Measuring beliefs in the instrumentality of ethnic diversity: Development and validation of the Pro-Diversity Beliefs Scale (PDBS)

Abstract

In general, diversity beliefs are beliefs about the instrumentality of diversity for the functioning of groups. Focusing on a societal level, recent social-psychological research addressed pro-diversity beliefs as individuals’ beliefs that diversity is beneficial for the progress of society. Despite the growing interest in societal pro-diversity beliefs, no systematically validated scale measuring pro-diversity beliefs is available to date. We addressed this shortcoming and studied the reliability and validity of the newly developed Pro-Diversity Beliefs Scale (PDBS) across four samples. Results indicate that the PDBS is reliable, adequately distinct from related and established scales, and valid in predicting external criteria such as outgroup attitudes or intergroup threat.

Keywords

diversity intergroup relations outgroup attitudes pro-diversity beliefs

We need diversity of thought in the world to face the new challenges.

Tim Berners-Lee, n.d.

The opening quote by the English computer scientist and inventor of the World Wide Web, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, nicely illustrates the idea of pro-diversity beliefs: Diversity—that is, differences between members of certain social groups on aspects such as age, gender, or ethnicity but also in attitudinal preferences or opinions (e.g., Jones, Dovidio, & Vietze, 2014)—is valued because it is deemed essential for facing new challenges and solving problems. In fact, instrumentality-based valuing of diversity is commonplace in a variety of domains. Within organizational contexts, diversity is often promoted because it is supposed to improve creativity, problem solving, and general work group functioning resulting in better products. Moreover, diversity is perceived as an opportunity to open new markets. On a broader societal level, diversity is often valued because it is thought to benefit the wider society or nation. In the words of former U.S. President Obama, “[we] are at our best when we draw on the talents of all parts of our society, and our greatest accomplishments are achieved when diverse perspectives are brought to bear to overcome our greatest challenge” (Executive Order 13583, 3 C.F.R., 2011). The reasoning that diversity is valuable because it benefits groups is also at the core of the diversity beliefs concept. Individuals holding pro-diversity beliefs not only appreciate diversity but also assume that diversity positively affects functioning of groups.

Diversity beliefs have extensively been studied in the context of organizational diversity—first and foremost as a moderating variable in the equivocal relationship between work group diversity and work group functioning (Horwitz & Horwitz, 2007; van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Homan, 2004; van Knippenberg & Haslam, 2003). In recent years, beliefs focusing on the instrumentality of diversity within societies also received increasing attention (e.g., Adesokan, Ullrich, van Dick, & Tropp, 2011; Asbrock & Kauff, 2015; Barnard, Stevens, Siwatu, & Lan, 2008; Grütter & Meyer, 2014; Kauff, Asbrock, Thörner, & Wagner, 2013; Kauff & Wagner, 2012; Unruh & McCord, 2010; Wolf, 2016). Most of the research in this field focuses on predictors and consequences of ethnic pro-diversity beliefs, that is, positive beliefs about the instrumentality of ethnic diversity for society (Adesokan et al., 2011; Kauff, Asbrock, et al., 2013; Kauff & Wagner, 2012; Wolf, 2016). Despite this growing interest, no standard scale measuring ethnic pro-diversity beliefs is yet available. Moreover, not all previous scales operationalized pro-diversity beliefs’ instrumental core in an appropriate manner. In the present paper, we hence aimed at developing and validating a measure that implies the idea that diversity is valued because it is instrumental for the functioning of groups. Across four samples, we tested the reliability and validity of the Pro-Diversity Beliefs Scale (PDBS).

Because the construct of pro-diversity beliefs has originated in the organizational domain, we will first briefly review studies in this field, then review research in societal contexts, and then go into the details of our scale development.

Diversity Beliefs in Organizational Contexts

In our days, most organizations value and promote diversity because it is perceived as instrumental for their productivity and supposed to positively reflect on the functioning of work groups. Research on the effects of diversity on measures of work group performance, however, yields only small effects at best (for meta-analytic overviews, see Joshi & Roh, 2009; van Dijk, van Engen, & van Knippenberg, 2012). In some studies, diversity seems to have quite considerable positive effects on group functioning, sometimes no effect, and sometimes the effects are even negative. Therefore, the search for moderators has occupied researchers for the last two decades (Guillaume, Dawson, Otaye-Ebede, Woods, & West, 2015; Stegmann, 2011). To the best of our knowledge, the first reference to diversity beliefs can be found in a textbook chapter by van Knippenberg and Haslam (2003), who introduced diversity beliefs as a potential moderator of the ambiguous relationship between group diversity and work group performance as well as individuals’ work group identification. Although those authors primarily used the term “composition beliefs” (van Knippenberg & Haslam, 2003, p. 69), it becomes obvious that they referred to beliefs about the ideal composition of groups in terms of diversity (which they later named diversity beliefs; e.g., van Knippenberg, Haslam, & Platow, 2007). In an elaborate definition, van Dick, van Knippenberg, Hägele, Guillaume, and Brodbeck (2008) defined diversity beliefs as “beliefs individuals hold about how group composition affects workgroup functioning, that is, the extent to which individuals perceive diversity to be beneficial for or detrimental to the group’s functioning” (van Dick et al., 2008, p. 1467).

In organizational psychology, several outcomes of diversity beliefs have been suggested and studied. In their categorization–elaboration model, for example, van Knippenberg et al. (2004) argued that beliefs in the value of diversity might reduce identity threat for members of diverse teams. As a consequence, team members should show more positive reactions towards subgroup categorization within diverse teams and these positive reactions in turn allow the team to create more innovative and high-quality solutions for tasks. In line with this reasoning, Homan, van Knippenberg, van Kleef, and De Dreu (2007) demonstrated that groups holding pro-diversity beliefs showed increased elaboration of information and performance compared to groups holding beliefs in favor of homogenous groups (see also Meyer & Schermuly, 2012; Stegmann & van Dick, 2013). In a similar vein, Homan, Greer, Jehn, and Koning (2010) demonstrated that holding pro-diversity beliefs affects the construction of diversity: The stronger their pro-diversity beliefs, the more group members construed diversity in terms of individual differences than in terms of subgroups. Homan and colleagues argued that these perceptions of individual differences allow for positive effects of team diversity because team members acknowledge and make use of the existence of diverse information across individuals (e.g., Homan et al., 2008). Relatedly, researchers found that pro-diversity beliefs increase team members’ identification with diverse work groups (van Dick et al., 2008; van Knippenberg et al., 2007).

