Business Finance - Management APA assignment

/ Published online: 29 August 2025

Behavior and Social Issues (2025) 34:281–292

Vol.:(0123456789)

https://doi.org/10.1007/s42822-025-00217-5

COMMENT

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI): Behavioral Science Interpretations for Optimal Outcomes

E. Scott Geller1

Accepted: 30 June 2025 © Association for Behavior Analysis International 2025

Abstract Science-based definitions of diversity, equity, and inclusion are proposed as con- structs every organization should adopt, advocate, and practice. From a behavioral science perspective, diversity is more than a person’s race or gender. Rather, diver- sity refers to distinctions between people’s knowledge, skills, and perspectives that enable synergy when they collaborate to develop an action plan that will be more effective than that attainable from those individuals working alone and indepen- dently. Equity can be defined from equity theory—the presumption that job satis- faction is determined by participants comparing their ratio of behavioral contribu- tion/positive compensation to the contribution/compensation ratios of others. When employees believe their contribution/compensation ratio is consistently lower or higher than their coworkers’ contribution/compensation ratios, they adjust their behavior to restore perceived equity. However, perceptions of equity vary among individuals and effect their proclivity to perform prosocial or actively-caring-for- people (AC4P) behavior. Individual differences in equity disposition and pro- pensity to perform AC4P behavior can be assessed reliably with the Equity Sen- sitivity Instrument (ESI) illustrated in this article. Inclusion is distinguished from acceptance and is the foundation of psychological safety—a human dynamic that determines the extent that interpersonal communication can be open and candid. Reinforcing frank and honest communication is proposed as a plan to transform diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) into behaviors that can enhance the beneficial consequences of an occupational or educational culture. Indeed, the performance of behaviors consistent with the DEI concepts elucidated in this commentary would boost human well-being wherever and whenever they are practiced.

Keywords Actively caring for people (AC4P) · Behavioral science · Diversity · Equity · Inclusion · Psychological safety · Synergy

* E. Scott Geller [email protected]

1 Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, United States

Behavior and Social Issues (2025) 34:281–292

Introduction

This commentary provides a behavioral science perspective of DEI—a concept that influences decision-making, policy, and behavior in numerous US organizations, includ- ing the federal government. Corporations and educational institutions in the US have established formal DEI departments or committees with the primary mission to foster diversity, equity, and inclusion among their employees or students. Recently, this DEI directive has become extremely provocative and volatile with the Trump administration mandating the elimination of all DEI departments across the entire federal government, making the definition and the purpose of DEI ambiguous and controversial. Indeed, some interpretations of DEI give the impression that promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion can actually decrease desirable outcomes in organizations and educational institutions, and can even be dangerous (e.g., with the increase of unskilled immigrants to enhance diversity). Negative nonproductive definitions and applications of DEI are likely caused by narrow, nonscientific interpretations of diversity, equity, and/or inclusion.

Question: Is there a consensus or general understanding of what these three terms mean and infer for decision-making and behavior? More specifically, what does DEI imply with regard to:

(a) Optimizing the performance of a work team, (b) Cultivating a productive milieu, and (c) Improving human welfare?

Actually, diversity, equity, and inclusion reflect concepts and practices used by organizations to:

(a) Recognize and value the differences among individuals, (b) Ensure fair opportunities for everyone, and (c) Foster a work culture in which everyone feels welcomed and respected.

That DEI vision is certainly desirable and praiseworthy, but the operational defi- nitions of diversity, equity, and inclusion are crucial. Some interpretations of these terms stifle potential benefits. How can DEI optimize individual and organizational performance? This commentary addresses this critical question with evidence-based perspectives from behavioral and psychological science.

Diversity

Diversity is a popular term these days, and it is typically defined by race and gen- der, as readily determined by the physical characteristics of an individual. Thus, it is typically assumed that a team or workgroup is diverse if it includes men and women of multiple races. However, that overly simplistic definition of diversity misses the distinctions in knowledge, skills, attitudes, and perspectives that enable synergy— the combination of ideas and interpretations that result in a decision or action plan

282

Behavior and Social Issues (2025) 34:281–292

more effective or beneficial than that attainable from individuals working alone and independently.

