Diversity & inclusion 2020-10-11T22:00:27+00:00

Scientific lessons to help you improve diversity & inclusion in the workplace

learn actionable and science backed techniques that help you both create a more diverse team and fit better into a team as a minority

Diversity and inclusion refers to creating a workplace where people from all different types of backgrounds can thrive. Inclusive workplaces don’t magically happen, people need to learn skills to work together. Being around people who are different from us can make us uncomfortable, cause anxiety, and create poor communication. Working on a diversity and inclusion skillset can preempt this discomfort resulting in a thriving workplace where ideas and relationships can flourish. 

This module combines decades of research about diversity and inclusion into actionable mini-

lessons designed to help you develop skills to improve intergroup relations and reduce biases that may affect your judgements. The lessons have been set up to be easy to follow and implement in your daily life. They include a range of tools and tactics to help you improve social bonding inside and outside of the workplace.

In this document you’ll learn to control your biases, improve your relationships, enhance your logical thinking, and get in touch with your core values. As always, we have gone through hundreds of empirical papers from psychology, neuroscience, developmental science, cognitive science, and clinical research. We have then summarized and explained it in a way that is easy to understand and even easier to follow. You will be given quick tactics that you can use in the moment, as well as micro-habits you can implement throughout your day to effectively improve your judgements and relationships over time.

What is diversity & inclusion?

Diversity and inclusion refers to enhancing relations among people who come from all different types of backgrounds and demographics. We use terms like intergroup relations and out-group members — people who come from different social groups than ourselves — to discuss diversity and inclusion practices. Different types of social groups include race/ethnicities, genders, age, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, and more.

Components of diversity and inclusion that this module covers includes:

  1. Bias at the implicit and explicit level. We all have biases, some that we are aware of (explicit bias) and some that are hidden from our conscious awareness (implicit bias). Being biased distorts our social judgements and can impair our relations with people from outgroups. Learning strategies to reduce or control your biases can improve your interactions as well as the accuracy of your social perceptions. 

  2. Social bonding. Social interactions between opposing social groups can be difficult or anxiety provoking. We will teach you strategies to increase bonding and reduce apprehension.

  3. Expanding complex thinking. Practicing your logical thinking not only reduces erroneous stereotype endorsement, but can improve your cognitive skills across domains. You will be able to form more accurate social judgements and increase cognitive flexibility to help with general problem solving.

  4. Values and self-reflection. Learn about your values to orient your prosocial behavior. Part of this process also involves reflecting on your beliefs and experiences to understand the ways in which you may be biased or times you have engaged in discriminatory behaviors. Once you acknowledge your tendencies, you can focus on your values to guide your behavior.

Access our premium module on enhancing diversity & inclusion

Diversity & inclusion and the brain

Since diversity and inclusion represents a broad spectrum of behaviors and beliefs, we will discuss different components of diversity and inclusion in relation to cognition and neuroscience. 

First, let’s discuss stereotypes, and why we rely so heavily on them in our daily life. Stereotypes represent mental categories to help us predict other people’s behaviors. In other words, stereotypes serve as mental shortcuts, so we can expend less cognitive effort in our daily life (8). The cognitive process behind stereotyping involves mental associations that strengthen over time. The stronger the mental association, the more we rely on a given stereotype to inform our social judgments. 

Once a cognitive association exists, we seek out more information that will strengthen the association and ignore information that is inconsistent with the association (9). This leads to biased social perceptions in favor of cognitive consistency and the natural tendency to exert minimal cognitive effort. In sum, stereotyping leads to biased information processing and biased information processing leads to stronger stereotypes.

Now, let’s switch topics and talk about the neuroscience behind intergroup relations and perceptions. 

One way to enhance intergroup relations and prosocial behavior is through the process of empathy and perspective taking. Social neuroscience findings indicate that people feel more pain when watching members of their own social group receiving painful needle penetration (4). 

The researchers identified the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex and anterior insula cortex (two brain regions associated with pain experiences) being activated among ingroup members when they watched members of their ingroup undergo pain simulations, but reduced activation when they watched outgroup members (1, 4, 13).

These findings indicate that we have stronger emotional responses to the suffering of people who are from similar groups as us. This process is important for social relations, because emotional responses to pain and suffering prompt us to help others.

Taking these findings a step further, studies have even identified the activation of the ventral striatum, a brain region associated with pleasure, when people view outgroup members undergo pain simulations (5, 9). 