Diversity Beliefs in Societal Contexts

In recent years, diversity beliefs have also been studied with a focus on society (i.e., beliefs about the instrumentality of diversity for society in a country). While van Knippenberg and Haslam (2003) conceptualized diversity beliefs as context-dependent, that is, specific for a certain situation or task as well as contingent on organizational norms, pro-diversity beliefs on a societal level have mainly been conceptualized as a relatively stable individual-difference variable (e.g., Adesokan et al., 2011; Grütter & Meyer, 2014; but see Kauff & Wagner, 2012). In contrast to related constructs such as general appreciation of diversity (e.g., Stürmer et al., 2013) or multiculturalism (e.g., Verkuyten, 2005), but in line with the original conceptualization of diversity beliefs, societal pro-diversity beliefs have mostly been operationalized in a way that they not only measure the mere appreciation of diversity but also imply the key idea that diversity is instrumental for the greater society. More precisely, while scales measuring multiculturalist attitudes (e.g., Berry & Kalin, 1995; Piontkowski, Florack, Hoelker, & Obdrzálek, 2000; Verkuyten, 2005) mainly ask for a normative endorsement of a multicultural ideology (i.e., recognizing and valuing diversity), pro-diversity beliefs imply a judgment about whether diversity is regarded as superior to homogeneity in terms of instrumentality. As mentioned before, most research in societal contexts was carried out targeting the instrumentality of ethnic diversity. For instance, Adesokan et al. (2011) used items such as “Different ethnic/cultural groups are enriching the American culture.” They showed that the relationship between intergroup contact with ethnic outgroups and reduced prejudice is stronger for individuals holding pro-diversity beliefs. Kauff and Wagner (2012) used items such as “A society with a wide variety of ethnic groups is more capable to approach new problems.” They demonstrated that individuals holding pro-diversity beliefs are less threatened by immigrants and hence express fewer intentions to discriminate against them (see also Kauff, Issmer, & Nau, 2013). Wolf (2016) presented evidence for the notion that pro-diversity beliefs increase individuals’ willingness to engage in intergroup contact (see also Wolf & van Dick, 2008). Pro-diversity beliefs have also been studied as an outcome variable. Kauff, Asbrock, et al. (2013) showed that confronting authoritarian individuals with a multicultural ideology can decrease their pro-diversity beliefs. In their study, participants scoring high on right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) who watched a video advertising a multicultural society reported lower pro-diversity beliefs than (authoritarian) participants in a control condition. Moreover, Asbrock and Kauff (2015) found evidence for a negative relationship between authoritarian predisposition and pro-diversity beliefs that was mediated by authoritarian aggression.

Although most studies conceptualized pro-diversity beliefs in a comparable manner, only very few used identical items. This is probably due to the fact that, until now, no established and validated instrument for the measurement of pro-diversity beliefs exists. Because of the aforementioned focus of pro-diversity beliefs on the instrumentality of diversity, we consider it especially important that this aspect of the concept is properly depicted in a measure of pro-diversity beliefs. Many diversity trainings and statements address the aspect of instrumentality (e.g., Bezrukova, Spell, Perry, & Jehn, 2016; Pearson, 2016). A measure of pro-diversity beliefs which adequately encompasses this aspect could be used to evaluate these trainings. Moreover, the effects of diversity beliefs reported in the extant literature vary from study to study (Stegmann & van Dick, 2013). Whether diversity beliefs have been phrased in an instrumental way or not might play a critical role in this regard. Specifically, the effects of pro-diversity beliefs on outgroup attitudes and behavior might differ from the effect of mere appreciation of diversity. Kauff, Schmid, and Christ (2017) showed that a positive effect of pro-diversity beliefs on outgroup attitudes within diverse groups was contingent on whether diversity was perceived as useful by majority group team members. It is, hence, important to be able to use a validated instrument measuring pro-diversity beliefs in addition to established measures of noninstrumental appreciation of diversity or multiculturalism.

The Present Research

The aim of the present study is to develop and validate a scale measuring ethnic pro-diversity beliefs on a societal level (i.e., ethnic diversity within the society/nation). As briefly mentioned before, we believe that this work is important because instrumentality-based pro-diversity beliefs—compared to a mere appreciation of diversity—have been shown to have specific effects on a number of organizational and societal outcomes (e.g., Kauff et al., 2017; Stegmann & van Dick, 2013). Moreover, instrumentality-based pro-diversity beliefs are often referred to in diversity trainings as well as used in social psychological research on intergroup attitudes. We hope that our work can help standardize conceptualizations and operationalizations of pro-diversity beliefs in future studies. Such a standard scale would allow better comparisons between cultural contexts and would help integrate studies more easily in meta-analyses.

Many prior studies on societal diversity beliefs lack a proper definition of the construct. Therefore, we carried out an extensive review of the social and organizational psychological literature on diversity in general and diversity beliefs in particular. Based on this review, we propose the following construct definition for ethnic pro-diversity beliefs on a societal level:

Pro-diversity beliefs are individual beliefs that ethnically heterogeneous group composition positively affects group functioning. Individuals holding pro-diversity beliefs generally assume that intragroup diversity facilitates achievement of group goals. On a societal level, pro-diversity beliefs characterize beliefs that the society benefits from ethnic and cultural diversity in achieving goals and solving tasks and problems.¹

We placed special emphasis on developing a scale that can easily be used in various research contexts. Researchers should, for example, be able to include the scale in large-scale surveys. We therefore aimed at developing a relatively short scale. According to the aforementioned construct definition, we selected and adapted five items from the literature. We named the resulting scale the Pro-Diversity Beliefs Scale (PDBS).

We analyzed its internal consistency as well as the factorial and predictive validity in three samples of German respondents. In a fourth sample, we validated an English translation of the scale in a U.S. sample.

We predicted that the PDBS would be internally consistent (Hypothesis 1). Moreover, we expected that the PDBS is distinct from general and unconditional positive evaluation of diversity—that is, multiculturalism (Verkuyten, 2005) and noninstrumental appreciation of diversity (Nakui, Paulus, & van der Zee, 2011)—as well as from constructs that have previously been shown or theorized to be closely related to pro-diversity beliefs, namely positive outgroup attitudes, intergroup threat (Kauff & Wagner, 2012), and openness to experience (Sawyerr, Strauss, & Yan, 2005; Hypothesis 2). Moreover, we predicted that the scale would be invariant between the nonstudent German (Sample 3) and the U.S. sample (Sample 4; Hypothesis 3). Furthermore, the PDBS was hypothesized to show meaningful relations with a number of external criteria such as outgroup attitudes, willingness to engage in contact with the outgroup, threat, RWA, and past contact experiences (Hypothesis 4a). With regard to incremental validity, we also expected that these relations would be robust even when controlling for noninstrumental appreciation of diversity (Hypothesis 4b). Finally, we assumed that we can use the PDBS to replicate prior research on pro-diversity beliefs: Building on Kauff and Wagner (2012), we predicted pro-diversity beliefs measured with the PDBS to have an indirect effect on outgroup attitudes via reduced threat (Hypothesis 4c). Building on Adesokan et al. (2011), we further expected pro-diversity beliefs measured with the PDBS to moderate the relationship between positive intergroup contact and outgroup attitudes in a way that the relationship would be stronger for individuals holding low pro-diversity beliefs (Hypothesis 4d).

