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. PURPOSE OF RESEARCH The purpose of this research study is examine perceptions of and reactions to presenting inclusion and bias information at work. WHAT YOU WILL BE ASKED TO DO You are being asked to participate in a research study of DEI material. This study involves two parts. In Part One, you will be asked to read and/or listen to information you would likely hear in an inclusion or bias training at work. Next, you will write a few sentences as part of a brief writing exercise. Then, you will answer open-ended and multiple choice questions in reaction to what you have read and/or heard. Part One of this survey will take approximately 30 minutes to complete. In Part Two, you will be asked to recall and answer more open-ended and multiple choice questions about what you read and/or heard in Part One. Then, you will be asked multiple choice questions about yourself. Part Two will be made available to you on the Prolific platform approximately 1 week (7 days) after you have completed Part One. Part Two of this survey will take approximately 20 minutes to complete. In Part One and Two, you will be asked to respond based on your perceptions and beliefs about a social group, or about interacting with a social group, different than your own. Some of these items may include disturbing or upsetting implications. Please see the potential risks section below. You will also be asked to report non-identifying demographic information about yourself (e.g., age, gender). This will all occur remotely, using an online survey. Participation in this online survey is voluntary. You may withdraw or skip questions at any time without penalty. POTENTIAL BENEFITS 217 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 may help us create better ways to present inclusion and bias information at work. POTENTIAL RISKS Answering the questions presented on this survey may be deeply disturbing and upsetting. Survey questions ask you to consider particular negative and positive statements about a specific social group and then assign your own attitudes/perceptions. Answering the questions presented could result in feelings of distress, shame, guilt, loss of self-esteem, reveal troubling aspects of human nature and present other psychological risks. If these feelings apply to you at any point during the study, please stop your participation and seek help. PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY This study is anonymous. No identifying information will be collected. To help us protect your anonymity, please do not write or give your name or any other identifying information during the study. Only trained research staff and the MSU Human Research Protection Program will have access to your questionnaire, and all data will be stored on a password protected computer kept in a locked laboratory room. Every effort will be made to keep your information safe. 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 You will be compensated with a payment of $7.00 upon completion of Part One of the survey. You will be compensated with a payment of $3.00 upon completion of Part Two of the survey. These will be paid via the Prolific platform. 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: (removed) 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. 218 Selecting “Yes, I have read the consent form and agree to participate” below means that you voluntarily agree to participate in this research study and meet the eligibility criteria. If you would like a copy of this consent form, please contact the researchers using the information provided above. Your continued participation in this survey indicates your consent to participate in this study. If you do not wish to participate, please exit the survey now. 219 Qualtrics Survey Time 1 - Construal Level Manipulation Exercise (Fujita et al., 2006) Higher Construal Condition (Participants saw only one construal condition) First, please complete the following thought exercise. Directions: You will be presented with a list of 20 common words. We would like you to answer the following question for each word: ___ is an example of what? For example, a ‘cup’ is an example of kitchenware. ___ is an example of what? List of words (EnglishClub, n.d.): 1. person 2. year 3. day 4. man 5. world 6. life 7. hand 8. part 9. child 10. eye 11. woman 12. place 13. work 14. week 15. case 16. point 17. company 18. number 19. group 20. problem Please read these instructions carefully! In the next section, you will be presented with content you might commonly find in a diversity, equity, and inclusion training at work. As you listen to the training, we would like you think about the “big picture” rather than the details. Please focus on the general meaning or general consequences of what you hear and learn. Ask yourself, “what is the main idea I am being asked to think about, and why is it important”? Lower Construal Condition (Participants saw only one construal condition) First, please complete the following thought exercise. Directions: You will be presented with a list of 20 common words. We would like you to answer the following question for each word: An example of ___ is what? For example, an example of a ‘cup’ is a teacup. An example of a/an ___ is what? [See list of words in Higher Construal condition above.] 