Tokenism (token)

1 = not at all, 7 = very much so.
Manager’s behavior made me….
- worry that I stand out because I am a woman.
- feel like my skills and knowledge as a woman were made salient
- feel like a “token” representative of women

Belonging (belong/inauth)

Manager’s behavior made me….
- Feel like I didn’t belong.
- feel like I was in a position where I could NOT be the real me.
- feel like I was NOT in a position to be completely myself.
- feel like I was NOT in a position to be authentic.

Self Awareness (selfaw)

Manager’s behavior made me…
- feel concerned about the way I present myself.
- feel self-conscious about the way I look.
- concerned about what my supervisor thinks of me.

Fear of Social Retaliation (fsr)

Following Manager’s behavior, I was concerned about being….
- shunned or excluded by others at work.
- slighted or ignored by others at work.
- gossiped about in an unkind way.
- threatened.
- criticized for complaining.
- blamed.
- considered a “troublemaker”.

Implicit Voice Theory - Negative career consequences of voice (ivt_neg)

In terms of (sexism at work/your job).
- If you want advancement opportunities in today’s world, you have to be careful about pointing out needs for [reducing sexism in your workplace/improving your workplace].
- You are more likely to be rewarded in organizational life by “going along quietly” than by speaking up about [reducing sexism in your workplace/improving your workplace].
- Pointing out problems, errors, or inefficiencies about [reducing sexism/improving your workplace] might very well result in lowered job evaluations.
- Speaking up about [reducing sexism in your workplace/improving your workplace] sets you up for retribution by those above you who felt threatened by your comments.

Implicit Voice Theory - Presumed target identification (ivt_pt)

In terms of speaking up about (sexism at work/your job)….
- It’s risky to challenge existing processes because it may be seen as questioning the status quo.
- Speaking up to suggest a better way is likely to offend them
- It is not good to question the way things are done because they are likely to take it personally.

Organizational Commitment (orgcomm)

After [manager] asked you to speak up about [your work/prejudice], to what extent would you agree with the following statements? - I was willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond that normally expected in order to help this organization be successful.
- I want to talk up this organization to other women as a great organization to work for.
- I wondered if my values and the organization’s values are similar.
- I was extremely glad that I chose this organization to work for, over others I was considering at the time I joined.
- I felt that working for this organization was a definite mistake on my part.

Procedural fairness (proc_fair)

Manager’s behavior made me feel….
- like I can express my views and feelings about my treatment to them.
- like I have influence over the outcomes I receive from them.
- that they apply personnel procedures consistently across all employees.
- that they value diverse opinions.
- that they treat racial minorities with respect.

Voice Solicitation

• Asks me personally to tell them about things that I think would be helpful for improving this organization.
  
• Asks me personally to tell them about how things have been done in my previous job(s).
  
• Seeks out task-related knowledge from me.
  
• Asks me personally what skills I have that they may not know about that might contribute to our performance.

Voice about work

• I give [manager] suggestions about how to make this work unit better, even if others disagree.
  
• I challenge [manager] to deal with problems around here
  
• I speak up to [manager] with ideas to address employees’ needs and concerns

Voice about sexism

• I give [manager] suggestions about how to address sexism, even if others disagree.
  
• I challenge [manager] to deal with sexism-related problems around here
  
• I speak up to [manager] with ideas to address employees’ needs and concerns around sexism

Correlation

Table

(correlation_table)

(ivt_items)

##  [1] "Condition: 1 = Traditional, 0 = Sexism"                                                                                                                                                    
##  [2] "ivt_negcareer_1 - If you want advancement opportunities in todays world, you have to be careful about pointing out needs for [reducing sexism in your workplace/improving your workplace]."
##  [3] "ivt_negcareer_2 - You are more likely to be rewarded in organizational life by going along quietly than by speaking up about [reducing sexism in your workplace/improving your workplace]."
##  [4] "ivt_negcareer_3 - Pointing out problems, errors, or inefficiencies about [reducing sexism/improving your workplace] might very well result in lowered job evaluations."                    
##  [5] "ivt_negcareer_4 - Speaking up about [reducing sexism in your workplace/improving your workplace] sets you up for retribution by those above you who felt threatened by your comments."     
##  [6] "ivt_pt_1 - Its risky to challenge existing processes because it may be seen as questioning the status quo."                                                                                
##  [7] "ivt_pt_2 - Speaking up to suggest a better way is likely to offend them"                                                                                                                   
##  [8] "ivt_pt_3 - It is not good to question the way things are done because they are likely to take it personally."                                                                              
##  [9] "proc_fair_1 - I feel like I can express my views and feelings about my treatment to them."                                                                                                 
## [10] "proc_fair_2 - like I have influence over the outcomes I receive from them."                                                                                                                
## [11] "proc_fair_3 - that they apply personnel procedures consistently across all employees."                                                                                                     
## [12] "proc_fair_4 - that they value diverse opinions."                                                                                                                                           
## [13] "proc_fair_5 - that they treat racial minorities with respect"                                                                                                                              
## [14] "orgcomm_1 - I was willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond that normally expected in order to help this organization be successful."                                                
## [15] "orgcomm_2 - I want to talk up this organization to other women as a great organization to work for."                                                                                       
## [16] "orcomm_3_r - I wondered if my values and the organization’s values are similar."                                                                                                           
## [17] "orcomm_4 - I was extremely glad that I chose this organization to work for, over others I was considering at the time I joined."                                                           
## [18] "orgcomm_5 - I felt that working for this organization was a definite mistake on my part."                                                                                                  
## [19] "belonging_1 - Feel like I didn’t belong."