Method

Item Generation

Based on the aforementioned construct definition, we revisited the organizational and social psychological literature on pro-diversity beliefs. We identified eight articles that were especially relevant (see supplemental material).² From these articles, we extracted those items that suited the definition best. The items were translated into German and adapted to match with ethnic diversity in a societal context. We selected a total of five items which we then validated in the subsequent steps (see Table 1 for the wording of items).³

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics for pro-diversity beliefs items, Samples 1–4.

Item	Sample 1	Sample 2	Sample 3	Sample 4
A society that is diverse functions better than one that is not diverse. (Vielfältige Gesellschaften funktionieren besser als einheitliche Gesellschaften.)	M = 3.52 SD = 1.18 Skewness = −0.56 Kurtosis = −0.43 r_{(item, total)} = .69	M = 3.54 SD = 1.03 Skewness = −0.33 Kurtosis = −0.45 r_{(item, total)} = .80	M = 2.99 SD = 1.10 Skewness = −0.03 Kurtosis = −0.66 r_{(item, total)} = .78	M = 3.94 SD = 1.02 Skewness = −0.95 Kurtosis = 0.58 r_{(item, total)} = .79
A society with a high degree of cultural diversity is better able to tackle new problems. (Eine Gesellschaft mit einem hohen Ausmaß an kultureller Vielfalt ist eher befähigt neue Probleme in Angriff zu nehmen.)	M = 3.87 SD = 1.02 Skewness = −0.83 Kurtosis = 0.24 r_{(item, total)} = .84	M = 3.75 SD = 0.95 Skewness = −0.56 Kurtosis = 0.13 r_{(item, total)} = .83	M = 3.10 SD = 1.11 Skewness = −0.18 Kurtosis = −0.62 r_{(item, total)} = .84	M = 3.99 SD = 1.02 Skewness = −1.02 Kurtosis = 0.66 r_{(item, total)} = .86
I value cultural diversity in Germany because it benefits the country. (Ich schätze die kulturelle Vielfalt in Deutschland, weil sie dem Land einen Nutzen bringt.)	M = 3.79 SD = 1.02 Skewness = −0.72 Kurtosis = 0.17 r_{(item, total)} = .80	M = 3.81 SD = 1.00 Skewness = −0.74 Kurtosis = 0.16 r_{(item, total)} = .80	M = 3.09 SD = 1.18 Skewness = −0.13 Kurtosis = −0.79 r_{(item, total)} = .86	M = 4.08 SD = 1.03 Skewness = −1.14 Kurtosis = 0.79 r_{(item, total)} = .84
Countries that are ethnically diverse have an advantage when it comes to achieving progress. (Ethnisch vielfältige Länder haben einen Vorteil beim Fortschritt.)	M = 3.70 SD = 1.08 Skewness = −0.71 Kurtosis = 0.24 r_{(item, total)} = .81	M = 3.72 SD = 1.01 Skewness = −0.51 Kurtosis = −0.23 r_{(item, total)} = .86	M = 2.94 SD = 1.13 Skewness = −0.11 Kurtosis = −0.77 r_{(item, total)} = .86	M = 3.87 SD = 1.13 Skewness = −0.91 Kurtosis = 0.10 r_{(item, total)} = .88
An ethnically diverse society can overcome future challenges better than a society that is not ethnically diverse. (Die Herausforderungen der Zukunft kann eine Gesellschaft mit kultureller Vielfalt besser bewältigen.)	M = 3.82 SD = 1.03 Skewness = −0.73 Kurtosis = 0.14 r_{(item, total)} = .85	M = 3.81 SD = 1.00 Skewness = −0.73 Kurtosis = 0.26 r_{(item, total)} = .85	M = 2.93 SD = 1.25 Skewness = 0.02 Kurtosis = −0.95 r_{(item, total)} = .86	M = 3.87 SD = 1.09 Skewness = −0.89 Kurtosis = 0.21 r_{(item, total)} = .88
Scale	M = 3.74 SD = 0.93 α = .92	M = 3.73 SD = 0.89 α = .94	M = 3.01 SD = 1.04 α = .94	M = 3.95 SD = 0.96 α = .95

For the analyses of Sample 4, the German items were translated into English by the first author. The translations were then discussed among all authors and adapted if necessary. The resulting translations were then compared with the German items, double-checked, and corrected by an external company specialized in translating academic texts.

Participants

Data for all samples were gathered online. Studies were announced as surveys about attitudes towards ethnic diversity. In each sample, we aimed at recruiting as many participants as possible, but at least 200 participants to be able to run confirmatory factor analyses. Although the necessary sample size for confirmatory factor analyses is dependent on the number of model parameters, some researchers suggest not to use fewer than 200 participants as a rule of thumb (e.g., Kline, 2011). For all studies, we determined a fixed closing date after which data collection was stopped.⁴

Sample 1 consisted of 214 participants that completed an online questionnaire (M_age = 32.65, SD = 9.65), of which 184 (86%) were psychology students at an Open University in Germany who participated in exchange for course credit. The remaining participants were recruited via postings on Facebook and announcements on a website hosting scientific studies. Moreover, 156 participants (72.9%) were female, 55 (25.7%) male, and three (1.4%) indicated to be neither male nor female; 206 participants (96.3%) had a high school degree (Abitur); and 189 participants (88.3%) were German citizens, of which 153 participants had no migration background (71.5%).

Data of Sample 2 were gathered as part of an introductory survey among first-year psychology students at an Open University in Germany. In total, 410 participants completed the questionnaire. Data of 90 participants were excluded because respective participants failed to correctly answer three attention check items. Of the remaining sample (n = 320; M_age = 33.38, SD = 10.60), 238 participants (74.4%) were female, 80 (25.0%) male, and two (.6%) indicated to be neither male nor female; 305 participants (95.3%) had a high school degree (Abitur); and 83 participants had a migration background (25.9%).

For Sample 3, 302 participants were recruited by an external survey company. Participants were paid 1.10 Euros for completion of the survey. Quotas were used to ensure that distributions for age, gender, and educational background were comparable to distributions within the German population (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2016). One participant was removed from the data set because he indicated that he did not answer questions seriously, resulting in a final sample of 301 participants (M_age = 49.74, SD = 14.67). Of this remaining sample, 162 participants (53.8%) were female and 139 (46.2%) male. Two participants (.7%) reported having no school degree, 48 participants (15.9%) had the lowest school degree (Hauptschule), 110 participants (36.5%) had a degree from secondary school (Realschule), and 141 participants (46.8%) had a high school degree (Abitur). Moreover, 28 participants (9.3%) reported to have a migration background. Data collection and analyses of Sample 3 were preregistered at https://osf.io/n49fb.

