Advances in Psychology Logo Advances in Psychology Logo
Research Article | Special Issue: Psychology of Pushback

Voices behind walking the talk: Quantified qualitative insights on D&I policy support reasoning

Yonn N. A. Bokern ORCID, Jojanneke van der Toorn ORCID, & Naomi Ellemers ORCID
https://doi.org/10.56296/aip00050
Published: January 13, 2026
Copyright: The authors (CC BY 4.0)

Bokern, Y.N.A., Toorn, J.v.d., & Ellemers, N. (2026). Voices behind walking the talk: Quantified qualitative insights on D&I policy support reasoning. advances.in/psychology, 1, e536151. https://doi.org/10.56296/aip00050

Bokern, Yonn N. A., et al. "Voices behind walking the talk: Quantified qualitative insights on D&I policy support reasoning." advances.in/psychology, vol. 1, no. 1, 2026, e536151. https://doi.org/10.56296/aip00050.

Bokern, Yonn N. A., Jojanneke van der Toorn, and Naomi Ellemers. 2026. "Voices behind walking the talk: Quantified qualitative insights on D&I policy support reasoning." advances.in/psychology 1 (1): e536151. https://doi.org/10.56296/aip00050.

Bokern YNA, Toorn Jvd, Ellemers N. Voices behind walking the talk: Quantified qualitative insights on D&I policy support reasoning. advances.in/psychology. 2026;1(1):e536151. doi:10.56296/aip00050.

Bokern, Y.N.A. et al. (2026) 'Voices behind walking the talk: Quantified qualitative insights on D&I policy support reasoning', advances.in/psychology, 1(1), e536151. Available at: https://doi.org/10.56296/aip00050.

Download .RIS Download .bib
Effective Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) policy depends on both attitudinal endorsement and behavioral enactment. Yet little is known about why individuals support or fail to support D&I policy in either domain. Based on survey data from 2,639 employees in a Dutch organization, we employed k-means clustering to identify five D&I policy support profiles: Champions and Opponents (supportive or resistant in both attitude and behavior), along with three more nuanced groups—Ambivalents (ambivalent in both domains), Bystanders (attitudinally supportive but behaviorally passive), and Reluctants (behaviorally engaged but attitudinally skeptical). To examine underlying reasoning, we applied a mixed-method approach combining qualitative content analysis and Latent Class Analysis. Five distinct reasoning patterns emerged. Mapping these onto support profiles revealed that Champions and Bystanders often expressed ideological endorsement of D&I, while Reluctants voiced critical yet constructive concerns about policy implementation. Opponents expressed meritocratic beliefs or policy unawareness, and Ambivalents reported policy unawareness or inaccessibility. We additionally examined whether these patterns varied across organizational positions (managers vs. employees) and group membership (minority vs. majority). This integrative analysis demonstrates that D&I policy support and resistance are multidimensional and grounded in diverse rationales. Our findings underscore the importance of tailored strategies that address diverse motives behind support, resistance, disengagement, ambivalence, and reluctant compliance.

No citation data available yet.

Download PDF Back to article