Person
| Manipulation text | explanation |
|---|---|
| {Male coworker} | Man was confronter/seeker |
| {Female coworker} | Woman was confronter/seeker |
Context
Given increasing demands to improve diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) for women at work, imagine that there has been a mandate from your firm that each team (including yours) give insights about a new Gender Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Advisor.
Your supervisor wants to know what would be useful for this role to be successful. The focus of this role is to improve DEI efforts.
This role is going to be occupied by an external hire who will help
coordinate DEI efforts across the company.
Gender Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Advisor:
– Form and organize a committee that is tasked with improving gender
diversity, equity, and inclusion in the organization.
– Design, measure, analyze, and interpret internal surveys assessing
employee’s current approval of initiatives around gender diversity,
equity, and inclusion.
– Design, measure, analyze, and interpret internal surveys assessing
employee’s desire for additional gender diversity, equity, and
inclusion-based initiatives.
– Present results of these analyses to organizational
stakeholders.
– Describe and justify gender diversity, equity, and inclusion-related
processes to employees and organizational stakeholders.
– Receive and address all gender diversity, equity, and
inclusion-related complaints from employees.
– Hold 1-2 weekly “office hours” for colleagues to get advice or input
about effectively implementing gender diversity, equity, and inclusion
practices.
– Identify and reinforce the industry standard for gender diversity,
equity, and inclusion practices.
– Monitor project managers’ compliance with organizational guidelines
for enhancing gender diversity, equity, and inclusion.
– Generate and maintain a network of people external to the organization
with expertise in gender diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Vignette
Imagine that, during a meeting, [SOLICITOR PSEUDONYM] encourages you, specifically, to share suggestions and concerns with the team. Specifically, they ask:
“[PARTICIPANT PSEUDONYM], do you have anything to add about this position?”
Items
Competence
In this scenario, would you think that {SOLICITOR PSEUDONYM}…(1 = Not at all, 4 = Somewhat, 7 = Very much so)
| Item label | Item text |
|---|---|
| Comp1 | competent |
| Comp2 | independent |
| Auto1 | takes autonomy |
| Auto2 | can make their own decisions |
Tokenism
{SOLICITOR PSEUDONYM} led me to feel…(1 = Not at all, 4 = Somewhat, 7 = Very much so)
| Item label | Item text |
|---|---|
| token_1 | worried that I stood out because I am a woman |
| token_2 | feel like my skills and knowledge as a woman were made salient |
| token_3 | feel like a “token” representative of women |
Empowerment
{SOLICITOR PSEUDONYM} led me to feel…(1 = Not at all, 4 = Somewhat, 7 = Very much so)
| Item label | Item text |
|---|---|
| empower_exp_2 | supported |
| empower_exp_3 | empowered |
| empower_exp_4 | like I have influence |
| empower_exp_4.1 | inspired |
Proactive
In terms of reducing workplace inequality, {SOLICITOR PSEUDONYM}…
| Item label | Item text |
|---|---|
| proactive_1 | tries to make a difference |
| proactive_2 | independently takes initiative |
| proactive_3 | does not need to be asked to get involved |
Agency
When {SOLICITOR PSEUDONYM} responded to Paul, did you think that {SOLICITOR PSEUDONYM} was…(1 = Not at all, 4 = Somewhat, 7 = Very much so)
| Item label | Item text |
|---|---|
| agency_1 | powerful |
| agency_2 | capable |
| agency_3 | agentic |
Warm
When {SOLICITOR PSEUDONYM} responded to Paul, did you think that {SOLICITOR PSEUDONYM} was…(1 = Not at all, 4 = Somewhat, 7 = Very much so)
| Item label | Item text |
|---|---|
| warm_1 | warm |
| warm_2 | friendly |
| warm_3 | caring |
Status
Do you think that {SOLICITOR PSEUDONYM} should experience any of the following changes after {his/her} response to Paul?
