Recipients' affective responses to affirmative action interventions: A cross-cultural perspective

This study investigated whether individualism-collectivism (cultural) differences would account for the observed relationship between ethnic group status and affective responses to and fairness perceptions of affirmative action interventions. Forty-nine international (Latin America and East Asia), 116 minority, and 106 majority participants from a major southwestern university and its community provided fairness and affective response ratings to an affirmative action scenario. Implementation policy and qualification of the recipient were also manipulated. Though ethnicity was related to individualism-collectivism, the latter did not explain any variance in affective response ratings. Minority and international participants reported more positive affect and higher agreement and fairness levels than did majority participants. Participants in the preferential treatment and equally qualified conditions had more favorable responses than those in the reverse-discrimination and less qualified conditions.     

Is Promoting an African American Unfair? The Triple Interaction of Participant Ethnicity,Target Ethnicity,and Ethnic Identity1

This research examined the effect of manipulating a hypothetical candidate's ethnicity on the perceived fairness of promotions. In an experimental study, 142 undergraduates were assigned randomly to rate the fairness of promotions going to either a White or an African American candidate. Findings indicated that a significant three‐way interaction between participant's ethnicity, candidate's ethnicity, and scores on Phinney's (1992) multigroup ethnic identification index associated with perceptions of promotion decisions. Both White and African American participants with a strong ethnic identity gave higher fairness ratings when a member of their own ethnic group was promoted. These results demonstrate the importance of assessing the extent to which people identify with their ethnic group in addition to assessing their demographic categories.     

Nonconscious Feelings of Closeness toward African Americans and Support for Pro-Black Policies

In a democratic political system, where decisions are made by majority rule, the permanent exclusion of minorities is always a possibility. This raises a crucial question: what psychological mechanisms may allow members of a majority to identify with the political goals of a minority group? One possibility is that they are precisely the same mechanisms responsible for motivating minority members themselves to identify with the minority's political goals. According to the racial attitudes literature, African Americans are motivated by feelings of closeness toward Blacks to support pro‐Black policies. This study investigates the possibility that feelings of closeness toward Blacks may also motivate White Americans to support pro‐Black policies. To circumvent possible social desirability effects often associated with questions of race, feelings of closeness are measured both on the conscious (explicit) and nonconscious (implicit) levels. The implicit closeness measure is based on the idea of “cognitive self‐other overlap” ( Aron, Aron, Tudor, & Nelson, 1991 ) and has previously been used to measure nonconscious feelings of closeness in individual relationships. This study represents an application of this measure to the group level of racial intergroup relations. The study is based on a sample of 555 college students of diverse racial backgrounds. Results of a Granger‐causality test support the construct validity of the implicit closeness measure. Furthermore, explicit and implicit feelings of closeness toward African Americans predict pro‐Black policy support whether White participants are considered alone or together with participants of other backgrounds. Political and methodological implications of these findings are discussed.     

The Social Causes and Political Consequences of Group Empathy

Recent scholarship has discovered significant racial/ethnic group variation in response to political threats such as immigration and terrorism. Surprisingly, minority groups often simultaneously perceive themselves to be at greater risk from such threats and yet still prefer more open immigration policies and civil liberties protections. We suggest a group‐level empathy process may explain this puzzle: Due to their higher levels of empathy for other disadvantaged groups, many minority group members support protections for others even when their own interests are threatened. Little is known, however, about the unique properties of group empathy or its role in policy opinion formation. In this study, we examine the reliability and validity of our new measure of group empathy, the Group Empathy Index (GEI), demonstrating that it is distinct from other social and political predispositions such as ethnocentrism, social dominance orientation, authoritarianism, ideology, and partisanship. We then propose a theory about the development of group empathy in reaction to life experiences based on one's race/ethnicity, gender, age, and education. Finally, we examine the power of group empathy to predict policy attitudes and political behavior.     

Changes in Clients' Images of God Over the Course of Outpatient Therapy

The authors examined the impact of outpatient counseling on clients' psychological symptoms and on their image of God. Thirty participants in a counseling treatment group and 68 participants in a no‐treatment control group completed the Brief Symptom Inventory and the Adjective Checklist at 2 separate times. Counseled participants experienced significant reductions of psychological symptoms over the course of treatment whereas the control group showed no changes. Furthermore, ratings of God's agreeableness significantly increased (toward compassion) for clients in the treatment group, whereas no such changes were noted for the control group.     

