Token effect beliefs, stigma consciousness and the organizational attractiveness of homogeneous firms among women employees Open Access

Organizations regularly feature depictions of their work force in job ads (Nolan et al., 2013) and are encouraged by popular media and thought leaders to include images that reflect the diversity of their workforce (e.g. Csedrik, 2019; Rakuna, 2018). However, existing literature on organizational attractiveness for women and minority job seekers operates under the assumption that companies already employ women and minorities to depict in their recruitment ads. For occupations that lack gender diversity, there is scant research that examines ways to effectively attract women employees to firms that do not already employ them (Kroeper et al., 2022). Suppose job seekers view recruitment ads as a realistic preview of the organization. In that case, job seekers may feel deceived once hired if the organization’s climate of diversity does not reflect their expectations because of a “mismatch between prehire and posthire P-O fit impressions” (McKay and Avery, 2005, p. 332). Kroeper et al. (2022) found that organizations that exaggerate their gender diversity composition cue to both men and women that their support and value for diversity is not sincere, leading to identity threat concerns. This type of counterfeit diversity recruitment strategy may actually sustain a lack of employee diversity representation in organizations as job seekers lose interest in the organization and turnover after having observed less diversity in the workplace then they anticipated once hired (Kroeper et al., 2022).

Research on organizational attractiveness highlights strategies for recruiting women, such as using images and messaging that reflect diversity values, but the challenge lies in identifying mechanisms to attract women to homogeneous organizations that lack existing diversity to feature in their recruitment materials. We contend that those strategies are not effective for organizations that do not already have a diverse workforce because their diversity management strategies can be perceived as insincere by job seekers once hired (Kroeper et al., 2022). Consequently, human resource managers and leaders of homogeneous firms who do not presently employ women but wish to do so may decide that attracting diverse job seekers is too challenging.

Our research aims to address the following questions: How and why are some women employees attracted to a company perceived to lack gender diversity? How may homogeneous organizations sincerely attempt to attract a gender-diverse workforce when they currently have no gender diversity within the company for applicants or new employees to encounter? We review the literature on organizational attractiveness, diversity climate, tokenism, and stigma consciousness. Next, we present our hypotheses, the research method, the discussion, and implications for researchers and practitioners. As shown in Figure 1, we hypothesize that gender diversity recruitment ads are directly related to participants’ token effect beliefs and organizational attractiveness of the firm. Further, we propose that participants’ token effect beliefs are related to organizational attractiveness. Also depicted by our model shown in Figure 1, we contend that stigma consciousness moderates the effect of diversity recruitment ads on participants’ token effect beliefs. Lastly, the interaction effect between diversity ads and stigma consciousness is indirectly related to organizational attractiveness via participants’ token effect beliefs resulting in a moderated mediation model. The present study extends the current diversity literature suggesting that job seekers with lower stigma consciousness are less sensitive to diversity-related issues related to their work environment. As a result, we contend they will have weaker token effect beliefs and be more attracted to organizations that lack diversity compared to job seekers with higher stigma consciousness. Moreover, we discuss how token effect beliefs interact with stigma consciousness to affect the organizational attractiveness of homogeneous firms that do not promote diversity in their recruitment materials to avoid promoting counterfeit diversity (Kroeper et al., 2022). Implications of our model and recommendations for future research are discussed.

Organizational attractiveness is the degree to which job seekers find an organization worth pursuing for employment (Newburry et al., 2006) before having any direct contact with that organization (Aiman-Smith et al., 2001; Powell and Goulet, 1996). The measurement of organizational attractiveness is a common method used by researchers to measure the effectiveness of early recruitment strategies (Avery, 2003; Lambert, 2015) and predict job acceptance decisions of applicants (Powell and Goulet, 1996) because they are commonly the first exposure job seekers have to organizations (Aiman-Smith et al., 2001). When organizations are attractive, they are more likely to effectively recruit the skilled and qualified employees they need.

