Strauss et al. / DIVERSITY THE JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE March 2003 10.

1177/0021886303252594ATTITUDES ARTICLE

The Threat Hypothesis, Personality, and Attitudes Toward Diversity

Judy P. Strauss
California State University, Long Beach

Mary L. Connerley
Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University

Peter A. Ammermann
California State University, Long Beach

Multiple regression procedures were used to evaluate the contribution to attitudes toward diversity of three personality-related variables (authoritarianism, tolerance for ambiguity, and self-esteem) for which theory suggests that diversity may be seen as a threat (the threat hypothesis) and two dimensions of the five-factor model (FFM) (openness to experience and agreeableness). Participants included 238 undergraduate business students, of whom 47% were female and 36% non-white. For confirmatory purposes, a full path analysis model including attitudes toward diversity, the three threat variables, and all five of the FFM variables was fit to the data. The results of the hierarchical regressions suggest two of the threat traits (authoritarianism and tolerance for ambiguity), as well as the FFM trait of agreeableness, relate to attitudes toward diversity, whereas self-esteem and openness to experience do not. In general, the results of path analyses support the regression results, although significance levels tend to be lower for the path model than for the regression model. This study highlights the importance of agreeableness for jobs where attitudes toward others impact performance. Keywords: personality; attitudes toward diversity; contextual performance

As the U.S. population, workforce, and marketplace have become increasingly

diverse (Grieco & Cassidy, 2001), there has been a growing recognition of the imporTHE JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE, Vol. 39 No. 1, March 2003 32-52 DOI: 10.1177/0021886303252594 2003 NTL Institute

32

Strauss et al. / DIVERSITY ATTITUDES

33

tance of valuing and managing diversity. Rapid globalization also has increased the need to appreciate and value diversity to work more effectively with people from diverse cultures. At the firm level, human resource functions can provide firms with a distinct competitive advantage. Wright, Ferris, Hiller, and Kroll (1995) argue that this competitive advantage can be sustained through the satisfactory management of diversity. In general, the primary focus of research on diversity has been on the outcomes of having a diverse workforce (e.g., organizational effectiveness; see Milliken & Martins, 1996, and Williams & OReilly, 1998, for reviews). However, there has been limited research investigating the characteristics necessary for interacting effectively in a diverse environment and/or how to increase organizational effectiveness in the context of a diverse workforce. For a successful organization, it is important either to select people who are both accepting of differences and better able to adapt to a variety of situations and/or to train people to develop the skills necessary for interacting effectively in a diverse setting. In addition to the recognition of the importance of valuing diversity, there has been a growing interest in personality and personality-related concepts in the workplace (e.g., Judge & Bono, 2001). The decade of the 1990s saw a major increase in the number of studies investigating how personality relates to a variety of workplace outcomes (e.g., Mount & Barrick, 1998) and the use of personality as a selection tool in diverse settings cross-culturally (e.g., Robertson & Kinder, 1993) and for expatriate selection purposes (e.g., Ones & Viswesvaran, 1999). These two trends (increased interest in personality and increased recognition of the importance of valuing and managing diversity) are interlinked with structural changes in the workplace (e.g., increased teamwork) and with changes in the work environment (e.g., globalization). Moreover, Chen and Hooijberg (2000) argue that diversity research should include personality variables. Thus, given the importance of personality-related variables and the need to appreciate and value diversity or differences in general, the primary purpose of this study is to examine how personality traits relate to attitudes toward diversity. Specifically, we assess the relationships between attitudes toward diversity and three personalityrelated concepts for which theory suggests differences may be seen as a threat. Furthermore, we investigate the incremental explanatory power provided by two dimensions of the five-factor model (FFM), a taxonomy of personality traits that has been found to relate to work outcomes across a variety of settings (e.g., Barrick & Mount, 1991). We also examine the robustness of our results through the use of a variety of model specifications, including both hierarchical regression models and a path model that includes questions from all five dimensions of the FFM.

The authors would like to thank Newt Margulies and an anonymous reviewer for thoughtful comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript and Emre Nacar for his assistance. Judy P. Strauss is an assistant professor at California State University, Long Beach. Mary L. Connerley is an associate professor at Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University. Peter A. Ammermann is an assistant professor at California State University, Long Beach.

34

THE JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE

March 2003

Diversity Research

As mentioned earlier, most empirical research on diversity in the workplace focuses on the outcomes or effects of having a more diverse workforce, where diversity is defined primarily in terms of race and gender (e.g., Milliken & Martins, 1996; Williams & OReilly, 1998). This body of research is motivated by the assumption that diversity adds value (i.e., the Value in Diversity [VID] effect; Cox, 1994). Although there is research supporting this contention (e.g., see Watson, Johnson, & Zgourides, 2002), there is no consensus regarding the VID effect (see Williams & OReilly, 1998). Chatman and Flynn (2001) attempt to address the mixed evidence by examining how and when demographic differences lead to positive or negative outcomes. They find that greater demographic heterogeneity results in lower cooperation, although this effect fades over time. According to Borman and Motowidlo (1993), cooperation with others is an important component of contextual activities, one of two dimensions into which organizational performance is categorized; the other dimension is task activities (e.g., Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Motowidlo, Borman, & Schmit, 1997). Motowidlo et al. (1997) predict a stronger link between personality and contextual performance than between personality and task performance, expecting personality characteristics to influence the habits, skills, and knowledge required in a social context (e.g., interpersonal skills). It is reasonable to expect that positive attitudes toward out-group members also would be connected to cooperative behavior. Thus, exploring the relationships between personality and diversity attitudes could enable us to better understand what might predict contextual performance. Some researchers argue that any potential downside to having a diverse group can be managed via programs such as diversity training and affirmative action to enhance the benefits and reduce the possible costs (e.g., Brief et al., 1997; Cox & Blake, 1991). It should be recognized that managing diversity has both positive and negative potential outcomes. For example, diversity training often is cited as creating more problems than it solves (e.g., backlash; see Hemphill & Haines, 1997). Similarly, there is opposition (primarily among whites) to policies perceived to support preferential treatment (e.g., Kravitz et al., 1997). Several researchers have focused on how to manage diversity in the workplace. Thomas and Ely (1996) list eight precursors necessary to successfully manage diversity, including leaders who understand and value diversity and a culture that values workers. To successfully manage a diverse workforce, then, requires that management recognizes and appreciates differences. Selecting people who have traits related to appreciation of diverse others may be a first step in creating a culture accepting of diversity. Moreover, although we expect personality traits to be immutable or enduring (see Funder, 1991), we also believe that behaviors associated with certain personality traits can be modeled for those who have less of those particular traits. The effect of role modeling as an effective training method has long been supported (e.g., Russ-Eft & Zenger, 1995; Simon & Werner, 1996). Additionally, evidence suggests that there is a trickle-down effect of explicit statements regarding racial attitudes (e.g., Brief et al., 1997). Whether using selection or training, positive attitudes toward out-group mem-

