Corporate diversity statements can backfire when they become the norm

Organizations frequently publish public declarations of their support for diversity, equity, and inclusion. A new study suggests that because these statements have become so common, they may be losing their intended effect.

When people perceive that every company has such a statement, they tend to view a specific organization’s commitment as a result of external pressure rather than genuine values. This perception can lead members of marginalized groups to anticipate feeling less welcome at the company. The research findings appear in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

Corporate websites often feature sections dedicated to diversity, equity, and inclusion, commonly known as DEI. These statements serve as a signal to prospective employees. They aim to communicate that an organization is safe and welcoming for people from all backgrounds. Previous social science research indicated that these messages generally have positive effects. When a person from a marginalized group sees a diversity statement, they usually report higher levels of anticipated belonging. They expect fair treatment.

However, those earlier studies looked at companies in isolation. They did not account for the broader social context. The landscape of corporate communication has changed over the last decade. It is now standard practice for major companies to voice support for diversity. The researchers behind the new study wanted to know how this ubiquity affects interpretation. They applied concepts from attribution theory to answer this question.

Attribution theory explores how people explain the causes of behavior. Observers try to determine if an action is driven by internal character or external circumstances. For example, if a person does something that everyone else is doing, observers often assume the person is conforming to a social norm. They are less likely to credit the person with internal moral conviction. The researchers hypothesized that this same psychological process applies to organizations.

Free daily newsletter

Kimberly E. Chaney from the University at Buffalo, SUNY led the research team. She collaborated with Emma Wedell from the University of Connecticut and Izilda Pereira-Jorge and Marley B. Forbes from the University of Maryland. They conducted four experiments to test their hypothesis. They recruited over 1,300 participants from Black and LGBTQ+ communities in the United States. These groups are the frequent target of corporate diversity efforts.

The first study focused on Black Americans. The researchers presented participants with website profiles for three investment companies. One group of participants saw a sequence where all three companies displayed diversity statements. This condition simulated a “strong norm” environment. Another group saw a sequence where only the final target company had a statement. This simulated a “no norm” environment.

Participants then evaluated the target company. The results supported the researchers’ hypothesis. When participants believed that diversity statements were standard in the industry, they rated the target company’s statement as more externally motivated. They viewed it as “mere norm adherence.” Consequently, they expected the company to employ fewer Black managers. They also predicted the company would be less likely to discipline employees for racist behavior.

The second study sought to replicate these findings with LGBTQ+ participants. The researchers also wanted to see if these perceptions influenced job application intentions. They asked participants to read a news article to manipulate their perception of social norms. One article claimed that 87 percent of organizations have diversity statements. The other article claimed that only 20 percent do.

After reading the article, participants viewed a job advertisement that included a commitment to diversity. Participants who read that statements were highly common reported lower intentions to apply for the job. They also indicated they would be less likely to disclose their sexual orientation to coworkers. They perceived the company as less sincere compared to participants who thought such statements were rare.

The third study returned to a sample of Black Americans. This experiment aimed to see if breaking the norm was worse than following it. The researchers wanted to know how participants would view a company that had no statement when everyone else did. They used a complex design that crossed the presence of a norm with the presence of a statement.

The findings reinforced the earlier results. When diversity statements were presented as the norm, the presence of a statement resulted in lower anticipated belonging. It did not matter that the company claimed to value diversity. The social pressure made the claim seem hollow. However, the study yielded an unexpected result regarding norm violations. Companies that did not have a statement were not judged more harshly in the high-norm condition. Participants seemed to view silence and performative statements with similar levels of caution.

The fourth study examined how strong the norm needs to be to cause these backfire effects. The researchers recruited LGBTQ+ participants again. They exposed them to three different prevalence rates. Participants read that either 20 percent, 54 percent, or 87 percent of companies had diversity statements.

The researchers found that the negative effects only emerged in the 87 percent condition. A “weak norm” of 54 percent did not trigger the same skepticism as the strong norm. Participants in the 54 percent and 20 percent groups perceived the organizations similarly. This suggests that diversity statements only lose their signaling power when they become overwhelmingly standard.

The results offer a nuanced look at corporate advocacy. They imply that as diversity initiatives become ubiquitous, they may inadvertently signal compliance rather than commitment. This creates a paradox for organizations. A statement intended to foster inclusion might trigger suspicion due to its popularity.

There are caveats to this research. The experiments relied on hypothetical scenarios and static website images. Real-world job seekers might process information differently. They might have access to insider information or employee reviews that would override these initial impressions. The researchers also note that social norms are unstable. The political climate regarding DEI in the United States is currently shifting. Norms of acceptance or rejection of these initiatives may change rapidly.

Future research could investigate the specific language used in these statements. Some statements focus on the moral imperative of diversity. Others focus on the business case for it. It is possible that specific types of justifications are more immune to skepticism. The researchers also suggest exploring these dynamics with other marginalized groups. Women or people with disabilities might process these normative cues differently.

The study provides evidence that context matters as much as content. Organizations cannot rely solely on the presence of a statement to convey safety. When a behavior becomes a default social standard, it ceases to distinguish an organization as an ally. Marginalized groups appear to be attuned to these subtleties. They look for evidence of commitment that goes beyond standard operating procedure.

The study, “Context Norms Shape Perceived Motives of Organizational Diversity Statements,” was authored by Kimberly E. Chaney, Emma Wedell, Izilda Pereira-Jorge, and Marley B. Forbes.