In this article, we examine keystone ideas from the psychology of group behaviour in the light of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). The evaluation leads to: (1) criticism to elements of DEI’s approach to the problem of societal cohesion, productivity, and harmony, specifically arguing that certain elements of DEI may increase bias and societal divides, and (2) suggestions for how to better bridge the divide between various members of society.
Introduction
Making both society and the workplace comfortable, fair, and inclusive for our diverse population is a laudable goal, and is the subject of structured DEI initiatives in North America and elsewhere. Recently, concerns have arisen over how DEI is being implemented, and whether certain approaches to it are ineffective, or even counter-productive [Park, Lauren, and L. Grensing-Pophal].
Critics of DEI measures have claim that some enactments of it – particularly those that have emphasized identity politics and critical social justice (CSJ) – have suppressed discussion, denigrated and been hostile to certain groups and genders, and increased prejudicial attitudes amongst participants. A survey of studies on DEI training supports the claim that certain implementations of DEI training increase biases and prejudices [Haskell, David, Blaff, A.].
The desire to have a workplace – and world – in which people can live and work together fairly and with a minimum of unnecessary conflict is not in question. How to achieve these ends is. We bring to bear a perspective from behavioural and social psychology on this question, and argue that the problem of social harmony and its solution are rooted in how groups co-operate and compete.
Fundamental work on group conflict was undertaken in the 1940s and 1950s – particularly in the Robbers Cave experiment – and continues today. These experiments suggest that prejudice and conflict are not minimized through the creation and maintenance of separate identities, but through the emphasis of and participation in goals that no group can achieve alone [Kelly, S., and J.L. Collett]. It may not be through the focus on our differences that we work best together, but rather in exploring and experiencing how we can help each other.
What is DEI, and why is it important?
The fundamental goal of DEI is to create a workplace wherein a diverse group of people are part of the workforce, that they are treated fairly, and that they are heard and have opportunities to participate and contribute [McKinsey & Company]. The idea of having a world in which we all work together in harmony and are heard and valued seems attractive on its own merits. However, a study by BCG of 1,700 companies has shown a positive correlation between diversity measures in management and innovation and economic performance [Lorenzo, R., N. Voigt, M. Tsusaka, M. Krentz, and K. Abousahr]. The explanation for this is theorized as being twofold [Tsusaka, M., M. Reeves, S. Hurder, and J.D. Harnoss]:
- A more diverse workforce will be more durable
- A more diverse workforce will be more adaptable
This is a statistical finding, not a deterministic one, and will apply differently and to varying degrees in different organizations, along with all the other factors that make companies more likely to succeed.
Readers may ask how it is possible for both the BCG study supporting the value of diversity – and the recent survey study showing that diversity training can increase prejudicial attitudes and group discord – to be accurate. While each claim can and likely will be studied further, it is entirely possible for diversity to be productive and some implementations of DEI training to be unproductive. We will have more on that later.
Controversies in DEI
The general idea of DEI is not, by itself, terribly controversial. What is challenging is in how DEI is achieved and how it is prioritized with other principles such as merit, equality, and universalizability. As with most ideas, DEI is unlikely to be viewed or applied by all groups in the same way, and our discussion on the controversies surrounding DEI does not apply to all applications of the concept.
Any exploration of diversity must consider the breadth of different people within a society, and often classifies those people along some system, which could include ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, age, physical characteristics, or other identifiable factors. Such classification can have the consequence of focusing on differences between people and may lead to a feeling of being divided rather than included [Llopis, G].
The most controversial and potentially divisive endpoint to the treatment of identity classification in DEI is the inclusion of CSJ theories. CSJ promotes the idea that an injustice has been served to disadvantaged groups by an oppressive (usually) white group and their oppressive institutions [Hermes, K.]. In addressing such injustices, not all groups are treated equally, and the historically dominant group is in some cases treated with hostility. An example of this was documented in the well-publicized case of Canadian school principal Richard Bilkszto, who committed suicide following a recorded episode of abuse during mandatory DEI training [Haskell, David].
Concerns over merit and truth as it relates or competes with DEI continue today in many fields, including that of science and medical care, where DEI initiatives have been undertaken from a CSJ perspective [Hellowell, M., and P.N. Schwerdtle]. The conflation of CSJ with DEI has raised serious concerns that objective science will be subordinated to racial ideas. At its most extreme, CSJ proponents may suggest that mathematics and science are racist or the product of “colonizers” [Abbot et al.]. Dismissing objective truths as racist is neither a productive nor necessary part of DEI. Our health, wellbeing, and survival are dependent on these objective truths and science.
The core concern or criticism of the identity-focused approach of some methods of DEI is the creation of a competitive – or even tribal – “us versus them” attitude [Hermes, K.]. Consider this as we move into the next section on behavioural psychology.
Behavioural psychology and Robbers Cave
The study of group behaviour, and whether groups of people can work together harmoniously –or not – is certainly relevant to society and to work dynamics, and has been the subject of behavioural psychology research.