Strauss et al. / DIVERSITY ATTITUDES

35

bers should be connected to cooperative behavior and, subsequently, to contextual performance. Cox (1994) defines cultural diversity as the representation, in one social system, of people with distinctly different group affiliations of cultural significance (p. 6). A number of researchers have viewed diversity as made up of two dimensions, such as primary (e.g., age, gender) and secondary (e.g., educational background; Loden & Rosener, 1991) or surface-level (e.g., race, gender) and deep-level (e.g., personality) characteristics (Harrison, Price, & Bell, 1998). In this study, attitudes toward diversity are assessed with regard to two primary or surface level types of diversitygender and racethat are expected to be important markers of diversity because they are salient, visible characteristics (Williams & OReilly, 1998).
The Threat Hypothesis and Personality

Either of two theories, self-categorization theory and similarity-attraction theory, can be used to explain how differences may lead to negative outcomes. Self-categorization theory (Jackson et al., 1991; Tsui, Egan, & OReilly, 1992) argues that our self-concept is based on the social categories to which we view ourselves as belonging (e.g., age, gender, race, personality) and that we desire to have a positive self-identity. The need for a positive self-identity causes us to have a preference for and, by extension, evaluate more positively those similar to us in the social category on which we base our identity. Byrnes (1971) similarity-attraction theory, on the other hand, uses a reinforcement framework to explain why similarity affects peoples evaluations of others. Reinforcing stimuli (e.g., similarity in race) lead to an affective response (e.g., interpersonal attraction) that, in turn, leads to an evaluative response (e.g., rating of performance). In support of these related theories, Strauss, Barrick, and Connerley (2001) found that supervisors who perceive subordinates personalities to be similar to their own tend to like those subordinates more and rate their performance more highly than they do subordinates whose personalities are seen as dissimilar. Whereas similarity is seen as rewarding or supportive of a positive self-identity, dissimilarity (diversity) may be seen as a threat to individuals self-identities. As noted in Jackson et al. (1991),
The entry of a new member into a new team and the ensuing process of socialization may be perceived as potentially threatening for particular identities and/or as opportunities for identity enhancement . . . whether this time of transition will be perceived as a threat to ones identities is likely to be partially determined by demographic similarity. (p. 78)

Lalonde, Doan, and Patterson (2000) measured attitudes toward political correctness (PC), finding that individuals attitudes were related to their ideologies and that attitudes that did not support individuals ideologies may indeed be seen as potential threats to identity. For example, gays and lesbians in the study were more likely to concur with the stereotype that anti-PC advocates are intolerant right-wingers. Although a threat to ones self-identity may be partially due to dissimilarity in general, research and theory suggest that people who either are highly authoritarian, low in

36

THE JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE

March 2003

tolerance for ambiguity, or low in self-esteem may be more threatened by difference than are other people (e.g., Cox, 1994; Locke, McClear, & Knight, 1996). Turning first to authoritarianism (see Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950; Altemeyer, 1998), theory postulates that those high in authoritarianism are more likely to have a general hostility/prejudice toward members of out-groups, partly due to a perception that out-group members threaten their traditional values, which include support for the traditional power structures in society. The authoritarian personality has been characterized as conventional, submissive to authority, aggressive toward outsiders, and intolerant (e.g., Altemeyer, 1981; Butler, 2000). Research on the authoritarian personality provides significant empirical evidence on its relationship with diversity-related attitudes. Authoritarianism has been found to relate to attitudes toward lesbians and gay men (e.g., Whitley & gisdotter, 2000), racial prejudice (e.g., Duck & Hunsberger, 1999), attitudes toward political correctness (e.g., Lalonde et al., 2000), and attitudes toward members of out-groups (e.g., Liebkind, Haarmano, & Jasinskaja-Lahti, 2000). Thus, based on theory (e.g., the threat hypothesis) and empirical evidence, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 1: Those high in authoritarian personality will have more negative attitudes toward diversity.

The second personality-related variable that is expected to relate to attitudes toward diversity due to perceived differences being seen as a threat is tolerance for ambiguity. As Cox (1994) notes, A person who is intolerant of ambiguity perceives ambiguous situations as threatening, whereas a person who is tolerant of ambiguity does not experience ambiguous situations as threatening and may even view them as desirable (p. 65; see also Budner, 1962). Coxs Proposition 5.2 argues that authoritarianism and tolerance for ambiguity should relate to acceptance of diversity (see p. 87). Budner (1962) notes that although there are positive associations between the two variables, they are two complex, overlapping constructs rather than different manifestations of the same one (p. 41), whereas Durrheim (1998) found that the relationship between these two constructs is variable. Yurtsever (2000) found that intolerance for ambiguity related negatively to ethical relativism and positively to idealism. Similarly, Fibert and Ressler (1998) found that intolerance for ambiguity can explain variation in political orientation. Specifically they found that politically Left groups are more tolerant of ambiguity and that there is a relationship between right-wing attitudes (similar to authoritarianism) and intolerance for ambiguity. Chen and Hooijberg (2000) found a negative relationship between ambiguity intolerance and support for diversity programs. Although the current research investigates attitudes toward diversity in race and gender specifically, many diversity programs (e.g., mentoring programs for women/minorities) address race and gender in a formalized, institutionalized manner. By extension, and given the fact that both those high in authoritarian personality and high in intolerance for ambiguity are more likely to perceive something that is different or ambiguous as threatening, one would expect tolerance for ambiguity to relate significantly and positively to attitudes toward diversity. This leads to our second hypothesis:

Strauss et al. / DIVERSITY ATTITUDES

37

Hypothesis 2: Those high in tolerance for ambiguity will have more positive attitudes toward diversity.