There are several explanations for why we demonstrate such strong neurological intergroup biases. One is that we lack perspective taking for outgroup members. Another related explanation is that we are low on self-other overlap when it comes to outgroup members making it difficult for us to imagine and feel for their experiences (11). Since we view people from outgroups as different or unrelatable, this leads to neurological and behavioral consequences such as reduced compassion, less helping behaviors, and even pleasure from out-group suffering.

Try our science-backed, micro-habits to increase diversity & inclusion

Debunking the myth of zero-sum workplaces

Myth #1:

A pervasive belief is when one group gains status in the workplace it comes at the cost of another social group (7).

For example, people sometimes believe that more women in the workforce means less jobs for men. This is called intergroup zero-sum thinking. Importantly, there are not a limited amount of jobs in the economic system. In other words, more jobs can always be created as economic systems expand, providing more opportunities for more people. 

With globalization, workplaces are becoming more diverse. People from all different types of backgrounds must cooperate to generate ideas, produce research, and improve bottom lines. With increased diversity in workplaces, sometimes people start believing that this comes at the cost of people from their social group leading to antagonistic workplaces and a resistance to equality. However, the increased status of one group need not come at the expense of another group. 

More social groups working together can actually create “win-win” scenarios where everyone benefits. Here are some examples:

  • More equal proportions of men and women on teams improves the collective intelligence of the team. (12)
  • The “win-win” effect of increasing gender equality through equal opportunities also extends to athletic achievements. Countries with more gender equality, as measured by education and economic equality, demonstrate more Olympic medal wins by both male and female athletes. (2, 3)
  • Racial and gender diversity in the workplace is associated with greater sales revenue  and more customers. (6)

To summarize, diversity in the workplace has the potential to benefit everyone. We want to provide a skill set for all employees that facilitates inclusion in the workplace, so workplaces can thrive.

The evidence

  1. Azevedo, R. T., Macaluso, E., Avenanti, A., Santangelo, V., Cazzato, V., & Aglioti, S. M. (2013).
    Their pain is not our pain: Brain and autonomic correlates of empathic resonance with the pain of same and different race individuals.
    Human Brain Mapping, 34, 3168–3181.

  2. Bai, F., Uhlmann, E. L., & Berdahl, J. L. (2015).
    The robustness of the win–win effect.
    Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 61, 139-143.

  3. Berdahl, J. L., Uhlmann, E. L., & Bai, F. (2015).
    Win–win: Female and male athletes from more gender equal nations perform better in international sports competitions.
    Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 56, 1-3.

  4. Cikara M., Botvinick, M. M., & Fiske, S.T. (2011)
    Us versus them: Social identity shapes neural responses to intergroup competition and harm.
    Psychological Science, 22, 306-313.

  5. Cikara M., Bruneau, E. G., Van Bavel, J. J., & Saxe, R. (2014).
    Their pain gives us pleasure: how intergroup dynamics shape empathic failures and counter-empathic responses.
    Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 110-125.

  6. Herring, C. (2009).
    Does diversity pay?: Race, gender, and the business case for diversity.
    American Sociological Review, 74(2), 208-224.

  7. Kuchynka, S. L., Bosson, J. K., Vandello, J. A., & Puryear, C. (2018).
    Zero‐sum thinking and the masculinity contest: Perceived intergroup competition and workplace gender bias.
    Journal of Social Issues, 74(3), 529-550.

  8. Macrae, C. N., Milne, A. B., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (1994).
    Stereotypes as energy-saving devices: A peek inside the cognitive toolbox. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(1), 37.

  9. Payne, B. K. (2005).
    Conceptualizing control in social cognition: How executive functioning modulates the expression of automatic stereotyping.
    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(4), 488.

  10. Takahashi, H, Kato, M, Matsuura, M, Mobbs, D, Suhara, T, & Okubo, Y. (2009).
    When your gain is my pain and your pain is my gain: Neural correlates of envy and Schadenfreude.
    Science, 323, 937-939.

  11. Vanman, E. J. (2016).
    The role of empathy in intergroup relations.
    Current Opinion in Psychology, 11, 59-63.

  12. Woolley, A. W., Chabris, C. F., Pentland, A., Hashmi, N., & Malone, T. W. (2010). Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science, 330(6004), 686-688.

  13. Xu, X., Zuo, Z., Wang, W., & Han, S. (2009).
    Do you feel my pain? Racial group membership modulates empathic neural responses.
    The Journal of Neuroscience, 29, 8525-8529.

Access scientific micro-habits to enhance your diversity & inclusion abilities