The Journal of Social Psychology

ISSN: 0022-4545 (Print) 1940-1183 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vsoc20

Protecting my turf: The moderating role of

generational differences on the relationships
between self-direction and hedonism values and
reactions to generational diversity

S. B. Dust, M. W Gerhardt, D. Hebbalalu & M. Murray

To cite this article: S. B. Dust, M. W Gerhardt, D. Hebbalalu & M. Murray (2019) Protecting my
turf: The moderating role of generational differences on the relationships between self-direction and
hedonism values and reactions to generational diversity, The Journal of Social Psychology, 159:2,
153-169, DOI: 10.1080/00224545.2019.1570903

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2019.1570903

Published online: 19 Apr 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 688

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vsoc20
THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY
2019, VOL. 159, NO. 2, 153–169
https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2019.1570903

Protecting my turf: The moderating role of generational

differences on the relationships between self-direction and
hedonism values and reactions to generational diversity
a
S. B. Dust , M. W Gerhardta, D. Hebbalalua, and M. Murraya
a
Farmer School of Business, Miami University

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Drawing from basic human values theory and generational identity theory, Received 2 August 2017
we hypothesize that two self-focused values, self-direction and hedonism, Accepted 7 January 2019
will be negatively associated with reactions to generational diversity initia-
KEYWORDS
tives, and that this relationship will differ between millennials and non- Generational differences;
millennials. As expected, our findings illustrate that self-direction and generational diversity;
hedonism are negatively related to reactions to generational diversity millennials; values
initiatives. Additionally, self-direction’s influence on reactions to diversity
initiatives is significantly higher for non-millennials than millennials. These
findings suggest that generational differences affect cognitive processes
surrounding reactions to generational diversity initiatives.

Although the popular press tends to categorize millennials as entitled and self-centered (Johnson &
Johnson, 2010), empirical evidence is mixed (Allen, Allen, Karl, & White, 2015; Grubbs & Riley, 2018;
Parry & Urwin, 2011). The unfortunate byproduct of these conversations is that they perpetuate an
adversarial mentality. Older cohorts may perceive that all millennials are difficult to work with, and
Millennials may perceive that all non-Millennials are uninterested in working together (Foster, 2013;
Kunze, Boehm, & Bruch, 2013; Lester, Standifer, Schultz, & Windsor, 2012; Liebermann, Wegge,
Jungmann, & Schmidt, 2013; Ryan, King, & Finkelstein, 2015). Both cases represent reluctance about
demographic diversity, which has severe consequences for team processes and performance (van
Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Homan, 2004). To overcome these challenges, diversity research highlights
the importance of proactively monitoring employees’ reactions to diversity initiatives (De Meuse &
Hostager, 2001). Building on this work, we suggest that it is also necessary to understand specific
reactions to generational diversity. This study investigates whether millennials and non-millennials
respond differently to workplace initiatives geared toward generational diversity.
Value differences among generational cohorts have been widely studied, but results still remain
inconclusive (Lyons & Kuron, 2014; Parry & Urwin, 2011). Values research in this area seeks to
determine whether individuals in different generations hold disparate priorities (Rokeach, 1973).
Values are particularly able to illuminate generational differences in the workplace because they
guide how individuals treat others within the collectives to which they belong (e.g., teams, organiza-
tions) (Schwartz, 2012). Some scholars propose that millennials have more of a “work-to-live” value
orientation compared to non-millennials and that this difference causes inter-generational and intra-
organizational conflict (Johnson & Johnson, 2010). Interestingly, these studies have produced mixed
findings (Campbell, Campbell, Siedor, & Twenge, 2015; Costanza & Finkelstein, 2015; Lyons &
Kuron, 2014; Parry & Urwin, 2011), which may stem from the fact that individuals must reconcile
competing values given a specific situation or context (Schwartz, 2012). Along those lines, in this

CONTACT S. B. Dust dustsb@miamioh.edu Farmer School of Business, Miami University, FSB 3047, 501 E. High St., Oxford,
OH, 45056
Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/vsoc.
© 2019 Taylor & Francis
154 S. B. DUST ET AL.

study we narrow our evaluation of values to an important work-related phenomenon: reactions to

generational diversity initiatives.
Generational diversity has begun to substantially impact human resource management practices
(Fishman, 2016; Stone & Deadrick, 2015). Value misalignment between multiple generations is at the
root of socialization challenges, relationship conflict, and misunderstandings in the workplace (Joshi,
Dencker, Franz, & Martocchio, 2010; Vogel, Rodell, & Lynch, 2016). Therefore, we first propose that
all employees, regardless of generational membership, have values that are associated with negative
views of generational diversity. In particular, we hypothesize that self-direction values (i.e., inde-
pendent thought and action) and hedonism values (i.e., pleasure and self-gratification) (Schwartz,
1992) will be associated with unfavorable reactions to generational diversity initiatives. Both values
are inwardly focused and drive individuals toward protectionist mentalities that serve themselves
over others. Second, we propose that generational membership affects the internalization processes
stemming from values. According to generational identity theory (Joshi et al., 2010), the sequential
positioning (i.e., timing of organizational entry) of each generation within the workforce should alter
employees’ cognitive processing of organizational contexts. Thus, we suggest that generational
differences should affect the influence of self-direction and hedonism on individuals’ reactions to
generational diversity. We hypothesize that non-millennials, compared to millennials, have accu-
mulated unique experiences (i.e., the evolution towards organic structures) that may enhance the
impact of self-direction values on reactions to generational diversity. We also hypothesize that
millennials, compared to non-millennials, are entering the workforce at a time when their generation
has strong social influence, which impacts perceptions of social dominance, and enhances the impact
of hedonism values on reactions to generational diversity
This study contributes to generational research in several ways. First, our work challenges the
notion that millennials are more self-centered than their older counterparts (Johnson & Johnson,
2010). Drawing from generational identity theory, we suggest that generational membership has
less to do with directly influencing values, and more to do with value internalization processes.
Specifically, we suggest that all generations are susceptible to the detrimental impact of self-
focused values, and that generational membership impacts the degree to which self-focused values
influence perceptions. Second, our work contributes to values research by highlighting an
organizational challenge associated with employees having self-focused values. Prior research
has concentrated on other-focused values, such as benevolence and universalism, and how
these values enhance acceptance and appreciation of others (e.g., Zapata, Olsen, & Martins,
2013). Prior research has also assumed that self-focused values are relatively harmless as it relates
to perceptions of working with others (Schwartz, 2012). We go beyond the benefits of other-
focused values and focus on the detriments of self-focused values as it relates to acceptance of
generational diversity. Third, our work contributes to generational diversity research by evaluat-
ing the relationship between employee characteristics and reactions to generational diversity
initiatives. While plentiful work highlights that reactions to diversity initiatives depends upon
demographics such as gender and race (De Meuse & Hostager, 2001; Holladay, Knight, Paige, &
Quiñones, 2003; Kidder, Lankau, Chrobot-Mason, Mollica, & Friedman, 2004), to our knowledge,
no research evaluates how different generations view generation-specific diversity initiatives. We
address this void by testing a model that draws from generational identity theory (Joshi et al.,
2010) and values theory (Schwartz, 1992).
This study also has important practical implications for managers interested in generational
differences or generational diversity. To the extent that managers can understand how different
generations react to engaging in inter-generational tasks and activities, they will be better able to help
overcome inter-generational conflicts. Reactions to diversity initiatives entails several dimensions,
including intuitive and affect-based reactions (emotional reactions), beliefs about diversity in
principle (judgments), planned responses to diversity initiatives (behavioral reactions), perceived
effects for oneself (personal consequences), and perceived effects for the organization (organizational
outcomes) (De Meuse & Hostager, 2001). Thus, evaluating generation-specific reactions to diversity
 THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 155

reveals how individuals (or generational groups) will react toward generational diversity initiatives
impacting their workplace tasks and relationships at work.

