i

Affirmative Action: A Review of Psychological and Behavioral Research

Table of Content

I. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................2

II. BACKGROUND........................................................................................................................3
A. Brief History of Legislative and Case Law.........................................................................3
B. Equal Employment Opportunity Versus Affirmative Action..............................................4
C. Affirmative Action Required by EO11246 Versus Other Affirmative Action...................5
D. Need to Address the Controversy........................................................................................5

III. EVALUATIONS OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND AAPs..................................................6

A. The Nature of Affirmative Action Attitudes.......................................................................6
B. Structural Influences............................................................................................................7
1. Qualifications of Selected Candidate...........................................................................7
2. Structure of the AAP (Weighting of Demographic Status).........................................7
a. Conceptualizations................................................................................................7
b. Empirical Research...............................................................................................8
(1) Knowledge of Affirmative Action................................................................8
(2) Opinion Polls.................................................................................................9
(3) Experimental Research................................................................................10
(4) Conclusions.................................................................................................13
c. Possible Mediators of Effect of AAP Structure on Attitudes.............................13
(1) Perceived Fairness.......................................................................................13
(a) Introduction..........................................................................................13
(b) Qualitative Research on Fairness Perceptions.....................................14
(c) Research on the Relation Between Attitudes and Perceptions of
Fairness................................................................................................14
(d) Discussion............................................................................................15
(2) Implications for Personal and Collective Self-interest................................16
d. Conclusions........................................................................................................16
3. Attempts to Influence Evaluations.............................................................................17
a. Providing Information About AAP Details........................................................17
b. Justifying the AAP..............................................................................................18
c. Conclusions........................................................................................................19
4. Identity of Target Group............................................................................................20
5. Setting........................................................................................................................21
6. Need for Affirmative Action......................................................................................22
7. Conclusions................................................................................................................23
C. Individual Differences Bases (Respondent Dimensions)..................................................23
1. Respondent Role........................................................................................................23
a. Decision Makers Versus Others.........................................................................24
b. Target Group Members Versus Non-members..................................................24
2. Demographic Variables..............................................................................................24
a. Gender and Race/Ethnicity.................................................................................24
b. Other Demographic Variables............................................................................28
 ii

(1) Surveys of the General Public.....................................................................28

(2) Surveys of Specific Populations..................................................................29
(3) Summary.....................................................................................................29
3. Self-Efficacy..............................................................................................................29
4. Opinion Variables......................................................................................................30
a. Prejudice (Racism and Sexism)..........................................................................30
b. Relative Deprivation...........................................................................................31
(1) Relative Deprivation on Behalf of Others...................................................32
(2) Collective Relative Deprivation..................................................................32
c. Political Perspective...........................................................................................33
5. Personal Experiences.................................................................................................33
6. Conclusions................................................................................................................34

IV. EFFECTS OF AAP ON NON-TARGET GROUP MEMBERS' PERCEPTIONS OF

TARGET GROUP MEMBERS, AND ON RELATIONS BETWEEN PARTIES..................35
A. Evaluations of Females......................................................................................................35
B. Evaluations of Blacks and Other Minorities.....................................................................36
C. Summary............................................................................................................................36
D. Effects on Relations Among Parties..................................................................................37

V. PSYCHOLOGICAL AND BEHAVIORAL EFFECTS OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

ON TARGET GROUP MEMBERS.........................................................................................39
A. Measures of Motivation, Interest, Commitment, and Choice...........................................39
B. Self-evaluations of Ability and Performance....................................................................40
C. Performance.......................................................................................................................43
D. Theoretical Perspectives on Recipient Reactions to Affirmative Action..........................44
E. Summary............................................................................................................................45

VI. ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ON TARGET GROUPS.................46

A. Employment of Women and Minorities in Organizations................................................46
B. Income Attainment............................................................................................................47
C. Promotional and Occupational Status...............................................................................47
D. Summary............................................................................................................................47

VII. ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ON ORGANIZATIONS.................49

A. Organizational Effectiveness.............................................................................................49
B. Stock Prices.......................................................................................................................49
C. Summary............................................................................................................................49

VIII. CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS OF CURRENT KNOWLEDGE, AND NEEDED

RESEARCH..............................................................................................................................51
A. Conclusions.......................................................................................................................51
B. Limitations and Needed Research.....................................................................................51

IX. REFERENCES.........................................................................................................................54

X. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS......................................................................................................63
 1

Affirmative Action:
A Review of Psychological and Behavioral Research
Prepared by a subcommittee of the Scientific Affairs Committee of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, October, 1996.

Committee Members: David A. Kravitz, Rice University

David A. Harrison, University of Texas at Arlington
Marlene E. Turner, San Jose State University
Edward L. Levine, University of South Florida
Michael T. Brannick, University of South Florida
Donna L. Denning, City of Los Angeles
Craig J. Russell, University of Oklahoma
Maureen A. Conard, HRStrategies
Rabi S. Bhagat, University of Memphis
 2

I. INTRODUCTION

In September of 1995, the Scientific Affairs Committee of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology created a subcommittee to review psychological and behavioral
research on affirmative action. That review follows, and the nine members of the subcommittee
are the authors of this report.
To provide some context, we begin with a brief review of important legislation and case
law, and distinguish affirmative action from related concepts. A more detailed review of these
matters will be provided by a second subcommittee. We then turn to the heart of the review --
research on evaluations of affirmative action and affirmative action plans (AAPs). After that, we
review research on how the presence of an AAP affects non-target group members' perceptions
of target group members, and the relations between target group members and non-target group
members. We then review corresponding research on the psychological and behavioral effects of
affirmative action on target group members themselves. To provide additional context, we
briefly discuss the economic effects of affirmative action on target groups and on organizations.
We close by drawing some general conclusions, by discussing the limitations of current
knowledge, and by outlining some needed research.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Brief History of Legislative and Case Law

In reaction to the history of discrimination in the United States, and consistent with the
principle of equality upon which the country is founded, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was
designed to afford equality of opportunity and treatment to all individuals regardless of their
"race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." Title VII of the Act covered employment, and
included creation of an implementation and enforcement arm in the form of the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). This agency was empowered to issue orders to
those affected by the legislation, and in 1978 it did so in the form of the Guidelines on Employee
Selection Procedures (41 CFR 60-3).
An important related development was the issue of Executive Order 11246 (EO11246) in
1965. Although Executive Orders are issued by the President without Congressional approval,
and can be altered or rescinded unilaterally, they nonetheless carry the weight of law. As with
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, EO11246 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race,
color, religion, sex, and national origin. It differs from Title VII, however, in that it applies only
to federal government contractors and it includes the provision that employers take “affirmative
action” to ensure nondiscriminatory treatment in hiring and on the job. Employers are further
required to prepare an affirmative action plan (AAP).
The coverage of EO11246 is far-reaching. With a few exceptions, it applies to all federal
contractors and subcontractors with 50 or more employees and a federal contract amounting to
$50,000 or more (41 CFR 60-7). These requirements refer to the organization as a whole, so if
just one location in a company contracts with the government all of its locations are potentially
subject to this Executive Order. The enforcement agency for EO11246 is the Office of Federal
Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), a division of the Department of Labor. The primary
mission of the OFCCP is to determine if employers adequately take affirmative action. Its
 3

mechanism to accomplish this objective is the affirmative action compliance review, which
consists of a review of documentation (including the AAP) and on-site visits. Covered
organizations that refuse to take affirmative action can be denied the opportunity to serve as a
federal contractor.
Arguably implicit in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and EO11246, and certainly
in the EEOC Guidelines of 1966, is the assumption that many forms of disparity will be
eliminated over time if discrimination is proscribed and equal opportunity provided. Thus, equal
treatment of individuals was expected to yield an equitable, fair, and equal outcome.
As the veracity of this assumption came into question, the language of OFCCP regulations
changed. In 1968, the agency began requiring a written affirmative action compliance program, a
utilization analysis, and specific goals and timetables, but, nonetheless, maintained its ultimate
focus on opportunity rather than results. The 1971 OFCCP regulations, however, included a
stronger focus on results -- the mandate to increase the utilization of minorities and women at all
levels and in all segments of the workforce where deficiencies existed (Sharf, 1988).
Judicial rulings have also affected the practical implications of civil rights legislation and
executive orders. The Supreme Court opinion in the 1971 landmark case of Griggs v. Duke
Power Company reflected acceptance of this fundamental change in the definition of
discrimination. If an employment practice resulted in unequal outcomes across demographic
groups, an employer's claim that the discrimination was unintentional was not an adequate
defense. Instead, the employer had to demonstrate that the procedure leading to the inequality
was a valid predictor of performance.
This re-definition of discrimination was codified under the rubric "adverse impact" in the
1978 Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, an update and expansion of the
original EEOC Guidelines that was jointly adopted by the EEOC, the federal Civil Service
Commission, the Department of Labor, and the Department of Justice. According to the
Guidelines, in its "80% rule of thumb," adverse impact exists when the selection rate of any
group is less than 80% of that for the group with the highest selection rate. (Note that the
comparison group is the one with the highest selection rate, not necessarily Whites or males.) To
refute a charge of illegal discrimination, the employer had to demonstrate that the practice
resulting in this difference is job related and a business necessity. More recently, Congress
passed the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which was intended to reverse several Supreme Court
rulings of the late 1980’s. This Act codified the statistically-defined adverse impact definition of
discrimination.
Other civil rights legislation has extended protection beyond the initial dimensions of race,
color, religion, sex, and national origin. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967
forbids discrimination based on age. The Vietnam Veterans Readjustment Assistance Act of
1974 requires employers to take affirmative action to employ and advance qualified Vietnam-era
veterans. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 forbids discrimination on the basis of
disability, and the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973 requires government contractors to take
affirmative action for qualified workers with disabilities. Due to this legislation, federal
contractors are required to have AAPs for Vietnam-era veterans, special disabled veterans, and
people with disabilities. These AAPs, however, focus on employment processes and good faith
efforts, not on documentation and utilization analyses. They are less controversial, and have
received less empirical attention, than AAPs directed at women and ethnic minorities.
 4

B. Equal Employment Opportunity Versus Affirmative Action

As its name implies, the concept of equal employment opportunity is that each individual
should be given the same treatment as all other individuals. Both disparate treatment of
individuals and disparate impact of procedures on demographic groups are considered
discriminatory and illegal. Equal employment opportunity is guaranteed by the Civil Rights Acts
of 1964 and 1991. Affirmative action, created by EO11246, requires federal contractors to take
active steps to ensure equal opportunity. Thus, equal opportunity is relatively passive whereas
affirmative action is more active. Both, however, have the ultimate goal of eliminating
discrimination on the basis of specified demographic factors.
The federal regulations controlling affirmative action are presented in Title 41 of the Code
of Federal Regulations, Chapter 60 (41 CFR 60). The key requirements are that an organization
must: (a) have and abide by an equal-opportunity policy (41 CFR 60-2.13); (b) perform
utilization analyses to determine whether women and ethnic minorities are underutilized, given
the availability of qualified women and minorities (41 CFR 60-2.11); (c) establish flexible goals
and timetables to eliminate deficiencies revealed by the utilization analyses (41 CFR 60-2.12);
(d) develop and execute "action-oriented programs designed to eliminate problems and further
designed to attain established goals and objectives" (41 CFR 60-2.13). When discussing the
development and execution of such action-oriented programs, the regulations mention many
possible methods, and emphasize the elimination of bias and recruitment (41 CFR 60-2.24).
Except under the most extreme conditions, Supreme Court decisions have forbidden strong
preferential treatment (hiring unqualified women and minorities rather than clearly qualified men
and non-minorities) and strict quotas (Bennett-Alexander, 1990). It is permissible, however, for
organizations to assign some unspecified weight to gender or race when making employment
decisions (Guttman, 1993). The legal, practical, and ethical limits of such preferential treatment
have been sources of considerably uncertainty and controversy (Glasser, 1988).

C. Affirmative Action Required by EO11246 Versus Other Affirmative Action

Affirmative action, as discussed here, refers primarily to actions taken in response to

EO11246. The term "affirmative action" is also often used in reference to set-aside programs,
primarily in education and construction, in which a certain number of positions or a certain
percentage of the budget is earmarked for the use of women or racial/ethnic minorities. These
set-aside programs are clearly distinct from affirmative action as specified by EO11246, and the
research reviewed herein applies primarily to affirmative action as required by EO11246 and
similar programs established voluntarily or imposed by Courts.

D. Need to Address the Controversy

Recent political developments have brought affirmative action programs, and especially
attitudes and opinions about them, to the forefront of public debate (Ingwerson, 1995). The
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology (SIOP) has a responsibility to review and
report research results and theoretical explanations that may inform this public debate. The
primary purpose of the present review is to focus on what is known about psychological
reactions to affirmative action, although we provide some context by briefly discussing the
legislative history and economic effects. Given the recency and impact of equal employment
 5

opportunity and affirmative action legislation, research focused on examination of basic

attitudinal data is important. What do people think affirmative action is? Do they favor it? In
what form(s)? What form(s) do people find objectionable? Answers to these questions will
assist legislators and organizations in their efforts to minimize the conflict associated with
affirmative action.

III. EVALUATIONS OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AND AAPs

Much of the psychological research on affirmative action has dealt with the antecedents of
attitudes toward affirmative action, where attitudes can be defined as "evaluative judgments
about particular objects, issues, persons, or any other identifiable aspects of the environment"
(Baron & Graziano, 1991, p. 197). Presumably, by understanding, predicting, and changing
attitudes toward AAPs, one can substantially increase the likelihood of understanding,
predicting, and changing AAP-related behaviors (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977, 1980; Fishbein &
Ajzen, 1975; Kraus, 1995). Consistent with this assumption, AAP administrators and personnel
officers have identified supportive attitudes among managers and employees as one of the most
important factors in determining an affirmative action plan's effectiveness (Hitt & Keats, 1984; N
= 31). For this reason we provide an extensive review of research on attitudes toward affirmative
action and AAPs. We first describe the ways in which researchers have measured attitudes and
have presented affirmative action stimuli. We then discuss research on structural influences, and
finally turn to research on individual differences.

A. The Nature of Affirmative Action Attitudes

Researchers have measured attitudes in many different ways. In most studies, measures
have been purely evaluative. Thus, respondents might be asked to agree or disagree with such
statements as: "Affirmative action is a good policy" (Kravitz & Platania, 1993, p. 937), "After
years of discrimination, it is only fair to set up special programs to make sure that women and
minorities are given every chance to have equal opportunities in employment and education"
(Jacobson, 1985, p. 310), and "Affirmative action programs that help Blacks and minorities to
get ahead should be supported" (Kluegel & Smith, 1983, p. 804). Some researchers have
obtained ratings of fairness rather than attitudes. Empirical research to be discussed reveals that
fairness judgments and attitudes are very closely related. Thus, we treat the fairness ratings as
surrogates for attitudes except when explicitly addressing the relation between the two
constructs.
As explained below, attitudes are strongly influenced by the precise manner in which the
AAP is described. To understand research results, therefore, it is important to know how
affirmative action was described to the participants. Insofar as possible, we categorize AAP
procedures as follows. This categorization does not always match the terms used by the authors
of the research being discussed. In these definitions, decision can refer to any employment
decision (e.g., selection, salary, promotion). Under strong preferential treatment, decisions are
based solely or primarily on demographic status. For example, merit is not measured, an
unqualified minority is selected, or the less qualified minority applicant is favored. Some authors
refer to this condition as discrimination in reverse. In most cases quotas would fall in this
category because they require the selection of a certain number or proportion of minorities
regardless of qualifications. Under preferential treatment (neither weak nor strong), decisions are
 6

based on both merit and demographic status, with the relative weighting left unspecified. The
preferred minority is not said to be unqualified. Under weak preferential treatment, decisions
favor the more qualified applicant unless qualifications are equivalent, in which case the
minority applicant is favored. Under merit, decisions are said to be based solely on merit, which
presumably is an indication of the individual's ability to perform well. When procedures attempt
to eliminate discrimination, they include actions designed to do away with existing barriers to
success. Compensatory procedures include other actions designed to help minorities (e.g.,
training, career guidance), but decisions are based solely on merit. Diversity procedures include
efforts to increase the diversity of the workforce (e.g., through recruitment), but decisions are
based solely on merit

B. Structural Influences

Much of the research on affirmative action attitudes has emphasized the importance of
structural features of AAPs. This research has frequently included a manipulation of some aspect
of an AAP. The underlying assumption is that reactions to an AAP will depend on details of the
plan, particularly on the weighting of demographic status. This research is relevant to the public
debate about affirmative action because much of that debate involves disagreement about what
affirmative action means (e.g., preferential treatment versus assurance of equal opportunity).
After discussing this research we will turn to work on other structural factors, including the
identity of the target group, the organizational setting, and the need for affirmative action.

1. Qualifications of Selected Candidate

In selection situations, fairness ratings are affected by the qualifications of the selected
and rejected candidates. Nacoste (1985, 1987; Nacoste & Lehman, 1987) created scenarios in
which two people were competing for a fellowship, and asked respondents to play the role of the
winning candidate. Fairness ratings were higher when the more qualified candidate was selected.
Using a similar experimental procedure, Arthur, Doverspike, and Fuentes (1992) found that
fairness ratings were higher when qualifications of the selected minority candidate were equal
rather than inferior to qualifications of the rejected majority candidate. In Mann and Fasolo
(1992), in contrast, the effect of qualifications on ratings of decision fairness did not quite attain
traditional levels of statistical significance (p < .08). In Gilliland and Haptonstahl (1995),
fairness ratings were highest when the better qualified majority candidate was selected,
intermediate when the majority and minority candidates had equal qualifications (regardless of
who was selected), and lowest when the poorer qualified minority candidate was selected. In
Heilman, McCullough, and Gilbert (1996), fairness ratings were higher when qualifications of
the selected female candidate were equal or superior to those of the rejected male candidate than
when they were inferior. Singer (1990, 1992) provided more precise tests of the importance of
candidate qualifications by manipulating the test scores of the selected and rejected candidates.
Fairness ratings were monotonically related to the difference in scores. That is, the larger the
superiority of the selected candidate, the higher the fairness rating. Contrariwise, the larger the
superiority of the rejected candidate, the lower the fairness ratings. The relative impact of the
difference in qualifications was largest when the difference was smallest (i.e., when
qualifications of the two candidates were almost identical); the fairness rating function was
steepest near the zero point.
In summary, research on qualifications clearly reveals that fairness ratings increase along
with the superiority of the selected over the rejected candidate. This research relates to the work
 7

on AAP structure because underqualified candidates can only be selected if demographic status
is given positive weight. Thus, we now turn to research that has directly addressed the effect of
AAP structure on evaluations of the affirmative action plan.

