Including Everyone
Belief in a diversity-meritocracy trade-off
Evan Apfelbaum, Eileen Suh & Yue Wu
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, forthcoming
Abstract:
Organizations and academic institutions often pursue two goals in their selection processes: They seek to uphold a meritocracy wherein the "best" candidates are selected and to increase the diversity of their workforces and student bodies. Across four large, preregistered experiments (N = 5,805) in laboratory and field settings, we theorize a belief in a diversity-meritocracy trade-off — that efforts to promote diversity in selection processes undermine a meritocracy. Using nationally representative U.S. samples, we find that a majority of Americans endorse this belief, even when (a) selection criteria explicitly prioritize meritocratic principles and (b) diversity-promoting actions are not directly related to candidate evaluations. This belief emerges across varying types of diversity — racial, gender, and general (Study 2) — but is starkly politically polarized: Liberals do not believe efforts to promote diversity subvert a meritocracy, whereas those with more moderate and conservative views do (Studies 1-4). Past research focuses on prejudice to explain political divides regarding diversity in selection. Our evidence highlights an additional dynamic: Diversity-promoting actions are divisive because they produce divergent concerns about how fairly candidates will be evaluated (Studies 1-3). To address these fairness concerns, we test an intervention wherein initial actions to promote diversity are followed by selection decisions made "blind" to candidates' demographic background. We find that this intervention curbs the belief in a diversity-meritocracy trade-off in two distinct contexts: workplace hiring (Study 3) and graduate admissions (Study 4). Our results carry important implications for formulating selection processes that promote both diversity and meritocracy in the eyes of liberals and conservatives alike.
The Contribution of College Majors to Gender and Racial Earnings Differences
Scott Imberman et al.
NBER Working Paper, January 2026
Abstract:
Gender and racial/ethnic gaps in labor market earnings remain large, even among college-goers. Cross-gender and race/ethnic differences in choice of and returns to college major are potentially important contributors. Following Texas public high school graduates for up to 20 years through college and the labor market, we assess gender and racial differences in college major choices and the consequences of these choices. Women and underrepresented minorities are less likely than men, Whites, and Asians to major in high earning fields like business, economics, engineering, and computer science, however we also show that they experience lower returns to these majors. Differences in major-specific returns relative to liberal arts explain about one quarter of the gender, White-Black, and White-Hispanic (but not White-Asian) earnings gaps among four-year college students and become larger contributors to earnings gaps than differential major distributions as workers age. We present suggestive evidence that differences in occupation choices within field are a key driver of the differences in returns across groups. The work shines light on the roles that college major choice and returns by gender and race contribute to inequality.
Missing the target: Evaluating the ironic consequences of identity-targeted recruitment advertisements on Black Americans' anticipated tokenism and organizational identity safety
Veronica Derricks et al.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, forthcoming
Abstract:
In light of Black Americans' persistent underrepresentation in organizations, many organizations have pledged to increase their targeted recruitment of Black employees. However, the efficacy of using identity-targeted appeals as a strategy to recruit Black employees has yet to be tested empirically. Although targeted appeals are expected to foster engagement among intended recipients, perceiving that one is being sought after due to their group membership may activate recipients' concerns about being tokenized — feeling hypervisible and scrutinized as a minority within the organization — subsequently reducing perceptions that one's ingroup is valued (i.e., identity safety). To assess this possibility, the current research investigated whether Black Americans exhibit negative responses to identity-targeted recruitment advertisements, the mechanism underlying their responses, and whether various diversity cues effectively mitigate negative responses. Across five online experiments, Black Americans recruited from Prolific (N = 1,505) imagined that they were applying for a position at a fictional company and saw a targeted recruitment advertisement (which made a direct appeal to recruit Black Americans or racial minorities broadly) or a control advertisement. Findings demonstrated that viewing a targeted (vs. control) advertisement increased concerns about tokenization and reduced anticipated identity safety at the organization, and tokenism served as a mechanism underlying lower levels of anticipated identity safety. Notably, using multiple diversity cues in conjunction with the targeted advertisement significantly reduced concerns about tokenism relative to a targeted advertisement without these cues, but did not fully ameliorate this effect. Therefore, despite research endorsing the use of identity-targeted recruitment strategies, targeting marginalized identities may, ironically, impede recruitment efforts.
