Support For Affirmative Action Research Articles

Employment and Earnings of African Americans Fifty Years After: Progress?

Employment and Earnings of African Americans Fifty Years After: Progress?

The Effect of Model Minority Myth Salience on White Americans’ Perceptions of Black Americans and Their Support for Affirmative Action

The Effect of Model Minority Myth Salience on White Americans’ Perceptions of Black Americans and Their Support for Affirmative Action

The Complexity of Policy Preferences: Examining Self-interest, Group-Interest, and Race Consciousness Across Race and Political Ideology

Research on attitudes toward racial policies has often been limited to a single racial group (e.g., either Whites or Blacks). These studies often focus on the role of self-interest, group-interest, and race consciousness, but this work has operationalized these concepts in different ways when studying White or Black respondents. Using data from a study in which Whites and Blacks living in Chicago were asked their attitudes toward affirmative action, we build on this body of research by using common measures of self-reported self-interest, group-interest, and race consciousness to predict support for affirmative action. We also examine whether the effects of these determinants are moderated by political ideology. We find that self-reported self-interest influences support for affirmative action among Black conservatives, but not among other respondents. Self-reported group-interest, however, has significant effects that differ between Blacks and Whites and across liberals, moderates, and conservatives. We also find that race consciousness affects respondents’ attitudes toward affirmative action, but that this effect is moderated by political ideology.

The More Divided Academy: Did the Fall of the Faculty and the Rise of the All-Administrative University Increase Racial Conflict in Higher Education?

Despite efforts to redress racial grievances, American’s most progressive institutional sector, higher education, suffers racial incidents with disturbing frequency. We hypothesize that one explanation lies in the bureaucratization of higher education. Various trends have led to what Benjamin Ginsberg calls “the fall of the faculty” and “the all-administrative university.” We hypothesize that insulated from students and responsive to national employment markets, administrators adopt policies promoting the short-term appearance of successful integration, and driven by ideology. Faculty, in contrast, may focus on long-term student well-being, acknowledging policy tradeoffs. Using the North American Academic Survey Study ( n = 1,643 faculty and 808 administrators), we construct statistical models of attitudes toward race-based undergraduate admissions and faculty hiring. Contrary to predictions, both faculty and administrators offer nuanced support for affirmative action acknowledging potential tradeoffs. Further, ideology better explains faculty than administrator support. Implications are discussed.

Abstract Thinking Increases Support for Affirmative Action

Affirmative action is the proactive process of using resources to ensure that people are not discriminated against based on their group membership, such as gender or ethnicity. It is an effective way to reduce discrimination, but attitudes toward affirmative action are often negative, especially in groups implementing affirmative action. Previous research identified different influences on attitudes toward affirmative action, but mainly unchangeable ones. We focus on the influence of abstract thinking on support for affirmative action because abstract thinking is a changeable characteristic that can direct attention to the purpose of affirmative action policies. Across five studies with U.S. MTurk workers—focusing on women as the target group, but including other target groups as well—we show that thinking abstractly improves attitudes toward affirmative action. We observe this effect using correlational (Study 1, n = 251) and experimental (Studies 2–5, ns = 201–515) designs. Additionally, we test whether perceived discrimination increases the impact of abstract thinking on attitudes toward affirmation action (Studies 2–5). We report a meta-analysis across our studies. Overall, thinking abstractly about affirmative action clearly leads to more favorable attitudes toward it, and this effect is somewhat stronger when discrimination is perceived to be high. Consequently, companies and policymakers that would like to increase support for affirmative action policies could use abstract thinking to do so, for example by encouraging employees to think about and discuss why (vs. how) affirmative action policies are implemented.

Deserving to Whom? Investigating Heterogeneity in the Impact of Social Constructions of Target Populations on Support for Affirmative Action

The social construction of target populations has emerged as an influential framework for understanding the public policy process. In particular, target populations have been shown to shape the allocation of benefits and burdens by political elites. However, existing studies focus on the elite level, which overlooks whether public preferences are aligned with the allocation of policy benefits and burdens by political elites. Moreover, many studies treat social constructions as homogenous, which this paper calls into question. Using a nation‐wide survey experiment, I investigate variation in public support for affirmative action policies with randomly assigned target populations. The findings indicate that the public formulates policy preferences on the basis of perceived deservingness of target groups similar to political elites. In addition, the findings uncover heterogeneity in the effect of targeting on public opinion based on ideology and racial/ethnic group identity.