220 Please read these instructions carefully! In the next section, you will be presented with content you might commonly find in a diversity, equity, and inclusion training at work. As you listen to the training, we would like you to focus on the details instead of the big picture. Please think about specific meanings or specific consequences of what you hear and learn. Ask yourself, “what should I do with this information and how can I put this into action”? 221 Qualtrics Survey Time 1 - Video 1 - DEI Training Storytelling Condition (Participants only saw one Storytelling/Non-Storytelling condition) The DEI training consists of the following 2 videos. Instructions: In the first part of this DEI training you will hear a story from a coworker who does not feel included based on their identity. This story is based on true events that the researchers heard firsthand from a prior research study. This section has both visuals and audio. Please listen to the full video. Video Transcript: You have known your coworker, Monique, for about a year and enjoy regularly grabbing lunch during weekdays together. Today at lunch, Monique appears extremely upset. Her shoulders are slumped and she looks deflated. When you ask Monique how she is doing, she begins recounting a story about what happened to her earlier in the week. You listen intently as Monique recounts the story: “Do you remember how this Monday I had a presentation for a very big client? I was preparing all weekend. I wore my best suit too. I decided to wear my hair naturally, even though I don’t always, because it makes me feel good and like I can be my best self. Before my presentation I walked by my supervisor’s office and they started chatting with me about the upcoming meeting. We were just talking, and then my supervisor says, ‘Hey, are you sure you want to wear your hair like that? You should probably tame it down a little bit. It could be perceived as unprofessional.’ I was so shocked to hear them say that. I was already nervous going into the presentation, but then to be told my own, natural hair might seem ‘unprofessional’? I was embarrassed and frustrated. I lost the confidence I needed going into that presentation. I had thought that if this presentation went really well, I could get promoted in a few months to manager. But knowing that my supervisor thinks my own hair is unprofessional--I’m beginning to feel like I don’t belong here. This has been a big blow to my self-esteem.” Manipulation Check: What did Monique talk to you about? 1. A time when her manager complimented her. 2. A time when her manager interrupted her when she was working. 3. A time when her manager said her natural hair was unprofessional. See Figure 8 for the static picture shown during the video in the storytelling condition. 222 Non-Storytelling Condition (Participants only saw one Storytelling/Non-Storytelling condition) The DEI training consists of the following 2 videos. Instructions: In the first part of this DEI training you will hear some research about the inclusion and belonging of Black workers in the U.S. This section has both visuals and audio. Please listen to the full video. Video Transcript: Black workers are overrepresented in low-paying jobs but underrepresented in high-paying jobs. This is in part because they aren’t promoted from entry-level to managerial positions at the same rate as other workers. At the highest organizational levels, there are only four Black CEOs in Fortune 500 companies. To be proportional to the Black U.S. population, this number would need to be 60. When it comes to inclusion and belonging, a survey of 25 thousand workers found that Black US workers and their counterparts see their companies quite differently. Black workers often don’t feel that their employers value and embrace diversity nor that they can be their full selves at work. Clearly, Black workers do not feel they are included or belong in their workplaces. Research confirms that Black workers endure an “emotional tax”, meaning they are aware of being different compared to others in the workplace and this has negative consequence on their health. Receiving support, like mentoring, in the workplace, may help Black workers feel more included