For Sample 4, 524 participants were recruited via Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Participants were paid $0.25. MTurkers were qualified to take part if their HIT approval rate was greater than 95%.⁵ Data of five participants were excluded because respective participants failed to correctly answer two attention check items. From the final sample of 519 participants (M_age = 37.74, SD = 12.18), 271 participants (52.2%) were female, 245 (47.2%) male, and three (0.6%) indicated to be neither male nor female. Four participants (0.8%) had an education status lower than high school, 51 (9.8%) attended high school, and 464 (89.5%) attended college or had higher degrees. Moreover, 406 participants (78.2%) were White, 26 Black (5%), 32 (6.2%) Hispanic, 36 (6.9%) Asian, and 19 (3.6%) had a different non-White ethnic background. Data collection and analyses of Sample 4 were preregistered at https://osf.io/tsqc4.

Measures

Across all samples, pro-diversity beliefs were measured with five items (response scale ranged from 1 = complete disagreement to 5 = total agreement). Table 1 contains all items along with the descriptive statistics of them across the different samples. Reliabilities ranged from α = .92 to α = .95.

Due to space limitations as well as the use of secondary data, some of the other constructs were measured with different items (for an overview of all items and scales, see supplemental material).⁶

Outgroup attitudes referring to foreigners (Samples 1–3) or ethnic outgroup members (Sample 4) were measured with two items (Samples 1 and 2; rs > .60, ps < .001) or one item, respectively (Samples 3 and 4; Haddock, Zanna, & Esses, 1993; Krause & Zick, 2013).

Willingness to engage in contact with outgroup members was measured in Sample 1 with two items tapping willingness to work with foreigners (r = .63, p < .001) and in Sample 3 with one item tapping interest in conversations with foreigners (items based on Lolliot et al., 2014).

Intergroup threat was measured with two items based on Stephan and Stephan (2000) in Samples 1, 3, and 4 (rs > .72, ps < .001). While items in Samples 1 and 2 addressed collective symbolic and realistic threat by foreigners, items in Sample 4 measured individual symbolic and realistic threat by ethnic outgroups.

Items measuring authoritarianism were derived from Beierlein, Asbrock, Kauff, and Schmidt (2015; αs > .74). While in Samples 1 and 3 only authoritarian aggression was measured with three items, Samples 2 and 4 included measures of all three components of RWA with a total of nine items.

Past contact experiences were measured with one item measuring positive helpful contact and one item measuring negative detrimental contact with foreigners in Sample 1; one item measuring positive and one item measuring negative contact with foreigners in Sample 2; two items measuring useful contact (r = .63, p < .001) and two items measuring detrimental contact with foreigners (r = .68, p < .001) in Sample 3; and two items measuring positive and useful contact (White majority: r = .76, p < .001; non-White minority: r = .65, p < .001) as well as two items measuring negative and detrimental contact with ethnic outgroups (White majority: r = .61, p < .001; non-White minority: r = .28, p = .002) in Sample 4 (see Lolliot et al., 2014).

Openness to experience was measured in Sample 2 using the 10-item subscale of the revised HEXACO Personality Inventory (Ashton & Lee, 2009; α = .68).

Noninstrumental appreciation of diversity was measured with three items in Sample 3 (α = .87) and five items in Sample 4 (α = .87). Items were adapted from the Affective subscale of Nakui et al.’s (2011) Attitudes Towards Diverse Workgroups Scale.

Finally, in Sample 4 multiculturalism was measured with five items (α = .82) from Rosenthal and Levy (2012).⁷

Results

Descriptive Analyses, Internal Consistency, Factor Structure, and Invariance

The samples differ with regard to the mean score of the PDBS. A relatively high mean score can be observed in Samples 1 and 2 (Sample 1: M = 3.74, SD = 0.93; Sample 2: M = 3.72, SD = 0.89) that mostly consist of students, as well as in the U.S. Sample 4 (M = 3.95, SD = 0.96) that was recruited via MTurk (scale ranged from 1 to 5). Given the high level of education in Samples 1 and 2 and rather liberal political attitudes in comparable surveys, it is not surprising that respondents on average evaluate the instrumentality of ethnic diversity positively. The same is true for Sample 4, in which almost 90% of the respondents attended college or university. Importantly, in Sample 3, in which quotas for age, gender, and education representative for the German population were applied, the mean score was lower and close to the scale midpoint (M = 3.01, SD = 1.04).

Given the high reliabilities (α > .91), the PDBS can be seen as a highly internally consistent scale (Hypothesis 1). With regard to Hypothesis 2, results of confirmatory factor analyses reveal that pro-diversity beliefs measured with the PDBS can be separated from related constructs, that is, factorial models differentiating between pro-diversity beliefs and related constructs (i.e., threat, outgroup attitudes, openness to experience, noninstrumental appreciation of diversity, and multiculturalism) fit the data better than models collapsing across pro-diversity beliefs and related measures (all Δχ² > 18, all ps < .001; for details, see Table 2).

Table 2.

Fit statistics for confirmatory factor analyses, Samples 1–4.

Sample / Models	Fit indices for Model A				χ²-difference tests with other models
Sample / Models	χ²	RMSEA	CFI	SRMR	ΔΧ²
Sample 1: (Model A) Three-factor model with correlated factors differentiating between pro-diversity beliefs, threat, and outgroup attitudes versus (Model B) two-factor model with correlated factors (one factor comprising pro-diversity beliefs and threat items and one factor comprising outgroup attitudes items) versus (Model C) two-factor model with correlated factors (one factor comprising pro-diversity beliefs and outgroup attitudes items and one factor comprising threat items) versus (Model D) one-factor model	χ² = 32.57 df = 24 p = .11	.04	.99	.02	all Δχ²s > 100 all ps < .001
Sample 2: (Model A) Three-factor model with correlated factors differentiating between pro-diversity beliefs, openness to experience, and outgroup attitudes versus (Model B) two-factor model with correlated factors (one factor comprising pro-diversity beliefs and openness to experience items and one factor comprising outgroup attitudes items) versus (Model C) two-factor model with correlated factors (one factor comprising pro-diversity beliefs and outgroup attitudes items and one factor comprising openness to experience items) versus (Model D) one-factor model	χ² = 797.96 df = 116 p < .001	.14	.74	.13	all Δχ²s > 18 all ps < .001
Sample 3: (Model A) Three-factor model with correlated factors differentiating between pro-diversity beliefs, threat, and noninstrumental appreciation of diversity versus (Model B) two-factor model with correlated factors (one factor comprising pro-diversity beliefs and threat items and one factor comprising noninstrumental appreciation of diversity items) versus (Model C) two-factor model with correlated factors (one factor comprising pro-diversity beliefs and noninstrumental appreciation of diversity items and one factor comprising threat items) versus (Model D) one-factor model	χ² = 69.29 df = 32 p < .001	.06	.99	.02	all Δχ²s > 115 all ps < .001
Sample 4: (Model A) Three-factor model with correlated factors differentiating between pro-diversity beliefs, noninstrumental appreciation of diversity, and multiculturalism versus (Model B) two-factor model with correlated factors (one factor comprising pro-diversity beliefs and noninstrumental appreciation of diversity items and one factor comprising multiculturalism items) versus (Model C) two-factor model with correlated factors (one factor comprising pro-diversity beliefs and multiculturalism items, and one factor comprising noninstrumental appreciation of diversity items) versus (Model D) one-factor model	χ² = 403.59 df = 87 p < .001	.08	.94	.09	all Δχ²s > 991 all ps < .001