2. Structure of the AAP (Weighting of Demographic Status)

a. Conceptualizations
The underlying assumption of research on AAP structure is that an individual's
understanding of what affirmative action entails will influence his or her attitude. This point has
been made by many theorists and researchers, and recently has been developed by Barnes
Nacoste (1994; Nacoste, 1994, 1995). Briefly, Nacoste argued that people have cognitive
(policy) schemas that incorporate their beliefs about affirmative action. Beliefs about what
constitutes a typical procedure are critically important, with beliefs about the use of universalistic
and particularistic contributions playing a central role. Universalistic contributions include merit
and other capacities that will influence performance. Particularistic contributions include
individual attributes that may be taken into consideration but will not influence performance.
Race and ethnicity are the most relevant particularistic contributions in the context of affirmative
action. The individual's policy schema will strongly influence his or her reactions to affirmative
action; reactions will become increasingly negative as the anticipated weighting of particularistic
contributions increases.
Nacoste (1994, 1995) used a combination of interdependence theory and procedural
justice theory to explain reactions to affirmative action. He argued that reactions to an AAP (or
to the individual's affirmative action policy schema) are based on three comparison level
standards. Weighting of demographic status plays a key role in these comparisons. Observers
compare the enacted procedure to: (a) the procedure that gives too much weight to group
membership, (b) the set of realistic alternative procedures the observer considers to be superior,
and (c) the procedure that precisely counteracts the effects of discrimination. If an individual
believes that an AAP gives more weight to demographic status than is appropriate, he or she will
consider the AAP to be unfair, will dislike the AAP, will not be attracted to the organization, and
will stigmatize people who are selected under the AAP. Note that these reactions will be based
on the individual's affirmative action policy schema. The validity of the policy schema is
irrelevant; perceptions determine reactions.
Other researchers have suggested that AAP structure influences attitudes because it has
implications for personal and collective self-interest (e.g., Kravitz, 1995; Veilleux & Tougas,
1989). That is, the greater the weighting of demographic status, the more the procedure will help
individuals in that demographic group and hurt individuals in other demographic groups. We
discuss competitive tests of the theories elsewhere in this review. We now review the empirical
research on AAP structure.

b. Empirical Research
(1) Knowledge of Affirmative Action
The underlying assumption of research on AAP structure is that an individual's
understanding of what affirmative action entails will influence his or her attitude. Thus, we begin
with a brief review of research on knowledge of affirmative action.
Goldsmith, Cordova, Dwyer, Langlois, and Crosby (1989) interviewed 62 women
associated with a liberal arts college for women shortly after an announcement that the college
would become an affirmative action institution. They obtained significant positive correlations
 8

between two measures of knowledge and two measures of attitude. Stout and Buffum (1993)
surveyed 193 members of the Texas Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers.
Both positive and negative experiences with affirmative action were positively related to self-
reported knowledge about affirmative action and to commitment to affirmative action, but
knowledge did not correlate significantly with commitment. In a study to be discussed in more
detail later, Bell (1996) surveyed the attitudes of 610 participants, half of whom were full-time
employees in a variety of firms. Bell reports that self-reported knowledge of the details of
affirmative action policies was related to more negative attitudes. Differences in the measures of
knowledge might account for the different results of these three studies; at this time no clear
conclusion can be drawn about the relation between knowledge of affirmative action and
attitudes.
There is some evidence that the public has a poor understanding of affirmative action, and
some argue that opposition to affirmative action is based in part on this misunderstanding (e.g.,
Crosby, 1994; Eberhardt & Fiske, 1994). Kravitz and his colleagues (Kravitz & Platania, 1992,
1993; Kravitz, Stinson, & Mello, 1994) presented their participants with 10 to 25 potential
components of an AAP. Respondents in Kravitz and Platania (1992, 1993) were undergraduates;
those in Kravitz et al. (1994) were community residents contacted via telephone. All three
samples were multi-racial (White, Black, and Hispanic). The potential AAP components
included several questions dealing with preferential treatment, compensatory actions, diversity
efforts, the elimination of discrimination, and other actions. Participants evaluated each
component and estimated the likelihood that it would be included in an AAP. The likelihood
ratings revealed that respondents had a less than perfect understanding of what affirmative action
entails. For example, although affirmative action regulations emphasize recruitment and the
elimination of discrimination, these potential components received neutral likelihood ratings.
Respondents also did not know which organizations are required to have AAPs. Kravitz (1994)
briefly reported the results of content analyses of open-ended definitions of affirmative action
provided by respondents in Kravitz and Platania (1993), Kravitz et al. (1994), and a third
unpublished study that sampled employees of a firm without an AAP. He reported that
approximately 40% of the respondents were completely unfamiliar with the concept of
affirmative action. Many of those who claimed familiarity provided vague or inaccurate
definitions.
In 1989, Pace and Smith (1995) surveyed 1,075 municipal and county chief financial
officers, and asked them to identify which of three statements most closely matched their
understanding of federal affirmative action requirements. Almost all respondents believed the
requirements involved weak preferential treatment (48.3%) or recruitment (43.8%); only a few
respondents (7.8%) thought the requirements involved strong preferential treatment.
A poor or undeveloped understanding might imply the possibility of attitude change in
response to new information. This possibility was addressed by Fletcher and Chalmers (1991),
who questioned a representative sample of Canadian citizens and decision makers about their
affirmative action attitudes. This study is discussed in more detail later. For the moment, we note
that more than half the citizen respondents indicated their opinions would change when given an
opposing argument. Consistent with this result, Kinder and Sanders (1990) categorized their
respondents as less- or more-informed about public affairs. They found that report that the
manner in which affirmative action was framed generally had a larger influence on reactions to a
variety of questions among the less-informed respondents than among the more-informed
respondents.
 9

In summary, although theorists and others (e.g., Collison, 1992) have argued that public
opposition is based in part on a poor understanding of what affirmative action entails, empirical
research is limited. The studies of public beliefs have all been reported by a single researcher
who obtained the data in a single geographical area, which suggests that these results need to be
replicated. Other research suggests that attitudes toward affirmative action are related to
knowledge about affirmative action and that people will change their support when given
information inconsistent with their initial opinion. There is a clear need for more research on
public knowledge of affirmative action and how that knowledge relates to attitudes. Research on
reactions to specific AAPs provides more information about the relation between knowledge and
attitudes. We shall turn to that research after briefly reviewing some conclusions drawn from
opinion polls.
(2) Opinion Polls
Lipset and Schneider (1978) examined nearly 100 opinion polls completed between 1935
and 1977. They concluded that Americans strongly support equality of opportunity and the
elimination of discrimination, moderately support compensatory action (e.g., extra training for
minorities), and oppose preferential treatment and the use of quotas. Sigelman and Welch (1991)
provided an analysis of many national surveys of attitudes toward affirmative action. They
concluded that both Blacks and Whites support equal opportunity and affirmative action in
general, and oppose preferential treatment and quotas. In all cases, support was somewhat higher
among Blacks than Whites. Lynch and Beer (1990) cited public opinion polls, Lynch's in-depth
interviews, and other commentators to make the point that Whites dislike affirmative action that
involves quotas or preferential treatment, though they support equality and compensatory action.
Kluegel and Smith (1983) report data from a representative sample of 1,596 English-
speaking Whites in the U.S. They reported support for affirmative action programs that "help
Blacks and other minorities to get ahead," with 76% agreeing or strongly agreeing. Opinions
were divided on the use of quotas in colleges and universities (59% agree or strongly agree) and
in businesses (51% agree or strongly agree). Two-thirds of the respondents felt that such
preferential treatment for Blacks is unfair. Fine (1992a, 1992b) analyzed opinion survey data
from a 1986 national probability sample of U. S. adults (319 Blacks and 1,790 Whites). Support
for preferential hiring and promotion of Blacks varied with question phrasing. It ranged from
11% to 24% among Whites, and from 61% to 75% among Blacks. In addition, 46% of Black
respondents agreed that it is not the government's job to guarantee equal opportunity, and 43%
agreed that Blacks should overcome prejudice and work their way up without any special favors.
In summary, opinion polls results revealed that White Americans strongly support equality
and the elimination of discrimination, but oppose preferential treatment. Reactions to
compensatory actions are less clear. Polls of Black Americans revealed somewhat higher support
for preferential treatment, but a clear preference for equal opportunity. Experimental research
provides more detailed information about reactions to specific AAPs, and is described below.
(3) Experimental Research
Most laboratory studies have been limited to two or three different types of AAPs, and we
begin by reviewing that research. Except where otherwise noted, all the following studies used
undergraduates as respondents.
Many studies have found that people prefer merit-based decisions to any type of
preferential treatment. Research on French Canadian women (Tougas & Veilleux, 1988) and on
French Canadian managers and professional men (Tougas & Veilleux, 1989; Veilleux & Tougas,
1989) revealed a preference for the elimination of discrimination over weak preferential
treatment. Brutus and Ryan (1994) found that female undergraduates rated merit-based selection
 10

more positively than preferential treatment based on gender. In a third condition the
experimenter stated that selection was based on merit, but an experimental confederate argued
that preferential treatment was being used. Respondents also evaluated this condition lower than
merit-based selection. In Nacoste and Hummels (1994), 186 undergraduates rated the fairness of
a weak (equal opportunity) or strong (pressured to hire more women) AAP. Ratings of these
plans did not differ significantly. In Hattrup (1994), 266 female undergraduates evaluated merit
selection more positively than strong preferential treatment based on gender. In addition, fairness
ratings of merit selection (but not of strong preferential treatment), were positively related to
respondent self-efficacy. Heilman, Simon and Repper (1987) found that 140 male and female
undergraduates considered merit selection fairer than strong preferential treatment. Heilman et
al. (1996) replicated this difference in a sample of male undergraduates. The effect was
moderated, however, by information about qualifications. The difference was not significant if
the woman selected in the preferential treatment condition was more qualified and therefore
would also have been selected on the basis of merit. In Experiment 1 of Heilman, Rivero and
Brett (1991), using 60 male and female undergraduates, fairness ratings varied with selection
procedure, respondent gender, and the Procedure X Gender interaction. Men and women
responded equally positively to merit selection, but men responded more negatively than women
to strong preferential treatment. In Experiment 2, 36 female undergraduates evaluated merit-
based selection more positively than strong preferential treatment, regardless of whether they
were told their scores on the pretest. Singer (1996) obtained ratings of merit selection and
preferential selection from 312 adult residents in New Zealand. He found that 143 preferred
merit selection and only 19 preferred preferential selection; the remaining 150 did not evaluate
the two programs differently. In sum, these studies reveal that people generally evaluate merit
selection more positively than preferential treatment. Evaluations of merit selection are almost
universally positive, but evaluations of preferential treatment are moderated by such factors as
respondent gender, self-efficacy, and knowledge about application qualifications.
The importance of merit is further revealed in a study of 96 male francophone managers in
Canada (Joly, Pelchat, & Tougas, 1993). The managers evaluated a weak preferential treatment
procedure, in which gender was to be considered only if competing candidates had equivalent
merit. The description of the procedure varied. In one condition the procedural description
emphasized the important role of merit; in a second condition respondents were given
information about the percentage of women in the workforce; in the third condition no additional
information was given. Evaluations were most positive when merit was emphasized. Thus,
evaluations of weak preferential treatment depend on how it is described. This study did not
include a pure merit procedure, so it was not possible to know whether emphasizing the role of
merit in weak preferential treatment will increase evaluations to the level of a merit procedure
alone. Tougas, Crosby, Joly, and Pelchat (1995) reported two similar studies of male
francophone Canadian managers and professionals. In Study 1 (N = 96) , the affirmative action
conditions included a control condition (details not described), statistics condition (included data
demonstrating women’s underrepresentation) and a merit condition (emphasized role of merit in
affirmative action selection decisions). Study 2 (N = 131) included the control and merit
conditions, a third condition describing the weighting of gender in selection decisions, and a
fourth condition providing the ultimate numerical goal of the program. Analyses revealed no
effects of condition on attitudes. Although condition did affect ratings of fairness, interpretation
of this effect is complicated because the fairness measure included wording identical to that used
in the description of the merit condition.
 11

Several papers compared strong preferential treatment to a weaker version of preferential

treatment in which the precise weighting of merit and demographic status was not specified. In
three studies (Nacoste, 1985, 1987; Nacoste & Lehman, 1987; Ns = 96, 106, and 106,
respectively), female undergraduates rated fairness of the selection procedure and decision more
negatively when the procedure involved strong preferential treatment than when it involved
preferential treatment. In Arthur et al., (1992), respondents in the strong preferential treatment
condition rated the procedure as less fair than those in the preferential treatment condition. In
summary, these studies revealed that evaluations of preferential treatment are inversely related to
the weighting of demographic status.
In a series of three experiments, Matheson, Echenberg, Taylor, Rivers, and Chow (1994)
studied women's reactions to four AAPs that varied in the weight given to demographic status. In
Study One, 60 undergraduates gave positive evaluations to the elimination of discrimination,
negative evaluations to weak preferential treatment, and very negative evaluations to strong
preferential treatment and complete discrimination. In Study Two, 43 undergraduates evaluated
the elimination of discrimination positively and the three versions of preferential treatment
equally negatively. In Study Three, 19 police trainees responded negatively to a "no action"
program and equally positively to four AAPs. The lack of significant differences among the
AAPs may have been due to the low statistical power due to the tiny sample size. It is interesting
to note that all AAPs receive negative evaluations in Studies 1 and 2 and positive evaluations in
Study 3; this might be due to the different populations from which the samples of respondents
were drawn.
Nosworthy, Lea, and Lindsay (1995) asked 192 non-Black Canadian undergraduates to
evaluate four AAPs that could increase enrollment of Blacks at their university. Endorsement
was strongest for the use of advertising, next for the use of additional fellowships for Blacks,
weaker for the use of quotas, and weakest for the use of lower standards for Black students than
for White students.
In Summers (1995), 80 male and female continuing education students evaluated three
possible AAPs. A special training program received positive evaluations. Quotas received
slightly negative evaluations. Differential scoring of selection tests (which would result in strong
preferential treatment) received negative evaluations. All differences among the AAPs were
statistically significant.
White and Hispanic undergraduates evaluated eight different AAPs targeted at Black
employees in Kravitz (1995). Respondent evaluations to two plans, one of which involved the
elimination of discrimination and the second of which involved the elimination of all information
about race, were quite positive. Respondents gave less positive but still favorable evaluations to a
compensatory procedure (training), a diversity plan (recruitment), and a plan that involved
proportional hiring based on the number of qualified applicants (which would result in a
satisfactory utilization analysis in an OFCCP report). They gave neutral evaluations to a plan that
was equivalent to the proportional hiring plan, but used the loaded term “quotas” in the
description. Their evaluations of this quota plan were not significantly different from their
evaluations of the recruitment, training, or proportional hiring plans. Finally, respondents
negatively evaluated weak and strong preferential treatment, and these evaluations were lower
than those of the other six plans. These results are generally consistent of those previously
reported. They confirmed opinion poll results indicating that compensatory procedures are
positively evaluated, but they also showed that compensatory procedures were liked less than the
elimination of discrimination.
 12

In the research by Kravitz and his colleagues discussed above (Kravitz & Platania, 1992,
1993; Kravitz et al., 1994), participants evaluated 10 to 25 potential components of an AAP and
rated the likelihood that an AAP would actually include the components. Participants also
reported their attitudes toward affirmative action, so the relation between beliefs and attitudes
could be assessed. Results varied somewhat across the studies. In general, respondents favored
equal opportunity, the elimination of discrimination, proportional hiring based on the availability
of qualified applicants, training, recruitment, the targeting of organizations with histories of
discrimination, and the provision of employment information to the federal government. They
opposed the hiring of unqualified applicants, proportional hiring that ignored qualifications, and
all versions of preferential treatment. Confirming the underlying premise of the research,
likelihood ratings predicted attitudes. Attitudes were most strongly related to beliefs about the
selection of unqualified applicants, preferential treatment, and proportional hiring that ignored
qualifications.
Bell, McLaughlin, and Harrison (1996) reported results of three studies of attitudes
toward AAPs. In the first study they elicited salient (cognitively accessible) attributes that 129
students and managers thought were associated with AAPs. Content analysis produced 14
features that comprised the top 90% of elicited attributes, including AAP purposes designated by
the original Executive Order (e.g., "create job opportunities for minorities and women," "remove
discrimination") as well as other issues that reflect the current national debate (e.g., "restrict a
business's freedom to make decisions," "operate as a quota system," "increase the diversity of the
workforce"). In the second study, these salient attributes were used to explain AAP attitudes
using Fishbein and Ajzen's (1975) theory of reasoned action. The sample of undergraduate
students was diverse in terms of gender (63 male and 61) and ethnicity (66% White, 12% Black,
8% Hispanic, 12% Asian, and 2% Native American backgrounds); 78% were currently
employed. As hypothesized, AAP attitudes fit an additive function of the products of (a) the
strength with which the respondents associated each salient attribute with AAPs in general, and
(b) and how positively or negatively they evaluated that attribute. The third study paralleled the
second in both procedures and results, but involved 138 male and 64 female managers (74%
White, 11% Black, 7% Hispanic, and 8% Asian backgrounds) sampled from a variety of firms
and industries.
In a related study, Bell (1996) examined the relationships among attribute-based beliefs,
evaluations, and attitudes toward AAPs. The respondents (N = 610) were diverse in terms of
employment (50% were students and 50% were full-time employees in various firms and
industries), gender (55% male) and ethnic background (60% White, 10% Black, 12% Hispanic,
11% Asian, and 7% Other). Attitudes were again found to be a multiplicative function of beliefs
about AAPs and evaluations of those attributes.
Konrad and Linnehan (1995a) interviewed several HRM professionals who specialize in
EEO/AA programs. Based on these interviews, they developed a list of 54 identity-conscious
actions and 63 identity-blind actions that organizations can take. They then obtained information
from 138 companies about their use of these actions. On average, these firms used 37% of the
identity-conscious actions and 58% of the identity-blind actions. In both cases, the number of
actions used correlated positively with top management support for EEO/AA. Konrad and
Linnehan (1995a) listed all 117 actions, but did not provide frequency data for each individual
action.
Konrad and Linnehan (1995b) obtained evaluative ratings from 242 managers in four
medium to large firms in the Philadelphia area. They evaluated 26 of the actions listed by
Konrad and Linnehan (1995a). A factor analysis revealed two factors: 4 items dealt with
 13

identity-blind actions and 18 items involved identity-conscious actions. Identity-blind actions

were evaluated positively. Reactions to the identity-conscious actions varied with subject group,
being most liked by people of color, next by White women, and least by White men. The mean
was neutral for White men, and significantly positive for the other groups.
A similar study was reported in Davis and West’s (1984) survey of 403 municipal
personnel administrators in 1979. Their study included multi-item scales measuring support for
equal opportunity and affirmative action principles. Results revealed greater support for equal
opportunity principles than affirmative action principles. Support for specific actions appeared to
be highest for sp.ecial recruitment efforts, followed by weak preferential treatment when
minorities are under-represented, merit hiring rather than quotas, and lowest for special training
to prepare minorities for recruitment. Support for these four actions varied significantly with the
administrator's general support for EEO versus affirmative action.
(4) Conclusions
There is greater support for the principle of equal opportunity than for the principle of
affirmative action. Evaluations (i.e., attitudes and fairness judgments) of affirmative action are
strongly influenced by actual or presumed AAP structure; they are inversely related to the
weighting of demographic status in decision making. Although people support compensatory
actions and diversity efforts, they prefer to limit affirmative action to the elimination of
discrimination. There is some evidence that there is a great deal of variance in the understanding
of what affirmative action entails, and some have argued that this partly underlies some of the
public opposition to affirmative action. Given the relation between beliefs and attitudes, and the
open question about public understanding, there is a need for additional research on beliefs and
evaluations of specific actions that can be incorporated in EEO/AA plans. This research could
take advantage of Konrad and Linnehan's (1995a) listing of EEO/AA actions.

c. Possible Mediators of Effect of AAP Structure on Attitudes

Given that attitudes toward AAPs are strongly influenced by details of the AAP, the next
question to address is why this influence exists. Theoretical explanations have focused on two
possible mediating variables -- fairness and self-interest. We now turn to research dealing with
these variables.
(1) Perceived Fairness
(a) Introduction
Although affirmative action is designed to ensure macrojustice (justice between groups),
opposition frequently is based on concerns about microjustice (justice for individuals) (Clayton
& Tangri, 1989). Typical arguments are that affirmative action results in "reverse discrimination"
(e.g., Burstein, 1985), that affirmative action penalizes young White men who were not
responsible for discrimination (e.g., Glasser, 1988; Groarke, 1990), and that affirmative action
forces organizations to "change the rules in the middle of the game" (e.g., Crosby, 1994).
Heilman (1994) pointed out that reactions of nontarget group members will be especially
negative if they believe affirmative action has caused them to be denied employment outcomes
to which they were entitled. Nacoste (1987) reported results consistent with his hypothesis that
one reason for negative reactions to strong AAPs is that they imply the organization is not
committed to fairness. In short, much of the debate about affirmative action has centered on the
issue of fairness.
Consistent with this emphasis, many researchers have implicitly or explicitly assumed that
attitudes toward affirmative action are driven by fairness judgments, and have assessed
perceptions of fairness rather than attitudes per se. This work was discussed above, and revealed
 14

similar effects involving attitudes and fairness judgments. The following review begins by
summarizing three studies that qualitatively explored the importance of fairness perceptions in
peoples' understanding of affirmative action. We then turn to assessments of both perceived
fairness and attitude.
(b) Qualitative Research on Fairness Perceptions
Three studies used content analyses of interview data determine how people think about
the fairness of affirmative action. Edelman, Erlanger, and Lande (1993) interviewed 10
management personnel who handled discrimination complaints in 10 large companies. These
administrators construed EEO/AA most often in terms of fairness, primarily procedural fairness,
rather than in legal terms. This focus on fairness is especially meaningful because these
administrators were responsible for ensuring that their organizations complied with
antidiscrimination laws.
Ayers (1992) interviewed 13 "women of color" who she knew had been involved in
affirmative action programs. Virtually all their statements about affirmative action in principle
focused on fairness rather than unfairness. Of their statements concerning affirmative action in
practice, however, approximately 40% dealt with issues of unfairness. In terms of Leventhal's
(1980) justice model, more statements dealt with consistency than with any other justice rule.
The distinction between affirmative action in principle and in practice is consistent with the
results of numerous surveys indicating public support for the elimination of discrimination, but
opposition to most programs designed to attain that end (e.g., Lipset & Schneider, 1978).
In a telephone survey of 68 community residents and a questionnaire study with 86
undergraduates, Kravitz and Van Epps (1995) asked respondents why they considered
affirmative action to be fair and/or unfair. Explanations of why affirmative action was fair were
most likely to include statements about equal opportunity. Explanations of why affirmative
action was unfair were most likely to include statements about reverse discrimination and
decision making based on demographics.
In summary, this research revealed that individuals do think about affirmative action in
terms of fairness. This, along with the emphasis on procedural fairness, equal opportunity, and
reverse discrimination, is consistent with the public debate on affirmative action.
(c) Research on the Relation Between Attitudes and
Perceptions of Fairness
As mentioned above, many of the studies on AAP structure examined its relationship with
fairness judgments rather than attitudes. This emphasis on fairness may be based on the
assumption that perceptions of fairness mediate attitude formation. Surprisingly, we know of
only four studies that have included measures of both fairness and attitude. Ozawa, Crosby, and
Crosby (1996) and Tougas, Crosby et al. (1995) used both fairness and attitude as dependent
variables; Taylor-Carter, Doverspike and Alexander (1995) used attitude as a predictor of
fairness ratings; Kravitz (1995) used fairness ratings as a predictor of attitude.
In two studies, Tougas, Crosby et al. (1995) studied reactions of male francophone
Canadian managers and professionals to three or four different AAPs. Ratings of attitudes and
fairness correlated significantly in both studies (.67 and .68). Ozawa et al. (1996) asked
undergraduate students in the U. S. (N = 53) and Japan (N = 65) to evaluate an AAP (minimum
standards followed by quota hiring) on goodness (attitude) and fairness scales. The attitude-
fairness correlation was .56 in the Japanese sample and .60 in the U. S. sample.
In Taylor-Carter, Doverspike and Alexander (1995), 128 female undergraduates initially
read a definition of weak preferential treatment and reported their attitudes toward it. They then
read a favorable or unfavorable message and recorded their relevant cognitions. They ended by
 15