Theoretical background and hypothesis development

Schwartz’s theory of basic values
Values are beliefs about desirable end goals that guide the selection or evaluation of behavior
(Schwartz & Bilsky, 1990). Values are derived from one or more of three universal requirements
for human existence: needs as a biological organism, needs for coordinated social interaction, and
needs for the survival and welfare of the collectives in which they belong (Smith & Schwartz, 1997).
Schwartz’s theory of basic human values outlines 10 distinct values, each with its own underlying
motivation (Schwartz, 1992). These broad values are thought to be universal, meaning that all
human beings, to some degree, acknowledge those values as self-evident (Schwartz, 1994).
However, each individual can uniquely prioritize these universal values (Smith & Schwartz, 1997).
The 10 basic values outlined by Schwartz (1992) include self-direction (independent thought and
action), stimulation (novelty and challenge), hedonism (pleasure and self-gratification), achievement
(demonstrating competence), power (status and control over people/resources), security (safety and
stability for self/society), tradition (respect for and commitment to customs), conformity (restraint
from violating norms), benevolence (enhancing the welfare of others), and universalism (protecting
the welfare of all).
Our study specifically focuses on the values of self-direction and hedonism because of their
conceptual similarities to personal characteristics that have been associated with millennials. In
particular, millennials have been categorized as selfish (e.g., “generation me”), individualistic, and
extrinsically motivated (Johnson & Johnson, 2010; Lyons & Kuron, 2014; Parry & Urwin, 2011),
characteristics that align with the self-focused nature of self-direction and hedonism values. We seek
to refine this assumption by suggesting that all generations are susceptible to the detrimental
attitudes stemming from these values, specifically, attitudes towards generational diversity initiatives.
Additionally, we suggest that generations might internalize these values differently. Thus, we argue
that generations may not necessarily have different values, but that they internalize and react to those
values differently.

Self-direction, hedonism, and reactions to generational diversity

Individuals who value self-direction prefer independent thought and action (Schwartz, 1992).
Behaviorally, individuals high in self-direction values want to make their own decisions and create
and explore their own path (Schwartz, 2012). According to values theorists, individuals value self-
direction because it satisfies underlying psychological needs to control one’s surroundings through
autonomous, self-determined actions (Deci, 1975). Since individuals high in self-direction values
prefer independence, they are likely to resist organizational initiatives promoting generational
diversity initiatives because those prompts may require them to think or behave differently
(Ambrose & Schminke, 2003). Individuals high in self-direction values prefer to decide for them-
selves what is fair or morally appropriate, and are less reliant on institutions for such direction
(Wolfradt & Dalbert, 2003). Additionally, highly self-directed employees believe that others should
create their own opportunities and drive their own successes through independent and autonomous
actions (Klute, Crouter, Sayer, & McHale, 2002). Thus, as organizations promote and encourage
inter-generational initiatives that may require employees to change their organizational routines or
foster new relationships, highly self-directed employees are likely to be disinterested. We therefore
hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 1: Self-direction is negatively related to reactions to generational diversity initiatives.

156 S. B. DUST ET AL.

The defining goal of individuals who value hedonism is self-gratification. Individuals high in
hedonism values are self-indulgent and behave in ways that allow them to maximize pleasure and
enjoy life (Schwartz, 1992). Human beings are pleasure-seeking organisms, constantly striving to
satisfy basic biological needs. According to value theorists, hedonism values derive from the quest to
satisfy these underlying needs (Rokeach, 1973). Specific to the workplace, highly hedonistic indivi-
duals prefer tasks and relationships that bring them pleasure (Ros, Schwartz, & Surkiss, 1999). This
pursuit of pleasure may be derailed by generational diversity efforts that encourage employees to
engage colleagues of other generations. Such out-group engagement may be uncomfortable for those
who dislike working with others with dissimilar mindsets, interests, or approaches to work (van
Knippenberg et al., 2004). Thus, individuals high in hedonism values may resist generational
diversity efforts because they detract from their maximal pleasure (Fung, Ho, Tam, Tsai, & Zhang,
2011). In support of this position, research suggests that hedonism can be maladaptive (Ksendzova,
Iyer, Hill, Wojcik, & Howell, 2015). For example, individuals high in hedonism values feel less
compelled to reduce their own pleasure for the sake of others (Feather, Woodyatt, & McKee, 2012;
Silfver, Helkama, Lönnqvist, & Verkasalo, 2008). Further, highly hedonistic individuals are more
likely to be competitive, exclusive, and selfish (Borg, Bardi, & Schwartz, 2017; Sagiv, Sverdlik, &
Schwarz, 2011), and consequently, potentially less amenable to generational diversity. We therefore
hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 2: Hedonism is negatively related to reactions to generational diversity initiatives.

The moderating role of generational differences

According to generational identity theory (Joshi et al., 2010), the sequential positioning (i.e., timing
of organizational entry) of each generation in the workforce should alter employees’ cognitive
processing of organizational contexts. Generations share a common epoch and develop a distinct
consciousness as a result of important events occurring during that time period (Mannheim, 1952).
Thus, generations have shared experiences and collective memories that shape their perspectives and
preferences (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Ashmore, Deaux, & McLaughlin-Volpe, 2004; Brickson, 2000;
Hogg & Terry, 2000). Non-millennials, in contrast to millennials, have experienced a transition to
more organic organizational structures. Millennials, in contrast to non-millennials, are entering the
workforce at a time when their cohort has significant social influence. We suggest that these
differences are salient experiences relevant to the impact of self-direction and hedonism values.
Organizational structure is a system of explicit and implicit rules and policies that arrange work
tasks and the responsibilities of organizational participants. Management scholars commonly propose
that structures exist along a continuum ranging from mechanistic to organic (Burns & Stalker, 1961).
Mechanistic structures seek efficiencies through specialization; centralized and hierarchical decision-
making; and formally outlined policies, practices, and procedures. Organic structures seek adaptability
through fluid and broadly defined roles, as well as decentralized and shared decision-making.
Additionally, behaviors within organic structures are guided by shared values and goals rather than
formal rules. Over the last century, organizations have largely moved from mechanistic to organic
structures (Dess, Rasheed, McLaughlin, & Priem, 1995; Mintzberg, 1989). As society transitioned from
a manufacturing-based to a knowledge-based economy, organizations became increasingly complex,
making it more difficult to monitor and control every aspect of organizational operations (Chandler,
1990). Further, technology and globalization have forced organizations to adopt elements of organic
structures that facilitate flexibility and adaptability (Bettis & Hitt, 1995). To be clear, organizational
structure is a strategic choice that depends upon a variety of factors (e.g., industry, size, competitive
advantage); however, instituting organic elements within the organization has become much more
prevalent (Mansfield, 1986). For example, team-based organizing, a key feature of organic structures,
 THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 157

