Search results

The authors sought initial validity evidence for a measure of anticipated discrimination in the workplace using three samples of working adults with various chronic illnesses. The purpose of this paper is to propose a single factor structure, correlations with stigma dimensions, discriminant validity from similar scales, and incremental validity in predicting work-related outcomes.

Adults working at least 20 hours per week with various chronic illnesses (Sample 1 n=332, Sample 2 n=193, Sample 3 n=230) voluntarily completed an online survey. Structural equation modeling and hierarchical multiple regression were used to analyze the data.

Results supported the proposed single-factor structure, along with proposed correlations with strain, and job attitudes (job satisfaction, affective commitment, and both procedural justice). Discriminant validity was observed between anticipated discrimination and procedural justice perceptions and perceived impact on performance. The scale demonstrated incremental validity in predicting strain beyond the relevant controls in all three samples, although it only demonstrated incremental validity in predicting job satisfaction in Samples 1 and 3 and affective commitment in Sample 1.

Study limitations include the use of single-source, cross-sectional data, omission of a non-stigmatized sample, and a deductive approach to item generation. Future research should attempt to validate the scale on other stigmatized worker populations.

Organizations may use this scale to monitor employees’ perceptions of anticipated discrimination and researchers may use it as a measure of a workplace stressor.

The vast majority of existing stigma and discrimination scales do not specifically address the workplace context. This study contributes to the literature by providing psychometric information for a workplace anticipated discrimination scale using samples from an under-represented worker population.

The purpose of this paper is to understand the implications of anticipated discrimination for women and racial minorities when they lose out on an opportunity for a promotion to a similarly qualified non-minority colleague.

A sample of 248 participants who were full-time working adults residing in the USA were randomly assigned to one of four versions of the scenario in which a coworker was either a White male, a White female, a Black male or a Black female coworker is offered a desired promotion. Participants reported on the extent to which they anticipated discrimination (i.e. expect discriminatory behaviors enacted toward them in the future) in the hypothetical workplace.

Women and racial minorities reported anticipated discrimination at greater levels than non-minorities when passed over for a promotion. The authors also found that intersectionally stigmatized, racial minority women reported the highest levels of anticipated discrimination.

The authors recommend transparent and honest communication about organizations’ decision-making processes that have career-related implications for underrepresented populations. Doing so may help alleviate concerns or perceptions that employees may have in regard to organizational practices being (intentionally or unintentionally) discriminatory.

While research has examined the psychological implications of receiving a promotion, substantially less work has focused on the characteristics of the promoted coworker or considered how those characteristics shape perceptions of anticipating discrimination.

This paper aims to review the latest management developments across the globe and pinpoint practical implications from cutting-edge research and case studies.

This briefing is prepared by an independent writer who adds their own impartial comments and places the articles in context.

This study focuses on promotion loss at work, and how different groups of people assess the level of discrimination they now anticipate experiencing in future. The results revealed that female employees and racial minority employees reported feeling the most anticipated discrimination after missing out on a promotion to a similarly qualified, non-minority or male candidate. The highest anticipated discrimination levels were felt by racial minority women. It’s recommended that transparent communication and decision processes are among the solutions to prevent these problems festering into pervasive disengagement and distrust.

The briefing saves busy executives, strategists and researchers hours of reading time by selecting only the very best, most pertinent information and presenting it in a condensed and easy-to-digest format.

People who have used mental health services in Scotland have the lowest employment rates of all working ages, despite a national programme for mental health and well‐being that provides significant investment in anti‐stigma initiatives and employment support services. This paper qualitatively identifies barriers to employment from the perspectives of people who have experienced mental health issues by conducting in‐depth focus groups with 20 people who have experienced mental health issues undertaken through collaborative research involving people who have experienced mental health issues alongside practitioners and academics. Researchers who have experienced mental health issues instigated and determined the direction, execution and dissemination of the study. The findings add to the growing evidence base outlining the complex and interlinked barriers to employment which include previous experience of workplace discrimination, financial uncertainty, disclosure concerns, quality of jobs available and the potential of work at times to worsen mental health conditions. Despite this, most participants expressed hopefulness and resilience. Many wanted paid work and outlined practical steps that employers can take in terms of recruitment and retention. However, participants also stressed the equal importance of voluntary work and not just as a step to paid employment. A multiple‐perspectives approach provides important insights into the complex and sensitive policy area of mental health and employment. Meaningful involvement of people who have used mental health services should be a central aspect of further research that aims to understand and address these barriers. This study has shaped the development of a national service user research consortium in Scotland.

As COVID-19 cases rose in the US, so too did instances of discrimination against Asians. The current research seeks to understand and document discrimination toward Asians in the US specifically linked to the global pandemic (study 1). The authors test hypotheses based in social categorization and intergroup contact theories, demonstrating perceived pandemic blame is a mechanism for discrimination (study 2).

In study 1, the authors survey Asians living in the US regarding experiences and perceptions of COVID-19-related discrimination. In study 2, a two-time point survey examined whether participant perceptions of pandemic blame toward China predict discriminatory behavior toward Asians.

Study 1 demonstrated that 22.5% of US-residing Asians report personally encountering pandemic-related discrimination. Study 2 indicated that COVID-19 blame attributions toward China predicted anticipated hiring bias and increased physical distancing of Asians at work, associated with higher levels of US identification.

The findings have theoretical implications for research on blame and stigmatization, as well as practical implications regarding bias mitigation.

