Whose Opportunities
They’ll conform anyway: A motivation stereotype perspective on the exploitation of Asian employees
Liuxin Yan & Anjier Chen
Journal of Applied Psychology, forthcoming
Abstract:
Perceptions of motivation play a critical role in shaping workplace treatment, yet little is known about how such perceptions are socially constructed. Drawing on social exchange theories and perspectives on interdependent versus independent self, we propose an ethnic-stereotype perspective of perceived motivation, suggesting that Asian employees are perceived as having higher controlled motivation -- being driven by external pressures and expectations rather than personal volition -- which leads supervisors to anticipate greater conformity from Asian employees and subsequently exploit them. Across one experiment (Study 1), one multiwave survey (Study 2), and one preregistered experiment with a behavioral measure (Study 3a), we consistently found that Asian employees were perceived as having higher controlled motivation compared to White and Black employees, leading to greater anticipated conformity and exploitation. A second preregistered experiment (Study 3b), in which we directly manipulated perceived controlled motivation, provided causal evidence that higher perceived controlled motivation increased exploitation through anticipated conformity, whereas lower perceived controlled motivation reversed this effect relative to a neutral baseline. We conclude by discussing theoretical implications for research on workplace mistreatment, Asian employees’ work experiences, and motivation.
The Mismeasurement of Work Time: Implications for Wage Differentials and Inequality
George Borjas & Daniel Hamermesh
Labour Economics, October 2026
Abstract:
Comparing measures of work time in the 1978-2018 CPS-ASEC data file (based on long-term recall) with contemporaneous measures from the Basic CPS reveals logical inconsistencies. About 8 percent of ASEC respondents report weeks worked last year that contradict their work histories in the Basic interviews. The discrepancy is over 50 percent among workers who move in and out of the workforce across monthly interviews. Over 20 percent give contradictory information about whether they usually work a full-time weekly schedule (35 or more hours per week). The levels and trends differ by gender and race and affect the calculation of wage differentials. Adjusting for the measurement discrepancies, gender wage gaps among all workers narrowed by 4 log-points more than is commonly reported, and residual wage inequality decreased by 8 log-points more among women. Smaller differences exist in measured wage gaps and residual wage inequality among full-time year-round workers.
A case for de-diagnosis of harms in the social and behavioral sciences
Maja Grašo & Tania Reynolds
Theory and Society, April 2026
Abstract:
Behavioral and social scientists are skilled at diagnosing harms in our collectives -- we investigate and label discrimination, exclusion, and marginalization. But how skilled are we at knowing when to stop? Identifying more harms is not necessarily better, so we maintain that the well-being of individuals and collectives requires diagnosing harm when appropriate, but also occasionally revisiting the value of those diagnoses and, when necessary, reversing those that no longer fit the data or begin to cause harm themselves. We argue that there is room for self-reflection and ask whether some persistent social diagnoses may overlook evidence of progress. To explore this possibility, we draw generously on medicine, where scholars and practitioners have long recognized that diagnostic labels can outlive their purpose. We use gender discrimination as an illustrative case to examine how well-intentioned diagnoses can drift from empirical reality and become counterproductive in some contexts. Rather than calling for uniform declassification of harm labels, we argue for diagnostic stewardship -- an ongoing, empirical investigation of when diagnoses continue to prove useful and whether they begin to hinder.
Do Group-Based Inequalities Feel More Unjust? Experimental Evidence from Economically Disadvantaged Groups in India, South Africa, and the United States
Lasse Egendal Leipziger, Laurits Florang Aarslew & Matias Engdal Christensen
Public Opinion Quarterly, forthcoming
Abstract:
Macro-level research finds that group-based inequalities are more likely than interpersonal inequalities to spark political conflict and instability. However, the individual-level mechanisms driving this relationship remain empirically underexamined. We test the central hypothesis that group-based disparities evoke stronger feelings and perceptions of injustice than interpersonal inequalities. Drawing on three preregistered priming experiments among disadvantaged groups in India (n = 1,600), South Africa (n = 1,600), and the United States (n = 3,000), we find limited evidence that intergroup inequality is perceived as more unfair and evokes stronger feelings of injustice than interpersonal inequality. Our findings question the view that ethnic inequalities are perceived as particularly unfair at the individual level, suggesting that their link to conflict may instead operate through other micro-level mechanisms.