Note. The unsatisfactory fit of the three-factor model in Sample 2 is due to low factor loadings of some items measuring openness to experience.

In Hypothesis 3, we predicted invariance for the German and English version of the PDBS. To test this hypothesis, we used a multigroup confirmatory factor analysis approach (e.g., Brown, 2015). We first analyzed whether a model with all pro-diversity beliefs items loading on one factor would fit the data of Samples 3 and 4 satisfactorily. In fact, the fit indices for the German Sample 3 (χ² = 12.56, df = 5, p = .028, RMSEA = .07, CFI = .99, SRMR = .01) and the U.S. Sample 4 (χ² = 44.46, df = 5, p < .001, RMSEA = .12, CFI = .98, SRMR = .02) showed an acceptable fit indicating configural invariance. In a next step, factor loadings of the items were restrained to be equal across samples. Test statistics of a comparison of this model to a baseline model suggest that item loadings do not substantially differ between samples (ΔCFI = .004, ΔSRMR = .03, ΔRMSEA = .004).⁸ In other words, metric invariance between samples can be assumed. Moreover, supporting the assumption of scalar invariance, no substantial differences could be found between model fits for a model with equal factor loadings and a model with equal factor loadings and equal intercepts (ΔCFI = .003, ΔSRMR = .01, ΔRMSEA = .004).⁹

Predictive Validity

Having established the reliability and factorial validity of the PDBS, we then studied its predictive validity. We first analyzed zero-order correlations with a number of relevant criterion variables. Across all samples, pro-diversity beliefs assessed with the PDBS showed large positive relations with favorable outgroup attitudes (all rs between .48 and .61, all ps < .001), medium to large negative relations with authoritarianism (all rs between −.23 and −.50, all ps < .001), medium to large positive relations with past positive and instrumental contact (all rs between .31 and .52, all ps < .001), and medium to large negative relations with negative and noninstrumental contact in Samples 1, 2, and 4 (all rs between −.26 and −.46, all ps < .001), as well as a small negative relation in Sample 3 (r = −.15, p = .011). Moreover, the correlation between pro-diversity beliefs and threat (measured in Samples 1, 2, and 4 only) was large and negative (all rs between −.52 and −.67, all ps < .001) with the exception of the ethnic minority subsample in Sample 4, for which the correlation was small in size (r = −.19, p < .001). Furthermore, willingness to engage in (work) contact with foreigners (measured in Samples 1 and 3 only) was strongly related to pro-diversity beliefs (all rs between −.62 and −.69, all ps < .001). With regard to other constructs measuring attitudes towards diversity, we observed a large positive relation of pro-diversity beliefs with the noninstrumental appreciation of diversity in Samples 3 (r = .80, p < .001) and 4 (r = .48, p < .001), as well as a small positive relationship with multiculturalism in Sample 4 (r = .18, p < .001). In sum, as hypothesized in Hypothesis 4a, the PDBS showed meaningful relations with related criteria (see also Table 3 and supplemental material).

Table 3.

Zero-order and partial correlations of pro-diversity beliefs and criterion variables, Samples 3 and 4.

	Sample 3		Sample 4
	r	partial r (controlled for noninstrumental appreciation of diversity)	r	partial r (controlled for noninstrumental appreciation of diversity)	partial r (controlled for noninstrumental appreciation of diversity and multiculturalism)
Outgroup attitudes	.60***	.27***	Whites: .56* Non-Whites: .48*	Whites: .38* Non-Whites: .39*	Whites: .37* Non-Whites: .33*
Authoritarianism	−.37***	−.12*	−.23***	−.17**	−.19***
Threat	−.67***	−.40***	Whites: −.52* Non-Whites: −.19*	Whites: −.34*** Non-Whites: −.05	Whites: −.34*** Non-Whites: −.04
Positive/instrumental contact	.45***	.01	Whites: .52* Non-Whites: .45*	Whites: .39* Non-Whites: .37*	Whites: .36* Non-Whites: .28
Negative/instrumental contact	−.15*	−.25***	Whites: −.44* Non-Whites: −.26*	Whites: −.28*** Non-Whites: −.13	Whites: −.28*** Non-Whites: −.15

Note. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

In Samples 3 and 4, we additionally tested the incremental predictive validity of the PDBS over and above the noninstrumental appreciation of diversity (Samples 3 and 4) and multiculturalism (Sample 4 only), that is, we analyzed partial correlations between criterion variables and pro-diversity beliefs while controlling for noninstrumental appreciation of diversity and multiculturalism, respectively. As can be seen in Table 3, most relations are robust even when controlling for the other measures of attitudes towards diversity. However, for ethnic minority members in Sample 4, relationships between pro-diversity beliefs and threat as well as negative contact are reduced to nonsignificance when controlling for noninstrumental appreciation of diversity. In Sample 3, the relation between pro-diversity beliefs and positive contact becomes nonsignificant when controlling for noninstrumental appreciation of diversity.

In hindsight, the results regarding positive and negative contact in Sample 3 are not surprising given the instrumental aspect of pro-diversity beliefs: Diversity is not valued in itself but the appreciation of diversity is contingent on instrumentality of outgroups. Accordingly, pro-diversity beliefs are negatively related to negative (and potentially nonuseful) contact experiences even when controlling for a general appreciation of diversity. Positive contact experiences, on the other hand, are perceived as natural and, hence, are unrelated to pro-diversity beliefs when a general appreciation of diversity is controlled for. However, we do not observe a similar pattern in Sample 4.

Altogether, the results support Hypothesis 4b that the PDBS shows incremental predictive validity over and above constructs tapping noninstrumental valuing of diversity.

