Page 85 - Discrimination at Work The Psychological and Organizational Bases
P. 85

3. RELATIONAL DEMOGRAPHY
                  (cont.)
 Reward and Career Outcomes   TABLE 3.1            55
                  20 relationships
 Job security
 Compensation
 Advancement opportunities   4 (20%) statistically significant—support
 Mentor                   Relational Demography
 Recognition      9 (45%) not significant
 Career future    7 (35%) statistically significant—opposite
                          of Relational Demography
 Social Support Outcomes   7 relationships
 Social isolation
 Supervisor support   2 (29%) statistically significant—support
 Peer support             Relational Demography
 Participation/ involvement   5(71%) not significant
                  0 (0%)  statistically significant—opposite
                          of Relational Demography
 Total            245 relationships
                  78 (54%) statistically significant—support
                           Relational Demography
                  47 (32%) not significant
                  20 (14%) statistically significant—opposite
                          of Relational Demography
 Note: Support for relational demography theory indicates a negative association between
 dissimilarity and some favorable outcome.


 not examine similarity based on other demographic characteristics, such
 as age, race, gender, tenure, an/or education. In fact, we found no field
 studies to date that have done this.
 It is important for future research to examine these types of outcomes
 because increased discrimination and ingroup favoritism resulting from
 diversity and difference is a primary premise of relational demography the­
 ory. For example, Riordan's (2000) model of relational demography posi­
 tions stereotyping and bias as proximal outcomes of dissimilarity. Williams
 and O'Reilly (1998) similarly proposed that demographic diversity and
 dissimilarity, which are bases for social categorization, are likely to result
 in increased factionalism, ingroup/outgroup biases, and stereotyping. In
 their review of the diversity literature, Milliken and Martins (1996) as­
 serted that "Diversity in observable attributes has consistently been found
 to have negative effects on affective outcomes... suggesting the possibil­
 ity that deep-seated prejudices some people hold against people who are
   80   81   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90