The Mere Mention of Asians in Affirmative Action

Presumed competent, U.S. Asians evince exceptional educational outcomes but lack the cultural pedigree of elite whites that safeguard them from bias in the labor market. In spite of their nonwhite minority status, Asians also lack the legacy of disadvantage of blacks that make them eligible beneficiaries of affirmative action. Their labor market disadvantage coupled with their exclusion from affirmative action programs place Asians in a unique bind: do they support policies that give preferences to blacks but exclude them? Given their self- and group interests, this bind should make Asians unlikely to do so. We assess whether this is the case by comparing their attitudes to those of whites, blacks, and Hispanics. Drawing on a novel three-way framing experiment embedded in the 2016 National Asian American Survey, we document how the 'mere mention of Asians' in affirmative action frames affects support for the preferential hiring and promotion of blacks. Support shifts in different ways among all groups depending on the mere mention of Asians as either victims of affirmative action alongside whites or as victims of discrimination alongside blacks. Moreover, among Asians, support for affirmative action differs significantly by immigrant generation: first-generation Asians express the weakest support.

Moral Credentials, Intergroup Attitudes, and Regulatory Focus Interactively Affect Support for Affirmative Action.

People generally tend to stay consistent in their attitudes and actions but can feel licensed to act less-than-virtuously when an initial moral action provides an excuse to do so (i.e., moral self-licensing). A handful of studies have tested how relevant initial attitudes moderate the self-licensing effect but yielded mixed findings: Initial attitudes either decrease, increase, or do not influence licensing dynamics. To account for these inconsistent findings, we propose that the effect of attitudes could itself interact with other factors, notably motivational orientation. We conducted two studies taking into account initial attitudes, absence/presence of moral credentials, and participants' chronic regulatory focus. Drawing from self-completion theory, we expected self-licensing to occur specifically amongst prevention-focused participants holding positive intergroup attitudes. Results supported this prediction. Prevention-focused participants with positive intergroup attitudes supported affirmative action policies to a lesser extent when they had acquired moral credentials, as compared to when they had not (i.e., self-licensing), t(329) = -3.79, p < .001, d = -.42, 95% CI [-.64, -.20]. Additionally, promotion-focused participants holding positive intergroup attitudes supported affirmative action policies to a greater extent when they had acquired moral credentials (i.e., behavioral consistency), t(329) = 2.44, p = .015, d = .27, 95% CI [.05, .49].

Entitlement and Perceived Racial Discrimination: The Missing Links to White Opinions Toward Affirmative Action and Preferential Hiring and Promotion

This article seeks to explain why some White Americans support affirmative action while others do not. Much of what has been written on White opinions on affirmative action is from an oppositional lens. This analysis seeks to add balance to the ways political science understands White opinions toward affirmative action. In so doing, this study identifies correlates of support for affirmative action not just rationales for opposition. Unlike most studies that examine White opinions by testing one or two theories, we examine the determinants of White opinions by testing several theories and hypotheses simultaneously (stereotypes, racial discrimination, racial resentment, and realistic group conflict theory). Using data taken from the 2004-2005 National Politics Study, we find that many Whites support affirmative action to combat racial discrimination experienced by racial minorities. However, we also find that many of them oppose affirmative action due to a sense of entitlement.

Affirmative Action Attitudes of Whites: Evidence from a List Experiment Survey in Brazil

Recently in Brazil, public policies have begun to be implemented to reduce discrimination and promote the inclusion of excluded social groups based on a specific individual characteristic: race. However, there is little public consensus about such policies, especially among whites. In this work, I look at the racial attitudes towards affirmative action among white college students. I make use of new research methods for the empirical study of socially sensitive issues and ask whether these attitudes stem from prejudice, conflicts between social groups or individual political predispositions. Furthermore, I ask what is the relationship between political knowledge and such racial attitudes. I use the list experiment method because of its potential to offset the under-representation of opinions and attitudes. This approach allows respondents to be indirectly questioned, ensuring greater sincerity in their answers and, hence, providing more accurate portrayal of attitudes. This study shows that white respondents’ answers on affirmative action policies are strongly affected by social desirability. Only 6% of white respondents agreed that it is important to have a quota policy for blacks at the Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC). Individuals with greater political knowledge tend to express greater support for affirmative action and hold more coherent racial attitudes Results also reveal that negative racial attitudes and political predispositions are both determinants of the white student’s attitudes towards affirmative action policies.

