Discrimination at work: how does it influence personal and organizational identity, and how. does it differ for men and women?

Discrimination at work: how does it influence personal and organizational identity, and how does it differ for men and women? Maartje Hoeben ANR: 460620 Supervisor: Byron G. Adams Bachelor Thesis Psychology & Society Tilburg University February 2017 1

Abstract Discrimination happens throughout all aspects of life, and has numerous negative consequences. What are the consequences of discrimination in the workplace? This current research investigates the relationship between discrimination at work and personal identity, the need for uniqueness, organizational identification, and the need for organizational belonging, taking gender differences into consideration. Participants completed an online questionnaire. Analysis shows that discrimination at work does not influence the need for uniqueness. However, discrimination at work is found to lower a person s organizational identification, and also their personal identity. Furthermore it is found that discrimination at work significantly increases the need for organizational belonging in both men and women, but for women this happens more easily. This research has confirmed the negative effects of discrimination on identity, and contributes to a more broad understanding on the topic of discrimination. The negative relationship between discrimination and different forms of identity show that it really is time to take the effects of discrimination seriously and to extend the research on this topic. Keywords: Discrimination, Personal Identity, Organizational Identification, Gender 2

Discrimination at work: how does it influence personal and organizational identity, and how does it differ for men and women? Discrimination in the workplace is a very common and persistent problem. Research done by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2014b) shows that reported cases of discrimination is persistently high; in the year 2014 almost 90,000 people had reported feeling discriminated in the workplace. There had not been any significant changes in reported discrimination from 1997 until 2014. Research conducted in the Netherlands confirms the results found in the U.S. In the Netherlands in 2014, around 33% percent of the population has reported feeling discriminated against sometime in the past year. In the workplace, this percentage is lower, with approximately 10% of people reporting feeling discriminated at work. This discrimination is most frequently based on age, gender, or ethnic origin. An upsetting joke by co-workers or supervisors is seen as the main form of discrimination in the workplace (Andriessen, Fernee, & Wittebrood, 2014). It is important that research looks into the effects of discrimination on identity. It is highly relevant because many people will come across discrimination at some point in their lives. Discrimination has a lot of different antecedents and it influences many aspects of life; from self-esteem to feelings of belongingness to a certain group, to heavy feelings of psychological stress and depression (Dawson, 2009; Wei, Heppner, Ku, & Liao, 2010). The main focus of this paper will be on the relationship between discrimination and certain identity aspects and how the effects of discrimination differ for men and women. Discrimination According to Simpson and Yinger (2013), discrimination is defined as providing unfair or unequal treatment to individuals because of their group membership. It has further been defined as something that occurs in a specific situation when one person is treated less 3

favorably than another; based on their gender, culture, ethnicity, or race. Discrimination is a situational and contextual factor, meaning that the situation affects whether one perceives discrimination or not. It happens throughout many aspects of social life (Mair, 2009), like school, work, and sport teams. The effects of discrimination are distressing. A meta-analysis done by Triana et al., (2015) shows that discrimination is negatively related to physical- and psychological health, job attitudes, and organizational citizenship behavior. The same meta-analysis also showed that when there are more women or minorities present in the sample, the effect sizes are stronger, meaning that these groups are more likely to feel discriminated against. The long history of discrimination against minorities is the cause of this likelihood to feel discriminated (Gonzalez, 2000). Andriessen et al., (2014) show in their research that there is no difference in perceived discrimination between men and women in the Netherlands. However, gender differences do occur in the characteristics of which type of discrimination is perceived. Women more often perceive discrimination on the basis of their gender. Men often perceive discrimination based on their ethnicity, race, or skin color. Not just in the Netherlands but throughout the whole world, women in general have been a target of discrimination. In 2014, 29,5% of reported cases of discrimination in the workplace in the U.S. was based on gender (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 2014b). Research has shown that perceived discrimination based on gender is the third most frequent form of discrimination in the Netherlands, coming after discrimination based on age and on discrimination based on ethnicity (Andriessen, Fernee & Wittebrood, 2014). Women have had a disadvantage in both their education and in the workplace (Jha & Kelleher, 2006). Preceding research proves that discrimination most certainly plays a part in everyday life and in the work place. Schmitt, Branscombe, Postmes, and Garcia (2014) show that 4