For decades scholars have sought to identify what characteristics of an organization make it attractive. Prior studies show that relationships exist between organizational attractiveness and firms that are perceived to offer competitive compensation (Lievens and Highhouse, 2003; Rynes, 1987), engage in corporate social responsibility (Turban and Greening, 1997), provide job security (Amar, 1995; Schwoerer and Rosen, 1989), promote work visa sponsorship (Lambert et al., 2019), are considered highly reputable (Cable and Turban, 2003) and value diversity (Avery, 2003; Brown et al., 2006; Lambert, 2015; Lambert et al., 2019; Perkins et al., 2000). When recruitment materials reflect the values, beliefs or identity of job seekers, they will form positive impressions of the firm because individuals are more attracted to others like themselves (Tsui et al., 1992). Stemming from the similarity-attraction paradigm (Byrne, 1971) and social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner, 1986), individuals are more willing to connect with others who share similar visible traits or attitudes (Van Knippenberg and Van Schie, 2000), and are more attracted to firms that display the same employee characteristics and values as their own (Schneider, 1987). Drawing from signaling theory (Spence, 1973), individuals interpret visible and tangible characteristics of organizations, like those found in job ads, to make inferences about less observable aspects (Celani and Singh, 2010). Recruitment ads that include images and statements supportive of diversity signal job seekers' perceptions regarding a firm’s value of diversity.

Organizations that do not effectively recruit women cannot benefit from gender diversity in the workplace and are potentially at a competitive disadvantage in finding talented employees (Iseke and Pull, 2019). This dearth of women in the workplace negatively impacts organizations as functional workplace gender diversity can promote positive organizational outcomes such as occupational well-being, and better decision-making (Fine et al., 2020). As organizations recognize the value of having a diverse workforce, many studies have investigated strategies to attract women and traditionally underrepresented applicants that are effective (e.g. Avery, 2003; Chapman et al., 2005; Lambert et al., 2019; Olsen et al., 2016; Thomas and Wise, 1999; Walker et al., 2007; Williamson et al., 2008). One way is to include images of women and/or minority employees or diversity-valuing statements in fictitious recruitment advertisements (e.g. Avery, 2003; Avery and McKay, 2006; Kravitz et al., 1997; Williamson et al., 2008). Regarding the organizational attraction of women specifically, Thomas and Wise (1999) found that women evaluate organizations described as having characteristics supportive of diversity more favorably than men. There is also evidence that skewed-diversity recruitment ads, depicting fewer women executives compared to men, will portray the firm as less attractive to women job seekers compared to ads that are gender-diversity salient portraying more women executives, especially in non-stereotypical executive leadership roles (e.g. CFO vs. CHRO) (Iseke and Pull, 2019). Drawing from research suggesting that individuals are more attracted to characteristics that reflect their own (Avery, 2003; Tsui et al., 1992; Williamson et al., 2008), we propose that women job seekers will be less attracted to organizations that depict a male-majority ratio of men to women employees in their recruitment ads.

Kanter (1977) introduced tokenism theory to explain workplace inequality’s effects. Individuals belong to a token group when 15% or less of their identity group is represented within a work group or organization. Kanter describes this type of group as skewed, containing a larger number of members from one identity group categorized as “dominants”, and a smaller number of members categorized as “tokens.” “Dominants” control the group and its culture as they hold the majority in a group ratio up to 85:15. Also groups may have as few as one solo token member. Uniform groups are made up of only one type of identity group; a homogeneous group that forms a “typological ratio” of 100:0, for example. Groups with a ratio between 60:40 to 50:50 are considered balanced groups, and tilted groups have less extreme token effects than skewed groups with a ratio of approximately 65:35. Token women employees experience token effects by being in skewed work environments where they are only one of few employees representing their identity group at work (Kanter, 1977). This group proportion is skewed and relates to three perceptual phenomena experienced by tokens.

Kanter argued that token perceptual phenomena result from the proportional composition of groups, with implications for tokens’ work roles, their behavior, and how others perceive their performance in organizations. The first perceptual phenomenon, visibility, occurs as tokens perceive that they and their work are more observable and receive more attention compared to their dominant counterparts. The second phenomenon, contrast or polarization, is when dominants exacerbate differences between themselves and tokens. Assimilation, the third phenomenon, involves the subjugation of tokens by dominants into stereotypical or lesser roles within the organization also known as role entrapment. These three perceptual phenomena result in token effects, experiences and reactions that impact the emotional well-being and behaviors of token employees (Kanter, 1977; Young and James, 2002).

