Abstract
Research shows that discrimination is widespread in work organizations, yet we know little about the causal effects of discrimination on employees’ work effort. Here we argue that, by decoupling effort from rewards, discrimination reduces the work effort of those who are disadvantaged by discrimination and those advantaged by it. We test these arguments against the results of five experiments designed to model promotion situations in organizations (total N = 1,184). Together, these studies show that when supervised by a manager with a discriminatory preference, both disadvantaged and advantaged workers reduce their work effort relative to a control condition where the manager is not discriminatory. The negative effect of discrimination is larger for those disadvantaged by it. These effects are mediated by employees’ beliefs about how strongly work will impact their chances of reward. We then demonstrate that the relatively greater effort of advantaged—versus disadvantaged—workers in discriminatory organizations leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy: when faced with this effort differential, managers (N = 119) who did not have a priori discriminatory attitudes judged the advantaged category as more competent and deserving of workplace advancement than the disadvantaged category. Our results show that even though discrimination reduces all workers’ effort, it can ultimately produce outcomes that reify and entrench discriminatory beliefs.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
Data and replication code for all studies are available online at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/WY7NR.
References
Bleich, S. N. et al. Discrimination in the United States: experiences of black Americans. Health Serv. Res. 54, 1399–1408 (2019).
Hebl, M., Cheng, S. K. & Ng, L. C. Modern discrimination in organizations. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 7, 257–282 (2020).
Heilman, M. E. Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Res. Organ. Behav. 32, 113–135 (2012).
Reskin, B. The race discrimination system. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 38, 17–35 (2012).
Roscigno, V. J. 2007. The Face of Discrimination: How Race and Gender Impact Work and Home Lives (Rowman and Littlefield, 2007).
SteelFisher, G. K. et al. Gender discrimination in the United States: experiences of women. Health Serv. Res. 54, 1442–1453 (2019).
Charge Statistics (Charges Filed with EEOC) FY 1997 Through FY 2021 (US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2023).
Kaiser, C. R. & Major, B. A. Social psychological perspective on perceiving and reporting discrimination. Law Soc. Inq. 31, 801–830 (2006).
Bertrand, M. & Duflo, E. in Handbook of Field Experiments (eds Duflo, E. & Banerjee, A.) 309–393 (Elsevier, 2017).
Pager, D. & Shepard, H. The sociology of discrimination: racial discrimination in employment, housing, credit, and consumer markets. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 34, 181–209 (2008).
Pager, D. & Western, B. Identifying discrimination at work: the use of field experiments. J. Soc. Issues 68, 221–237 (2012).
Quillian, L. et al. Do some countries discriminate more than others? Evidence from 97 field experiments of racial discrimination in hiring. Sociol. Sci. 6, 467–496 (2019).
Koch, A. J., D’Mello, S. D. & Sackett, P. R. A meta-analysis of gender stereotypes and bias in experimental simulations of employment decision making. J. Appl. Psychol. 100, 128–161 (2015).
Oswald, F. L., Mitchell, G., Blanton, H., Jaccard, J. & Tetlock, P. E. Predicting ethnic and racial discrimination: a meta-analysis of IAT criterion studies. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 105, 171–192 (2013).
Talaska, C. A., Fiske, S. T. & Chaiken, S. Legitimating racial discrimination: emotions, not beliefs, best predict discrimination in a meta-analysis. Soc. Justice Res. 21, 263–296 (2008).
Gagnon, A. & Bourhis, R. Y. Discrimination in the minimal group paradigm: social identity or self-interest? Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 22, 1289–1301 (1996).
Balliet, D., Wu, J. & De Dreu, C. K. W. Ingroup favoritism in cooperation: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 140, 1556–1581 (2014).
Diehl, M. The minimal group paradigm: theoretical explanations and empirical findings. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 1, 263–292 (1990).
Ridgeway, C. L. Status: Why is It Everywhere? Why Does It Matter? (Russell Sage Foundation, 2018).
Jones, K. P., Peddie, C. I., Gilrane, V. I., King, E. B. & Gray, A. L. Not so subtle: a meta-analytic investigation of the correlates of subtle and overt discrimination. J. Manage. 42, 1588–1613 (2016).
Lewis, T., Cogburn, C. D. & Williams, D. R. Self-reported experiences of discrimination and health: scientific advances, ongoing controversies, and emerging issues. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 11, 407–440 (2015).
Phelan, J. C. & Link, B. G. Is racism a fundamental cause of inequalities in health? Annu. Rev. Sociol. 41, 311–330 (2015).
Schmitt, M. T., Postmes, T., Branscombe, N. R. & Garcia, A. The consequences of perceived discrimination for psychological well-being: a meta-analytic review. Psychol. Bull. 140, 921–948 (2014).
Arrow, K. J. in Discrimination in Labor Markets. Princeton Univ. Press, 3–33 (1974).
Arrow, K. J. What has economics to say about racial discrimination? J. Econ. Perspect. 12, 91–100 (1998).