The third personality-related variable expected to relate to attitudes toward diversity due to perceived differences being seen as a threat is self-esteem. This variable is considered by Judge, Locke, and Durham (1997) to be the most fundamental selfconcept trait, because it represents the overall value that one places on oneself as a person. Additionally, self-esteem has been found to be the fundamental dimension underlying what Judge and his colleagues (e.g., Judge & Bono, 2001; Judge, Bono, Erez, Locke, & Thoresen, 2002) refer to as core-self evaluations (considered to be a higher order construct; see Judge & Bono, 2001). In general, self-esteem has been investigated as an important work-place variable. Research suggests that high self-esteem is related to tolerance in general (e.g., see McClosky & Brill, 1983; Sniderman, 1975). Locke et al. (1996) suggested that those low in self-esteem are more vulnerable than those high in self-esteem and feel threatened by a wider variety of events. Sotelo (2000) found that adolescents low in selfesteem are less likely to be tolerant toward homosexuals and suggested this is because those low in self-esteem are more likely to view others as being threatening. Stephan, Ageyev, Coates-Shrider, Stephan, and Abalakina (1994) found self-esteem to be somewhat related to attitudes toward people from other countries. A study by Phinney and Chavira (1992) found that those members of minority groups who are high in selfesteem are more likely to favor integration acculturation (strong involvement with both their own and the dominant societys culture), whereas those low in self-esteem are more likely to favor assimilation acculturation (identifying with the dominant rather than their own ethnic culture) (see Berry, Kim, Power, Young, & Bujaki, 1989, for a description of the acculturation model). This suggests that for certain ethnic groups, high self-esteem might relate to more positive attitudes toward diversity. This leads to our third hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3: Those high in self-esteem will have more positive attitudes toward diversity.

The Five-Factor Model (FFM)

A second purpose of this study is to assess whether dimensions of the FFM of personality provide additional explanatory power, over and above that of the three threat variables, in describing the variation in attitudes toward diversity. The FFM is a popular taxonomy of personality traits found in longitudinal studies, across sources (e.g., self-ratings, ratings by spouses), and in different age, sex, race, and language groups (e.g., Digman, 1990; Hogan, 1991); and studies in a variety of countries have found that personality, as described by the FFM, is a valid predictor of job success (see Barrick & Mount, 1991; Dalton & Wilson, 2000). Moreover, Hogan, Hogan, and Roberts (1996) note that the use of well-constructed measures of normal personality in preemployment screening will be a force for equal employment opportunity, social justice, and increased productivity (p. 475). Included in the FFM taxonomy are conscientiousness (e.g., responsible, organized, hardworking), extraversion (e.g., assertive, talkative), openness to experience (e.g., imaginative, curious, broad-minded, tol-

38

THE JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE

March 2003

erant), emotional stability (e.g., anxious, insecure), and agreeableness (e.g., courteous, flexible, tolerant). Of these five dimensions, there are two traits, openness to experience and agreeableness, that would, by definition, be expected to be closely related to attitudes toward diversity. Turning first to openness to experience, there is empirical evidence to suggest that this dimension is related to all three of the threat variables expected to relate to attitudes toward diversity. Several researchers have found evidence of a significant, negative relationship between openness to experience and the authoritarian personality (e.g., Butler, 2000; Hodson & Sorrentino, 1999; Peterson, Smirles, & Wentworth, 1997). Additionally, Riemann, Grubich, Hempel, Mergel, and Richter (1993) found evidence for a strong relationship between openness and general conservatism (a concept related to the authoritarian personality). Judge, Thoresen, Pucik, and Welbourne (1999) found that openness to experience correlated significantly with tolerance for ambiguity and self-esteem (e.g., those more tolerant of ambiguity were more open to experience). Furthermore, Farmer, Jarvis, Berent, and Corbett (2001) found a significant, positive relationship between self-esteem and openness (r = .24). In support of a relationship between openness and attitudes toward diversity, a recent study by Caligiuri (2000) found that openness to people (a related construct) interacted with contact (i.e., interacting with diverse others) in predicting cross-cultural adjustment. Butler (2000) found a relationship between openness to experience and two attitudinal measuresattitudes toward homosexuals and ethnocentrism. Based on the above evidence, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 4: Those high in openness to experience will have more positive attitudes toward diversity, above and beyond the effects of the three threat variables.

According to Graziano and Eisenberg (1997), agreeableness is the dimension most closely related with interpersonal relationships. They argue that agreeable people may be more motivated to maintain positive relations with others. Moreover, research has shown that those scoring high on the agreeableness scale tend to experience more distress when encountering interpersonal conflicts than do less agreeable individuals (Suls, Martin, & David, 1998). This suggests that those high on agreeableness are more likely to have positive attitudes toward diversity to lower the amount of conflict they may encounter. Indeed, a recent study by Mount, Barrick, and Stewart (1998) found that agreeableness is a particularly important predictor in jobs involving cooperative and interdependent work (p. 161), which suggests that agreeableness is a predictor of contextual performance. Agreeableness also has been found to relate positively to self-esteem (Farmer et al., 2001). The relationship between agreeableness and authoritarianism, on the other hand, is less clear. Hodson and Sorrentino (1999) found no relationship, whereas Riemann et al. (1993) found that high scorers on agreeableness tend to be less conservative. Moreover, they also found that agreeable people tend to favor social welfare and be against potentially harmful technologies and harmful social changes, providing further support for a relationship between agreeableness and attitudes toward diversity. As noted above, agreeable people are, by definition, seen as

Strauss et al. / DIVERSITY ATTITUDES

39

more flexible and tolerant, so one would expect those who are more likeable/agreeable to get along with a wider variety of people. This leads to our fifth hypothesis:
Hypothesis 5: Those high in agreeableness will have more positive attitudes toward diversity, above and beyond the effects of the three threat variables alone.

Although we do not form any specific hypotheses regarding conscientiousness, extraversion, and emotional stability (due to lack of empirical and theoretical evidence), we nonetheless include these variables in the regression model. We also are interested in evaluating the convergent and divergent validity of all measurement variables included in the study and testing the fit of the hypothesized model, which we do through the use of a path analysis model. There is a strong body of literature that supports the convergent and divergent validity of the FFM (e.g., McCrae & Costa, 1987). However, limited empirical evidence is available to assess the convergence and divergence of the three threat variables with the FFM (see Farmer et al., 2001; Hodson & Sorrentino, 1999; Judge, Locke, Durham, & Kluger, 1998). Thus, this study evaluates how the three threat traits relate to attitudes toward diversity in the presence of the FFM dimensions (e.g., is there an underlying latent variable that captures several of these dimensions?).