Tokens who are highly visible experience anxiety, stemming from pressures to perform as they receive greater attention compared to dominants (Kanter, 1977; Yoder, 1991). As a result, emotional distress can occur among tokens in the workplace. Polarization causes tokens to feel alienated as dominants may emphasize differences between themselves and tokens. This may be done through conversation or activities at work in which men highlight what they can do in contrast to women (Kanter, 1977). For example, men may discuss sports more often when women are present. When dominants exaggerate the salience of identity groups such as gender or race, it creates boundaries that limit the emotional intimacy and support needed by tokens to be successful. Over time, it becomes challenging for tokens to resist the inequitable expectations of dominants, leading to the third perceptual phenomenon, assimilation. Token effects that result from assimilation may include being differentially treated or assigned positions in the organizations where they stereotypically fit. This role encapsulation can cause token employees to act out the stereotypes they are expected to play, thereby distorting how they are viewed professionally (Kanter, 1977).

There has been some debate regarding the limitations of Kanter’s model (King et al., 2010; Yoder, 1991; Zimmer, 1988). Kanter proposed that tokenism theory is generalizable, where token perceptual phenomena can be experienced by tokens of any race, gender, or other identity groups that comprises 15% or less of their work group (Kanter, 1977). However, the influence that gender proportionality has on token effects has produced mixed findings. Some studies show no evidence of token effects for token men (Fairhurst and Snavely, 1983; Williams, 1992; Yoder and Sinnett, 1985), or for women who are underrepresented in their workplace (McDonald et al., 2004). Researchers have attempted to explain this by suggesting that other contextual factors should be considered, and that a theory of tokenism based purely on numbers is limited (Yoder, 1994). This suggests that individual differences play an important role, and that it may take more than just balancing out-group proportions to mitigate the negative token effect resulting from visibility, contrast, and assimilation that tokens experience. More importantly, the attitudes towards the awareness or belief of being treated like a token may have a greater impact on outcomes attributed to token effects.

King et al. (2010) introduced the psychological climate perspective as a framework to better understand the experience of women who are token employees at work. Based on their research, the psychological climate of gender equity represents individual perceptions instead of a cumulative measure of the demographic make-up of an organization, industry, or work group. Results from their study suggest that token women perceive their work environment to be more inequitable than non-token women. Further, the subjective experience of tokenism (i.e. perceived token phenomena such as greater visibility, etc.) mediated the effect of being a token woman on the perceptions of inequity. Their study demonstrates that token women not only realize they are tokens, but their beliefs about their token status affect their salience of outcomes associated with being a token, which relates to their perceptions about their work environment. Individuals develop schemas from their experiences to form assumptions about new ones (Fiske and Taylor, 1991), such as what to expect when encountering a psychological climate of gender inequity.

There is still limited research regarding what factors enable women to vigilantly endure the negative consequences of being a token employee and the underlying psychological mechanisms that motivate women to choose to work or not work for a company where they will be underrepresented. Gender diverse advertisements are often utilized as an effective recruitment tool for organizations desiring an increase in women in the workplace (Iseke and Pull, 2019), and can influence women’s attraction to organizations, yet scant research examines the underlying psychological reasons for this phenomenon. Understanding within-group differences among women may help researchers understand why some women thrive as a token employee and how organizational leaders who are sincerely interested in diversifying their workforce may attract more women to work for their organization. We contend that recruitment ads depicting skewed male-majority diversity will signal negative expectations to women about the psychological climate of gender equity at that organization, reinforcing their belief that they may experience token effects if they choose to work there.