Replication of Previous Research on Pro-Diversity Beliefs

As mentioned before, Kauff and Wagner (2012) showed that pro-diversity beliefs reduce negative behavioral intentions towards immigrants and that this effect is mediated by reduced perceptions of intergroup threat. Using the newly developed PDBS and building on data from nonimmigrant ethnic majority members in Samples 3 and 4, we aimed at replicating this finding. Because the samples did not include measures of discrimination, we used outgroup attitudes measured with a feeling thermometer as the dependent variable instead (Talaska, Fiske, & Chaiken, 2008). Using structural equation modelling with latent variables, we found a significant indirect effect of pro-diversity beliefs on outgroup attitudes via threat in Sample 3 (b = 6.82, SE = 1.59, p < .001, CI 95% [4.20, 9.43]) as well as in Sample 4 (b = 6.81, SE = 1.28, p < .001, CI 95% [4.70, 8.92]). In other words, we could conceptually replicate Kauff and Wagner’s (2012) findings using the PDBS to measure pro-diversity beliefs (for an overview of results, see Figure 1) and, hence, found support for Hypothesis 4c.

Adesokan et al. (2011) found that pro-diversity beliefs moderate the relation between intergroup contact and outgroup attitudes. More precisely, they showed that this relation is stronger for individuals holding low pro-diversity beliefs. Using data of majority members from Samples 3 and 4, we aimed at replicating this finding. Again, we used the PDBS to measure pro-diversity beliefs. We utilized structural equation modelling with latent interactions and found that the effect of positive intergroup contact on positive attitudes towards foreigners is moderated by pro-diversity beliefs (Sample 3: b = −4.08, SE = 1.63, p = .012; Sample 4: b = −1.85, SE = 0.93, p = .048; for full results, see Table 4).¹⁰ Results of an additional moderation analysis with manifest variables further support Hypothesis 4d by showing that the effects of contact on outgroup attitudes are stronger for individuals holding low pro-diversity beliefs (−1 SD; Sample 3: b = 8.86, SE = 1.96, p < .001, CI 95% [5.00, 12.71]; Sample 4: b = 7.88, SE = 0.86, p < .001, CI 95% [6.18, 9.57]) than for those holding high pro-diversity beliefs (+1 SD; Sample 3: b = 3.41, SE = 1.75, p = .052, CI 95% [−0.03, 6.85]; Sample 4: b = 5.52, SE = 0.94, p < .001, CI 95% [3.66, 7.37]).

Table 4.

Results of latent-moderation model predicting attitudes towards outgroup members by pro-diversity beliefs, positive intergroup contact, and their interaction, Samples 3 and 4.

	Sample 3 (n = 273)		Sample 4 (n = 406)
	b	SE	b	SE
Pro-diversity beliefs	14.13***	1.90	7.87***	1.65
Positive contact	8.56***	1.91	8.18***	1.14
Pro-diversity Beliefs x Positive Contact	−4.08*	1.63	−.1.85*	0.93

Note. *p < .05. ***p < .001.

Discussion

Across four samples, we tested the reliability and validity of the PDBS, a five-item scale measuring beliefs in the instrumentality of ethnic diversity for society. Results indicate that the scale is internally consistent and sufficiently distinct from related constructs such as intergroup threat, outgroup attitudes, and noninstrumental appreciation of diversity. Moreover, we demonstrated that the PDBS shows meaningful relationships with external criteria. Most importantly, the PDBS is incrementally valid in predicting outgroup attitudes; authoritarianism; intergroup threat; and positive, instrumental, negative, and noninstrumental intergroup contact over and above noninstrumental appreciation of diversity. Finally, we were able to use the PDBS to replicate previous research on pro-diversity beliefs. To conclude, our studies suggest that the PDBS is an economic, internally consistent scale that is adequately distinct from related and established scales with regard to factorial and predictive validity.

To the best of our knowledge, although social psychological research on pro-diversity beliefs is increasing, no properly validated scale measuring instrumentality-based valuing of diversity has been used before. Based on our construct definition, we differentiate between general ideological appreciation of diversity and pro-diversity beliefs that clearly refer to the idea that diversity is valued because of its instrumentality. While there are established scales measuring noninstrumental attitudes towards societal diversity (e.g., Stürmer et al., 2013; Verkuyten, 2005), we present the first systematically validated scale measuring instrumentality-focused beliefs about societal diversity in the article at hand.

Notwithstanding this novel contribution, we acknowledge some limitations of our research and identify routes for future studies. First, we were unable to study the stability (i.e., re–test reliability) of the PDBS. Results from some of our preliminary work on this issue in which we were able to include two items of the PDBS into a representative German longitudinal survey suggest a stability of r = .68 over a time period of 6 months (GESIS Leibniz Institute for Social Sciences, 2017).¹¹ However, future studies should test the reliability of the whole scale in longitudinal designs. Comprehensive longitudinal studies would also allow analyzing relationships between the PDBS and other criteria over time. Second, some of our measures for the external criteria were suboptimal. Among other things, space limitations led us to change the measures and number of items across the samples. Future studies should optimally use consistent and detailed scales to measure the external criteria. Third, more work needs to be done on comparisons between the German version of the PDBS and versions in other languages. Evidence for invariance between a German and a U.S. sample presented in the present paper can be regarded as a first step. Beyond that, an additional thorough scale validation in different languages would allow using it in the context of international and cross-cultural research. Fourth, the present scale focuses on beliefs about the instrumentality of diversity on a societal/national level. We suggest that (slightly) adjusted scales could also be used with a focus on other groups (e.g., sport clubs, work teams, or organizational units). It would, however, be important to test the reliability and validity of these scales. Finally, more work needs to be done with regard to the predictive validity of the PDBS for actual behavior. It would, for example, be interesting to (experimentally) study the influence of pro-diversity beliefs on the selection of team members depending on whether diversity is framed as useful for a certain task or not.

Despite the mentioned limitations, we believe that our study can be regarded as a first step to establish the PDBS as a standard instrument to assess beliefs in the instrumentality of ethnic diversity for societies. Such a scale enables researchers in the field to easily integrate a measure of pro-diversity beliefs in their research. Moreover, the PDBS should facilitate the differentiation of instrumental and noninstrumental appreciation of diversity on a societal level. In our view, this differentiation is crucial for understanding the genesis of attitudes and behavior towards outgroup members within diverse teams. Although it has been shown that pro-diversity beliefs improve outgroup attitudes (e.g., Kauff & Wagner, 2012), there are also critical voices with regard to the instrumentality-based logic of pro-diversity beliefs, sometimes referred to as the “business case for diversity” (e.g., van Dijk, van Engen, & Paauwe, 2012). Noon (2007) argued that the notion that diversity is valued and promoted only because it is instrumental opens up the possibility that diverse individuals can be rejected if they are not perceived to promote the group’s interests. In fact, Kauff et al. (2017) demonstrated that the prejudice-reducing effect of pro-diversity beliefs is contingent on the perceived instrumentality of outgroup members for the functioning of a joint diverse group. They showed across five experimental studies that perceptions of negative instrumentality of diverse groups mitigate positive effects of pro-diversity beliefs. Moreover, noninstrumentality can even lead to an increase in prejudice, that is, individuals holding pro-diversity beliefs react with a deterioration of (positive) outgroup attitudes when the contribution of outgroup members in diverse groups is detrimental to the functioning of groups. Accordingly, it is of great importance to differentiate between a general sympathy towards diversity and an appreciation of diversity that is contingent on its usefulness. This is particularly important when considering that, due to recent societal changes, instrumentality-based arguments have become increasingly popular when it comes to the evaluation of diversity and (ethnic) outgroup members such as refugees (e.g., Bansak, Hainmueller, & Hangartner, 2016).