identity is central to how people perceive discrimination. For example when a persons group identity is stronger, it buffers the effects of discrimination. So, how do discrimination and its effects reflect on personal identity and organizational identity? Identity A general definition of the concept of identity is that it is some sort of social representation to the world, which mediates the relationship between the individual and the social environment (Chryssochoou, 2003). In the identity negotiation theory, the term identity is made up of social identities and personal identities. The social identities relate to group memberships, family roles, and other social categories. Personal identities relate to everything that is unique to oneself in comparison to others (Ting-Toomey, 2015). These two identities together make up a person s identity. Identity is thus a combination of the social identities and personal identities a person has. It is important to take into account both types of identities. Brewer (1991) proposed that we should take into account not only the individuated conceptualization of the self, but also the social identification, because human beings are social and accustomed to living in groups. Our identity is thus not based only on being a unique person but also on belonging to certain social groups. Both forms of identity together cause people s cognition, attitude, and behavior. Social roles and unique personal tendencies are the causes of behavior and influence aspects of our thinking (Ting-Toomey, 2015). Personal Identity Personal identity is defined as the factors of one s identity that are unique to the person itself. It is related to having a sense of self, which is not related to the goals or thoughts of a group or community. Thoughts belonging to one person only make up the sense of personal identity. It is these thoughts that make the self feel stable and consistent over time (Hitlin, 2003). 5

Needs, characteristics, and personal values are all related to personal identity. Eccles (2009) argues that identity is conceptualized in two sets of self perceptions. The first set of self perceptions relates to personal characteristics, competencies, and skills one has developed. The second set relates to personal values, needs, motives, and goals. The need for uniqueness is one particularly important aspect of personal identity. A person builds needs, characteristics, and motives over time, particularly in adolescence and early adulthood. Throughout adolescence one starts to develop an own personal identity (Rosenthal et al., 1981). Erikson (1968) regards the stage of adolescence as one of the most important stages, because the biggest part of identity formation happens in this stage. Throughout the rest of adulthood, personal identity can still change (Fadjukoff & Kroger, 2016). Need for Uniqueness The need for uniqueness is a trait that belongs to personal identity. The need for uniqueness is described as the striving for being different relative to others (Snyder & Fromkin, 1977; Gao & Cui, 2016). One example of striving to be unique is shown in the Asch conformity experiment (1951). This study showed that when in a group, a lot of people conformed to the group by giving the same answer as the others, even though they knew the answer they were giving was wrong. Nevertheless, there were a lot of subjects refusing to conform in the study. This decline of the group norm relates to those subjects having a higher need for uniqueness. Fromkin (1968) conducted another study in which he deprived subjects of their uniqueness. This caused the uniqueness-deprived subjects to come up with a lot more distinctive uses for an everyday object, compared to people who were not deprived of their uniqueness. Uniqueness-deprived people had greater preferences for experiences that were unavailable to other people, and also reported more intense negative moods (Fromkin, 1970; 6

Fromkin, 1972). The need for uniqueness might have a cultural or environmental base. In the study done by Burns and Brady (1992) they found a difference between students from the U.S. (Western culture) and Malaysian students (non-western culture) on the need for uniqueness. Compared to non-western students, the Western students cared less about what others thought or how others may react to them. This might be caused by a higher need for uniqueness for Western students. This may account in general for people with a higher need for uniqueness. Snyder and Fromkin (1977; 1980) created a measure for the need for uniqueness and found that individuals high on need for uniqueness need relatively little support from others and live free from social constraints placed on them. Social Identity & Organizational Identification Within the social identity theory, the focus is on similarities with those of the ingroup, and on the differences with others of the out-group. Social identity theory shows how people identify with their social groups (Hitlin, 2003). In this current research, social identity is applied to organizational identification. Organizational identification is a part of social identity. Organizational identity is best described as the core characteristics of an organization. The characteristics that are long-lasting and unique make up the identity of an organization. In the article by Dutton, Dukerich, and Harquail (1994) it is explained that people have two different images of the organization they work for. The first image is the way employees view the characteristics of the organization as central and distinctive to the organization. This is called the perceived organizational identity. The second view is how employees think others see the organization. This is known as the construed external image. These two images determine an employees total view of the organizational identity. 7

Employees whom identify strongly with their organization use attributives to define the organization, and they will use the same attributives to define themselves (Gioia, Schultz, & Corley, 2000). When there is a match between an employees self-concept and the characteristics of the organization, it is defined as organizational identification. The selfconcept is made up of many different identities deriving from membership to social groups. These social groups are either race or gender related, or related to one s work identity (Breakwell, 2015). It is important to have the feeling that your own self-concept and identity matches with that of your organization. This will give you a more positive outlook on the organization, and it will increase commitment to the organization (Dutton et al., 1994). Need to Belong When people want to feel similar to others, an important aspect of social identity comes into play: the sense of belonging (Brewer, 1991). From a psychological viewpoint, belonging is an evaluative or affective feeling or perception (Hagerty, Lynch-Sauer, Patusky, Bouwsema, & Collier, 1992). Anant (1966, p.21) defines belongingness as a sense of personal involvement in a social system so that persons feel themselves to be an indispensible and integral part of the system. People need to feel like they belong to something; a relationship, a community, or even a culture. Hagerty et al., (1992) have defined two dimensions of a sense of belonging. The first dimension is valued involvement; this is the feeling of being accepted, needed or valued. The second dimension is the perception that a person fits with the environment or system. The research done by Hagerty et al., (1992) can be applied to the setting of organizational identification. The two dimensions are needed to feel a sense of organizational belonging. When an organization has distinctive characteristics, it increases members tendencies to identify with the organization. Members will feel included when their characteristics align with those of the organization. This will in turn increase the sense of 8