METHOD The participants in our study were 238 undergraduate business students, including 133 students from an institution in the eastern part of the United States and 105 from an institution in the southwestern part of the United States. The sample was 47% female and 36% non-white. Eighty-one percent of the participants were between the ages of 18 and 24. The extent of full-time work experience among the students was as follows: 44%, less than 6 months; 15%, 6 months to 1 year; 19%, 1 to 2 years; 11%, 3 to 5 years; and 11%, more than 5 years. Participants completed a survey, for which anonymity was assured, as part of a voluntary extra credit exercise for their respective business courses. The survey included a demographic form together with scales measuring all of the variables of interest, including Goldbergs (1999) Five-Factor Model; Rosenbergs (1965) Self-Esteem Scale; Budners (1962) Intolerance for Ambiguity survey; Altemeyers (1981) RightWing Authoritarianism Scale; and Montei, Adams, and Eggerss (1996) Attitudes Toward Diversity Scale. A brief description of these five scales follows. FFM. The FFM variables were measured with 10 items each from the International Personality Item Pool (Goldberg, 1999). The ratings were on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from very inaccurate to very accurate. Higher scores indicate higher levels of the personality variables. Coefficient alphas for the two variables hypothesized to relate to attitudes toward diversity in this study were agreeableness, .85; and openness to experience, .79. Coefficient alphas for the remaining FFM dimensions were extraversion, .88; conscientiousness, .81; and emotional stability, .41.

40

THE JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE

March 2003

Self-esteem. Self-esteem was measured using Rosenbergs (1965) 10-item global Self-Esteem Scale, which includes items such as I feel I am a person of worth, at least equal in worth to others. The ratings were on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Scores on the self-esteem measure were obtained by averaging the ratings across the 10 items. Higher scores indicate higher levels of self-esteem. Coefficient alpha was .88. Tolerance for ambiguity. Tolerance for ambiguity was measured using Budners (1962) 16-item scale including items such as An expert who doesnt come up with a definite answer probably doesnt know too much. The ratings were on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Scores were obtained by averaging the ratings across the 16 items. Higher scores indicate higher levels of tolerance for ambiguity. Coefficient alpha in the present study was .52. Authoritarianism. Authoritarianism was measured using Altemeyers (1981) 24item Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale, which includes items such as Laws have to be strictly enforced if we are going to preserve our way of life. The ratings were on a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from disagree strongly to agree strongly. Scores on the authoritarianism measure were obtained by averaging the ratings across the 10 items. Higher scores indicate higher levels of authoritarianism. Coefficient alpha in this study was .79. Attitudes toward diversity. Attitudes toward diversity were measured using Montei et al.s (1996) Attitudes Toward Diversity Scale consisting of 30 items. Attitudes toward diversity with regard to coworkers, supervisors, and hiring and promotion decisions made up the scale. Examples of items include I find that minority workers seem to be less productive on average, and It does not bother me that some preferential hiring goes on because we need more of a mix in this organization. The ratings were on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Coefficient alpha for the scale was .88 in this study.

RESULTS Before proceeding on to formal examination of our hypotheses, we first briefly examine the demographic characteristics of our sample. One concern is the use of two subsamples in the analysis (the eastern and southwestern universities). t tests indicate that there are significant differences between the subsamples in terms of race (t = 5.772, p < .000), age (t = 5.142, p < .000), and gender (t = 3.052, p = .003). The southwestern university has more students of color (43% white vs. 79%), an older population (62.5% between the ages of 28 and 24 vs. 95.6%), and more women (58.3% vs. 38.5%) than the eastern university. Furthermore, the counties in which the universities are located are 89.1% white (not including Hispanic or Latino) in the case of the eastern university and only 31.1% white (not including Hispanic or Latino) for the south-

Strauss et al. / DIVERSITY ATTITUDES

41

western university (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). Given these differences, we tested for differences between the two subsamples in terms of the variables included in the analyses but found no significant differences for any of the predictor variables. Thus, we concluded that the two subsamples are in fact part of the same overall population despite their demographic differences. Nonetheless, there were significant differences in attitudes toward diversity (the criterion variable) between the two universities (t = 3.028, p < .003), so we retain region, race, gender, and age as control variables in all analyses to ensure that any differences in attitudes toward diversity that we find in our subsequent analysis are not simply being driven by differences in the demographics of the two subsamples. Table 1 reports the descriptive statistics including the means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations for all variables (including region, race, gender, age, and the three FFM variables not hypothesized to relate to attitudes toward diversity). Variables found to be significantly correlated with attitudes toward diversity are region (r = .19, p < .01), race (r = .19, p < .01), gender (r = .33, p < .001), authoritarianism (r = .25, p < .001), tolerance toward ambiguity (r = .25, p < .001), agreeableness (r = .40, p < .001), and, to a lesser extent, openness to experience (r = .17, p < .05). Table 2 includes the hierarchical regression of attitudes toward diversity regressed on the control variables in Step 1; the control variables and the three threat variables in Step 2; and the control variables, the three threat variables, and the five FFM dimensions in Step 3. Approximately 17% of the variation in attitudes toward diversity could be accounted for by the demographic variables. An additional 10% of the variation was accounted for by the three threat variables. Finally, adding the FFM variables increases the total proportion of the variance explained up to 38%. For Models 1 (the demographic variables), 2 (addition of three threat variables), and 3 (addition of the FFM variables), significance levels were less than .001, suggesting that each of these three models does provide significant explanatory power in describing attitudes toward diversity. Considering each of the hypotheses separately, the regression results strongly support Hypothesis 1 (for authoritarianism, s = .23 and .24, p < .001, in Models 2 and 3, respectively). Although its support is not as strong, Hypothesis 2 (tolerance for ambiguity will relate positively to attitudes toward diversity) also is supported ( = .19, p < .01 and = .14, p < .05 in Models 2 and 3, respectively). No support was found for Hypothesis 3 (for self-esteem, s = .08 and .05 in Models 2 and 3, respectively). Turning to the FFM variables, Hypothesis 4 was not supported (for openness, = .05). However, strong evidence was found in support of Hypothesis 5 (for agreeableness, = .39, p < .001). We also were interested in assessing the value of first adding the FFM variables to the model and then adding the threat variables. The change in R2 at Step 2 was .14, p < .001 and the change in R2 at Step 3 was .07, p < .001. Thus, the results in both cases suggest that the FFM variables (in particular, agreeableness) add more to the model than do the three threat variables (in particular, authoritarianism and tolerance for ambiguity).

