Research

1. Inequality and fairness inside organizations

Organizations are trying to build workplaces that are both fairer and more effective. This work examines how diversity strategies, team composition, and institutional practices shape opportunity, trust, and performance, and why there is rarely a simple formula for getting these issues right. It shows how homogeneity can distort judgment, how transparency can strengthen credibility, and how efforts to promote diversity succeed or fail depending on the context in which they are used.

Selected publications:

Diversity ideologies in organizations
Wu, Y., & Apfelbaum, E. P. (2024). 

Transparency about lagging diversity numbers signals genuine progress
Apfelbaum, E. P., & Suh, E. Y. (2023). 

Beyond one-size-fits-all: Tailoring diversity approaches to the representation of social groups
Apfelbaum, E. P., Stephens, N. M., & Reagans, R. E. (2016). 

Rethinking the baseline in diversity research: Should we be explaining the effects of homogeneity?
Apfelbaum, E. P., Phillips, K. W., & Richeson, J. A. (2014).

Ethnic diversity deflates price bubbles
Levine, S. S., Apfelbaum, E. P., Bernard, M., Bartelt, V. L., Zajac, E. J., & Stark, D. (2014).

2. Diversity, fairness, and change in a polarized, AI-driven world

A second strand of the research examines what happens when efforts to promote diversity and fairness become politically charged, publicly contested, or harder to interpret. This includes work on political polarization, the belief that diversity and meritocracy are in tension, and ongoing research on how generative AI may both widen and narrow inequality while changing which human qualities become most scarce and most valued.

Selected publications:

Belief in a diversity-meritocracy trade-off
Apfelbaum, E. P., Suh, E. Y., & Wu, Y. (2026). 

Can information decrease political polarization? Evidence from the U.S. Taxpayer Receipt
Duhaime, E. P., & Apfelbaum, E. P. (2017).

True motives: Prosocial and instrumental justifications for behavioral change in organizations
Amengual, M., & Apfelbaum, E. P. (2021). 

European Americans’ intentions to confront racial bias: Considering who, what (kind), and why
Brown, R. M., Craig, M. A., & Apfelbaum, E. P. (2021). 

3. How we learn to see and talk about difference

This research examines how people come to understand race, identity, and social difference from childhood through adulthood. It looks at when children notice race, how adults decide whether to talk openly about it, and how norms like colorblindness or political correctness shape what people say — and what they avoid saying. This line of work helps explain why conversations about diversity and inequality can feel so charged later in life, including in schools, workplaces, and public debate.

Selected publications:

Learning (not) to talk about race: When older children underperform in social categorization
Apfelbaum, E. P., Pauker, K., Ambady, N., Sommers, S. R., & Norton, M. I. (2008).

Adults delay conversations about race because they underestimate children’s processing of race
Sullivan, J., Wilton, L. S., & Apfelbaum, E. P. (2021). 

U.S. adults believe that “children” are color-evasive and “Black children” process race early
Sullivan, J., Wilton, L. S., & Apfelbaum, E. P. (in press).

Colorblindness and interracial interaction: Playing the political correctness game
Norton, M. I., Sommers, S. R., Apfelbaum, E. P., Pura, N., & Ariely, D. (2006).

Seeing race and seeming racist? Evaluating strategic colorblindness in social interaction
Apfelbaum, E. P., Sommers, S. R., & Norton, M. I. (2008).