Support For Affirmative Action Research Articles

The inelastic demand for affirmative action

We study the role of financial incentives in driving support for affirmative action (AA) in a series of online experiments. Participants act as employers deciding whether to use AA in hiring. We implement three treatments to disentangle AA preferences stemming from perceived gender differences in productivity, perceived effects of AA on productivity, or other costs of AA for employers. Around 1/3 of employers consistently implement AA, and we do not find any significant difference across treatments, despite successfully altering beliefs about productivity differences. Our results suggest that AA choice reflects a more intrinsic and inelastic preference for advancing female candidates.

Leaving No One Behind: Examining the effect of financial, gender, and digital inclusion on sustainable development

AbstractThis paper analyzes the effects of different dimensions of inclusion toward the attainment of sustainable development in 33 sub‐Saharan African (SSA) countries from the financial, gender, and technological perspectives between 2004 and 2021. This study employs the System Generalized Method of Moments given its ability to address potential endogeneity issues, capture the dynamic nature of relationships, and mitigate potential biases while adopting the Driscoll–Kraay standard errors for robustness check. Findings reveal two of the three measures of financial inclusion wield positive and significant effects on sustainable development while credit to the private sector is found to be detrimental. Also, all three measures of gender inclusion (female employment to population, female labor force participation rate, and the number of women holding a seat in parliament) positively influence sustainable development. Contrastingly, the coefficients of digital inclusion (mobile phone subscription and internet usage) were revealed to be harmful to sustainable development in SSA. This paper advocates for increased financial inclusion through financial literacy, customized financial products, and gender‐sensitive financial services. Pertinent are gender policies that address gender norms in addition to the enactment, avowed commitment, and support for affirmative action toward closing gender gaps across all sectors and at all levels.

Attitudes on affirmative action targeted to help Black and Hispanic individuals: The roles of knowledge, race, and perceived discrimination

AbstractThis study explored factors affecting affirmative action attitudes. Undergraduates at a Hispanic‐Serving Institution completed measures assessing support for Black‐targeted and Hispanic‐targeted affirmative action, perceived discrimination against Blacks and Hispanics, and demographic information. Prior to completing these measures, some participants were randomly assigned to read 10 facts about current racial inequities. An ANOVA revealed a marginally significant effect of condition (with greater affirmative action support by participants who read facts about racial inequities vs. the control condition), a significant effect of participant race (with greater affirmative action support by Black and Hispanic vs. White participants), and a significant interaction between participant and target race (with greater support of Hispanic‐targeted vs. Black‐targeted affirmative action by White and Hispanic participants, but no difference in support for Hispanic‐targeted vs. Black‐targeted affirmative action by Black participants). Regression analyses revealed that affirmative action support was significantly associated with a Democrat affiliation, a Black or Hispanic race, and perceived discrimination against Blacks and Hispanics. These findings are consistent with social dominance theory (whereby group status threat may influence Hispanic affirmative action support) and the altruism‐born‐of‐suffering theory (whereby adverse discriminatory experiences of Blacks may lead to greater empathy and support for affirmative action).

Pervasive and pernicious underestimation of Asian Americans' support for affirmative action

AbstractPolling data show that 69% of Asian American voters favor affirmative action. However, Asian Americans were featured prominently by the organization Students for Fair Admissions, which played a central role in the Supreme Court's decision to overturn affirmative action. This may distort people's estimates of Asian Americans’ support for affirmative action. Two studies (N = 695) found that people, even Asian Americans, underestimated Asian Americans’ support for affirmative action. Three follow‐up studies (N = 1,625), where we manipulated perceived Asian Americans’ support for affirmative action or the Supreme Court's decision, found no evidence that such information affected White people's support for affirmative action. In Study 6 (N = 365), however, we found that Asian Americans were more likely to agree with the Supreme Court's decision to overturn affirmative action when they saw that a majority of Asian Americans supported the court ruling (relative to a control condition in which no information was presented). This suggests that the widespread misperception of Asian Americans’ support for affirmative action and their central role in the Supreme Court cases may ultimately create a self‐fulfilling prophecy that could shift individual Asian Americans’ own attitude about affirmative action.