Spencer, S. J., Logel, C. & Davies, P. G. Stereotype threat. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 67, 415–437 (2016).
Glover, D., Pallais, A. & Pariente, W. Discrimination as a self-fulfilling prophecy: evidence from French grocery stores. Q. J. Econ. 132, 1219–1260 (2017).
Major, B., Quinton, W. J. & McCoy, S. K. Antecedents and consequences of attributions to discrimination: theoretical and empirical advances. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 34, 251–330 (2002).
Zell, E., Strickhouser, J. E., Sedikides, C. & Alicke, M. D. The better-than-average effect in comparative self-evaluation: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 146, 118–149 (2019).
Heiserman, N. & Simpson, B. Ideology shapes how workers perceive and react to workplace discrimination: an experimental study on parenthood discrimination. Soc. Sci. Res. 102, 102642 (2022).
Tilcsik, A. Statistical discrimination and the rationalization of stereotypes. Am. Sociol. Rev. 86, 93–122 (2021).
Mitchell, G. Revisiting truth or triviality: the external validity of research in the psychological laboratory. Perspect. Psychol. 7, 109–117 (2012).
Vanhove, A. J. & Harms, P. D. Reconciling the two disciplines of organizational science: a comparison of findings from lab and field research. Appl. Psychol. 64, 637–673 (2015).
Charness, G., Gneezy, U. & Henderson, A. Experimental methods: measuring effort in economics experiments. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 149, 74–87 (2018).
Fehr, E., Kirchsteiger, G. & Riedl, A. Does fairness prevent market clearing? An experimental investigation. Q. J. Econ. 108, 437–459 (1993).
Mohnen, A., Pokorny, K. & Sliwka, D. Transparency, inequity aversion, and the dynamics of peer pressure in teams: theory and evidence. Labor Econ. 26, 693–720 (2008).
Goh, J. X., Hall, J. A. & Rosenthal, R. Mini meta-analysis of your own studies: some arguments on why and a primer on how. Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass 10, 535–549 (2016).
McShane, B. B. & Böckenholt, U. Single paper meta-analysis: benefits for study summary, theory-testing, and replicability. J. Consum. Res. 43, 1048–1063 (2017).
Swigart, K. L., Anantharaman, A., Williamson, J. A. & Grandey, A. A. Working while liberal/conservative: a review of political ideology in organizations. J. Manage. 46, 1063–1091 (2020).
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P. & Xu, J. A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 82, 878–902 (2002).
Fiske, S. T. Stereotype content: warmth and competence endure. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 27, 67–73 (2018).
Cohen, J. Statistical Power for the Behavioral Sciences 2nd edn (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988).
Paterson, T. A., Harms, P. D., Steel, P. & Credé, M. An assessment of the magnitude of effect sizes: evidence from 30 years of meta-analysis in management. J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud. 23, 66–81 (2016).
Prentice, D. A. & Miller, D. T. When small effects are impressive. Psychol. Bull. 112, 160–164 (1992).
Funder, D. C. & Ozer, D. J. Evaluating effect size in psychological research: sense and nonsense. Adv. Methods Pract. Psychol. Sci. 2, 156–168 (2019).
Götz, F. M., Gosling, S. D. & Rentfrow, P. J. Small effects: the indispensable foundation for a cumulative psychological science. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 17, 205–215 (2022).
Greenwald, A. G., Banaji, M. R. & Nosek, B. A. Statistically small effects of the Implicit Association Test can have societally large effects. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 108, 553–561 (2015).
Collins, P. H. Intersectionality as Critical Social Theory (Duke Univ. Press, 2019).
Tomaskovic-Devey, D. & Avent-Holt, D. Relational Inequalities: An Organizational Approach (Oxford Univ. Press, 2019).
Litman, L. & Robinson, J. Conducting Online Research on Amazon Mechanical Turk and Beyond (Sage Publications, 2021).
Breen, R., Karlson, K. B. & Holm, A. Total, direct, and indirect effects in logit and probit models. Sociol. Res. Methods 44, 164–191 (2013).
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by grant W911NF-19-1-910281 from the Army Research Office to B.S. and by funds from the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of South Carolina to B.S. These funders had no role in the conceptualization, design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
N.H. and B.S. developed the research question and designed the experiments. N.H. ran the experiments and analysed the data. N.H. and B.S. wrote the paper.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review
Peer review information
Nature Human Behaviour thanks Kristen Jones, Austin Henderson and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Peer reviewer reports are available.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Supplementary Information
Supplementary Tables 1–26, Figs. 1–14, discussion of analytical issues and study materials.
Supplementary Table 1
Mini meta-analysis spreadsheet.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Heiserman, N., Simpson, B. Discrimination reduces work effort of those who are disadvantaged and those who are advantaged by it. Nat Hum Behav 7, 1890–1898 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01703-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01703-9
- Springer Nature Limited