42 TABLE 1

Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations

Variable 1. Regiona 2. Raceb 3. Genderc 4. Aged 5. Authoritarian 6. Ambiguity tolerance 7. Self-esteem 8. Openness 9. Agreeableness 10. Conscientiousness 11. Emotional stability 12. Extraversion 13. Attitudes toward diversity n 238 214 233 235 229 236 238 234 238 232 233 236 229 M 3.73 4.33 3.33 3.60 3.85 3.50 2.97 3.28 3.43 SD 0.57 0.59 0.53 0.60 0.68 0.65 0.46 0.79 0.53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

.37*** .20** .33*** .01 .05 .02 .02 .05 .04 .04 .00 .19**

.12 .16* .05 .02 .10 .15* .11 .02 .00 .15* .19**

.04 .02 .01 .05 .05 .27*** .16* .18** .10 .33***

.01 .14* .08 .10 .27*** .10 .05 .05 .05 .02 .34*** .02 .04 .23*** .13* .01 .25***

.12 .37*** .17** .04 .16* .12 .25***

.26*** .18** .30*** .40*** .30*** .08

.40*** .24*** .17* .37*** .17*

.23** .10 .43*** .40***

.09 .07 .07

.26*** .04 .10

a. 1 = heterogeneous, 2 = homogeneous. b. 1 = white, 2 = non-white. c. 1 = male, 2 = female. d. 1 = 18 to 24, 2 = 25 to 34, 3 = 35 to 45, 4 = 46 to 55, 5 = older than 55. *p < .05 (range of correlations = .131 to .167). **p < .01 (range of correlations = .170 to .226). ***p < .001 (range of correlations = .227 to .428).

Strauss et al. / DIVERSITY ATTITUDES TABLE 2

43

Results of Regressing Attitudes Toward Diversity on the Three Threat and Big-Five Personality Variables
Variable Step 1 (control) College Gender Age Race Step 2 College Gender Age Race Authoritarianism Ambiguity tolerance Self-esteem Step 3 College Gender Age Race Authoritarianism Ambiguity tolerance Self-esteem Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Emotional stability Openness to experience *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. Total R .172
2

Adjusted R .154

Change in R .172***

F Change 9.612***

Beta

.188* .293*** .083 .118 .269 .241 .097*** 8.064*** .164* .300*** .095 .117 .227*** .186** .080 .381 .339 .112*** 6.406*** .168* .175* .090 .144* .242*** .143* .049 .083 .390*** .030 .030 .052

Model and Variable Assessment and Extensions

To assess the divergent and convergent validity of the variables included in the model, we performed exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis on the survey responses. First, we conducted a factor analysis, using the principal components method with varimax rotation, on all 100 of the questions that purported to measure our potential independent or explanatory variables. We found that the different sets of questions do in fact load on separate factors, and each set of questions has at least one factor of its own (analysis available on request from the first author). This indicates that the different sets of questions used do tend to measure separate, valid traits. Next, we fit a path analysis model to the data. The model we fit was the structural equation equivalent of the regression model fit above. A summary of the results of the full path model is shown in Tables 3 and 4. Table 3 includes summary statistics for the path model together with the parameter estimates for the descriptive model, whereas Table 4 provides information about the relationship between the survey questions and

44

THE JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE TABLE 3

March 2003

Descriptive Equation Results for the Path Analysis Model of Attitudes Toward Diversity
Coefficient Full model summary statistics Fit function Goodness-of-fit index Independence model chi-square Path model chi-square Difference df p Value

85.0482 0.4539 21,475.00*** 16,244.21*** 5,230.79*** Coefficient

8,911 8,726 185 t Score

.0000 .0000 .0000 p Value

Demographic variables Region Gender Age Race Latent variables Five-factor model (FFM) variables Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness Emotional stability Extraversion Threat variables Authoritarianism Tolerance for ambiguity Self-esteem

.1694 .1321 .104 .1935

1.5435 1.2372 0.9933 1.7622

.1227 .2160 .3206 .0780

.234 .5036** .0679 .00894 .0183 .3574* .2384 .151

1.3263 3.1094 0.484 0.0763 0.1219 2.3185 1.6359 1.0393

.1847 .0019 .6284 .9392 .9030 .0204 .1019 .2987

NOTE: Boldface text indicates statistical significance. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

the latent variables onto which they are expected to load. As can be seen from these tables, the results for the path model are similar to, though somewhat weaker than, those of the hierarchical regression model discussed above. Of the demographic variables, only race comes close to having a statistically significant impact on attitudes toward diversity (p = .078). More importantly, of the five induced FFM variables, only agreeableness (Hypothesis 5) showed up as significant (p = .002), whereas of the induced threat variables, only authoritarianism (Hypothesis 1) was significant (p = .020). The path model found tolerance for ambiguity had only a marginal influence (p = .102). Thus, although Hypotheses 1 and 5 are supported (similar to the regression model), Hypothesis 2 is not supported. A possible reason for the relative weakness of tolerance for ambiguity is how the survey questions loaded on the induced factor. In the regression model, all survey questions are assumed to load equally and significantly on the respective factors. However, in the path model, which included separate measurement equations for each of the variables, only 8 of the 16 questions for tolerance for ambiguity loaded both signif-

Strauss et al. / DIVERSITY ATTITUDES TABLE 4

45

Measurement Equation Results for the Path Analysis Model of Attitudes Toward Diversity
Latent Variable Equation Five-factor model (FFM) variables Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness Emotional stability Extraversion Threat variables Authoritarianism Tolerance for ambiguity Self-esteem Dependent variable Attitudes toward diversity Number of Questions Number Significanta Number Significant b and Positive

10 10 10 10 10 24 16 10 30

10 10 10 10 10 19 9 10 26

10 10 10 8 10 19 8 10 26

a. Questions within a given category that load significantly (i.e., p < .05) on the induced factor for that category. b. Questions within a given category that load both significantly (i.e., p < .05) and positively on the induced factor for that category.

icantly and positively on the induced factor, which is consistent with the low alpha found in our study. Nonetheless, given its widespread use in other applications (e.g., Fibert & Ressler, 1998), we felt justified in including it in this study. Given the possibility of overlap between tolerance for ambiguity and agreeableness and openness to experience, which share partially overlapping definitions, an alternative possibility would have been to condense these three factors into one overarching variable. Doing this, however, significantly reduced the amount of information conveyed by the model. For example, the coefficient alpha for the combined variable is .77, which is greater than the alpha for tolerance by itself (.52) but is less than the alphas for both agreeableness (.85) and openness (.79). Also, including this condensed variable in the path model in place of the three original factors results in a factor that has the highest significance level (p = .001) of any of the factors, but it results in a model that explains a significantly reduced portion of the total model variance (the difference in chi-square statistics and degrees of freedom for the full model relative to the more parsimonious model is 358.46 and 17, respectively). Thus, for the path model, the current model structure (with three threat variables and five FFM variables) is the most appropriate model.