has become ubiquitous in organizations (Kozlowski & Bell, 2003). Additionally, over the last few
decades there has been a declining adherence to hierarchical and autocratic leadership, and a surge of
interest in empowering leadership (Arnold, Arad, Rhoades, & Drasgow, 2000; Dong, Liao, Chuang,
Zhou, & Campbell, 2015; Hill & Bartol, 2016; Wong & Giessner, 2018) and shared leadership
(D’Innocenzo, Mathieu, & Kukenberger, 2016; Houghton, Pearce, Manz, Courtright, & Stewart,
2015; Pearce, 2004).
Organic structures give employees latitude and discretion in their workplace choices (Burns & Stalker,
1961). For example, organic structures facilitate employees’ interaction and coordination with colleagues
that they personally deem suitable and mutually beneficial (Katz & Kahn, 1978). Conversely,
a mechanistic structure is more likely to dictate who employees should work with, how often they
should work together, and what each party’s responsibilities are (Burns & Stalker, 1961). Thus, the
autonomy embedded within organic structures aligns with self-direction values in which independent
thought and action is considered essential. Older, non-millennials have witnessed and/or experienced
this significant change from mechanistic to organic structures; thus, they acutely understand how
organizations can conflict or align with their own self-direction values. Non-millennials, therefore,
should appreciate self-direction at work more keenly than their millennial counterparts. Since non-
millennials have previously been denied their desired self-direction, they are more likely to feel threa-
tened by organizational initiatives that encourage, reinforce, or mandate any structured changes in their
work tasks or relationships. Consequently, non-millennials may view generational diversity initiatives as
a potential hindrance to the autonomous self-direction they have grown accustomed to. Alternatively,
millennials have not experienced the same degree of change and evolution in organizational structure.
Thus, while both non-millennials and millennials may have less favorable reactions to generational
diversity given self-direction values, non-millennials are likely to have a stronger response.

Hypothesis 3: Generational membership moderates the negative relationship between self-direction

and reactions to generational diversity initiatives such that the relationship is stronger for non-
Millennials than for Millennials.

As previously argued, hedonism values are likely to be associated with less favorable reactions to
generational diversity. As self-gratifying pleasure-seekers, individuals who place high value on
hedonism are likely to feel uncomfortable making changes that benefit others and potentially detract
from their self-interests. We suggest that generational membership is likely to influence this relation-
ship. The sheer size of the millennial generation, who are entering their peak spending and earning
years, makes them a highly influential demographic on economic, societal, and cultural issues such
as career trajectories, spending habits, and marriage/parenting decisions (Millennials Coming of
Age, 2018). Indeed, millennials make up anywhere between one-half to one-third of the population
in some developed countries (e.g., Fry, 2018; Stokes, 2015), setting in motion a trajectory of
significant influence as governments and organizations adapt to their evolving needs (Howe &
Strauss, 2009). According to social dominance theory (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999), such factors should
alter millennials’ perceptions of diversity. In particular, research suggests that members of dominant
social groups develop attitudes and orientations that promote and reinforce their dominance (Pratto,
Sidanius, & Levin, 2006; Sidanius, Cotterill, Sheehy-Skeffington, Kteily, & Carvacho, 2016), which we
argue should interact with hedonism values to affect reactions to generational diversity initiatives.
Members who perceive that they belong to a dominant group see less value in productive intergroup
relations (Asbrock, Christ, Duckitt, & Sibley, 2012), are less likely to overcome stereotypes (Sidanius
et al., 2016; Tausch & Hewstone, 2010), and are more likely to discriminate against members of
minority groups (Altemeyer, 1998; Ho et al., 2012; Pratto et al., 2006; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999).
Additionally, members of socially dominant groups are more competitive (Duckitt, 2001; Thomsen,
Green, & Sidanius, 2008) and less empathetic (Sidanius et al., 2013) toward members of less dominant
groups, and are more likely to favor policies that keep their dominance intact (Pratto, Sidanius,
158 S. B. DUST ET AL.

Stallworth, & Malle, 1994). Such negative orientations toward intergroup relations are likely to intensify
the self-interested, hedonistic values that induce negative reactions to generational diversity.
Hedonic values make individuals less likely to reduce their own pleasure for the sake of others
(Feather et al., 2012; Silfver et al., 2008), and instead make them more exclusive and selfish (Borg
et al., 2017; Sagiv et al., 2011), making them less interested in generational diversity. As hedonistic
millennials evaluate their environment, seeking out the most pleasure-inducing pathways, their
attitudes are informed by their social context. In this case, the protectionist mentalities associated
with their social dominance should perpetuate the relationship between their self-interested prefer-
ences and their negative reactions toward generational diversity initiatives. Alternatively, compared
to millennials, non-millennials are members of less dominant generations and therefore do not have
the same incentives to preserve intergroup differences. In total, while both non-millennials and
millennials high in hedonism values are likely to be skeptical of generational diversity initiatives, the
relationship should be stronger for millennials given the social dominance of their generation.

Hypothesis 4: Generational membership moderates the negative relationship between hedonism and
reactions to generational diversity initiatives such that the relationship is stronger for Millennials than
for non-Millennials.

Methods
Sample and procedure1
To investigate our hypotheses, we used Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk service. Our instructions
explained to Mechanical Turk users that they would receive $0.50 in exchange for their voluntary and
anonymous participation in completing a short survey on individual differences and values. We did
not stipulate any specific requirements for participation other than being 18 years or older (which is
also a Mechanical Turk requirement for creating an account). After removing 15 cases that failed to
pass a quality control question (i.e., please select agree to ensure that you are paying attention), 491
full-time employees remained. Of the 491 employees, the average age was 39.06 years (SD = 12.99;
Range = 19–77), 73% were Caucasian, and 53% were female. Using 1981 as our cut-off year for
generational categorization, 242 participants were millennials and 249 were non-millennials. Of the
242 millennials, the average age was 28.48 years (SD = 4.24; Range = 19–35), 71% were Caucasian, and
51% were female. Of the 249 non-millennials, the average age was 49.34 years (SD = 10.04;
Range = 36–77), 75% were Caucasian, and 56% were female. Importantly, there was a wide distribution
of ages for both millennials and non-millennials (see Figures 1 and 2).

Measures
We used Schwartz’s (2003) 21-item Portrait Value Questionnaire (PVQ) to measure values. The 21
items are used to measure 10 values: self-direction, hedonism, universalism, power, stimulation,
conformity, benevolence, achievement, security, and authority. The convergent and discriminant
validity of the PVQ has been supported in past research, corroborating the distinctiveness of the 10
value types (Schwartz, 1992, 2005; Vecchione, Casconi, & Barbaranelli, 2009).
Participants were prompted to read statements describing an individual and then indicate how
much the individual in the description is like them using a five-point response scale ranging from 1
(not like me at all) to 5 (very much like me). The two self-direction items include “Thinking up new
ideas and being creative is important to him/her. He/She likes to do things in his/her own original
way,” and “It is important to him/her to make his/her own decisions about what he/she does. He/She
likes to be free and not depend on others.” The two hedonism items include “Having a good time is
important to him/her. He/She likes to ‘spoil’ himself/herself,” and “He/She seeks every chance he/she
can to have fun. It is important to him/her to do things that give him/her pleasure.” The online
 THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 159

Figure 1. Frequency percentage histogram illustrating age distribution within millennial sub-group.