rating the fairness of preferential treatment as initially defined. Regression analysis revealed that
fairness ratings were related as expected to initial attitude, message, number of positive
cognitions, and number of negative cognitions. The correlation between fairness ratings and
initial attitudes was .71.
The assumption that attitudes toward affirmative action are based on fairness perceptions
was tested by Kravitz (1995), who contrasted the fairness model with alternative models based
on self-interest, racism, and political ideology. Kravitz manipulated AAP and measured the
remaining variables. The target group was Blacks, and respondents were non-Black
undergraduates. The manipulation of AAP influenced judgments of self-interest, fairness, and
attitudes. The effect of the manipulation on attitudes was completely mediated by the fairness
judgments, but not by ratings of personal or collective self-interest. The correlation between
fairness ratings and attitude was .86.
In summary, these studies revealed that fairness perceptions and attitudes toward
affirmative action are closely related. Given the correlational nature of the observed relations, it
is impossible to determine the causal sequence. Finally, in all six samples this relation was
assessed at the operational level -- it dealt with specific AAPs rather than with the general policy
of affirmative action. There may also be a positive relation between attitudes and perceived
fairness of affirmative action in principle, but this relation should be empirically tested.
(d) Discussion
Qualitative research shows that individuals think of affirmative action in terms of fairness.
Individuals distinguish between affirmative action in principle and in practice, are sensitive to
issues of procedural justice, and focus on implications for equality of opportunity and reverse
discrimination. Research on the structure of AAPs revealed that ratings of fairness are inversely
related to the weighting of demographic status, and that attention to status at preliminary stages
(e.g., recruitment) is considered fairer than attention to status in final selection decisions.
Selection decisions are considered fairer when candidates with higher qualifications are selected.
Finally, attitudes toward an AAP are positively related to subsequent fairness judgments of the
AAP, and effects of an AAP manipulation on attitudes are mediated by fairness judgments.
Some of these results must be qualified. As will be discussed in more detail later, several
studies obtained interactions involving affirmative action procedure, respondent gender, and/or
respondent race (Heilman et al., 1991; Arthur et al., 1992; Doverspike and Arthur, 1995;
Gilliland and Haptonstahl, 1995). Same-gender favoritism in evaluating the fairness of a
promotion decision was reported by Saal and Moore (1993), and such in-group favoritism is also
likely to occur in evaluations of affirmative action. Singer (1992) obtained evidence of
egocentric bias; ratings of fairness depended on whether the respondent acted as an observer (N
= 222) or role-played the majority candidate (N = 112). In short, reactions to specific AAPs vary
as a function of respondent gender and race/ethnicity. It is apparent that White males respond
more negatively than do other types of respondents to AAPs not based purely on merit. These
interactions may have been due to the effects of self-interest, which is addressed in the following
section. Despite these qualifications, it is clear that fairness judgments and attitudes are closely
related, and both are influenced by AAP structure.
Additional qualifications are suggested by research on individual and situational
determinants of attention to fairness. Gilliland and Haptonstahl (1995) found that fairness
judgments were most closely related to perceptions of equity when equity was clearly satisfied
(superior candidate is selected) or clearly violated (inferior candidate is selected). Fairness
judgments were most closely related to perceptions of equality when decisions did not clearly
satisfy or violate equity (candidates had equal qualifications). Overall fairness ratings were
 16

significantly related to perceptions of need only when need was clearly violated -- when the
equally qualified minority candidate was not selected. In related research, Rasinski (1987)
developed a scale to assess individual differences in the conceptualization of fairness. Whereas
some people endorse the principle of proportionality, others endorse egalitarianism. These two
studies suggest that perceptions of fairness and the importance of fairness will vary with
individual differences and with the situation.
Finally, with few exceptions (Ayers, 1992; Edelman et al., 1993; Kravitz & Van Epps,
1995; Tougas, Crosby et al., 1995), affirmative action studies that have dealt with fairness
judgments relied almost entirely on undergraduate respondents. Several studies involved role-
play scenarios (Arthur et al., 1992; Doverspike & Arthur, 1995; Nacoste, 1985, 1987; Nacoste &
Lehman, 1987), and some asked respondents to play an unfamiliar role. There is a need for
additional research on employees in organizations with AAPs.
(2) Implications for Personal and Collective Self-interest
A number of studies have revealed more positive attitudes among individuals who feel
their personal interests are being served by affirmative action programs than among those who
feel disadvantaged or threatened. For example, significant correlations of attitudes toward AAPs
and self-interest were obtained in a 1978 national survey of 1,584 Whites (Jacobson, 1985) and a
sample of over 450 employees in a large Canadian firm (Tougas & Beaton, 1993). Similarly, in a
study of 133 Hispanic undergraduates, Kravitz and Meyer (1995) found that attitudes toward
AAPs targeted at Hispanics correlated significantly with rated implications for individual but not
collective self-interest. Attitudes toward affirmative action are clearly affected by implications of
affirmative action for the respondent's self-interest.
Other research dealt with more complex aspects of self-interest. Kluegel and Smith (1983)
distinguished between simple economic self-interest and cooperative self-interest in their
national survey. Cooperative self-interest refers to the belief that AAPs designed to help others
will indirectly help oneself. Results showed that both simple and cooperative self-interest were
significantly related to attitudes toward programs to hold a certain number of positions for
qualified Blacks in colleges and in business.
Tougas and her colleagues extended the concept of self-interest from the personal to the
collective level, where collective self-interest refers to anticipated effects on the respondent's
demographic group. Tougas, Beaton, and Veilleux (1991) studied 197 women in a large
Canadian firm, and included measures of both personal and collective self-interest. They
reported that the relationship between personal self-interest and attitudes was moderated by two
intervening variables: collective self-interest and collective relative deprivation (to be discussed
shortly). Tougas, Brown, Beaton, and Joly (1995) studied male students and male employees in a
Canadian firm with a strong AAP targeted at women. They reported that attitudes toward the
organization's AAP and affirmative action in general were related to collective self-interest.
Three final studies addressed the question of whether the effect of AAP structure on
attitudes was mediated by self-interest. Kravitz (1995) found that personal and collective self-
interest partly mediated the effect of AAP structure on attitudes. Nosworthy et al. (1995) found
that measures of personal and collective self-interest correlated strongly with attitudes toward
each of four AAPs. However, when regression equations included measures of racism and
fairness along with self-interest, there was only one significant effect of personal self-interest and
none of collective self-interest. Both Kravitz (1995) and Nosworthy et al. (1995) found that
attitudes were more closely related to judgments of fairness than to judgments of personal and
collective self-interest. Summers (1995) found that a significant gender difference in attitudes
 17

toward affirmative action in general was fully mediated by anticipated effects of affirmative
action on the respondents’ careers.
In summary, attitudes toward specific AAPs correlate with implications of the AAPs for
the respondent's personal and collective self-interest. Collective self-interest appears to be less
important than personal self-interest, and both are less important than perceptions of fairness.
The effect of AAP structure on attitudes is at least partly mediated by judgments of self-interest.

d. Conclusions
Evaluations of affirmative action and AAPs are strongly influenced by actual or presumed
AAP structure; they are inversely related to the weighting of demographic status in decision
making. In addition, people respond more positively to selection situations if the more qualified
candidate is selected, regardless of minority/majority status. Evaluations of merit selection are
almost universally positive, but evaluations of preferential treatment are moderated by such
factors as respondent race, gender, and self-efficacy. Although people support targeted
recruitment and training, they prefer to limit affirmative action to the elimination of
discrimination. These reactions appear to be mediated by perceptions of AAP fairness and
implications of the AAP for the respondent's personal and collective self-interest, with fairness
being more important.

3. Attempts to Influence Evaluations

Organizations with AAPs are required by law to communicate that fact. They have
considerable freedom, however, in how they justify the existence of the AAP and in how much
detail they describe the AAP. This information could influence reactions to the program. More
generally, attitudes toward the social policy of affirmative action may be influenced by
information provided to the public about affirmative action. That conclusion would follow from
the preceding review of research on AAP structure.
Gamson and Modigliani (1987) reviewed public discussions of affirmative action in terms
of discourse theory. They found that affirmative action had been conceptualized in three ways:
remedial action, delicate balance, and preferential treatment. There were four versions of the
preferential treatment conceptualization, with the most common being reverse discrimination.
The relative emphasis on these versions is determined by sponsor activities (e.g., administration
announcements), media practices, and cultural resonances. While the remedial action
conceptualization was most popular in early years, by the mid-1980s it had been overtaken by
preferential treatment. Interestingly, although delicate balance probably best represents the
public's reactions to affirmative action, it has received little attention in public discourse. This
neglect is probably due to the lack of a sponsor. Since publication of this article, we would argue
that a fourth conceptualization of affirmative action has been added -- affirmative action as a
source of cultural diversity (e.g., Levi & Fried, 1994; Thomas, 1990).
Fine's (1992a) survey results relate to Gamson and Modigliani's (1987) analysis. She
found that White respondents' opposition to preferential treatment was stronger when the reason
for opposition was phrased as "it discriminates against Whites" than when it was phrased as "it
gives Blacks advantages they haven't earned." She reported a nonsignificant trend in the same
direction among Black respondents. The difference in statistical significance may have been due
to the fact that the sample included 1,790 Whites but only 319 Blacks.
In summary, affirmative action is conceptualized and described in various ways, and this
is likely to influence attitudes. Most relevant research has dealt with provision of structural
details or justification, and we now turn to that work.
 18

a. Providing Information About AAP Details

Fletcher and Chalmers (1991) sampled attitudes of Canadian citizens and decision makers.
The citizen sample included 2,084 people obtained in a 1987 nationwide phone interview project
using random digit dialing. The government decision-maker sample included 513 elected
legislators, 483 members of the executive branch (charged mainly with enforcing the federal
affirmative action laws), and 352 senior lawyers in the judiciary. Fletcher and Chalmers asked
their respondents about their attitudes toward AAPs targeted at improving the number of women
or the number of French-Canadians (an ethnic minority) in top government positions. They
found that providing Canadians with arguments contrary to their initial positions caused most of
them to say they would change their positions. After being given an argument for the opposite
position (i.e., "quotas mean not hiring the best person" or "lack of quotas means that the target
group remains economically unequal"), respondents indicated whether they would change their
opinion. Of the citizens who initially opposed quotas, 49% said they would feel differently; of
the citizens who initially supported quotas, 64% said they would feel differently. Expressed
willingness to change was somewhat lower among the decision makers, being 39% and 43%,
respectively.
Bell (1996), in a study discussed previously, provided positive, neutral, or negative pieces
of information about AAPs to her 610 respondents. For Whites only, the effect of information on
AAP attitudes was in the hypothesized direction. Negative information either strengthened or
had no effect on the already positive attitudes of Asians, Hispanics, and Blacks toward AAPs.
Taylor-Carter, Doverspike and Alexander (1995) used cognitive response theory to predict
effects of pro- and anti-affirmative action messages on ratings of AAP fairness. After reporting
their attitudes toward weak preferential treatment, respondents read the message, recorded their
thoughts about the message, predicted the importance of affirmative action for their lives, and
rated the fairness of preferential treatment. Message polarity influenced the number of positive
thoughts in the predicted direction, but did not affect the number of negative thoughts. There
were no effects of involvement, contrary to prediction. Most importantly, regression analysis
revealed that fairness ratings were related as expected to initial attitude, message polarity,
number of positive thoughts, and number of negative thoughts. This indicates that perceived
fairness of preferential treatment (and, presumably, other affirmative action procedures) can be
affected by pro- or anti- affirmative action messages and the thoughts they stimulate.
In sum, these studies indicate that attitudes toward AAPs can be changed by providing
information about structural details of the AAP. This is consistent with research on attitude
change, and with research on effects of structural details on attitudes toward affirmative action.

b. Justifying the AAP

Recent theory and research on justification of affirmative action has considered two
justifications. According to the compensation justification, affirmative action exists to make up
for previous discrimination against members of the target group. This discrimination could have
been societal (weak argument) or organizational (strong argument). This justification is
consistent with the remedial action conceptualization mentioned by Gamson and Modigliani
(1987), and relates to research on the need for affirmative action. According to the instrumental
(cultural diversity) justification, affirmative action enhances organizational effectiveness by
increasing cultural diversity within the organization. Levi and Fried (1994) point out that this
latter argument also can vary in strength. For example, a weak argument would be that
increasing the number of minority employees improves the organization's image. A strong
 19

argument would be that only a Hispanic individual could serve as an undercover agent in a
barrio.
Mann and Fasolo (1992) obtained 87 undergraduates' reactions to concocted faculty hiring
decisions in which the affirmative action justification (compensation versus cultural diversity)
was manipulated. Justification did not significantly affect fairness ratings of the decision or of
the policy. Similarly, internal analysis revealed that ratings were not correlated with perceptions
that the college's rationale was compensation. On the other hand, internal analysis revealed that
both types of fairness ratings were positively correlated with respondent beliefs that the college's
rationale was cultural diversity.
Murrell, Dietz-Uhler, Dovidio, Gaertner, and Drout (1994) had 135 White male and 202
White female undergraduates evaluate AAP scenarios that varied in terms of the target group,
justification, and setting. In two conditions the AAP was framed in different ways but no
justification was presented; in the other two conditions the AAP was justified, with the
justification involving either compensation or enhancing cultural diversity. There was a
significant effect of justification. Reactions were more positive when a justification was
presented (with no difference between justifications) than when no justification was presented.
Matheson et al. (1994) asked 19 female police trainees to evaluate five possible reactions
to discrimination (AAPs) in a police department. Two reactions involved strong preferential
treatment which was justified in terms of reparation or the value of diversity. Evaluation of these
two AAPs did not differ significantly, and the similarity of the means suggests that this
nonsignificant effect was not simply due to a lack of statistical power.
Bobocel and Farrell (1996; Experiment 2) asked 123 White male students to read two
cases, one of which described a male police officer who had filed a lawsuit when an equally
qualified woman was promoted instead of him. One independent variable was level of
justification: none versus compensation versus instrumental (increasing diversity). Ratings of
interactional fairness revealed a main effect of justification; the None condition was evaluated
more negatively than the other two conditions, which did not differ. This effect was entirely
mediated by the perceived adequacy of the justification.
In Heilman et al. (1996) 162 male undergraduates performing a one-way communication
task were told their female partner would be the leader because of her sex. Two variables were
manipulated: information about scores on an ability test, and justification for the use of sex (none
vs. compensation). Although the interaction was not significant, post hoc tests suggested that
justification affected fairness judgments only when the male subjects believed their test
performance had been equal to the female’s.
Singer (1996) presented adults in New Zealand with a report on affirmative action
purportedly written by a panel of male or female experts. The panel argued in favor of merit
selection, preferential treatment, or diversity, and provided arguments to support the position.
The preferential treatment and diversity conditions differed only in the term used to describe the
procedure. Respondents reported their attitudes toward merit selection and preferential treatment.
Attitudes toward merit selection were affected by the justification and the interaction of
Justification X Panel Gender. Attitudes toward merit selection were positive except when a panel
of women argued for preferential treatment, in which case they were neutral. Attitudes toward
preferential treatment were also affected by the justification, being neutral when the diversity
justification was used and negative otherwise.
Levi and Fried (1994) have developed a theoretical model in which justification (referred
to as affirmative action framing) plays a central role. Briefly, acceptance of affirmative action by
non-target group members is directly affected by perceived justification of affirmative action.
 20

Perceived justification, in turn, is directly affected by affirmative action framing (organizational

justification), the extent to which affirmative action is perceived as legitimate remediation, and
the extent to which ascribed characteristics are perceived as legitimate qualifications. Perceived
justification is also affected by the interactions of affirmative action framing with the other two
variables. Specifically, if respondents do not believe affirmative action is a legitimate
remediation (which will be affected by their ideology and beliefs about past discrimination), they
will respond very negatively to a compensatory framing. Similarly, if respondents do not believe
ascribed characteristics are legitimate qualifications (which will be affected by their ideology and
perceived contributions of ascribed characteristics to the organization), they will respond very
negatively to an instrumental framing. This model merits empirical investigation.
In summary, both Murrell et al. (1994) and Bobocel and Farrell (1996) found that
providing a justification for affirmative action led to more positive evaluations than did
providing no justification. Heilman et al. (1996) found a similar effect only when the male
subject was told the female leader’s score on an ability test was identical to his own. This is
consistent with theory and research on procedural fairness (e.g., Cropanzano & Greenberg, in
press). In four studies (Bobocel & Farrell, 1996; Mann & Fasolo, 1992; Matheson et al. 1994;
Murrell et al., 1994), reactions to the compensation and instrumental justifications did not differ.
On the other hand, internal analysis in Mann and Fasolo (1992) suggested that people who
believed affirmative action to be instrumentally justified responded more positively. Also, Singer
(1996) found that reactions to preferential treatment were more positive when a panel of experts
had justified it in terms of diversity. Finally, the work of Murrell et al. (1994), Heilman et al.
(1996), Singer (1996), and Levi and Fried (1994) suggests that reactions to different
justifications may be moderated by other factors such as: the source of information about the
AAP; the AAP target; the AAP structure; and the respondent's ideology, beliefs about the
appropriateness of compensation, and beliefs about whether diversity has any instrumental value.

c. Conclusions
As implied by research on AAP structure, attitudes toward affirmative action can be
changed by providing individuals with information about the AAP. Attitudes of ordinary citizens
appear to be more flexible than those of government decision makers, presumably because the
former have devoted less cognitive energy to the issue. Consistent with research on fairness,
attitudes toward AAPs are more positive when the AAP is justified. The specific justification
does not strongly affect attitudes, perhaps because such effects are moderated by other variables.

4. Identity of Target Group

Fletcher and Chalmers (1991), discussed above, found that attitudes of both citizens and
decision makers were more negative toward AAPs targeted at French Canadians than toward
AAPs targeted at women. In an interaction of Target X Respondent, however, the effect of target
group was observed only among the majority Canadians; the French-Canadians rated affirmative
action toward women and French-Canadians equally.
Sniderman, Piazza, Tetlock, and Kendrick (1991) surveyed 709 White adults in the San
Francisco Bay area. They were asked how much the government should do to ensure equal
opportunity for women or for Blacks and minorities. The target was manipulated between
groups. Both liberals and conservatives were more supportive of government intervention when
women were the target group. Further analyses revealed that this target effect was significant
among the respondents with a high school degree or less, but was not significant among the
 21

college graduates. Among respondents with some college, the target effect was significant
among conservatives but not liberals.
Clayton (1992) provides a brief report of a relevant study, in which respondents were told
that a fictitious company had either 40% women or 25% minority employees. In addition,
respondents either were or were not told that the company was trying to recruit more employees
of the same type. Respondents estimated their chances of being treated fairly by the company.
These ratings were affected by the interaction of category type by presence/absence of
recruitment. Responses were most positive when the company with 40% female employees was
trying to recruit more women, and were most negative when the company with 25% minority
employees was trying to recruit more minorities.
Kravitz and Platania (1993) randomly assigned respondents to conditions in which they
read descriptions of one of three different AAPs. These AAPs differed only with respect to their
target: women, minorities, or the handicapped. The sample of undergraduates was diverse in
terms of gender and race/ethnicity. Results showed that overall attitude toward AAPs did not
differ across the three target groups. Analyses of the individual components of an AAP yielded a
few target group differences. Respondents were less opposed to hiring someone who was
unqualified when that person was handicapped rather than a minority. In an interaction of Target
X Respondent, the possibility of requiring all organizations to have an AAP was seen equally
negatively across targets by males, but was seen as more positive by females if the target group
was the handicapped rather than minorities.
Kravitz et al. (1994) surveyed employed adults in the Miami area by telephone, asking
questions about AAPs targeted at Hispanics or Blacks. Of the 60 respondents, 23 were Black, 24
were Hispanic, and 13 were White. Target group had no main effect on overall attitudes toward
the AAP, but it did interact with respondent ethnicity: respondents were more positive about
AAPs targeted at their own ethnic group.
Murrell et al. (1994), discussed above, assessed undergraduates' reactions to AAP
scenarios that varied in target group, justification, and setting. Respondents had significantly
more negative attitudes toward AAPs directed at Blacks than at either the elderly or the
handicapped. This effect was heightened by lack of justification for the AAP, in that AAPs
described without justification and targeted at Blacks were seen more negatively than any other
combination of target and justification (a significant element of a marginally significant
interaction of Target X Justification).
Gilliland and Haptonstahl (1995) asked 180 undergraduates to evaluate four scenarios that
described a selection decision involving a target and non-target group member. The respondents
varied in terms of gender and race/ethnicity. The target group member was a woman, an African-
American, or wheelchair-confined. Gilliland and Haptonstahl did not observe a main effect of
target, but did find a significant three-way interaction of Respondent Race X Scenario X Target
that was consistent with self-interest.
In two studies of undergraduates at different colleges (s = 71 and 119), Clayton (in press)
asked her respondents to rate the appropriateness of using information about various attributes
(race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, major) for different purposes, one of which was the
promotion of diversity in admissions (affirmative action). The interaction of attribute by purpose
was significant. In both studies it appears that opposition the use of information for diversity
purposes was strongest when the information dealt with religion and sexual orientation, next
strongest when it involved race, and weakest when the information concerned college major and
gender.
 22

In summary, the target group of an AAP appears to influence AAP attitudes. Programs
directed at Blacks or minorities are viewed less positively by Whites than programs directed at
women or the handicapped. Reasons for this difference are unclear, though results demonstrates
that it may be moderated by details of the AAP and by respondent education, political
perspective, gender, and race/ethnicity. Smith and Kluegel (1984) surveyed 1,507 English-
speaking residents of the U.S., and found that the public believes women suffer more from
discrimination than do Blacks. This could also play a role in the effect of target group on
attitudes. Results of several studies suggested effects of ingroup-outgroup differences or self-
interest, and research discussed above has shown that self-interest considerations influence
attitudes. Eberhardt and Fiske (1994) discuss several intriguing and reasonable hypotheses that
might account for the effect of target, as do Taylor-Carter, Doverspike, and Cook (1995). Other
portions of this review cover the constructs proposed in these hypotheses and frameworks.