belonging to the organization (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). Discrimination, Gender, & Identities Personal identity consists of a strong feeling of the self, a feeling of uniqueness, and having individual thoughts (Hitlin, 2003). Since identity is only partly formed in adolescence, outside factors like discrimination could be able to influence personal identity easily throughout life. Changing life circumstances and changing psychological and biological needs likely spark identity change in adulthood (Fadjukoff & Kroger, 2016). It is possible that discrimination causes you to feel deprived of your uniqueness. Discriminated individuals might feel like others are generalizing them; which causes a feeling of deprived uniqueness. The studies done by Fromkin (1970; 1972) show that people deprived of their uniqueness become more motivated to get back their feeling of uniqueness. This could increase a need to be unique when a person is discriminated. This research will further examine the relationship between discrimination and the need to be unique. There is a difference in how men and women seek uniqueness and a sense of belonging. Men generally have a higher need for uniqueness than women. Men see society as a larger whole while women prefer to form dyadic bonds. This causes men to use their uniqueness to make themselves indispensible to a group or society (Baumeister & Sommer, 1997). From this we would expect that men score higher on the need for uniqueness than women. When the two genders perceive discrimination, it is unsure what it will do for personal identity and the need for uniqueness. There is no previous research that has looked into this. There is one model that argues that the sense of social identity might be made stronger by perceived discrimination. The Rejection-Identification Model (RIM) explains how identity can be made stronger by discrimination (Branscombe, Schmitt, & Harvey, 1999). RIM assumes that a strong identification with an ethnic or social group buffers against 9

discrimination (Giamo, Schmitt, & Outten, 2012). So when a person has strong ties to his or her ethnic or social group, discrimination is less likely to influence their social identity. On the other hand, research by McCoy and Major (2003) have found contrasting results. When a social group is closer to someone s identity, perceived discrimination becomes more self-relevant and thus more harmful. Women tend to have a more distinct social identity compared to men (Hagerty, Williams, Coyne, & Early, 1996), so it is expected that discrimination will have a bigger influence on women s social identity. The relationship between discrimination and a sense of organizational belonging is quite apparent. When people are discriminated at work, they will not feel accepted and valued by their organization. Van Laer and Janssens (2011) found that members of minority groups often feel like there is a fixation on their differences with others. This fixation makes minorities less inclined to feel like they belong to their organization. Research questions The current study will try to provide new insights into what effect discrimination has on different types of identities in the workplace. Building on already existing research, this paper will try to answer the following broad research questions: What effect does discrimination have on personal identity and need for uniqueness, and organizational identity and the need for organizational belonging? and How does the effect of discrimination differ for gender on personal identity, need for uniqueness, organizational identity, and the need for organizational belonging? Following the theoretical background, a few more specific research questions arise. In the existing research, there is no clear answer as to what extent discrimination relates to personal identity. Personal identity might be altered throughout life when life changing circumstances happen (Fadjukoff & Kroger, 2016). This research will investigate to what extent discrimination could be a circumstance that changes personal identity. People might 10

lose their sense of uniqueness and are willing to increase this when they are discriminated (Fromkin, 1970, 1972). Men will probably score higher on the need for uniqueness than women (Baumeister & Sommer, 1997), but the difference between men and women after perceiving discrimination is unknown. A more detailed research question is created to further analyze the impact of discrimination on personal identity: What effect does discrimination have on personal identity and need for uniqueness? And how does this differ for men and women? Another option is that people decrease their organizational identification and need to belong to the organization when there is perceived discrimination. It is possible that when people perceive discrimination, they tend to have a stronger sense of social identity and sense of belonging because of the Rejection-Identification Model (Branscombe, Schmitt, & Harvey, 1999). On the other hand, discrimination might negatively influence identity when ties to a group are stronger (McCoy & Major, 2003). People s thoughts and attitudes will not align with those of the organization when there is a lot of discrimination present, so their identification will decrease. Again, there is not enough research to predict the outcome for this research. This research will look at the differences between men and women. From this two more research questions are proposed: What influence does discrimination have on a sense of organizational identification and the need for organizational belonging? And how does this differ for men and women? In this study, three control variables are added to make sure these variables do not interfere with the influence of discrimination on the dependent variables. The first control variable is tenure. Tenure has shown to influence organizational commitment and organizational citizenship behavior, but only within the first 10 years of the employee s term (Ng & Feldman, 2011). Age is another control variable. Ng and Feldman (2010) have shown that age is weakly related to organizational identification (.20). They also show that age is 11

