REFLECTIONS ON AFFIRMATIVE ACTION GOALS IN PSYCHOLOGY ADMISSIONS

Four goals of affirmative action in higher education are described as they relate to psychology admissions. Broadly conceived, these goals are compensating for past injustice, correcting present inequity, promoting intellectual diversity, and enhancing the presence of role models. It is argued that the four goats differ in their underlying assumptions about the purposes of affirmative action and that these differences can result in disparate admission decisions. Data from three experiments on decision making in graduate psychology admissions are presented to illustrate the analysis. In these studies, academic psychologists rated the admissibility of hypothetical graduate student applicants who varied on a number of characteristics (e g., ethnicity, social class, interest in minority research) pertinent to affirmative action. A consistent pattern of ethnic group differences in admissibility ratings was documented, illustrating that compensation for past injustice can be interpreted as a salient affirmative action goal in graduate admissions decisions. Implications of the analysis for clarifying admissions decisions guided by affirmative action goals are discussed.     

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).     

Affirmative action. Psychological data and the policy debates

The authors bring psychological research to bear on an examination of the policy of affirmative action. They argue that data from many studies reveal that affirmative action as a policy has more benefits than costs. Although the majority of pro-affirmative action arguments in the social sciences stress diversity, the authors' argument focuses on issues of merit. The merit-based argument, grounded in empirical studies, concludes that the policy of affirmative action conforms to the American ideal of fairness and is a necessary policy.     

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.     

Quotas and affirmative action: Understanding group‐based outcomes and attitudes

More and more countries are adopting quotas to increase group‐based equality in the boardroom and the political sphere. Nevertheless, affirmative action in general and quotas in particular remain a highly controversial subject—eliciting negative reactions from privileged groups, while support among minority and lower‐status groups is generally higher. Focusing on gender, we take a broad approach to the topic and discuss (a) the effects of quotas and affirmative action on the under‐representation of minority groups and on perceptions of their competence, (b) the effects of quotas and affirmative action on organisational performance, and (c) predictors of attitudes towards affirmative action and quotas. We conclude that the benefits of quotas outweigh their costs and that they are an effective way of tackling group‐based inequality. We also discuss strategies that can be used to elicit more support among those groups that are particularly critical of quotas.     

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.     

THE DIVERSITY–VALIDITY DILEMMA: BEYOND SELECTION—THE ROLE OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

Several of the most valid predictors used to make employment decisions create a diversity–validity dilemma ( Pyburn, Ployhart, & Kravitz, this issue, 2008 ). This diversity–validity dilemma can be resolved by (a) reducing adverse impact through a variety of technical steps ( Ployhart & Holtz, this issue, 2008 ) or (b) using affirmative action to increase representation of the disadvantaged groups. This paper focuses on the second approach. The paper begins with a very brief review of the legal bases of affirmative action and a summary of the research on affirmative action attitudes. This is followed with reviews of research on the ongoing existence of workplace discrimination, the economic impact of affirmative action on target groups and organizations, and stigmatization of target group members by others and by target group members themselves. Most problems with affirmative action apply only or primarily to preference-based forms, so nonpreferential approaches to affirmative action are recommended to increase the attraction, selection, inclusion, and retention of underrepresented group members.     

Reactions to Affirmative Action: Substance and Semantics

For both theoretical and practical reasons, researchers have sought to map the motivations that underlie people's support for or opposition to affirmative action. In view of the amount of rhetoric surrounding the issues, it is possible that some of the apparent differences in degrees of support come from differences in how the words affirmative action are interpreted. The present investigation shows that the meanings that people ascribe to affirmative action statistically predict their attitudes toward the policy, even after one accounts for demographic and related attitudinal factors. The implications of our findings are important in both applied and conceptual ways.     

The Origins and Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Purpose

This paper provides a historical review of the origins and legacy of the 1964 Civil Rights Act through the lens of the African American Civil Rights and the Women’s Rights Movements.

Design/Methodology/Approach

The historical narrative was developed using psychological, historical, and legal source material.

Findings

While the Civil Rights Act did not immediately change the landscape of equality in the American workplace, it signaled a fundamental shift in the treatment of racial and gender diversity. In concert with other social, legal, and political shifts, it paved the way for progress on issues like affirmative action, pregnancy discrimination, and sexual harassment.

Implications

Without an understanding of the historical development and consequences of the Civil Rights Act, it is easy to lose sight of how the act has shaped the understanding of equality in the American workforce. Further, the way in which rights movements evolved alongside each other illuminates a need to focus not only on equality between majority and minority groups but also on issues of equality among minority groups.

Originality/Value

Previous reviews of the Civil Rights Act and rights movements tend to focus narrowly on one issue or group, and approach that concern from a single academic discipline. In contrast, we provide a review of the roots and consequences of the Civil Rights Act based on the developments of two rights movements, and draw from sources in psychology, history, political science, and legal perspectives to provide a broader picture of this landmark legislation.     