5. Setting
The effect of setting on attitude toward AAPs has been investigated in several studies. In
their national survey of Whites, Kluegel and Smith (1983) described two affirmative action
programs to all respondents. One program involved college admissions and the other involved
hiring employees; both were described as programs in which a "certain number of positions
would be set aside for Blacks and other minorities." A reanalysis of their data reveals greater
support for set-asides in education than in business.
Bobo and Smith (1994) summarize responses to the 1986, 1988, and 1990 National
Election Study (NES) surveys. These surveys included representative samples of American
adults. Among White respondents, support for quotas in education (24.1% to 30.9%) was clearly
higher than support for preferential hiring and promotions in employment (10.7% to 17.5%). In
1986 and 1988, a higher percent of Black respondents supported quotas in education (74.8% and
82.6%, respectively) than preferential hiring and promotions in employment (61.2% and 65.1%,
respectively). In 1990, in contrast, Blacks' support for preferential treatment in employment
(74.8%) was slightly higher than support for quotas in education (73.5%). Unfortunately,
differences in question phrasing (quotas in education, preferential treatment in employment)
make it difficult to interpret these differences.
Fletcher and Chalmers (1991) examined organizational setting as a possible influence on
attitudes toward AAPs and quotas among Canadian citizens and government decision makers.
The researchers did a within-subject comparison of attitudes toward gender-based quotas in the
Canadian federal government and in large, private companies. There was greater support of
AAPs for government positions in all subsamples. The difference was especially pronounced for
the decision-maker subsamples (a Role X Setting interaction). Unfortunately, this setting
difference was confounded with a small but important difference in question wording. Questions
about AAPs in the private sector used the politically charged word "quotas" while questions
about AAPs in the public sector did not.
Fine (1992a) analyzed opinion survey data from a 1986 national probability sample of
adults in the U. S. (319 Blacks and 1,790 Whites). More Blacks and Whites favored preferential
treatment in colleges and universities (74% and 22%, respectively) than in hiring and promotions
(68% and 17%, respectively). Unfortunately, the questions were phrased differently, with the
former including the loaded term "quotas."
Kinder and Sanders (1990) manipulated organizational setting in a telephone survey using
a national probability sample of voting age citizens (N = 380). Using a within-subjects design,
 23

they described general AAPs targeted at Blacks in employment (hiring and promotion) decisions
and in college admissions decisions. There was no effect of setting on attitudes toward AAPs.
In the study by Murrell et al. (1994) described above, there were no main effects or
interactions involving setting. This study included three settings: business, college, social
organization. Finally, in Study 1 of Matheson et al. (1994) the social domain (education versus
employment) did not affect reactions to the four AAPs.
In summary, the organizational setting of an AAP seems to have limited influence on
AAP attitudes, either as a main effect or in conjunction with other variables. Affirmative action
may receive more support in education than in employment, but despite large samples this
difference was statistically significant in only three of the six relevant studies. Furthermore, in
two of these studies the setting was confounded with the description of affirmative action (e.g.,
quotas versus preferential treatment).

6. Need for Affirmative Action

No studies were found that examined relationships between objective need for affirmative
action programs and affirmative action attitudes, if objective need is operationalized in terms of
economic indicators and utilization ratios. A number of studies, however, dealt with the
organization's reported history of discrimination. If we assume that a history of discrimination
implies a need for affirmative action, this research is relevant. Other work has assessed
respondents' perceptions of the need for affirmative action.
Nacoste (1985, 1987; Nacoste & Lehman, 1987) asked female undergraduates to play the
role of a female professor who received a grant when competing with a male professor. In these
studies Nacoste manipulated the organization's reported history of discrimination, along with
procedural and qualification variables. These studies included numerous dependent variables,
with ratings of fairness of procedure and decision being most relevant to the question of
attitudes. In no case were there any significant effects involving the history manipulation.
In Kravitz and Platania (1992, 1993), discussed above, undergraduates evaluated potential
components of AAPs. One component was that AAPs would be designed to compensate for
previous discrimination. This component received a neutral evaluation in the 1992 study and a
positive evaluation in the 1993 study. Kravitz et al. (1994) employed a similar procedure in a
telephone survey of employed adults, most respondents being Black or Hispanic. These
respondents favored requiring organizations with histories of discrimination to target AAPs at
the group (Blacks or Hispanics) that had been victimized. In his analysis of data from a national
survey of Whites, Jacobson (1985) found that support for affirmative action was significantly
related to the belief that Blacks experienced discrimination in a variety of areas.
Matheson et al. (1994) manipulated the extent of prior discrimination in two scenario
studies with female undergraduate respondents. The three levels were: (a) only males would be
considered; (b) females would be considered only if no qualified males were available; (c) when
qualifications were equivalent, the male would be preferred to the female. The authors
hypothesized that respondents would prefer AAPs that precisely matched the level of prior
discrimination -- an interaction between the discrimination and AAP manipulations. In both
studies the interaction was nonsignificant. Furthermore, the main effect of discrimination also
was not significant: Evaluations of the possible reactions (AAPs) were not affected by the level
of prior discrimination.
Although results have been mixed, this research suggests that people may support certain
kinds of affirmative action if they believe past discrimination warrants it. It follows that
opposition to affirmative action could be based on the belief that discrimination does not exist.
 24

Kluegel (1985, 1990) reviewed large national surveys completed between 1972 and 1989, and
concluded that most White Americans attribute Blacks' economic disadvantages to personal
rather than structural factors. That is, they believe the problem is that Blacks lack motivation and
skills, not that they lack opportunities. Bobo and Kluegel (1993) reported the results of a national
survey of 159 Blacks and 1,150 Whites. They found that perceived discrimination and
attributions of the Black-White gap in socio-economic status to motivational causes were two of
the strongest predictors of support for policies designed to enhance the opportunities and
incomes of Blacks, though none of the policy items referred to affirmative action per se. A study
by Witt (1990) is relevant to this issue. She asked 492 university faculty whether minority of
female status constituted an advantage or disadvantage for each of 15 career dimensions. Ratings
given by White faculty were significantly higher than those given by Black faculty when
considering the role of minority status (all 15 dimensions) and female status (12 of 15
dimensions). In the case of minority status, inspection of the means is suggestive. For the key
dimensions (initial selection, salary, tenure, promotion) means given by the Whites were above
the scale midpoint and means given by Blacks were below the scale midpoint. Minority status
has negative effects via discrimination and positive effects via affirmative action. Apparently the
White faculty believed the positive effects of affirmative action outweighed the negative effects
of discrimination, whereas the Black faculty believed the opposite. Support for affirmative action
is likely to be decreased when people believe it overcompensates for discrimination.
In sum, there is no research on the relation between objective measures of need and
attitudes toward AAPs. Limited research suggests that respondents are somewhat more likely to
support affirmative action if they believe or are told that the target group has suffered
discrimination. These results, however, have been inconsistent. Survey research suggests that
many White Americans believe discrimination is a problem of the past, and that Blacks have
themselves to blame for their economic disadvantages. Other research finds that Whites believe
minorities profit more from affirmative action than they are hurt by discrimination. A related
finding based on respondent beliefs about discrimination is addressed below where we discuss
research on relative deprivation. This emphasis on need is consistent with court decisions, which
have emphasized that AAPs should be remedial (Newman, 1989).

7. Conclusions
Attitudes toward affirmative action and AAPs are strongly influenced by structural
factors. Details of the AAP (weighting of demographic status) appear to have the strongest effect
on attitudes, and this effect is mediated at least partly by implications for fairness and self-
interest. Attitudes are more positive when the AAP is justified and when evidence indicates that
affirmative action is needed. Reactions tend to be less positive when the target group is a racial
minority. Organizational setting has little effect on evaluations.

C. Individual Differences Bases (Respondent Dimensions)

The research described above has focused on structural aspects of the situation and of the
AAP. Other research has addressed the role of individual differences. The implicit assumption in
much of this work is that individual differences will affect a person's attitude toward affirmative
action in general, and this in turn will affect the person's attitudes toward specific AAPs. This
research has included the respondent's role, demographic variables, prejudice, relative
deprivation, and ideology. When considering this research it is important to realize that it, like all
passive observation research, does not permit strong causal conclusions.
 25

1. Respondent Role
Two straightforward characterizations of a respondent's role have received some
investigation. The first deals with differences between those who make decisions about or
administer AAPs versus those who do not. The second characterization of role deals with
differences between those who are members of the target group of an AAP and those who are
not. We discuss these two areas in turn.

a. Decision Makers Versus Others

Noble and Winett (1978) surveyed approximately 60 department chairs and 100 hirees for
faculty positions at the University of Kentucky between 1974 and 1976. They provided no
demographic data for the chairs, but reported that 73% of the hirees were male and 96% were
White. They found no differences between the department chairs and the hirees in their support
for hiring minority members or women for a faculty position if the candidate was as well
qualified as a White male (50% reported positive attitudes). They also found no differences
across the two roles in their support for hiring a lesser qualified female or minority member.
In their study of women at a liberal arts college, Goldsmith et al. (1989) compared AAP
attitudes of 15 students, 15 faculty, 17 staff members, and 15 administrators. The researchers
found no differences in AAP attitudes across the four role-based groups, using either
questionnaire items or coded statements from interview transcripts.
Tickamyer, Scollay, Bokemeier, and Wood (1989) explored attitudes about the need for
AAPs in university settings. Ninety-one percent of 150 university affirmative action officers
thought that some (undefined) steps needed to be taken to increase numbers of underrepresented
groups, and 62% were positive about setting specific hiring goals. Seventy-four percent of the
1,900 other university administrators were positive about taking some steps, and only 22%
supported specific hiring goals.
Fletcher and Chalmers (1991) made several comparisons of AAP attitudes among
Canadian citizens and government decision makers. Citizen and decision-maker attitudes toward
gender-based quotas in industry were similar. When the decision-maker sample was split into
legislative, executive, and judicial subsamples, however, important differences emerged. Law-
makers were more positive than the citizenry, and members of the judicial branch were more
negative. Members of the executive branch had intermediate attitudes, matching the level of the
general population. Both citizens and decision makers reported they would change their opinions
when given an argument contrary to their initial opinion, but citizens were more likely than
decision makers to state they would change.
Few general conclusions can be drawn from this research. It seems likely that the strongest
support for affirmative action will be observed among those whose jobs involve the maintenance
of AAPs (Tickamyer et al., 1989). Furthermore, attitudes of decision makers who have thought
the issue through are likely to be less flexible than attitudes of typical citizens (Fletcher &
Chalmers, 1991).

b. Target Group Members Versus Non-members

Another characterization of role involves differences between those who are members of
the target group of an AAP and those who are not. Classification of respondents into target
member versus non-target member simplifies interpretation of some of the two-way interactions
to be discussed in the next subsection. Simply put, persons are more positive toward AAPs that
are targeted at their own demographic group. This trend is clear and strong for ethnicity, but is
 26

somewhat less strong for gender. This effect of target-respondent match can be explained in
terms of collective or personal self-interest.

2. Demographic variables

a. Gender and Race/Ethnicity

Numerous studies have examined differences in AAP attitudes associated with
respondents' gender or ethnicity. Many of these studies focused on other questions and have been
discussed above. In these cases we limit the present discussion to results involving respondent
gender or ethnicity. All results mentioned below are significant at the .05 level, although effect
sizes varied. If a potential difference is not mentioned, it was not statistically significant. We
begin by reviewing studies that assessed only race differences, then turn to studies that assessed
only gender differences, and end with studies that dealt with both variables.
We begin with survey research. Lipset and Schneider (1978) summarized some of the
earliest data regarding race-based differences in attitudes toward AAPs. Citing a New York
Times/CBS News survey carried out in 1977, they noted that Blacks were much more positive
than Whites toward four versions of affirmative action. The programs included hiring "a certain
number of minority workers," "give special consideration to minority applicants" to college or
graduate school, "requiring large companies to set up special training programs for members of
minority groups," and a school "reserving a certain number of places for qualified minority
applicants." Sigelman and Welch (1991) also analyzed many national surveys of attitudes
toward affirmative action. They concluded that support for equal opportunity, affirmative action
in general, preferential treatment, and quotas was higher among Blacks than Whites. In the
Kinder and Sanders (1990) survey described earlier, AAPs in employment were strongly favored
by 64% of the Black respondents and 6% of the White respondents. Affirmative action plans in
college admissions were strongly supported by 63% of the Black respondents and 9% of the
White respondents. Strong differences were also obtained in Fine's (1992a) nationwide
probability survey, discussed above. The proportion of Blacks favoring AAPs in employment
and education was more than three times the proportion of Whites favoring these programs.
Bobo and Smith (1994) reviewed responses to the 1986, 1988, and 1990 National Election Study
(NES) surveys. In 1990, support for quotas in education was reported by 31% of Whites and
74% of Blacks; support for preferential hiring and promotions was reported by 18% of Whites
and 75% of Blacks. Large race differences were also apparent in the two previous surveys.
Sherman, Smith, and Sherman (1983) reported a study of Maryland undergraduates' reactions to
a fictitious court case involving promotion decisions. Of the 175 students involved, 106 were
Black and 69 were White. Attitudes toward the use of "racial quotas . . . in promotions and/or
hirings" were more positive among Black than White respondents. In summary, these many
surveys reveal that affirmative action plans of all types receive more support from Blacks than
from Whites.
Arthur et al. (1992) asked volunteer respondents to play the role of a student who had been
awarded a prestigious graduate fellowship. In the equally qualified condition, participants read
that both candidates were equally qualified for the position. In the less qualified condition,
participants read that the recipient of the fellowship was less qualified than the other candidate.
Participants read that the fellowship was either awarded (a) primarily on the basis of gender, or
(b) on the basis of gender as long as the recipients had the necessary qualifications. Of the
respondents, 106 were White, 116 were minority group members (split evenly between Blacks
and Hispanics, although analyses did not differentiate the two groups), and 49 were international
 27

students. International students reported more positive affect in role-played responses to the
scenarios than did Whites. Minority students' affect fell between the two, but did not differ
significantly from either. Another dependent variable, agreement with the decision, could
reasonably be construed as attitude toward the AAP (the AAP was the basis for the fellowship
decision). There was no main effect of ethnicity on agreement, but there was a significant
interaction of Ethnicity X Structure on this variable. AAP structure had a larger effect among
members of minority groups than among Whites. AAP structure had no effect on attitude of
international students.
We turn now to research that dealt with gender differences only. In their study of women
at a liberal arts college, discussed above, Goldsmith et al. (1989) found significantly more
positive attitudes toward affirmative action among women than men. This difference was
observed in respondents' self-reported attitudes and interviewers' ratings of respondents'
attitudes. These comparisons were limited to the 47 faculty, staff, and administrator respondents
because all student respondents were women. Singer (1993) reported that undergraduate females
were more positive than males about an AAP in which the gender ("female-ness") of the
candidate was given strong weight. In a study of American and Japanese undergraduates, Ozawa
et al. (1996) found that women had more positive attitudes than men in response to two
procedures, merit hiring and quota hiring following a minimum standard. The women also
responded more negatively to the case of gender discrimination used in the scenario.
Tougas and Beaton (1993) studied AAP attitudes among 185 female and 277 male
employees at a large Canadian company with a history of discrimination against women, as well
as repeatedly unsuccessful attempts to increase the percentage of women in the workforce. The
researchers sent a questionnaire describing the company's history and its attempts to redress
discrimination to roughly 1000 employees. Males and females did not differ in their attitudes
toward AAPs that had the goal of "eliminating systematic barriers" to women. However, females
were more positive than males about AAPs that gave "preferential treatment" to females (i.e.,
that gave preference to women when they were of equal competence as men). In a somewhat
contradictory finding, Murrell et al. (1994) found that women were more negative about specific
AAPs than were men. Women were especially negative when the AAPs had no explicit
justification (a Gender X Justification interaction).
Summers’ (1995) respondents evaluated affirmative action in general and three specific
AAPs. They also rated the likely effect of affirmative action in general on their careers (self-
interest). Summers found a significant gender difference in attitudes toward affirmative action in
general. Men and women did not differ significantly in their evaluations toward a special training
program (both positive) or differential scoring of selection tests (both negative), but did differ in
their evaluations of a quota system. Women evaluated quotas more positively than did men. In
summary, results of these four studies are somewhat mixed. In five studies women had more
positive attitudes toward at least some AAPs. In one study women had more negative attitudes.
The gender difference appears to be moderated by AAP structure and possibly justification, and
may be mediated by self-interest implications.
Finally, many studies have assessed both race and gender differences. In Fletcher and
Chalmers' (1991) study, French Canadians had more positive attitudes than did majority
Canadians. Gender was not related to attitudes toward AAPs.
Kravitz and Platania (1992) assessed attitudes towards a race-based AAP. The sample of
undergraduates contained 66 females and 25 males, as well as two people who did not report
their gender. Twelve of the respondents were Hispanic, 19 were Black, and 56 were White.
Females were more positive than males about the AAP. Blacks were more positive than Whites,
 28

with the mean for Hispanics falling between those two but not differing significantly from either.
There were several gender and ethnicity differences in evaluations of the potential structural
components, including: quotas (gender & ethnicity differences), weighting of race in
employment decisions (ethnicity difference), training programs (gender and ethnicity
differences), recruitment (ethnicity difference), and providing workforce composition data to the
federal government (ethnicity difference). All gender differences were due to greater support
among women than among men. All ethnicity differences were due to greater support among
Blacks than Whites, with support among Hispanics generally falling between the other two
groups.
Kravitz and Platania (1993; N = 349) found more positive attitudes toward AAPs in
general among female than male undergraduates. Black and Hispanic respondents were more
positive than White respondents towards AAPs. There were no interactions of respondent and
target group characteristics for AAP attitude. However, there were important gender and
ethnicity differences involving evaluations of the structural components of potential AAPs.
Significant differences included: quotas (gender and ethnicity differences), weighting of
demographic status (ethnicity difference), training (gender and ethnicity differences), recruitment
(gender and ethnicity differences), requiring AAPs of all organizations (gender and ethnicity
differences), using AAPs to eliminate discrimination (gender difference), providing workforce
composition data in an AAP to the federal government (gender difference), and using AAPs to
compensate groups for past discrimination (gender and ethnicity differences). Once again, all
gender differences were due to greater support among women than among men; all ethnicity
differences were due to greater support among Blacks than Whites, with support among
Hispanics generally being between the other two groups.
Kravitz et al. (1994) surveyed 60 Miami-area residents about their attitudes toward
affirmative action targeted at Blacks or Hispanics. They found that males were more positive
than females. Blacks and Hispanics each evaluated AAPs more positively if they were targeted at
their own ethnic group rather than the other group.
Doverspike and Arthur (1995) explored gender and ethnicity (Black versus White)
differences in a role-playing study in a data set drawn in part from Arthur et al. (1992). The 235
undergraduate respondents role-played a same-sex Black applicant who was awarded a
fellowship. The applicant’s qualifications were said to be equal or inferior to those of the other
finalist, and the AAP was said to involve reverse discrimination or preferential treatment.
Respondents rated the fairness of the procedure and decision. Fairness ratings varied with
respondent gender and race, and each of these main effects was qualified by an interaction with
applicant qualification. Females were more affected by the qualification manipulation than were
males. Blacks were less affected by the qualification manipulation than were Whites, but this
difference was much larger in the preferential treatment AAP than in the reverse discrimination
AAP (a Race X Qualifications X AAP interaction). Finally, there was a Sex X Race X
Qualifications interaction: The race difference was smaller in the condition involving male
respondents and equal qualifications than in the other three conditions.
Gilliland and Haptonstahl (1995) found that fairness ratings of four selection scenarios
varied as a function of respondent gender and minority status. Males provided higher fairness
ratings than did females for the scenario in which the majority candidate was selected instead of
the equally-qualified minority candidate. Nonminorities provided higher fairness ratings than did
minorities for the scenario in which the more-qualified majority candidate was selected.
Kravitz (1995) reported a study of respondent reactions to eight AAPs targeted at Blacks.
Undergraduate respondents varied in terms of gender (47 male and 128 female) and
 29

race/ethnicity (84 Hispanic, 75 non-Hispanic Whites, 16 other). Blacks were excluded for both
methodological and substantive reasons. There were no significant effects of gender or ethnicity
(Hispanic versus White) on overall attitude toward AAPs.
Konrad and Linnehan (1995b) studied managers' attitudes toward identity-conscious and
identity-blind policies that a firm might adopt. The scales, therefore, can be seen as representing
AAPs that either did or did not assign a weight to demographic status. They compared responses
of White men (n = 81), White women (n = 76), People of Color (racial minorities; n = 85), and
African Americans (n = 50, a subset of People of Color). They obtained no differences in
attitudes toward identity-blind procedures. However, Blacks (and People of Color) had more
positive attitudes than Whites toward the identity-conscious procedures. Among Whites, women
responded more positively than men to such procedures. These differences remained even after
controlling for the type of organization from which the respondents were drawn.
Bell et al. (1996) studied 326 undergraduates and managers, and found that attitudes
toward AAPs were more positive among women than among men, There was also an effect of
race, with Blacks being most positive, Asians and Hispanics being next most positive, and
Whites being least positive. Additional analyses, however, revealed that the significant effects of
gender and race were fully mediated by the respondents’ beliefs about affirmative action and
evaluations thereof. In a subsequent study involving 610 students and employees, Bell (1996)
obtained similar effects of respondent gender and race, but these effects were only partly (80%)
mediated by the respondents beliefs and evaluations of those beliefs.
In summary, Blacks clearly feel more positively about AAPs in general than do Whites,
though the size of this difference depends on details of the AAP. Attitudes of Hispanics fall
somewhere between Blacks and Whites. It should also be noted that Hispanics are not a
monolithic ethnic group. Cuban-Americans may have notably different attitudes than Mexican-
Americans, or those from Puerto Rico. Moreover, apart from the Bell et al. (1995) and Bell
(1996 studies, there are no data in the literature reviewed on the attitudes of Asian Americans or
Native Americans. Similar caveats about assuming homogeneous attitudes within those ethnic
groups apply as well. The research by Bell et al. suggests that the race differences are largely due
to differences in beliefs about affirmative action and evaluations of those beliefs.
Finally, there are also gender differences in attitudes toward AAPs. In studies in which
respondents (especially White respondents) are asked about AAPs in general, women generally
have more positive attitudes than men. Those gender effects are also likely to be moderated by
the structural properties (details of the AAP and justification for the AAP) of the AAP being
studied; women tend to be more responsive to these factors than do men. Of greater interest is
the question of why gender differences exist. Once again, the research by Bell et al. suggests that
the gender differences are largely due to differences in beliefs about affirmative action and
evaluations of those beliefs. Research by Ozawa et al. (1996) suggests that perceptions of the
severity of discrimination could serve as the mediator, and research by Summers (1995) suggests
that the mediator could be self-interest. Clearly more work is needed on the boundary conditions
and reasons for race and gender differences.