weakly related to a feeling of person-organization fit (.10), which is relatable to the need to belong. Age should thus not be able to have a significant influence on the dependent variables. The last control variable is the highest level of education a person has had. There is no significant research about the relationships between level of education and any of the dependent variables. Theoretical Model Figure 1. Theoretical Model Based on previous research, the theoretical model in figure 1 is proposed. This theoretical model shows the expected relationships between the variables in this research. The arrows point in the direction in which the relationship is expected to go. Gender is a moderator in this model. Participants Method Data was collected from a total of 203 participants of all ages (67% women, Mage = 32.79 years, SD = 12.24). All 203 responses were used; no adjustments were made to the original sample. Participants were recruited with an online link directing to an online questionnaire. The only requirement to fill out the questionnaire was that the participant has a job. Job tenure has a mean of 6.21 years (SD = 6,97). The level of education was also measured, with 19,7% having finished high school as their highest form of education, 21,2% 12

having finished a vocational education (MBO), 32,5% having finished a higher education in applied sciences (HBO), and 16,3% having finished a University s Master s degree. In table 1, the sample statistics for men and women are presented. Table 1 Sample Descriptive Statistics Men (N=67) Women (N=136) Mean Age (in years) 33.06 32.66 (SD) (10.79) (12.93) Mean Tenure (in years) 7.06 5.82 (SD) (7.69) (6.60) Highest Form of Education (High school %) 14.9% 22.0% (MBO %) 28.4% 17.6% (HBO %) 34.4% 31.6% (University %) 20.9% 28.0% (Other %) 1.5%.7% Procedure The material used for this research consists of one questionnaire. The questionnaire was distributed through e-mail and social networks like Facebook and LinkedIn. Participants filled out the questionnaire anonymously. Consent was automatically given by participants by agreeing to start and end the questionnaire whenever they wished. No time constraints were placed on finishing the questionnaire. The end of the questionnaire contains a debriefing. It explains what the research was about and that answers given are not connected to the individual. The debriefing also ensured that the answers of all participants are put together and used as group results. The questionnaire was constructed using measures extracted from previous research. The entire questionnaire was first created in English. Since the research would be conducted in the Netherlands using only Dutch speaking participants, the questionnaire was translated into Dutch. The translation was done using three independent assessors. The assessors individually translated the items into Dutch. Following on this, the assessors looked at it together and decided which translation reflected the English statements best. Finally, to 13

increase the construct validity of the measure, the translated questionnaire was checked by a Dutch research Professor from Tilburg University. Appendix A is included for a full review of the questionnaire in both English and Dutch. Measures Demographic variables. The questionnaire starts off with demographic and background variables. Questions like age, gender, country of birth, how long the participant has lived in the Netherlands, ethnic group, religion, and highest form of education are asked. The questionnaire also asks what kind of work the participant does, and how long he or she has been working for the organization. Discrimination. The measure for discrimination is taken from the Chronic Work Discrimination and Harassment Scale, adapted from McNeilly et al., (1996) and Bobo and Suh (2000). It includes statements like How often are you UNFAIRLY given the jobs that no one else wants to do?. All the items are measured on an 8-point Likert scale (0 = never, 7 = daily). A higher score on this measure means more perceived discrimination in the setting of work. Personal Identity. The measure for personal identity is taken from a 10-item subscale of the Erikson Psycho Social Inventory (EPSI), developed by Rosenthal, Gurney, and Moore (1981). Statements like I ve got a clear idea of what I want to be and I know what kind of person I am are included in this measure. Participants personal identity is measured on a 5- point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The measure consists of 10 statements in total, of which five are reversed items. Item 1, 3, 7, 9, and 10 are reversed items. An example of a reversed item is: I change my opinion of myself a lot. A higher overall score on the measure for personal identity means that the participant has a strong sense of what his or her personal identity is like. A low score on the reversed items means a strong sense of one s personal identity. 14

Organizational Identification. For organizational identification the Shortened Organizational Identification Questionnaire was used (Miller, Allen, Casey, and Johnson, 2000). This construct measures to what extent the participant identifies with his or her organization. It uses statements like I speak highly of this organization to my friends, emphasizing that it is a great organization to work for. These statements are measured on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). This measure consists of 10 statements and has two reversed statements. A higher overall score on this measure means that the participant identifies highly with his or her organization. A low score on the reversed items also means a high identification with the organization. Need for Uniqueness. This measure determines participants personal need for uniqueness. It is taken from the Personal Sense of Uniqueness scale (PSU) developed by Şimşek & Yalınçetin (2010). Statements like I feel unique and I think that my personal characteristics are different from others characteristics are measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). The measure consists of five statements in total. The measure has one reversed item. A higher overall score on this measure means a higher need for uniqueness. For the reversed item, a low score means a high need for uniqueness. Need to Belong. The need to belong, applied to the work environment (Leary, Kelly, Cottrell, & Schreindorfer, 2005). In this measure, the sentence Within my work environment... was added in front of the already existing statements, to make them applicable for a work setting. Participants need to belong is measured on the same 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). It uses statements like Within my work environment, I want other people to accept me. The measure consists of five statements in total. This measure determines how high one s need to belong is. A high overall score on this measure means a high need to belong within the work environment. 15

