Full Length Article
Predicting employee attitudes to workplace diversity from personality, values, and cognitive ability

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2019.103865Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Honesty-humility, Extraversion, and Openness predicted positive attitudes to workplace diversity.

  • Cognitive ability, especially verbal, predicted positive attitudes to workplace diversity.

  • Valuing power, security, and tradition predicted negative attitudes to workplace diversity.

  • Valuing universalism predicted positive attitudes to workplace diversity.

  • Narrow traits of personality, values, and ability improved prediction of attitudes to diversity.

Abstract

The current study assessed the predictive validity of broad and narrow measures of personality, values, and cognitive ability on employee attitudes to workplace diversity. Australian working adults (N = 731; 66% female; mean age = 43, SD = 12) completed the 200-item HEXACO Personality Inventory, Schwartz's Portrait Values Questionnaire, ACER measures of numeric, verbal, and abstract reasoning ability, the Attitudes Toward Diversity Scale, and four scales measuring prejudice towards female workers, ethnic workers, older workers, and workers with a disability. Results showed that Honesty–Humility, Extraversion, Openness, and cognitive ability (especially verbal) predicted more positive attitudes to workplace diversity. Valuing power, security, and tradition more, and valuing universalism less was associated with more negative attitudes to workplace diversity.

Introduction

Workplace diversity has become an increasingly important topic for both organizational researchers and practitioners (for reviews, see Ashkanasy et al., 2002, Guillaume et al., 2013, Harrison and Klein, 2007, Jonsen et al., 2011). Female workforce participation continues to increase, and in many countries, the workforce is becoming more diverse across a range of dimensions including race, ethnicity, age, and inclusion of people with disability (Byars-Winston, Fouad, & Wen, 2015). Globalization and the resultant movement of labour across national boundaries has led to increasing interest amongst researchers and practitioners alike as to how to manage diversity (Ashkanasy et al., 2002, Singh et al., 2013). There is also a growing awareness of the prevalence of overt and subtle forms of discrimination and the negative consequences that flow from this (Colella et al., 2017, Jones et al., 2016). Furthermore, legal obligations, ethical priorities, reputational concerns, and a desire to achieve the performance benefits of a diverse workforce (Ashkanasy et al., 2002, Jehn et al., 1999) have motivated researchers to study, and organizations to implement, initiatives aimed at better fostering diversity and inclusion (Avery and McKay, 2006, Newman et al., 2018, Pugh et al., 2008, Sojo et al., 2016). This movement has focused attention on methods of selection, training, and employee organization that might support a diverse workforce (Guillaume et al., 2014, Jehn et al., 1999, Pendry et al., 2007, Stratemeyer et al., 2018, Strauss et al., 2003).

For organizations to achieve their goals around fostering diversity, they need to understand the cross-national, macro-economic, social, organizational, team-level, and personal factors that influence workers’ attitudes towards workplace diversity (Ashkanasy et al., 2002, Burkard et al., 2002, De Meuse and Hostager, 2001, Ely and Thomas, 2001, Montei et al., 1996). In the current study, we focus on individual-level predictors of attitudes towards workplace diversity. More specifically, we evaluate three types of individual differences, namely personality traits, values and cognitive abilities in relation to both broad negative attitudes towards workplace diversity, as well as specific attitudes towards female, ethnic minority, individuals living with a disability, and older workers. This study also provides new insights about the predictive value of broad and narrow facets of the individual differences evaluated, while remedying some of the limitations of previous research in this area.

Negative employee attitudes to workplace diversity are multifaceted (De Meuse & Hostager, 2001) and include both workplace prejudice and the rejection of many initiatives used to promote workplace diversity. Outside the workplace, prejudice, including sexism and racism, is any unjustified belief that a particular social group is inferior to another (Duckitt, 2001, Ekehammar et al., 2004, Milliken and Martins, 1996), and has been described as a general motivated cognitive style where the specific object of derision is of secondary importance (Allport, 1954, Roets and van Hiel, 2011). Workplace prejudice is typified by unreasonable beliefs that workers belonging to particular social groups are less capable, less motivated, or cause more problems in the workplace. Such beliefs can be general, or may be concerned with specific roles such as those involving leadership or technical skills, or specific social groups such as women or ethnic minorities. The prejudiced belief system described above is based, in part, on stereotypes about these stigmatized groups’ purported inherent attributes, and how poorly these attributes are thought to match the behaviors required in specific roles or the workplace in general (Eagly and Karau, 2002, Heilman and Caleo, 2018).

