Redeeming Apartheid's Legacy: Collective Guilt, Political Ideology, and Compensation

This paper reports two studies among white South African students on feelings of collective guilt about apartheid and attitudes to affirmative action. Study 1 reports on 21 in-depth interviews, Study 2 on results from 180 survey questionnaires. Substantial proportions of the participants in both studies displayed feelings of collective guilt. Among participants in both studies who identified strongly with white South Africans, some displayed strong feelings of collective guilt while others displayed no such feelings. Our survey data suggest that political ideology functions as a moderator. Strong feelings of guilt were found among students who identified strongly with white South Africans and defined themselves as liberals. If they defined themselves as conservatives then no feelings of collective guilt were observed. Strong feelings of collective guilt were accompanied by positive attitudes toward affirmative action. The influence of political ideology on attitudes toward affirmative action was mediated by collective guilt.     

Attitudes Toward Affirmative Action Plans Directed at Blacks: Effects of Plan and Individual Differences1

Non-Black students (N= 178) completed a questionnaire that permitted tests of hypotheses about the bases of attitudes toward affirmative action plans (AAPs) directed at Blacks. Respondents positively evaluated 5 AAPs (race blind, eliminate discrimination, recruitment, training, proportional hiring) and rejected 2 AAPs (weak and strong preferential treatment). Hierarchical regression analyses indicated that attitudes toward the specific AAPs were entirely mediated by judgments of AAP fairness, but were only partly mediated by perceived threats to personal and collective self-interest. Attitudes toward the specific AAPs were more strongly related to details of the AAPs than to individual differences or to attitudes toward affirmative action in general. Attitudes toward affirmative action in general varied with self-interest and racism, but not with belief in the dominant ideology of opportunity.     

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.     

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.     

Gender Differences in Attitudes Toward Affirmative Action Programs in Australia: Effects of Beliefs,Interests, and Attitudes Toward Women

This research identified mediators explaining the relationship between gender and attitudes toward affirmative action programs for women. Structural equation modeling was conducted on survey data obtained from academics at an Australian university (n = 198 with listwise deletion of missing data). Findings indicated that the relationship between gender and affirmative action attitudes was mediated by (1) perceptions of affirmative action's impact on material self-interest, (2) belief in the existence of gender discrimination, and (3) traditional attitudes toward women. Implications for organizations, policymakers, and researchers are discussed.     

A mediation model of individual differences in attitudes toward affirmative actions for women

A mediation model of the relation between gender and attitudes toward affirmative action in favor of working women was tested. Four mediation variables were considered: perceived unfairness in the situation of working women, perceived threat to the non-designated group (men), self-esteem, and gender self-concept (masculinity and femininity). 192 women and 128 men, with differing occupations, participated. Gender affects individuals' attitudes toward affirmative actions for women, mediated by perceived unfairness in the situation of working women, perceived threat to the non-designated group, and feminine self-concept. Implications for research and practice are discussed.     

Attitudes Toward Affirmative Action: A Comparison of Color-Blind Versus Modern Racist Attitudes

In the hotly contested issue of affirmative action, detractors maintain that the use of race-conscious policies to remedy past discrimination is contraindicative of a color-blind society. Supporters of affirmative action maintain that while a color-blind society may be desirable, acts of past discrimination and current institutional racism make it necessary to use race-conscious policies. Past research has shown that the demographic variables of race and sex, as well as modern racist attitudes predict attitudes toward affirmative action. This investigation examined the relationship between color-blind attitudes, modern racist attitudes, and attitudes toward affirmative action. Results confirmed a positive relationship between modern racism and color-blind attitudes. After controlling for race and sex, colorblind attitudes emerged as the strongest predictor of attitudes toward affirmative action, followed by modern racism.     

Attitudes Toward Affirmative Action: Correlations With Demographic Variables and With Beliefs About Targets,Actions, and Economic Effects1

Two studies assessed beliefs and attitudes toward affirmative action in the workplace. Opposition to affirmative action was most strongly associated with respondent race (White) and political conservatism, the belief that it involves strong actions (preferential hiring and setting aside jobs), and the expectation that it will hurt company performance. Attitudes were also positively associated with perceived frequency of employment discrimination experienced by the target group and negatively associated with their resulting employment opportunities. Regression results revealed that economic consequences for the company overwhelmed beliefs about target group employment opportunities in predicting affirmative action attitudes. Respondents associated aftirmative action most strongly with Black and Hispanic targets, and White respondents whose affirmative action schemas featured these 2 targets had the most negative attitudes.     

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.     