Despite overwhelming evidence of the critical impact of stereotypes, many people underestimate how susceptible they are to stereotypes and the possible influence stereotypes may have on their lives (Pinel, 1999). Stigma consciousness, or the extent to which individuals are aware of the stereotypes about their in-group, plays a critical role in how women job seekers interpret recruitment advertisements. For women with high stigma consciousness (HSC), this awareness becomes a central lens through which they evaluate work environments, making them more vigilant about potential prejudice and tokenism. In contrast, low stigma consciousness (LSC) individuals may recognize stereotypes but are less likely to see them as relevant to their ability to perform in a workplace. This distinction is vital in the context of recruitment ads that emphasize skewed male-majority diversity. HSC individuals, due to their heightened sensitivity to bias, are more likely to perceive such ads as signaling a lack of gender diversity and inclusion. These perceptions may evoke concerns about being tokenized, amplifying the salience of stereotypes and influencing their response to these recruitment efforts. LSC individuals, however, may not interpret these signals with the same level of concern, leading to weaker token effect beliefs.

Research suggests that stigma consciousness is also linked to other phenomena, such as stereotype threat, which involves situational anxiety, triggered by fear of confirming negative stereotypes about one’s in-group, leading to increased stress and impaired performance (Steele and Aronson, 1995). While stereotype threat is situational, stigma consciousness represents a more chronic and internalized awareness of bias (Pinel, 1999). Over time, repeated exposure to stereotype threat may heighten stigma consciousness, creating a feedback loop that influences how women perceive organizational signals in recruitment ads.

Given the heightened vigilance of HSC women and their susceptibility to perceiving workplace environments as unwelcoming based on skewed diversity signals, we propose that HSC will report stronger token effect beliefs in response to male-majority diversity ads compared to their LSC counterparts.

Organizations that highlight gender diversity characteristics are more attractive to women job seekers (Iseke and Pull, 2019; Thomas and Wise, 1999). Conversely, recruitment ads that lack images of female representation may signal to women job seekers that the work climate will reflect a homogeneous one where they will be a token employee. They will be less likely to pursue working there due to their perception that they will experience token perceptual phenomena and token effects.

During the early stages of recruitment, job seekers form attitudes about employers (Wanous, 1992) based on how they interpret recruitment messages. Positive messages tend to enhance organizational attractiveness, while signals of potential discomfort, such as being a token employee, reduce it (Jones et al., 2014; Kravitz, 1995). For women with HSC, skewed male-majority diversity ads are likely to evoke stronger token effect beliefs, negatively impacting organizational attractiveness. LSC women, by contrast, may be less influenced by these signals due to their lower sensitivity to bias-related cues. When job seekers perceive recruitment messages as signaling an environment where they may be token employees, they are less likely to find the organization appealing.

Signaling theory (Spence, 1973) supports the idea that perceived characteristics of a firm, conveyed through recruitment ads, shape job seekers' perceptions and subsequent interest. Recruitment ads that fail to demonstrate an inclusive and equitable work environment may signal to women job seekers—particularly those with HSC—that the organization does not value gender diversity, reducing its overall appeal. Ample evidence from prior research suggests that perceived characteristics of the firm can influence organizational attractiveness (Bell et al., 1997; Jones et al., 2014; Kravitz, 1995), based on signaling theory (Spence, 1973), we contend that:

Thus far, we have proposed that skewed male-majority diversity ad emphasis is negatively related to organizational attractiveness among women (Hypothesis 1), and that token effect beliefs will be higher among women job seekers when recruitment ads promote a skewed male-majority diversity (Hypothesis 2). We also proposed that stigma consciousness moderates the effect of skewed male-majority ad diversity emphasis on token effect beliefs (Hypothesis 3), and that token effect beliefs will be related to organizational attractiveness (Hypothesis 4). Thus, not only do we propose that token effect beliefs will be related to organizational attractiveness, we also propose that a conditional indirect effect exists for recruitment ad diversity emphasis and stigma consciousness on organizational attractiveness through token effect beliefs. As such, we contend that although women applicants will be less attracted to skewed male-majority recruitment ads, and will measure high on token effect beliefs towards organizations that use skewed male-majority recruitment ads, their token effect beliefs will weaken and their OA will strengthen when they measure low on stigma consciousness. Based on prior research, this type of model is a moderated-mediation model (James and Brett, 1984; Preacher et al., 2007) resulting in our final hypothesis (full model shown in Figure 1).

