| dc.description.abstract | Many companies signal support for diversity (e.g., via statements and training) yet show group-based disparities, with people of color or women underrated or underpaid relative to White or male coworkers. For White women, who may experience both race privilege and gender marginalization, what factors motivate action against bias, either as an ingroup advocate or an outgroup ally? In a 3 (company cues) x 2 (pay gap) design, 459 White American women with work experience viewed company mission statements and employee profiles containing weak, mixed, or strong inclusion cues. Next, a salary gap revealed either racial or gender disparities, creating an opportunity for allyship or ingroup advocacy. Although White women were more willing to act against the race (vs. gender) gap, this difference was smaller for women who more strongly identified as White. Also, higher conservatism predicted less willingness to challenge any pay gap, but the inclusive norms condition reduced this difference for certain actions (e.g., alerting other managers about the gap). Finally, inclusive (vs. control) norms lowered fear of backlash, resulting in stronger action intentions. | en |
