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.     

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.     

Effects of group experiential cognitive therapy for the treatment of panic disorder with agoraphobia.

A treatment protocol, called experiential cognitive therapy (ExCT), was developed. It integrated traditional cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) with virtual reality exposure for the treatment of panic disorder with agoraphobia (PDA). The objective of this study was to test the efficacy of short-term (four sessions) ExCT compared with a traditional 12-session panic control program (PCP) for the treatment of PDA. Forty patients diagnosed as having PDA by the diagnostic criteria of DSM-IV were randomly assigned to ExCT and PCP groups of 20 patients each. The treatment effects were measured with self-report questionnaires, including the BDI, STAI, ASI, PBQ, ACQ, and BSQ. The authors also assessed high end-state functioning (HES), including the success rate of stopping or reducing medication at post-treatment and 6-month follow-up. In all ratings, both ExCT and PCP groups showed significant improvement post-treatment compared with pre-treatment scores. There were no significant differences between the two treatment groups in HES and medication discontinuation at post-treatment, but there was a significant difference in medication discontinuation at 6-month follow-up. These results suggested that although short-term effectiveness of ExCT might be comparable to the effectiveness of PCP, long-term effectiveness of ExCT might be relatively inferior to the effectiveness of PCP.     

Factors Predicting the Inclusion of Lesbian,Gay, and Bisexual Affirmative Content Taught in Couple and Family Therapy Courses

Abstract

This study explored the relationship between Couple and Family Therapy (CFT) faculty members’ Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual (LGB) clinical competence and the level of LGB affirmative therapy content they teach in their courses. Hierarchical regression analyses of 117 faculty in accredited CFT programs suggest that faculty members’ own reported competence to work with LGB clients predicted their inclusion of LGB affirmative course content in the courses they teach. Important gender effects also emerged suggesting that women faculty are more likely than men to teach LGB affirmative course material. Results suggest important implications for CFT faculty, training programs, and accreditation standards.     

The Doctrine of Double Effect and Affirmative Action

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

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.     

Phencyclidine (PCP): a dangerous drug,but useful in schizophrenia research

Phencyclidine (PCP) is a dangerous drug, and the federal government has placed it on Schedule II of the Controlled Substance Act (see http:// www .mninter.net/-publish/csa2.htm#Schedule%20III). Typically, users smoke PCP, and it is often mixed with parsley, marijuana, or cocaine. Most researchers have conducted experiments on animals rather than on people, and a few have been done on persons diagnosed with schizophrenia, so answers to questions about its addictive potential or development of tolerance are not clear. In healthy volunteers, PCP can induce symptoms that mimic those of schizophrenia, lasting from a few days to more than a week. The neurotransmitter glutamate and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) appear to play a role in the mechanism by which PCP induces positive and negative schizophrenic symptoms and cognitive defects (D. C. Javitt & S. R. Zukin, 1991; A. Lahti, B. Koffel, D. LaPorte, & C. A. Tamminga, 1995; T. W. Robbins, 1990). Because PCP can induce symptoms that are almost indistinguishable from those associated with schizophrenia, further research may lead to new medications that could be helpful to people who do not respond to neuroleptics that are currently available.     

Was I Entitled or Should I Apologize? Affirmative Action Going Forward

As a U.S. civil rights policy, affirmative action commonly denotes race-conscious and result-oriented efforts by private and public officials to correct the unequal distribution of economic opportunity and education attributed to slavery, segregation, poverty and racism. Opponents argue that affirmative action (1) violates ideals of color-blind public policies, offending moral principles of fairness and constitutional principles of equality and due process; (2) has proven to be socially and politically divisive; (3) has not made things better; (4) mainly benefits middle-class, wealthy and foreign-born blacks; (4) stigmatizes its beneficiaries; and (5) compromises the self-esteem and self-respect of beneficiaries who know that they have been awarded preferential treatment. By way of a thought experiment, imagine that after decades of public policy and experimentation, the United States public finally came to agree: affirmative action is morally and legally wrong. Employing such a thought experiment, this essay by a beneficiary of affirmative action—written in response to James Sterba’s Affirmative Action for the Future (2009)—examines duties of moral repair and the possibility that the past beneficiaries of affirmative action owe apologies, compensation or some other highly personal form of corrective accountability. Beneficiaries of affirmative action have experienced woundedness and moral insecurity. Indeed, the practice of affirmative action comes with a psychology, a set of psychological benefits and burdens whose moral logic those of us who believe in our own fallibility—as much as we believe in the justice of what we have received and conferred on others—should address.     

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.     

Procedural Justice and Affirmative Action

There is widespread agreement among both supporters and opponents that affirmative action either must not violate any principle of equal opportunity or procedural justice, or if it does, it may do so only given current extenuating circumstances. Many believe that affirmative action is morally problematic, only justified to the extent that it brings us closer to the time when we will no longer need it. In other words, those that support affirmative action believe it is acceptable in nonideal theory, but not ideal theory. This paper argues that affirmative action is entirely compatible with equal opportunity and procedural justice and would be even in an ideal world. I defend a new analysis of Rawlsian procedural justice according to which it is permissible to interfere in the outcomes of procedures, and thus I show that affirmative action is not morally problematic in the way that many have supposed.     

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.     

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.     