Results Preliminary analysis Preliminary analysis is conducted to see whether the data is suitable for further analysis. Principal Components Analysis. Principal Components Analysis (PCA) is used on all measures of the questionnaire. Discrimination. Before PCA can be performed, the suitability of the data has to be assessed. Kaiser-Meyer-Olking (KMO) value is.82 and Bartlett s Test of Sphericity is significant. This means that the data is suitable for PCA. PCA shows there are two components present, with component 1 explaining 36.58% and component 2 explaining 14.07% of the total variance. The Scree test finalised the decision to work with these two components. The two components together explained 50.65% of total variance. Oblimin rotation showed a simple structure. Both the components had strong loadings and most variables loaded substantially on one of the components. There were two items that overlapped on both components. These items were removed from further analyses. There was a medium negative correlation between the two components (r = -.48). Component 1 relates to discrimination influencing the actual work one does. One example of an item in this component is: How often are you UNFAIRLY given the jobs that no one else wants to do?. Six of the items in the total measure are included in component 1. Component 2 relates to discrimination by colleagues and co-workers. This component consists of four measures. One example of an item belonging to this component is: How often do your supervisors or co-workers make slurs or jokes about racial or ethnic groups?. Personal Identity. Prior to performing PCA for the measure of Personal Identity, the suitability of the data was looked into. KMO value is.88, exceeding the advised value of.6. Bartlett s Test of Sphericity also reached statistical significance. This shows that the data is 16

suitable for PCA. PCA showed that there is only one component extracted in the measure, explaining 40.78% of the variance. This means that all statements measure the same construct of Personal Identity. Organizational Identification. Prior to performing PCA, it was checked whether the data is suitable for it. KMO value is.90 and Bartlett s Test of Sphericity is significant, showing that PCA can be applied. PCA revealed just one component for this measure. The component explains 54.14% of total variance. Need for Uniqueness. For this measure of the Need for Uniqueness, it was first assessed whether it is suitable for PCA, and it is: KMO value is.72, and Bartlett s Test of Sphericity is significant. PCA revealed that there was only one component, which accounts for 50.06% of the variance. Need to Belong. For this measure, KMO value is.70, and Bartlett s Test of Sphericity is also significant, which means PCA can be used. PCA showed one component, explaining 45.78% of the total variance. Table 2 shows the reliability for every measure, as indicated by Cronbach s Alpha. Most of the measures were good (Cronbach s α =.80) or adequate (Cronbach s α =.70). Cronbach s alpha for the Need to Belong measure in men is.66. This low alpha did not influence further analyses, because it is still relatively reliable. Measures that are lower than Cronbach s α =.50 are seen as unreliable. Table 2 Measurement Reliabilities as Indicated by Cronbach s Alpha Men Women Discrimination Work related.78.76 By colleagues.83.79 Personal Identity.80.85 Need for Uniqueness.73.73 Organizational Identity.88.90 Need to Belong.66.71 17

MANOVA A one-way between groups multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to see if the means on between men and women differ significantly. Six independent variables were used: Discrimination by Colleagues, Discrimination Work Related, Personal Identity, Need for Uniqueness, Need to Belong, and Organizational Identification. There is a statistically significant difference between men and women on the combined dependent variables, F (6, 196) = 6.16, p =.001; Wilks Lambda =.84; partial eta squared =.159. However, the difference is only significant for Discrimination by Colleagues, F (1, 201) = 19.47, p =.001, partial eta squared =.09, and for Need to be Unique, F (1, 201) = 11.00, p =.001, partial eta squared =.05. Table 3 is added for a full overview of the means and standard deviations for every independent variable. Table 3 Means by Gender and Independent variable Men Women Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Discrimination Work 2.58 (1.24) 2.41 (1.15) Related Discrimination by 2.52 * (1.47) 1.72 * (1.08) Colleagues Need to be Unique 3.66 * (.60) 3.38 * (.57) Need to Belong 3.40 (.65) 3.62 (.61) Personal Identity 3.94 (.50) 3.86 (.55) Organizational Identity 5.26 (1.11) 5.10 (1.07) * Correlation is significant at 0.01 level (2-tailed). Correlations The relationship between all the dependent variables was investigated using Pearson correlation coefficient. Table 4 shows the correlations between the variables. None of the correlations between the variables are above.79. 18