Figure 2. Frequency percentage histogram illustrating age distribution within non-millennial sub-group.

survey was programed to use gender pronouns that aligned with the gender selected by the
participant earlier in the survey. To eliminate individual differences in the use of the response
scales, each individuals’ mean response to the 21 items was subtracted from the mean score of each
value dimension (e.g., self-direction, hedonism).
We adapted De Meuse and Hostager (2001) reactions to diversity scale to measure reactions to
generational diversity. This scale was developed as an instrument for evaluating whether diversity
training programs were having a positive effect on employee views of diversity. The scale offers
a multi-dimensional framework for conceptualizing perceptions of and attitudes toward workplace
160 S. B. DUST ET AL.

diversity initiatives. Participants are asked to evaluate 70 words and select all of the words that they
typically associate with workplace diversity. The 70 words encompass five different categories,
including emotional reactions (e.g., hopeful, resentment), judgements (e.g., fair, worthless), beha-
vioral reactions (e.g., collaborate, resist), personal consequences (e.g., opportunity, rivalry), and
organizational outcomes (e.g., innovation, unprofitable). Half of the 70 items were positively worded
(e.g., hopeful, fair, collaborate), and the other half were negatively worded (e.g., resentment, worth-
less, resist). Positive words had a value of +1 and negative words had a value of −1. The total score is
the sum of the selected words’ positive and negative values; thus, the total score range is from +35 to
−35. We used the same format and scoring but with one important adaptation. Instead of prompting
participants to select words they associated with workplace diversity, participants were instructed to
select words they associated with workplace diversity as it relates to working with people from other
generations.

Generational categorization
While there is some debate as to the appropriate cutoff years for generational cohorts, the Pew
Research Center has established 1981 as the initial birth year for the millennial generation (Taylor &
Keeter, 2010). Therefore, we used 1981 as our cut-off year for generational categorization (millen-
nial: N = 242; non-millennial: N = 249).

Control variables
We controlled for gender and race. Historically, females and non-Caucasians are more likely to have
been the minority while at work. Such experience may inflate perceptions that any diversity initiative
is beneficial, regardless of the focal demographic.

Analytical approach
The direct effects of self-direction and hedonism values on generational diversity reactions (i.e., Hypotheses
1 and 2) were evaluated using linear regression analysis. The moderating effects of generational categoriza-
tion on the relationships between self-direction and hedonism values and reactions to generational diversity
reactions (i.e., Hypotheses 3 and 4) were tested using hierarchical regression analysis. We also conducted
simple slopes analysis to further interpret the moderation findings.

Results
Zero-order correlations are summarized in Table 1. Hypotheses 1 and 2 proposed that self-direction
and hedonism, respectively, negatively relate to reactions to generational diversity. In support of
both Hypotheses 1 and 2, our findings illustrate that self-direction (β = −.128, p = .005) and
hedonism (β = −.090, p = .050) negatively relate to reactions to generational diversity (see Table 2).
Hypothesis 3 proposed that the negative relationship between self-direction and reactions to
generational diversity would be stronger for non-millennials than millennials. As reported in Table
2, the self-direction × generation interaction was positively and significantly related to reactions to
generational diversity (β = .159, p = .019; Finc = 5.581, p = .019). To further interpret the interaction
effects, we conducted simple slopes analysis. As depicted in Figure 3, the negative relationship
between self-direction and reactions to generational diversity was stronger for non-millennials
(β = −.235, p < .001), and the effect was neutralized for millennials (β = −.076, p = .885). Thus,
Hypothesis 3 was supported.
Hypothesis 4 proposed that the negative relationship between hedonism and reactions to gen-
erational diversity would be stronger for millennials than non-millennials. As reported in Table 2,
the hedonism × generation interaction was not significantly related to reactions to generational
diversity (β = −.044, p = .470; Finc = .523, p = .470). Thus, Hypothesis 4 was not supported.
 THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 161

Table 1. Zero-order correlations and descriptive statistics.

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Gender
2. Race −.13**
3. Self-direction −.07 .00
4. Hedonism −.05 −.06 −.13**
5. Reactions to generational diversity .06 .09* −.13** .11*
6. Generation −.06 .04 −.09* .19** −.05
M .53 .27 4.00 3.21 9.19 .49
SD .50 .44 .72 .94 11.10 .50
Note. N = 491. Gender (1 = female, 0 = male). Race (1 = non-Caucasian, 0 = Caucasian). Generation (millennials = 1, non-
millennials = 0). Descriptive statistics for self-direction and hedonism are pre-centered scores.
** p < .01. * p < .05.

Table 2. The effect of self-direction and hedonism values on reactions to generational diversity and the moderating effect of
generation.
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
Variable β p β p β p β p β p β p
Gender .076† .095 .064 .159 .059 .188 .076† .095 .069 .129 .070 .122
Race .100* .029 .100* .027 .096* .033 .100* .029 .094* .038 .095* .036
Self-direction −.128** .005 −.234** .000
Hedonism −.090* .050 −.061 .311
Generation −.059 .192 −.123* .019 −.030 .515 −.044 .376
Self-direction x Generation .159* .019
Hedonism x Generation −.044 .470
R2 .014 .032 .043 .014 .024 .025
F 3.391* 4.010** 4.355** 3.391* 2.944* 2.457*
Δ R2 .018 .011 .010 .001
Finc 4.580* 5.581* 2.476† .523
Note. N = 491. Gender (1 = female, 0 = male). Race (1 = non-Caucasian, 0 = Caucasian). Generation (millennials = 1, non-
millennials = 0). β = standardized regression coefficient.
** p < .01. * p < .05. † p < .10
Reactions to Generational Diversity

12.7

12.6

12.5

12.4

12.3
Low High
Self-Direction

Non-Millennials Millennials

Figure 3. The moderating effect of generation on the relationship between self-direction and reactions to generational diversity.

Supplemental analysis
Schwartz’s 10 values cover all of the core human value orientations, and each value has some
degree of overlap with other values (Schwartz, 1992, 2012). Thus, in order to fully understand how
values drive millennials’ and non-millennials’ interpretations of generational diversity differently,
162 S. B. DUST ET AL.

it may be worthwhile to use an empirical approach that allows for a simultaneous evaluation of all
values while maintaining the relative importance of each value as a predictor. We therefore
conducted supplemental analyses using relative weight analysis to facilitate more accurate infer-
ences regarding the proportional contribution of the correlated predictor variables (Tonidandel &
LeBreton, 2015; Tonidandel, LeBreton, & Johnson, 2009). Specifically, to evaluate whether the
effects were significantly different across the two categories, we used the group variable feature
within RWA-Web’s relative weight analysis (Tonidandel & LeBreton, 2015). Consistent with
recommendations by Tonidandel et al. (2009), we used bootstrapping (with 10,000 replications)
and employed 95% bias corrected and accelerated confidence intervals for the individual relative
weights.
As reported in Table 3, when including all 10 values in the analysis, the relative weight of self-
direction values on reactions to generational diversity was higher for non-millennials (65.24%) than
for millennials (3.73%), and the difference was statistically significant (difference = 61.51%, p < .05).
Additionally, the relative weight of hedonism values on reactions to generational diversity was lower
for non-millennials (6.40%) than for millennials (32.96); however, the difference did not reach
statistical significance (difference = 26.56, ns). These findings coincide with our hierarchical regres-
sion analysis. Specifically, the relative weight analysis approach suggests that the moderating effect of
generation on self-direction is stable, even while simultaneously considering multiple values.

Discussion
The study findings illustrate that self-direction and hedonism are associated with negative reactions
to generational diversity among non-millennials and millennials. Additionally, study findings illus-
trate that the influence of self-direction is a stronger driver of unfavorable reactions to generational
diversity for non-millennials. This study makes several theoretical and practical contributions to
generational differences and values research.