DISCUSSION This study considers the relationship between personality-related variables and attitudes toward diversity. The findings of the study support past research in some

46

THE JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE

March 2003

cases and in other cases are surprising in their lack of support. For the three threat variables, this study found mixed support. In support of past research (e.g., Liebkind et al., 2000), there was strong support for Hypothesis 1 (the more authoritarian a person is, the more likely he or she will have negative attitudes toward diversity). However, there was less support for a relationship between tolerance for ambiguity and attitudes toward diversity, although this result will be influenced by the reliability of the measure. Thus, Coxs (1994) Proposition 5.2 (tolerance for ambiguity and authoritarianism should relate to acceptance of diversity, see p. 87) was partially supported. We found no relationship between self-esteem and attitudes toward diversity. Previous research (e.g., McClosky & Brill, 1983; Sotelo, 2000) indicates that high selfesteem is related to tolerance in general. The theoretical rationale for assuming that self-esteem would be positively related to attitudes toward diversity is that low selfesteem individuals tend to be more vulnerable and may find difference to be more threatening than high self-esteem individuals (see Locke et al., 1996). However, this studys results suggest that for low self-esteem people, diversity may not be seen as a threat. Turning to the relationships between the FFM variables and attitudes toward diversity, this studys results were somewhat surprising. Contrary to past research (Butler, 2000; Riemann et al., 1993), openness was not found to be significantly related to attitudes toward diversity. By definition, openness to experience includes intelligence, perceptiveness, imagination, culturedness, creativity, inquisitiveness, and tolerance (see Goldberg, 1992). However, as noted in Sauciers (2000) recent empirical work, intellect and openness (two components of openness to experience) relate differentially to values. A close examination of the 10 items included in the measure used in this study suggests that the items tap the intellect component to a greater extent than the openness component (e.g., have a rich vocabulary, have a vivid imagination, am quick to understand things). This could explain why there was no relationship found in this study. Future research should include a measure of openness to experience that emphasizes the openness component. One of the most interesting findings of this study was the strong relationship between agreeableness and attitudes toward diversity. However, this is not surprising given that agreeableness refers to such traits as selflessness, tolerance, helpfulness, courtesy, cooperativeness (Digman, 1990) and that low levels of agreeableness have been found to be associated with antisocial or dysfunctional behaviors (Cortina, Doherty, Schmitt, Kaufman, & Smith, 1992). Additionally, this finding supports past research (e.g., Mount et al., 1998; Witt, Burke, Barrick, & Mount, 2002) that emphasized the importance of agreeableness in jobs where interdependence and cooperation are important (contextual performance). The related trends of increased diversity and changing work environments lead to a need for more people who are able to interact positively with diverse others in work settings.
Limitations and Future Research

This study is not without limitations. First, all measures are self-reported measures. Thus, common method variance could inflate the significance of the results. Future

Strauss et al. / DIVERSITY ATTITUDES

47

research should perhaps consider obtaining personality assessments from a variety of perspectives (e.g., 360-degree ratings; see Mount, Barrick, & Strauss, 1994). Particularly from a promotion perspective, organizations could assess what Hogan (1991) refers to as public personality (others perspectives of a persons personality) and how it relates to attitudes toward diversity. Furthermore, having others rate a persons ability to manage a diverse workforce or obtaining others perceptions of a managers attitudes might be more informative than self-reported measures that may be influenced by social desirability. Additionally, it is not possible to assess direction of causality, which is true of self-report data. Thus, inclusion of longitudinal studies and others ratings of personality could provide support for current findings. Another possible limitation of this study is the use of students as participants. However, research supports the enduring nature of personality traits (Funder, 1991), and attitudes have been shown to be far more difficult to change than behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Furthermore, 41% of the sample included had more than 1 year of fulltime work experience. Taken together, this suggests that the sample used was adequate for the purpose of the study. However, repeating the study with a sample of working people would enhance the findings. For future research, the inclusion of other personality-related concepts considered frequently in empirical research (e.g., positive and negative affectivity, core selfevaluations; see Griffin, 2001, and Judge et al., 1998) could provide more information about the relationships among and between personality traits/dispositions and diversity attitudes. As noted in the introduction, the measure of diversity attitudes included in this study focuses on gender and race. Inclusion of other measures of diversity attitudes (e.g., attitudes toward immigrants, people from other nations) and/or using this model in other countries would enhance the generalizability of this studys findings. Also, contextual measures (e.g., culture, contact) should be included as moderators of the relationships between personality and diversity attitudes. Finally, future research should assess whether improving attitudes toward diversity (through training and selection) has an affect on behavioral outcomes (e.g., fewer discrimination and harassment complaints).
Practical Implications

To compete in an increasingly diverse environment and maintain competitive advantage from a human resource perspective, organizations must employ people who can interact successfully with diverse others. As noted in the introduction, practitioners have increased the use of personality testing (primarily by assessing the big-five factors) in selection (e.g., Behling, 1998). One dimension, conscientiousness, has been found to predict performance across jobs (see Barrick & Mount, 1991). The salience of agreeableness in addition to conscientiousness for jobs where attitudes toward others may be critical to performance is a major contribution of this study and supports recent findings by Witt et al. (2002). Additionally, this study demonstrated that conscientiousness and authoritarianism (found to relate in past studiessee Hodson & Sorrentino, 1999) clearly are two separate constructs.