The present studies advance understanding of event-based blame as a driver of prejudice and discrimination at work and suggest organizations attend to bias mitigation in conjunction with uncertainty reduction communications in challenging times.

This research explores the extent to which expectations of discrimination affect American undergraduate officers in gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered (GLBT) groups.

Using structured interviewing, I conducted both phone and face‐to‐face interviews without gay and lesbian student officers in GLBT student organizations on campuses all across the USA. I specifically wished to discover their expectations relating to discrimination and information about their job seeking behaviors through analysis of the participants’ detailed oral descriptions of their viewpoints and experiences.

Overall, the data reveal that when students search for professional positions they often expect discrimination, but many will not let that fear force them back into the closet. It is interesting to note that while some students fear discrimination and hide their sexual orientation and leadership activities in GLBT groups on their résumés, many state that they will be out at work and risk discrimination in the long run because being true to themselves is worth the risk.

The main limitation of this study relates to data collection and the resultant small sample. Additionally, this study is limited to the exploration of the conditions in the US labor market and perception of American students.

The findings of this study help us to understand the choices facing gay and lesbian students as they make hard decisions about how much to reveal about themselves in their search for employment.

For gay and lesbian job candidates there can be severe penalties for disclosing their orientation; therefore, decisions whether and how to identify one's self on a résumé and during interviews are extremely important.

The purpose of this paper is to test hypotheses regarding the importance of employee preferences in explaining sticky floors, the pattern that women are, compared to men, less likely to start to climb the job ladder.

The authors use original data obtained using a survey and a vignette study in which participants had to score the likeliness with which they would accept job offers with different promotion characteristics.

The main findings are that young female professionals have a less pronounced preference for more demanding and less routinary jobs and that this effect is mediated by the greater risk aversion and anticipated gender discrimination among women. No gender differences were found in the relative likeliness to apply for jobs that involve a promotion in terms of job authority.

The vignette method assumes that artificial settings with low stakes do not bias results. Another limitation follows from the focus on inter-organizational promotions among young professionals, which raises the question to what extent the results can be generalized to broader settings.

This paper contributes to the literature on gender differences in careers by measuring the impact of employee preferences on gender differences in career decisions.

Discrimination and bullying contribute to mental ill-health in the workplace. At face value, they would seem linked but are often dealt with by different legislations. Workplace studies generally focus on bullying and population studies on discrimination. The authors aimed to evaluate the prevalence and relationship of discrimination and bullying in a male-dominated workforce, associated factors and relative impact on mental ill-health.

An online cohort survey was conducted amongst employees of an Australian mining company, measuring discrimination, bullying, demographics and workplace and health factors over two months. Cross-sectional and prospective analyses assessed the prevalence of each, their association and their effects on depression and anxiety.

A total of 580 employees (82% male) participated. There was no association between workplace bullying (n = 56, 9.7%) and discrimination (n = 160, 27.6%). Discrimination, but not bullying, was associated with higher depression, anxiety and suicidal ideation and lower well-being and resilience. After controlling for demographic, workplace and health and well-being factors, depression had the main effect on discrimination ß = 0.39, p = 0.003. Discrimination predicted an increase in depression scores at follow-up F (1, 129) = 4.88, p = 0.029.

In this male-dominated industry, discrimination was more prevalent than bullying. Discrimination, but not bullying, was associated with poorer mental health both cross sectionally and prospectively. Supporting the need to assess and manage discrimination and bullying in the workplace independently and the need for interventions to reduce a broader range of adverse interpersonal behaviours.

This paper aims to determine whether criminal justice (CJ) stigma affects health outcomes and health care utilization.

The authors reviewed medical and public health literature through May 2020. Structured terms were used to search four databases identifying articles that related to CJ stigma. Included articles were in English, examined CJ stigma and had people with CJ involvement as subjects. The studies without health outcomes were excluded. Quantitative and qualitative studies were reviewed and assessed for bias. Results were synthesized into a systematic review.

The search yielded 25 studies relating to CJ stigma and health. Three stigma domains were described in the literature: perceived or enacted, internalized and anticipated stigma. Tenuous evidence linked CJ stigma to health directly (psychological symptoms) and indirectly (social isolation, health care utilization, high-risk behaviors and housing or employment). Multiple stigmatized identities may interact to affect health and health care utilization.

Few studies examined CJ stigma and health. Articles used various measures of CJ stigma, but psychometric properties for instruments were not presented. Prospective studies with standard validated measures are needed.

Understanding whether and how CJ stigma affects health and health care utilization will be critical for developing health-promoting interventions for people with CJ involvement. Practical interventions could target stigma-related psychological distress or reduce health care providers’ stigmatizing behaviors.

This was the first systematic review of CJ stigma and health. By providing a summary of the current evidence and identifying consistent findings and gaps in the literature, this review provides direction for future research and highlights implications for policy and practice.

In this article we consider the question of discrimination against black workers and female workers. We do not discuss the issue of discrimination as it applies within the ranks of white males. Analysis of the relationship between earnings and schooling would suggest that discrimination against this latter group mainly takes the form of unequal opportunity in the acquisition of schooling—that is, it occurs prior to labour market entry rather than within the market. Our focus upon blacks and female workers may be justified on the grounds that discrimination against such groups is said to be considerably more widespread. Our analysis is also restricted, for reasons of space, to a consideration of differences in earnings and occupations, omitting questions of unemployment.