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.     

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.     

Sugaring o'er the devil: Moral superiority and group identification help individuals downplay the implications of ingroup rule‐breaking

We examined how a group's claim to moral superiority influences evaluations of rule‐breaking by ingroup members. Moral superiority was manipulated among researchers (Study 1) and British citizens (Study 2), after which group members were presented with ingroup rule‐breakers: a researcher violating ethical rules (Study 1) and British soldiers abusing Iraqi prisoners (Study 2). In both studies, higher and lower identifiers in the control condition perceived the rule‐breaking as equally damaging, evaluated the rule‐breakers equally negatively and recommended equally harsh punishments. When the group had taken the moral high ground, lower identifiers perceived the rule‐breaking as more damaging than did higher identifiers. In addition, higher identifiers evaluated the rule‐breakers less negatively and recommended more lenient punishments. Results of mediation analyses demonstrated that negative evaluations of, and recommended punishment for, the rule‐breakers were explained by the perceived damage that their behaviour caused to the ingroup. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

How the disadvantaged appraise group-based exclusion: The path from legitimacy to illegitimacy

Although many forms of differential treatment based on group membership are perceived to be legitimate, disadvantaged group members’ responses to discrimination have been studied primarily in contexts in which such treatment is appraised as illegitimate. This has resulted in an impoverished understanding of differential group-based treatment and a failure to illuminate the processes by which discrimination can shift from being seen as legitimate to being viewed as illegitimate. We discuss the determinants of disadvantaged group members’ legitimacy appraisals and the de-legitimisation process, whereby forms of discrimination appraised as legitimate come to be increasingly perceived as illegitimate. Whether group-based exclusion is addressed collectively or individually depends on socio-structural factors such as the pervasiveness of discrimination, impermeability of intergroup boundaries, and the availability of cognitive alternatives to the status quo. We conclude that understanding the antecedents and consequences of legitimacy appraisals is necessary to develop a comprehensive account of disadvantaged group members’ experiences of group-based discrimination.     

Minority goals for interaction with the majority: Seeking distance from the majority and the effect of rejection on identification

Four studies investigated the conditions under which minority group members respond to group‐based discrimination with increased identification with their group. We propose that minorities' interaction goals should serve as a moderator: seeking distance from the majority might keep minority identification alive in the face of perceived discrimination. These predictions were tested correlationally in Study 1 among Chinese immigrants in Australia (sample 1a) and children of rural migrant workers in a Chinese city (sample 1b). In Studies 2 and 3, perceived discrimination was manipulated among Romanian immigrants in France and Polish immigrants in Scotland. In Study 4, both minority goals and perceived discrimination were manipulated among a sample of international students in Australia. Results showed that only for those who were inclined to seek distance from the majority, minority group identification increased when discrimination was high compared with low. Discussion focuses on the way that seeking distance might be an important strategy for coping with discrimination. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

When is individual mobility costly? The role of economic and social identity factors

Two studies considered when the individual mobility strategy of attending university has psychological costs in terms of poor adjustment to university life. Study 1, (N = 74) examined both economic considerations affecting university choice and identity‐related factors among open day attendees. Expected identification as a university student and preparedness for university life was affected by economic factors (economic benefit of university attendance and status of the considered universities) but also negatively related to perceived incompatibility with one's social background. These findings were replicated in a longitudinal study in which students' perceptions were assessed before entering university (T1), after being at university for two months (T2) and again after being at university for 8 months (T3; N = 109). Social class (T1) predicted perceived incompatibility but not economic factors. In addition, economic factors and incompatibility predicted group identification (T2) but only perceived incompatibility predicted longer‐term identification (T3). Belief that university education serves as a successful individual mobility strategy (T3) was indirectly negatively affected by initial incompatibility (T1), but positively with perceiving economic benefits of a university degree (T1). Implications for the (economic) benefits versus (identity) costs of individual mobility strategies are discussed. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Why individuals protest the perceived transgressions of their country: the role of anger, shame, and guilt

The present research examined emotions as predictors of opposition to policies and actions of one's country that are perceived to be illegitimate. Two studies investigated the political implications of American (Study 1) and British (Study 2) citizens' anger, guilt, and shame responses to perceived harm caused by their countries' occupation of Iraq. In both studies, a manipulation of pervasive threat to the country's image increased participants' shame but not guilt. The emotions predicted political action intentions to advocate distinct opposition strategies. Shame predicted action intentions to advocate withdrawal from Iraq. Anger predicted action intentions to advocate compensation to Iraq, confrontation of agents responsible, and withdrawal from Iraq. Anger directed at different targets (ingroup, ingroup representative, and outgroup representative) predicted action intentions to support distinct strategies (Study 2). Guilt did not independently predict any political action intentions. Implications for the study of political action and emotions in intergroup contexts are discussed.     

Understanding allies’ participation in social change: A multiple perspectives approach

The introduction to the EJSP special issue brings together recent literature on allyship. We present and discuss different definitions of allyship and highlight a multiple perspectives approach to understanding the predictors and consequences of allyship. This approach suggests that engagement in allyship can be driven by egalitarian and non-egalitarian motivations and that the behaviours identified as allyship can have different meanings, causes and consequences depending on whether researchers take into account the allies’ perspective or the disadvantaged groups’ perspective. We use this approach as an organizing principle to identify themes that emerge in the papers included in this special issue. We start with four papers that consider the perspective of the advantaged group, followed by two papers that consider the perspective of the disadvantaged group. Finally, we introduce two theoretical papers that examine the relations between disadvantaged groups and allies, and we set out directions for future research.     

Understanding advantaged groups' opposition to diversity,equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies: The role of perceived threat

To combat social inequality, organizations develop and implement initiatives that seek to improve the status of disadvantaged groups (e.g., women, racial/ethnic minority groups). Such diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies are controversial, because people disagree about whether they are necessary and what their (positive and negative) consequences may be. Opposition can be particularly fierce from people who belong to advantaged groups that benefit from the status quo (e.g., men, racial/ethnic majority groups). Given the power wielded by advantaged groups, their opposition can undermine the successful implementation of DEI policies, thus resulting in continued inequality, wasted resources, and potential for tension in the organization. In this paper, I draw on theory and research to consider three types of threat that can explain advantaged groups' opposition to DEI policies: (1) resource threat, or concern about losing access to outcomes and opportunities; (2) symbolic threat, or concern about the introduction of new values, culture, and expectations; and (3) ingroup morality threat, or concern about their group's role in perpetuating inequality. I review strategies identified by the literature to mitigate these threats, and discuss their potential negative consequences. The final section takes stock of the literature and considers directions for future research.