Muzafer Sherif undertook a set of famous early experiments in group behaviour and group conflict over the summers of 1949, 1953, and 1954 in a famous project now known collectively as the “Robbers Cave”, though this name refers to the camp in the 1954 experiment [Sherif, M]. While its finding are valuable, the Robbers Cave experiments are controversial and of dubious ethics because they involved a homogeneous group of young boys, aged 11 to 12 years, who were deceived about the nature of the psychological experiment in which they were involved. [Mcleod, S]. (They thought they were going to summer camp, and the experimental directors were posing as camp counsellors.)
Readers of the Robbers Cave studies may be forgiven for wondering if they had accidentally picked up a script to either a reality show or a horror movie. However, there was no serious injury, although there were incidents of name-calling, scuffles, and the seizing of flags. Setting aside serious ethical questions of the work, the experimental design was generally sound, with carefully selected participants, lifelike challenges, and care in recording the results. The study sizes were, however, small [Sherif, M].
The experiment involved dividing groups of boys into two camps. Following a period of group development purely within each separated camp (the in-group), the two camps were involved in competition with the other camp – considered reciprocally by each in-group to be the out-group. It was noted through observations, interviews, and rating systems – conducted and recorded by the camp counsellors – that attitudes toward the out-group changed under different experiences.
After a period of competition, animosity in the form of negative ratings, scuffles, and name-calling increased between the groups. The two camps were in conflict. The negative feelings and behaviours in this experiment of homogenous boys were directed toward the out-group in a way that was analogous to how negative stereotypes and biases may be applied in society across different genders, ethnic backgrounds, or sexual orientations.
In the Robbers Cave experiment, this animosity did not resolve itself in social gatherings after the period of conflict [Sherif, M, Kelly and Collet].
Superordinate goals and bringing together the bands at Robbers Cave
After social occasions failed to achieve harmony between the two groups, the study subjects were put to a series of tasks that could only be successfully achieved through co-operation. The objectives of such tasks were termed superordinate goals. An example of this involves both groups using a rope to pull a truck out of a ditch. The truck was needed to transport food for the boys, which was something they all wanted. After a series of these superordinate tasks, the negative attitudes and stereotypes held of each out-group began to reverse, and friendships across groups increased in frequency. This change is summarized in Figure 1. The data is averaged from Sherif.
Figure 1 – results from the Robbers Cave experiment in 1954 which show that friendships with out-group members increase, and animosity decreases after superordinate co-operation. Average results of the response of both groups, calculated from [Sherif, 1958].
The key claim of the Robbers Cave experiments is that to reduce bias, friction, and prejudice between groups, group identities must be minimized, and the use of superordinate goals must be maximized [Sherif, M].
Shared identities
The Robbers Cave experiment involved study sizes of two dozen individuals and was conducted on a homogenous group of boys. This, by itself is a severe limitation. However, other less dramatic experiments in behavioural psychology have followed which have added depth to the Robbers Cave findings. These studies suggest the following methods be used to decrease stereotyping and group conflict [Gaertner et al., and Kelly and Collet]:
- Intergroup contact can reduce stereotypes under some circumstances
- The use of and promotion of appropriately challenging superordinate goals
- The creation of shared identities between groups and people
While intergroup contact was not seen as helpful in Robbers Cave, numerous studies have shown it may decrease prejudice, likely through the sharing of stories that contradict previously held stereotypes [Kelly and Collet]. This is probably not a controversial point.
The idea of creating shared identities may raise eyebrows among some readers. The goal in creating shared identities is not to erase people’s culture but to create bonds across cultures through shared experiences [Kelly and Collet]. In this thinking, the boundaries between groups may weaken as the perceptions of out-group members move closer to the sense of self [Gaertner et al.]. Such an outcome is not inevitable but may occur from the positive shared experiences of succeeding at appropriately challenging superordinate activities.
Making sense of DEI approaches: some fail but others succeed
While it has been reported that DEI training can increase prejudice, stereotypes, and frictions between groups [Haskell, David, Blaff, A.], a deeper look into the source studies yields a more nuanced answer that does not contradict the arguments put forward from Robbers Cave regarding co-operation.
One of the key studies supporting the claim that DEI training is unproductive is from the University of Toronto, and the study does not show that all approaches to reducing stereotypes increases them [Legault et al.]. A series of experiments was performed in which approaches to reducing stereotypes were varied. Two approaches were taken, the first a controlling, suppressive, anti-racist motivation that promoted negative thoughts and shame toward racist thinking, and second, a more self-driven – or autonomous – approach in which diversity and equality were promoted positively.
Two versions of the experiment were carried out. One version applied the two DEI approaches through the application of brochures conforming to the DEI method. The other version applied the two DEI approaches more subtly through the use of questionnaires that conformed to the DEI method being evaluated.
The level of effect of each approach on prejudicial thinking in each experiment was carried out through standard measuring tests. The different approaches and their results are illustrated in Figure 2. The controlling, anti-racist approach was found to increase stereotypes and racism, while the more positive approach was found to decrease stereotypical and racist thinking. It is worth mentioning that the study shows that DEI training can be effective, and, most importantly, that it can be productive or unproductive, depending on how it is approached.