When everyone on a problem-solving team has similar education, expertise, compe- tencies, and issue-related viewpoints, deriving and agreeing on a relevant action plan is a relatively quick process. However, that outcome will reflect input from only the sum of similar parts. A synergistic action plan occurs when the parts are dissimilar and interact to produce an innovative solution that might be a compromise between divergent per- spectives. Reaching a consensus between participants with various disparate opinions does not happen efficiently, but the derived action plan will likely be most effective.

Synergistic outcomes are easier planned than accomplished. It is more efficient and convenient to just sit back and go along, giving up individual identity or a sense of per- sonal responsibility. That is analogous to the diffusion of responsibility phenomenon used to explain the “bystander apathy effect”—the observation that the more people present at an emergency, the less likely will any one person help (Latane & Darley, 1970). As illustrated in Fig. 1, minimal diversity results in the most efficient delibera- tion and decision, but the derived action plan is likely to be sub-optimal and/or unjust.

Thus, inspiring a diverse work team to collaborate and achieve beneficial synergy is a key challenge for a facilitator or leader of a work team. Innovative ideas and solutions to problems are most likely to emerge from a combination of divergent competencies, paradigms, and even biases. That level of interactive dialogue and interpersonal teach- ing/learning leads to synergy, whereby various perspectives and life experiences mix and match to activate creative proposals. Diverse perspectives enable progression to an optimal and innovative outcome. The synergistic whole is greater than the sum of its

Fig. 1 Diversity benefits decision-making

283

Behavior and Social Issues (2025) 34:281–292

diverse parts—not only because there is synergy between the parts, but also because each part contributes to the whole and reflects the overall mission.

Equity

No one can deny the need for equity or the fair and impartial treatment of individu- als—from manager to employee, teacher to student, and parent to child, and between the individuals at every level of command or authority. Obviously, the achievement of a culture in which everyone is treated fairly is a meaningful and desirable goal for every organizational, educational, and home environment. However, providing equi- table resources, opportunities, and treatment for everyone is much easier said than done. Why, because people bring diverse abilities, liabilities, desires, and dispositions to every situation, resulting in idiosyncratic and personal interpretations of “equity.” Yet, the perception of equity is critical for an individual’s self-motivation to achieve, whether at work, in school, or at home. Thus, it is useful to consider equity theory—a research-supported explanation of job satisfaction and dissatisfaction.

Equity Theory

Originating in the 1960s, equity theory proposes that employees seek to maintain a fair balance between their contributions to a job and the benefits they receive from that job, relative to the inputs and outputs they perceive among their coworkers. In other words, individuals assess their ratio of work-input contributions to their work-output compen- sation, and they compare that ratio to other people’s input/output ratio. When those ratios are similar, job satisfaction is relatively high. But what if a worker believes his or her input/output ratio is inconsistent with that of one or more coworkers?

When individuals perceive themselves as either undercompensated or overcompen- sated relative to others, they experience discomfort or cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957). They adjust their behavior and/or their perceptions to restore balance or per- ceived equity. Most of these resolutions can be classified within one of five categories:

1 When workers feel under-rewarded, they decrease their inputs, such as loafing on the job or leaving work early.

2 When individuals feel over-rewarded for their efforts, they increase their inputs. 3 Sometimes employees increase their outputs through legal action or illegal activi-

ties, such as stealing company assets. 4 Individuals make themselves feel better by distorting reality and rationalizing an

inequity that favors them—“Everyone else does it, so why not I?” 5 Individuals can quit their job and look for a more equitable work situation.

Individual Differences

Suppose you leave your workplace around noon one day without telling anyone and get credit for working the entire day. How would you feel? Would you feel guilty

284

Behavior and Social Issues (2025) 34:281–292

and make a personal commitment to contribute extra effort later to make up for that lost time? Or, would you feel vindicated because you often do more than what is required at work? Alternatively, you might feel neither of those emotions because thoughts of contributing less than others at work this day don’t even enter your mind.

