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.     

What Factors Influence Judges’ Rulings About the Legality of Affirmative Action Plans?

Purpose

When implementing affirmative action programs involving race and gender, human resource practitioners must balance efforts to increase workforce diversity against the need to avoid illegal reverse discrimination. The tension between non-discrimination law and preferential treatment is explored. In reverse discrimination case law, affirmative action plans are evaluated by judges along two dimensions: remedial need and limiting harm. The legal literature specifies certain factors such as statistical imbalance, employee qualification, and duration of plan that are usually examined within these two dimensions.

Methodology

A content analysis of 80 federal court cases was conducted to quantitatively analyze the weight and importance of these factors within judicial rulings as well as contextual factors (e.g., judge’s political affiliation, beneficiary of program) that may influence the outcome of affirmative action lawsuits.

Results

It was found that remedial need can be demonstrated by large statistical disparities in the workforce, and was also more likely to be found by Democratic than Republican judges. Limiting harm is more likely to be supported by plans that are of limited duration and do not use reserved slots, or quotas.

Implications

The study provides empirically based recommendations for the design of legally defensible affirmative action plans that involve preferential treatment.     

Status legitimizing beliefs predict positivity toward Whites who claim anti-White bias

Although Whites are increasingly likely to perceive themselves as victims of racial bias, research provides little insight into how anti-White bias claimants are perceived. Two studies examined whether Whites' endorsement of status legitimizing beliefs (SLBs) moderates their reactions toward White discrimination claimants. In Study 1, Whites who rejected SLBs reacted less favorably to an anti-White bias claimant relative to one who made a nondiscriminatory external claim, whereas Whites who endorsed SLBs expressed equally positive attitudes toward an anti-White bias claimant and a non-claimant. In Study 2, Whites who were not primed with status legitimizing beliefs displayed negative reactions toward an anti-White bias claimant compared to a non-claimant, whereas those primed with SLBs expressed more positive attitudes and a desire to help the anti-White bias claimant. Implications for affirmative action litigation are discussed.     

The Motivational Quality of Global Attributions in Hypothetical and Experienced Situations of Gender Discrimination

Traditionally, global attributions have been thought to reduce instrumental behavior aimed at resolving negative events. However, the present research shows global attributions for gender discrimination are related to taking action against unfair treatment. In Study 1, women ( N = 157) completed a questionnaire assessing attributions for hypothetical scenarios of discrimination and collective responses to discrimination. In Study 2, women ( N = 79) were placed into a laboratory situation of discrimination and asked to indicate their attributions for and responses to their unfair treatment. In both studies, hierarchical regression analyses showed that global attributions were related to both individual and collective responses to their discrimination. Implications for examining attributions in an intergroup context were discussed.     

Why Women Approve of Affirmative Action: The Study of a Predictive Model

The self-interest model has often been used to predict the reactions of advantaged groups to affirmative action. It is argued that self-interest also plays a role in the genesis of attitudes of disadvantaged groups, such as women. More precisely, it is hypothesised that considerations of personal interest have an impact on considerations of collective interest which in turn have an impact on the sense of collective relative deprivation (CRD). In the past, it was shown that women who felt collectively deprived approved of strategies designed to eliminate systemic barriers. No link was found, however, between CRD and preferential treatment. Women, in majority, were opposed to this strategy. On the basis of a model introduced by Taylor and McKirnan (1984), it is argued that women who have experienced discrimination on the basis of sex in spite of the introduction of affirmative action strategies may support preferential treatment. The hypotheses were integrated in a model and tested using LISREL causal modelling. In total, 197 female francophone workers participated in the study. They were all employed in a large firm where in the last five years attempts were made to reduce sex asymmetries. These efforts however were not successful; the percentage of women in non-traditional jobs increased by only 2%. The proposed model was tested successfully. The results are discussed in light of previous paradigms and practical implications.     

Perceived discrimination as worldview threat or worldview confirmation: implications for self-esteem

In 3 studies, the authors tested the hypothesis that discrimination targets' worldview moderates the impact of perceived discrimination on self-esteem among devalued groups. In Study 1, perceiving discrimination against the ingroup was negatively associated with self-esteem among Latino Americans who endorsed a meritocracy worldview (e.g., believed that individuals of any group can get ahead in America and that success stems from hard work) but was positively associated with self-esteem among those who rejected this worldview. Study 2 showed that exposure to discrimination against their ingroup (vs. a non-self-relevant group) led to lower self-esteem, greater feelings of personal vulnerability, and ingroup blame among Latino Americans who endorsed a meritocracy worldview but to higher self-esteem and decreased ingroup blame among Latino Americans who rejected it. Study 3 showed that compared with women informed that prejudice against their ingroup is pervasive, women informed that prejudice against their ingroup is rare had higher self-esteem if they endorsed a meritocracy worldview but lower self-esteem if they rejected this worldview. Findings support the idea that perceiving discrimination against one's ingroup threatens the worldview of individuals who believe that status in society is earned but confirms the worldview of individuals who do not.     

Perceived and Actual Discrimination in the Salaries of Male and Female Managers1

This study uses a sample of over 1000 MBA graduates from a Middle Atlantic University to test for sex differences in perceived discrimination and for the actual effects of various physical characteristics and background factors on the starting salaries and later (1983) salaries of these men and women managers. Women more often reported experiencing discrimination, and they typically identified this as general discrimination against women. Fewer men perceived any discrimination. Those men who did claimed to be the victims of affirmative action programs favoring women and blacks over them. Salary data indicated that women did earn less than men, even when controlling for work experience. Evidence for other forms of discrimination was also found. Controlling for prior work experience and year of first professional employment, age and height had a positive effect on men's starting salaries and being overweight, a negative effect. For women, starting salaries were significantly and positively affected by social class. For 1983 income, taller, non-overweight, and older men earned more, as did those who grew up in a higher social class. For women, a positive salary correlate was again being from a higher social class. Areas for future research 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 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.     