Supplemental Material

SupMat_PDBS_(Kauff_et_al.,_2018;_GPIR) – Supplemental material for Measuring beliefs in the instrumentality of ethnic diversity: Development and validation of the Pro-Diversity Beliefs Scale (PDBS)

Supplemental material, SupMat_PDBS_(Kauff_et_al.,_2018;_GPIR) for Measuring beliefs in the instrumentality of ethnic diversity: Development and validation of the Pro-Diversity Beliefs Scale (PDBS) by Mathias Kauff, Sebastian Stegmann, Rolf van Dick, Constanze Beierlein and Oliver Christ in Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We thank Kathrin Budel and Renate Kania for their help with data collection.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by a grant from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft awarded to Mathias Kauff (KA4028/2-1).

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

References

Adesokan

Ullrich

van Dick

Tropp

L. R.

(2011). Diversity beliefs as moderator of the contact–prejudice relationships. Social Psychology, 42, 271–278. doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000058

Asbrock

Kauff

(2015). Authoritarian disbeliefs in diversity. The Journal of Social Psychology, 155, 553–558. doi:10.1080/00224545.2015.1038497

Ashton

M. C.

Lee

(2009). The HEXACO-60: A short measure of the major dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91, 340–345. doi:10.1080/00223890902935878

Bansak

Hainmueller

Hangartner

(2016). How economic, humanitarian, and religious concerns shape European attitudes toward asylum seekers. Science, 354, 217–222. doi:10.1126/science.aag2147

Barnard

Stevens

Siwatu

K. O.

Lan

(2008). Diversity beliefs as a mediator to faculty attitudes toward students with disabilities. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 1, 169–175. doi:10.1037/a0012707

Beierlein

Asbrock

Kauff

Schmidt

(2015). Die Kurzskala Autoritarismus (KSA-3). Ein ökonomisches Messinstrument zur Erfassung dreier Subdimensionen autoritärer Einstellungen (Working Papers 2014/35) [The Shortscale Authoritarianism: An economic measurement instrument for the three subdimensions of authoritarian attitudes (Working Papers 2014/35)]. Retrieved from https://www.gesis.org/fileadmin/kurzskalen/working_papers/KSA3_WorkingPapers_2014-35.pdf

Berry

J. W.

Kalin

(1995). Multicultural and ethnic attitudes in Canada: An overview of the 1991 National Survey. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne des Sciences du Comportement, 27, 301–320. doi:10.1037/0008-400X.27.3.301

Bezrukova

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, 142, 1227–1274. doi:10.1037/bul0000067

Brown

T. A.

(2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

10.

Chen

F. F.

(2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 464–504. doi:10.1080/10705510701301834

11.

Cheung

G. W.

Rensvold

R. B.

(2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5

12.

Executive Order 13583, 3 C.F.R. (2011). Retrieved from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2011/08/18/executive-order-13583-establishing-coordinated-government-wide-initiativ

13.

GESIS Leibniz Institute for Social Sciences. (2017). GESIS panel – Standard edition. GESIS data archive, Cologne. ZA5665 data file Version 23.0.0. [Data file]. Retrieved from https://dbk.gesis.org/dbksearch/sdesc2.asp?no=5665&db=e&doi=10.4232/1.12829

14.

Grütter

Meyer

(2014). Intergroup friendship and children’s intentions for social exclusion in integrative classrooms: The moderating role of teachers’ diversity beliefs. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 44, 481–494. doi:10.1111/jasp.12240

15.

Guillaume

Y. R. F.

Dawson

J. F.

Otaye-Ebede

Woods

S. A.

West

M. A.

(2015). Harnessing demographic differences in organizations: What moderates the effects of workplace diversity? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38, 276–303. doi:10.1002/job.2040

16.

Haddock

Zanna

M. P.

Esses

V. M.

(1993). Assessing the structure of prejudicial attitudes: The case of attitudes toward homosexuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1105–1118. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.65.6.1105

17.

Hauser

D. J.

Schwarz

(2016). Attentive Turkers: MTurk participants perform better on online attention checks than do subject pool participants. Behavior Research Methods, 48, 400–407. doi:10.3758/s13428-015-0578-z

18.

Homan

A. C.

Greer

L. L.

Jehn

K. A.

Koning

(2010). Believing shapes seeing: The impact of diversity beliefs on the construal of group composition. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13, 477–493. doi:10.1177/1368430209350747

19.

Homan

A. C.

Hollenbeck

J. R.

Humphrey

S. E.

van Knippenberg

Ilgen

D. R.

van Kleef

G. A.

(2008). Facing differences with an open mind: Openness to experience, salience of intra-group differences, and performance of diverse workgroups. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 1204–1222. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2008.35732995

20.

Homan

A. C.

van Knippenberg

van Kleef

G. A.

De Dreu

C. K. W.

(2007). Bridging faultlines by valuing diversity: Diversity beliefs, information elaboration, and performance in diverse work groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1189–1199. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1189

21.

Horwitz

S. K.

Horwitz

I. B.

(2007). The effects of team diversity on team outcomes: A meta-analytic review of team demography. Journal of Management, 33, 987–1015. doi:10.1177/0149206307308587

22.

Jones

J. M.

Dovidio

J. F.

Vietze

D. L.

(2014). The psychology of diversity. Beyond prejudice and racism. Chichester, UK: Blackwell.

23.

Joshi

Roh

(2009). The role of context in work team diversity research: A meta-analytic review. Academy of Management Journal, 52, 599–627. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2009.41331491

24.

Kauff

Asbrock

Thörner

Wagner

(2013). Side effects of multiculturalism: The interaction effect of a multicultural ideology and authoritarianism on prejudice and diversity beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 306–321. doi:10.1177/0146167212473160

25.

Kauff

Issmer

Nau

(2013). Pro-diversity beliefs and everyday ethnic discrimination on grounds of foreign names. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 23, 536–542. doi:10.1002/casp.2143

26.