| Item label | Item text | - 3 | 0 | 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| j_posstat1 | After {his/her} response back to Paul, I think{SOLICITOR PSEUDONYM} is worthy of…: | -3. A lot of disrespect | 0. Neither disrespect nor respect | 3. A lot of respect |
| j_posstat2 | After {his/her} response back to Paul, I hold{SOLICITOR PSEUDONYM}… | -3. In very low regard | 0. In neither low regard nor high regard | 3. In very high regard |
| j_posstat3 | After {his/her} response back to Paul, in terms of being like{SOLICITOR PSEUDONYM}…: | -3. I want to be very different from him | -3. A lot of disrespect | 0. I don’t want to be like him, or different from him |
Rewards
Do you think that {SOLICITOR PSEUDONYM} should experience any of the following changes after {his/her} response to Paul?
| Item label | Item text | - 3 | 0 | 3 |
|---|
j_reward4 | change in {his/her} public recognition: | -3. Should definitely be decreased | 0. Should be kept the same | 3. Should definitely be increased |
Coworker characteristics
1. Voice solicitation (1 = Not at all, 4 = Sometimes, 7 =
Very much so) - 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.
2. Sentiment Before this interaction, how would you describe your general sentiment toward [SOLICITOR PSEUDONYM] (-3 = Very negative, 3 = Very positive)?
3. Years known How long have you known [SOLICITOR PSEUDONYM]? 6 months or less, 6 months to 1 year, 1-3 years, 4-6 years, 7-9 years, 10-12 years, 13-15 years, 15+ years
Manipulations
##
## female male
## 96 98 0
Moderators
moderatorlist <- expand.grid(
moderators = c("sentiment_1", "years_known", "voicesol", "voice_solicit_1", "voice_solicit_2", "voice_solicit_3", "voice_solicit_4"),
dvs = c("comp", "auto", "fsr", "token", "empower", "proactive", "agency", "warm", "reward", "socreward", "posstatus")
)
listmoderators <- vector("list")
graphlist <- vector("list")
graphs <- 1
for(variable in 1:nrow(moderatorlist)){
data <- data.frame(
iv = unlist(diffidp4raw$coworkergender),
moderator = unlist(diffidp4raw[moderatorlist$moderators[variable]]),
dv = unlist(diffidp4raw[moderatorlist$dvs[variable]]))
regression <- lm(dv~iv*moderator, data)
listmoderators[[variable]] <- regressiondata <- coef(summary(regression)) %>% as.data.frame() %>%
slice(4) %>% mutate(asterix = case_when(
`Pr(>|t|)` < .10 ~ "*",
`Pr(>|t|)` > .05 ~ "")) %>% mutate(moderator = moderatorlist$moderators[variable],
dv = moderatorlist$dvs[variable]) %>% relocate(moderator, dv, asterix)
if(regressiondata$`Pr(>|t|)` < .10){
graphlist[[graphs]] <- sjPlot::plot_model(regression, type = "int", mdrt.values = "meansd", title = paste0("DV: ", moderatorlist$dvs[variable], "; Moderator: ", moderatorlist$moderators[variable]),
legend.title = moderatorlist$moderators[variable],
axis.title = moderatorlist$dvs[variable])
graphs <- graphs+1
}
}
bind_rows(listmoderators) %>%
filter(asterix == "*")## [[1]]
## Ignoring unknown labels:
## • linetype : "moderator"
## • shape : "moderator"
##
## [[2]]
## Ignoring unknown labels:
## • linetype : "moderator"
## • shape : "moderator"
##
## [[3]]
## Ignoring unknown labels:
## • linetype : "moderator"
## • shape : "moderator"
##
## [[4]]
## Ignoring unknown labels:
## • linetype : "moderator"
## • shape : "moderator"
##
## [[5]]
## Ignoring unknown labels:
## • linetype : "moderator"
## • shape : "moderator"
##
## [[6]]
## Ignoring unknown labels:
## • linetype : "moderator"
## • shape : "moderator"
##
## [[7]]
## Ignoring unknown labels:
## • linetype : "moderator"
## • shape : "moderator"
##
## [[8]]
## Ignoring unknown labels:
## • linetype : "moderator"
## • shape : "moderator"
Social Rewards