and advance their careers. Yet, many Black workers do not believe they have enough support to get promoted to management jobs. Only 23 percent of Black employees believe they get “a lot” or “quite a bit” of support to advance. More than 67 percent of Black employees report they do not have a sponsor or mentor at their company. These are just a few of the challenges Black workers face today. Information above was adapted from the following texts (citations not shown to participants): • Hancock, Manyika et al. (2021) https://www.mckinsey.com/featured- insights/diversity-and-inclusion/the-black-experience-at-work-in-charts • Hancock, Williams et al. (2021) https://www.mckinsey.com/featured- insights/diversity-and-inclusion/race-in-the-workplace-the-black-experience-in- the-us-private-sector • Patel (n.d.) https://www.peoplescout.com/insights/hispanic-and-latinx-diversity- and-inclusion/ Manipulation Check: What did the video above talk about 1. How Black workers feel they are overpaid. 2. How Black workers do not feel included or supported at work. 223 3. How Black workers change jobs frequently. See Figure 9 for the static picture shown during the video in non-storytelling condition. 224 Qualtrics Survey Time 1 - Video 2- DEI Basics (all conditions) For the second video of this DEI training you will learn about a few key concepts related to DEI at work. This section has both visuals and audio. Please listen to the full video. Video Transcript: You will now learn about a few key concepts related to DEI at work. This section has both visuals and audio. Four important terms to know are Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging. 1. Equity is the fair treatment of individuals in the workplace. Equity does NOT mean that everyone receives the exact same support. Instead, everyone is provided what they need. 2. Diversity refers to the representation of individuals from diverse backgrounds. People with different backgrounds are ‘in the room’. 3. Inclusion is going one step further than just having Diversity. Not only are people ‘in the room’, but they also get to be a part of the conversation. They are brought into the core of the team. 4. Individuals will feel like they Belong when they feel respected, valued, and acknowledged. Another important term to know is Social Identity. Someone’s social identity is something that is adopted when one belongs to a particular group. Many identities are based on your demographics, such as your gender, race, and socioeconomic status (e.g., being middle-class); however, people can choose certain identities they have, such as being a parent or becoming a professional. Social identities contribute to people’s diverse and varied backgrounds. Now, let’s talk about how we think about people who are different from us. Being identity aware means to take into account people’s social identities when making decisions, during work processes, or in general coworker interactions. In contrast, being identity blind is to do the same for all individuals regardless of identity differences. This can be a problem when some individuals need different supports at work. It can also come off as hurtful and unhelpful to ignore social identities that are important to people. Instead, being identity aware and acknowledging that everyone is unique promotes equity, inclusion, and belonging. An Ally is an advantaged group member who supports and advocates for those with stigmatized or historically disadvantaged social identities. Allies are people who are identity aware and try to take into account others’ backgrounds in order to make them feel included and like they belong. Allies can also use their identities as advantaged group members to challenge the status quo. They can help change the workplace to be more equitable, diverse, and inclusive so that everyone feels they belong. [A variety of royalty free stock images (none of real people) were shown as the transcript was read.] 225 Qualtrics Survey Time 1 - Construal Level Manipulation Check (Vallacher & Wegner, 1989) Now that you have finished the DEI training, please complete a second thought exercise. Any behavior can be described in many ways. For example, one person might describe a behavior as "writing a paper," while another person might describe the same behavior as "pushing keys on the keyboard." Yet another person might describe it as "expressing thoughts." This form focuses on your personal preferences for how a number of different behaviors should be described. Below you will find several behaviors listed. After each behavior will be two different ways in which the behavior might be described. For example: 1. Attending class • sitting in a chair • looking at a teacher Your task is to select the description that best describes the behavior for you. Be