The current study was approved by the Institutional Board at a medium-sized university and conforms to Federal wide Assurance #FWA 00000178 issued by the US Department of Health and Human Services, with an IRB registration number IRB00000829. The current study was conducted ethically, responsibly, legally, and participants provided informed consent to participate. Data were collected from undergraduate students from a medium-sized university located in Southwest USA. Because organizations target college students as job applicants (Powell and Goulet, 1996; Rynes and Boudreau, 1986) they have been used as an appropriate sample for studies that examine organizational attractiveness (Avery, 2003; Lambert, 2015; Lambert et al., 2019; Thomas and Wise, 1999). Participants provided informed consent, and their participation either fulfilled a course requirement or earned extra credit. When participating for extra credit, they were provided an alternate assignment to write a one-page summary about an article on a topic related to management. Participants with missing data related to the variables being investigated were removed, resulting in 136 valid responses. Study participants were 95.5% female with a mean age of 27.05 years (SD = 8.67). Most identified as White (40.9%), followed by Black (23.5%), Hispanic (19.0%), Asian (8.8%), and Other (7.8%). Finally, 52% of respondents indicated they were employed full-time, 34.1% were employed part-time, and 13.6% were not currently employed. Participants’ demographic data were collected after the primary variables under investigation were measured to avoid priming effects. Because the intragroup difference in attitudes among women was of primary interest, male participants were removed from the study before further statistical analyses testing our hypotheses.

Recruitment advertisements were developed for a fictitious company based upon ads found on the websites of popular businesses. The text was adapted from examples taken from prior studies on organizational attractiveness (e.g. Avery, 2003; Kim and Gelfand, 2003; Lambert, 2015; Schwoerer and Rosen, 1989; Walker et al., 2007; Williams and Bauer, 1994) and text found from company recruitment websites. The fictitious web recruitment ads included scenarios that manipulated the variable diversity resulting in two ad conditions: (1) skewed male-majority ad emphasis and, (2) tilted female-majority ad emphasis. The recruitment ads were identical except for text and images based on the study condition. The skewed male-majority ad condition included a generic statement about the organization being an equal opportunity employer, two separate photos of a businessman, and one photo depicting one businesswoman and two businessmen standing side by side; this skewed male-majority condition depicts a woman employee with “solo” token status as defined by Kanter (1977). The tilted female-majority ad condition included statements adapted from prior studies reflecting the company’s value for diversity and inclusiveness. This condition also included three photos framed in the same way as those in the equal opportunity employer condition but included more businesswomen than businessmen; this tilted condition depicts women employees in the majority with an approximate 65:35 group typology ratio as defined by Kanter (1977). The skewed male-majority diversity condition was coded as 0 and the tilted female-majority diversity condition was coded as 1. The race of the models depicted in the job ads was not held constant across the conditions.

Organizational attractiveness. The scale used to measure the dependent variable Organizational Attractiveness (Aiman-Smith et al., 2001), included five items using a seven-point Likert scale. Sample items include “This would be a good company to work for” and, “I find this a very attractive company.” Internal consistency reliability for scores in the current study was α = 0.91.

Token effect beliefs. The mediating variable token effect beliefs was measured using a three-item five-point Likert scale adapted from three separate single-item scales used to measure three token effects experienced by employees at work (Gustafson, 2008). For the current study, we combined the three single-item scales into one overall measure to capture the overall effect of participants’ belief they would encounter token effects. Based on the manipulated job ad presented to them, participants were asked to imagine they were seeking a position with the company and asked to answer the survey questions based on the promotional material featured within it. Items included “Compared to my peers (same rank), I believe that I will more likely be criticized for my mistakes”, “Within the department, gender-related jokes will often be made”, and “I feel that I will be less likely to get chosen for certain assignments for ‘who I am’”. Internal consistency reliability for scores in the current study was α = 0.84.

Stigma consciousness. The scale used to measure the mediating variable Stigma Consciousness Questionnaire (SCQ) included ten items using a seven-point Likert scale with a prior coefficient α = 0.72 (Pinel, 1999). Sample items include “Stereotypes about women have not affected me personally.” and “Most men have a problem viewing women as equals”. Internal consistency reliability for scores in the current study was α = 0.76.

In line with the frugal perspective (Mändli and Rönkkö, 2023), we did not include the race, age, or employment status of participants as control variables because those variables did not have a significant main effect with the dependent variable organizational attractiveness.