Theoretical implications
Popular press suggests that millennials compared to non-millennials are more likely to embody self-focused
values (Johnson & Johnson, 2010); however, empirical evaluations of this perspective are mixed (Grubbs &
Riley, 2018; Lyons & Kuron, 2014; Parry & Urwin, 2011). Scholarly debate regarding these mixed findings
has commonly focused on the methodological approach (Lyons & Kuron, 2014). We diverge from this
empirically driven debate and instead extend this conversation by evaluating research questions that more

Table 3. Relative weight analysis of self-direction and hedonism values on reactions to generational diversity and the
moderating effect of generation.
All Millennials Non-Millennials Difference Test
Variable RRW LCI UCI RRW RRW LCI UCI
Self-direction 40.80 .002 .051 3.73 65.24 .022 .128
Hedonism 18.05 −.003 .031 32.96 6.40 −.045 .019
Power 8.21 −.006 .022 3.74 6.67 −.008 .042
Universalism 8.72 −.005 .022 7.12 4.44 −.017 .025
Achievement 4.84 −.006 .017 9.06 2.46 −.031 .012
Security 1.37 −.014 .007 2.69 1.68 −.016 .014
Stimulation 2.48 −.011 .015 25.83 .88 −.021 .014
Conformity 4.97 −.010 .011 7.26 5.30 −.007 .035
Benevolence 5.93 −.006 .020 2.42 4.62 −.021 .016
Tradition 4.65 −.009 .014 5.18 2.30 −.045 .019
Note. All N = 491. Millennials N = 242. Non-millennials N = 249. RRW = rescaled relative weight. LCI = lower confidence
interval. UCI = upper confidence interval. 95% bias-corrected confidence intervals are used.
 THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 163

directly align with values theory. While prior scholarship has asked whether generations have different
values, we instead ask whether generations differ in how they internalize universal human values. According
to generational identity theory (Joshi et al., 2010), generations likely differ in the way they cognitively
process information because of the historical events their cohorts have experienced. Thus, each generation
has a unique set of experiences and collective memories that influences how they interpret new informa-
tion, events, and experiences. Our findings support the generation identity perspective, illustrating that
non-millennials are more strongly driven by their self-direction values. Additionally, although the effects
were in the appropriate direction, we did not find statistical support for the hypothesis that millennials are
more strongly driven by their hedonism values.
This work also contributes to generational differences literature by focusing on reactions to
generational diversity. While the popular press frames generational differences as a “battle” (Safer,
2007), “clash” (Zemke, Raines, & Filipczak, 2013), or “collision” (Lancaster & Stillman, 2003), there
is little research on why such confrontations occur. It is indeed possible that conflict may ensue
given mean differences in values across different generations, but historically these difference tests
are inconclusive. Thus, in a different approach to exploring potential inter-generational conflict, we
test whether there are generational differences that affect reactions to generational diversity initia-
tives. Our findings illustrate that non-Millennials and Millennials alike may react unfavorably to
generational diversity if such initiatives infringe upon self-direction and hedonism values.
Our work also contributes to generational research by focusing on self-focused values. Values are
thought of as functional and adaptive mechanisms; when individuals uphold their values, it helps
ensure that order within society at large is maintained (e.g., Campbell, 1975; Schwartz & Bardi,
1997). The assumption is that socially oriented values, such as benevolence and universalism, act as
individual guides for behavior that benefit the collective. Alternatively, individual-focused values,
such as self-direction and hedonism, can indirectly contribute to societal goals in that individuals are
more motivated to contribute to society when their individual-focused needs are satisfied. Schwartz
argues, “It is socially functional to legitimize gratification of self-oriented needs and desires as long
as this does not undermine group goals. Rejecting all such gratification would frustrate individuals
and lead them to withhold their energies from the group and its tasks” (2012, p. 15). Indeed,
individuals upholding self-direction and hedonism values may be more satisfied and motivated while
contributing to the collective. However, these values are still inwardly focused, potentially driving
individuals to serve themselves over others. Along these lines, we illustrate that self-direction and
hedonism have detrimental effects in that they detract from favorable reactions to generational
diversity initiatives.
According to basic human values theory, individuals do not draw upon one value at a time when
making decisions or taking action (Smith & Schwartz, 1997). Instead, individuals psychologically
prioritize their universal human values and then make determinations after evaluating and refining
their values’ positions given the context at hand (Schwartz, 1992, 1994, 2012). Thus, to more fully
align with values theory, we supplemented our hierarchical regression analysis using moderated
relative weight analysis (Tonidandel & LeBreton, 2015). In doing so, our investigation simulta-
neously incorporates all of the core values, explores the relative importance of each value in relation
to others, and tests the differences in relative influence among different generations. The supple-
mental findings illustrate that generational differences can affect the relative influence of focal values
(i.e., self-direction) compared to the remaining values. In total, our supplemental analyses highlight
an important consideration for scholars interested in evaluating generational value differences,
namely, employing methodologies that align with the underlying tenets of values theory.

Practical implications
Of the studies reporting statistically significant differences in values among generations, the mean
differences typically fall within the 10–20% range (e.g., Lyons, Duxbury, & Higgins, 2007). While
these findings add to our understanding of generational differences, generations on the whole are
164 S. B. DUST ET AL.

still relatively similar, leaving managers uncertain about what changes to make. Our findings offer
managers a more concrete direction in facilitating generational diversity. The results of this study
should remind managers that values are universal; however, individuals (or groups of individuals)
can internalize and utilize their values differently. Millennials and non-millennials have arrived at
the inter-generational workplace with different sets of experiences. Generational diversity initiatives
may also inadvertently remind non-millennials of former experiences in which their discretion over
tasks and relationships was more formally structured. Thus, non-millennials need assurance that
organizational initiatives promoting inter-generational activities will not infringe upon their auton-
omy and discretion.
Organizations should also consider offering training specific to generational differences and
generational diversity. Such initiatives should discourage employees from making blanket assump-
tions regarding generational value differences and instead reinforce that values are universal and that
generations are more similar than they are different. For example, noting that everyone is innately
self-interested (i.e., values independence and self-gratification) may encourage employees to resist
judging other generations. Additionally, generational diversity training should reinforce the impor-
tance of balancing what we find personally important with what is best for others. Encouraging
employees to acknowledge that generational diversity benefits other team members, the organiza-
tion, and society at large may facilitate more favorable reactions to generation diversity initiatives.
Finally, training initiatives should remind employees that different generations have had different
work experiences. Organizations that can help each generation engage in perspective-taking by
appreciating each other’s historical work experiences (or lack thereof) may further reveal why
perception differences surface in the workplace.