While prejudice, discrimination, and abuse are distinct, they often co-occur (Goldman, Gutek, Stein, & Lewis, 2006). Prejudice has been consistently linked to workplace discrimination and mistreatment towards women and members of minority groups (Colella et al., 2017, Fiske and Stevens, 1993, Fiske, 1998, Jones et al., 2016, Roberts et al., 2019). Discrimination leads to reduced occupational opportunities and well-being. It also helps to reinforce the view that stigmatized groups are not a good fit for work in general, specific occupations, and positions of leadership (Koenig and Eagly, 2014, Schein et al., 1996). In turn, this situation increases the likelihood that stigmatized groups will experience backlash when they enter those positions (Rudman et al., 2012, Sojo et al., 2016), potentially perpetuating a vicious cycle.

Beyond prejudice, negative attitudes towards workplace diversity often involve workers holding a number of inter-connected beliefs associated with the political right, conservatism, and individualism. These beliefs can be seen expressed by right-leaning politicians, in newspapers, and by commentators who identify with classical liberalism such as Jordan Peterson (Peterson, 2018). People with negative attitudes to workplace diversity may be particularly sensitive to initiatives related to affirmative action including opportunity enhancement initiatives, quotas, targets, and using social category membership to inform pay, selection, promotion, and retention decisions (Harrison, Kravitz, Mayer, Leslie, & Lev-Arey, 2006). They may believe that diversity-related policies are leading to reverse-discrimination and resulting in employees from less qualified minority groups being promoted or hired (Wiersema & Mors, 2016). They may be more likely to see historical differences in workplace outcomes of different social groups (e.g., the gender pay gap, gendered occupations, etc.) as natural, and resulting largely from (a) individual choices, (b) differences in underlying abilities, interests, and dispositions, and (c) meritocratic decision processes (Jones, 2017). In the context of workplace harassment, they may downplay the abuse and place greater emphasis on concerns about false accusations (De Judicibus and McCabe, 2001, Ullman, 2010). They may see diversity of competency rather than demographic diversity as the key to organizational performance benefits. They also often dispute the science and implementation of unconscious bias training in organizations. They may raise concerns about political correctness stifling freedom of speech when it comes to discussing diversity-related issues. Some may also seek to defend the rights of workers to express prejudiced views towards various minority groups including homosexuals, transgender people, and religious minorities without this affecting their employment (Kitrosser, 2016).

In contrast, positive attitudes to workplace diversity often aligns with the political left. People with positive attitudes often emphasize the benefits of diversity and inclusion and the importance of creating a respectful and tolerant workplace. They may be particularly aware of the role of historical and current social structures and policies that have limited the participation of various social groups in the workplace (Dick & Nadin, 2006). They are more inclined to view unequal outcomes across social groups to be the result of workplace discrimination, including both conscious and unconscious biases, as well as broader social, cultural, and economic structures (Fine & Sojo, 2019). They are also keen to redress past wrongs. They are typically wary of making claims about group differences that might perpetuate the adverse treatment of minorities. They may be more inclined to see group differences in work-relevant characteristics as caused by social factors as opposed to reflecting enduring biological differences (Fine, 2005). They may also be more willing to believe that social groups are equally competent or that the increasing inclusion of minorities will yield performance benefits for teams and organizations.

Individual differences are widely recognized as important predictors of workplace behaviors, attitudes, and outcomes (Hough & Connelly, 2013). In the current study, we focus on three types of individual differences, namely personality traits, values and cognitive ability, which have been recognized as relevant predictors of workplace behaviors and are routinely used in personnel selection processes.