Negative and affirmative precepts

Summary That negative precepts play the critical role in the generalization principle is a consequence of the relationship of negative to affirmative precepts, i.e. that the negative give the essential negative condition for observing the affirmative precept. This relationship in turn is based on the nature of: 1) the negative precept which obliges to inaction and consequently demands action in order to violate it; 2) the affirmative precept which obliges to action and can be violated by inaction. Since action requires agency, and agency involves more responsibility than does the non-agency present in violating affirmative percepts, we conclude that violating negative precepts demands more responsibility and consequently that they oblige more than do affirmative precepts. To emphasize this critical role of agency I shall conclude with an example proposed by Michael Tooley: Imagine a machine which contains two children, John and Mary. If one pushes a button, John will be killed, but Mary will emerge unharmed. If one does not push the button, John will emerge unharmed, but Mary will be killed. In the first case one kills John, while in the second case one merely lets Mary die. Does one seriously wish to say that the action of intentionally refraining from pushing the button is morally preferable to the action of pushing it, even though exactly one person will perish in either case?²⁰ Tooley's judgment on this example indicates that the outcome - in either case one person will perish - is the sole moral determinant (intentions do not enter this case) and that agency of pushing the button is of no moral significance. Yet, if you, the reader, stood before this machine and tried to decide what you should do, the fact of your agency in pushing the button would control your decision. Consider pushing the button. What reason could you have for that action? That otherwise Mary would die. But who can say that Mary's life is more valuable than John's? That Mary will die is no valid reason for pushing the button. But what of saving Mary's life? You can't do that without yourself actively killing John. But if you don't, Mary will die. This is true, but she will not die from your agency, and this is critical to your choice. What a machine may or may not do may or may not be under your control. What you do is under your control, and you may not do evil, not even that good may come of it. Consequently, you would be forced to say: the decision of intentionally refraining from pushing the button is morally preferable to the action of pushing it even though exactly one person perishes in either case.     

The dynamics and impact of affirmative action processes on higher education,the curriculum,and black women

Affirmative action is perceived as a tool that can bring about significant social change. In higher education, it has yet to produce the desired results for which its policies were designed. In whatever stage of the affirmative action process colleges and universities find themselves, it can be observed that there are complex dynamics of formulating, implementing, and enforcing affirmative action goals that affect all participants in the process. The complex dynamics of achieving affirmative action goals within higher education deserve attention because they forecast the interactions between black women and higher education that we may expect to see in the future.     

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.     

Differentiating Derrida and Deleuze

Repetition plays a significant, productive role in the work of both Derrida and Deleuze. But the difference between these two philosophers couldn't be greater: it is the difference between negation and affirmation, between Yes and No. In Derrida, the productive energy of repetition derives from negation, from the necessary impossibility of supplementing an absence. Deleuze recognizes the kind of repetition which concerns Derrida, but insists that there is another, primary form of repetition which is fully positive and affirmative. I will argue that there is nothing in Derrida's philosophy to match the affirmative, primary form of repetition articulated by Deleuze. Moreover, it is precisely this difference that accounts for the most exciting features of Deleuze's work: the possibility of breaking through to the other side of representation, beyond authenticity and inauthenticity, becoming-becoming.     

A Study of the Relationship Between Family Interaction and Individual Symptomology Over Time

The study was designed to answer two questions: (a) Can a relationship over time between family interaction and individual symptomatology be demonstrated? (b) Can it be shown that changes in interaction have more influence on changes in the symptom than vice versa. Five interaction dimensions were taped in weekly, three-quarter hour sessions over 20 weeks in five families, each consisting of a mother-father-child triad who met certain criteria and had an encopretic child. The interaction dimension scores were abstracted weekly from these sessions by content analyses relying on various scales. The derived ratio scores were then related to the number of days the child soiled himself in the week preceding and following the interaction measurement. The relationship was assessed by Pearson correlation coefficients and step-wise multiple regression analyses adjusted to account for the possible inflationary effects of taking measures from the same subjects more than once. The results of the analyses answered both questions posed by the study in the affirmative, thus supporting the rationale underlying family therapy.     

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.     

Phencyclidine (PCP): A Dangerous Drug,but Useful in Schizophrenia Research

Phencyclidine (PCP) is a dangerous drug, and the federal government has placed it on Schedule II of the Controlled Substance Act (see http://www.mninter.net/～publish/csa2.htm#Schedule%20III). Typically, users smoke PCP, and it is often mixed with parsley, marijuana, or cocaine. Most researchers have conducted experiments on animals rather than on people, and a few have been done on persons diagnosed with schizophrenia, so answers to questions about its addictive potential or development of tolerance are not clear. In healthy volunteers, PCP can induce symptoms that mimic those of schizophrenia, lasting from a few days to more than a week. The neurotransmitter glutamate and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) appear to play a role in the mechanism by which PCP induces positive and negative schizophrenic symptoms and cognitive defects (D. C. Javitt & S. R. Zukin, 1991; A. Lahti, B. Koffel, D. LaPorte, & C. A. Tarnminga, 1995; T. W. Robbins, 1990). Because PCP can induce symptoms that are almost indistinguishable from those associated with schizophrenia, further research may lead to new medications that could be helpful to people who do not respond to neuroleptics that are currently available.     

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.