[2] Some scholars have deemed the "resistance perspective" as reactive, highlighting psychological and behavioral consequences such as denial, avoidance, defiance or manipulation that serve to maintain the status quo.
[4] Other scholars define resistance to diversity as the behavior of both individuals and organizations that may undermine diversity-driven opportunities for "learning and effectiveness", whether intentional or not.
[10] In 2017, attention was given to the technology industry in light of James Damore's document "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber",[11][12] which went viral as a prominent example of perceived "anti-diversity" attitudes.
[2][19] Some scholars propose that resistance to diversity can generally be understood to be a result of evolved cognitive processes that impact relations between different groups in society.
They point to a disconnect between the once-adaptive way humans evolved sensitivity to group differences (e.g. "us" versus "them" tribal boundaries) and some current social environments that contain unprecedented levels of diversity.
This program of research also found the degree to which Whites feel included, relative to minorities, can help explain racial differences in diversity endorsement.
Plaut et al suggest socially contextualized cues to inclusion or exclusion can meaningfully impact resistance to diversity.