Personality traits represent relatively stable tendencies in thinking, feeling, and behaving. Personality researchers generally conceptualize traits in a hierarchy where a set of broad domains, such as the Big Five—neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness, Conscientiousness, and Agreeableness—and alternatives like the six HEXACO factors, are each decomposed into several narrow traits or facets (Anglim and Grant, 2014, Anglim and Grant, 2016, Anglim and O’Connor, 2019, Ashton et al., 2009, Costa and McCrae, 1992, Srivastava, 2013). The six factor HEXACO model has emerged as an important extension and alternative to the Big Five. Lexical studies in a range of cultures have provided support for the six-factor model (i.e., an acronym for Honesty–Humility, Emotionality, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness; (Ashton et al., 2004, De Raad et al., 2014, Saucier, 2009). The HEXACO model reconfigures variance associated with Big Five Agreeableness and Neuroticism into Honesty–Humility, Emotionality, and HEXACO Agreeableness (see Lee & Ashton, 2004). In particular, HEXACO Agreeableness emphasizes low levels of anger and Emotionality includes facets of dependence and sentimentality which are less aligned with the negative affect of neuroticism (for a review, see Ashton, Lee, & De Vries, 2014). Honesty–Humility also has very strong negative correlations with the Dark Triad (Hodson et al., 2018, Lee and Ashton, 2014). The six domains have also been decomposed into four facets per domain along with the interstitial facet of altruism. While the Big Five remains the most established framework, the HEXACO model has become increasingly popular in industrial and organizational psychology (Anglim, Morce et al., 2017, Hough and Connelly, 2013, McAbee et al., 2019), due in part to the ability of Honesty–Humility to incrementally predict a range of workplace deviance behaviors (e.g., De Vries and Van Gelder, 2015, Marcus et al., 2007, Oh et al., 2011, Pletzer et al., 2019). In the current study, we adopt the HEXACO framework, in part, because of the potential for Honesty-Humility to provide increased predictive capacity of attitudes towards workplace diversity and prejudice towards women and minority groups at work.

Personal values are broad evaluative criteria that assist people to prioritize goals and set an agenda for what is important in their lives (Schwartz, 1992). While various taxonomies have been proposed, arguably the most established framework is that proposed by Schwartz (Schwartz et al., 2012, Schwartz, 1992). The framework consists of ten basic values arranged in a circumplex, which in clockwise order are labelled self-direction, stimulation, hedonism, achievement, power, security, tradition, conformity, benevolence, and universalism. The ten values can be represented by two broad dimensions of conservatism (conformity, tradition, security) versus Openness (self-direction and stimulation) and self-enhancement (hedonism, power, achievement) versus self-transcendence (universalism and benevolence).

Cognitive ability is typically conceptualized as a general higher-order construct—the general intelligence factor (Schneider & McGrew, 2012). This g-factor is a robust result of the first principal component that manifests from the correlations of a broad battery of ability tests. While the dominant taxonomy of intelligence is the Cattell-Horn-Caroll model (Schneider & McGrew, 2012), in the current study, we focus on overall intelligence and three narrow abilities that are popular in employee selection settings: numeric, verbal, and abstract reasoning ability.

In order to develop parsimonious models of the effect of individual differences, it is important to acknowledge the correlations between values, personality, and cognitive ability. In particular, several studies have found correlations between personality and Schwartz’s personal values both in relation to the Big Five (Parks-Leduc, Feldman, & Bardi, 2015) and HEXACO personality models (Anglim, Knowles et al., 2017, Lee et al., 2010). Anglim, Knowles et al. (2017) found that Honesty–Humility had a strong negative correlation with self-enhancement (versus self-transcendence). Honesty–Humility (Lee et al., 2013) and the value of self-enhancement (Duckitt, 2001) are also closely related to social dominance orientation. Openness also correlates negatively with the value of conservatism in both Big Five (Parks-Leduc et al., 2015) and HEXACO models (Anglim, Knowles et al., 2017). Meta-analytic results also indicate modest correlations between Openness and cognitive ability (Ackerman & Heggestad, 1997). Some research suggests that much of the correlation with Openness reflects its emphasis on self-rated intelligence, and that more pure forms of Openness are mainly related to verbal ability (Deyoung, Quilty, Peterson, & Gray, 2014).

Another feature shared across personality, values, and cognitive ability is that traits can be arranged hierarchically. Broad traits explain covariation in, and are defined by, a set of narrower traits. Personality can be represented by domains and facets, values by broad and basic levels, and intelligence by a general factor and narrow abilities. Researchers have debated the relative importance of broad and narrow characteristics, particularly in the personality and cognitive ability domains (Anglim and Grant, 2014, Anglim and O’Connor, 2019, Ashton, 1998, Ashton, Paunonen et al., 2014, Christiansen and Robie, 2011, O’Neill et al., 2013, Ones and Viswesvaran, 1996, Paunonen and Ashton, 2001, Salgado et al., 2013). In the current research, we explore the association of broad and narrow operationalizations of personality traits, values and cognitive abilities in relation to negative attitudes to workplace diversity.

