A rethinking of homogeneity as the baseline used to study diversity

Interesting take on diversity vs homogeneity, and the tendency to take homogeneity as the default, from a study by the MIT Sloan School of Management:

In the paper, Apfelbaum, Phillips, and Richeson survey past literature and raise the possibility that homogeneity may be one underlying cause of “groupthink,” in which people fall into an unwarranted consensus.

“It may be that part of what is driving these classic cases of groupthink is having people who are similar to one another,” Apfelbaum says.

Other scholars who have read the paper say it presents a useful reframing of diversity discussions. Samuel Sommers, an associate professor of psychology at Tufts University, calls the paper “very interesting work” that “makes the convincing argument that homogeneity has effects, too, and we should be studying and debating those as well.”

Apfelbaum is working on further experiments aimed at isolating the effects of both homogeneity and diversity. One study looks at peoples activities in financial markets, examining how accurately people price assets in markets that are ethnically diverse or homogenous.

“Being with similar people serves a very basic psychological need to belong and feel comfortable,” Apfelbaum observes. “Were not arguing theres no value in that. Were arguing there is a trade-off with that. The social settings that make us feel good are not necessarily the ones that produce accurate judgments.”

A rethinking of homogeneity as the baseline used to study diversity.