Understanding attributions to racial discrimination in diverse hiring contexts: The impact of beneficiary identity
Laurie O'Brien et al.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, March 2026
Abstract:
In the workplace, people from different racial and ethnic minority groups compete against each other for jobs. Yet research on how people interpret hiring decisions when a member of one racial or ethnic minority group is selected over a member of another is sparse to nonexistent. The present research draws on the prototype model of attributions to discrimination to investigate judgments of discrimination when a Black American candidate is rejected and another candidate is selected instead. The relative fit hypothesis proposes that (1) events vary in how closely they match the prototype of discrimination, and (2) the closer an event matches this prototype, the more likely people are to attribute it to discrimination. Five experiments examined how the race/ethnicity of the beneficiary (the selected candidate) influences discrimination judgments. Judgments were higher when a White American was selected over a Black American than when a candidate of any other race or ethnicity was selected over a Black American. Judgments were lower when a Black American was selected over another Black American than when a candidate of any other race or ethnicity was selected over a Black American. Finally, judgments were higher when an Asian American, compared to a Latino American, was selected over a Black American. Collectively, the results suggest that the racial/ethnic identity of the beneficiary in hiring decisions has important consequences for anti-Black discrimination judgments.
The Quantity-Quality Tradeoff: How Incentives and Monitoring Shape Gender Differences at Work
Colleen Stuart & Roman Galperin
Organization Science, January-February 2026, Pages 71-89
Abstract:
Why do women and men approach the same work differently? Prior research across occupations shows that men tend to emphasize quantity and produce more, whereas women prioritize quality. Researchers have attributed these differences to individual-level factors, such as gender-specific preferences, caregiving responsibilities, and evaluator biases. We propose that organizational practices, specifically production incentives and quality monitoring, also influence these patterns. Using data from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), we conceptualize the quantity-quality tradeoff using examiner leniency and leverage discontinuities in incentives and monitoring to assess their effects. We theorize and find that stronger production incentives lead men to be more lenient than women, prioritizing quantity. Under heightened monitoring, women are less lenient than men, emphasizing quality. Further, monitoring moderates the relationship between incentives and gender differences in leniency such that the largest gender gap occurs under strong incentives and weak monitoring. Our study demonstrates that organizational practices interact with worker gender to shape the quantity-quality tradeoff, indicating that incentive and monitoring systems — though not designed to affect gender inequality — produce distinct and unintended effects that are essential to understanding and addressing workplace disparities.
Intersectionality, #MeToo, and the Mainstream Media: The New York Times' Problematic Framing of the Blasey Ford/Kavanaugh and Reade/Biden Sexual Assault Allegations
Alvaro Oleart & Noah Anton Schmitt
Violence Against Women, forthcoming
Abstract:
This article asks: How did The New York Times' opinion section frame the sexual assault allegations of Christine Blasey Ford against Brett Kavanaugh compared to Tara Reade's against Joe Biden? Through a framing analysis, it compares The New York Times' opinion coverage of Blasey Ford's allegations in 2018 with Reade's allegations in 2020, both of which took place in the context of the #MeToo movement. We show that the first case frames sexual violence as a systematic problem and empowers survivors of sexual violence, but nonetheless lacks an intersectional dimension. In contrast, the framing of Reade's allegation is entirely about Biden's political prospects, mobilizes sexist frames to dismiss the allegations, and legitimizes a discourse that inhibits future survivors of sexual violence from being heard. We conclude that the comparison suggests The New York Times was more motivated by partisanship than solidarity with the #MeToo movement in its opinion coverage of both cases.
Measurement, Race, and Anti-Realism
Michael Diamond-Hunter
Philosophy of the Social Sciences, forthcoming
Abstract:
Measurement of racial populations is commonplace in many social sciences, and metaphysical accounts for the reality of race implicitly assume race is real because measurements of racial populations are successful, and therefore are best explained by a realist account of race. This paper challenges the first premise in this implicit argument: measurements of race in the social sciences are not successful due to a number of epistemic issues with the use of race in social-scientific survey instruments. The paper concludes by pointing towards a metaphysical solution that does not assume that empirical measures of race are coherent.
Life-Cycle Effects of Women's Education on their Careers and Children
Na'ama Shenhav & Danielle Sandler
NBER Working Paper, January 2026
Abstract:
We study the causal effect of women's education on their wages, non-wage job amenities, and spillovers to children. Using a regression discontinuity at the school entry birthdate cutoff, we find that women born just before the cutoff are more likely to complete some college, and experience multi-dimensional career gains that grow over the life cycle: greater employment and earnings, as well as more professional and higher-status jobs, more socially meaningful work, and better working conditions. Children's early-life health and prenatal inputs improve in tandem with career improvements, consistent with professional advances spurring — not hindering — infant investments. Career gains are concentrated in jobs that require exactly some college, the same schooling margin shifted by the cutoff, which indicates that increased post-secondary education is the primary channel for these effects. Together, the results show that women's college attendance generates large career returns — from both wages and amenities — that strengthen over time and produce meaningful benefits for children.