48

THE JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE

March 2003

A final point on selection is, as is true of many selection tools (e.g., general mental ability testing), relying on single predictors may lead to adverse impact (excluding certain groups at higher rates than others). However, prior research suggests that there are minimal differences between races and genders on the FFM dimensions (see Mount & Barrick, 1995). In this study, we found few personality differences based on demographics. Women were found to be more agreeable and conscientious than men but less emotionally stable. There was a correlation between openness and non-white such that non-whites appear to be slightly less open than whites. Older workers appear to be much less extraverted but slightly more tolerant of ambiguity than younger workers. In general, however, personality traits should be only one piece of information used to select on and should be justified based on the nature of the job itself (e.g., jobs where cooperation is importantcontextual performance). Further, as Hogan et al. (1996) note, use of a single personality trait in selection is inadequate because it does not provide enough information. Selection is not an organizations only alternative to influence employee attitudes and improve the management of diversity. Thomas and Ely (1996) argued that leadership and culture impact the management of diversity. Thus, role modeling and explicit statements made by managers at all levels of the organization should enhance diversity management. As noted in the introduction, the effectiveness of role modeling as a training method has long been supported (e.g., Russ-Eft & Zenger, 1995; Simon & Werner, 1996). Simon and Werner (1996) provide evidence that behavioral modeling is one of the most effective techniques for teaching interpersonal and computer skills. Russ-Eft and Zenger (1995) summarize 30 studies and conclude that behavior modeling is effective in changing specific managerial performance dimensions. Brief et al. (1997) found a trickle-down effect regarding racial attitudes. Those subjects who were given a business justification for discrimination were more likely to discriminate than those not given a justification. Similarly, Blanchard, Crandall, Brigham, and Vaughn (1994) found that subjects were more likely to express antiracist opinions if they heard someone condemning racism than if there were no explicit statement about racism. Thus, training managers to demonstrate those behaviors necessary for interacting in a diverse setting should improve the outcomes for increasingly diverse organizations. Of course, training should not be considered a panacea and must have top management support, long-term evaluation of training results, managerial rewards associated with increasing diversity, and a broad, inclusive definition of diversity (Rynes & Rosen, 1995). In sum, this study illustrates the importance of authoritarianism (a threat variable) and agreeableness (one of the FFM dimensions) as traits that are critical to successful negotiation in a diverse culture.

REFERENCES
Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper. Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg, Canada: University of Manitoba Press.

Strauss et al. / DIVERSITY ATTITUDES

49

Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other authoritarian personality. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 47-92. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A metaanalysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1-26. Behling, O. (1998). Employee selection: Will intelligence and conscientiousness do the job? Academy of Management Executive, 12(1), 77-86. Berry, J., Kim, U., Power, S., Young, M., & Bujaki, M. (1989). Acculturation attitudes in plural societies. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 38, 185-206. Blanchard, F. A., Crandall, C. S., Brigham, J. C., & Vaughn, L. A. (1994). Condemning and condoning racism: A social context approach to interracial settings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(6), 993-997. Borman, W. C., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1993). Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of contextual performance. In N. Schmitt & W. C. Borman (Eds.), Personnel selection in organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Brief, A. P., Buttram, R. T., Reizenstein, R. M., Pugh, S. D., Callahan, J. D., McCline, R. L., et al. (1997). Beyond good intentions: The next steps toward racial equality in the American workplace. Academy of Management Executive, 11(4), 59-72. Budner, S. (1962). Intolerance of ambiguity as a personality variable. Journal of Personality, 30, 29-50. Butler, J. C. (2000). Personality and emotional correlates of right-wing authoritarianism. Social Behavior and Personality, 28(1), 1-14. Byrne, D. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press. Caligiuri, P. M. (2000). Selecting expatriates for personality characteristics: A moderating effect of personality on the relationship between host national contact and cross-cultural adjustment. Management International Review, 40(1), 61-80. Chatman, J. A., & Flynn, F. J. (2001). The influence of demographic heterogeneity on the emergence and consequences of cooperative norms in work teams. Academy of Management Journal, 44, 956-974. Chen, C. C., & Hooijberg, R. (2000). Ambiguity intolerance and support for valuing-diversity interventions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(11), 2392-2408. Cortina, J. M., Doherty, M. L., Schmitt, N., Kaufman, G., & Smith, R. G. (1992). The big five personality factors in the IPI and MMPI: Predictors of police performance. Personnel Psychology, 45, 119-147. Cox, T. H., Jr. (1994). Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research and practice. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler. Cox, T. H., Jr., & Blake, S. (1991). Managing cultural diversity: Implications for organizational competitiveness. Academy of Management Executive, 5(3), 45-56. Dalton, M., & Wilson, M. (2000). The relationship of the five-factor model of personality to job performance for a group of Middle Eastern expatriate managers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 250-258. Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417-440. Duck, R. J., & Hunsberger, B. (1999). Religious orientation and prejudice: The role of religious proscription, right-wing authoritarianism, and social desirability. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 9(3), 157-179. Durrheim, K. (1998). The relationship between tolerance of ambiguity and attitudinal conservatism: A multidimensional analysis. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 731-753. Farmer, R. F., Jarvis, L. L., Berent, M. K., & Corbett, A. (2001). Contributions to global self-esteem: The role of importance attached to self-concepts associated with the five-factor model. Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 483-499. Fibert, Z., & Ressler, W. H. (1998). Intolerance of ambiguity and political orientation among Israeli university students. Journal of Social Psychology, 138(1), 33-40. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Funder, D. C. (1991). Global traits: A neo-Allportian approach to personality. Psychological Science, 2, 31-39. Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the big-five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26-42.