The data for this study were collected using online surveys where participants replied to a link sent to their email address after having signed up to be a part of the research study. Upon clicking on the link they were redirected to an introductory web page where they were instructed to evaluate a fictitious recruitment web page for a fictitious consulting firm in the United States. Prior research has used this method for similar research on organizational attractiveness (Kim and Gelfand, 2003; Goltz and Giannantonio, 1995; Lambert et al., 2019). They were then randomly directed to one of the two experimental conditions via the online survey software. After viewing the web page and clicking the continue button, participants were asked to complete survey questions measuring the organizational attractiveness of the company, their token effect beliefs, their stigma consciousness, and basic demographic information.

A moderated mediation model using path analysis in Mplus v.8 was used to examine the interaction between diversity emphasis, stigma consciousness, and token effect beliefs in predicting organizational attractiveness (see Figure 1). The path analysis followed guidelines presented by Edwards and Lambert (2007) and could be considered first stage moderation because the moderating effect applies to the first stage of the indirect effect of skewed male-majority diversity emphasis on organizational attractiveness. The primary purpose of the model was to examine how token effect beliefs mediated the relationship between skewed male-majority diversity emphasis and organizational attractiveness. Furthermore, the mediation effect was dissected by examining how stigma consciousness moderated the relationship between the ad conditions and token effect beliefs.

Initially, descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations were calculated for the primary study variables (see Table 1). Specifically, point-biserial correlation analysis indicated that the ad condition with female-majority diversity (i.e. tilted female-majority emphasis = 1) related to higher organizational attractiveness and reduced token effect beliefs. In addition, token effect beliefs shared a significant, positive Pearson correlation with stigma consciousness and a significant negative relationship with organization attractiveness.

A moderated mediation model using path analysis was tested to examine each proposed hypothesis (see Figure 1). Overall, the model tested the effect of diversity emphasis on organizational attractiveness through token effect beliefs, with that effect moderated by stigma consciousness. Standardized path coefficients were examined to evaluate each hypothesis. As indicated in Table 2, there was a significant direct effect from the tilted female-majority emphasis to organizational attractiveness (β = 0.25, p = 0.004), thus Hypothesis 1 was supported. There was also a significant, negative relationship between the tilted female-majority emphasis and token effect beliefs (β = −0.42, p < 0.001), in support of Hypothesis 2.

Hypothesis 3 proposed that stigma consciousness moderated the relationship between the tilted female-majority emphasis and token effect beliefs. Results of the path analysis supported this hypothesis (p < 0.001). To further examine the interaction between stigma consciousness and diversity emphasis, regression lines were plotted at 1 standard deviation above and below the mean of stigma consciousness. As illustrated in Figure 2, the effect of the ad conditions on token effect beliefs differed significantly between the skewed male-majority emphasis compared to the tilted female-majority emphasis (test of simple slope was significant, p < 0.01). Specifically, participants who reported high stigma consciousness believed they would experience greater token effects for the male-majority ad condition compared to the female-majority ad condition. However, when stigma consciousness was low, there was not a significant relationship between the diversity emphasis and token effect beliefs (p = 0.28).

Hypothesis 4 was also supported as token effect beliefs were significantly, negatively related to organizational attractiveness (β = −0.32, p = 0.001). This significant relationship made it possible to examine the moderated mediation effect of the skewed male-majority emphasis on organizational attractiveness (Hypothesis 5). Following the analytic framework laid out by Edwards and Lambert (Equation 8; 2007), the results of the analysis indicated that there was a significant moderated mediation effect, 95% CI [0.05, 0.28]. Thus, the indirect effect of the skewed male-majority emphasis on organizational attractiveness via perceived token effect beliefs varied at different levels of stigma consciousness.