sure to respond to every item. Please mark only one alternative for each pair. Remember, mark the description that you personally believe is more appropriate for each pair. 1. Making a list o Getting organized* o Writing things down 2. Reading o Following lines of print o Gaining knowledge* 3. Joining the Army o Using a yard stick 8. Cleaning the house o Showing one's cleanliness* o Vacuuming the floor 9. Painting a room o Applying brush strokes o Making the room look fresh* o Helping the Nation's 10. Paying the rent defense* o Signing up 4. Washing clothes o Removing odors from clothes* o Maintaining a place to live* o Writing a check 11. Caring for houseplants o Watering plants o Making the room look nice* o Putting clothes into the 12. Locking a door machine 5. Picking an apple o Getting something to eat* o Pulling an apple off a branch 6. Chopping down a tree o Wielding an axe o Getting firewood* 7. Measuring a room for carpeting o Putting a key in the lock o Securing the house* 13. Voting Influencing the election* o o Marking a ballot 14. Climbing a tree o Getting a good view* o Holding on to branches o Getting ready to remodel* 15. Filling out a personality test 226 o Answering questions o Revealing what you're like* 16. Toothbrushing o Preventing tooth decay* o Moving a brush around in one's mouth 17. Taking a test o Answering questions o Showing one's knowledge* 18. Greeting someone o Saying hello o Showing friendliness* 19. Resisting temptation o Saying "no" o Showing moral courage* 20. Eating o Getting nutrition* * Higher level alternative. o Chewing and swallowing 21. Growing a garden o Planting seeds o Getting fresh vegetables* 22. Traveling by car o Following a map o Seeing countryside* 23. Having a cavity filled o Protecting your teeth* o Going to the dentist 24. Talking to a child o Teaching a child something* o Using simple words 25. Pushing a doorbell o Moving a finger o Seeing if someone's home* For each item, the order of the two options was randomized for participants. Total score is the sum of higher level alternative choices. (https://psy2.fau.edu/~vallacher/insights_BIF.html) 227 Qualtrics Survey Time 1 - Transportation Measure (Adapted from Green & Brock, 2000) A: Storytelling Condition B: Non-Storytelling Condition Scale: 5-point Likert; 1 = Not at all, 5 = Very much A: Please think back to when you were listening to the Black employee, Monique, who shared her story. 1. While I was listening to the story, I could easily picture the events in it taking place. 2. While I was listening to the story, activity going on in the room around me was on my mind. 3. I could picture myself in the scene of the events described in the story. 4. I was mentally involved in the story while listening to it. 5. After hearing the story, I found it easy to put it out of my mind. 6. I wanted to learn how the story ended. 7. The story affected me emotionally. 8. I found myself thinking of the ways the story could have turned out differently. 9. I found my mind wandering while listening to the story. 10. The events in the story are relevant to my everyday life. 11. The events in the story have changed my life. B: Think back to the research you heard about Black employees at work. 1. While I was listening to the research, I could easily picture those events taking place. 2. While I was listening to the research, activity going on in the room around me was on my mind. 3. I could picture myself in similar events described in the research. 4. I was mentally involved in the information while listening to it. 5. After hearing the research, I found it easy to put it out of my mind. 6. I wanted to learn more about the research provided. 7. The information affected me emotionally. 8. I found myself thinking of the ways the research could have turned out differently. 9. I found my mind wandering while listening to the information. 10. The research is relevant to my everyday life. 11. Hearing this information has changed my life. 228 Identification (Social Attraction; adapted from McCroskey et al., 2006) A: Storytelling Condition B: Non-Storytelling Condition Scale: 7-point Likert; 1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree A: Please think back to when you were listening to the Black employee, Monique, who shared her story. 