Readers’ answers to these questions might vary substantially. For some, the thought of contributing less than their coworkers on a particular workday elic- its no guilt feelings or motivation to increase personal effort on subsequent days. On the other hand, some readers might be very sensitive to variations in perceived fairness at work and would feel discomfort until their perceptions of inequity were eliminated. These distinctions reflect the research-based evidence that perceptions of equity very substantially among people, supporting the premise that the degree of guilt following an early exit from work would vary substantially among individuals. Consider the following three different orientations toward equity, as well as their potential implications for prosocial behavior to actively care for human welfare.

Benevolents Benevolent individuals prefer their input/output ratio to be larger than the input/output ratios of comparative others. These are people who think more about giving than receiving, and they are most likely to actively care for the health and welfare of others. With perceived social responsibility and empathy for other people, benevolents perceive the needs of others, and they are willing to sacrifice their own self-interests for the wellbeing of others. These individuals would feel the most guilt after skipping a day of work, and they would work diligently on subse- quent days to make up for their lost input opportunities.

Entitleds Opposite to the benevolents are the entitled who would feel no distress or guilt after sneaking a day off from work. In other words, entitleds strive for low input/ output ratios, and therefore they have high thresholds for feeling indebted. Any extra benefit they receive is deserved, and they feel minimal obligation to reciprocate. Don’t expect much actively caring for people (AC4P) behavior from entitled individuals.

Equity Sensitives Equity sensitive individuals subscribe to the social norm of equity, and they are most content when their input/output ratio at work is equal to that of their coworkers. They feel distress when undercompensated and guilt when over- compensated. These are the only individuals who experience both distress and guilt with regard to an equity imbalance. In contrast, the entitleds feel distress when they are under-rewarded, but are satisfied when they are over-rewarded for their perfor- mance. In contrast, benevolents experience guilt when they are over-rewarded, but feel good when they are under-rewarded for their efforts.

The Equity Sensitivity Instrument (ESI)

Figure 2 contains an equity scale developed by Husemann et al. (1985) to classify people into one of the three equity-sensitivity categories described above. The ESI is easy to administer and score. As illustrated in Fig. 2, participants distribute

285

Behavior and Social Issues (2025) 34:281–292

ten points between two alternatives for each of five questions. Then, the number of points given for the benevolent alternative per each question is summed, as explained in Fig. 2.

The five ques�ons below ask what you would like your rela�onship to be with any organiza�on for which you might work. For each ques�on, divide ten points between the two answers (A and B) by giving the most points to the choice most like you and the fewest points to the choice least like you. You may give the same number of points to both alterna�ves, and you may use zeros.

Be sure to use all ten points for each ques�on. For example, the distribu�on of ten points for the sample ques�on might vary widely, as shown below.

I like:

A. Spinach __0_ __3_ __5_ __8_

Or or or or

B. Ice Cream __10_ __7_ __5_ __2_

In Any Organiza�on I Might Work For:

1. It would be more important for me to: A. Get from the organiza�on. B. Give to the organiza�on.

2. It would be more important for me to: A. Help others. B. Watch out for my own good.

3. I would be more concerned about: A. What I received from the organiza�on. B. What I contributed to the organiza�on.

4. The hard work I would do should: A. Benefit the organiza�on. B. Benefit me.

5. My personal philosophy in dealing with the organiza�on would be: A. If I don’t look out for myself, nobody else will. B. It’s be�er for me to give than to receive.

Now, add the numbers of points given to the following ques�on alterna�ves: 1B, 2A, 3B, 4A, and 5B. Individuals are considered En�tled if their score is less than 29, Benevolent if their score is greater than 32, and Equity Sensi�ve if their score is between 29 and 32. Plus, the degree of an En�tled versus a Benevolent perspec�ve is indicated by one's score. For example, a score of 28 is only sugges�ve of an En�tled state, whereas a score of 12 reflects a highly En�tled disposi�on.

Fig. 2 The Equity Sensitivity Inventory (ESI)

286

Behavior and Social Issues (2025) 34:281–292

Research Support

Substantial research has supported the reliability and validity of the ESI (King & Miles, 1994). For example, cultural differences support the theoretical foundation of the ESI, with individuals in a collectivistic culture scoring lower (i.e., more enti- tled) than individuals from an individualistic culture. In addition, women have been found to score significantly higher on the ESI (i.e., more benevolent) than men.

