Whites' and Asian Americans' Perceptions of Asian Americans as Targets of Affirmative Action1

Although Asian Americans are technically a protected group, perceptions of Asian Americans as targets of affirmative action are largely unexplored, as are the attitudes of Asian Americans toward affirmative action. This study compared Whites' (N = 142) and Asian Americans' (N = 85) perceptions of workplace‐related discrimination and affirmative action beneficiary status for Asian Americans, African Americans, and Hispanic Americans. Whites and Asian Americans agreed that Asian Americans experience less adverse impact on tests and benefit less from affirmative action than do Blacks or Hispanics. However, Asian Americans were more likely than Whites to perceive that Asian Americans suffer from discrimination and underrepresentation and should benefit from affirmative action.     

The Challenge to Affirmative Action

The Bakke case is the latest and most serious challenge to the constitutionality of voluntary affirmative action programs. Bakke, a white male, challenged the constitutionality of the University of California Davis Medical School Special Admissions Program, which admitted 16 minority students with lower objective scores. Although a poor case for Supreme Court review, it was brought before the Court by the Davis Medical School despite the protests of many minority groups. If Bakke is upheld, it could virtually wipe out efforts to include minorities in most professional schools and some government employment.     

Attitudes Toward Different Methods of Affirmative Action1

It was found that the men's and women's attitudes toward affirmative action (AA) in general were related to differences in self-interest. In addition, consistent with predictions drawn from notions of organizational justice and attribution principles, it was found that people held different attitudes toward different methods of affirmative action. People were most favorable toward AA involving special training programs and least favorable toward AA that employed differential selection criteria for target group members. Attitudes toward quota-based systems were intermediate.     

The Influence of Education on Attitudes toward Affirmative Action: The Role of the Policy's Strength

The present research examined the influence of education on attitudes toward affirmative action. Studies 1 and 2 showed no impact of education on attitudes toward “soft” policies of affirmative action. In contrast, they showed less support of the more educated to “hard” policies of affirmative action. Neither prejudice (Study 2), nor understanding of the affirmative‐action policies (Study 3) accounted for this effect. Study 4 demonstrated that the education effect is mediated by the threat posed by strong plans to meritocratic beliefs. Theoretical implications of these findings are discussed.     

The Doctrine of Double Effect and Affirmative Action

ABSTRACT William Cooney has recently argued ( The Journal of Applied Philosophy , Vol. 6, pp. 201–204) that the social programme of affirmative action, though controversial, can be supported by the doctrine of double effect in that, according to the doctrine, responsibility falls on the side of intended consequences and not on that of unintended consequences. The point of affirmative action is to include certain disadvantaged groups; it is not to exclude other groups, though this is an inevitable and foreseeable by-product. In this article I contend that Cooney's argument ignores two important conditions of the doctrine of double effect; namely, that the good which results from the intended effect must be at least commensurate with the harm that results from the unintended effect; and, that the intended good effect is causally separate from the unintended harmful effect. Any use of the doctrine which neglects these conditions leads to morally problematic cases. Further, once we take the conditions into account, we have good reason to think that the doctrine of double effect has no relevance to the affirmative action debate.     

Explaining Demographic Group Differences in Affirmative Action Attitudes1

This research identified mediators and a moderator of the relationship between demographic category and attitudes toward affirmative action (AA). Data were collected from national samples of sociologists and business academics. The results indicate that racism, traditional attitudes toward women, and belief in the existence of gender and race discrimination in academe were significant predictors of AA attitudes. Several findings provide support for the prediction that these factors mediate the relationship between demographic group membership and AA attitudes. Additionally, male sociologists who believed they personally experienced discrimination had more negative attitudes toward AA. Perceiving personal discrimination increased support of AA among female business academics. Implications for attitude and intergroup conflict theories are discussed.     

Attributional Ambiguity of Affirmative Action

We propose that affirmative action policies that are perceived to give preference to individuals solely or primarily on the basis of their group membership create attributional ambiguity about the personal deserving of individuals affected by these procedures. This ambiguity about the extent to which outcomes are deserved is hypothesized to be self-protective for people who are denied a position, but to have detrimental consequences among beneficiaries, especially if they are members of groups whose competence is doubted (either by themselves or others). Selection procedures that are perceived to be based both on individual merit and group membership, in contrast, are hypothesized to reduce attributional ambiguity about deserving and thus attenuate the effects of group-based preferential selection procedures on those who are benefited and bypassed by these procedures. An experiment was conducted to test these hypotheses. Men and women were randomly selected or rejected for a leadership role under one of three procedures: outcomes based (a) solely on sex, (b) solely on merit, or (c) on both sex and merit. Results provided partial support for our hypotheses.     