50

THE JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE

March 2003

Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public-domain, personality inventory measuring the lowerlevel facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 7-28). Tilburg, the Netherlands: Tilburg University Press. Available from http://ipip.ori.org/ipip/ Graziano, W. G., & Eisenberg, N. (1997). Agreeableness: A dimension of personality. In R. Hogan, J. A. Johnson, & S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 795-824). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Grieco, E. M., & Cassidy, R. C. (2001, March). Overview of race and Hispanic origin: Census 2000 brief (U.S. Census Bureau, C2KBR/01-1). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Census Bureau. Griffin, M. A. (2001). Dispositions and work reactions: A multilevel approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1142-1151. Harrison, D. A., Price, K. H., & Bell, M. P. (1998). Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 96107. Hemphill, H., & Haines, R. (1997). Discrimination, harassment, and the failure of diversity training. Westport, CT: Greenwood. Hodson, G., & Sorrentino, R. M. (1999). Uncertainty orientation and the big five personality structure. Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 253-261. Hogan, R. T. (1991). Personality and personality measurement. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 271-326). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychology Press. Hogan, R., Hogan, J., & Roberts, B. (1996). Personality measurement and employment decisions: Questions and answers. American Psychologist, 51(5), 469-477. Jackson, S. E., Brett, J. F., Sessa, V. I., Cooper, D. M., Julin, J. A., & Peyronnin, K. (1991). Some differences make a difference: Individual dissimilarity and group heterogeneity as correlates of recruitment, promotion, and turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(5), 675-689. Judge, T. A., & Bono, J. E. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations traits (self-esteem, generalized selfefficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability) with job satisfaction and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 80-92. Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Erez, A., Locke, E. A., & Thoresen, C. J. (2002). The scientific merit of valid measures of general concepts: Personality research and core self-evaluations. In J. M. Brett & F. Drasgow (Eds.), The psychology of work: Theoretically based empirical research (pp. 55-77). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., & Durham, C. C. (1997). The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: A core evaluation approach. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19, 151-188. Judge, T. A., Locke, E. A., Durham, C. C., & Kluger, A. N. (1998). Dispositional effects on job and life satisfaction: The role of core evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(1), 17-34. Judge, T. A., Thoresen, C. J., Pucik, V., & Welbourne, T. M. (1999). Managerial coping with organizational change: A dispositional perspective. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(1), 107-122. Kravitz, D. A., Harrison, D. A., Turner, M. E., Levine, E. L., Chaves, W., Brannick, et al. (1997). Affirmative action: A review of psychological and behavioral research. Bowling Green, OH: Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Lalonde, R. N., Doan, L., & Patterson, L. A. (2000). Political correctness beliefs, threatened identities, and social attitudes. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 3, 317-336. Liebkind, K., Haarmano, J., & Jasinskaja-Lahti, I. (2000). Effects of contact and personality on intergroup attitudes of difference professionals. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 10(3), 171181. Locke, E. A., McClear, K., & Knight, D. (1996). Self-esteem and work. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. II, chap. 1). Chichester, New York: John Wiley. Loden, M., & Rosener, J. B. (1991). Workforce America! Managing employee diversity as a vital resource. Chicago: Irwin.

Strauss et al. / DIVERSITY ATTITUDES

51

McClosky, H., & Brill, A. (1983). Dimensions of tolerance: What Americans believe about civil liberties. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 52, 81-90. Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L. (1996). Searching for common threads: Understanding the multiple effects of diversity in organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 21(2), 402-433. Montei, M. S., Adams, G. A., & Eggers, L. M. (1996). Validity of scores on the Attitudes Toward Diversity Scale (ATDS). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 293-303. Motowidlo, S. J., Borman, W. C., & Schmit, M. J. (1997). A theory of individual differences in task and contextual performance. Human Performance, 10, 71-83. Mount, M. K., & Barrick, M. R. (1995). The big five personality dimensions: Implications for research and practice in human resources management. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 13, 153-200. Mount, M. K., & Barrick, M. R. (1998). Five reasons why the big five article has been frequently cited. Personnel Psychology, 51, 849-857. Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Stewart, G. L. (1998). Five-factor model of personality and performance in jobs involving interpersonal interactions. Human Performance, 11(2/3), 145-165. Mount, M. K., Barrick, M. R., & Strauss, J. P. (1994). Validity of observer ratings of the big five personality factors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 272-280. Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1999). Relative importance of personality dimensions for expatriate selection: A policy capturing study. Human Performance, 12(3/4), 275-294. Peterson, B. E., Smirles, K. A., & Wentworth, P. A. (1997). Generativity and authoritarianism: Implications for personality, political involvement, and parenting. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(5), 1202-1216. Phinney, J. S., & Chavira, V. (1992). Acculturation attitudes and self-esteem among high school and college students. Youth & Society, 23, 229-313. Riemann, R., Grubich, C., Hempel, S., Mergel, S., & Richter, M. (1993). Personality and attitudes towards current political topics. Personality and Individual Differences, 15(3), 313-321. Robertson, I. T., & Kinder, A. (1993). Personality and job competencies: The criterion-related validity of some personality variables. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 66, 225-244. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Russ-Eft, D. F., & Zenger, J. H. (1995). Behavior modeling training in North America: A research summary. In M. Mulder, W. J. Nijhof, & R. O. Brinkerhoff (Eds.), Corporate training for effective performance. Evaluation in education and human services (pp. 89-109). Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic. Rynes, S. L., & Rosen, B. (1995). A field survey of factors affecting the adoption and perceived success of diversity training. Personnel Psychology, 48, 247-270. Saucier, G. (2000). Isms and the structure of social attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 366-385. Simon, S. J., & Werner, J. M. (1996). Computer training through behavior modeling, self-paced and instructional approaches: A field experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 648-659. Sniderman, P. M. (1975). Personality and democratic politics. Berkeley: University of California Press. Sotelo, M. J. (2000). Political tolerance among adolescents towards homosexuals in Spain. Journal of Homosexuality, 39(1), 95-105. Stephan, W. G., Ageyev, V., Coates-Shrider, L., Stephan, C. W., & Abalakina, M. (1994). On the relationship between stereotypes and prejudice: An international study. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 277-284. Strauss, J. P., Barrick, M. R., & Connerley, M. L. (2001). An investigation of personality similarity effects (relational and perceived) on peer and supervisor ratings and the role of familiarity and liking. Journal or Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 637-657. Suls, J., Martin, R., & David, J. P. (1998). Person-environment fit and its limits: Agreeableness, neuroticism, and emotional reactivity to interpersonal conflict. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 88-98. Thomas, D. A., & Ely, R. J. (1996, September-October). Making differences matter: A new paradigm for managing diversity. Harvard Business Review, 74(5), 79-90.

52

THE JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE

March 2003

Tsui, A. S., Egan, T. D., & OReilly, C. A., III. (1992). Being different: Relational demography and organizational attachment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 549-579. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Quickfacts. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. Available from http://www.census.gov Watson, W. E., Johnson, L., & Zgourides, G. D. (2002). The influence of ethnic diversity on leadership, group process, and performance: An examination of learning teams. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26, 1-16. Whitley, B. E., Jr., & gisdotter, S. (2000). The gender belief system, authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and heterosexualsattitudes toward lesbians and gay men. Sex Roles, 42(11/12), 947-967. Williams, K. Y., & OReilly, C. A., III. (1998). Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, 77-140. Witt, L. A., Burke, L. A., Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (2002). The interactive effects of conscientiousness and agreeableness on job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 164-169. Wright, P., Ferris, S. P., Hiller, J. S., & Kroll, M. (1995). Competitiveness through management of diversity: Effects on stock price valuation. Academy of Management Journal, 38(1), 272-287. Yurtsever, G. (2000). Ethical beliefs and tolerance of ambiguity. Social Behavior and Personality, 28, 141148.