To Accept or to Reject: The Effect of Framing on Attitudes Toward Affirmative Action1

Two experiments examined the effect of framing on attitudes toward an affirmative‐action program of preferential treatment. Participants' attitudes were consistently more favorable toward the affirmative‐action program presented in a positive frame—preferring a target group's applicant over a majority group's applicant—than when the very same program was presented in a negative frame—rejecting the majority group's applicant in favor of the target group's applicant. Similar effects were evident for 3 target groups in the context of higher education selection and personnel selection. Two theoretical explanations for the effect of framing on attitudes toward affirmative‐action programs are suggested. The implications of this effect are discussed, and the challenges facing future research of this phenomenon are outlined.     

Applicant reactions to test score banding in entry-level and promotional contexts.

This series of field studies used a fairness framework to investigate applicant reactions to test score banding in 3 police selection contexts. Studies 1 (N = 85) and 2 (N = 369) involved applicants for entry-level positions, and Study 3 (N = 39) involved applicants for promotion. Across all 3 studies, race interacted with applicants' belief that banding is associated with affirmative action to affect measures of fairness and organizational outcomes such as attractiveness and perceived employee relations. Reactions were also related to applicants' perceived outcomes as a result of banding. Results are explained in terms of self-interest and suggest that reactions to banding are largely a function of the association of banding with affirmative action.     

White guilt and racial compensation: the benefits and limits of self-focus

In two studies, the authors investigated guilt as a response to group-based advantage. Consistent with its conceptualization as a self-focused emotion, White guilt was based in self-focused beliefs in racial inequality. Thus, guilt was associated with belief in White privilege (Study 1) and resulted from seeing European Americans as perpetrators of racial discrimination (Study 2). Just as personal guilt is associated with efforts at restitution, White guilt was predictive of support for affirmative action programs aimed at compensating African Americans. White guilt was not, however, predictive of support for noncompensatory efforts at promoting equality, such as affirmative action programs that increase opportunities (Study 2). In contrast, the other-focused emotion of group-based sympathy was a more general predictor of support for different affirmative action policies. Our findings demonstrate the benefits and limits of group-based guilt as a basis of support for social equality and highlight the value of understanding the specific emotions elicited in intergroup contexts.     

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.     

The role of bystanders in students' perception of bullying and sense of safety

Two studies employing a mixed experimental design were conducted to determine if perceptions of bullying, attitudes towards victims, and students' sense of safety at school were influenced by bystanders' reactions to different types of bullying. In Study 1, 217 middle-school children were randomly assigned to read a hypothetical scenario describing a direct bullying episode. In Study 2, 376 primary-school children and 390 middle-school children were presented with scenarios describing a direct bullying episode and an indirect bullying episode. In all scenarios, the bystanders' reactions to the bullying and the gender of the victim were manipulated. Participants endorsed the prosocial behavior in favor of the victims and did not endorse pro-bullying behavior. Furthermore, they perceived passive reactions to the bullying as negative behavior. Participants showed positive attitudes towards victims, which were significantly higher at younger grade levels and among girls. Bystanders' behavior influenced both participants' perceptions of the victims and their perceived sense of safety at school. Implications for anti-bullying programs based upon the group ecology are discussed.     

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.     

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

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

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.

     

When the Advantaged Become Disadvantaged: Men's and Women's Actions Against Gender Discrimination

Intergroup theories suggest that different social identities will either discourage or encourage the taking of action against discrimination (Bartky, 1977; Jost & Banaji, 1994). However, research (e.g., Branscombe, 1998) has shown that discrimination is a less negative experience for men than for women. As such, it is possible that men may take greater action than women, regardless of identity. However, men's response to their perceived disadvantage had not yet been tested. Among those induced to ascribe to a gendered stereotype identity, men endorsed more action than women did. Among those induced to ascribe to an identity based on a gendered social experience, women endorsed marginally more action than men did. Differences in responses are proposed to be a function of the different efficacy levels developed by each gender within each social identity.     

RAISING MALE PRIVILEGE AWARENESS AND REDUCING SEXISM: AN EVALUATION OF DIVERSITY COURSES

Research examining the impact of women's studies courses provides evidence of student changes such as greater agreement with feminist and egalitarian attitudes, lower prejudice against women, and increased activism. Using a pre- and posttest design, the current studies assess students' awareness of male privilege, prejudice against women, support for affirmative action, and identification as feminist following courses with and without gender content. In Study 1, students taking a course entitled Psychology of Race and Gender completed identical surveys during the first and last weeks of the semester. Study 2 included students in Psychology of Women, Introduction to Women's Studies, and courses not addressing gender. Participants in diversity and women's studies courses in both studies exhibited more male privilege awareness and support for affirmative action at the end of the semester compared to pretest. However, the change in women's studies students' support for affirmative action and sexism levels was not significantly different from students in comparison courses. Women's studies students completed their courses with greater self-identification with feminism in contrast to non–women's studies students.     

Remedies for discrimination: Race,sex and affirmative action

Discrimination, and its intended remedy in affirmative action, are often discussed as if they operate equivalently for all target groups. However, the specific nature of inter-group relations between racial groups and between gender groups leads to differences both in the experience of racism and sexism and in the requirements for affirmative action programs. This article describes some of the legal differences between race and sex as social constructs, and explores the implications for workplace policies designed to remedy racial and gender-based discrimination. Research results have shown that, among Whites, there is more support for preference toward women than toward ethnic and racial minorities. Such attitudinal differences both reflect the different nature of intergroup relations and point to the different needs for affirmative action policies toward each group.