Results from our study contribute significantly to diversity, organizational attractiveness and tokenism literature. First, we address numerous calls to identify the underlying mechanisms that link the effect of diversity recruitment ads to organizational attractiveness (Breaugh, 2008; Celani and Singh, 2010; Jones et al., 2014) by revealing the signaling effect that token effect beliefs have on the early recruitment process. Moreover, our study emphasizes the importance of token effect beliefs as an underlying mechanism that drives women job seekers’ attraction to organizations. The current study reveals how the attitudes of women job seekers towards diversity recruitment ads differ, suggesting that researchers should depart from the monolithic view of women regarding workplace diversity research and explore how women may hold within-group attitudinal differences towards diversity recruitment activities and the organizations that promote them. Second, prior research demonstrates that women evaluate organizations that support diversity more favorably than organizations that do not (Iseke and Pull, 2019; Ng and Burke, 2005; Thomas and Wise, 1999). Our results indicate that the perception of women with low stigma consciousness differs from those with high stigma consciousness regarding their token effect beliefs regarding a firm perceived to lack diversity. Because women with lower stigma consciousness are less likely to perceive signals of token effects and processes, it possibly offers them a more positive outlook of working for a predominantly male organization. As revealed by our study, knowing about the effect that stigma consciousness has on work attitudes should encourage future researchers to identify what other individual traits or characteristics have a significant impact on employee and organizational outcomes. This line of research has implications for women who navigate their careers in male-dominated work environments.

As the adage goes, “Which comes first? The chicken or the egg?” Most research that investigates the effect of diversity recruitment ads on organizational attractiveness assumes that organizations already employ minorities and women who they can portray in their ads. However, prior researchers have overlooked the fact that there exist homogeneous organizations striving to become diverse that do not have women and minority employees to present in their recruitment ads in order to attract women and minorities. If they hire models (instead of using actual employees) for their recruitment ads, they may experience backlash from women employees once hired if their workforce does not represent what was falsely advertised. Not only does gender diversity attract women candidates, it also helps companies retain them once they are hired (Badal, 2014). Consequently, organizations may lose valuable time, money, and resources as newly hired employees leave or become less engaged when they realize the organization is not as diverse as they were led to believe. Results from our research suggest that a method for attracting and retaining women employees to homogeneous organizations may be to identify job seekers based on their level of stigma consciousness while these organizations sincerely strive towards reaching a goal where actual women employees can be portrayed in recruitment materials. Furthermore, because token effects perceived by LSC women did not significantly differ from that of HSC women when presented with female-majority ads (i.e. token effect beliefs were low for both HSC and LSC women), we encourage organizations who can portray actual women employees in their recruitment ads to do so without worry of this strategy discouraging LSC women job seekers from pursuing employment there. Implications of the current study may further employers’ understanding of what factors play a role in attracting more women as job candidates.

Despite the contribution our study makes regarding how token effect beliefs and stigma consciousness affect the organizational attractiveness of firms that promote diversity, there are some limitations. First, online data collection always poses limitations for controlling environmental factors. However, equivalence between online survey methods and paper-and-pencil forms has been established in prior research (Deutskens et al., 2006), and because we recruited students using an email response system, we could verify that actual participants completed the survey. Second, the race of the models in the job ads was not held constant; participants may have responded differently if race or ethnicity across the images of the ad models was intentionally manipulated as heterogeneous or homogeneous. Third, actual advertisements were not used and asking students to rate fictitious ads in a simulated situation may be parallel, but not completely equivalent, to an environment where actual job seekers are considering real companies. Self-report measures were used to collect data which could pose limitations in our study including social desirability effects, and mono-method bias as a result of common method variance (Spector, 1994). Additionally, the manipulated recruitment ads presented to participants differed in the verbiage used for the gender diversity representation in recruitment materials. Because the language used for the recruitment statements was not consistent across the ad conditions, it is possible that they influenced the responses of the participants in a confounding manner. We recommend that researchers disentangle the manipulation of recruitment statements from recruitment job ad images in future research.

Prior research suggests that the pride that job seekers expect from working for an organization with a well-known reputation is positively related to their intentions to pursue employment with that company (Cable and Turban, 2003). Furthermore, results from Cable and Turban’s (2003) study suggest that statements about an organization’s human resources philosophy, including statements regarding ethical values, did not affect job seekers’ perceptions about its reputation. Based on these findings one can speculate that organizations with a well-respected reputation might still be considered attractive to HSC individuals irrespective of the degree to which they promote their commitment to diversity. Future research should investigate the moderating effect that organizational reputation has on the relationship between pro-diversity recruitment ads, individual attitudes or dispositions, and organizational attractiveness. Additionally, the job market may affect the decisions of job seekers where during poor economic conditions when there are fewer jobs available, some HSC job seekers may be more willing to work for organizations that lack workplace diversity. This context should be considered for future research. Lastly, our sample size (N = 136) was small which may limit the generalizability of our results. We recommend that future researchers use a broader sample to mitigate this potential issue.