Managerial Perspectives on Implicit Bias, Affirmative Action, and Merit

AbstractPublic sector organizations concerned about gender inequality have increasingly sought to address the effect of implicit biases on merit‐based employment practices through bias training and affirmative action programs. Applying qualitative content analysis to interviews with 104 managers in three government agencies in which bias training and affirmative action were being implemented, the authors find that many managers acknowledge the existence of implicit biases and their potential to create unequal employment outcomes. However, this recognition of bias does not translate into support for affirmative action, which is seen by many managers to be an unacceptable violation of merit. The authors argue that implicit bias training and affirmative action are unlikely to create a cultural “tipping point” to progress gender equality without a critical reassessment of merit.

Leadership as Mission Critical

By focusing on the U.S. military’s support of affirmative action in recent affirmative action cases, this conceptual article posits that there are lessons to be learned from the military by postsecondary scholars, practitioners, and policy makers who support race-conscious policies in higher education. This suggestion rests on two points—first, the military’s explicit focus and reasoning for diversifying its leadership corps, and second, the military’s explicit race-conscious approach to racial integration.

Antecedent Attitudinal Predictors of Likelihood of Voluntary Support for Affirmative Action in a Statewide Law Enforcement Organization

Antecedent Attitudinal Predictors of Likelihood of Voluntary Support for Affirmative Action in a Statewide Law Enforcement Organization A. Olu Oyinlade, Carissa Schultz Abstract This study focused on understanding the types of attitudes toward external factors of reward distribution that served as antecedent predictors of likelihood of support for the voluntary practice of affirmative action (AA) in a statewide law enforcement organization in the United States (US). The impetus for the study was the concern over the perennial opposition to AA and the banning of the policy in some US states, despite that the policy has been strongly linked to increased hiring of racial-ethnic minorities in police organizations across the country. The hierarchical regression method was used to investigate three antecedent attitudinal factors, in addition to demographic factors, in four analytic models. Findings of the third and fourth (last two) models indicated that only one demographic factor, “years in law enforcement”, predicted likelihood of support for AA. Class antecedent attitude was a significant predictor of support for AA in model 3, but it was fully mediated in model 4. Race-ethnic antecedent attitude emerged as the strongest predictor of likelihood of support for AA in the fourth model which accounted for 38 percent of likelihood of support for AA. A major take away from this study is that while a favorable attitude toward the use of social class as an external condition of reward distribution may have its merits, it is the positive attitude toward the use of race-ethnicity as a factor of reward distribution and years in law enforcement that ultimately predicted the likelihood of support for the voluntary practice of AA. Full Text: PDF DOI: 10.15640/jssw.v5n2a10

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

Abstract. Women are still underrepresented in management and men hold the majority of higher positions. Nonetheless, one often-heard claim in popular media is that female people-centered leadership skills (empathy, communication, etc.) are a better match for the business world – especially in the future. Furthermore, a related idea is that women may use this advantage to take over men’s dominant position in leadership. Four studies show that such claims paradoxically maintain gender inequality, by undermining support for affirmative action to reduce female underrepresentation in leadership. Where earlier research shows that positive stereotypes can hurt women by suggesting that they are unqualified for leadership, the current findings show that even positive stereotypes that claim that women are particularly well qualified for leadership can hurt women in their chances for gaining leadership positions. Although it is good to highlight the advantages of female leadership, exaggerated and sensationalist claims contribute to a perpetuation of gender inequality.

Too Rich For Diversity: Socioeconomic Status Influences Multifaceted Person Perception of Latino Targets

Understanding racial categorization processes has implications for how affirmative action policies are implemented. Two studies examined how socioeconomic status (SES) functions to predict support for application of affirmative action and other perceptions of Latino targets. SES emerged as a powerful predictor, over and above the influence of ancestry, on person perception (minority categorization, sociocultural cues) and support for affirmative action among both White (Studies 1 and 2) and minority (Study 2) perceivers. In conjunction with ancestry, SES influenced sociocultural impressions, such as perceptions of discrimination (Study 1 and Study 2) and cultural practices (Study 2), which informed support for implementation of affirmative action policies. Furthermore, the joint influence of SES and ancestry on affirmative action policies persisted even when controlling for general attitudes towards affirmative action (Study 2). Results suggest that SES is an important factor in person perception, and that perceptions of discrimination play a strong role in how “deserving” a target is of affirmative action.