An ESI score may indicate the extent to which the participant adheres to the Protestant work ethic versus a “spread-the-wealth” mindset. Those scoring 30 or above believe people are essentially in control of their fate and should receive equitable consequences for their performance. In contrast, those scoring below 20 have a lower sense of personal control and often subscribe to an “equity norm,” believing that more should be given to those with greater need.

Finally, as predicted, research has shown positive correlations between peo- ple’s ESI score and their job satisfaction and their organizational commitment (King et al., 1993). Plus, those scoring higher than 32 (i.e., benevolents) are more likely to actively care for another person’s welfare than those scoring below 29.

Trait vs. State

Lively and informative group conversation could follow the administration and scor- ing of the ESI. Most individuals will be enlightened when learning their personal equity perspective, and could share various rationales for particular equity view- points. Most importantly, participants could discuss circumstances and contingen- cies that can increase a person’s ESI score, perhaps transitioning a disposition from entitled to equity sensitive, or from equity sensitive to benevolent.

That latter point presumes a person’s equity outlook is a mutable disposition rather than a stable personality trait. While some personality dispositions are pre- sumed to be traits that influence consistent behaviors, it is likely that variations in an individual’s ESI score reflects a state or a behavioral propensity that varies as a function of changes in the situation as well as the person’s other personality states. For example, an individual’s propensity toward benevolent behavior (or actively caring) can be increased by establishing a relevant accountability system and/or by enhancing particular personality states such as self-esteem, self-efficacy, personal control, optimism, and belongingness (Geller, 1996, 2024).

Consider asking members of a work team to take the ESI and calculate their equity disposition. Afterward, facilitate an open discussion of the three dispositions found among the participants and consider the organizational factors that could have influenced a particular equity state. Such a discussion could be quite enlightening and influence suggestions for organizational or cultural improvement. Is such a can- did discussion feasible among your colleagues? Your answer to that critical question is dependent on “psychological safety,” a human dynamic explained in the next sec- tion on Inclusion.

287

Behavior and Social Issues (2025) 34:281–292

Inclusion

Cultivating diversity, equity, and inclusion among participants in a work, school, or home environment requires psychological safety—a culture wherein participants feel accepted, respected, and appreciated, and believe they will not be humiliated or punished when speaking up with questions, concerns, mistakes, or new ideas (Clark, 2020). Employees who feel psychologically safe are more engaged in their work; they speak up more often; and they are motivated to improve the performance of their team and the organization (Detert & Trevino, 2008; Edmondson, 1999).

Of course, the same can be said about students in an elementary school, mid- dle school, high school, or college. Recently, one of the author’s students led the development and evaluation of a survey designed to assess students’ perception of psychological safety in their university classes (Parker-Rollins & Geller, 2024). As predicted, psychological safety was higher in classes with fewer students, and with teachers and topics that inspired more group discussion.

So, why include the human dynamic of psychological safety within a discussion of inclusion? Clark (2020) described four stages of psychological safety as:

(1) Inclusion safety, (2) Learner safety, (3) Contributor safety, and (4) Challenger safety.

He proclaimed Inclusion safety to be the foundation stage of psychological safety—when individuals feel accepted within their group or work team and sense a comfortable disposition of belongingness and interdependency, analogous to the benefits of synergy, discussed earlier as the collaborative involvement of individuals with diverse perspectives.

Accepted vs. Included

ChatGPT defines “feeling accepted” as “being valued for who you are, with all your unique qualities and characteristics. It’s a deep sense of being okay just as you are, without the need to change.” In contrast, ChatGPT defines “feeling included” as “being involved and having a place in activities, conversations, and opportunities. It  is often more about the external environment and actions that make you part of a group…… feeling included means you’re invited, welcomed, and able to contribute.”