Limitations and future research

This study offers a starting point for researchers interested in generational differences, specifically
generational value differences and reactions to generational diversity. Our overarching goal was to
illustrate that Millennials and non-Millennials differ in how they internalize self-focused variables.
Future research could further strengthen the generalizability and robustness of our model.
Our cross-sectional design is susceptible to common method bias (CMB). We therefore incorporated
several mechanisms suggested by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Podsakoff (2012) for minimizing CMB. We
created temporal separation by spacing the values and reactions to generational diversity variables on
different survey pages at the beginning and end of the survey. Additionally, the instructions explicitly and
repeatedly stated that responses were anonymous, confidential, and only for research purposes. From
a theoretical standpoint, values are commonly evaluated as antecedents of attitudes given their stability
over time (Rokeach, 1973); however, it is feasible that as individuals experience positive or negative
reactions to generational diversity, it influences how they express their values. From an empirical
standpoint, our data and analyses reduce CMB concerns given that CMB is less of a concern when
evaluating interactions (Siemsen, Roth, & Oliveira, 2010), particularly with objective moderating vari-
ables. Nonetheless, future research should consider a time-lagged or longitudinal approach. Doing so
would also help address an ongoing challenge in generational research; specifically, the potential for
confounding age, cohort, and period effects (Costanza & Finkelstein, 2015; Lyons & Kuron, 2014).
Applying a time-lagged or longitudinal approach would supplement our findings by comparing different
respondents from different generations at the same stage of life.
Our investigation focused on the differences between millennials and non-millennials because
we are particularly interested in the contentious conversations surrounding the values other
generations ascribe to millennials. Specifically, we are interested in understanding whether
millennials differ with respect to self-serving values compared to their non-millennial counter-
parts. Additionally, our hypotheses are grounded in generational identity theory, which suggests
that historical events will act as a cognitive filter when analyzing future events. In our discussion
on non-millennials, we focused on the workplace transition of organizational structure, which
 THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 165

serves as a salient workplace event in non-millennials’ work history. Future scholars should
consider refining the non-millennial grouping into more specific generations; scholars pursuing
these distinctive categories would need to describe the distinct workplace experiences that
occurred in each non-millennial generation.
A key benefit of our sample is that respondents are from a variety of industries, organizations,
and positions (Behrend, Sharek, Meade, & Wiebe, 2011), which increases the generalizability of the
findings. Although we did not verify this information by asking participants to report such variables,
prior studies using similar approaches do illustrate such variability (e.g., Cho & Allen, 2012; Fast,
Sivanathan, Mayer, & Galinsky, 2012; Lemay, Overall, & Clark, 2012; Piff, Stancato, Martinez, Kraus,
& Keltner, 2012; Polman, 2012). Nonetheless, our understanding of values and generational mem-
bership as it relates to reactions to generational diversity would be enhanced if contextual and
situational variables were included in our model. For example, although values are considered strong
and stable predictors of attitudes and behaviors (Rokeach, 1973), it is possible that organization-
specific variables (e.g., leadership or culture) may have enhanced or mitigated the influence of
employees’ values on their responses to diversity. Additionally, although we suggest that a historical
accounting of changes in organizational structure may influence generational diversity reactions,
employees’ current organizational structure may also influence such reactions. Similarly, it is
possible that the generational diversity of the respondents’ current organizations may impact the
degree to which values are associated with reactions to diversity. For example, employees who are
happily situated within generationally diverse organizations may be less inclined to let their self-
direction and/or hedonism values translate into unfavorable responses to diversity.
It is also important to note that the reactions to generational diversity scale was originally
formulated for evaluating diversity initiatives in general. Future research should evaluate the under-
lying categories used to assess diversity reactions (e.g., emotional reactions, organizational outcomes)
to confirm that our adapted measure is fully representative of the reactions to generation-specific
diversity. Additionally, future research should consider alternative approaches to assessing reactions
to generational diversity. The reactions to diversity scale was created as a valid and reliable
instrument for evaluating respondents’ perceptions of and attitudes toward diversity initiatives (De
Meuse & Hostager, 2001). However, this survey-based approach could be supplemented with
experimental or quasi-experimental approaches whereby respondents are presented with a specific
generational diversity initiative and then their attitudinal or behavioral reactions are objectively
evaluated. Relatedly, future research could more directly test our explanatory mechanisms. For
example, a qualitative approach might clarify whether non-millennials’ historical workplace experi-
ences play a role in values internalization and processing.

Conclusion
Our goal in this study was to investigate whether the self-focused values of self-direction and
hedonism were related to reactions to generational diversity, and whether generational differences
impacted the influence of these values. The findings highlight that while anyone with self-focused
values may engage in protectionist mentalities, millennials and non-millennials differ with respect to
their internalization of values as it relates to generational diversity. Our hope is that this study
motivates future scholars to continue to understand what personal characteristics facilitate or
weaken generational diversity efforts.

Notes
Data for this study are available at: https://sc.lib.miamioh.edu/handle/2374.MIA/6269
166 S. B. DUST ET AL.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Scott B. Dust, Ph.D. is the Dr. John F. Mee Endowed Assistant Professor of Management in the Farmer School of
Business at Miami University. Dr. Dust earned his Ph.D. in Management/Organizational Behavior at the LeBow
College of Business, Drexel University and his M.B.A and B.S. from the Kelley School of Business, Indiana University.
His research investigates the effect of employees’ metacognitive capacities (e.g., self-awareness, mindfulness, emotional
intelligence) on their ability to overcome work-related interpersonal challenges and leverage interpersonal differences
in order to engage in constructive conflict. His work has appeared in academic journals such as the Journal of Applied
Psychology, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Leadership Quarterly, Human Relations, and International Journal of
Management Reviews.

Megan W. Gerhardt, Ph.D. is a Professor of Management and Leadership at the Farmer School of Business at Miami
University, specializing in individual and team leadership development, where she also serves as Co-Director of the
Isaac & Oxley Center for Business Leadership. Megan is an Associate Editor for the Academy of Management Learning
and Education journal, and her research has been published in outlets such as the Journal of Applied Psychology,
Personnel Psychology, Personality and Individual Differences, Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, and
Learning and Individual Differences.

Deepika Hebbalalu graduated from Miami University with a B.S. in Psychology. She currently works at Neilson as an
HR Business Partner. Deepika worked on several research projects with faculty during her tenure at Miami University.
Marisa Murray graduated from Miami University with a B.S. in Psychology and a minor in Human Capital
Management and Leadership. Marisa also received her M.S. in Industrial Labor Relations from Cornell University.
She currently is part of the HR Leadership Development Program at Bristol-Myers Squibb. Marisa worked on several
research projects with faculty during her tenure at Miami University.

ORCID
S. B. Dust http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0162-681X

References
Allen, R. S., Allen, D. E., Karl, K., & White, C. S. (2015). Are millennials really an entitled generation? An investigation
into generational equity sensitivity differences. Journal of Business Diversity, 15, 2.
Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality”. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 47–92). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. (2003). Organization structure as a moderator of the relationship between procedural
justice, interactional justice, perceived organizational support, and supervisory trust. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88(2), 295–305.
Arnold, J. A., Arad, S., Rhoades, J. A., & Drasgow, F. (2000). The empowering leadership questionnaire: The
construction and validation of a new scale for measuring leader behaviors. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
21, 249–269.
Asbrock, F., Christ, O., Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2012). Differential effects of intergroup contact for authoritarians
and social dominators: A dual process model perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(4), 477–490.
doi:10.1177/0146167211429747
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1),
20–39. doi:10.5465/amr.1989.4278999
Ashmore, R. D., Deaux, K., & McLaughlin-Volpe, T. (2004). An organizing framework for collective identity:
Articulation and significance of multidimensionality. Psychological Bulletin, 130(1), 80–114. doi:10.1037/0033-
2909.130.1.80
Behrend, T. S., Sharek, D. J., Meade, A. W., & Wiebe, E. N. (2011). The viability of crowdsourcing for survey research.
Behavior Research Methods, 43(3), 800–813. doi:10.3758/s13428-011-0081-0
Bettis, R. A., & Hitt, M. A. (1995). The new competitive landscape. Strategic Management Journal, 16(S1), 7–19.
doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1097-0266
 THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 167