Support for Affirmative Action in the Workplace: Gender, Race, and Sector Differences

Understanding attitudes toward affirmative action (AA) is important because it plays a critical role in the successful implementation of AA and hence diversity in organizations. The field of public sector human resource management (HRM) places a good deal of attention on diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA). The legal tool of affirmative action remains an important tool for achieving DEIA. This study examines gender, race, and sector differences as predictors of gender- and race-based support for AA in the workplace. Using data from the 2000 to 2018 General Social Survey (GSS), this article finds that Blacks and other persons of color offer more support than White men for race-based and gender-based AA. In addition, women offer more support than men for gender-based affirmative action, but only in the private sector. Overall, public sector employees do not support race- or gender-based AA programs more than their private sector counterparts.

All employees benefit: arguments that help increase support for affirmative action in academic careers

The goal of affirmative action programs is to establish equal opportunities for women and men. Past research has focused on one type of affirmative action, namely quotas, and found that the implementation of quotas is often met by a backlash from employees. The current study adds to the literature by investigating fairness and importance perceptions of career development programs offered only to women at Austrian universities or the Austrian Science Fund. Using the model of attitudes toward affirmative action programs the current experimental study tested whether providing participants with information about the benefits (gain-message condition) or costs (loss-message condition) of the implementation of affirmative action programs influenced participants’ perceptions of affirmative action programs. In the current online study, the 510 participants (52.5% cisgender women and 47.5% cisgender men; Mage = 29.5, SD = 9.5) from German-speaking countries in Europe gave on average higher fairness and importance ratings to career development programs offered to all employees than to such programs offered specifically to women. Men in the gain-message condition and loss-message condition gave higher fairness ratings to affirmative action programs than did men in the control condition (i.e., men who read a text that gave no justification for the implementation of affirmative action programs). Men in the gain-message condition also gave higher importance ratings to affirmative action programs than did men in the control condition. Women were not influenced in their ratings by the justification of the implementation of affirmative action programs. Nevertheless, women’s perceptions of affirmative action programs were more favorable than men’s. When implementing affirmative action programs in organizations, providing information that explains why affirmative action is needed and how all employees benefit therefrom can increase support from men who, as seen from past research, are known to be most opposed to affirmative action.

Is Affirmative Action Justified in School Admission Processes?

From 1961 onwards, affirmative action has been a critical part of American legislation to combat societal discrimination and inequality. The recent Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard case has brought the discussion of the justification of affirmative action back to the public eye. Giving college admission chances to students with lower academic achievement across the board only because of the social identification they behold should not be considered just. This article argues against the common ideas withheld by supporters of affirmative action. The old ideas of repayment for past evil deeds could not stand as a fair argument, and the long-term social benefit of affirmative action signifies it could not stand from a practical standpoint. Most importantly, the strengthening awareness of social identities would lead to more profound discrimination and a chaotic society.

Editorial Introduction: Contributing to the policy process literatures

Editorial Introduction: Contributing to the policy process literatures

Moral intuitions and attitudes towards affirmative action in college admissions

Affirmative action has long been a contentious issue in the United States. Using data from a 2021 national YouGov sample of 1125 U.S. adults, we are the first to examine the effect of moral intuitions on people's support for affirmative action in college admissions. We find that those with strong individualizing moral intuitions—a heightened general concern with avoiding harm and mistreatment of people—are more likely to support affirmative action. We find that its effect is mediated in large part by beliefs in the extent of systemic racism, as those with strong individualizing moral intuitions are more likely to also believe that systemic racism is pervasive, and also partly by low levels of racial resentment. Conversely, those with strong binding moral intuitions—a heightened concern with the cohesion of social groups—are less likely to support affirmative action. This effect is also mediated by belief in the extent of systemic racism and racial resentment, as those with strong binding moral intuitions are more likely to believe both that the system is fair and have higher levels of racial resentment. Our study suggests that future work should consider the role of moral intuitions in shaping people's views of contentious social policies.

Integrating identity in policy design theory

Extant literature highlights how socially constructed target populations shape the distribution of benefits and burdens, focusing on political elites. In this article, we examined how linked fate, intersectionality and identity complexity shape the impacts of socially constructed target populations on public support for affirmative action in the US. In our nationally representative survey experiment, we randomly assigned respondents to evaluate either a socioeconomic or race-based affirmative action policy and tested the influence of linked fate and partisanship on policy support. First, we found support for our linked fate hypothesis – low-income and non-White respondents were more likely to support socioeconomic or race-based affirmative action, respectively. We also found that the intersectionality of identities – sex, income and race – predicted support for race-based and socioeconomic-based affirmative action. Second, we found that partisanship moderated the effect of linked fate. When interacted with Republican Party identification, the effect of linked fate on support for affirmative action among low-income and racially minoritised respondents disappeared. These findings demonstrate the importance of integrating social identity theory and intersectionality in policy design theory. In this way the article makes a clear contribution to the scholarship on policy design studies.