Factor Analyses

measures_nocon <- measures %>% dplyr::select(-condition_num)
psych::fa.parallel(measures_nocon, fa = "fa")

## Parallel analysis suggests that the number of factors =  3  and the number of components =  NA

psych::fa(measures_nocon, nfactors = 3)

## Loading required namespace: GPArotation

## Factor Analysis using method =  minres
## Call: psych::fa(r = measures_nocon, nfactors = 3)
## Standardized loadings (pattern matrix) based upon correlation matrix
##                   MR1   MR2   MR3   h2   u2 com
## ivt_negcareer_1  0.86  0.03  0.13 0.67 0.33 1.0
## ivt_negcareer_2  0.75 -0.09  0.03 0.60 0.40 1.0
## ivt_negcareer_3  0.62 -0.02 -0.28 0.60 0.40 1.4
## ivt_negcareer_4  0.72 -0.07 -0.09 0.62 0.38 1.1
## ivt_pt_1         0.80  0.09 -0.11 0.66 0.34 1.1
## ivt_pt_2         0.62  0.08 -0.34 0.62 0.38 1.6
## ivt_pt_3         0.76  0.04 -0.08 0.60 0.40 1.0
## proc_fair_1     -0.42  0.54  0.14 0.73 0.27 2.0
## proc_fair_2     -0.33  0.55  0.05 0.57 0.43 1.7
## proc_fair_3     -0.48  0.53 -0.18 0.60 0.40 2.2
## proc_fair_4     -0.47  0.60 -0.08 0.72 0.28 1.9
## proc_fair_5     -0.31  0.64  0.19 0.78 0.22 1.7
## orgcomm_1        0.03  0.68 -0.11 0.43 0.57 1.1
## orgcomm_2        0.22  0.83  0.03 0.63 0.37 1.1
## orgcomm_3_r     -0.16 -0.03  0.52 0.34 0.66 1.2
## orgcomm_4        0.18  0.85  0.15 0.72 0.28 1.1
## orgcomm_5_r      0.01  0.17  0.72 0.60 0.40 1.1
## belonging_1      0.23 -0.02 -0.50 0.39 0.61 1.4
## 
##                        MR1  MR2  MR3
## SS loadings           5.28 3.90 1.70
## Proportion Var        0.29 0.22 0.09
## Cumulative Var        0.29 0.51 0.60
## Proportion Explained  0.49 0.36 0.16
## Cumulative Proportion 0.49 0.84 1.00
## 
##  With factor correlations of 
##       MR1   MR2   MR3
## MR1  1.00 -0.34 -0.35
## MR2 -0.34  1.00  0.25
## MR3 -0.35  0.25  1.00
## 
## Mean item complexity =  1.4
## Test of the hypothesis that 3 factors are sufficient.
## 
## df null model =  153  with the objective function =  13.32 with Chi Square =  1254.69
## df of  the model are 102  and the objective function was  2.27 
## 
## The root mean square of the residuals (RMSR) is  0.05 
## The df corrected root mean square of the residuals is  0.06 
## 
## The harmonic n.obs is  101 with the empirical chi square  72.17  with prob <  0.99 
## The total n.obs was  102  with Likelihood Chi Square =  209.12  with prob <  2.2e-09 
## 
## Tucker Lewis Index of factoring reliability =  0.851
## RMSEA index =  0.101  and the 90 % confidence intervals are  0.082 0.122
## BIC =  -262.63
## Fit based upon off diagonal values = 0.99
## Measures of factor score adequacy             
##                                                    MR1  MR2  MR3
## Correlation of (regression) scores with factors   0.96 0.96 0.88
## Multiple R square of scores with factors          0.93 0.92 0.77
## Minimum correlation of possible factor scores     0.86 0.83 0.54