In Defense of Affirmative Action

Affirmative action refers to positive steps taken to hire persons from groups previously and presently discriminated against. Considerable evidence indicates that this discrimination is intractable and cannot be eliminated by the enforcement of laws. Numerical goals and quotas are justified if and only if they are necessary to overcome the discriminatory effects that could not otherwise be eliminated with reasonable efficiency. Many past as well as present policies are justified in this way.     

The Role of Threat in Attitudes Toward Affirmative Action and Its Beneficiaries1

This set of two studies employed the integrated threat theory to examine attitudes toward affirmative action (AA). The first study found that opposition to the policy of AA was predicted by realistic threats, symbolic threats, and personal relevance; while attitudes toward the beneficiaries of AA were predicted by three of the four threat variables (symbolic threats, intergroup anxiety, and negative stereotypes), and in‐group identity. The second study replicated and expanded on the first study and found that the effects of several individual‐difference variables (racism, anti‐Black affect, and political conservatism) on opposition to AA were mediated by three of the threats in the integrated threat theory (realistic threats, symbolic threats, and negative stereotypes). The implications of the results are discussed.     

To Accept or to Reject: The Effect of Framing on Attitudes Toward Affirmative Action1

Two experiments examined the effect of framing on attitudes toward an affirmative‐action program of preferential treatment. Participants' attitudes were consistently more favorable toward the affirmative‐action program presented in a positive frame—preferring a target group's applicant over a majority group's applicant—than when the very same program was presented in a negative frame—rejecting the majority group's applicant in favor of the target group's applicant. Similar effects were evident for 3 target groups in the context of higher education selection and personnel selection. Two theoretical explanations for the effect of framing on attitudes toward affirmative‐action programs are suggested. The implications of this effect are discussed, and the challenges facing future research of this phenomenon are outlined.     

Affirmative Action as Help: A Review of Recipient Reactions to Preferential Selection and Affirmative Action

We review research on four areas of recipient reactions to affirmative action: (a) self-evaluations of ability and performance, (b) motivation and task interest, (c) performance and achievement, and (d) evaluations of selection procedures. Not surprisingly, the process by which affirmative action was implemented strongly affected the findings. Self-evaluations of ability and specific components of performance were adversely affected when selection procedures did not provide unambiguous, explicit, and focused evidence of recipient qualifications. In contrast, measures of motivation were largely unaffected by any type of selection, although task choice was adversely affected when the selection process did not provide clear evidence of recipient qualifications. Task performance was complexly affected by selection process and other contextual variables. Finally, selection procedures that did not provide unambiguous, explicit, and focused evidence of qualifications were regarded by recipients as less fair than procedures that did not provide evidence of competencies. We interpret the literature using a model of affirmative action as help (Turner, Pratkanis, & Hardaway, 1991), draw further parallels to research on recipient reactions to aid, and develop strategies for the effective management of affirmative action programs.     

Motivation to Control Prejudice as a Mediator of Identity and Affirmative Action Attitudes1

Affirmative action is a divisive issue in society today. Attitudes toward affirmative action vary both between and within ethnic and racial groups, with Whites exhibiting the majority of negative attitudes. Researchers have suggested a variety of psychological explanations for differences in attitudes toward affirmative action (e.g., racism, self‐interest, fairness). The current study investigates whether motivation to control prejudice acts as a mediator of ethnic/racial identity and Whites’ attitudes toward affirmative action. Support was found for the mediating role of motivation to control prejudice for several aspects of ethnic and racial identity and affirmative action attitudes. Limitations of the study are discussed, as are topics for future research.     