Collective Innocence and Collective Guilt in the Persecution of Gypsies: From Deviant-Active Minority to Victimized Minority

Gypsies have been a persecuted minority for more than five centuries. Our paper examines how exposing Spaniard participants to information according to which they personally, or their ingroup collectively, discriminate against the Gypsy minority influences (i) their attitudes toward the Gypsy minority (e.g., experience of collective guilt or support for affirmative action and other forms of compensation) and (ii) the collective (but not individual) accusation of discrimination against the Gypsy minority transforms attributions of the causes of their marginalization. We discuss the societal ethos that the new victimized minorities have introduced as regards majority-minority relationships.

Stressing the Advantages of Female Leadership Can Place Women at a Disadvantage

Abstract. An often-heard claim is that women will inevitably take over men’s dominant position in management due to superior female leadership skills. Lammers and Gast (2017) found that such claims paradoxically maintain gender inequality by undermining support for affirmative action. The original article was limited by comparing a single experimental and control text and exclusive reliance on American samples. We report a replication and extension among a German community sample ( N = 300), which tests the effects of five different experimental stimuli, primarily drawn from different German media outlets, against a control stimulus. The data replicate earlier effects and confirm that the media should be careful not to exaggerate claims about female leadership strengths.

Parent socialization and anti-racist ideology development in White youth: Do peer and parenting contexts matter?

The development of anti-racist ideology in adolescence and emerging adulthood is informed by parent socialization, parenting style, and cross-race friendships. This study used longitudinal, multi-reporter survey data from White youth and their parents in Maryland to examine links between parents' racial attitudes when youth were in eleventh grade in 1996 (N=453; 52% female; Mage =17.12) and the youths' anti-racist ideology (acknowledgment of anti-Black discrimination and support for affirmative action) 1 year after high school in 1998. This study also examined whether these associations varied based on authoritative parenting and the number of cross-race friendships. Positive parent racial attitudes toward racially and ethnically minoritized populations predicted higher anti-racist ideology in the independent contexts of more cross-race friendships and low authoritative parenting.

Assessing and Extending Colorblind Racism Theory Using National Survey Data

Eduardo Bonilla-Silva’s work on colorblind racism has become a prominent theoretical framework for analyzing racial attitudes, ideologies, and discourses in the contemporary United States. However, the scholarship has yet to produce an empirically rigorous, quantitative assessment of colorblind racism to document the theory’s generalizability and assess it as a theory of racial attitudes. In this article, we build upon the rich body of qualitative research to develop a novel measurement model of colorblind racism using nationally representative survey data. We then use the model to estimate the impact of adherence to colorblind beliefs on support for affirmative action policies and awareness of structural disadvantage. Our findings indicate a good model fit, and that awareness of structural disadvantages acts as a mediator between colorblind racism and affirmative action support. We use our findings to develop colorblind racism theory, especially regarding structural disadvantage, both empirically and theoretically; we also consider the implications of these findings and colorblind theory more generally for the study of racial attitudes in the post-Trump era.

Diversity Discourse as Racialized and Double-edged: Findings from a National Survey

The keyword diversity is common in contemporary U.S. culture, but it can refer to many forms of difference; questions remain about the meaning and consequences of “diversity,” especially regarding whether this concept is commonly recognized in the American imagination and how diversity discourse relates to racial hierarchy in the United States. We use nationally representative survey data to address these questions through a critical race theory lens. First, we conduct factor analysis upon three different items that ask participants to evaluate or characterize “diversity.” These three items are well-predicted by a single latent factor, and this factor proves distinct from possible confounders such as prejudicial attitudes, misgivings about immigration and demographic change, and color-blind racial attitudes. Second, we see that diversity attitudes have a double-edged relationship with other attitudes that relate to racial hierarchy in the United States. Using regressions, we find that positivity toward diversity predicts equitable, non-racist stances on several race-related attitudes such as support for affirmative action and acknowledgment of white privilege. On the contrary, positivity toward diversity is also associated with core cultural ideologies which normalize racial inequality and implicitly denigrate minorities, such as color-blind racism and meritocracy. Thus, our study establishes that a coherent and distinct recognition of diversity exists in the American imagination and that diversity discourse has a double-edged relationship with racial hierarchy.