Borg, I., Bardi, A., & Schwartz, S. H. (2017). Does the value circle exist within persons or only across persons? Journal
of Personality, 85(2), 151–162. doi:10.1111/jopy.12228
Brickson, S. (2000). The impact of identity orientation on individual and organizational outcomes in demographically
diverse settings. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 82–101. doi:10.5465/amr.2000.2791604
Burns, T., & Stalker, G. (1961). The management of innovation. London, UK: Tavistock.
Campbell, D. T. (1975). On the conflicts between biological and social evolution and between psychology and moral
tradition. American Psychologist, 30(12), 1103–1126. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.30.12.1103
Campbell, W. K., Campbell, S. M., Siedor, L. E., & Twenge, J. M. (2015). Generational differences are real and useful.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8(3), 324–331. doi:10.1017/iop.2015.43
Chandler, A. D. (1990). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the industrial enterprise (Vol. 120).
Cambridge, MA: MIT press.
Cho, E., & Allen, T. D. (2012). Relationship between work interference with family and parent–Child interactive
behavior: Can guilt help? Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80, 276–287. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2011.12.002
Costanza, D. P., & Finkelstein, L. M. (2015). Generationally based differences in the workplace: Is there a there there? Industrial
and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 8(4), 308–323. doi:10.1017/iop.2015.15
D’Innocenzo, L., Mathieu, J. E., & Kukenberger, M. R. (2016). A meta-analysis of different forms of shared leadership–
Team performance relations. Journal of Management, 42(7), 1964–1991. doi:10.1177/0149206314525205
De Meuse, K. P., & Hostager, T. J. (2001). Developing an instrument for measuring attitudes toward and perceptions of
workplace diversity: An initial report. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 12(1), 33–51. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1532-
1096
Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation . New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Dess, G. G., Rasheed, A. M., McLaughlin, K. J., & Priem, R. L. (1995). The new corporate architecture. The Academy of
Management Executive, 9(3), 7–18.
Dong, Y., Liao, H., Chuang, A., Zhou, J., & Campbell, E. M. (2015). Fostering employee service creativity: Joint effects
of customer empowering behaviors and supervisory empowering leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(5),
1364–1380. doi:10.1037/a0038969
Duckitt, J. (2001). A dual process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 41–113). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Fast, N. J., Sivanathan, N., Mayer, N. D., & Galinsky, A. D. (2012). Power and overconfident decision-making.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 117, 249–260. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2011.11.009
Feather, N. T., Woodyatt, L., & McKee, I. R. (2012). Predicting support for social action: How values, justice-related
variables, discrete emotions, and outcome expectations influence support for the stolen generations. Motivation and
Emotion, 36(4), 516–528. doi:10.1007/s11031-011-9262-5
Fishman, A. A. (2016). How generational differences will impact America’s aging workforce: Strategies for dealing with aging
Millennials, Generation X, and Baby Boomers. Strategic HR Review, 15(6), 250–257. doi:10.1108/SHR-08-2016-0068
Foster, K. (2013). Generation and discourse in working life stories. The British Journal of Sociology, 64(2), 195–215.
doi:10.1111/1468-4446.12014
Fry, R. (2018). Millennials are the largest generation in the U.S. labor force. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.
org/fact-tank/2018/04/11/millennials-largest-generation-us-labor-force/
Fung, H. H., Ho, Y. W., Tam, K. P., Tsai, J., & Zhang, X. (2011). Values moderate age differences in relationship
orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(7), 994–999. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.01.009
Grubbs, J. B., & Riley, A. C. (2018). Generational differences in narcissism and narcissistic traits. In A. D. Herman, A.
B. Brunell, & J. D. Foster (Eds.), Handbook of Trait Narcissism (pp. 183–191). Chambridge, MA: Springer.
Hill, N. S., & Bartol, K. M. (2016). Empowering leadership and effective collaboration in geographically dispersed
teams. Personnel Psychology, 69(1), 159–198. doi:10.1111/peps.12108
Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., Levin, S., Thomsen, L., Kteily, N., & Sheehy-Skeffington, J. (2012). Social dominance
orientation: Revisiting the structure and function of a variable predicting social and political attitudes. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(5), 583–606. doi:10.1177/0146167211432765
Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. I. (2000). Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts.
Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 121–140. doi:10.5465/amr.2000.2791606
Holladay, C. L., Knight, J. L., Paige, D. L., & Quiñones, M. A. (2003). The influence of framing on attitudes toward
diversity training. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14(3), 245–263. doi:10.1002/hrdq.v14:3
Houghton, J. D., Pearce, C. L., Manz, C. C., Courtright, S., & Stewart, G. L. (2015). Sharing is caring: Toward a model
of proactive caring through shared leadership. Human Resource Management Review, 25(3), 313–327. doi:10.1016/j.
hrmr.2014.12.001
Howe, N., & Strauss, W. (2009). Millennials rising: The next great generation. New York, NY: Vintage.
Johnson, M., & Johnson, L. (2010). Generations, Inc.: From boomers to linksters - Managing the friction between
generations at work. New York, NY: AMACOM.
Joshi, A., Dencker, J. C., Franz, G., & Martocchio, J. J. (2010). Unpacking generational identities in organizations.
Academy of Management Review, 35(3), 392–414.
Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (Vol. 2, pp. 528). New York, NY: Wiley.
168 S. B. DUST ET AL.

