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.     

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.     

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.     

Impact of Affirmative Action on Beneficiary Groups: Evidence From the 1990 General Social Survey

Earlier studies relying on laboratory experimentation have concluded that affirmative action, at least when it involves preferential selection, can have debilitating social psychological effects on beneficiaries unless special care is taken to avert these risks. We question the applicability of the laboratory findings to real beneficiaries of affirmative action on several counts, primary among them the fact that "set aside" preferential selection, as simulated in the lab experiments, is illegal for all but that small proportion of employers who are under court order to remedy their own past discrimination. This study takes a different approach to assessing the impact of affirmative action on beneficiaries. For White women and African-American employees of both sexes, we use 1990 General Social Survey data to compare workers whose employers practice affirmative action with those employers do not. Data from this national probability sample give no indication that benefiting from affirmative action has negative effects for either group on any social psychological outcome examined. African-American workers did show two positive effects of employment at an affirmative-action firm, with one clearly significant and the other nearly so: Those whose employers practice affirmative action (a) show greater occupational ambition and (b) are more likely to believe that people are helpful. Claims that affirmative action blights the psychological functioning of beneficiaries are not supported by these survey responses from a national probability sample.     

GENDER, DISCRIMINATION BELIEFS, GROUP-BASED GUILT, AND RESPONSES TO AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOR AUSTRALIAN WOMEN

Views of a selection committee's decision to promote a woman over a man on the basis of affirmative action were studied in a random sample of Australians (118 men and 111 women). The relations between perceptions of workplace gender discrimination, feelings of collective responsibility and guilt for discrimination, and judgments of entitlement to and, secondarily, deservingness of affirmative action were examined. AMOS analyses indicated that men's reports of collective guilt predicted attitudes toward women's entitlement. No coherent model was observed for women, which suggested ambivalent attitudes toward affirmative action. Gender differences in discrimination beliefs also suggested that women believe men are unfairly advantaged and that men believe women are responsible for their own disadvantage. Implications for research examining collective emotions and their role in social justice judgments are discussed.     

Increasing the number of psychologists of color: public policy issues for affirmative diversity

This article identifies the key issues involved in the debate about affirmative action. The June 2003 Supreme Court decisions allowing consideration of race to ensure that there is a "critical mass" of African American, Latino/Latina, and Native American applicants to higher education are addressed. Social psychologists have identified key myths and provided clarifications about the need for and consequences of strategies used to promote equal opportunity for persons of color and women. A brief history of affirmative action and of the problems it was designed to solve is provided. The accomplishments, benefits, and compelling interest of diversity and affirmative action are described, as well as the concerns and counterpoints. The lack of a substantial applicant pool in psychology hinders progress toward diversity. Alternative strategies for remedying this lack beyond affirmative admissions policies in psychology are briefly discussed.     

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.     

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).     

Right‐wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation differentially predict biased evaluations of media reports

This study tested the dual‐process motivational (DPM) model, which posits that right‐wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO) differentially predict attitudes toward socially threatening or subordinate groups, respectively. Participants read articles on same‐sex relationships and affirmative action and evaluated the article content and the biases of the article authors. The article conclusions (i.e., pro‐ or anti‐same‐sex relationships and affirmative action) were varied between subjects. As expected, only RWA predicted evaluations of the same‐sex relationships articles and authors, whereas only SDO predicted evaluations of the affirmative action articles and authors. These results extend applications of the dual‐process model by demonstrating that RWA and SDO differentially predict evaluations of political information that pertains to socially threatening or subordinate groups, respectively.     

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.     

The effect of personal and group discrimination on the subjective well-being of people with mental illness: the role of internalized stigma and collective action intention

The goal of this study is to test a model in which personal discrimination predicts internalized stigma, while group discrimination predicts a greater willingness to engage in collective action. Internalized stigma and collective action, in turn, are associated to positive and negative affect. A cross-sectional study with 213 people with mental illness was conducted. The model was tested using path analysis. Although the data supported the model, its fit was not sufficiently good. A respecified model, in which a direct path from collective action to internalized stigma was added, showed a good fit. Personal and group discrimination appear to impact subjective well-being through two different paths: the internalization of stigma and collective action intentions, respectively. These two paths, however, are not completely independent, as collective action predicts a lower internalization of stigma. Thus, collective action appears as an important tool to reduce internalized stigma and improve subjective well-being. Future interventions to reduce the impact of stigma should fight the internalization of stigma and promote collective action are suggested.     