Table 4 Pearson Product-moment Correlations between Measures of Discrimination and Identity Scale 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. Discrimination work related - 2. Discrimination by colleagues.40** - 3. Need to be Unique.11.06-4. Personal Identity -.24** -.16*.22** - 5.Organizational Identity -.22** -.08.01.28** - 6. Need to Belong.16* -.12 -.03 -.29**.11 - ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). Regression Analysis Eight hierarchical regression analyses were done to investigate the effect work related discrimination, discrimination by colleagues, and gender, have on the dependent variables. The control variables tenure, level of education, and age were entered at Step 1 for each of the eight hierarchical regression analyses. Table 5 is added for a full review of the betavalues for each regression analysis. Personal Identity. Hierarchical regression analysis was used to assess the ability of work related discrimination, gender, or the interaction between these two variables to predict personal identity. The control variables were entered at Step 1, explaining 16% of the variance in personal identity (F = 11.77, p <.001). In Step 2, the variables gender and work related discrimination are added. Addition of the variables gender and discrimination in Step 2 caused a significant change in F in the model (F change (2, 184) = 4.17, p <.05). In Step 3, the interaction between gender and work related discrimination was added to the model, explaining a total variance of 19.7%, F (6, 183) = 7.48, p <.001. The addition of the interaction did not cause a significant F change. All the F and beta values can be found in table 5. In model 2, two of the control variables were statistically significant: age and level of education. Both beta values are positive. For age this means that when a person is older, their sense of personal identity tends to be stronger. For level of education it means the same: the 19

higher the education, the stronger the sense of personal identity. The variable work related discrimination is also found to have a significant effect on personal identity (beta = -.17, p <.05). Another hierarchical regression analysis was used to assess the ability of discrimination by colleagues, gender, or the interaction between these two variables to predict personal identity. The control variables were added in Step 1, explaining 16% of variance. In Step 2 the variables discrimination by colleagues and gender are added. In Step 3 the interaction between gender and discrimination by colleagues is added. The addition of the variables in Step 2 and Step 3 did not cause a significant change in F. The F values can be found in table 5. The total variance explained by the model as a whole was 18%, F (6, 183) = 6.70, p <.001. Only model 1 is significant. All three control variables were statistically significant. The conclusions we can take from this are the same as in the first regression analysis. For age it means that when one is older, their sense of personal identity tends to be stronger, and for level of education it means the higher the education, the stronger the sense of personal identity. For tenure the results are different; the longer one has been working at his or her company, the lower the sense of personal identity. There is no effect of discrimination by colleagues on the sense of personal identity. These results answer the part of the first research question that wonders what effect discrimination has on personal identity. It shows that when there is more discrimination present related to the work a person does, their sense of personal identity is lower. Discrimination by colleagues has no significant influence on personal identity. There are no differences found between men and women. Need for Uniqueness. Hierarchical regression analysis was used to assess the ability of work related discrimination, gender, or the interaction between these two variables to 20

predict the need for uniqueness. In Step 1, the control variables explain only.2% in variance. In Step 2, the variables gender and work related discrimination are added, explaining 6.5% of variance. There was a significant change in F in Step 2 (F = 2.54, p <.05) In Step 3, the interaction between the variables gender and work related discrimination is added. The total variance explained by the model as a whole is very low: 6.6%, F (6, 183) = 2.15, p <.05. Table 5 can be reviewed for a full overview of the F and beta values. In the final model, only gender had a statistically significant effect showing that men have a higher need to be unique than women. Another hierarchical regression analysis was used to assess the ability of discrimination by colleagues, gender, or the interaction between these two variables to predict the need for uniqueness. In Step 1, control variables are included explaining only.2% of variance. In Step 2, discrimination by colleagues and gender is added. In this step, there is a significant change in F (F = 2.18, p <.05). In Step 2, only 5.6% of variance is explained. The interaction between gender and discrimination by colleagues is added in Step 3. The total variance explained by the whole model is again very low: 5.6%, F (6, 183) = 1.82, p =.098 and so the model is not significant. The regressions on personal identity and the need for uniqueness together answer the first research question, which asked what the relationship is between discrimination and personal identity and the need for uniqueness, and what the difference is between men and women. Discrimination related to work lowers personal identity, but discrimination by colleagues does not have an influence. The need for uniqueness is not influenced by discrimination at all, and there are no effects found of a difference between men and women. Organizational Identification. To examine the relationship between organizational identification and discrimination, another hierarchical regression analysis was conducted. It was used to look at how work related discrimination, gender, or the interaction between these 21