Does the Peter Principle Apply to Paula? Incentive Responsiveness and Promotion Decisions in Financial Institutions
Ruidi Huang, Darius Miller & Zhen Zhang
Southern Methodist University Working Paper, April 2026
Abstract:
Firms face a costly trade-off in promotion decisions: reward top performers to motivate effort or select those with the highest expected managerial performance. Exploiting mandatory disclosure requirements in the U.S. mortgage industry, we test whether firms mitigate these costs by placing greater weight on managerial fit for workers who respond less strongly to promotion incentives. A natural source of such heterogeneity is gender. Prior research suggests women are more likely to exhibit traits such as greater risk aversion and lower competitiveness, which moral hazard models predict dampen effort responses to promotion-based incentives. Among 88,000 loan officers at approximately 1,000 firms, we find that firms' promotion decisions favor current sales performance over managerial fit for male workers, consistent with the Peter Principle. In contrast, firms place greater weight on managerial fit for female workers, mitigating the Peter Principle mismatch costs. We also provide direct evidence on the mechanism that promotion incentives are less consequential for women's behavior than for men's: female loan officers reduce effort less than male loan officers after being passed over for promotion to manager, increase effort less when managerial openings arise, and are less likely to leave the industry following high performance. Our results show that firms mitigate the incentive-fit conflict in promotions in a manner consistent with economic theory.
Organizations espousing an authenticity ideology repel stigmatized job seekers
Katherine Du & Rebecca Ponce de Leon
Journal of Applied Psychology, forthcoming
Abstract:
Authenticity has been promoted for millennia; the modern workplace is no exception. Organizations, too, may espouse an authenticity ideology -- encouraging employees to “be themselves” to achieve success. The espousal of such an ideology might be intended to signal identity safety, particularly to stigmatized job seekers. Instead, however, we propose that an espoused authenticity ideology may ironically frustrate and repel those who experience the most stigma. Across six experiments, we find that stigma in professional settings increases the tendency to view adhering to an espoused authenticity ideology -- that is, engaging in authentic behavior -- as risky, which prompts frustration and undermines attraction toward organizations that promote such an ideology. Further evincing our theoretical model, organizations that provide an evidence-based identity-safety cue can promote an authenticity ideology without triggering backlash from job seekers higher in stigma. This work contributes to the literature on authenticity and identity safety and offers practical implications for organizational messaging, particularly communications aimed at recruiting underrepresented or stigmatized employees.
Firms' Internal Information Practices and Minority Wage Differences
Seth Carnahan, Mary Ellen Carter & MaryJane Rabier
Washington University in St. Louis Working Paper, May 2026
Abstract:
We study whether workplaces with higher-quality internal information practices exhibit smaller minority wage differences. Using restricted U.S. Census data linking workers to establishments, we analyze production workers in manufacturing plants observed across multiple waves of the Management and Organizational Practices Survey. Using restrictive worker-by-establishment fixed effects, we find that improvements in internal information quality are associated with higher wages overall and disproportionately larger wage gains for Black workers, resulting in narrower minority wage gaps. Additional results are consistent with two mechanisms, though others may also play a role. First, better internal information practices may help to reduce racial discrimination by giving managers more objective employee performance data. Second, better internal information systems may improve the relative productivity of minority employees by giving them better access to performance data.
Prepare to DEI: Addressing GamerGate through political opinions and cultural values in gaming communities
Sean Pauley, Wil Dubree & Brule Woods
Psychology of Popular Media, forthcoming
Abstract:
Games and gaming communities have long been associated with exclusionary values, from poor representation of women and racial minorities to the 2014 GamerGate movement’s harassment of feminist media critics and broader backlash against “political correctness” in games, to contemporary groups opposed to developers’ inclusion of “wokeness” and “diversity, equity, and inclusion” in games. Using data from a large national consumer survey, we assess whether online gaming communities broadly hold these exclusionary values -- or whether a vocal minority or systemic community values explain the widespread reports of racism, sexism, and backlash against diverse representation. We account for differences in genre to address the interplay between game content and community formation, as well as the use of online services like Xbox Live. We ultimately find that gamers generally hold more inclusive values than the general public.