In the US a rather dramatic change in the use of pronouns has occurred in order to explicitly accept the nonbinary or transgender disposition of some individuals. A plural pronoun (e.g., their, they, them) is commonly used when referring to one person, even when referring to a cisgender individual. Relatedly, many participants in an Internet Zoom meeting place a pronoun in parentheses after their posted name to reflect their gender—(she, her), (he, him), and (they, them). This protocol clearly reflects gender transparency and the acceptance of a nonbinary gender, but inclusion is not necessarily implicated. In fact, a minority of they/them participants among a

288

Behavior and Social Issues (2025) 34:281–292

majority of he/him and she/her participants reveals an “outsider” in the group, and that could actually decrease a perception of “inclusion” for a nonbinary participant.

According to ChatGPT “feeling included” is “not only about being accepted, but also actively participating and being involved in group activities, decisions, or interactions…. you’re considered a valuable part of the social or professional envi- ronment, and your presence and contributions matter.” While the formerly incorrect use of pronouns does reflect acceptance of nonbinary individuals, it is pertinent to consider whether that language modification enhances sincere feelings of inclusion among nonbinary and transgender individuals.

Related Research

Two of the author’s nonbinary students assessed the psychological safety of transgender and nonbinary students at Virginia Tech by administering the Multi-Dimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (Zimet et al., 1988) to 26 transgender or nonbinary stu- dents and 57 cisgender students, and they found perceived social support and psycho- logical safety to be significantly lower among the nonbinary and transgender students than the cisgender students (Kozan, Nance, Townsend, & Geller, 2024; Kozan, Nance, Townsend, Zhang et al., 2025). Obviously, that finding of relatively low perceptions of inclusion among nonbinary and transgender students is preliminary, but at least it sug- gests a crucial difference between feeling accepted and feeling included.

From Discussion to Behavior

Please consider the value of discussing some of the concepts or issues activated by this commentary on DEI, and deriving action plans for improvement. Shar- ing personal perspectives of diversity, equity, and inclusion, and then considering approaches for applying these concepts to optimize individual and group perfor- mance would be extremely valuable. However, such an open and candid discussion requires psychological safety—an interpersonal context in which participants are willing to speak up and explore real-world facilitators and inhibitors of diversity, equity, and inclusion as defined here. Thus, it would be useful to discuss factors that influence perceptions of psychological safety among participants in a work or edu- cational setting, and then consider behaviors that can enhance psychological safety.

Consider starting such a discussion by reminding the participants of the four lev- els of psychological safety—feeling included, believing you are learning and con- tributing, and that you can challenge the status quo. Then, facilitate a discussion of environmental and management-system factors that can influence a person’s percep- tion of psychological safety, emphasizing that feeling uncomfortable to mention cur- rent inhibitors of psychological safety exemplifies the challenge to overcome.

After discussing the benefits of psychological safety, and defining behaviors that could enhance this human dynamic, it would be valuable to follow the same process of:

(a) Group discussion,

289

Behavior and Social Issues (2025) 34:281–292

(b) Action planning, and (c) Delivering interpersonal gratitude and positive reinforcement when observing

behaviors that support the DEI concepts discussed here.

In other words, look for opportunities to increase the occurrence of behaviors that support diversity, equity, and inclusion as defined in this commentary.

Summary

This commentary was not created to criticize current interpretations and applica- tions of the DEI construct. Indeed, DEI is a commendable strategy or directive for improving the human dynamics of any organization—from hiring a diverse workforce to managing fair and motivating work procedures. The elimination of racism in hiring practices, the inclusion of more minority races and female employees, the systematic evaluation of criteria for equitable compensation, and the implementation of procedures to encourage more participant involvement at meetings and training sessions are certainly praiseworthy initiatives and should continue. This commentary merely introduced some interpretations of diversity, equity, and inclusion from a psychological and behavioral science perspective that could enhance the human dynamics of a DEI-inspired process or culture.

From a psychological science perspective, true diversity results in synergy, whereby the outcome of collaboration between individuals is greater or more beneficial than that obtainable from the sum of the outputs from each individ- ual working alone. For that to happen, diversity must include variations in skills, competencies, perspectives, attitudes, and opinions. Such diversity makes deci- sion-making less efficient, but more effective. Obviously, this definition of diver- sity involves more than variations in race and gender.