two variables predict organizational identification. Control variables were entered in Step 1, explaining 4.5% of the variance in organizational identification. In Step 2, the variables gender and work related discrimination are added, explaining a total of 8.6% of the variance. There was a significant change in F (F (2, 184) = 3.74, p <.05). In Step 3, the interaction between gender and work related discrimination is added. The total model explained 10.2% of variance in organizational identification (F (6, 183) = 3.48, p <.05). In the final model, the control variable age was statistically significant (beta =.21, p <.05). This means that when one is older, he or she has a higher organizational identification. The other variable that is found to be statistically significant is work related discrimination. This shows that when a person perceives more discrimination related to the work he or she does, this person perceives less organizational identification. Another hierarchical regression analysis was conducted to assess the ability of discrimination by colleagues, gender, and the interaction between these two to predict organizational identification. In Step 1 the control variables age, tenure, and level of education are added. In Step 2, gender and discrimination by colleagues is added. In Step 3, the interaction between gender and discrimination by colleagues is added. As can be seen in table 5, the total variance explained by the model as a whole is 5.6%, F (6, 183) = 1.81, with p =.09. The model is non- significant. These results partly answer the second research question which asks what influence discrimination has on organizational identification and the need to belong. Discrimination related to work negatively influences a sense of organizational identification. Discrimination by colleagues does not have an influence on organizational identification. For both types of discrimination there is no difference found between men and women in how discrimination influences their organizational identification. Need to Belong. Hierarchical regression analysis was again used to measure the 22

ability of work related discrimination, gender, or the interaction between these two variables to predict the need to belong. In Step 1, control variables are added. These variables together explained 3.7% of variance in the need to belong. In Step 2, the variables gender and work related discrimination are added. Model 2 explains 8.7% of the variance in the need to belong. Table 5 shows that there is a significant change in F from Step 1 to Step 2 (F (2, 184) = 3.53, p <.05). In Step 3 the interaction between gender and work related discrimination was added. This did not cause a significant change in F. The total variance explained by the model as a whole is 8.8%, F (6, 183) = 2.95, p <.05. In the final model the control variable level of education is statistically significant (beta =.14, p <.05). This means that when level of education is higher, participants reported a higher need to belong. Both the variables gender and work related discrimination are statistically significant. Women reported a higher need to belong compared to men. Discrimination that is work related reports a beta value of.16 (p <.05). This effect shows that when there is more perceived discrimination, the need to belong is higher. The last hierarchical regression analysis that was conducted was to assess the ability of discrimination by colleagues, gender, or the interaction between these two to predict the need to belong. In Step 1, the control variables tenure, level of education, and age are added. These variables together explain 3.7% of the variance. In Step 2, the variables gender and discrimination by colleagues is added. This causes a significant change in F, F (2, 184) = 2.91, p <.05. By adding those two variables in Step 2, the variance increases to 7.3%. In Step 3, the interaction between gender and discrimination by colleagues is added. After adding these variables the total variance explained by the model as a whole is 10.2%, F (6, 183) = 3.46, p <.05. This change in F was also significant (p <.05). In the final model, the control variable age was statistically significant (beta = -.23, p <.05). The beta value is negative, meaning that when age increases, the need to belong 23

decreases. The older a person gets, the less he or she feels a need to belong. The interaction between gender and discrimination by colleagues was also statistically significant (beta = -.56, p <.05). A univariate ANOVA was conducted to verify this interaction effect. Next, a General Linear Model analysis was performed, which showed that the effect is significant for two values (MeanDiscr_coll = 2.25 and MeanDiscr_coll = 6.00). For the lower value of perceived discrimination, which is 2.25, women scored significantly higher on the need to belong. For the higher value of perceived discrimination, which is 6, men scored significantly higher on the need to belong. From this last regression analysis we can state that when women feel discriminated by their colleagues, their need to belong rises quicker than for men. Men take longer to feel affected by discrimination to increase their need to belong. These findings answer the second research question about what influence discrimination has on the need to belong and how it differs for men and women. Table 5 Regression Weights for Variables Predicting Identity Variable PersID1 PersID2 NfU1 NfU2 OrgID1 OrgID2 NtB1 NtB2 β β β β β β β β Model 1 Age.44 ***.44 *** -.03 -.03.25 *.25 ** -.18 -.18 Level of education.18 **.18 **.00.00.01.01.14.14 Tenure -.19 * -.19 * -.03 -.03 -.08 -.08.07.07 R 2.16.16.00.00.05.05.04.04 F 11.77 ** 11.77 ***.14.14 2.91 * 2.91 * 2.38 2.38 * Model 2 Age.40 ***.42 ***.01 -.02.21 *.24 * -.15 -.22 * Level of education.17**.17 *.01.01.01.01.14 *.12 Tenure -.17 -.19 * -.07 -.05 -.06 -.08.07.10 Discrimination -.17 * -.08.10 -.01 -.20 ** -.06.16 * -.10 Gender -.10 -.11 -.23 ** -.24 ** -.08 -.09.18 *.14 R 2.20.17.07.06.09.05.09.07 ΔR 2.04.01.06.05.04.01.05.04 F for Change in R 2 4.17 * 1.49 6.13 ** 5.23 ** 4.17 *.78 5.09 ** 3.61 * Model 3 Age.40 ***.42 ***.01 -.02.21 *.24 * -.15 -.23 * Level of education.17 *.16 *.01.01 -.01.01.14.14 Tenure -.17 -.20 * -.07 -.05 -.06 -.08.07.11 24