Harvesting a Forest

Harvesting a Forest

Social worldviews and social attitudes: Examining the psychological correlates for other-concern

Social inequality or inequity is existent in every society. As such, most societies dedicate efforts to ensuring fairness and justice for all its members. The university environment constitutes a miniature society on its own and everyday broader realities of the larger society are equally applicable within the university. The attitude that students hold with regards to social inequality could be a function of their worldviews which act as guiding principles for social conduct. In this study, the worldviews of self-transcendence and just-world beliefs were examined in relation to support for affirmative action and social dominance orientation among students. The study employed a survey approach with data collected through questionnaires from a sample of 331 (62.8% female) undergraduate students in a public university. The authors hypothesized that self-transcendence and just-world beliefs would be positively associated with support for affirmative action and negatively with social dominance orientation. Result of data analysis using structural equation modelling confirmed the hypotheses in this study. However, the relationship between just-world beliefs and social dominance orientation was not significant. Results were discussed for their implications for acceptance of social policies that try to bridge the gap between dominant and marginalised groups. The implication of findings for understanding and managing interaction between groups in an educational setting were emphasised. Recommendations were made regarding how policy makers can use knowledge of worldviews held by student in designing strategies geared towards acceptance of policies targeted at ensuring positive outcomes for members of disadvantaged groups. Suggestions for future research were given.

Predicting Support for Affirmative Action in Educational Admissions

The present study examines predictors of support for ethnicity-based affirmative action (AA) in college admissions. There is considerable work focused on predicting support for AA policies in employment, but there is comparative dearth of knowledge about reactions to AA in education. This work applies existing models of support for AA that include beliefs about AA policies (fairness, merit, diversity valuation, and prevalence of discrimination) and individual characteristics (sex, political orientation, and self-interest). White (n = 413) and Hispanic (n = 343) college students completed measures of the model predictors and reactions to a general AA policy and several specific policies (e.g., recruitment of minority applicants, different standards for admission). Regarding the general policy, those who more strongly valued diversity in educational setting and believed discrimination still existed indicated stronger support for general AA policy. Surprisingly, fairness, merit, gender, and political orientation did not uniquely predict support in either sample. Self-interest related to greater support for Hispanic participants only. Across specific policy applications, diversity valuation and recognition of ongoing discrimination were the also most consistent predictors. Findings highlight that models of support for AA in hiring may not be wholly applicable in predicting support for AA in educational admissions.

Perceived racial discrimination, racial resentment, and support for affirmative action and preferential hiring and promotion: a multi-racial analysis

ABSTRACT This article explains why some Americans support affirmative action and preferential hiring and promotion while others do not. Unlike most studies that examine White opinions exclusively, we explore the determinants of opinions by Whites, African Americans, Hispanics, and Asian Americans. We find that a majority of Americans draw a distinction between affirmative action and preferential hiring and promotion, with African Americans diverging noticeably from Whites when it comes to supporting the former policy relative to the latter. Using the 2004 and 2008 waves of the National Politics Study, we test hypotheses regarding perceived racial discrimination and racial resentment. Evidence from logit regression analyses reveal that racial resentment is useful for explaining White opposition to affirmative action and preferential hiring and promotion. Perceived racial discrimination has little to no effect on Whites, but encourages African Americans, Hispanics, and Asians to support affirmative action and preferential hiring and promotion. Racial resentment fosters opposition to both among racial minorities.

Opposition to the Affordable Care Act has Little to do with Health Care

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has vastly reduced racial health insurance disparities, but efforts continue to repeal this health care law. It is not clear, however, whether this policy is rejected because of its health care provisions, or if the ACA is interpreted primarily as a social welfare policy aimed at providing resources specifically to non-white Americans. In this paper, we assess whether the racial divide in opposition to the Affordable Care Act is unique to this law or represents a reflection of a longer history of racialized social welfare policies in the U.S. The for this research come from the American National Election Studies (ANES) 2016 Time Series Study which targets United States-based citizens aged 18 and older. We conducted logistic regression to understand how racial attitudes and support for social policies relate to opposition to the ACA. Perceptions of the ACA, especially among white Americans, were related to both support for affirmative action in hiring and education and racial resentment more generally. Attitudes toward the ACA were unrelated to support for policies that have not been explicitly framed as benefitting non-white Americans. As public debates related to whether to amend the ACA or repeal and replace it altogether continue, scholars and public health practitioners should emphasize the role that racism and racial resentment more specifically play in health policy debates.