b. Other Demographic Variables

A number of studies have included demographic variables such as age, education, and
income as predictors of affirmative action attitudes. Demographic variables have been of interest
because they are thought to reflect underlying factors such as socialization (in the case of age,
education, region of the country, and city size), social status (education and income), self-interest
(income), potential for having personal experience with unequal treatment (race, gender, men
 30

married to working women), and even cognitive complexity (education). In some cases,
researchers state specific hypotheses regarding demographic variables (e.g., Fine, 1992b). More
commonly, demographic variables are used in an exploratory fashion or as control variables,
with no specific hypotheses being stated.
Research on demographic variables can be categorized along two methodological
dimensions. One dimension is the type of respondents surveyed (general public versus specific
population). The second dimension is the type of statistical analysis performed (multiple
regression versus one-way analysis of variance). Studies of the general public have employed
large-scale national opinion surveys, while studies of specific populations have been done with
groups as diverse as public personnel administrators (Davis & West, 1984), university
administrators and affirmative action officers (Tickamyer et al., 1989), and social workers in
Texas (Stout & Buffum, 1993). Studies that have assessed attitudes of the general public have
used multiple regression analyses and have assessed the relative contribution of both
demographic and attitudinal variables to the prediction of affirmative action attitudes. In contrast,
most studies of attitudes within specific populations have used one-way analysis of variance. The
exception was Davis and West (1984) who used a measure of association called gamma. The
methodology used has implications for the ability to draw conclusions about the statistical
significance of effects, about the size of the effects, and about generalizability of the effects.
(1) Surveys of the General Public
Three studies using general opinion surveys included demographic characteristics among
the predictor variables. Kluegel and Smith (1983) assessed attitudes of 1,596 Whites, selected
from a 1980 opinion poll, toward affirmative action directed at Blacks and minorities. They
presented separate analyses for each of their four attitude questions. The effect of respondent age
was nonsignificant in all cases. There were, however, significant interactions of age with
employment variables such as the extent of segregation in the respondent's industry. In two
analyses there were significant regression weights of education. More educated respondents were
less likely to report that preferential treatment was fair and that affirmative action programs
should be supported. In the other two analyses, regression weights of income were significant.
Respondents with higher incomes were less likely to agree that colleges and employers should
set aside positions for qualified Blacks and minorities. [Kluegel and Smith's verbal descriptions
of the income results appear inconsistent with the regression weights, so the directions of the
effects are not entirely clear. The descriptions in this paragraph are taken from Kluegel and
Smith's verbal descriptions.]
Jacobson (1984) reports results from a 1978 survey of 1,584 White respondents. Attitudes
toward affirmative action were not related to income. Attitudes were related to occupation, age,
and education. The relation of attitudes with age was complex. Attitudes appeared most positive
among college graduates and least positive among high school graduates; the other two
categories were those with less than a high school degree and those with some college.
Fine (1992b), drew a sample of African-Americans from a 1986 national post-election
survey. None of her four dependent variables explicitly dealt with support for affirmative action,
but two of them seem relevant. Respondents were asked to indicate the extent of their agreement
with statements that: (1) it is not the government's job to guarantee equal opportunity for Blacks
and Whites (N = 313), and (2) Blacks should overcome prejudice without any special favors (N
= 156). When responses to these items were regressed on demographic and core value variables,
regression weights of age, education, and income were all nonsignificant.
 31

(2) Surveys of Specific Populations

Davis and West (1984) surveyed a national sample of public personnel managers during
1979. They measured several demographic characteristics and environmental characteristics
(e.g., city size). Dependent variables were commitment to affirmative action and to equal
employment opportunity. Neither age nor education was significantly associated with
commitment to affirmative action. Age, but not education, was significantly associated with
commitment to equal opportunity, with the youngest managers displaying the lowest levels of
commitment.
Tickamyer et al. (1989) surveyed 1,894 university administrators and 148 university
affirmative action officers. The survey included four questions about the need for EO/AAPs at
their colleges and universities. Among the administrators, age (four groups) was significantly
associated with responses to all four need questions. For two questions, perceived need
decreased with age; for the other two questions the relation was nonlinear. Among the
affirmative action officers, there were no significant relations between age and perceived need.
Stout and Buffum (1993) measured the commitment to affirmative action of 193 Texas
social workers. They found significant effects for job position and membership classification.
Because statistical tests of mean differences were not reported, it is not possible to report which
groups were different from one another. Commitment was higher among those who identified
themselves as members of a "sexual minority," but was not associated with level of highest
social work degree.
(3) Summary
Researchers have used a variety of individual characteristics in attempting to account for
attitudes related to affirmative action. Age, education, and income have been studied most
consistently, but many other characteristics have been investigated on occasion. These studies
show that, in the majority of cases, demographic factors other than gender and race/ethnicity
contribute little or nothing to predictions of attitudes related to affirmative action. In the few
cases in which the effects associated with these variables reached statistical significance, the
effects were quite small and sometimes nonlinear.

3. Self-Efficacy
Two studies assessed the relations among AAP, self-efficacy, and fairness perceptions. In
both cases, undergraduates were told they had been selected either on the basis of merit or on the
basis of gender.
Hattrup (1994) found that fairness judgments were affected by the interaction of selection
procedure and self-efficacy. Fairness ratings of preferential treatment were minimally related to
self-efficacy; virtually everyone considered it unfair. Fairness ratings of merit selection were
positively related to respondent self-efficacy; more confident respondents considered their
selection fairer. In Brutus and Ryan (1994), ratings of fairness correlated positively with self-
efficacy measured before and after selection, and with self-evaluation of performance. Fairness
ratings did not correlate with performance in either study.
In summary, AAP structure, perceived fairness, and self-efficacy are complexly
interrelated. We are not aware of research involving more traditional dispositional variables.
Given the relation between prejudice (discussed below) and dogmatism, it is possible that
research on dogmatism would yield interesting results.
 32

4. Opinion Variables

a. Prejudice (Racism and Sexism)

Fernandez (1981) defined [anti-Black] racism "as basic cultural ideologies that state that
Whites . . . are inherently superior to minorities . . . solely on the basis of race . . . and that
Whites have the power over social institutions to develop, evolve, nurture, spread, impose, and
enforce the very myths and stereotypes that are basic to the foundation of racism" (p. 303).
Sidanius, Pratto, and Bobo (1996) refer to this assumption of Black inferiority as classic racism,
and distinguish it from anti-Black affect. Other theorists have suggested that such forms of
racism have been supplanted by modern forms. For example, aversive racism is said to be a
combination of racial prejudice and an egalitarian ideology (Dovidio, Mann, & Gaertner, 1989;
Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986). Symbolic racism, in contrast, is said to be a combination of racial
prejudice and a conservative ideology (Kinder, 1986; McConahay, 1982; McConahay & Hough,
1976; Sears, 1988). The concept of symbolic racism has been critiqued by Sniderman and
Tetlock (1986b; see also Bobo & Kluegel, 1993; Kinder, 1986; Sniderman et al., 1991;
Sniderman & Tetlock, 1986a), and some of their criticisms apply to aversive racism. One
problem with the concepts of modern racism particularly relevant to the present review is that
opposition to affirmative action is taken as an indicant of modern racism; as such, it is
meaningless to ask whether modern racism leads to opposition. Research examining symbolic
and aversive racism does not examine the conditions under which these values do or do not
constitute a convenient racist surrogate. Some evidence (Kluegel, 1990) suggests that the
fundamental attribution error may augment or enhance symbolic racism. In addition, Murrell et
al. (1994) have suggested that it is not possible to assess aversive racism through self-report
measures. In summary, there is considerably disagreement about how racism should be
conceptualized, and an equal level of inconsistency in how it is operationalized.
Despite this disagreement, research has consistently found that self-report measures of
racism are positively associated with opposition to affirmative action targeted at racial
minorities. Using data from the national Harris opinion survey of 1978, Jacobson (1985) found
that symbolic and overt racism predicted attitudes toward AAPs. In their national survey of
Whites, Kluegel and Smith (1983) found that a two-item scale of symbolic racism was associated
with attitudes toward affirmative action in education and business. Kravitz (1995) found that
racism was associated with opposition to affirmative action in general and to specific AAPs.
Nosworthy et al. (1995) argued that researchers should separately measure the two
components of symbolic racism -- racial affect and justice beliefs. Thus, they included measures
of symbolic racism, racial affect, and justice beliefs in their study of reactions to AAPs in
education. When endorsement of four AAPs were regressed on the three measures, the
alternative approach (racial affect plus justice beliefs) explained variance beyond symbolic
racism in two cases, but the reverse was not true. When racial affect and justice beliefs were
contrasted, they were found to be approximately equivalent predictors. Justice beliefs explained
variance beyond racial affect in predicting reactions to recruitment, but neither approach
explained independent variance in predicting reactions to the other three AAPs.
Sidanius, Devereux, and Pratto (1992) contrasted a symbolic racism explanation with a
social dominance theory of "racial policy attitudes." Social dominance theory as developed by
Sidanius et al. (1992) suggests that all social systems consist of hierarchical caste systems with
various dimensions of social status and rules/influences on movement within and between castes.
These caste systems are maintained over time through institutional discrimination, individual
 33

discrimination, and "behavioral asymmetry," or evolution of different behavioral repertoires

across castes that perpetuate and reinforce caste differences. Sidanius et al. (1992) analyzed data
from a sample of 234 White respondents, and found substantial evidence for social dominance as
an antecedent of attitudes toward racial policy. Close inspection of the symbolic racism and
social dominance "models" indicates that they contain virtually the same antecedent variables
hypothesized to operate in different causal orders. In Studies 1 (N = 3,861) and 2 (N
approximately = 614), Sidanius et al. (1996) found that opposition to affirmative action was
associated with classical racism, and that this relation increased with respondent education. Anti-
Black affect was not associated with opposition to affirmative action.
Reid and Clayton (1992) warned that racism and sexism differ in many ways, and that it is
not safe to assume that the two dispositions will relate identically to attitudes toward affirmative
action. In comparison to racism, sexism has been neglected in the affirmative action research, but
there is some relevant work. Similar to modern racism, neosexism is said to be "a manifestation
of a conflict between egalitarian values and residual negative feelings toward women" (Tougas,
Brown et al., 1995, p. 843). In a study of 130 male Canadian students, Tougas, Brown et al.
(1995) used path analysis to demonstrate that neosexism predicted opposition to affirmative
action. Traditional sexism affected reactions to affirmative action only through its influence on
neosexism. In a second study of 149 male managers, office workers, and blue-collar workers, it
was found that attitudes toward affirmative action in general and toward the program in place
were significantly related to neosexism. Joly et al. (1993) studied 96 male managers and
professionals. They found that neosexism predicted opposition to affirmative action in general
and a specific AAP targeted at women. Tougas, Crosby et al. (1995) report the results of two
studies on male francophone Canadian managers and professionals. In both cases, attitudes
toward AAPs were significantly related to neosexism scores.
In summary, prejudice (racism and sexism) is associated with opposition to AAPs targeted
at the relevant group. Much of the research using measures of modern racism or sexism is flawed
because the measure of prejudice is confounded with fairness considerations. A few studies have
compared the explanatory power of racism to other variables. Kravitz (1995) found that
perceived fairness of AAP structure was much more important, and personal self-interest was
somewhat more important than racism. Nosworthy et al. (1995) found that perceived fairness
explained unique variance beyond measures of racism, personal self-interest, and collective self-
interest in evaluations of four AAPs. Attitudes were more closely related to self-interest than to
racism.

b. Relative Deprivation
Relative deprivation is "the emotion one feels when making negatively discrepant
comparisons" (Crosby, 1976, p. 88). Building on earlier work, Crosby (1984) distinguishes four
types of resentment individuals feel about the distribution of an outcome. Personal deprivation
exists when the individual receives less than he or she desires and deserves. Surprisingly, this
concept has been neglected in the affirmative action area. In-group deprivation exists when the
individual's group receives less than the individual desires and believes it deserves. Within the
affirmative action area this has been called collective relative deprivation, and it is discussed
below. Ideological deprivation exists when a group with which the individual sympathizes
receives less than the individual desires and believes it deserves. Within the affirmative action
area this has been called relative deprivation on behalf of others, and it is discussed below.
Finally, backlash exists when the individual resents the fact that others have received positive
outcomes. With few exceptions (Lynch & Beer, 1990), backlash has been ignored in the
 34

affirmative action literature. Lynch (1992) argues various factors have led to a taboo against
acknowledging the very negative effects that affirmative action has had on young, working and
middle-class White males. He refers to this neglect as "race unconsciousness," and attributes it to
social-structural factors and actions of both the political Left and the Right.
(1) Relative Deprivation on Behalf of Others
Virtually all research in this area has been performed by Tougas and her colleagues in
Canada, who have correlated relative deprivation on behalf of others with attitudes toward
affirmative action. They have operationalized relative deprivation as a function of two construct
domains: perceived discrepancy between the majority-minority groups and level of satisfaction
or affect generated by that discrepancy. Tougas and Veilleux (1990) and Veilleux and Tougas
(1989) used a cross-product approach to measure the concept. Unfortunately, this approach has
such severe conceptual and mathematical problems that it is not possible to interpret the results
with confidence. Tougas and Beaton (1993) confounded the effects of relative deprivation on
behalf others and collective relative deprivation (discussed below), so no conclusions can be
drawn from their results. In short, there are fatal methodological problems with all research on
the relation between relative deprivation on behalf of others and attitudes toward affirmative
action directed at that other group.
If one assumes that respondents value fairness and are not prejudiced, one can assume that
discrepancy automatically leads to dissatisfaction. Note that the discrepancy component alone is
a measure of belief that the target group experiences discrimination. As discussed in the previous
section on "Need for Affirmative Action," some research has found this belief to be associated
with support for affirmative action. This research suggests that a sense of relative deprivation on
behalf of the target group will correlate positively with support for affirmative action. There is
clearly a need for additional research with appropriate measures of relative deprivation on behalf
of others.
(2) Collective Relative Deprivation
Like relative deprivation on behalf of others, collective relative deprivation incorporates
both a perception of discrepancy and a dissatisfaction with that discrepancy. The difference is,
collective relative deprivation refers to the respondent's own group. Once again, use of a cross-
product approach to measure collective relative deprivation leads to conceptual and
mathematical problems, and vitiates interpretation (Tougas et al., 1991; Veilleux & Tougas,
1989). Research on collective relative deprivation also suffers from a second problem -- an
inconsistency in the temporal focus of the measure. For example, Veilleux and Tougas (1989)
measured collective relative deprivation prior to (independent of) the affirmative action program,
whereas Tougas et al. (1991) measured the collective relative deprivation that remained after the
institution of the affirmative action program. Further, Tougas et al. (1991) used the term
collective relative deprivation to refer to the anticipated effects of the affirmative action program
on the group. The latter two approaches would seem to provide measures of collective interest
rather than collective relative deprivation. These three situations have been treated as if they
were equivalent, and this considerably complicates interpretation of the research.
When dealing with collective relative deprivation, unlike relative deprivation on behalf of
others, it is fairly safe to assume that the perception of a discrepancy automatically leads to
dissatisfaction. Thus, measures of collective relative deprivation that rely on the discrepancy
component alone should be valid. In a structural modeling study of 90 French Canadian women,
Tougas and Veilleux (1988) provide the clearest evidence for the role of collective relative
deprivation. They obtained support for a model that included a path from perceived discrepancy
to dissatisfaction, and a second path from dissatisfaction to attitude toward the AAP. It is worth
 35

noting that this model included a path from procedure (elimination of discrimination versus
preferential treatment) to attitude that had a larger path coefficient than did the path from
dissatisfaction to attitude.
In short, the one study with demonstrably valid measures indicates that the perception of
collective relative deprivation will increase support for an AAP targeted at the deprived group.
This is, of course, consistent with self-interest, and there is a need for research that separates the
two concepts.
c. Political Perspective
A few studies have attempted to assess the relation between political perspective and
affirmative action attitudes. The concept of political perspective has been operationalized in
several ways. We discuss each of these approaches in turn.
In their national survey of Whites, Kluegel and Smith (1983) examined the relation
between affirmative action attitudes and political orientation conceived in terms of stratification
beliefs. Support for affirmative action tended to increase with beliefs that Blacks have poor
opportunities, equality is just and beneficial, and poverty is due to structural causes, though not
all effects were significant in all analyses and some of these main effects were qualified by
interactions. Bobo and Kluegel (1993) analyzed data from 1,150 White respondents. They
found that stratification beliefs (structuralism, individualism, and the belief that inequality of
income is fair) were associated with support for policies designed to enhance the opportunities
and incomes of Blacks, though none of the policy items referred to affirmative action per se. In
addition, this support seemed to be partly mediated by beliefs about the extent of anti-Black
discrimination and the extent to which the racial socioeconomic gap is due to a lack of effort on
the part of Blacks. On the other hand, Kravitz (1995) found that attitudes toward affirmative
action were not related to two of these same structural beliefs: belief in equality of opportunity
and belief that inequality is appropriate. Finally, Kinder and Sanders (1990) found that the
relation between stratification beliefs and attitudes toward affirmative action varied with the
framing of the question and the political sophistication of the respondent. There is clearly a need
for additional information about the relation between stratification beliefs and attitudes toward
affirmative action.
In a related study, Nosworthy et al. (1995) assessed adherence to two dimensions of
”justice ideology:” proportionality and egalitarianism. Scores on the proportionality measure
correlated significantly with attitudes toward two of the four AAPs; scores on the egalitarianism
measure correlated significantly with attitudes toward one of the AAPs. Ozawa et al. (1996)
studied reactions of Japanese and U. S. students to a case of gender discrimination and four
possible solutions. The key solution was a combination of minimum standards and quota hiring.
Consistent with the authors’ emphasis on collectivism, the Japanese students evaluated this
procedure more positively than did the U. S. students. Contrary to the hypothesis, however,
within-country analyses revealed nonsignificant correlations between scores on a measure of
collectivism and support for the “affirmative action” procedure.
Fried, Levi, Browne, and Billings (1996) suggested that inconsistent effects of ideology, at
least among Blacks, could be due to different experiences with discrimination. Using two
samples of employed African-American students (Ns = 59 and 76), they found that attitudes
were positively associated with egalitarianism (as against individualism) and previous
experiences with discrimination. Furthermore, the effects of ideology were smallest among those
who reported having experienced the most discrimination.
 36

Finally, researchers have found that support for affirmative action is higher among self-
identified liberals than conservatives (Sidanius et al., 1996), and among Democrats than
Republicans (Jacobson, 1985; Stout & Buffum, 1993).
In summary, this research reveals that attitudes toward affirmative action are associated
with political perspective, though the strength of the relationship doubtlessly varies with the way
in which political ideology is assessed. There is a need for more research in this area, with more
consistent measurement of political ideology.

5. Personal Experiences
There is little research on the role of personal experiences in determining attitudes toward
affirmative action. As mentioned above, Fried et al. (1996) found that Black students who had
experienced the most discrimination had the most positive attitudes toward affirmative action. In
addition, the experience of discrimination seemed to overwhelm any effect of ideology. Stout
and Buffum (1993) studied Texas social workers, most of whom were White females. They
found that commitment to affirmative action was positively related to positive experiences with
affirmative action and negatively related to negative experiences with affirmative action. Kravitz
et al. (1994) reported that attitudes toward affirmative action were more positive among those
who had been victimized by race/ethnic-based discrimination and by those who had previously
worked at an organization with an AAP directed at another demographic group. Matheson et al.
(1994) found that female police trainees, who could expect to suffer from discrimination in their
jobs, evaluated possible AAPs more positively than did undergraduate women for whom
discrimination was less personal. This conclusion, however, was based on a casual comparison
of responses across a set of three studies, not on statistical analyses. In a study of 93 Dutch police
officers, de Vries and Pettigrew (1994) found that majority officers responded positively to the
effects of affirmative action. They reported that the diversity improved the quality of their work
and made it easier for them to deal with their diverse urban area. Bell (1996) found that
experience with discrimination was related to more positive AAP attitudes, and experience with
diversity (in either work group members or friends) was generally unrelated to AAP attitudes.
In summary, attitudes toward affirmative action seem to be positively associated with
having experienced discrimination and having worked at an organization with an AAP, at least if
the AAP resulted in positive experiences. Negative experiences with affirmative action appear to
decrease support for affirmative action. There is a need for additional research on how attitudes
toward affirmative action and AAPs are associated with prior experiences of discrimination and
prior experiences with affirmative action.

