Many organizations offer justifications for why diversity matters, that is, organizational diversity cases. We investigated their content, prevalence, and consequences for underrepresented groups. We identified the business case, an instrumental rhetoric claiming that diversity is valuable for organizational performance, and the fairness case, a noninstrumental rhetoric justifying diversity as the right thing to do. Using an algorithmic classification, Study 1 (N = 410) found that the business case is far more prevalent than the fairness case among the Fortune 500. Extending theories of social identity threat, we next predicted that the business case (vs. fairness case, or control) undermines underrepresented groups' anticipated sense of belonging to, and thus interest in joining organizations-an effect driven by social identity threat. Study 2 (N = 151) found that LGBTQ+ professionals randomly assigned to read an organization's business (vs. fairness) case anticipated lower belonging, and in turn, less attraction to said organization. Study 3 (N = 371) conceptually replicated this experiment among female (but not male) Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) job seekers. Study 4 (N = 509) replicated these findings among STEM women, and documented the hypothesized process of social identity threat. Study 5 (N = 480) found that the business (vs. fairness and control) case similarly undermines African American students' belonging. Study 6 (N = 1,019) replicated Study 5 using a minimal manipulation, and tested these effects' generalizability to Whites. Together, these findings suggest that despite its seeming positivity, the most prevalent organizational diversity case functions as a cue of social identity threat that paradoxically undermines belonging across LGBTQ+ individuals, STEM women, and African Americans, thus hindering organizations' diversity goals. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

多样性的商业案例适得其反：组织工具性多样性言论对代表性不足的群体成员的归属感的不利影响。

许多组织为多样性为何重要提供了理由，即组织多样性案例。我们调查了它们的内容、流行程度和对代表性不足的群体的影响。我们确定了商业案例，一种声称多样性对组织绩效有价值的工具性言论，以及公平案例，一种非工具性言论，证明多样性是正确的做法。使用算法分类，研究 1 (N = 410) 发现商业案例比财富 500 强中的公平案例更为普遍。扩展社会身份威胁理论，我们接下来预测商业案例（与公平案例，或控制）破坏了代表性不足的群体的预期归属感，从而对加入组织的兴趣——一种由社会身份威胁驱动的影响。研究 2 (N = 151) 发现，被随机分配阅读一个组织的商业（相对于公平）案例的 LGBTQ+ 专业人士预期归属感较低，进而对该组织的吸引力较低。研究 3 (N = 371) 从概念上在女性（但不是男性）科学、技术、工程和数学 (STEM) 求职者中复制了这个实验。研究 4 (N = 509) 在 STEM 女性中重复了这些发现，并记录了社会身份威胁的假设过程。研究 5 (N = 480) 发现商业（相对于公平和控制）案例同样破坏了非裔美国学生的归属感。研究 6 (N = 1,019) 使用最少的操作复制了研究 5，并测试了这些效应对白人的普遍性。总之，这些发现表明，尽管表面上看起来很积极，最普遍的组织多元化案例作为社会身份威胁的线索，自相矛盾地破坏了 LGBTQ+ 个人、STEM 女性和非裔美国人的归属感，从而阻碍了组织的多元化目标。（PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2022 APA，保留所有权利）。