Future research should investigate the intersectional experiences of prospective employees and assess whether other social identities, such as, race and ethnicity, impact decision-making regarding diverse advertisements. Exploring within-group differences among women and other minoritized identity groups is also essential, as these differences may reveal varying attitudes and beliefs beyond stigma consciousness and token effect beliefs. Such an exploration could offer deeper insights into why certain women and other minoritized job seekers perceive diversity programs and initiatives differently. Additionally, researchers should examine the factors that attract some women, but not others, to organizations perceived as lacking in diversity or inclusivity. Qualitative research designs could be particularly useful for uncovering the nuanced reasons why some women are discouraged by tokenism while others are not.

Additionally, future research should also examine the role of gender identity salience—defined as the extent to which an individual’s gender is a central aspect of their social identity, shaping their experiences and interactions in various contexts (Abrams et al., 1985)—in shaping responses to stereotype threat and tokenism in organizational settings. Gender identity salience differs from stigma consciousness, which refers to an individual’s awareness of potential stigma based on their identity. In contrast, gender identity salience focuses on how central one’s gender is to their self-concept, influencing their perceptions and behaviors. For instance, women with high gender identity salience may react more strongly to male-dominated environments, not merely because they are aware of stigma, but because their gender is an integral part of how they navigate such settings. Future studies should explore how this heightened salience interacts with recruitment strategies and organizational practices, especially those perceived as non-inclusive. By investigating gender identity salience as distinct from stigma consciousness, researchers can better understand how individual differences shape responses to workplace diversity initiatives. Furthermore, through investigation of these two constructs future research can provide a more nuanced understanding of how individual differences shape responses to workplace diversity initiatives. Such research could also inform more targeted recruitment and retention strategies for organizations producing valuable insight into how gender identity salience influences decision-making and organizational attractiveness (Martins and Parsons, 2007).

Additionally, a comparative study design that includes male participants could offer further insights into how diversity cues in recruitment ads are perceived across genders. Including males would allow for an examination of whether these diversity cues impact organizational attractiveness differently for men and women, and whether the measures used demonstrate measurement equivalence across genders. Such a comparative approach would enhance the generalizability of findings and provide a more comprehensive evaluation of recruitment practices. By addressing intersectional experiences, gender identity salience, and gender-based differences in perceptions of diversity cues, future research can better inform the development of effective, inclusive recruitment strategies that appeal to a broader range of prospective employees.

The aim of our study was to examine how organizations lacking gender diversity can attract women applicants based on their within-group differences in attitudes and beliefs. We recognize that some hiring managers may hire LSC women with no intention of developing a robust climate of diversity, equity, and inclusion. We discourage employers from partaking in this form of performative behavior as they may experience backlash in the form of turnover of women employees. Future research should address if this phenomena of backlash actually occurs when women and minority applicants accept positions under the guise of an organization’s bad intentions. These research directions collectively highlight the need for a more holistic approach to studying diversity management in organizations. By focusing on how intersectionality, gender identity salience, and gender differences shape recruitment experiences, future studies can offer more effective, inclusive strategies that address the needs of diverse employee populations.

Results from prior organizational attractiveness research in the diversity literature are based on assumptions that women and minority targets have uniform reactions to gender diversity stimuli in recruitment advertisements. A primary contribution of the current study is the revelation that different levels of stigma consciousness among women produce intra-group differences in attraction to organizations perceived to lack diversity and beliefs about token effects they may experience working there. For companies that lack diversity and have trouble attracting diverse applicants, this is promising as it enables those employers to develop a diverse workforce even if they do not currently have women employees, which would ordinarily attract most women job seekers. More research is needed in this area to identify what other types of recruitment literature and attitudes among women job seekers affect the organizational attractiveness of companies.