6. Conclusions
Attitudes toward affirmative action and AAPs are related to several individual difference
variables. Attitudes toward race-based affirmative action are inversely related to racism and
sexism. Consistent with this finding, limited research suggests that attitudes are positively
associated with a sense of relative deprivation on behalf of the target group. There is also some
evidence that attitudes are associated with a sense of collective relative deprivation. Consistent
with the effects of self-interest, people are most supportive of AAPs targeted at their own
demographic group. In addition, Blacks have more positive attitudes than Whites, with Hispanics
falling between the other two groups. Attitudes are more positive among women than among
men. These gender effects often are moderated by the structural properties of the AAP; women
tend to be more responsive than men to these factors. The gender differences may be mediated
by perceptions of discrimination severity or implications for self-interest. Attitudes are
 37

complexly related with self-efficacy, and are not strongly associated with demographic variables
such as age, income, and education. They are, however, associated with the respondent’s role,
being most positive among those whose jobs involve the maintenance of AAPs. In addition,
attitudes of decision makers appear to be less flexible than those of typical citizens. There is
some evidence that attitudes are associated with political position; they are more positive among
Democrats, liberals, and those who reject the dominant structural ideology of opportunity.
Finally, attitudes toward affirmative action seem to be positively associated with having
experienced discrimination and having worked at an organization with an AAP, at least if the
AAP resulted in positive experiences. Negative experience with affirmative action appear to
decrease support for affirmative action.

IV. EFFECTS OF AAP ON NON-TARGET GROUP MEMBERS' PERCEPTIONS OF

TARGET GROUP MEMBERS, AND ON RELATIONS BETWEEN PARTIES

It is important to understand how female and minority employees hired under an AAP are
perceived by other employees. Negative perceptions could hinder the new hire's opportunities
and could damage relations between the parties. In this section we review research that speaks to
these issues. Several studies have been completed in which non-target members evaluate the
competence of target members. Most of these studies have used undergraduate students as
respondents, and have presented them with hypothetical situations in which they have judged the
qualifications of the target. In such studies, some attribute of the situation (e.g., selection
procedure) is manipulated. A few studies have employed adult respondents and correlational
designs.

A. Evaluations of Females

Jacobson and Koch (1977) paired 72 male undergraduates with a female confederate who
was assigned to a leadership position on the basis of sex (strong preferential treatment), chance,
or superior performance on a test (merit). After performing a one-way communication task with
the confederate, the dyad was told they had either succeeded or failed at the task. Jacobson and
Koch found that females selected on the basis of gender were blamed for poor performance of
the group but were not given credit for the good performance of the group. Summers (1991)
asked 112 undergraduates to read materials related to promotion of a woman in a hypothetical
company. The company had either willingly adopted an AAP or refused to adopt an AAP.
Judgments of the woman's qualifications were affected by the interaction of Respondent Gender
X AAP. Evaluations made by female respondents in the anti-AAP condition were higher than
evaluations in the other three conditions. Summers interpreted this as an augmentation effect;
female respondents assumed the female manager must be particularly competent to get promoted
in a hostile company.
Studies by Heilman and her colleagues show that both males and females tend to assume
that females hired under affirmative action programs are relatively less competent. Heilman,
Block, and Lucas (1992; Study 2) asked 184 White male employees of various companies to
evaluate the competence of a specific female or minority co-worker, and to indicate the extent to
which affirmative action was responsible for the co-worker's selection. Judgments of competence
 38

were inversely related to the perceived importance of affirmative action in selection. Heilman et
al. (1992; Study 1) asked 129 male and female undergraduates to review application materials of
someone recently hired and to make predictions about their job performance. The job was said to
be either highly or moderately gender-typed to be masculine. The applicants were either male or
female, and if female, either were or were not associated with an AAP. Affirmative action was
manipulated by placing a statement at the bottom of the applications that said either hire or hire
(affirmative action hire). The results showed that women were perceived as less competent when
they were associated with affirmative action than when they were not.
Heilman, Block, and Stathatos (in press) used the same affirmative action manipulation in
two studies of male and female managers (Ns = 192 & 72). In Study 1, performance information
was lacking, or indicated failure (lower 50%), ambiguous success (upper 50% on 2-category
scale), or clear success (upper 5% on 5-category scale). Ratings of competence were affected by
performance information and the interaction of performance information by employee type. In
the clear success and clear failure conditions, the three types of employees obtained similar
ratings; when information was lacking or ambiguous, the woman hired in the context of the
affirmative action plan was rated lower than the other two employees. In Study 2, performance
information was manipulated by mentioning or not mentioning that the employee had access to
ongoing coaching by a senior employee. The same pattern of effects was observed: Ratings were
lower in the affirmative action-ambiguous success condition than in the other five conditions. In
both experiments, all significant effects in the analyses on competence ratings disappeared when
the role of qualifications in selection was used as a covariate. Heilman et al. (1996) used the
communication task procedure introduced by Jacobson and Koch (1977). They included one
merit selection procedure and eight preferential selection procedures that varied in the
justification provided for basing selection on sex and in the provision of information about
participant scores on an ability pretest. Evaluations of the female leader were higher in the merit
condition and when the subjects were told she had equal or superior test scores than when they
were given no score information or were told she had inferior test scores.

B. Evaluations of Blacks and Other Minorities

Northcraft and Martin (1982) reported a study in which 32 participants were asked to
match five resumes to five recent hires, one of whom was Black. When the participants were told
the company needed to hire a Black to satisfy its affirmative action obligations, they paired the
Black employee with the weakest resume at a higher-than-chance level. This did not occur when
there was no mention of the company's need to hire a Black. In two studies (Ns = 168 and 135),
Garcia, Erskine, Hawn, and Casmay (1981) had White males and female undergraduates
evaluate minority applicants to graduate school in psychology. The applicant was either accepted
or rejected, and there either was or was not an affirmative action policy statement. The minority
applicant was evaluated less favorably when commitment to affirmative action was emphasized
than when it was not mentioned.
Nacoste and Fender (1993, cited in Nacoste, 1994) replicated and extended Garcia et al.
(1981). Their respondents read a scenario about a Black student who had applied for admission
to a graduate program in psychology, and there was or was not an affirmative action statement.
In addition to evaluating the applicant, respondents reported their beliefs about the nature of
typical affirmative action programs, the evaluations of such programs relative to available
options, and the relative advantage of groups with and without affirmative action programs.
Nacoste and Fender replicated the findings of Garcia et al. (1981). In addition, they showed that
 39

respondents who believed Blacks were at a disadvantage in competing for slots in a graduate
program were responsible for the elevated evaluation of the Black student in the no-affirmative
action condition.
The previous studies dealt with reactions to individual members of the target group. Maio
and Esses (1996) asked whether the stigmatization effect would generalize to the target group as
a whole. Their 51 Canadian undergraduate respondents were given information about a little-
known group that might be forced to emigrate to Canada to escape a natural disaster. In both
conditions the instructions stated that the group would contribute to the Canadian economy, but
in the experimental condition they also stated that the group members would profit from
affirmative action. Analyses revealed significant effects of condition on five of the seven
dependent variables, with ratings being less positive when affirmative action was mentioned.
There was some weak evidence that this stigmatization effect was larger among the respondents
who initially had negative attitudes toward affirmative action; a stronger test of this effect would
be provided by a larger sample. Due to its emphasis on stigmatization of groups rather than
individuals, this study represents a novel and important extension of previous work.

C. Summary

Majority members typically view women and minorities selected through AAPs to be less
competent than those selected without affirmative action, and this effect may generalize to
evaluations of the target group as a whole. Such findings occur when affirmative action is
operationalized as strong preferential treatment and when affirmative action is not defined
procedurally, that is, when affirmative action is simply mentioned. This stigmatization may be
eliminated by providing clear and compelling evidence of the woman or minority member’s
competence. A frequent criticism of affirmative action is that non-target group members will
stigmatize target groups members, as found in this research. Thus, it is interesting to ask whether
people believe this stigmatization occurs. Witt (1990) asked her university faculty respondents
whether they believed affirmative action: (a) perpetuates the myth of minority and female
inferiority, and (b) robs successful women and minorities of a sense of accomplishment. Among
her White males, 21% agreed with the first point, and 17% with the second. Agreement rates
were lower among minorities; only 8% of the Black females agreed with each of the statements.
Research on self-evaluations, discussed below, finds that self-evaluations are strongly affected
by information about the specific AAP and qualifications of the selected individual. The effects
of AAP detail and qualifications on judgments made by non-target group members merit
additional attention.

D. Effects on Relations Among Parties

Little research has addressed the effect of affirmative action programs on relations among
target and non-target groups. Heilman (1994) summarized anecdotal evidence of angry and
hostile reactions by non-target groups. For example, she noted an article reporting violence
during a rally protesting the layoff of White male police instead of Black and female officers
with less seniority. Heilman, McCullough and Gilbert (1996) investigated males' reactions to
strong preferential treatment of females in a laboratory task in which a female was appointed to
be the leader and the male was appointed to be a follower. They found males' reactions to be
negative unless (a) males believed themselves inferior to the females in task relevant ability or
 40

(b) the males thought themselves equal to the females in ability and were also given a historical
rationale for the female being appointed as the leader.
Barnes Nacoste (1992) presents a model of the relations among the enacting agency, target
group, and non-target group. He argues that harmonious relations between target and non-target
group members can only be expected when both have positive reactions to the AAP; that is,
when target group members have low evaluation apprehension and non-target group members
believe that target group members are qualified. Interactions will be strained if either group has
negative reactions to the AAP. Consistent with the research summarized above, Barnes Nacoste
(1992) argues that details of the AAP will determine these reactions. Barnes Nacoste (1994)
extends this model with his policy schema approach, and argues that relations will be determined
by the parties' policy schemas. These schemas will be based, in part but not completely, on
details of the AAP.
A related question concerns the effect of affirmative action on relations between
individuals and the organizations by which they are employed. There is very little research of
this type. Witt (1990) reports the results of three discriminant analyses on the job satisfaction of
White male university faculty, and concludes that the effects of attitudes toward affirmative
action are minimal when compared to the effects of time demand and other types of stress.
Konrad and Linnehan (1995b) found that employee ratings of career opportunities and
organizational commitment were not related to the number of affirmative action procedures
employed by the company. In a laboratory experiment, Heilman et al. (1996) found that
willingness to engage in citizenship behaviors (help the experimenter code data) was affected by
selection procedure, being higher when selection was based on merit than when it was based on
sex. Information about relative qualifications and justification for the use of sex did not moderate
this effect. Leck, Saunders, and Charbonneau (1995) asked White male and female employees of
a Canadian publishing company how they would respond if female or minority employees were
added to their work groups. Their intentions were associated with resistance to integration,
support for equal opportunity, belief that some positive action is needed to hire more women and
minority employees, and support for employer rights. Finally, in a study combining laboratory
and field samples Bell (1996) found that intentions to perform a broad set of AAP-related
behaviors were strongly related to attitudes toward the AAPs.

V. PSYCHOLOGICAL AND BEHAVIORAL EFFECTS OF AFFIRMATIVE

ACTION ON TARGET GROUP MEMBERS

In this section, we review the empirical research on psychological and behavioral effects
of affirmative action on target group members. The review is based in part on Turner and
Pratkanis (1994a). This research has included three categories of outcomes: (a) measures of
motivation and task interest, (b) self-evaluations of ability and performance, and (c)
performance. After discussing empirical research, we briefly review theoretical explanations for
the reported effects.

A. Measures of Motivation, Interest, Commitment, and Choice

Research concerning the effects of selection procedures on task motivation, interest,

commitment, and choice has been conducted primarily with female respondents. Results of these
investigations are rather inconsistent.
 41

Some studies indicate that affirmative action and sex-based selection procedures decrease
motivation and interest. In a survey of 70 women in managerial or supervisory positions in a
variety of organizations, Chacko (1982) found that women who believed their sex was the reason
for their hiring reported lower job commitment and satisfaction and greater role ambiguity and
conflict than women who did not believe sex played an important role in their hiring. Heilman et
al. (1987), however, did not observe deleterious effects of sex-based selection on measures of
task motivation or interest. Similarly, Turner, Pratkanis, and Hardaway (1991) and Turner and
Pratkanis (1993) found that selection on the basis of sex did not directly impair self-reported
motivation for a task.
In one of the few national field studies on this issue, Taylor (1994) examined the attitudes
of 319 White women, 40 Black women, and 32 Black men who said they worked for firms that
either did or did not employ affirmative action procedures. Results showed that White women
working for firms with affirmative action programs did not differ significantly from White
women working for firms without such programs in their self-reports of job satisfaction, working
by choice as opposed to money, desire for an enriched job, life satisfaction, happiness and other
measures. Of these measures, only two differed significantly for Black men and women. First,
Black respondents reported a greater desire for an enriched job (i.e., a job that would require a
greater degree of ambition, chances for advancement, feeling of accomplishment) when they said
they worked for a firm with affirmative action than when they reported they worked for a firm
without affirmative action. Black men and women differed in their evaluations of the degree of
excitement in their lives. Black men working for firms without affirmative action reported more
positive evaluations than did Black men working for firms with affirmative action programs.
Black women showed the opposite pattern.
In a mail survey reported by Graves and Powell (1994), 188 MBA graduates (61 of whom
were male; 96 of whom were White) were asked to indicate the influence of sex in general and of
sex-based affirmative action in past and future selection decisions, and to indicate their job
satisfaction, organizational commitment, and intent to remain with their organizations. Results
indicated that men felt their gender benefited them in selection and promotion decisions more
than did women. Women felt that they benefited from sex-based affirmative action procedures
more than did men. Job satisfaction was affected by respondent sex, perceptions of the overall
influence of sex in selection decisions, and perceptions of sex-based affirmative action. For men,
satisfaction and commitment increased as discrimination against males decreased, remained level
when practices were sex neutral or favored men somewhat, and increased when practices offered
a great advantage to men. For women, satisfaction was not related to the effect of sex on
selection practices. Commitment, however, increased as perceptions of overall influence of sex
increased. Unlike the satisfaction measure, sex moderated the relationship between perceptions
of affirmative action and commitment. Females were more committed when they perceived that
affirmative action practices were advantageous to females. For males, commitment increased as
affirmative action practices were perceived as sex neutral or as favoring males, and then leveled
off.
Several studies have examined how selection affects task or job choice. Heilman and
Herlihy (1984) found that 90 male high school students expressed less interest in an occupation
in which sex-based as opposed to merit criteria was used. On the other hand, 85 female students
expressed less interest only when treatment on the basis of sex was given and the proportion of
women in the occupation was relatively high -- that is, 28% of the employees were female versus
8%. Nacoste (1987) found that women who read a scenario about a competitively awarded
university research grant were less likely to report that they would apply for a job at that
 42

university when sex alone was used as the basis of the award than when both sex and
qualifications were employed. Graves and Powell (1994) found that intent to remain with an
organization was generally unaffected by respondents' perceptions of the overall influence of sex
in selection and promotion decisions and of sex-based affirmative action procedures, although
there was some indication that females expressed a greater intent to remain in organizations with
affirmative action procedures perceived as favorable to women. In two separate studies, Heilman
et al. (1987; Heilman, Lucas, & Kaplow, 1990) found that females' desire to remain in leadership
roles was adversely affected when they were told they were selected for their positions on the
basis of sex. Finally, Heilman et al. (1991) reported that women selected on the basis of sex
subsequently chose a less demanding task than did women selected on the basis of merit. Males
did not differ in their task choice as a function of selection procedure. In a second study, the type
of selection procedure influenced females' task choices. Only females selected on the basis of sex
and who were given no information about their qualifications chose the less demanding task.
Females who were selected on the basis of sex and given positive information about their
qualifications, like females selected on the basis of merit, were more likely to choose the more
demanding task.
Three effects appear to hold when considering the relationships among selection
procedure and measures of task motivation and interest. First, women's reports of task
motivation, interest, and job satisfaction do not appear to be reliably affected by sex-based
selection or affirmative action. Second, women's task and job choice seem to be more
consistently affected by sex-based selection: Women were more likely to choose easier versus
harder tasks and to show less interest in occupations in which sex alone was used as the basis for
selection. This second finding may reflect the fact that being selected solely on the basis of sex
raises doubts about one's ability, and that recipients may attempt to avoid the stigma that is often
attached to being selected on the basis of sex. Third, the effect on women's task choice is
determined by the nature of the implementation strategy. When the implementation strategy
provides unambiguous, explicit, and focused evidence regarding qualifications, affirmative
action and sex-based selection do not adversely affect task choice. Because only one study
focused on race-based selection procedures, we cannot draw any general conclusions about
effects of such procedures.

B. Self-evaluations of Ability and Performance

The bulk of research on effects of selection procedures on recipient self-evaluations of

ability and performance has also dealt with gender-based selection procedures. Few
investigations examine how ethnic minorities respond to equivalent race- or ethnicity-based
selection processes (but see articles by Arthur et. al, 1992, Doverspike & Arthur, 1995, Nacoste,
1994, Taylor, 1994, for exceptions; see Eberhardt & Fiske, 1994 for a discussion of the pitfalls of
generalizing to other demographic groups). This research suggests that affirmative action, under
certain conditions, may affect women's self-evaluations of abilities and performance.
Most experimental studies examining this issue use a paradigm developed by Jacobson
and Koch (1977). They paired male participants with a female confederate who was assigned to a
leadership position on the basis of sex (strong preferential treatment), chance, or superior
performance on a test (merit). After performing a one-way communication task with the
confederate, the dyad was told they had either succeeded or failed at the task.
Heilman et al. (1987) used a similar paradigm to examine leaders' self-perceptions.
Female and male participants were told they were selected for a leadership role in a one-way
 43

communication task on the basis of either merit or sex. In the merit-based selection condition,
participants were told that their scores on a test purportedly measuring leadership ability
indicated they were qualified to assume the leadership role. In the gender selection condition,
participants were told that insufficient numbers of males or females had participated in the study
and that because of their respective sex they would assume the leadership role. Again,
participants were told their dyad had either succeeded (that is, scored in the top quartile of all
participants) or failed (scored in the bottom quartile). Results showed that females who were
selected on the basis of their sex evaluated their leadership ability and their global task
performance more poorly than did females who were selected on the basis of merit. Males, in
contrast, were largely unaffected by the selection procedure. Moreover, these results occurred
despite the level of objective feedback concerning task performance.
It is important to note that the sex-based selection procedure employed in this study was
ambiguous with regard to applicant qualifications (i.e., the purported selection test was not
scored). These results suggest that procedures that employ sex as the sole selection criterion and
leave the issue of qualifications open can adversely affect members of the targeted group.
Certainly, one question raised by this study is whether indications of applicant qualifications
would overcome these consequences. Several studies have addressed this issue.
As a whole, this line of research suggests that overt (but not subtle) indications of
qualifications may overcome the effects of sex-based selection. Along these lines, Turner et al.
(1991) reasoned that the negative consequences of this type of selection should be especially
apparent when individuals are assigned to a job for which they have low expectations of success
(such as when individuals face "sex-inappropriate" tasks) but should be less apparent when
expectations of success are greater (such as when individuals face "sex-appropriate" tasks). To
test these hypotheses, Turner et al. (1991) told 96 male and 96 female participants that they were
selected on the basis of either merit or sex. Participants were assigned to a task that was
described using either masculine or feminine sex-role attributes, and were told they either
succeeded or failed. Results suggested that males and females responded differently to
meritorious and sex-based selection procedures, and that the sex-typing of the job did little to
affect these responses. Females selected on the basis of sex evaluated their decision making
ability, their decision making performance, their counseling ability, and their counseling
performance more negatively than did meritoriously selected females. In contrast, the
evaluations of males selected on the basis of sex were slightly but generally not significantly
higher than those of their meritoriously selected counterparts. Contrary to some previous
research, males' and females' self-evaluations of their general, overall performance effectiveness
were affected only by feedback and not by the type of selection process they experienced.
Nacoste (1989) told 97 male and female participants that they were selected for inclusion
in the experiment on the basis of either merit (their score on a qualifying test) or sex (a lack of
male or female participants for the study). Based on a prior survey, Nacoste also selected equal
numbers of male and female participants who thought affirmative action policies were fair or
unfair. Respondents predicted their creativity scores, and these predictions can be treated as
ratings of self-efficacy. There was an effect of procedure on self-efficacy among those who
considered affirmative action unfair, but not among those who considered affirmative action fair.
Thus, selection on the basis of a procedure considered to be unfair led to lower self-efficacy.
Brutus and Ryan (1994) told 84 female undergraduates they had been selected on the basis
of merit or direct preferential treatment. In an ambiguous selection condition, the experimenter
stated that selection was merit-based but an experimental confederate said it was gender-based.
Participants' explanations for their selection varied with the interaction of procedure and a pre-
 44