Discrimination -.28 -.36.21.04 -.63 *.12.06.42 Gender -.16 -.26 -.16 -.21 -.35 *.01.12.44 ** Interaction.13.28 -.14 -.05.51 -.19.11 -.56 * Discrimination & Gender R 2.20.18.07.06.10.06.09.10 ΔR 2.00.01.00.00.02.00.00.03 F for Change in R 2.23 1.60.22.05 3.30.62.14 5.82 * Note. PersID = Personal identity; NfU = Need for Uniqueness; OrgID = Organizational identity; NtB= Need to Belong; The numbers 1 and 2 are added after each abbreviation: 1 = work related discrimination, 2 = discrimination by colleagues. Gender codes: Male = 0, Female = 1. *p <.05. **p <.01. ***p<.001. Discussion This study focused on the relationship between discrimination and personal identity, the need for uniqueness, organizational identity, and the need to belong. The difference between men and women in the effect of discrimination was specifically looked into. The relationship between discrimination and different forms of identity is interesting and important to look into because of well known distressing effects of discrimination on physical and psychological health (Triana et al., 2015). There is still a lot to find out about the effects of discrimination in the workplace. This led to formulating the following research questions: What effect does discrimination have on personal identity and need for uniqueness, and organizational identity and the need for organizational belonging? and How does the effect of discrimination differ for gender on personal identity, need for uniqueness, organizational identity, and the need for organizational belonging? The results show that personal identity tends to be lower when people perceive work related discrimination. It is also found that when a person perceives more work related discrimination, organizational identification is lower. There are no results found that indicate that there is a difference between men and women on personal identity and organizational identification after they have perceived work related discrimination. However, for the need to belong, the results show the opposite. When women feel discriminated, their need to belong 25

rises quicker than when men feel discriminated. Men take longer to feel affected by discrimination and to thus increase their need to belong. The next paragraphs will go deeper into the results that were found, starting off with the relationships between the control variables and the dependent variables. The biggest effects on personal identity came from the control variables. Age, tenure, and level of education have a significant effect on personal identity. For age, it means that when one is older, their sense of personal identity tends to be stronger. This claim is supported by most research (e.g. Luyckx, Klimstra, Duriez, van Petegem, & Beyers, 2013; Erikson, 1994). Tenure shows different results: the longer a person has been working at his/her company, the lower the sense of personal identity. One possible explanation for this could be the fact that the company s identity has merged for some part with the identity of the employee (Ashforth, Rogers, & Corley, 2011). Level of education shows that the higher the education, the stronger the sense of personal identity. The control variable age also had an influence on organizational identification. When a person is older, organizational identification tends to be higher. This is in line with the research by Ng and Feldman (2010). They have shown that there is a correlation between age and organizational identification. This current research confirms these correlations. Two control variables also had an influence on the need for organizational belonging. Participants reported a higher need for organizational belonging when their level of education was generally higher. Why this effect is found is unknown, and more research would need to be done to find out. Age showed opposite results. The older a participant, the lower need to belong he or she has. This could be caused by the fact that when a person gets older, they care less about fitting in and belonging to something. They have mostly found the groups to which they belong. Overall, the study focused on separate research questions. The first research question 26

is: What effect does discrimination have on personal identity and need for uniqueness? And how does this differ for men and women?. This question can be answered. It is found that when there is more discrimination present related to the type of work someone does, his or her personal identity is lower. There is no significant effect found for a difference between the two genders. The finding that personal identity is lower after perceived discrimination could be the effect of internalizing discrimination. Ruggiero and Taylor (1997) have shown that when a person perceives discrimination, it is psychologically beneficial to attribute the feeling of failure to oneself. Discriminated individuals minimize discrimination and attribute it to their own failure. This attribution helps to protect a high feeling of social self-esteem. In this research, it could be that the person perceiving discrimination minimizes discrimination and attributes it to oneself, which in turn causes the lower sense of personal identity. The need for uniqueness did not get any significant results regarding to discrimination influencing one s need for uniqueness. Control variables did not influence the need for uniqueness either. The only significant effect found is that men generally have a higher need for uniqueness than women. This effect is in line with Baumeister and Sommer (1997) showing that men use their need for uniqueness to distinguish themselves in society. Men have an overall higher need for uniqueness but after discrimination there was no significant difference found between men and women in their need for uniqueness. An explanation for the fact that the overall need for uniqueness is not influenced easily might be that it is quite set in someone s personality and cultural habits (Burns & Brady, 1992). The need for uniqueness correlates highly with two Big Five personality traits: Extraversion and Openness to experience (Dollinger, 2003). This shows that the need for uniqueness is partly due to personality factors and therefore quite resistant to change. The second more specific research question is formulated as follows: What influence 27