Kauff

Schmid

Christ

(2017, July). When valuing diversity is not enough – Pro-diversity beliefs and non-instrumental outgroup members. Paper presented at the 18th General Meeting of the European Association of Social Psychology, Granada, Spain.

27.

Kauff

Wagner

(2012). Valuable therefore not threatening: The influence of diversity beliefs on discrimination against immigrants. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 715–722. doi:10.1177/1948550611435942

28.

Kline

R. B.

(2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

29.

Krause

Zick

(2013). GMF – FF. Gruppenbezogene Menschenfeindlichkeit – Kurzskala Fremdenfeindlichkeit [GMF – FF. Group-focused enmity – Shortscale xenophobia]. In Kemper

C. J.

Brähler

Zenger

(Eds.), Psychologische und sozialwissenschaftliche Kurzskalen: standardisierte Erhebungsinstrumente für Wissenschaft und Praxis [Psychological and social-scientific shortscales: Standardized measurement instruments for science and practice] (pp. 115–118). Berlin, Germany: Medizinisch Wissenschaftliche Verlagsgesellschaft.

30.

Lolliot

Fell

Schmid

Wölfer

Swart

Voci

. . . Hewstone

(2014). Measures of intergroup contact. In Boyle

Sklofske

Matthews

(Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological constructs (pp. 652–683). London, UK: Elsevier.

31.

Meyer

Schermuly

C. C.

(2012). When beliefs are not enough: Examining the interaction of diversity faultlines, task motivation, and diversity beliefs on team performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 21, 456–487. doi:10.1080/1359432X.2011.560383

32.

Muthén

L. K.

Muthén

B. O.

(1998–2015). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

33.

Nakui

Paulus

P. B.

van der Zee

K. I.

(2011). The role of attitudes in reactions toward diversity in workgroups. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 2327–2351. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00818.x

34.

Noon

(2007). The fatal flaws of diversity and the business case for ethnic minorities. Work, Employment & Society, 21, 773–784. doi:10.1177/0950017007082886

35.

Pearson

(2016). Diversity and inclusion – The business case of immigration to Europe. Retrieved from http://newsbundle.csreurope.org/EuropeanCommission/1cvg3uyigr9?a=1&p=50502103&t=28403196

36.

Piontkowski

Florack

Hoelker

Obdrzálek

(2000). Predicting acculturation attitudes of dominant and non-dominant groups. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24, 1–26. doi:10.1016/S0147-1767(99)00020-6

37.

Rosenthal

Levy

S. R.

(2012). The relation between polyculturalism and intergroup attitudes among racially and ethnically diverse adults. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 18, 1–16. doi:10.1037/a0026490

38.

Sawyerr

O. O.

Strauss

Yan

(2005). Individual value structure and diversity attitudes: The moderating effects of age, gender, race, and religiosity. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20, 498–521. doi:10.1108/02683940510615442

39.

Simmons

J. P.

Nelson

L. D.

Simonsohn

(2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359–1366. doi:10.1177/0956797611417632

40.

Statistisches Bundesamt. (2016). Statistisches Jahrbuch – Deutschland und Internationales 2016 [Statistical yearbook – Germany and international issues]. Retrieved from https://www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/StatistischesJahrbuch/StatistischesJahrbuch2016.pdf

41.

Stegmann

(2011). Engaging with diversity of social units: A social identity perspective on diversity in organizations (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://publikationen.ub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/22573

42.

Stegmann

van Dick

(2013). “Diversität ist gut, oder?” Die unterschiedlichen Arten, wie sich Menschen auf Vielfalt in Gruppen einlassen, und welche Effekte diese haben [“Diversity is good, right?” The different ways in which people engage in diversity in groups and what effects these have]. Report Psychologie, 38, 153–161.

43.

Stephan

W. G.

Stephan

C. W.

(2000). An integrated theory of prejudice. In Oskamp

(Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 23–45). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

44.

Stürmer

Benbow

A. E. F.

Siem

Barth

Bodansky

A. N.

Lotz-Schmitt

(2013). Psychological foundations of xenophilia: The role of major personality traits in predicting favorable attitudes towards cross-cultural contact and exploration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 832–851. doi:10.1037/a0033488

45.

Talaska

C. A.

Fiske

S. T.

Chaiken

(2008). Legitimating racial discrimination: Emotions, not beliefs, best predict discrimination in a meta-analysis. Social Justice Research, 21, 263–396. doi:10.1007/s11211-008-0071-2

46.

Unruh

L. E.

McCord

D. M.

(2010). Personality traits and beliefs about diversity in pre-service teachers. Individual Differences Research, 8, 1–7.

47.

Van Dijk

van Engen

Paauwe

(2012). Reframing the business case for diversity: A values and virtues perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 111, 73–84. doi:10.1007/s10551-012-1434-z

48.

Van Dijk

van Engen

M. L.

van Knippenberg

(2012). Defying conventional wisdom: A meta-analytical examination of the differences between demographic and job-related diversity relationships with performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 119, 38–53. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.06.003

49.

Van Dick

van Knippenberg

Hägele

Guillaume

Y. R. F.

Brodbeck

F. C.

(2008). Group diversity and group identification: The moderating role of diversity beliefs. Human Relations, 61, 1463–1492. doi:10.1177/0018726708095711

50.

Van Knippenberg

De Dreu

C. K. W.

Homan

A. C.

(2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 1008–1022. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1008

51.

Van Knippenberg

Haslam

S. A.

(2003). Realizing the diversity dividend – Exploring the subtle interplay between identity, ideology, and reality. In Haslam

S. A.

van Knippenberg

Platow

M. J.

Ellemers

(Eds.), Social identity at work – Developing theory for organizational practice (pp. 61–80). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

52.

Van Knippenberg

Haslam

S. A.

Platow

M. J.

(2007). Unity through diversity: Value-in-diversity beliefs, work group diversity, and group identification. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 11, 207–222. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.11.3.207

53.

Verkuyten

(2005). Ethnic group identification and group evaluation among minority and majority groups: Testing the multiculturalism hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 121–138. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.1.121

54.

Wolf

(2016). Einflussfaktoren auf das Zustandekommen von Intergruppenkontakt: Wenn anders nicht schlechter bedeutet [Antecedents of intergroup contact – When different does not mean worse]. Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer.

55.

Wolf

van Dick

(2008). Wenn anders nicht schlechter bedeutet – Wertschätzung von Vielfalt fördert Gleichwertigkeit der Gruppen [When different does not mean worse – Valuing diversity as a key to group equality]. In Heitmeyer

(Ed.), Deutsche Zustände [German affairs] (pp. 137–153). Frankfurt, Germany: Suhrkamp.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.24 MB