Diversity experiences predict changes in attitudes toward affirmative action

The current study examined the role of diversity experiences in promoting changes in attitudes toward affirmative action (AA). Using longitudinal data from a survey of over 1000 college students at admission and in their fourth year, results demonstrated that participation in diversity-related campus activities related to positive changes in attitudes toward affirmative action. This result was consistent across samples of White, African American, and Asian American students. Positive changes in attitudes persisted despite statistical controls for established predictors of attitudes toward AA such as merit and prevalence of discrimination beliefs, and individual-level characteristics such as experiences of discrimination and political liberalism. I discuss the relevance of this finding to the AA literature and to changing attitudes toward AA.     

AN ACQUAINTANCE RAPE PREVENTION PROGRAM

The present study investigated the effects of an acquaintance-rape prevention program on college students' attitudes toward rape and attitudes toward women, perceptions of acquaintance-rape scenarios, and rape empathy. Participants were led to believe that they were participating in two separate experiments in order to decrease demand characteristics. Results indicated that intervention group men and women became more empathic toward the victim than the control group, postintervention. Within the intervention group, men changed more in their attitudes toward women postintervention than did women. In addition to positive attitude change, results with the date-rape scenarios suggested that intervention-group men became more certain of their definitions of rape situations postintervention. Prior to the intervention, women were generally more certain of their definitions than were men, with intervention-group men approximating women's responses postintervention.     

Attitudes about Affirmative Action for Women: The Role of Children in Shaping Parents’ Interests

This paper uses pooled cross-sectional data from the 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006 General Social Surveys (GSS), a nationally representative sample of the U.S. adult population, to assess how employed parents’ attitudes about affirmative action for women are influenced by their children’s gender. The analytic sample includes 1,695 employed respondents. Findings based on logistic regression indicate that having daughters (and no sons) magnifies employed mothers’ support for affirmative action for women and minimizes employed fathers’ support. Conversely, having sons (and no daughters) does not suppress mothers’ support for affirmative action for women, nor does it differentiate men’s attitudes about affirmative action. We speculate about how these patterns in parents’ attitudes relate to self interest and group interest (i.e., their children’s future work experiences).     

The Theory of Male Reference Group Identity Dependence: Roles of Social Desirability, Masculinity Ideology, and Collective Identity

Data from 118 college men from the southeastern United States (U.S.) were analyzed using zero-order and partial correlations to test male reference group identity dependence theory’s propositions regarding the relations of male reference group identity attitudes (i.e., no reference group, reference group dependent, reference group nondependent similarity, and reference group nondependent diversity) with traditional masculinity ideology and dimensions of men’s gender-based collective identity (i.e., affirmative evaluation of collective identity, importance of collective identity). Male reference group identity attitudes yielded theoretically-consistent relations with the affirmative evaluation and importance of collective identity. Specifically, the no reference group attitudes were correlated negatively whereas nondependent diversity attitudes were correlated positively with affirmative evaluation; the group dependent attitudes were correlated positively with importance of collective identity; and the nondependent similarity attitudes were correlated positively with both affirmative evaluation of collective identity and the importance of collective identity. This pattern reveals the differential salience of collective identity dimensions in male reference group identity attitudes, suggesting that group dependent attitudes reflect importance of collective identity without an evaluation valence, nondependent diversity attitudes reflect affirmative evaluation whereas the no reference group attitudes reflect nonaffirmative evaluation of collective identity, and nondependent similarity attitudes involve both affirmative evaluation and importance of collective identity. Additional findings added to prior data suggesting reevaluation of the posited role of traditional masculinity ideology in male reference group identity theory. The pattern of findings was not changed by controlling for self-deceptive enhancement and impression management dimensions of social desirability.     

White Men’s Fears, White Women’s Tears: Examining Gender Differences in Racial Affect Types

This investigation extends research on White students’ affective costs of racism. Consistent with previous research that identified distinct costs of racism (or racial affect) types, the authors used cluster analysis to examine unique patterns in White empathy, guilt, and fear among White undergraduate women (n?=?227) and men (n?=?175) from a large university in the Midwestern United States. Extending prior research and building on conceptual scholarship concerned with intersections of race and gender, the authors separated the sample by gender to determine whether different affective costs of racism types emerged for women and men. The authors found the same five cluster solution for both women and men in the present study, and these solutions were consistent with previous research conducted among combined samples of women and men. Findings suggested that women were significantly more likely than men to be in the most desirable, Antiracist type, compared to the least desirable, Insensitive and Afraid type. Additionally, the authors examined whether support for affirmation action differed by racial affect type for women and men. Partially supporting their hypothesis, the authors found that racial affect types with different levels of White empathy distinguished levels of support for affirmative action among White women. Among White men, the authors found that racial affect types with different levels of White fear explained differing levels of affirmative action support. Implications for future research and diversity education interventions are discussed.     

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.     

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.     