1. I think Monique could be a friend of mine 2. I would like to have a friendly chat with Monique 3. It would be difficult to meet and talk with Monique 4. We could never establish a personal friendship with each other 5. Monique wouldn't fit into my circle of friends 6. Monique would be pleasant to be with 7. Monique would be sociable with me 8. I would not like to spend time socializing with Monique 9. I could become close friends with Monique 10. Monique seems easy to get along with 11. Monique seems unpleasant to be around 12. Monique does not seem very friendly B: Please think back to the research you heard about Black employees at work. 1. I think a Black coworker could be a friend of mine 2. I would like to have a friendly chat with a Black coworker 3. It would be difficult to meet and talk with a Black coworker 4. We could never establish a personal friendship with each other 5. A Black coworker wouldn't fit into my circle of friends 6. A Black coworker would be pleasant to be with 7. A Black coworker would be sociable with me 8. I would not like to spend time socializing with a Black coworker 9. I could become close friends with a Black coworker. 10. A Black coworker would be easy to get along with 11. A Black coworker would be unpleasant to be around 12. A Black coworker would not be very friendly 229 Identification (Attitude Homophily; adapted from McCroskey et al., 2006) A: Storytelling Condition B: Non-Storytelling Condition Scale: 7-point Likert; 1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree A: Please think back to when you were listening to the Black employee, Monique, who shared her story. 1. Monique thinks like me 2. Monique doesn't behave like me 3. Monique is different from me 4. Monique shares my values 5. Monique is like me 6. Monique treats people like I do 7. Monique doesn't think like me 8. Monique is similar to me 9. Monique doesn't share my values 10. Monique behaves like me 11. Monique is unlike me 12. Monique doesn't treat people like I do 13. Monique has thoughts and ideas that are similar to mine 14. Monique expresses attitudes different from mine 15. Monique has a lot in common with me B: Please think back to the research you heard about Black employees at work. 1. Black employees think like me 2. Black employees don’t behave like me 3. Black employees are different from me 4. Black employees share my values 5. Black employees are like me 6. Black employees treat people like I do 7. Black employees don't think like me 8. Black employees are similar to me 9. Black employees don't share my values 10. Black employees behave like me 11. Black employees are unlike me 12. Black employees don't treat people like I do 13. Black employees have thoughts and ideas that are similar to mine 14. Black employees express attitudes different from mine 15. Black employees have a lot in common with me 230 State Cognitive Empathy (Brief PANAS, adapted from Watson et al., 1988) A: Storytelling Condition B: Non-Storytelling Condition Scale: 5-point Likert; 1 = Very slightly or not at all, 5 = Extremely A: Think back to the Black employee, Monique, who shared her story. To what extent do you think Monique felt: B: Think back to the research you heard about Black employees at work. To what extent do you think Black employees at work feel: 1. Interested 2. Irritable 3. Distressed 4. Alert 5. Excited 6. Ashamed 7. Upset 8. Inspired 9. Strong 10. Nervous 11. Guilty 12. Determined 13. Scared 14. Attentive 15. Hostile 16. Jittery 17. Enthusiastic 18. Active 19. Proud 20. Afraid 231 State Cognitive Empathy (adapted from IRI Perspective-Taking subscale; Davis, 1980) A: Storytelling Condition B: Non-Storytelling Condition Scale: 7-point Likert; 1 = Strongly disagree, 7 = Strongly agree How strongly do you agree with the following statements about your reactions to the diversity training? A: Again, please think back to the Black employee, Monique, who shared their story. B: Again, please think back to the research you heard about Black employees at work. 1. I found it difficult to see things from [Monique’s] [a Black employee’s] point of view. 2. I tried to imagine how things look from [Monique’s] [a Black employee’s] point of view in order to understand their perspective better. 3. I don’t need to spend any more time [listening to Monique] [thinking about a Black employee’s point of view]. 4. I tried to “put myself in other person’s shoes” when [listening to Monique’s story] [hearing about Black employees’ experiences at work], even if it made me upset. 232 State Affective Empathy (Brief PANAS, adapted from Watson et al., 1988) Scale: 5-point Likert; 1 = Very slightly or not at all, 5 = Extremely Please read carefully. After having gone through this diversity training, to what extent do you feel: 1. Interested 2. Irritable 3. Distressed 4. Alert 5. Excited 6. Ashamed 7. Upset 8. Inspired 9. Strong 10. Nervous 11. Guilty 12. Determined 13. Scared 14. Attentive 15. Hostile 16. Jittery 17. Enthusiastic 18. Active 19. Proud 20. Afraid 233 Social Identity Threat/Intergroup Threat (Realistic and Symbolic dimensions; adapted from Riek et al., 2010) Scale: 10-point Likert; 1 = Not at all, 10 = Very much Please answer the following questions as honest and straightforward as you can. Your answers will provide us with accurate data to advance scientific research. Remember, there are no “right” or “wrong” answers; all responses are completely anonymous. [Realistic Threat] Please indicate how much you agree with each of the following statements. 