Figure 2 – a qualitative summary of the findings of the University of Toronto study on techniques to reduce stereotypes [Legault et al.].
The negative outcomes of the stereotype-suppression approach have been supported by other psychological studies, and have been given the term post-suppression rebound [Geeraert]. The reasons why the suppression of stereotypes is such a perilous approach to the problem could be manifold, including ego depletion and the triggering of defensive thinking [Geeraert, Shuman, E., E. Knowles, and A. Goldberg]. It could also be that individuals simply do not enjoy negative associations and shame. DEI implementations that follow CSJ thinking bring shame, judgement, and unequal treatment of groups that are likely to cause stronger levels of resistance.
An interpretation of these studies is not that stereotypes and group friction cannot be decreased – inter-group harmony can be increased – but that it cannot be done through shaming and the suppressing of thoughts. More positive, less directive approaches have been shown to be more effective. In the Robbers Cave experiment, the use of positive superordinate goals was effective. This approach did not require lecturing at all but – figuratively and literally – leading the group to pull together.
Conclusions – making a better world by working together
We will never make the workplace or the world a better place if our primary focus is anything but the productive co-operation between the peoples in it. Prejudice and bias are not reduced by applying thought suppression or incendiary pressures on the differences between people. These approaches are counterproductive and will tend to make the problem worse.
Behavioural psychology has long shown that bias and prejudice can be effectively and measurably reduced through co-operative effort and more positive approaches to diversity. Regardless of the colour of our skin, our physical normativeness, our gender or sexual preferences, we are all human beings and share more in common than any differences we may perceive. Moreover, we tend to appreciate each other, and our differences, better and accomplish more when we are pulling in the same direction rather than being pitted in opposition.
Efforts to help make a diverse workplace fairer and more comfortable would do well to prioritize collaboration, mutual support, and how we can each use our unique strengths to achieve core corporate or societal goals.
References
Abbot, D.; Bikfalvi, A.; Bleske-Rechek, A.; Bodmer, W.; Boghossian, P.; Carvalho, C.; Ciccolini, J.; Coyne, J.; Gauss, J.; Gill, P.; Jitomirskaya, S.; Jussim, L.; Krylov, A.; Loury, G.; Maroja, L.; McWhorter, J.; Moosavi, S.; Schwerdtle, P.N.; Pearl, J.; Quintanilla-Tornel, M.; III, H.S.; Schreiner, P.; Schwerdtfeger, P.; Shechtman, D.; Shifman, M.; Tanzman, J.; Trout, B.; Warshel, A.; West, J. In Defense of Merit in Science, Journal of Controversial Ideas, 2023, 3, 1
Blaff, A., Feb 13, 2024, DEI Initiatives “not supported by empirical evidence,” Canadian researcher says, National Post
Gaertner, S.L., M. Jeffrey, M. Audrey, J.F. Dovidio, 1989, Reducing intergroup bias: the benefits of recategorization, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(2), 239-249
Geeraert, N., 2013, When Suppressing One Stereotype Leads to Rebound of Another: On the Procedural Nature of Stereotype Rebound, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 9, 1173-1183
Haskell, D., February 12, 2024, What DEI research concludes about diversity training: it is divisive, counter-productive, and unnecessary, Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy
Hellowell, M., and P.N. Schwerdtle, 2021, Powerful Ideas? Decolonization and the future of global health, BMJ Global Health, 7(1)
Hermes, K., July 13, 2021, Critical social justice is on the rise, Philanthropy Daily
Kelly, S., and J.L. Collett, 2008, From C.P. Ellis to School Integration: The Social Psychology of Conflict Reduction, Sociology Compass, 2/5, 1638-1654, doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00154.x
Legault, L., J. Gustell, and M. Inzlicht, 2011, Ironic effects of antiprejucidice messages: how motivational interventions can reduce (but also increase prejudice), Psychological Science, 22, 12
Llopis, G., June 26, 2021, Is Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Bringing Us Together, Or Pushing Us Further Apart?, Forbes
Lorenzo, R., N. Voigt, M. Tsusaka, M. Krentz, and K. Abousahr, January 23, 2018, How Diverse Leadership Teams Boost Innovation, Boston Consulting Group
McKinsey & Company, August 17, 2022, What is diversity, equity, and inclusion?,
Mcleod, S., September 27, 2023, Robbers Cave Experiment | Realistic Conflict Theory, Simply Psychology
Park, L., and L. Grensing-Pophal, 2022, Why DEI Backlash Exists and What to Do About It, SAP
Sherif, M. 1956, Experiments in Group Conflict, Scientific American, 195 (5), 54-59
Shuman, E., E. Knowles, and A. Goldberg, March 01, 2023, To Overcome Resistance to DEI, Understand What’s Driving It, Harvard Business Review
Tsusaka, M., M. Reeves, S. Hurder, and J.D. Harnoss, July 2020, Diversity at Work, Boston Consulting Group
