Low-threat framing and cognitive-consistency reduce workplace diversity policy opposition (WITHDRAWN)

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 (1) ◽  
pp. 16690
Author(s):  
Ryan Perry
2016 ◽  
Vol 56 (2) ◽  
pp. 536
Author(s):  
Suzanne Westgate

Organisations increasingly accept that a genuine commitment to workforce diversity and inclusion improves profitability, reputation and effectiveness. It is also widely accepted that natural CSG projects on the eastern seaboard face increasing challenges from community opposition groups and regulatory change. Embracing diversity and inclusion in the workplace, and developing CSG projects, both require authentic engagement. AGL Energy Limited’s (AGL) Inclusion and Diversity Policy recognises that a diverse workforce, with its broad range of experience and perspectives, has a better opportunity to understand and engage in AGL’s customer base and the communities in which it works. AGL’s policy also emphasises how a diverse workforce can facilitate more creative, innovative and effective solutions. This extended abstract considers how workplace diversity can positively contribute to the development of CSG projects, which must navigate organised community opposition as well as complex regulatory environments. CSG projects, which are typically located in regional areas, can also positively contribute to a more diverse workforce. Provided are examples of situations in which diversity of—and respect for—skills, experience, gender, age, and backgrounds have assisted in achieving successful access negotiations, and enabled authentic engagement with members of the communities in which AGL operates.


PsycCRITIQUES ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 51 (42) ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard D. Harvey ◽  
Alisha Francis
Keyword(s):  

1997 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonard Adelman ◽  
◽  
Matthew Christian ◽  
James Gualtieri ◽  
Karen Johnson

Author(s):  
Paula M. Brochu ◽  
Victoria M. Esses ◽  
Bertram Gawronski

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arie W. Kruglanski ◽  
Katarzyna Jasko ◽  
Maxim Milyavsky ◽  
Marina Chernikova ◽  
David Webber ◽  
...  

From the 1950s onward, psychologists have generally assumed that people possess a general need for cognitive consistency whose frustration by an inconsistency elicits negative affect. We offer a novel perspective on this issue by introducing the distinction between epistemic and motivational impact of consistent and inconsistent cognitions. The epistemic aspect is represented by the updated expectancy of the outcome addressed in such cognitions. The motivational aspect stems from value (desirability) of that outcome. We show that neither the outcome’s value nor its updated expectancy are systematically related to cognitive consistency or inconsistency. Consequently, we question consistency’s role in the driving of affective responses, and the related presumption of a universal human need for cognitive consistency.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document