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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Reactions to Social Categorization: Evaluating One Argument Against Affirmative Action1

One argument made against affirmative action is that it is undesirable or inappropriate to treat people on the basis of their group membership. The present study attempts to evaluate college students' opinions about this type of social categorization. Two variables were manipulated: type of social group (i.e., one based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or college major), and the purpose of the categorization (to identify, to form a social group, to form a political group, or for affirmative action purposes). Results indicated that students were, in general, opposed to such social categorizations. The presence of interaction effects, however, suggests that opposition to affirmative action is not uniform across different target groups and is not based solely on objections to social categorization. Implications are discussed.     

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.     

Shared Being,Old Promises,and the Just Necessity of Affirmative Action

Although the residues of official segregation are widespread, affirmative action continues to meet resistance in both official and everyday life, even in such recent Supreme Court decisions as Grutter v Bollinger (539 U.S. 306). This is due in part to a governing ontology that draws the line between individual and collective. But there are other possibilities for conceiving the social, and I offer one here in a theory of affirmative action that is developed through close examination of sharing and promising as elemental qualities of equitable communal life. The nature and value of these actions are demonstrated in narrative formulations of fairness as exemplified in triage and the situation at the end of slavery; of the difference between equality and equity and how justice depends on their conjunction; and finally of theorizing how these may come together in the permutable, opaque, yet resilient interdependence of person and community that represents most deeply the Greek idea of two in one, that is, of one two, not two ones. In these respects the paper is successful insofar as it discloses the kinds of reasoning that underlie both resistance and commitment to affirmative action.     

THE DIVERSITY–VALIDITY DILEMMA: OVERVIEW AND LEGAL CONTEXT

Due to racioethnic and sex subgroup differences on predictor scores in many selection procedures, it is difficult for organizations to simultaneously maximize the validity of their selection procedures and hire a diverse workforce. One response to this diversity–validity dilemma is to revise the selection procedures, an approach developed by Ployhart and Holtz (this issue, 2008) . A second possible response is to use affirmative action to increase workforce diversity, an approach developed by Kravitz (this issue, 2008) . This paper briefly presents the legal context that motivates and constrains these approaches. We begin by defining key terms, describing adverse impact, and outlining the burden of proof in adverse impact cases. We then turn to the use of racioethnic minority and female preferences, summarizing some key court decisions and the conditions under which private and public employers may use preferences.     

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.     

The Influence of Education on Attitudes toward Affirmative Action: The Role of the Policy's Strength

The present research examined the influence of education on attitudes toward affirmative action. Studies 1 and 2 showed no impact of education on attitudes toward “soft” policies of affirmative action. In contrast, they showed less support of the more educated to “hard” policies of affirmative action. Neither prejudice (Study 2), nor understanding of the affirmative‐action policies (Study 3) accounted for this effect. Study 4 demonstrated that the education effect is mediated by the threat posed by strong plans to meritocratic beliefs. Theoretical implications of these findings are discussed.     

A comparative Perspective on Affirmative Action: Positieve Aktie in The Netherlands

The Netherlands has established a program for minority employment patterned after affirmative action in the United States. Thus, the Sutch experience allows a comparative perspective on American efforts, one made more instructive by the sharp differences in intergroup relations between the two nations. We report on our Dutch research on affirmative action among urban police involving almost 100 intensive individual interviews in yoked sets of three--the minority officer, her or his White co-workers, and their immediate supervisor. Based on this initial, rough comparison, we tentatively advance that contrasting national racial normative structures make critical differences in the reception of the policy. Such problems as solo role and stigma commonly reported in American research appear muted in our Dutch data. Thus, ironically, the American racist legacy that shapes the problems of affirmative action is the same legacy that requires affirmative-action policies in the first place.     

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.     

If Empowerment Is the Goal...: Affirmative Action and social Interaction

The goal of affirmative action policies is to empower formerly disenfranchised groups. But what if the procedures used to implement these policies activate a set of social psychological processes that prevent the occurrence of productive social interactions between target-group and non-target-group members? With that question in mind, a conceptual model is developed which focuses on the potential effects of affirmative action procedures on social interactions between members of policy target and nontarget groups. To conceptualize these potential effects of procedures, the concept of a policy schema is introduced. Special attention is paid to the conditions under which beliefs about procedures contained in policy schemas will influence patterns of interactions between target-group and non-target-group members. With that as background, a call is made for more complete analyses of the social psychology of affirmative action.     

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).     

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.