Attitudes Toward Affirmative Action as a Function of Racial Identity Among African American College Students

Variations in support for affirmative action were assessed in a sample of 181 African American college students in Massachusetts. These students generally endorsed affirmative action, and endorsement varied positively as a function of the belief that one had personally benefited from affirmative action. Aspects of racial identity, indexed by the Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity, also predicted variations in attitudes toward affirmative action, over and above background factors and personal benefit. Consistent with realistic group conflict theory, the most influential aspects of identity were centrality (i.e., the degree to which group identity is central to personal identity), private regard (i.e., pride in the group), and an oppressed minority ideology (i.e., a viewpoint that emphasizes the similarities between African Americans and other oppressed groups).     

Aversive Racism and Resistance to Affirmative Action: Perception of Justice Are Not Necessarily Color Blind

This study utilized a factorial survey design to assess attitudes toward affirmative action as a function of targeted group (Black, handicapped, or elderly persons), framing of the policy (with or without social justification), and institutional context (business, college, or social organization). Resistance to affirmative action was aroused more by policies specifying Blacks as the targeted group and by policies presented without justification. Supportive of the aversive racism framework, the level of resistance to the policies presented without justification for Blacks as the target group was higher than for all other targeted groups with or without justification. Implications for these findings for strategies to reduce negative attitudes toward affirmative action are discussed.     

Social Identity and Personal Identity Stereotype Threat: The Case of Affirmative Action

Integrating insights from research examining the effect of being seen through the lens of stereotypes on academic performance and the social identity perspective, we examine the effect of perceived affirmative action admission at college entry on academic performance at the end of the first year. We propose that stereotype threat plays a crucial moderating role in determining when performance is affected. A longitudinal study of Black and Latino students at a large multiethnic university showed that perceptions of affirmative action admission negatively affected achievement among high stereotype-threatened individuals but not among low stereotype-threatened individuals. Furthermore, the results show that stereotype threat can have its effects because of concerns for the self (personal identity stereotype threat) or because of concerns for the group (social identity stereotype threat). As expected, social identity stereotype threat negatively affected the performance of individuals high in ethnic identification, whereas personal identity stereotype threat negatively affected the performance of individuals low in ethnic identification.     

A Note From the Editor

Although much has been written about the legal and ethical aspects of affirmative action, relatively few empirical and theoretical works examine affirmative action. In this article, we broadly survey three aspects of affirmative action: its content, context, and consequences. Research examining the content or form of affirmative action illustrates immense variety in implementation plans and widespread confusion over the specifics of those plans. Research examining social and organizational context in which affirmative action is implemented underscores that this context can forcefully shape its effectiveness by providing a setting in which resistance may be encouraged or dismantled. Finally, research examining the consequences of affirmative action for recipients and organizations suggests, not surprisingly that affirmative action may have either beneficial or adverse effects. The nature of these outcomes appears to depend on the specifics of the affirmative action implementation plan. We note the need for further research examining these three critical areas of affirmative action and for further investigations exploring factors that may facilitate the positive consequences and mitigate the negative outcomes of affirmative action.     

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.     

Attitudes Toward Affirmative Action as a Function of the Strength of Ethnic Identity Among Latino College Students1

The present study examined support for affirmative action among Latino college students as a function of ethnic identity. We found that, overall, Latino students generally endorsed affirmative action and did not feel undermined by it. Of primary interest to us was variation in support for affirmative action as a function of ethnic identity. The more the Latino students identified with their ethnic group, the more they endorsed affirmative action.     

Evaluations of Affirmative Action Applicants: Perceived Fairness,Human Capital,or Social Identity?

This study examined three explanations forevaluations of an affirmative action universityapplicant: type of policy, the human capital model, andsocial identity. Seventy-nine (84% white, 11% black, 3% Asian, and 2% other) participants read auniversity's admissions policy that varied the type ofpolicy (quota or standard), qualifications of theapplicant (weak, strong), and group affiliation(ingroup, outgroup). Then they rated the applicant,policy, and university. Results indicated support forthe social identity perspective. The ingroup applicantwas evaluated more favorably when the affirmative action policy was perceived to be fair. But theingroup member was derogated when the affirmative actionpolicy was perceived as unfair. The perceived fairnessof the affirmative action policy seemed to have little effect on evaluations of the outgroup member.The implications of these findings arediscussed.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Visual categorization of social interactions

Prominent theories of action recognition suggest that during the recognition of actions the physical patterns of the action is associated with only one action interpretation (e.g., a person waving his arm is recognized as waving). In contrast to this view, studies examining the visual categorization of objects show that objects are recognized in multiple ways (e.g., a VW Beetle can be recognized as a car or a beetle) and that categorization performance is based on the visual and motor movement similarity between objects. Here, we studied whether we find evidence for multiple levels of categorization for social interactions (physical interactions with another person, e.g., handshakes). To do so, we compared visual categorization of objects and social interactions (Experiments 1 and 2) in a grouping task and assessed the usefulness of motor and visual cues (Experiments 3, 4, and 5) for object and social interaction categorization. Additionally, we measured recognition performance associated with recognizing objects and social interactions at different categorization levels (Experiment 6). We found that basic level object categories were associated with a clear recognition advantage compared to subordinate recognition but basic level social interaction categories provided only a little recognition advantage. Moreover, basic level object categories were more strongly associated with similar visual and motor cues than basic level social interaction categories. The results suggest that cognitive categories underlying the recognition of objects and social interactions are associated with different performances. These results are in line with the idea that the same action can be associated with several action interpretations (e.g., a person waving his arm can be recognized as waving or greeting).     