Affirmative Action Policies in Academic Job Advertisements: Do They Facilitate or Hinder Gender Discrimination in Hiring Processes for Professorships?

Evidence of female-favoring hiring preferences for assistant professorships suggests that universities can implement affirmative action programs successfully. However, research on the role of applicant gender and the actual use of affirmative action policies in hiring processes for high-level professorships remain scarce. A web-based experiment with 481 economic university members assessed whether evaluators perceived a female applicant as less qualified than a male applicant for an associate professorship position when the job advertisement highlighted the university’s commitment to affirmative action (gender-based preferential selection) but not when it solely highlighted its commitment to excellence (non-gender-based selection). Contrary to previous experimental findings that affirmative action would adversely affect female applicants, evaluators perceived the female applicant as more hirable and ranked her first for the job significantly more often than the male candidate. Furthermore, male evaluators had a stronger preference for the female candidate in the gender-based condition than in the non-gender-based condition and a stronger preference for the male candidate in the non-gender-based condition than in the gender-based condition. Overall, the results provide evidence that gender-based preferential selection policies can evoke their intended effect to bring highly qualified women to high-level professorships, especially when being evaluated by non-beneficiaries of these policies, such as men.

     

Assuming preferential selection when the admissions policy is unknown: the effects of gender rarity

One hundred thirty-five undergraduates indicated the degree to which they believed gender played a role in the selection of an applicant for a graduate degree program. Both the gender composition of the cohort and the selection policy (explicitly merit-based, explicitly affirmative action, or ambiguous) were varied. Results indicated that preferential selection on the basis of gender was assumed when women were solos and explicit information about the selection policy was not provided and that these assumptions were as strong as when an affirmative action policy was explicitly stated. This did not occur when the female selectee was not a solo or when a male selectee was a solo. Evaluations of qualifications and prediction of success paralleled the preferential selection assumptions.     

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.     

Sterba on Affirmative Action,or, it Never was the bus,it was Us!

Professor Sterba argues for two interesting and provocative positions regarding affirmative action. First, affirmative action programs are still needed to ensure diversity in educational institutions of higher learning. Secondly, the proponents and opponents of affirmative action are not as far apart as they seem to think. To this end, he proposes a position that would give weight to race as a category for affirmative action that can withstand the challenges of affirmative action opponents while giving the needed support for affirmative action proponents. It is his contention that both sides can support arguments for diversity affirmative action. This paper raises concerns about the ability of arguments for racial diversity to resolve or bring together opponents and proponents of affirmative action. It is argued that the negative social climate, regarding the social and intellectual merits of black Americans, works against the acceptance of affirmative action programs. In sum, it is argued that Professor Sterba’s position continues to put the social onus of changing racial attitudes on blacks with little or no effort on the part of whites other than allowing blacks admittance to formerly segregated educational institutions to interact with white students.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Applying a logic of appropriateness to understand behavioral differences between common resource dilemmas and public good dilemmas

Common resource dilemmas (CRDs) and public good dilemmas (PGDs) are distinct types of social dilemmas, yet they model the same underlying conflict between the collective interest and one's self-interest. Here, we study and interpret behavioral differences between these two main types of social dilemmas by applying a logic of appropriateness. In two experiments, we argue and demonstrate that CRDs, relative to PGDs, evoke higher levels of cooperation, because taking from collective property (in CRDs) is generally considered less appropriate than not giving from personal property (in PGDs). Importantly, these differential considerations of appropriateness are reflected not only in the willingness to cooperate but also in the willingness to punish and reward others' (non)cooperative behavior. Taken together, the findings reveal that CRDs and PGDs elicit different norms of appropriateness.