Restoring Equity or Introducing Bias? A Contingency Model of Attitudes Toward Affirmative Action Programs1

We developed a model to explain how an individual's attitude toward the group targeted by affirmative action impacts support for the program. In this model, attitude toward the targeted group influences the extent to which an individual perceives discrimination to be responsible for workforce disparities. Perceived discrimination affects fairness judgments of affirmative action programs with the effect contingent on the extent to which the remedy involves preferential treatment. To test this, participants were told about the selection system in a company in which minorities were underrepresented. Participants evaluated the extent to which they believed that discrimination occurs in the hiring process and 3 possible remedies. Results supported attitudes toward the targeted minority group as an antecedent of perceived discrimination and found that the amount of perceived discrimination was negatively related to fairness judgments of opportunity enhancement programs, but positively related to evaluations of programs that involved preferential treatment. Fairness judgments were positively related to support for all 3 affirmative action programs.     

Psychological group memberships as outcomes of resource distributions

We propose that people can and will infer group memberships from resource distributions, and that these distributions have implications for people's understandings of the groups themselves and their own associations with these groups. We derive hypotheses from social identity and self‐categorization theories, and test them in three experiments. In Experiment 1, participants systematically rated specific patterns of group memberships as more likely than others in light of specific resource distributions in a manner consistent with our predictions. In Experiment 2, intragroup distributive fairness led to greater perceived self‐in‐group similarity than intra‐group distributive unfairness, while distributively unfair, in‐group favouritism led to greater perceived self‐in‐group similarity than intergroup fairness. In Experiment 3, social identification dropped following unfair, out‐group favouritism and intragroup unfairness, but not unfair, in‐group favouritism, or intragroup and intergroup fairness. The current data provide support for our hypotheses and clear evidence that resource distributions can be providers of group membership information. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Fear of Infection or Justification of Social Exclusion? The Symbolic Exploitation of the Ebola Epidemic

Public discourse in Western countries on the 2014 Ebola epidemic provided a unique natural opportunity to study the relationship between a disease's sociocultural representation and health policy support. Our main prediction stated that among Western citizens, support for restrictive health policies (e.g., mandatory quarantining) would be determined more through preexisting prejudice towards African immigrants than fears of Ebola infection. A questionnaire study with time‐lagged measurement of predictor and criterion variables employing a German sample (N = 218) that was heterogeneous in terms of gender, age, profession, political orientation, and income level provided clear support for this assumption. Although variables related to fear‐of‐infection were significant predictors, prejudice‐related variables explained several times more variance in participants’ support for restrictive policies. Moreover, the degree to which participants adopted prevalent beliefs regarding the sociocultural origins of Ebola (e.g., eating bushmeat) further intensified the impact of prejudice‐related variables.     

Leniency for out‐group offenders

The present research investigates leniency for out‐group offenders and differentiates it from the black sheep effect. The authors assume that leniency for out‐group offenders can be used by in‐group members to protect their group's image by displaying that they are not prejudiced. Thus, leniency should disappear when in‐group members have otherwise shown that they are not prejudiced (i.e., moral credentials). In two experiments, offenders' group membership and participants' opportunity to establish moral credentials were manipulated. Results showed that out‐group offenders received the lowest punishment severity ratings (Studies 1 and 2). However, this leniency effect vanished when participants had established moral credentials by either endorsing the participation of out‐group members in lobby groups (Study 1) or writing about a positive experience with an out‐group member (Study 2). These findings suggest that lenient punishments for out‐group offenders may sometimes reflect a relatively easy strategy to display the in‐group as being unprejudiced. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Don't Count Calorie Labeling Out: Calorie Counts on the Left Side of Menu Items Lead to Lower Calorie Food Choices

Providing calorie counts on restaurants’ menus/menu boards is one of the most prominent policy interventions that has been implemented to combat the obesity epidemic in America. However, previous research across multiple disciplines has found little effect of providing calorie counts on calories ordered, leading some to call calorie provision a failed policy. The authors propose that this failure is partly due to not considering how people process information when making food choices: Americans read from left‐to‐right, processing calorie information only after processing the food item's name. Thus, the authors test a simple way to improve the effectiveness of calorie counts: display calorie counts to the left (vs. right) of food items. A field study and a laboratory study with American participants found that calorie counts to the left (vs. right) decreased calories ordered by 16.31%. A final laboratory study demonstrated that this effect is reversed among Hebrew‐speakers, who read from right‐to‐left, providing further evidence that the order in which calorie information is processed matters. Accordingly, calling calorie labeling a policy failure may be premature.     