Understanding Affirmative Action

The purpose of this article is to lay a conceptual groundwork that is needed if social scientists and policy makers are to design and implement fair and effective affirmative action programs. Because affirmative action is not well understood, in or out of the academy, the article starts with definitions, both general and technical, contrasts affirmative action with equal opportunity, and touches on the distinction between policy and practice. I then argue that affirmative action is a necessary policy, that it can be effective, and that it is fair. But the policy is for three other reasons: (a) it focuses on deficiencies, (b) it disturbs expectations, and (c) it poses a threat to individualism, interfering with self-congratulations.     

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.     

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.     

The positive and negative framing of affirmative action: a group dominance perspective

Using a sample of 328 White, Latino, and Black Los Angeles County adults, the authors examined the tendency to employ various affirmative action "frames" (e.g., affirmative action as a "tie-breaking" device or as a quota-based policy). All three groups agreed about which frames cast affirmative action in a positive light and which cast it in a negative light. Although minorities had a tendency to frame affirmative action in terms that most people find morally acceptable, Whites had a tendency to frame affirmative action in terms most people find unacceptable. In addition, compared to minorities, Whites were less supportive of affirmative action regardless of how it was framed. LISREL modeling also was employed to test two competing models regarding predictors of the tendency to use frames that one personally finds to be relatively negative versus positive. Consistent with the expectations of social dominance theory and a motivated cognition perspective, the authors found that social dominance orientation (SDO) had significant net direct and indirect effects on one's framing of affirmative action.     

Support for Affirmative Action Initiatives Among Diverse Groups: The Role of Ethnic Identity

This study investigates the relationships among demographic factors (race/ethnicity, color, and gender), ethnic identity (i.e., the degree to which one identifies with and feels a part of one's racial or ethnic group), and support for affirmative action initiatives. Using a sample of 1,880 university employees, the results of this survey study reveal that women and minority group members express higher levels of ethnic identity and support for affirmative action initiatives, mirroring previous research. In addition, the findings indicate that ethnic identity and support for affirmative action initiatives are correlated and that ethnic identity serves as a mediator and moderator in the relationship between demographic variables and support for affirmative action for some subgroups.     

Searching for Common Ground between Supporters and Opponents of Affirmative Action

Supporters and opponents of affirmative action are often characterized as debating about a single, consensually understood type of affirmative action. However, supporters and opponents instead may have different types of policies in mind when thinking about affirmative action and may actually agree on specific manifestations of affirmative action policies more than is commonly believed. A survey conducted using a student sample and a sample from the broader Chicago-area community showed that affirmative action policies can be characterized into merit-violating versus merit-upholding manifestations. Supporters of affirmative action in general were more likely to think of affirmative action in its merit-upholding manifestations, whereas opponents were more likely to think of the merit-violating manifestations. However, both supporters and opponents showed more support for merit-upholding rather than merit-violating manifestations of affirmative action. The same pattern of results was upheld even when splitting the samples into those who endorsed negative racial attitudes versus those who did not, suggesting that even those who may be considered racist will endorse affirmative action policies that uphold merit values. The results are discussed in terms of the importance of clarifying the political discourse about what affirmative action is and what it is designed to do.     

Interpersonal attraction,social identification and psychological group formation

Two perspectives on the nature of the social group and psychological group formation are discussed. The traditional social cohesion approach traces group formation to processes of interpersonal attraction, while the social identity approach defines the group in cognitive terms and considers identification, or self-categorization, to be the mechanism of psychological group formation. On the basis of an experiment by Turner, Sachdev and Hogg (1983) it is hypothesized that interpersonal attraction (positive or negative) is related to group formation only in so far as it enhances intergroup distinctiveness. This hypothesis is experimentally tested in a 2 × 3 (interpersonal liking/disliking per se versus no explicit categorization/random categorization/criterial categorization on the basis of affect) factorial design employing the ‘minimal group’ paradigm. People who like each other and were not explicitly categorized formed a group. This effect was enhanced by criterial categorization but disappeared when categorization was random. Although the results do not support the hypothesis, they are not explicable in social cohesion terms. A social identity explanation is furnished—attraction influences group formation by acting, under certain specifiable conditions, as a cognitive criterion for common category membership. This explanation is located in current theorizing and is proposed as part of a reconceptualization of the relationship between interpersonal attraction and group formation.