<p> Non-monogamous partnerships were vulnerable to jealousy and envy, although aspects that contributed had not been described. This qualitative phenomenological study examined jealousy and envy in non-monogamy using equity theory. The purposive sample drawn from Loving More Nonprofit, and 19 participants were interviewed. Transcripts were analyzed using NVivo for Mac using the modified van Kaam method. Study results included four major themes for research question 1: (a) agreements reduced jealousy, (b) boundary violations increased jealous, (c) communication mitigated jealousy, and (d) time allocation fueled jealousy, and three minor themes: (a) willingness to end problem relationships, (b) acceptance and reframing mitigated jealousy, and (c) NRE fueled jealousy; and three minor themes for research question 2: (a) challenges to partner choices fueled by envy, (b) resources allocation influenced by envy, and (c) self-comparison to metamours magnified by envy. Implications of themes were that agreements were used by the non-monogamous to manage jealousy and enhance equity perceptions but when boundary violations related to jealousy occurred and boundary turbulence and distrust often resulted. When jealousy arose the non-monogamous relied on communication strategies, such as acceptance and reframing and willingness to end relationships to preserve existing relationships through reciprocal altruism, and to mitigate jealousy and rebalance equity due to concerns of scarcity. Additionally, self-comparison to metamours&rsquo; attributes stimulated envy and appeared to magnify jealousy. Recommendation for professional practice included the importance of agreements for non-monogamous relationship maintenance, use of equity to manage boundaries, and the role that boundary turbulence plays in perceptions of fairness. Recommendations for further research included (a) a replication of the current qualitative phenomenological study using participants from outside of organizations to include a more diverse a sample to explore consistency of themes across a broader demographic of non-monogamous people (b) a quantitative descriptive study to operationalize jealousy and envy, (c) a quantitative correlational study to assess relationships between agreements, boundary violations and jealousy, and (d) a qualitative multiple case study to explore explicit versus implicit agreements.</p>

Three experiments integrated insights from achievement goal theory, social identity threat, and stress and coping research, to develop a theory-based strategy individuals can use to navigate social identity threat in high stakes achievement settings. In all experiments women were asked to adopt a mastery goal (focus on learning and building skills) or a performance goal (perform well; avoid errors) before a mock job interview. In Experiment 1, women expected their interviewer to be either sexist (creating identity threatening situation) or not sexist (a non-threatening situation). Women who focused on mastery rather than performance goals felt more challenged and less threatened while anticipating a job interview in an identity threatening situation; goals did not affect their appraisals of a non-threatening interview. Moreover, women who focused on mastery rather than performance intended to be more assertive (Experiment 2) and ultimately performed better in the interview (Experiment 3). Mediational analyses showed that a focus on mastery led women to appraise the identity threatening situation as a challenge they could overcome rather than a threat they were helpless to combat; challenge, in turn, enhanced performance.

<p> This dissertation developed and tested a role-based framework drawing from role theory to understand how external factors contribute to the spread of bias in organizations. Using experimental social psychological methods, the twelve studies in this dissertation investigated why <i>other people's </i> prejudices can sometimes influence individuals' decisions and behaviors due to the demands of the decision maker role. Role theory posits that there are certain expectations associated with specific roles, and the roles that people occupy can determine their attitudes and behaviors. Across studies, participants placed in a decision-making role in charge of hiring selections accommodated the prejudices of relevant third parties in their decisions (i.e., the "third-party prejudice effect''). Specifically, consistent with the proposed model, in the studies described in Chapter 2, individuals in charge of selection decisions were significantly less likely to select a woman when a relevant third party was prejudiced against women. Chapter 3 extended this inquiry to novel, fictional groups, generalizing the third-party prejudice effect beyond the context of gender bias.</p><p> According to a role-based framework, concerns relevant to the decision maker role become highly salient in contexts of third-party prejudice, motivating those in charge of hiring selections to accommodate this prejudice in order to accomplish role-relevant goals. In particular, in the context of hiring selections, decision makers accommodate third-party prejudice without coercion because they engage in two types of considerations, focused (a) on maximizing performance (i.e.. task-focused concerns). and (b) on avoiding conflict or facilitating relations among the parties involved (i.e., interpersonal concerns). These task-focused and interpersonal concerns are relevant to the decision maker role and reflect well-established distinctions between instrumental and socioemotional dimensions of group processes. This proposed mechanism was experimentally supported. revealing that task-focused and interpersonal concerns significantly mediated the effect both in the context of gender prejudice (Chapter 2) as well as in a novel groups context (Chapter 3). Furthermore, in Chapter 2, experimentally reducing role-relevant concerns by manipulating task-focused considerations significantly reduced the accommodation of third-party prejudice against women.</p><p> In line with the notion that roles impact behavior above and beyond individual-level attitudes and beliefs, participants in two studies accommodated prejudice against women in their selections regardless of their personal endorsement of modern sexism and traditional gender stereotypes (Chapter 2). Participants similarly accommodated third-party prejudice against groups about which they knew very little, in contexts in which pre-existing biases or the endorsement of cultural stereotypes had little bearing on their selections (Chapter 3). Moreover, consistent with the proposition that roles shape behavior more strongly than social identity, participants across studies accommodated third-party prejudice in their decisions even when such prejudice was directed toward a social category in-group. A role-based framework can illuminate the institutional factors that produce social disparities, and can contribute to a growing understanding of the reasons why members of underrepresented groups sometimes appear to treat each other poorly in organizational contexts.</p><p>