Because only a few studies have examined how individual differences predict attitudes to workplace diversity (Strauss and Connerley, 2003, Thompson et al., 2002), it is helpful to summarize research from the broader literature on social prejudice. In general, the research on the correlates of personality and values has highlighted two main classes of individual differences with general prejudice. First, low Openness and conservatism predict higher levels of prejudice. Second, low levels of Big Five Agreeableness and low levels of HEXACO Honesty–Humility are correlated with values related to self-enhancement, and both predict greater prejudice. For instance, Duckitt (2001) argued that the two broad values of conservatism and self-enhancement align closely with the concepts of right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation, respectively. Duckitt (2001) proposed a dual-process theory which broadly suggests that social conformity and tough-mindedness lead to a set of world views and social attitudes that culminate in prejudicial views. Sibley and Duckitt (2008) suggested that prejudiced individuals are more likely to see their environment as socially competitive, valuing power and being conscious of situations where competition is a possibility, such as when there are limited resources.

Research on personality and general prejudice has typically used the Big Five framework and has found that Openness and Agreeableness are associated with lower levels of right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and prejudice towards minorities (Duckitt, 2001, Ekehammar et al., 2004, Flynn, 2005, Hodson et al., 2009, Sibley and Duckitt, 2008, Sibley et al., 2010). A few studies have considered HEXACO and prejudice-related outcomes (Bergh and Akrami, 2016, Lee et al., 2010, Liu et al., 2017, Sibley et al., 2010). Bergh and Akrami (2016) found that Honesty–Humility was strongly correlated with generalized prejudice, whereas HEXACO Agreeableness showed limited correlations with prejudice.

Only a few studies have examined the predictive validity of complete hierarchical instruments of personality such as the NEO-PI-R in relation to attitudes to diversity (Thompson et al., 2002). While these studies have flagged narrow traits such as Openness to values, warmth, and tender-mindedness as potentially important, the multiplicities involved in facet-level analysis mean that sample sizes in existing studies of under 200 are insufficient for robust conclusions (for a methodological review of facet-level analysis, see Anglim & Grant, 2014).

Research on cognitive ability has generally found a negative correlation between intelligence and general prejudice (Brandt and Crawford, 2016, Onraet et al., 2015). One theory is that lower cognitive ability leads people to be more sensitive to threat, which in turn leads to more conservative political attitudes, which in turn lead to prejudice (Brandt & Crawford, 2016). Another theory is that cognitive ability allows for greater tolerance of ambiguity and less need for closure, which may reduce reliance on negative stereotypes towards minorities. An alternative perspective is that cognitive ability leads to greater education and political liberalism, which in turn encourages more positive views towards some groups and more negative views towards others. For example, Brandt and Crawford (2016) found that the correlation between cognitive ability and prejudice varied based on the focal group, with negative correlations emerging for prejudice towards traditionally disadvantaged groups like blacks and Hispanics and positive correlations with prejudice towards groups associated more with right-wing conservatism, such as Christians, conservatives, and big business. While some research suggests verbal ability may be particularly relevant (Brandt & Crawford, 2016), a previous meta-analysis did not find significant variation based on ability type (Onraet et al., 2015).

In summary, very little research has examined how individual differences in personality, values, and cognitive ability predict employee attitudes to workplace diversity (Strauss and Connerley, 2003, Thompson et al., 2002). While research on general social prejudice has a long history in relation to personality (Adorno et al., 1950, Allport, 1954, Hodson and Dhont, 2015), personal values (Lee et al., 2010, Sibley et al., 2010), and cognitive ability (Brandt and Crawford, 2016, Onraet et al., 2015), it is unclear how well this generalizes to the workplace. In particular, McAbee et al. (2019) reviewed the literature and highlighted the paucity of research examining the relationship between HEXACO personality and employee attitudes. Research has also rarely synthesized findings about the role of individual differences across personality, values, and cognitive ability. This integrated assessment is particularly important for practitioners considering using such information in selection, training, and professional development settings. Furthermore, while some research has examined predictors of attitudes to female and racial minority workers, less research has considered attitudes towards other marginalized workers such as older workers (Taylor and Walker, 1998, Van Dalen et al., 2009), and workers with a disability (Ju et al., 2013, Kregel and Tomiyasu, 1994). Finally, research has typically focused on broad traits and has rarely considered narrow traits measured by comprehensive hierarchical measures (Anglim and Grant, 2014, Paunonen and Jackson, 2000).

In order to address these gaps in the literature, the present study aimed to provide a comprehensive assessment of the predictive validity of broad and narrow measures of personality, values, and cognitive ability on employee attitudes to workplace diversity. To achieve this aim, a large database of job applicants who had completed measures of HEXACO personality, Schwartz personal values, and cognitive ability were invited to complete a confidential low-stakes survey where their attitudes to workplace diversity were measured. The study examined the relative predictive validity of broad and narrow characteristics represented by (a) 6 domains and 25 facets of HEXACO personality, (b) 2 broad dimensions and 10 basic values from Schwartz's personal values framework, and (c) intelligence and three specific cognitive abilities.