1. Blacks hold too many positions of power and responsibility in this country. 2. Blacks dominate American politics more than they should. 3. When Blacks are in positions of authority, they discriminate against Whites when making hiring decisions. 4. Too much money is spent on educational programs that benefit Blacks. 5. Blacks have more economic power than they deserve in this country. 6. Blacks receive too much of the money spent on healthcare and childcare. 7. Too much money per student is spent on education for Blacks. 8. The tax system favors Blacks. 9. Many companies hire less qualified Blacks over more qualified Whites. 10. Blacks have more political power than they deserve in this country. 11. Public service agencies favor Blacks over Whites. 12. The legal system is more lenient on Blacks than on Whites. [Symbolic Threat] Please indicate how much you agree with each of the following statements using the scale below. 1. Whites and Blacks have very different values. 2. Blacks have no right to think they have better values than Whites. 3. Blacks want their rights to be put ahead of the rights of Whites. 4. Blacks don't understand the way Whites view the world. 5. Blacks do not value the rights granted by the Constitution (life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) as much as Whites do. 6. Blacks and Whites have different family values. 7. Blacks don't value the traditions of their group as much as Whites do. 8. Blacks regard themselves as morally superior to Whites. 9. The values of Blacks regarding work are different from those of Whites. 10. Most Blacks will never understand what Whites are like. 11. Blacks should not try to impose their values on Whites. 12. Whites do not get as much respect from Blacks as they deserve. 234 Intergroup Anxiety (adapted from Stephan & Stephan, 1985) Scale: 10-point Likert; 1 = Extremely uncertain, 10 = Extremely certain Please answer the following questions as honest and straightforward as you can. Your answers will provide us with accurate data to advance scientific research. Remember, there are no “right” or “wrong” answers; all responses are completely anonymous. If you were the only member of your race and were interacting with Black people (e.g., talking with them, working on a project with them), how would you feel compared to occasions when you are interacting with people from your own race? 1. Awkward 2. Self-conscious 3. Happy 4. Accepted 5. Confident 6. Irritated 7. Impatient 8. Defensive 9. Suspicious 10. Careful 235 Learning (developed for this study; not used in analyses) (each correct answer was coded as 1, each incorrect answer was coded as -1, range -7 to +7) You will now be asked a few questions about the information you learned in the DEI training. 1. Which of the following best represents the concept of Inclusion? a. Everyone is treated exactly the same. b. People with different backgrounds are present in the meeting. c. Everyone at the meeting is encouraged to share their perspective in the conversation. 2. Is this statement true or false? Equity means everyone receives the exact same treatment. a. True b. False 3. Which of the following would NOT be considered a Social Identity? a. Your socioeconomic status b. Your preference for salty food. c. Your chosen profession, such as being a teacher 4. Is this statement true or false? Taking into account people’s social identities when making decisions means one is being Identity Blind. a. True b. False 5. Is this statement true or false? Being Identity Aware means that you consider whether people of different social identities will need different supports. a. True b. False 6. Which statement below best describes what an Ally is? a. An ally is an advantaged group member who challenges the status quo to help those with stigmatized identities. b. An ally is a disadvantaged group member, who may be stigmatized by others in society. c. An ally is someone who tries to make everyone happy. They do not want to rock the boat. 7. Which of these is NOT something an Ally would possibly do? a. An Ally would speak up if they saw something unfair happening. b. An Ally would support and mentor a coworker from a disadvantaged group. c. An Ally would believe it is okay to ignore social identities. 