Promoting Self‐Advocacy Among Minority Students in School Counseling

This article presents self‐advocacy competencies developed to promote the academic, career, and personal/social success of minority students. The authors discuss challenges faced by minority students in today's educational environment and review principles of self‐advocacy. Competencies for developing self‐advocacy awareness, knowledge, and skills are discussed along with school counseling strategies for promoting self‐advocacy among minority students.     

Why inconsistent leadership is regarded as procedurally unfair: the importance of social self‐esteem concerns

Three experimental studies examined to what extent leader's consistent use of procedures constitutes an important procedural fairness rule and influences people's reactions as a function of social self‐esteem. In line with a recent claim that more attention should be devoted to different procedural fairness rules (Brockner, Ackerman, & Fairchild, 2001 ), the findings of Study 1 demonstrated that inconsistent leaders were evaluated as less procedurally fair and influenced feelings of uncertainty about oneself in ongoing interpersonal interactions. Study 2 showed that manipulating leader's consistency influenced people's procedural fairness judgments and willingness to replace the leader, but only among those low in social self‐esteem (SSE). Finally, Study 3, using another consistency manipulation, demonstrated that variations in consistency made participants feel bad about themselves, particularly when they were low in SSE. These findings are discussed in light of research on relational models of justice and sociometer theory. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The Effects of Mother Participation in Relationship Education on Coparenting,Parenting, and Child Social Competence: Modeling Spillover Effects for Low‐Income Minority Preschool Children

Although suggestions are that benefits of relationship and marriage education (RME) participation extend from the interparental relationship with parenting and child outcomes, few evaluation studies of RME test these assumptions and the relationship among changes in these areas. This quasi‐experimental study focuses on a parallel process growth model that tests a spillover hypothesis of program effects and finds, in a sample of low‐income minority mothers with a child attending a Head Start program, that increases in mother reports of coparenting agreement for RME participants predict decreases in their reports of punitive parenting behaviors. Although improvements in parenting behaviors did not predict increases in teacher reports of children's social competence, improvements in coparenting agreement were associated with increases in children's social competence over time. In addition, comparative tests of outcomes between parents in the program and parents in a comparison group reveal that RME program participants (n = 171) demonstrate significant improvements compared to nonparticipants (n = 143) on coparenting agreement, parenting practices, and teachers' reports of preschool children's social competence over a 1 year period. The findings are offered as a step forward in better understanding the experiences of low‐resource participants in RME. Implications for future research are discussed.     

True versus strategic fairness in a common resource dilemma: Evidence from the dual‐process perspective

Common resource dilemmas involve collectively coordinating individual choices to promote group efficiency. Equal division represents one of the most important coordination rules. Previous research suggests that individuals follow the equality rule for different reasons. Some individuals behave cooperatively out of their concern for other's welfare, whereas some individuals cooperate strategically to enhance personal gains. Building on the dual‐process perspective, the authors aim to differentiate strategic fairness from true fairness in solving a resource dilemma. In four experiments, the effect of cognitive processing manipulations on individual harvesting behavior in a one‐shot resource dilemma was tested against participants with different social values. Results consistently showed that prosocials, who value joint outcome and equality, requested significantly less money than did proselfs, who value personal gain. More importantly, prosocials in the intuition and deliberation conditions request similar amounts, whereas proselfs in the intuition condition request more money than those in the deliberation condition. The results were further validated by a follow‐up meta‐analysis based on the four experiments. The implications of the dual‐process perspective for social coordination research are discussed.     

Perceptions of ethnic discrimination by minority and majority early adolescents in the Netherlands