Priming status-legitimizing beliefs: Examining the impact on perceived anti-White bias, zero-sum beliefs, and support for Affirmative Action among White people.

The current research examines how status-legitimizing beliefs (SLBs) influence White people's perceptions of anti-White bias, endorsement of zero-sum beliefs, and support for Affirmative Action. We suggest that SLBs perpetuate inequality by increasing White people's perceptions of zero-sum beliefs and anti-White bias, which in turn lead to decreased support for Affirmative Action. White individuals primed with SLBs perceived greater anti-White bias, endorsed greater zero-sum beliefs, and indicated less support for Affirmative Action than individuals primed with neutral content. Mediation analysis revealed that the SLB prime decreased support for Affirmative Action by increasing perceptions of anti-White bias. This research offers experimental evidence that SLBs contribute to White people's perceptions of anti-White bias and to decreased support for Affirmative Action.

Interracial friendship and the trajectory of prominority attitudes: Assessing intergroup contact theory

We analyze the trajectory of racial attitude change among White university students, over a 4-year time period, representing an advancement over previous studies’ use of longitudinal designs alone to test the causal ordering and nature of the relationship between contact and attitudes. Adding to the literature on intergroup friendships, we examined the impact of two types of intergroup contact (interracial friendships and neighborhood racial context) on two types of racial attitudes: attitudes supportive of affirmative action and feelings of commonality with minorities. Overall, we find that a greater number of interracial friendships is associated with more positive racial attitudes. Women and those with more interracial friendships experience a faster rate of increase in their endorsement of affirmative action policies. Individuals growing up in more racially homogeneous neighborhoods expressed less support for affirmative action and politically conservative students had lower support for both affirmative action and feelings of commonality.

Implicit Closeness to Blacks, Support for Affirmative Action, Slavery Reparations, and Vote Intentions for Barack Obama in the 2008 Elections

Does pro-Black policy support require an individual to be unbiased? I distinguish two types of implicit attitudes based on whether the attitude-target is evaluated as an object (evaluative associations) or as an independent social agent (relational associations). In a series of studies (N = 3,073), a significant anti-Black evaluative association bias emerges. In contrast, relational associations are significantly pro-Black and are unrelated to evaluative associations. Relational associations predict opinions regarding affirmative action, government help for Blacks, slavery reparations, and intentions to vote for Barack Obama. Thus, minority representation based on relational associations may not require absence of anti-minority evaluative bias.

What makes affirmative action‐based hiring decisions seem (un)fair? A test of an ideological explanation for fairness judgments

SummaryStudies show that Whites tend to show the lowest level of support for affirmative action (AA) policies. Opponents of AA often argue that this is because it violates principles of meritocracy. However, self‐interest (based on social identification with those adversely affected) could also explain their opposition. In three studies, we varied whether an Asian or White male is adversely affected by AA to test another explanation; namely, that Whites' fairness judgments are based on both the adversely affected person's race and the fairness evaluator's ideological beliefs. Although we found some support for the meritocratic explanation, this was not sufficient to explain why Whites view AA as (un)fair. Instead, we found strong support for our prediction that Whites who are opposed to equality perceive more unfairness when a White (vs. Asian) was harmed by AA, whereas Whites who endorse egalitarian ideologies perceive the opposite. This finding suggests that neither self‐interest nor meritocratic explanations can fully account for Whites' opposition to AA. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley &amp; Sons, Ltd.

Extraneous Effects of Race, Gender, and Race-Gender Homo- and Heterophily Conditions on Data Quality

This study comprehensively investigated the differences in response patterns of interview respondents by race, gender, and race-gender of both respondents and interviewers, to assess the impacts of response inconsistencies on data quality during survey interviews. The study focused only on Blacks and Whites in various interview phily matches. Interviewees ( N = 491) responded to fully structured, closed-ended questions through direct interviews on support for affirmative action, and support for the 2009 America’s Affordable Health Choices Act as dependent variables. Findings showed various amounts of response differences to both dependent variables by differences in race, gender, and race-gender of respondents, vis-à-vis those of the interviewers’, thereby constituting various amounts of data inconsistencies. The effects of race, gender, and race-gender of both interviewers and respondents constitute potential nonrandom errors that must be controlled in interview survey research, otherwise, research findings and conclusions may diverge from true relationships between variables.