236 This is the last section of PART ONE. Thank you for your continued participation. Demographic Items 1. What is your age in years? Please enter a number. [Write-in] 2. Which gender identity is yours? a. Man b. Woman c. Transgender d. Non-binary / third gender / agender e. Prefer not to say f. If you prefer to write-in your answer, please do so here: 3. What is your sexual orientation? a. Straight b. Gay or Lesbian c. Bisexual d. Asexual e. Prefer not to say f. If you prefer to write-in your answer, please do so here: 4. Please select your race/ethnicity. Choose all options that apply. Your choices will appear highlighted on the screen. a. White/Caucasian b. Native American or American Indian or Alaskan Native c. Hispanic or Latino/a d. Far East Asia e. Southeast Asian f. South Asian (Indian subcontinent) g. North Asian h. Middle Eastern or Arab i. Black or African American j. Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander k. If one or more of your race/ethnicities are not represented above, please specify here: 5. How many hours a week do you currently work? Please enter a whole number. [Write-in] 6. What is your current job position/title? [Write-in] 237 8. What industry do you currently work in? a. Manufacturing b. Natural Resources and Mining c. Finance d. Professional and Business Services e. Education f. Health Care g. Information & Technology h. Trade, Transportation, and Utilities i. Restaurant j. Leisure and Hospitality k. Retail l. Other (please specify): 9. About how many employees work in your current organization? a. Less than 15 employees b. Less than 100 employees c. 100 - 999 employees d. 1,000 - 9,999 employees e. Greater than 10,000 employees f. I don’t know 10. Please indicate the extent to which you participate in remote work for your job: a. Never b. Once a month or less c. Once a week d. More than once a week e. Most of the time f. Almost always or always 238 Qualtrics Survey Time 2 Participants answered the following measures from Time 1 again: 1. Transportation 2. Identification 3. State cognitive empathy 4. State affective empathy 5. Social identity threat 6. Intergroup anxiety 239 Intended Helping Toward the Outgroup (developed for this study) Scale: 7-point Likert; 1 = Extremely unlikely, 7 = Extremely likely Please answer the following questions as honest and straightforward as you can. Your answers will provide us with accurate data to advance scientific research. Remember, there are no “right” or “wrong” answers; all responses are completely anonymous. After this DEI training, I am likely to: 1. Get involved with activism and social movements that benefit Black people. 2. Donate money to causes and organizations that benefit Black people. 3. Invest time in educating myself on how to better support Black people. 4. Vote for elected officials and government policies that will support the advancement of Black people. 5. Get involved with mentoring Black people in my career field. 6. Push for better inclusion and working conditions for Black people at my workplace. 240 Willingness to Engage with the Outgroup (adapted from Tropp & Bianchi, 2006) Scale: 7-point Likert; 1 = Not at all, 7 = Very interested Please answer the following questions as honest and straightforward as you can. Your answers will provide us with accurate data to advance scientific research. Remember, there are no “right” or “wrong” answers; all responses are completely anonymous. After this DEI training: 1. To what extent are you interested in interacting with a Black person? 2. To what extent do you think Black people are interested in interacting with your racial group? 241 Trait Cognitive Empathy (Perspective-taking Subscale from Interpersonal Reactivity Index; adapted from Davis, 1980) Scale: 5-point Likert; 1 = Does not describe me well, 5 = Describes me very well 1. I sometimes find it difficult to see things from the "other guy's" point of view. 2. I try to look at everybody's side of a disagreement before I make a decision. 3. I sometimes try to understand my friends better by imagining how things look from their perspective. 4. If I'm sure I'm right about something, I don't waste much time listening to other people's arguments. 5. I believe that there are two sides to every question and try to look at them both. 6. When I'm upset at someone, I usually try to "put myself in his shoes" for a while. 7. Before criticizing somebody, I try to imagine how I would feel if I were in their place. 242 Trait Affective Empathy (Personal Distress Subscale from Interpersonal Reactivity Index; adapted from Davis, 1980) Scale: 5-point Likert; 1 = Does not describe me well, 5 = Describes me very well 1. In emergency situations, I feel apprehensive and ill-at-ease. 2. I sometimes feel helpless when I am in the middle of a very emotional situation. 3. When I see someone get hurt, I tend to remain calm. 4. Being in a tense emotional situation scares me. 5. I am usually pretty effective in dealing with emergencies. 6. I tend to lose control during emergencies. 7. When I see someone who badly needs help in an emergency, I go to pieces. 