This research investigates perceptions of discrimination among ethnic majority and minority group early adolescents (aged between 10 and 12 years) living in the multi‐ethnic context of the Netherlands. In two studies (N = 679 and N = 2630), personal and group discrimination was examined in terms of name‐calling and social exclusion, and in relation to ethnic identity and family allocentrism. All early adolescents reported more group than personal discrimination. The personal‐group discrimination discrepancy (PGDD) was found independently of ethnic group, gender, allocentrism, and ethnic identity. Hence, the PGDD seems a more general phenomenon that already exists among early adolescents and across different domains. However, minority group participants perceived far more discrimination overall than majority group early adolescents, and the Turkish participants reported more discrimination than the Moroccan and Surinamese early adolescents. Furthermore, family allocentrism was positively related to perceived discrimination among all ethnic groups in Study 2 and among the Dutch in Study 1. In agreement with ethnic identity development models, strength of ethnic identity was not related to perceived discrimination. Ethnic identity was, however, positively related to allocentrism. In both studies, ethnic minority group participants had higher scores for allocentrism and for ethnic identity than majority group participants. In addition, boys had stronger ethnic identity than girls and ethnic identity was negatively associated with perceived discrimination for the boys but not for the girls. It is concluded that in order to understand early adolescents' perception of discrimination it is necessary to pay attention to basic (cognitive) tendencies that cross ethnic lines, to cultural and status differences between the majority group and ethnic minorities as a category and between ethnic minority groups, and to within‐group differences or individual level variables.     

Procedural fairness and self-esteem

We argue that people's self-esteem is affected by the fairness of procedures to which they are subjected; unfair treatment will lower self-esteem. Moreover, since this influence on self-esteem is presumably due to the implicit evaluation expressed by the choice of procedure and hence by the evaluation expressed by the person implementing the procedure, people's concern with the fairness of treatment will be focused on the interactional aspects of the procedure. In two experiments designed to test these hypotheses subjects received either a high or a low grade on an ability test on the basis of either fair or unfair grading procedures. The results of Experiment 1 indicated that subjects' self-esteem was lower after unfair treatment, and this influence was only apparent when subjects received high test feedback. Additionally, ratings of the fairness of the interaction were lower following unfair grading procedures. Experiment 2 also manipulated level of involvement with the test. Self-esteem was affected by procedural fairness and procedural fairness influenced perceived fairness of the interaction only in the high involvement condition.     

It is who you know that counts: Intergroup contact and judgments about race‐based exclusion

Intergroup contact and evaluations about race‐based exclusion were assessed for majority and minority students in grades 4, 7 and 10 (N = 685). Scenarios depicting cross‐race relations in contexts of dyadic friendship, parental discomfort and peer group disapproval were described to participants. Participants reporting higher levels of intergroup contact gave higher ratings of wrongfulness of exclusion and lower frequency estimations of race‐based exclusion than did participants reporting lower levels of such contact. Intergroup contact also predicted students' attributions of motives in two out of the three scenarios. Findings are discussed in terms of the extant literature on peer relations, moral reasoning and intergroup contact.     

Screw Those Guys: Polarization,Empathy, and Attitudes About Out-Partisans

Empathic ability is the ability to interpret the emotional state of others. In today's highly partisan and polarized environment, empathic ability may play a key role in determining how partisans respond emotionally to changes in public policy and those helped or harmed by the policy. Utilizing Baron-Cohen et al.'s (Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42, 241–251, 2001) “Reading the Mind in the Eyes” test to measure empathic ability, we conduct a survey experiment where we asked participants to read about a partisan individual who may lose their health insurance if the Affordable Care Act were to be repealed. We show that empathic ability shapes attitudes about people and policies, but that the effects are contingent upon the respondent's partisanship, the target's partisanship, and an interaction of the two. Empathic ability produces more positive affect and policy support among Democrats but reduces positive affect among Republicans. The divergent effects of empathic ability on Democrats and Republicans are further exacerbated when the target is an out-partisan.     

Predicting support for racial transformation policies: Intergroup threat,racial prejudice,sense of group entitlement and strength of identification

Policies and programs designed to challenge the effects of racial discrimination (such as affirmative action) are hotly contested. Factors which have been proposed to explain opposition to these policies include racial prejudice, group threat and self‐interest, and perceptions of intergroup justice. We report the results of two random national telephone surveys which tested a theoretically based model of the predictors of policy support in post‐apartheid South Africa. The results provided limited support for Blumer's group position model. Compensatory and preferential treatment policies had different underlying predictors: Violated entitlement featured in the models of compensatory policy attitudes, but not preferential treatment policy attitudes, where threat was the strongest predictor. In addition to threat and violated entitlement, policy attitudes among the black sample were related to ingroup identification but those of the white sample were related to prejudice. The effects of these variables were in the opposite directions for the two samples: Policy support was associated with strong ingroup identification and high levels of threat among the black sample (i.e. prospective beneficiaries of the transformation policies), but with low levels of prejudice and threat among the white sample. We conclude by considering the implications that these findings have for social change programs. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.