Project info
Project name
6.5 Informal Social Networks and Organizational Inclusion: The Invisible Minority’s Dilemma
Work package
- Inclusion
Sustainability threat
- Feedback Cycles
Challenge
- Dealing with diversity
Study info
Related studies according to this researcher
Interpersonal Antecedents to Selective Disclosure of Lesbian and Gay Identities at Work
That’s My Cue: The Impact of Organizational, Conversational, and Conversation Partner’s Characteristics on LGB Employees’ Selective Disclosure Decisions at Work
“In Certain Situations, it’s Better for You to Act this Way Rather than Another” — LGBQ Academic Staff Members’ Selective Disclosure Decisions at Work
Related studies according to other researchers
That’s My Cue: The Impact of Organizational, Conversational, and Conversation Partner’s Characteristics on LGB Employees’ Selective Disclosure Decisions at Work
“In Certain Situations, it’s Better for You to Act this Way Rather than Another” — LGBQ Academic Staff Members’ Selective Disclosure Decisions at Work
Description of Study
Lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) employees scan their social environment for cues that indicate to what extent disclosure of their sexual identity may be received positively. These cues can originate from different sources, such as the organizational environment at large or characteristics of a conversation partner. These factors are likely to affect LGB employees’ selective disclosure decisions, or their tendency to make different disclosure decisions vis-à-vis different colleagues. The present study explores how interpersonal factors (conversational valence, directness, and the hierarchical position of the interaction partner) and contextual factors (supportiveness of the work environment) interact to influence such selective disclosure decisions. Eight vignette scenarios, depicting fictitious conversations between Charlie, a gay worker, and various colleagues were presented to both LGB and heterosexual participants (total N = 384), who were then asked to rate the likelihood of Charlie’s disclosure based on each specific interaction. Multilevel analyses (Nvignettes = 3,072) were employed to account for data dependence and the nested structure of responses. Our findings suggest that especially proximate cues, in the form of conversational valence, and to a lesser extent conversational directness, play an important role in disclosure likelihood. The results further highlight the complex interplay between interpersonal and organizational factors in affecting selective disclosure decisions among LGB employees. Implications are discussed in light of existing literature on (selective) disclosure and its relevance to organizational policy-making.
Study research question
How do organizational, conversational, and conversation partner’s characteristics affect LGB employees’ disclosure decisions at work?
Collection provenance
- Collected during project
Collection methods
- Vignette survey
Personal data
Yes
External Source
Source description
File formats
- .docx
- .R
- .spss
Data types
- Structured
- Unstructured
Languages
- English
Coverage start
Coverage end
Spatial coverage
United Kingdom
Collection period start
28/07/2021
Collection period end
02/08/2021
Variables
Unit
Unit description
Sample size
Sampling method
Individuals
Heterosexual and LGB employees in the UK
384
Prolific
Hypothesis
Theory
Disclosure likelihood will be higher in a supportive work environment versus an unsupportive work environment.
Workplace disclosure as resulting from an analysis of anticipated perceived costs and benefits
Disclosure likelihood will be higher when considering a positive versus a negative conversational cue.
Workplace disclosure as resulting from an analysis of anticipated perceived costs and benefits
The effect of conversational valence on disclosure likelihood is stronger for explicit cues than for implicit cues.
Workplace disclosure as resulting from an analysis of anticipated perceived costs and benefits
Disclosure likelihood is higher when considering a colleague versus a manager.
Workplace disclosure as resulting from an analysis of anticipated perceived costs and benefits
Proximate conversational cues have a stronger effect on disclosure likelihood than distant organizational cues.
Workplace disclosure as resulting from an analysis of anticipated perceived costs and benefits
Regarding conversational cues, their valence has a stronger effect on disclosure likelihood than their directness and the hierarchical position of the conversation partner.
Workplace disclosure as resulting from an analysis of anticipated perceived costs and benefits
Variable type
Variable name
Variable description
Dependent variable
Disclosure likelihood
The extent to which an LGB employee is likely to disclose within a particular social situation
Independent variable
Cue sender hierarchical position
The hierarchical position of the cue sender: either a co-worker (peer) or a manager (superior)
Independent variable
Cue explicitness
Whether the LGBTQ+ community is either explicitly or implicitly addressed
Independent variable
Organizational environment
Can be perceived as either supportive or unsupportive of the LGBTQ+ community
Independent variable
Cue valence
The notion of whether a statement about the LGBTQ+ community is either positive or negative
Discipline-specific operationalizations
Conflict of interest
None
Data packages
Data package pertaining to That’s My Cue: The Impact of Organizational, Conversational, and Conversation Partner’s Characteristics on LGB Employees’ Selective Disclosure Decisions at Work
Data package DOI
—
Description
Data package pertaining to That’s My Cue: The Impact of Organizational, Conversational, and Conversation Partner’s Characteristics on LGB Employees’ Selective Disclosure Decisions at Work
Accessibility
Restricted Access
Repository
University of Groningen Y-drive
User license
Retention period
10
Publications
Documents
Filename
Description
Date
Document containing all items and measures that were included in the vignette survey
2021/12/23
Ethics
Ethical assessment
Yes
Ethical committee
Ethics Committee of Psychology, Faculty of Behavioral and Social Sciences, University of Groningen