Are You Minority Enough? Language Ability Affects Targets' and Perceivers' Assessments of a Candidate's Appropriateness for Affirmative Action

In the present study, we focus on Spanish language ability as a predictor of the extent to which Latinos are viewed by both others and themselves as full-fledged minorities. Study 1 shows that perceivers viewed Latinos described as Spanish speakers as more appropriate for race-based affirmative action than Latinos who were unable to speak Spanish (controlling for intellectual competence evaluations). Moreover, the affirmative action advantage that the Spanish-speaking Latinos had over the non-Spanish-speaking Latinos was explained by perceivers viewing the Spanish speakers as having greater minority status. The results of Study 2 suggest that Spanish-speaking ability is related to self-perceptions of minority status among Latinos. Like their perceivers in Study 1, Latinos who have less Spanish-speaking ability feel less Latino and report reluctance to apply for race-based assistance in the form of academic minority scholarships.     

Individualism and Resistance to Affirmative Action: A Comparison of Japanese and American Samples1

It has been proposed that part of the resistance to affirmative action in the U.S. derives from the American discomfort with categorical social arrangements. An instance of gender discrimination was described to samples of Japanese and American students. The students then evaluated a set of remedies, one of which was a classic affirmative action solution and filled out Singelis’ Self-Construal Scale (Singelis, 1994). The Japanese sample was more collectivist than the American sample and endorsed the affirmative action solution more strongly than the American sample.     

Minority stress and mental health among Dutch LGBs: examination of differences between sex and sexual orientation

Minority stress is often cited as an explanation for greater mental health problems among lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) individuals than heterosexual individuals. However, studies focusing on sex or sexual orientation differences in level of minority stress and its impact on mental health are scarce, even more so outside the United States. Performing secondary analyses on the data of a Dutch population study on sexual health, the present study examines the robustness of the minority stress model by explaining mental health problems among men and women with mostly or only same-sex sexual attraction, and men and women who are equally attracted to same-sex and opposite-sex partners in the "gay-friendly" Netherlands (N = 389; 118 gay men, 40 bisexual men, 184 lesbian women, and 54 bisexual women). Results showed that minority stress is also related to mental health of Dutch LGBs. Participants with a higher level of internalized homonegativity and those who more often encountered negative reactions from other people on their same-sex sexual attraction reported more mental health problems. Such negative reactions from others, however, had a stronger link with mental health among lesbian/gay than among bisexual participants. Openness about one's sexual orientation was related to better mental health among sexual minority women, but not among their male counterparts. Suggestions for future research, implications for counseling, and other societal interventions are discussed.     

Competing Conceptions of Justice: Faculty Moral Reasoning About Affirmative Action

College faculty (N = 115) were recruited to investigate the influence of moral reasoning on hiring decisions about affirmative action dilemmas. Participants completed the Defining Issues Test (DIT), a standard test of moral reasoning, a measure that presented two hypothetical moral dilemmas about affirmative action that manipulated candidates' race and moral issues, and a scale evaluating the use of external norms versus self-chosen principles. Results indicated that moral issue but not race of a minority candidate affected hiring decisions. Faculty used greater percentages of principled reasoning when solving the more salient affirmative action dilemmas than when solving the hypothetical dilemmas of the DIT. Higher scores on the DIT were related to the use of principles rather than norms when making hiring decisions. Findings suggest that faculty decisions about hiring a hypothetical affirmative action candidate are more influenced by moral reasoning level and competing conceptions of justice than racial bias or ambivalence.     

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.     

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.     

Predictors of African American and European American adolescents' endorsement of race-conscious social policies

To examine the predictors of adolescents' evaluations of affirmative action and school desegregation policies, African American and European American students (ns = 94 and 116, respectively; aged 14 to 17 years) attending a racially diverse high school in the Midwestern United States completed measures of (a) implicit racial attitudes, (b) knowledge about historical racism, and (c) perceptions of and attributions for racial disparities. The following day, adolescents learned about either a proposed affirmative action policy (n = 101) or a school desegregation policy (n = 109) and completed measures of their attitudes toward the policy. Results indicated racial differences in policy support and in the factors predicting policy support. Theoretical implications of the findings are discussed.     

How believing in affirmative action quotas affects White women’s self-image

Believing that affirmative action entails quotas may both help and hurt White women’s self-image - contingent on whether they perceive themselves as beneficiaries of affirmative action. Consistent with research on the affirmative action “stigma of incompetence” (Heilman, Block, & Lucas, 1992), White women who think of themselves as affirmative action beneficiaries may report a more negative self-image the more they believe that affirmative action entails quota procedures. Conversely, White women who do not think of themselves as beneficiaries of affirmative action may report a more positive self-image as a function of quota beliefs, consistent with research suggesting that non-beneficiaries can derive self-image benefits from maintaining the belief that affirmative action entails quotas (Unzueta, Lowery, & Knowles, 2008). Two studies provide evidence for the benefits of quota beliefs on White women’s self-image, but no support for the stigma of incompetence perspective. The lack of support for the stigma of incompetence perspective suggests that self-stigmatization may occur only under operationalizations of affirmative action that explicitly inform beneficiaries that they were selected on the basis of demographics and not merit. Absent such an operationalization, the affirmative action self-stigma may not emerge.     

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.     

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.