manipulation measure of self-efficacy, so that self-efficacy had the strongest effect when the
selection procedure was ambiguous. Self-evaluation, however, was not affected by selection
procedure or self-efficacy.
Several aspects of these results are worth noting. First, feedback directed specifically at
the performance of the individual does seem effective in overcoming some negative effects of
sex-based selection procedures. Turner et al. (1991), for example, found that providing success
feedback (i.e., scores in the top quartile) to participants selected on the basis of sex overcame the
negative effects of sex-based selection on self-evaluations of overall performance effectiveness.
However, this general feedback did not generalize to other more specific attributes of
performance, nor did it generalize to evaluations of ability. Thus, sex-based selection impaired
females' self-evaluations of specific components of performance but not overall effectiveness.
This finding is consistent with models of self-esteem maintenance, suggesting that one way to
deal with threatening information is to localize the threat to a single domain and then distance or
"disidentify" with that area (Steele, 1992). Finally, subtle indications of qualifications, such as
assignment to a sex-role consistent positions, do not seem to mitigate the negative consequences
of sex-based selection procedures.
Research on more salient indicators of qualifications reveals stronger moderating effects.
Nacoste (1985) asked 96 female undergraduates to read a scenario describing the selection
process for a competitively awarded university research grant. Women who read a scenario in
which the grant was awarded on the basis of both sex and applicant qualifications reported more
positive affective evaluations than did women who read a scenario in which the grant was
awarded on the basis of sex alone. (This summary variable included measures of competency,
relaxation, pleasure, etc.)
The previously-discussed research by Arthur et al. (1992) partially supported these results.
All participants reported more negative affective evaluations (a composite of measures of
feelings of incompetence, dissatisfaction, irritation, displeasure, etc.) when the recipients were
less qualified than when they were equally qualified. In their partial reanalysis of these data,
Doverspike and Arthur (1995) found that affect was more negative when the candidates'
qualifications were unequal than when they were equal. Analyses of affect also revealed a
significant interaction of Sex X Race X Qualifications. Evaluations of competence were affected
by a main effect of selection policy (with race-only conditions evaluated more positively than
race-and-qualifications conditions), a main effect of qualifications (equal qualifications more
positively evaluated than unequal qualifications), and several second order interactions.
However, these findings were qualified by a significant four way interaction of sex, selection
policy, qualifications, and race. Generally, all participants evaluated themselves more positively
when (a) their qualifications were greater and when (b) both race and qualifications were part of
the procedures. The one exception was Black males who evaluated themselves more positively in
the race only condition than in the race and qualifications condition. This may have been an
example of the self-protective properties that can be induced by these policies (e.g., Crocker &
Major, 1989).
Heilman et al. (1990) told male and female participants they were assigned to a leadership
task on the basis of merit or sex. In addition, participants assigned on the basis of sex either were
given no information, were told they did well and scored better than a confederate, or were told
they did poorly and scored worse than a confederate on a qualifying test. Results showed that
females selected on the basis of sex who received either no information or negative information
about their scores evaluated their leadership ability and performance more poorly than did both
meritoriously selected females and females selected on the basis of sex who were given positive
 45

information about their scores. Males' self-evaluations were less favorable only in the sex-based
selection procedure, negative information condition.
Finally, Major, Feinstein, and Crocker (1994) found that self-evaluations of leader skill
were affected by the interaction of participant sex with selection procedure. When selected on
the basis of sex alone, males evaluated their skill more positively than females. The
self-evaluations of males and females did not differ when they were selected on the basis of
merit and on the basis of both sex and merit. Interestingly, somewhat in contrast to Heilman et al.
(1990), self-evaluations of leader skill were not affected directly by selection procedure. Major et
al. (1994) also found that leaders selected on the basis of sex believed their qualifying score and
ability were less important in their selection than did participants selected on the basis of merit
and on the basis of sex and merit. Additionally, men were less likely to say their sex was an
important factor in their selection than were women.
Taken together, the results of these studies provide clear evidence that selection
procedures can have both deleterious and beneficial consequences for women's self-evaluations
of ability and performance. The nature of the implementation strategy appears to determine the
characteristics of these responses (see Barnes Nacoste, 1990 for a procedural justice
interpretation). To combat the self-deprecation effect, the evidence regarding qualifications must
be unambiguous in its confirmation of the woman's competency. Tactics that provide no
information about qualifications appear to indicate to targeted women that their qualifications are
deficient, which in turn results in self-deprecation. The evidence of the woman's qualifications
should be explicit. Strategies that provide only subtle indications of competencies clearly
produce poorer self-evaluations than do meritorious selection strategies. Finally, the evidence
should be focused. Feedback was ineffective in mitigating the poorer self-evaluations associated
with sex-based selection when it was not concerned with the recipient's performance on specific
components of the task. Because virtually all the research was limited to women's reactions to
sex-based selection procedures, we cannot yet draw conclusions about effects of race-based
procedures.
This research has revealed that sex-based selection procedures can affect self-evaluations
of ability and performance. One obvious question is whether such selection actually affects
performance. Thus, we now turn to research on effects of selection procedure on performance.

C. Performance

Only three studies have experimentally investigated the effects of sex-based selection on
task performance. Brutus and Ryan (1994), discussed above, found that performance varied with
the interaction of selection procedure and self-efficacy. Self-efficacy had a stronger effect on
performance when the selection procedure was ambiguous than when it was clearly merit-based.
Nacoste (1989) told 48 male and 49 female participants that they were selected for
participation in the experiment on the basis of either merit or sex. There were equal numbers of
male and female participants who thought affirmative action policies were fair or unfair. On a
brainstorming task, Nacoste found no differences due to selection procedure or fairness
perceptions.
A study by Turner and Pratkanis (1993) demonstrated that performance is complexly
affected by selection processes and conceptualizations of task requirements. Female participants
(N = 60) were told that they were assigned to a position on the basis of either merit or sex, and
that successful performance on the experimental task required either effort or inherent
capabilities. Participants performed eight trials of a standard brainstorming task. Women who
 46

were told they were selected on the basis of sex performed better when the task required
capability rather than effort. In contrast, meritoriously selected women showed the opposite
pattern; they performed better when the task required effort rather than capability. Interestingly,
self-evaluations of performance effectiveness were affected only by the selection procedures.
Females selected on the basis of sex evaluated their performance creativity, their performance
quality, and the degree of analytic judgment they demonstrated more poorly than meritoriously
selected participants. This finding replicates many of the results discussed earlier. Turner and
Pratkanis interpreted their results as supporting a self-handicapping model of sex-based selection
whereby individuals who feel uncertain about their ability allocate less effort to the task in an
attempt to attribute possible failure to a lack of effort rather than a lack of ability. Thus, females
selected on the basis of sex performed more poorly when the task was described as requiring
effort (a self-handicapping tactic). No such ready-made excuse was available for participants
selected on the basis of sex who were told the task required inherent capability, and their
performance was not deleteriously affected.
In summary, laboratory findings reveal a complicated relationship between sex-based
selection procedures and individual task performance. Effects of selection procedure on
performance appear to be moderated by such variables as self-efficacy and task characteristics,
which may affect task performance through their influence on self-handicapping strategies.
Future studies on this topic are needed. Researchers should examine other selection strategies,
additional measures of task performance, and various potential modifiers of the relationship
between selection procedure and performance. In addition, there is a need for research on race-
based selection.

D. Theoretical Perspectives on Recipient Reactions to Affirmative Action

A number of theories have been employed to interpret research findings on recipient

reactions to affirmative action. These predictive and explanatory models of recipient reactions to
affirmative action draw on several disciplines, including social psychology, organizational
behavior, sociology, and social cognition. In this section, we review five such perspectives.
Pettigrew and Martin (1987) invoked the notion of triple jeopardy to explain recipient
reactions to affirmative action. They suggested that target group members (and specifically
Black Americans) may be subjected to three pressures in organizational settings. Negative
stereotypes, solo status (being the sole target group member) and token status (the perception
that the employee is incompetent because he or she obtained employment through affirmative
action) together are predicted to contribute to such outcomes as exaggerated expectations,
assumed dissimilarities, extreme and/or distorted evaluations, and possibly distorted
performance.
Barnes Nacoste (1990; 1994) used procedural justice theories to predict reactions to
affirmative action (see also Clayton and Crosby, 1992). He suggested that affirmative action
policies and procedures that conform to the requirements of procedural justice (e.g., those that
are perceived as fair, give primary weight to merit, are used to overcome discrimination, etc.) are
more likely to produce positive recipient reactions. Policies that violate procedural justice
requirements induce the stigma of incompetence and engender negative recipient reactions.
Heilman and her colleagues (see Heilman, 1994 for a review) suggested that sex-based selection
and affirmative action policies that do not strongly incorporate candidate qualifications raise
questions about applicant competency and induce negative self-evaluations. According to
Heilman, programs that incorporate information about qualifications do not have such negative
 47

consequences. Similarly, Crocker and Major (e.g., Major et al., 1994) suggested that certain
forms of affirmative action induce attributional ambiguity on the part of recipients. According to
this perspective, affirmative action recipients may experience uncertainty about the causes of
their outcomes (such as pay or performance) because these outcomes may be attributed to
affirmative action rather than to any personal characteristics or behavior (such as education,
ability, or effort).
Finally, Turner and Pratkanis (1993, 1994a, 1994b; Turner et al., 1991) developed a model
in which affirmative action can be perceived as a form of help. Like other forms of help or
assistance, it can induce positive consequences, negative consequences, or a combination of
positive and negative consequences. According to the model, affirmative action engenders
immediate negative outcomes (such as negative self-evaluations of ability and performance,
negative affect, negative evaluations of the procedure and the organization, coupled with a high
degree of motivation to alter the situation and defensive behavior) when it is self-threatening
(i.e., it provides negative self-relevant messages, violates important societal norms, and fails to
provide instrumental benefits by removing discriminatory institutional barriers). These
short-term consequences are predicted to translate into long-term negative consequences of
learned helplessness and dependence when the recipient perceives a low level of personal control
to change the situation. However, when the recipient feels a high level of personal control, more
positive consequences such as attempts to alter the organizational situation or attempts to
improve the recipient's situation are possible. In contrast, Turner and Pratkanis suggested that
affirmative action induces positive outcomes when it is self-supportive for the recipient. When
affirmative action provides positive self-relevant messages (i.e., it provides explicit,
unambiguous, and focused evidence of qualifications), conforms to important societal norms
(i.e., it is procedurally fair, promotes independence and self-reliance, and rewards excellence),
and provides instrumental benefits (i.e., it provides indications of future success and removes
barriers to success and advancement), it is likely to produce positive immediate and long term
outcomes such as positive evaluations of ability and performance, positive affect, low motivation
to alter the situation and low degree of self-protective defensive behavior.

E. Summary

This review suggests that affirmative action programs may have positive, negative, or both
positive and negative consequences for recipients. Women’s task choices and self-evaluations of
ability and performance can be negatively affected by sex-based selection procedures that
provide no evidence of recipient qualifications. Programs that provide explicit, unambiguous,
and focused evidence of recipient qualifications, in contrast, do not appear to impair task choice
or self-evaluations of performance and ability. The selection procedure does not appear to
strongly affect women’s motivation. As these other results might imply, research suggests a
complex relationship between selection procedure and individual task performance. However,
few studies have been conducted on this topic. In sum, it appears that the implementation
strategy assumes primary importance in determining the nature of women’s reactions to
affirmative action. Thus, as with any other organizational change effort, the consequences of the
intervention depend heavily on the specific characteristics of its implementation. Finally,
virtually none of this research has dealt with reactions of racial minorities to race-based selection
procedures, and there is a clear need for such research.
 48

VI. ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ON TARGET GROUPS

It is also important to know whether affirmative action has improved the employment
status of women and minorities. Research on the issue of target group attainment has revolved
around three categories of outcomes: (a) employment rates, (b) income attainment, and (c)
promotion rates and occupational attainment.

A. Employment of Women and Minorities in Organizations

Several studies have examined how employment has varied as a function of affirmative
action policies. Leonard (1990), in a review of the economic literature, concluded that
affirmative action increased the proportion of Black males in federal contractor firms in the early
1970s, although this was frequently limited to nonskilled occupations (e.g., Beller, 1978;
Burstein, 1978; Goldstein & Smith, 1976; Heckman & Wolpin, 1976). Results for Black females
and White females are less consistent in showing gains (e.g., Goldstein & Smith, 1976; Heckman
& Wolpin, 1976). However, between 1974 and 1980, Black male and female employment
increased significantly faster in organizations that were growing and in federal contractors than
in other establishments (see further Leonard, 1984a, 1984b, 1984c).
In an analysis of EEO-1 compliance reports, Smith and Welch (1984) demonstrated a shift
in Black employment from noncontractor to contractor firms during the years from 1966-1970.
They also concluded that Black males were three times as likely to report they were managers or
professionals in 1980 than in 1966; women and Black females were twice as likely to do so.
Likewise, Osterman (1982) concluded that women employed in industries that received greater
attention from the Office of Federal Contract Compliance and had higher rates of federal
purchases had lower quit rates than women not employed in these industries. Warner and Steel
(1989) reviewed data from over 280 municipal police departments and concluded that
departments with a stronger commitment to hiring women had greater utilization rates of women
in policing jobs, although this difference was sometimes dampened in times of budgetary stress.
More recently, Uri and Mixon (1991), in an analysis of male and female employment data
from 1947 to 1988, demonstrated that women aged 20-54 had more stable employment from
1965-1980, although they lost some of these gains during 1981-1988. Men showed the opposite
effect. Uri and Mixon also suggested that affirmative action programs increased women's share
of projected employment while decreasing that of men. Other researchers suggest that the
magnitude of these latter changes may be quite limited (for reviews see Clayton & Crosby, 1992;
Johnson, 1990; and Leonard, 1989).
Research using more focused samples also suggests some effects of affirmative action
policies on employment outcomes. Konrad and Linnehan (1995a), using a sample of 138 firms in
a major metropolitan area, demonstrated that human resource management policies that took
protected category status into account were positively associated with the percentage of people
of color in the firm's management and the rank of the highest woman in the firm. However, these
policies were not significantly associated with the percentage of women employed by the firm,
the percentage of women in management, the percentage of people of color employed by the
firm, or the rank of people of color. Konrad and Linnehan also found that human resource
management policies that did not take protected category status into account were not associated
with any of their measures. In contrast, government contractor status was positively associated
with the percentage of women employed and the percentage of women in management. Further,
 49

firms which were subjected to compliance reviews had lower percentages of female employees
and female managers than did firms which were not subjected to compliance reviews.

B. Income Attainment

Examinations of income attainment by women and minorities before and after the
enactment of civil rights legislation has yielded somewhat inconsistent results. Burstein (1978)
suggested that salaries of non-Whites were positively affected by affirmative action legislation.
Smith and Welch (1984) reported substantial wage gains for Black men and women during
1967-1981 but suggested that most wages gains came prior to 1974. Son, Model, and Fisher
(1989) found that the income gap between Blacks and Whites increased during the years between
1974 and 1981. This finding was moderated by educational attainment. Blacks with a high
school education or less earned less than their White counterparts. However, young Black
college graduates narrowed the income gap such that their income was quite similar to that of
college educated Whites. In contrast, Crosby, Allen, and Opotow (1992) concluded that
affirmative action legislation has not contributed to widening the income gap between middle
and lower class Blacks. Leonard (1990) suggested that affirmative action increased the
occupational attainment of non-White males and therefore has narrowed the wage gap between
Whites and non-Whites.

C. Promotional and Occupational Status

Research has also examined rates of promotion and occupational status of women and
minorities before and after the implementation of federally mandated equal employment
opportunity programs begun in the early 1970's. This is relevant to the present review because
the first principle of affirmative action is that the organization must abide by a policy of equal
opportunity. EEO programs implemented in elementary and secondary public education systems
of Oregon and New York reduced discriminatory hiring practices by about half (Eberts & Stone,
1985). DiPrete (1987) and DiPrete and Soule (1986) also found that EEO programs had positive
effects on the promotion of non-White and female lower level employees to higher level
positions in federal agencies. DiPrete and Soule point out that female and non-White lower-level
employees did not have a greater probability for promotion than did male and White lower-level
employees. Leonard (1990) reported that Black males increased their representation in skilled
trades from 1974 to 1980 in federal contractor firms, although the employment rates of all Blacks
did not increase over these years. Black females also increased employment share in all
occupations except technical, craft, and white-collar trainee (see Leonard, 1989 for a review of
the impact of affirmative action on women's employment). Son et al. (1989) found that Blacks'
occupational status was moderated by level of education. College-educated Blacks fared as well
or even better than their White counterparts; Blacks with high school education or less fared
more poorly than their White counterparts.

D. Summary

Research on the impact of affirmative action on demographic group attainment indicates

that, in general, gains have been made, although there is some evidence of losses for those with
low educational levels. All three categories of group level outcomes (employment rates, income
attainment, and promotion rates and occupational attainment) show some improvement over the
 50

time period in which affirmative action has been implemented. These field studies do have
several limitations, however. First, they have often have used proxy measures of affirmative
action such as the percentage of minorities employed or the date of the implementation of a
federal program. These measures have several drawbacks for examining specific responses of
recipients. They lack precision and provide little information on what seems to be a crucial
factor--the specific implementation strategy adopted by each firm. Second, such studies may be
insensitive to certain variables. For example, individuals who are hurt by a policy may leave the
organization and not be included in the study. The resultant sample may present an inaccurately
rosy picture. Third, performance measured at the firm or aggregate level provides no information
about individual responses to selection processes or the potential distribution of those responses.
Finally, single-wave time series and cross-sectional designs, such as those studies measuring
promotion rates before and after the implementation of EEO programs, are subject to multiple
interpretations that make it difficult to infer causal relations and to rule out alternative
explanations for the findings.

VII. ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ON ORGANIZATIONS

At issue in any discussion of the merits or drawbacks of affirmative action programs is the
impact, if any, on organizations. Thus, we now turn to research on organizational performance.
Two categories of organizational performance are reviewed -- measures of organizational
effectiveness and measures of financial equity.

A. Organizational Effectiveness

Several studies have examined how affirmative action programs, or lack thereof, influence
various measures of organizational effectiveness. In a study of manufacturing firms, Leonard
(1984a) found that the percentage of woman and minorities in a firm (construed as a measure of
the success of affirmative action policies) were not associated with measures of manufacturing
productivity and efficiency. Lovrich, Steel, and Hood (1986) compared police departments in 65
cities that had substantially increased their percent of minority police between 1978 and 1984 to
those in of 56 cities that had shown little increase. The two groups of departments were equally
effective. In a study using the same procedure, Steel and Lovrich (1987) compared performance
of police departments from 1970 through 1980. The found no consistent differences in
performance between departments with many (N = 34) or few (N = 39) female officers.

B. Stock Prices

Hersch (1991) found that firms charged with violations of antidiscrimination laws
experienced significant losses in equity value when a suit, decision, or settlement was
announced. Moreover, the average loss to shareholders exceeded the amount the firm was
required to spend to settle the case. Wright, Ferris, Hiller, and Kroll (1995) obtained similar
results, and also found that firms receiving awards for exemplary affirmative action programs
from the OFCCP had significant and positive excess returns (with respect to market valuation)
on the ten days following the announcement, although this dissipated over time.
 51

C. Summary

The research on organizational effectiveness has been limited to cross-sectional analyses

comparing organizations that probably differed in their emphasis on affirmative action. Thus,
there is a clear need for longitudinal research and for research on the effects of specific AAPs on
organizational effectiveness. Nonetheless, it is interesting to discover that these studies provide
no evidence for a negative effect of affirmative action on firm performance; there were no
differences between organizations that appeared to emphasize affirmative action and those that
did not. This conclusion contrasts with the prediction that increased minority hiring will be
associated with decreased utility (e.g., Hunter, Schmidt, & Rauschenberger, 1977). There is a
need to reconcile the theoretically-based prediction of decreased performance with the empirical
finding of no difference. This discrepancy may be explained by Steffy and Ledvinka's (1989)
computer simulation of the long-term effects of selecting employees according to different
fairness rules (e.g., Cleary's regression approach versus proportional hiring by racial group).
They found that utility was strongly affected by selection ratio and selection validity, but only
weakly affected by the fairness rule (selection procedure). These results suggest that the use of
affirmative action to increase minority representation may have little effect on organizational
productivity in the long run, as demonstrated by the research summarized in this section. The
nonsignificant effects are also inconsistent with the contention that increasing diversity will
improve organizational performance (e.g., Fernandez, 1991), though of course there is more to
diversity than race and gender. In the second area of research, it was found that stock prices drop
when organizations are charged with violations of antidiscrimination laws, and rise when
organizations are acknowledged for excellent affirmative action efforts.
Finally, it is important to stress that, although we have included all the relevant articles of
which we are aware, this review of economic effects doubtlessly is not comprehensive. We
provided this information because evaluations of affirmative action may be affected by
assumptions of its economic effects.
 52

VIII. CONCLUSIONS, LIMITATIONS OF CURRENT KNOWLEDGE, AND NEEDED

RESEARCH

A. Conclusions

The strongest conclusion that can be drawn from the reviewed research is that the
structure of an AAP will influence reactions to it. Attitudes are inversely related to the weighting
of demographic status, and evaluations of selection procedures are directly related to the
superiority of the chosen candidate. The effect of AAP structure on attitudes is mediated, at least
in part, by judgments of fairness and self-interest, and fairness ratings are highly correlated with
attitudes. There is slightly more support for AAPs directed at women and people with disabilities
than for AAPs directed at racial minorities, although this effect is moderated by respondent
demographic status in a manner consistent with self-interest. Minorities and women are more
supportive of affirmative action than are White males, but other demographic variables (e.g., age,
income, education) are of little consequence. Attitudes toward race-based affirmative action are
inversely related to racism, and limited research suggests that attitudes toward gender-based
affirmative action are inversely related to sexism. It has been suggested that attitudes will be
associated with judgments of relative deprivation of the target group and the respondent's own
group, but valid research is limited.
Some limited evidence suggests that there is great variability in what the public thinks
AAPs entail, and that public opinions are flexible. Opinions can be changed by providing the
respondent with information about details of the AAP and by some justification of the use of
affirmative action. Support for affirmative action is stronger if the respondent has personally
experienced discrimination. In addition, support for affirmative action is higher if the respondent
believes or is told that the target group has suffered discrimination. There is evidence, however,
that many Whites believe discrimination is no longer a problem, and that Blacks themselves are
to blame for the Black-White income gap. This belief is consistent with a structuralist ideology,
and attitudes are inversely related to acceptance of a conservative, structuralist political ideology.
Individuals who are identified as being selected under an AAP are perceived as less
competent, by themselves and by others, unless information is provided that clearly and
unambiguously demonstrates their competence. Conclusions regarding self-stigmatization must
be qualified because almost all the relevant research has been based on reactions of White
women to gender-based selection procedures; it is not known whether the results will generalize
to ethnic minorities selected in the context of race-based procedures. There is no empirical
research on effects of affirmative action on relations among groups, but theoretical work predicts
that effects will be negative unless the AAP is positively evaluated by all involved parties.
Our limited review of the economic literature found that implementation of affirmative
action is associated with improved employment conditions of women and racial minorities,
although the improvements have been relatively small and inconsistent across subgroups. Other
work revealed no apparent effects of affirmative action on organizational effectiveness. In
addition, research has found that formal charges of discrimination led to a decrease in stock
prices, and public recognition of affirmative action excellence led to a temporary increase in
stock prices. In short, there is evidence that affirmative action helps target group members, but
no empirical evidence that it harms organizations.
 53