Examining the principles in principled conservatism: the role of responsibility stereotypes as cues for deservingness in racial policy decisions

Why do educated conservatives oppose affirmative action? Those in the "principled conservatism" camp say opposition is based on principled judgments of fairness about the policies. Others, however, argue that opposition is based on racism. The present article offers an alternative perspective that may reconcile these contradictory points of view. In 2 studies, the authors show 2 major findings: (a) that conservatives oppose affirmative action more for Blacks than for other groups, in this case women, and (b) that the relationship between conservatism and affirmative action attitudes is mediated best by group-based stereotypes that offer deservingness information and not by other potential mediators like old-fashioned racism or the perceived threat that affirmative action poses to oneself. The authors conclude that educated conservatives are indeed principled in their opposition to affirmative action, but those principles are group based not policy based.     

Evaluating Gender Discrimination Claims: Is There a Gender Similarity Bias?

A rich literature exists that examines individuals' perceptions of affirmative action in organizations. However, little is known regarding the evaluation of reverse gender discrimination claims arising from gender-based preferential treatment. This study investigated the possible existence of a gender similarity bias in evaluations of gender discrimination allegations using a laboratory experiment in which the strength of evidence against the defendant company and the gender of the plaintiff were manipulated. Our sample consisted of 120 undergraduate students (60 men, 60 women) from diverse racial/ethnic groups (35% Asian, 6% African American, 18% Hispanic, and 41% Caucasian). Results suggested that female mock jurors favored female plaintiffs over male plaintiffs. In contrast, there were no gender-related differences in perceptions of male plaintiffs. Thus, although women did not disadvantage male plaintiffs, there was a tendency for them to be favorably biased in favor of female plaintiffs. As expected, this tendency was greatest under conditions of evidential uncertainty about the company's guilt.     

MALE ACCEPTANCE OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAMS FOR WOMEN: THE RESULTS OF ALTRUISTIC OR EGOISTICAL MOTIVES?

It has been argued in the past that self-interest plays an important role in the reaction of men to affirmative action programs that are designed to promote women in non-traditional jobs. In the main, this hypothesis has received limited support apparently because the conception of self-interest was understood in terms of one's private well-being. It is clear, however, that self-interest also refers to group status or position in society. In this study self-interest was measured through the concept of collective relative deprivation. The effects of relative deprivation on behalf of others, and the procedure employed to implement affirmative action programs on men's attitudes toward these programs were also assessed. One hundred and forty-five male managers or professionals participated in the study. According to predictions, results show that collective relative deprivation and preferential treatment for women have negative effects on affirmative action attitudes. Findings are thus supportive of the broader conception of self-interest and relative deprivation arguments. Finally, the positive link between relative deprivation on behalf of others and affirmative action indicates that men who disapprove of sex inequalities support these programs. Il a été postulé que le ‘self-interest’ influence les réactions des hommes aux programmes d'action positive mis sur pied pour assurer une représentativité plus équitable des femmes dans les secteurs non-traditionnels d'emploi. Cette hypothèse n'a pas été confirmée en raison de la conception individualiste du ‘self-interest’. Le ‘self-interest’ réfère tout autant à la situation de l'individu qu'à celle de son groupe. Dans la présente étude, le ‘self-interest’ a été mesuré par le biais du concept de privation relative collective. Les effets de la privation relative pour autrui et de la procédure d'implantation des programmes d'action positive sur les attitudes des hommes face à l'action positive ont également été évalués. En tout, 145 cadres ou professionnels masculins ont participé à la présente étude. Les résultats confirment les hypothèses voulant que la privation relative collective et le traitement préférentiel ont des effets négatifs sur les attitudes aux programmes d'action positive, ce qui milite en faveur d'une conception élargie du ‘self-interest’. Finalement, le lien positif entre la privation relative autrui et l'action positive montre que les hommes qui sont défavorables aux inégalités de sexe favorisent les programmes.     

Beliefs About Gender Discrimination in the Workplace in the Context of Affirmative Action: Effects of Gender and Ambivalent Attitudes in an Australian Sample

This study investigated beliefs about gender discrimination in opportunities for promotion in organisations and their relation to gender and gender-focused ambivalent beliefs as measured, respectively, by the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI) and the Ambivalence toward Men Inventory (AMI) (Glick and Fiske, Ambivalent sexism. In M.P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 33: pp. 115-188, San Diego, CA: Academic, 2001a). These two inventories were administered to 225 students at Flinders University in Adelaide, Australia along with discrimination items concerning advantage, responsibility, guilt, and resentment about the advancement of men and women in the workplace. Results showed gender differences in discrimination beliefs and in the hostile and benevolent scales from the ASI and AMI. Gender differences and relations between these scales and the discrimination variables were interpreted in terms of system-justification, self and group interests, and the effects of values and beliefs about deservingness and entitlement. This study was supported by a grant from the Australian Research Council.