The psychological interpretation of equity focuses on individual perceptions of fairness; and in the workplace, that perception includes the comparison of work contribution/compensation ratios among the employees. The equity sensitiv- ity instrument (ESI) was introduced to illustrate individual differences in equity perceptions, with some individuals feeling most satisfied when their input/out- put ratio is relatively high. These individuals are labeled “benevolent” and are most likely to actively care for the welfare of others. This is not the case for the “entitled” workers who are pleased to receive more from the organization than is warranted from their contributions. Between these extremes are the “equity sensi- tive” individuals who are most content when their input/output ratio matches that of their coworkers.

The concept of inclusion was introduced as the foundation of psychological safety—a culture of interdependent learning and contributing, and interpersonal behavioral feedback and appreciation. The difference between feeling accepted and feeling included was exemplified by the perceptions of many nonbinary and transgender individuals. While the use of pronouns in the US has been modified to

290

Behavior and Social Issues (2025) 34:281–292

accept those individuals, there is no empirical evidence that the use of a plural pro- noun to refer to one person enhances a perception of inclusion among nonbinary and transgender individuals.

A basic plan for applying the behavioral and psychological science of DEI to improve a work or education culture includes:

a Frank and open discussions of organizational and dispositional factors that benefit and stifle diversity, equity, and inclusion as defined in this commentary,

b Identifying behaviors that could increase the occurrence of those factors that benefit diversity, equity, and inclusion, and

c Interpersonal applications of behavioral feedback and gratitude to reinforce those behaviors that facilitate diversity, equity, and inclusion.

To say that this is easier said than done is an understatement, but the large- scale benefits from such interdependent intervention is well worth the effort needed to stifle and undermine the current virulent anti-science DEI ideology of the Trump administration.

Acknowledgements Samuel Browning and Ivan Savelyev.

Author Contribution There are no coauthors of this commentary

Funding This manuscript was not supported by any funding mechanism.

Data Availability No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.

Declarations

Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests.

References

Clark, T. R. (2020). The 4 stages of psychological safety: Defining the path to inclusion and innova- tion. Berrett-Koehler.

Detert, J. R., & Trevino, L. K. (2008). Speaking up to higher-ups: How supervisors and skip-level leaders influence employee voice. Organization Science, 21(1), 249–270.https:// doi. org/ 10. 1287/ orsc. 1080. 0405

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Sci- ence Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.http:// www. jstor. org/ stable/ 26669 99? origin= JSTOR- pdf

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Row, Peterson. Geller, E. S. (1996). The psychology of safety: How to improve behaviors and attitudes on the job.

Chilton. Geller, E. S. (2024). Actively caring for safety: The psychological science of injury prevention. CRC. King, W. C., Miles, E. W., & Day, D. D. (1993). A test and refinement of the equity sensitivity con-

struct. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 14, 301–317. Kozan, C. J., Nance, C., Townsend, E., & Geller, E. S. (2024). Assessing psychological safety within

the transgender community at Virginia Tech: An exploratory study. [poster session] Mid-Atlantic Regional Conference for Undergraduate Scholarship (MARCUS).

291

Behavior and Social Issues (2025) 34:281–292

Kozan, C., Nance, C. J., Townsend, E., Zhang, X., & Geller, E. S. (2025, April 7-9). Transgender perceptions of personal and psychological safety at Virginia Tech: Results suggest administrative reform. [poster session] National Conference for Undergraduate Research (NCUR).

Latane, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsible bystander: Why doesn’t he help. Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Parker-Rollins, T., & Geller, E. S. (2024, April 8-10). Psychological safety in higher education: Eval- uating perceptions of personal engagement in the classroom. [poster session] National Confer- ence for Undergraduate Research (NCUR).

Zimet, G. D., Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, S. G., & Farley, G. K. (1988). The multidimensional scale of per- ceived social support. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52, 30–41. https:// psycn et. apa. org/ record/ 1988- 18939- 001

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

292

Behavior & Social Issues is a copyright of Springer, 2025. All Rights Reserved.