Kidder, D. L., Lankau, M. J., Chrobot-Mason, D., Mollica, K. A., & Friedman, R. A. (2004). Backlash toward diversity
initiatives: Examining the impact of diversity program justification, personal and group outcomes. International
Journal of Conflict Management, 15(1), 77–102. doi:10.1108/eb022908
Klute, M. M., Crouter, A. C., Sayer, A. G., & McHale, S. M. (2002). Occupational self-direction, values, and egalitarian
relationships: A study of dual-earner couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64(1), 139–151. doi:10.1111/
jomf.2002.64.issue-1
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Bell, B. S. (2003). Work groups and teams in organizations. In W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, &
R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 12), pp. 333–375. New
York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.
Ksendzova, M., Iyer, R., Hill, G., Wojcik, S. P., & Howell, R. T. (2015). The portrait of a hedonist: The personality and
ethics behind the value and maladaptive pursuit of pleasure. Personality and Individual Differences, 79, 68–74.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.01.042
Kunze, F., Boehm, S., & Bruch, H. (2013). Organizational performance consequences of age diversity: Inspecting the
role of diversity friendly HR policies and top managers’ negative age stereotypes. Journal of Management Studies, 50
(3), 413–442. doi:10.1111/joms.2013.50.issue-3
Lancaster, L. C., & Stillman, D. (2003). When generations collide: Who they are, why they clash, how to solve the
generational puzzle at work. New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers Inc.
Lemay, E. P., Jr., Overall, N. C., & Clark, M. S. (2012). Experiences and interpersonal consequences of hurt feelings and
anger. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 982–1006. doi:10.1037/a0030064
Lester, S. W., Standifer, R. L., Schultz, N. J., & Windsor, J. M. (2012). Actual versus perceived generational differences
at work: An empirical examination. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 19(3), 341–354. doi:10.1177/
1548051812442747
Liebermann, S. C., Wegge, J., Jungmann, F., & Schmidt, K. H. (2013). Age diversity and individual team member
health: The moderating role of age and age stereotypes. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 86
(2), 184–202. doi:10.1111/joop.12016
Lyons, S., & Kuron, L. (2014). Generational differences in the workplace: A review of the evidence and directions for
future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 139–157. doi:10.1002/job.1913
Lyons, S. T., Duxbury, L., & Higgins, C. (2007). An empirical assessment of generational differences in basic human
values. Psychological Reports, 101(2), 339–352. doi:10.2466/pr0.101.2.339-352
Mannheim, K. (1952). The problem of generations. In P. Kecskemeti (Ed.), Essays on the sociology of knowledge:
Collected works (Vol. 5, pp. 276–322). New York, NY: Routledge.
Mansfield, R. (1986). Company strategy and organizational design. London, UK: Croom Helm.
Millennials: Coming of Age. (2018). Retrieved from http://www.goldmansachs.com/our-thinking/pages/millennials/
Mintzberg, H. (1989). The structuring of organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Parry, E., & Urwin, P. (2011). Generational differences in work values: A review of theory and evidence. International
Journal of Management Reviews, 13(1), 79–96. doi:10.1111/ijmr.2011.13.issue-1
Pearce, C. L. (2004). The future of leadership: Combining vertical and shared leadership to transform knowledge work.
The Academy of Management Executive, 18(1), 47–57.
Piff, P. K., Stancato, D. M., Martinez, A. G., Kraus, M. W., & Keltner, D. (2012). Class, chaos, and the construction of
community. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 949–962. doi:10.1037/a0029673
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and
recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 539–569. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych
-120710-100452
Polman, E. (2012). Self–Other decision making and loss aversion. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 119, 141–150. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.06.005
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., & Levin, S. (2006). Social dominance theory and the dynamics of intergroup relations: Taking
stock and looking forward. European Review of Social Psychology, 17(1), 271–320. doi:10.1080/10463280601055772
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable
predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 741–763. doi:10.1037/
0022-3514.67.4.741
Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York, NY: Free Press.
Ros, M., Schwartz, S. H., & Surkiss, S. (1999). Basic individual values, work values, and the meaning of work. Applied
Psychology, 48(1), 49–71. doi:10.1111/apps.1999.48.issue-1
Ryan, K. M., King, E. B., & Finkelstein, L. M. (2015). Younger workers’ metastereotypes, workplace mood, attitudes,
and behaviors. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30(1), 54–70. doi:10.1108/JMP-07-2014-0215
Safer, M. (2007). 60 Minutes: The “Millennials” are coming [television broadcast]. New York, NY: CBS Corporation.
Sagiv, L., Sverdlik, N., & Schwarz, N. (2011). To compete or to cooperate? Values’ impact on perception and action in
social dilemma games. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(1), 64–77. doi:10.1002/ejsp.v41.1
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20
countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
 THE JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 169

Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social
Issues, 50(4), 19–45. doi:10.1111/josi.1994.50.issue-4
Schwartz, S. H. (2003). A proposal for measuring value orientations across nations. In Questionnaire development
report of the European Social Survey (ch. 7). Retrieved from https://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/docs/methodol
ogy/core_ess_questionnaire/ESS_core_questionnaire_human_values.pdf
Schwartz, S. H. (2005). Robustness and fruitfulness of a theory of universals in individual values. In A. Tamayo &
J. Porto (Eds.), Valores e trabalho [Values and work] (pp. 56–95). Brasilia: Editora Universidade de Brasilia.
Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online readings in psychology and culture.
doi: 10.9707/2307-0919.1116
Schwartz, S. H., & Bardi, A. (1997). Influences of adaptation to communist rule on value priorities in Eastern Europe.
Political Psychology, 18(2), 385–410. doi:10.1111/pops.1997.18.issue-2
Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1990). Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of values: Extensions and
cross-cultural replications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(5), 878–891. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.58.5.878
Sidanius, J., Cotterill, S., Sheehy-Skeffington, J., Kteily, N., & Carvacho, H. (2016). Social dominance theory:
Explorations in the psychology of oppression. In C. G. Sibley & F. K. Barlow (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of the
psychology of prejudice (pp. 149–187). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Sidanius, J., Kteily, N., Sheehy-Skeffington, J., Ho, A. K., Sibley, C., & Duriez, B. (2013). You’re inferior and not worth
our concern: The interface between empathy and social dominance orientation. Journal of Personality, 81(3),
313–323. doi:10.1111/jopy.12008
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Siemsen, E., Roth, A., & Oliveira, P. (2010). Common method bias in regression models with linear, quadratic, and
interaction effects. Organizational Research Methods, 13(3), 456–476. doi:10.1177/1094428109351241
Silfver, M., Helkama, K., Lönnqvist, J. E., & Verkasalo, M. (2008). The relation between value priorities and proneness
to guilt, shame, and empathy. Motivation and Emotion, 32(2), 69–80. doi:10.1007/s11031-008-9084-2
Smith, P. B., & Schwartz, S. H. (1997). Values. In J. W. Berry, M. H. Segall, & C. Kagitcibasi (Eds.), Handbook of cross-
cultural psychology (Vol. 3, 2nd ed., pp. 77–118). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Stokes, B. (2015). Who are Europe’s Millennials? Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/02/09/
who-are-europes-millennials/
Stone, D. L., & Deadrick, D. L. (2015). Challenges and opportunities affecting the future of human resource
management. Human Resource Management Review, 25(2), 139–145. doi:10.1016/j.hrmr.2015.01.003
Tausch, N., & Hewstone, M. (2010). Social dominance orientation attenuates stereotype change in the face of
disconfirming information. Social Psychology, 41(3), 169–176. doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000024
Taylor, P., & Keeter, S. (2010). Millennials: Confident. Connected. Open to change. Pew Research Center, 24, 1–149.
Thomsen, L., Green, E. G., & Sidanius, J. (2008). We will hunt them down: How social dominance orientation and
right-wing authoritarianism fuel ethnic persecution of immigrants in fundamentally different ways. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 44(6), 1455–1464. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.06.011
Tonidandel, S., & LeBreton, J. M. (2015). RWA web: A free, comprehensive, web-based, and user-friendly tool for
relative weight analyses. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30(2), 207–216. doi:10.1007/s10869-014-9351-z
Tonidandel, S., LeBreton, J. M., & Johnson, J. W. (2009). Determining the statistical significance of relative weights.
Psychological Methods, 14, 387–399. doi:10.1037/a0017735
van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C. K., & Homan, A. C. (2004). Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative
model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 1008–1022. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1008
Vecchione, M., Casconi, T., & Barbaranelli, C. (2009). Assessing the circular structure of the portrait values
questionnaire: A confirmatory factor analysis approach. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 25(4),
231–238. doi:10.1027/1015-5759.25.4.231
Vogel, R. M., Rodell, J. B., & Lynch, J. W. (2016). Engaged and productive misfits: How job crafting and leisure activity
mitigate the negative effects of value incongruence. Academy of Management Journal, 59(5), 1561–1584.
doi:10.5465/amj.2014.0850
Wolfradt, U., & Dalbert, C. (2003). Personality, values and belief in a just world. Personality and Individual Differences,
35(8), 1911–1918. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00040-0
Wong, S. I., & Giessner, S. R. (2018). The thin line between empowering and laissez-faire leadership: An
expectancy-match perspective. Journal of Management, 44(2), 757–783. doi:10.1177/0149206315574597
Zapata, C. P., Olsen, J. E., & Martins, L. L. (2013). Social exchange from the supervisor’s perspective: Employee
trustworthiness as a predictor of interpersonal and informational justice. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 121(1), 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.11.001
Zemke, R., Raines, C., & Filipczak, B. (2013). Generations at work: Managing the clash of Boomers, Gen Xers, and Gen
Yers in the workplace. New York, NY: AMACOM.