Based on the findings and theories from the general prejudice literature, our main hypotheses in relation to negative attitudes to workplace diversity are set out in Fig. 1. This model combines personality traits, values, and abilities that are both intercorrelated and expected to have a common effect on negative attitudes to diversity. Specifically, we propose the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 1

Honesty–Humility will predict less negative attitudes to workplace diversity.

Hypothesis 2

Valuing self-enhancement (valuing power more and universalism less) will predict more negative attitudes to workplace diversity.

Hypothesis 3

Openness to experience will predict less negative attitudes to workplace diversity.

Hypothesis 4

Valuing conservatism will predict more negative attitudes to workplace diversity.

Hypothesis 5

Cognitive ability will predict less negative attitudes to workplace diversity.

More generally, the research sought to obtain a detailed empirical assessment of how personality, values, and cognitive ability combine to predict negative attitudes to diversity. It also sought to assess the degree to which narrow representations of traits in these three domains provide incremental prediction. Research on the overlap of personality and values (Anglim, Knowles et al., 2017, Parks-Leduc et al., 2015) suggests that much of the prediction of negative attitudes to diversity will be shared between personality and values. In contrast, cognitive ability should be a relatively independent predictor. Research on the incremental prediction of narrow traits suggests that modest but meaningful increases in prediction are to be expected (Anglim and Grant, 2016, Anglim, Bozic et al., 2018, Anglim et al., 2019, Anglim, Morce et al., 2017).

Section snippets

Participants and procedure

Participants were recruited from a database maintained by a consulting company that provides online psychometric testing services to client organizations. Client organizations used the online platform to assess job applicants for job vacancies at their organization. Job applicants completed measures of HEXACO personality, Schwartz Personal Values, and cognitive ability. Individuals who had completed these measures were emailed an invitation in mid-2017 to participate in a study looking at

Descriptive statistics and correlations

Descriptive statistics and the complete correlation matrix for demographics, personality, values (including raw and ipsatized), cognitive ability, and outcomes is presented in the online supplement. Table 2 presents descriptive statistics and correlations between the outcome measures. The strong correlations are consistent with negative attitudes to diversity and workplace prejudice representing a broader dimension. In general, the correlation between negative attitudes to diversity and

Discussion

The current study examined the predictive validity of HEXACO personality, values, and cognitive ability on employee attitudes to workplace diversity. Several important findings emerged. First, the HEXACO model of personality predicted negative attitudes to workplace diversity well. As expected, Honesty–Humility and Openness predicted less negative attitudes to workplace diversity. Extraversion also emerged as a good predictor. Second, Schwartz's values aligned with conservatism and

Open practices statement

Data, data analysis scripts, supplementary materials, and item-level information is provided at https://osf.io/xdfq8.

Author Note

The study and analysis plan was not pre-registered.

Author contributions

JA contributed to study design and led the write-up and data analysis for the paper; VS contributed to study design, framing of the paper, and writing the report; LA and AN contributed to writing the report; AM led the study design and the data collection, and contributed to the write-up of the paper.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: The fifth author uses the described HEXACO, Values, and cognitive ability measures as part of a psychometrics testing business.

References (121)

  • C. Fine et al.

    Women's value: Beyond the business case for diversity and inclusion

    Lancet

    (2019)
  • G. Hodson et al.

    Is the Dark Triad common factor distinct from low Honesty-Humility?

    Journal of Research in Personality

    (2018)
  • G. Hodson et al.

    The role of “dark personalities” (narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy), Big Five personality factors, and ideology in explaining prejudice

    Journal of Research in Personality

    (2009)
  • K. Lee et al.

    The Dark Triad, the Big Five, and the HEXACO model

    Personality and Individual Differences

    (2014)
  • K. Lee et al.

    The personality bases of socio-political attitudes: The role of Honesty-Humility and Openness to Experience

    Journal of Research in Personality

    (2010)
  • J. Liu et al.

    The HEXACO correlates of authoritarianism's facets in the US and Denmark

    Personality and Individual Differences

    (2017)
  • A. Newman et al.

    The effects of diversity climate on the work attitudes of refugee employees: The mediating role of psychological capital and moderating role of ethnic identity

    Journal of Vocational Behavior

    (2018)
  • A. O'Neil et al.