243 Political Orientation (Pratto et al., 1994) Scale: 7-point Likert; 1 = very liberal, 2 = liberal, 3 = slightly liberal, 4 = middle of the road, 5 = slightly conservative, 6 = conservative, 7 = very conservative Please indicate your political views in the accompanying categories: • Foreign policy issues • Economic issues • Social issues 244 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, as well as further information resources if you are interested. With this study, we are interested in learning about the impact on individuals of hearing another person’s “story” about a time when that person felt they were the target of discrimination, bias, or prejudice. Research scholars have criticized current diversity trainings as or even detrimental to diversity and inclusion goals (see the linked articles below: Anand & Winters, 2008; Dobbin & Kalev, 2018; Pendry et al., 2007), so it is important to conduct research about the effectiveness of features of diversity trainings or programs. Storytelling is one aspect that can be incorporated into these trainings or programs. Another aspect of this research is that we are investigating how one’s psychological construal level may affect the impact that a hearing this type of story has on them. People can have higher or lower construals based on their personality, but they can also have different construal levels in a given situation. A higher construal level is associated with thinking about abstract concepts, things far away in space or time, and other people’s perspectives. A lower construal is associated with thinking about concrete facts and details, things closer in space and time, and things important to one’s own perspective. We are investigating whether a higher or lower construal is better for diversity and inclusion outcomes when listening to the type of story you answered questions about in this survey. You may or may not have been exposed to certain parts of the research materials depending on which survey you signed up for or to which condition you were randomly assigned. This is a normal part of the research process. The purpose of this study was to learn about individuals’ perceptions and reactions to hearing these types of stories. We want to know whether these stories make a positive, negative, or no difference in how people view diversity and inclusion goals. With this information, we can start to understand what purpose sharing these stories has, or might have, in diversity trainings and programs. If you would like to learn more about diversity trainings, the articles below provide reviews of a body of work on diversity training: Anand, R., & Winters, M. F. (2008). A retrospective view of corporate diversity training from 1964 to present. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(3), 365-372. Bezrukova, K., Spell, C. S., Perry, J. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2016). A meta-analytical integration of over 40 years of research on diversity training evaluation. Psychological Bulletin, 11, 1227-1274. Dobbin, F., & Kalev, A. (2018). Why doesn’t diversity training work? The challenge for industry and academia. Anthropology Now, 10(2), 48-55. Pendry, L. F., Driscoll, D. M., & Field, S. C. T. (2007). Diversity training: Putting theory into practice. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 27-50. 245 This article describes Construal Level Theory: Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological review, 117(2), 440-463. This study design was relatively straightforward and is of the type often encountered in psychological research. No deception towards participants was involved. Your participation in this study is very valuable in furthering research for effective diversity trainings and programs. Our goal is for this research to contribute towards combatting and minimizing negative effects of bias as well. The nature of this study was unlikely to evoke strong negative feelings (such as those of distress, anxiety, shame, guilt, loss of self-esteem); however, if for any reason the study questions or participation made you feel in need of advice or counseling, please utilize the national resources listed below. Crisis Text Line Text HOME to 741741 to connect with a Crisis Counselor Provides free 24/7, confidential support https://www.crisistextline.org/ National Suicide Prevention Lifeline Call: 1-800-273-8255 Provides free 24/7, confidential support https://suicidepreventionlifeline.org/ If you do have any questions or concerns regarding this study, please do not hesitate to contact the investigators. If you would like more information about the study or have further questions, please contact Ann Marie Ryan, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, phone: (517) 353-8855, email: ryanan@msu.edu. 246