Why Women Approve of Affirmative Action: The Study of a Predictive Model

The self-interest model has often been used to predict the reactions of advantaged groups to affirmative action. It is argued that self-interest also plays a role in the genesis of attitudes of disadvantaged groups, such as women. More precisely, it is hypothesised that considerations of personal interest have an impact on considerations of collective interest which in turn have an impact on the sense of collective relative deprivation (CRD). In the past, it was shown that women who felt collectively deprived approved of strategies designed to eliminate systemic barriers. No link was found, however, between CRD and preferential treatment. Women, in majority, were opposed to this strategy. On the basis of a model introduced by Taylor and McKirnan (1984), it is argued that women who have experienced discrimination on the basis of sex in spite of the introduction of affirmative action strategies may support preferential treatment. The hypotheses were integrated in a model and tested using LISREL causal modelling. In total, 197 female francophone workers participated in the study. They were all employed in a large firm where in the last five years attempts were made to reduce sex asymmetries. These efforts however were not successful; the percentage of women in non-traditional jobs increased by only 2%. The proposed model was tested successfully. The results are discussed in light of previous paradigms and practical implications.     

Women's Attitudes Toward Affirmative Action: Putting Actions in Context1

Although women typically favor affirmative action, they do exhibit a range of reactions to affirmative action programs. To understand the diversity of reactions, the present study proposed an examination of various forms of affirmative action in the context of the discrimination problem such actions were designed to address. In Study 1, 60 female university students were presented with one of six scenarios describing a situation of discrimination against women, followed by a series of potential affirmative action response options which participants rated in terms of their level of endorsement. Analyses of variance showed that, despite the range of discrimination scenarios, some of which presented extreme cases of discrimination against women, respondents consistently endorsed nondiscrimination measures, and opposed affirmative action strategies involving preferential treatment. Study 2, which preselected 43 women who valued social equality, replicated this finding and found that these results were not due to women not perceiving the presence of collective discrimination. Study 3 examined the attitudes of women in a law and security police training stream (n = 19), whose vulnerability to employment discrimination, both as a group and personally, would be salient. The women in this study endorsed all forms of affirmative action, including explicit preferential treatment in the hiring of women police officers. The implications of these results for the consideration and implementation of affirmative action programs are discussed.     

Reactions to Affirmative Action: Seeking the Bases for Resistance1

It has been argued that affirmative action negatively affects the self‐perceptions of beneficiaries. In contrast, it was hypothesized that this would not occur when individual qualifications were explicitly considered and, indeed, that failure under discrimination would be more self‐detrimental. However, perceptions of reverse discrimination may buffer negative self‐attributions on the part of nonbeneficiaries. Responses in an experimental simulation indicated that, of several affirmative actions for women, passive nondiscrimination was viewed as the fairest response to discrimination. While women's self‐perceptions were not affected by affirmative actions, they did suffer under failure. The presence of affirmative actions did not alleviate the effects of failure on men's self‐perceptions. Possible alternatives for resistance to affirmative action are assessed and discussed.     

Determinants of Attitudes toward Affirmative Action in a Swiss Sample

162 Swiss employees were surveyed to assess knowledge of and attitudes toward different types of affirmative action programs (AAPs) for women. Findings show that knowledge of AAPs was limited and AAPs were most frequently associated with child care measures. Attitudes toward opportunity enhancement programs, especially toward child care, were more positive than toward preferential selection and positive discriminatory programs. Women held more positive attitudes toward AAPs. However, for some attitudes, gender differences were entirely mediated by symbolic prejudice toward working women. Independently of gender, symbolic prejudice was a key predictor of all attitudes. Measures of self-view (self-esteem and gender self-concept) were largely unrelated to attitudes toward AAPs. Implications for research and organizations are discussed.

A comparative Perspective on Affirmative Action: Positieve Aktie in The Netherlands

The Netherlands has established a program for minority employment patterned after affirmative action in the United States. Thus, the Sutch experience allows a comparative perspective on American efforts, one made more instructive by the sharp differences in intergroup relations between the two nations. We report on our Dutch research on affirmative action among urban police involving almost 100 intensive individual interviews in yoked sets of three--the minority officer, her or his White co-workers, and their immediate supervisor. Based on this initial, rough comparison, we tentatively advance that contrasting national racial normative structures make critical differences in the reception of the policy. Such problems as solo role and stigma commonly reported in American research appear muted in our Dutch data. Thus, ironically, the American racist legacy that shapes the problems of affirmative action is the same legacy that requires affirmative-action policies in the first place.