    The# MeToo movement: An opportunity in public health?

    The Lancet

    (2018)
  • E. Onraet et al.

    The relationship of trait emotional intelligence with right-wing attitudes and subtle racial prejudice

    Personality and Individual Differences

    (2017)
  • J.L. Pletzer et al.

    A meta-analysis of the relations between personality and workplace deviance: Big Five versus HEXACO

    Journal of Vocational Behavior

    (2019)
  • L.A. Rudman et al.

    Status incongruity and backlash effects: Defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders

    Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

    (2012)
  • P.L. Ackerman et al.

    Intelligence, personality, and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits

    Psychological Bulletin

    (1997)
  • T.W. Adorno et al.

    The authoritarian personality

    (1950)
  • G.W. Allport

    The nature of prejudice

    (1954)
  • J. Anglim et al.

    Response distortion on personality tests in applicants: Comparing high-stakes to low-stakes medical settings

    Advances in Health Sciences Education

    (2018)
  • J. Anglim et al.

    Predicting psychological and subjective well-being from personality: Incremental prediction from 30 facets over the big 5

    Journal of Happiness Studies

    (2016)
  • J. Anglim et al.

    Comparing job applicants to non-applicants using an item-level bifactor model on the HEXACO personality inventory

    European Journal of Personality

    (2017)
  • J. Anglim et al.

    Predicting trait emotional intelligence from HEXACO personality: Domains, facets, and the general factor of personality

    Journal of Personality

    (2019)
  • J. Anglim et al.

    Measurement and research using the Big Five, HEXACO, and narrow traits: A primer for researchers and practitioners

    Australian Journal of Psychology

    (2019)
  • M.C. Ashton

    Personality and job performance: The importance of narrow traits

    Journal of Organizational Behavior

    (1998)
  • M.C. Ashton et al.

    The HEXACO honesty-humility, agreeableness, and emotionality factors a review of research and theory

    Personality and Social Psychology Review

    (2014)
  • M.C. Ashton et al.

    Higher order factors of personality: Do they exist?

    Personality and Social Psychology Review

    (2009)
  • M.C. Ashton et al.

    A six-factor structure of personality-descriptive adjectives: Solutions from psycholexical studies in seven languages

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (2004)
  • Australian Bureau of Statistics (2017). 3412.0 - Migration, Australia, 2015-16. Retrieved from...
  • Australian Council of Educational Research

    ACER Select Manual

    (2003)
  • D.R. Avery et al.

    Target practice: An organizational impression management approach to attracting minority and female job applicants

    Personnel Psychology

    (2006)
  • M.J. Brandt et al.

    Answering unresolved questions about the relationship between cognitive ability and prejudice

    Social Psychological and Personality Science

    (2016)
  • A.W. Burkard et al.

    Workplace discrimination, prejudice, and diversity measurement: A review of instrumentation

    Journal of Career Assessment

    (2002)
  • N.D. Christiansen et al.

    Further consideration of the use of narrow trait scales

    Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science

    (2011)
  • A. Colella et al.

    One hundred years of discrimination research in the Journal of Applied Psychology: A sobering synopsis

    Journal of Applied Psychology

    (2017)
  • J.P.T. Costa et al.

    Four ways five factors are basic

    Personality and Individual Differences

    (1992)
  • M. De Judicibus et al.

    Blaming the target of sexual harassment: Impact of gender role, sexist attitudes, and work role

    Sex Roles

    (2001)
  • K.P. De Meuse et al.

    Developing an instrument for measuring attitudes toward and perceptions of workplace diversity: An initial report

    Human Resource Development Quarterly

    (2001)
  • B. De Raad et al.

    Towards a pan-cultural personality structure: Input from 11 psycholexical studies

    European Journal of Personality

    (2014)
  • C.G. Deyoung et al.

    Openness to experience, intellect, and cognitive ability

    Journal of Personality Assessment

    (2014)
  • P. Dick et al.

    Reproducing gender inequalities? A critique of realist assumptions underpinning personnel selection research and practice

    Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology

    (2006)
  • A.H. Eagly et al.

    Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders

    Psychological Review

    (2002)
  • B. Ekehammar et al.

    What matters most to prejudice: Big Five personality, Social Dominance Orientation, or Right-Wing Authoritarianism?

    European Journal of Personality

    (2004)
  • R.J. Ely et al.

    Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes

    Administrative Science Quarterly

    (2001)
  • S. Fein et al.

    Prejudice as self-image maintenance: Affirming the self through derogating others

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1997)
  • Cited by (28)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text