B. Limitations and Needed Research

The conclusions drawn above must be tempered by limitations in the research. Much of
the research on target and non-target group members’ reactions has used experiments, which
necessarily simplify matters. This has the advantage of increasing internal validity, but does not
permit exploration of the complexity of affirmative action attitudes. Research using surveys, in
contrast, is more likely to permit such exploration. Survey research, however, lacks internal
validity. Indeed, all research on individual difference variables (e.g., gender, ethnicity, racism,
political perspective) lacks internal validity because these variables cannot be manipulated.
Ideally, every question should be addressed with multiple research strategies, and the weaknesses
of one strategy will be balanced by the strengths of others (McGrath, 1981). Unfortunately, as we
have mentioned throughout this review, many questions have been addressed in limited ways.
For example, research on self-stigmatization has been limited to reactions of women to gender-
based selection in (mainly laboratory) experiments.
Another potential limitation is the contextual realism of the research and stimuli for
participants. In comparison to actual AAPs, the stimuli used in most of this research have been
simplistic. In addition, except for a few field studies with employed adults, this research has not
been done within the context of an actual AAP. Furthermore, much of the research has been done
with undergraduates who typically have had little direct experience with affirmative action. This
lack of direct experience has important implications for how "crystallized" attitudes towards
AAPs may be, and therefore how easy they are to change or how strongly they manifest
themselves in behavior. Insofar as research on attitudes toward AAPs is concerned primarily
with content differences across persons and contexts rather than process differences (Eberhardt
& Fiske, 1994), the external validity of studies done with undergraduates responding to novel
scenarios is uncertain until demonstrated otherwise.
On a related point, there is a great need for research on what organizations actually do to
implement their AAPs (cf. Konrad & Linnehan, 1995a). This information could be used to
improve the mundane realism of research on reactions to AAPs, and to evaluate the accuracy of
public beliefs. There is also a need for research on public beliefs about what actions are and
should be included in AAPs. This information would help administrators develop AAPs that help
the target groups without stimulating resentment and opposition.
Confusion about what affirmative action entails has been increased by inconsistent
statements made by decision makers and published by the media. A similar confusion reigns in
the professional literature. In brief, operational definitions of affirmative action have varied
considerably, but this variation has not been accompanied by a parallel variation in terminology.
Thus, some people operationalize affirmative action as quotas, others as preferential treatment
(weak, strong, or unspecified), others as recruitment, others as the elimination of discrimination,
etc. Given the strong effect of AAP structure on reactions, this inconsistency in operational
definitions has sometimes led to a parallel inconsistency in results. We recommend that
researchers use more precise terms when describing their research; "affirmative action" is too
vague.
Most of the research we reviewed was performed in the United States, although Canada,
New Zealand, and the Netherlands were also represented. There is a need for additional research
on affirmative action in other countries, and for an additional attention to cultural influences on
reactions to affirmative action. In addition, the political climate in the United States has changed
 54

considerably since 1965, when EO11246 was issued. A review linking affirmative action
attitudes to other changes over time would be a valuable contribution.
Another important question is how individuals' attitudes change over time, especially as a
function of experience with affirmative action; we know of no longitudinal research on this
question. Still another important question is how job satisfaction, organizational commitment,
and similar variables are related to reactions to the organization’s affirmative action plan. Witt
(1990) reports the results of three discriminant analyses on the job satisfaction of White male
university faculty, and concludes that attitudes toward affirmative action have little effect
compared to the effects of time demand and other types of stress. We know of no other research
on this important issue.
Another methodological concern is the possibility that people do not honestly express
their affirmative action attitudes. This potential problem was addressed in a recent article by
Coughlin (1995), who describes Timur Kuran's views on preference falsification. Kuran argues
that people are unwilling to express their negative opinions of affirmative action because they are
afraid of being labeled as racists. While this criticism applies to some research, much of the
published work is based on anonymous responses. In addition, it seems inconsistent with the
very negative evaluations of preferential treatment. Nonetheless, researchers who study
affirmative action (or any other sensitive topic) should take steps to ensure that respondents can
express their opinions openly and without fear.
In conclusion, previous research provides numerous questions and hypotheses about
affirmative action attitudes and about how affirmative action affects target group members and
non-members. Some conclusions can now be drawn with confidence, but much more research is
needed before we can claim to thoroughly understand the psychological and behavioral
implications of affirmative action.

IX. REFERENCES

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review
of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888-918.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Arthur, W., Jr., Doverspike, D., & Fuentes, R. (1992). Recipients' affective responses to
affirmative action interventions: A cross-cultural perspective. Behavioral Sciences and
the Law, 10, 229-243.
Ayers, L. R. (1992). Perceptions of affirmative action among its beneficiaries. Social Justice
Research, 5, 223-238.
Barnes Nacoste, R. (1990). Sources of stigma: Analyzing the psychology of affirmative action.
Law and Policy, 12, 175-194.
Barnes Nacoste, R. (1992). Toward a psychological ecology of affirmative action. Social
Justice Research, 5, 269-289.
Barnes Nacoste, R. (1994). If empowerment is the goal...: Affirmative action and social
interaction. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15, 87-112
Baron, R. M., & Graziano, W. G. (1991). Social psychology. Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart,
and Winston.
Bell, M. P. (1996). Attitudes toward affirmative action: Tests of a comprehensive framework.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Texas at Arlington.
 55

Bell, M. P., McLaughlin, M. E., & Harrison, D. A. (1996, August). The belief structure of
attitudes toward affirmative action: Gender, race, and population differences. Paper
presented at the meeting of the Academy of Management, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Beller, A. H. (1978). The economics of enforcement of an antidiscrimination law: Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Journal of Law and Economics, 21, 359-380.
Bennett-Alexander, D. D. (1990). The state of affirmative action in employment: A post-Stotts
retrospective. American Business Law Journal, 27, 565-597.
Bobo, L., & Kluegel, J. R. (1993). Opposition to race-targeting: Self-interest, stratification
ideology, or racial attitudes? American Sociological Review, 58, 443-464.
Bobo, L., & Smith, R. A. (1994). Antipoverty policies, affirmative action, and racial attitudes.
In S. H. Danziger, G. D. Sandefur, & D. H. Weinberg (Eds.), Confronting poverty:
Prescriptions for change (pp. 365-395). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bobocel, D. R., & Farrell, A. (1996). Sex-based promotion decisions and interactional fairness:
Investigating the influence of managerial accounts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81,
22-35.
Brutus, S., & Ryan, A. M. (1994, April). A new perspective on preferential treatment: The role
of ambiguity and self-efficacy. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Nashville.
Burstein, P. (1978). Equal employment opportunity legislation and the income of women and
nonwhites. American Sociological Review, 44, 367-391.
Burstein, P. (1985). On equal employment opportunity and affirmative action. In C. B. Marrett
& C. Leggon (Eds.), Research in race and ethnic relations (Vol. 4, pp. 91-112).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Chacko, T. I. (1982). Women and equal employment opportunity: Some unintended effects.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 119-123.
Clayton, S. D. (1992). Remedies for discrimination: Race, sex and affirmative action.
Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 10, 245-257.
Clayton, S. D. (in press). Reactions to social categorization: Evaluating one argument against
affirmative action. Journal of Applied Social Psychology.
Clayton, S. D. & Crosby, F. J. (1992). Justice, gender, and affirmative action. Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan Press.
Clayton, S. D., & Tangri, S. S. (1989). The justice of affirmative action. In F. A. Blanchard &
F. J. Crosby (Eds.), Affirmative action in perspective (pp. 177-192). New York: Springer-
Verlag.
Collison, M. N.-K. (1992, February 5). Colleges have done a bad job of explaining affirmative
action to students, critics say: As a result, some Whites view themselves as victims. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, A37-A38.
Coughlin, E. (1995, November 17). The Great Divide: Public Views, Private Thoughts. The
Chronicle of Higher Education, A6-A7.
Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties
of stigma. Psychological Review, 96, 608-630.
Cropanzano, R., & Greenberg, J. (in press). Progress in organizational justice: Tunneling
through the maze. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review of
industrial and organizational psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Crosby, F. (1976). A model of egotistical relative deprivation. Psychological Review, 83, 85-
113.
 56

Crosby, F. (1984). Relative deprivation in organizational settings. In B. M. Staw & L. L.

Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 6, pp. 51-93). Greenwich,
CT: JAI Press.
Crosby, F. J. (1994). Understanding affirmative action. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,
15, 13-41.
Crosby, F. J., Allen, B., & Opotow, S. (1992). Changing patterns of income among Blacks and
Whites before and after executive order 11246. Social Justice Research, 5, 335-341.
Davis, C. E., & West, J. P. (1984). Implementing public programs: Equal employment
opportunity, affirmative action, and administrative policy options. Review of Public
Personnel Administration, 4, 16-30.
de Vries, S., & Pettigrew, T. F. (1994). A comparative perspective on affirmative action:
Positieve Aktie in the Netherlands. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15, 179-199.
DiPrete, T. A. (1987). The professionalization of administration and equal employment
opportunity in the U. S. Federal Government. American Journal of Sociology, 93,
119-140.
DiPrete, T. A., & Soule, W. T. (1986). The organization of career lines: Equal employment
opportunity and status advancement in a federal bureaucracy. American Sociological
Review, 51, 295-309.
Doverspike, D., & Arthur, W. (1995). Race and sex differences in reactions to a simulated
selection decision involving race-based affirmative action. Journal of Black Psychology,
21(2), 181-200.
Dovidio, J. F., Mann, J., & Gaertner, S. L. (1989). Resistance to affirmative action: The
implications of aversive racism. In F. A. Blanchard & F. J. Crosby (Eds.), Affirmative
action in perspective (pp. 83-102). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Eberhardt, J. L., & Fiske, S. T. (1994). Affirmative action in theory and practice: Issues of
power, ambiguity, and gender versus race. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15,
201-220.
Eberts, R. W., & Stone, J. A. (1985). Male-female differences in promotions: EEO in public
education. Journal of Human Resources, 20, 504-521.
Edelman, L. B., Erlanger, H. S., & Lande, J. (1993). Internal dispute resolution: The
transformation of civil rights in the workplace. Law and Society Review, 27, 497-534.
Fernandez, J. P. (1981). Racism and sexism in corporate life. Lexington, MA: Lexington
Books.
Fernandez, J. P. (1991). Managing a diverse work force: Regaining the competitive edge.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Fine, T. S. (1992a). The impact of issue framing on public opinion toward affirmative action
programs. The Social Science Journal, 29(3), 232-334.
Fine, T. F. (1992b). Public opinion toward equal opportunity issues: The role of attitudinal and
demographic forces among African Americans. Sociological Perspectives, 35, 705-720.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to
theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Fletcher, J. F., & Chalmers, M. (1991). Attitudes of Canadians toward affirmative action:
Opposition, value pluralism, and nonattitudes. Political Behavior, 13(1), 67-95.
Fried, Y., Levi, A. S., Browne, K. R., & Billings, S. W. (1996). The relation between political
ideology and attitudes toward affirmative action among African-Americans: The
moderating effect of racial discrimination in the workplace. Unpublished manuscript.
 57

Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1986). The aversive form of racism. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L.
Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 61-89). Orlando: Academic
Press.
Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1987). The changing culture of affirmative action. In R. D.
Braungart (Ed.), Research in political sociology (Vol. 3, pp. 137-177). Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press.
Garcia, L. T., Erskine, N., Hawn, K., & Casmay, S. R. (1981). The effect of affirmative action
on attributions about minority group members. Journal of Personality, 49, 427-437.
Gilliland, S. W., & Haptonstahl, D. E. (1995, May). Distributive justice of preferential hiring
decisions. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL.
Glasser, I. (1988). Affirmative action and the legacy of racial injustice. In P. A. Katz & D. A.
Taylor (Eds.), Eliminating racism: Profiles in controversy (pp. 341-357). New York:
Plenum Press.
Goldsmith, N., Cordova, D., Dwyer, K., Langlois, B., & Crosby, F. J. (1989). Reactions to
affirmative action: A case study. In F. A. Blanchard & F. J. Crosby (Eds.), Affirmative
action in perspective (pp. 139-146). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Goldstein, M., & Smith, R. S. (1976). The estimated impact of the anti-discrimination program
aimed at federal contractors. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 29, 524-543.
Graves, L. M., & Powell, G. N. (1994). Effects of sex-based preferential selection and
discrimination on job attitudes. Human Relations, 47, 133-157.
Griggs v. Duke Power Co. 401 U.S. 424 (1971).
Groarke, L. (1990). Affirmative action as a form of restitution. Journal of Business Ethics, 9,
207-213.
Guttman, A. (1993). EEO law and personnel practices. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hattrup, K. (1994, April). The roles of the self-concept and fairness perceptions in reactions to
preferential hiring. In M. A. McDaniel (Chair), Research in affirmative action.
Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Nashville, TN.
Heckman, J. J., & Wolpin, K. I. (1976). Does the contract compliance program work? An
analysis of Chicago data. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 29, 544-564.
Heilman, M. E. (1994). Affirmative action: Some unintended consequences for working
women. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior
(Vol. 16, pp. 125-169). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., & Lucas, J. A. (1992). Presumed incompetent? Stigmatization and
affirmative action efforts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77, 536-544.
Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., & Stathatos, P. (in press). The affirmative action stigma of
incompetence: Effects of performance information ambiguity. Academy of Management
Journal.
Heilman, M. E., & Herlihy, J. M. (1984). Affirmative action, negative reaction? Some
moderating conditions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 33, 204-213.
Heilman, M. E., Lucas, J. A., & Kaplow, S. R. (1990). Self-derogating consequences of sex-
based preferential selection: The moderating role of initial self-confidence.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 46, 202-216.
Heilman, M. E., McCullough, W. F., & Gilbert, D. (1996). The other side of affirmative action:
Reactions of nonbeneficiaries to sex-based preferential selection. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 81, 346-357.
 58

Heilman, M. E., Rivero, J. C., & Brett, J. F. (1991). Skirting the competence issue: Effects of
sex-based preferential selection on task choices of women and men. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 76, 99-105.
Heilman, M. E., Simon, M. C., & Repper, D. P. (1987). Intentionally favored, unintentionally
harmed? Impact of sex-based preferential selection on self-perceptions and self-
evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 62-68.
Hersch, J. (1991). Equal employment opportunity law and firm profitability. Journal of Human
Resources, 26, 139-153.
Hitt, M. A., & Keats, B. W. (1984). Empirical identification of the criteria for effective
affirmative action programs. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 20, 203-222.
Hunter, J. E., Schmidt, F. L., & Rauschenberger, J. M. (1977). Fairness of psychological tests:
Implications of four definitions for selection utility and minority hiring. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 62, 245-260.
Ingwerson, M. (1995, March 31). Why Americans get riled up about racial hiring. The
Christian Science Monitor, 87(87), 1.
Jacobson, C. K. (1985). Resistance to affirmative action. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 29,
306-329.
Jacobson, M. B. & Koch, W. (1977). Women as leaders: Performance evaluation as a function
of method of leader selection. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 20,
149-157.
Johnson, R. A. (1990). Affirmative action policy in the United States: Its impact on women.
Policy and Politics, 18, 77-90.
Joly, S., Pelchat, D., & Tougas, F. (1993, May). Men and affirmative action: Opposition or
misconception? Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian
Psychological Association, Montreal.
Kinder, D. R. (1986). The continuing American dilemma: White resistance to racial change 40
years after Myrdal. Journal of Social Issues, 42(2), 151-171.
Kinder, D. R., & Sanders, L. M. (1990). Mimicking political debate with survey questions: The
case of White opinion on affirmative action for Blacks. Social Cognition, 8, 73-103.
Kluegel, J. R. (1985). "If there isn't a problem, you don't need a solution": The bases of
contemporary affirmative action attitudes. American Behavioral Scientist, 28, 761-784.
Kluegel, J. R. (1990). Trends in Whites' explanations of the Black-White gap in socioeconomic
status, 1977-1989. American Sociological Review, 55, 512-525.
Kluegel, J. R., & Smith, E. R. (1983). Affirmative action attitudes: Effects of self-interest,
racial affect, and stratification beliefs on Whites' views. Social Forces, 61(3), 797-824.
Konrad, A. M., & Linnehan, F. (1995a). Formalized HRM structures: Coordinating equal
employment opportunity or concealing organizational practices? Academy of
Management Journal, 38, 787-820.
Konrad, A. M., & Linnehan, F. (1995b). Race and sex differences in line managers' reactions to
equal employment opportunity and affirmative action interventions. Group and
Organization Management, 20, 409-439.
Kraus, S. J. (1995). Attitudes and the prediction of behavior: A meta-analysis of the empirical
literature. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 58-74.
Kravitz, D. A. (1994, April). Public perceptions of affirmative action. In D. A. Kravitz (Chair),
Affirmative action: Psychological research and practitioner reactions. Symposium
conducted at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, Nashville, TN.
 59

Kravitz, D. A. (1995). Attitudes toward affirmative action plans directed at Blacks: Effects of
plan and individual differences. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 2192-2220.
Kravitz, D. A., & Meyer, B. (1995). Reactions of Hispanics to affirmative action plans directed
at Hispanics. Poster session accepted for presentation at the 1996 annual meeting of the
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
Kravitz, D. A., & Platania, J. (1992, May). Attitudes and beliefs about race-based affirmative
action. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, Montreal, Canada.
Kravitz, D. A., & Platania, J. (1993). Attitudes and beliefs about affirmative action: Effects of
target and of respondent sex and ethnicity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 928-938.
Kravitz, D. A., Stinson, V., & Mello, E. W. (1994, August). Public reactions to affirmative
action. In M. E. Turner (Chair), Affirmative action at work: Towards reducing barriers to
the integrated workplace. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the Academy of
Management, Dallas, TX.
Kravitz, D. A., & Van Epps, K. (1995, June). Affirmative action and fairness. In F. Crosby
(Chair), Concepts of affirmative action. Symposium conducted at the Fifth International
Conference on Social Justice Research, Reno, NV.
Leck, J. D., Saunders, D. M., & Charbonneau, M. (1995). Affirmative action programs: An
organizational justice perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 35, 705-720.
Leonard, J. S. (1984a). Antidiscrimination or reverse discrimination: The impact of changing
demographics, Title VII, and affirmative action on productivity. Journal of Human
Resources, 19, 145-174.
Leonard, J. S. (1984b). Employment and occupational advance under affirmative action.
Review of Economics and Statistics, 66, 377-385.
Leonard, J. S. (1984c). The impact of affirmative action on employment. Journal of Labor
Economics, 2, 439-463.
Leonard, J. S. (1989). Women and affirmative action. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 3,
61-75.
Leonard, J. S. (1990). The impact of affirmative action regulation and equal employment law
on Black employment. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 4, 47-63.
Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study
of fairness in social relationships. In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis
(Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research (pp. 27-55). New York: Plenum
Press.
Levi, A. S., & Fried, Y. (1994). The effects of organizational framing of affirmative action on
program acceptance among White males: A contingency model. Manuscript submitted for
publication.
Lipset, S. M., & Schneider, W. (1978). The Bakke case: How would it be decided at the bar of
public opinion? Public Opinion, 1(1), 38-44.
Lovrich, N. P., Jr., Steel, B. S., & Hood, D. (1986). Equity versus productivity: Affirmative
action and municipal police services. Public Productivity Review, 39, 61-72.
Lynch, F. R. (1992). Race unconsciousness and the white male. Society, 29(2), 30-35.
Lynch, F. R., & Beer, W. R. (1990). "You ain't the right color, pal". Policy Review, 51, 64-67.
Maio, G. R., & Esses, V. M. (1996, July). Affirmative action can have deleterious effects on
perceptions of groups. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the American
Psychological Society, San Francisco.
 60

Major, B., Feinstein, J., & Crocker, J. (1994). The attributional ambiguity of affirmative action.
Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15, 113-141.
Mann, J. A., & Fasolo, P. M. (1992, April). Attitudes toward affirmative action: Effects of
procedural rationale and candidates' qualifications. Paper presented at the 63rd annual
meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, Boston, MA.
Matheson, K., Echenberg, A., Taylor, D. M., Rivers, D., & Chow, I. (1994). Women's attitudes
toward affirmative action: Putting actions in context. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 24, 2075-2096.
McConahay, J. B. (1982). Self-interest versus racial attitudes as correlates of anti-busing
attitudes in Louisville: Is it the buses or the Blacks? The Journal of Politics, 44, 692-720.
McConahay, J. B., & Hough, J. C., Jr. (1976). Symbolic racism. Journal of Social Issues,
32(2), 23-45.
McGrath, J. E. (1981). Dilemmatics: The study of research choices and dilemmas. American
Behavioral Scientist, 25, 179-210.
Murrell, A. J., Dietz-Uhler, B., Dovidio, J., Gaertner, S., & Drout, C. (1994). Aversive racism
and resistance to affirmative action: Perceptions of justice are not necessarily color blind.
Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15, 71-86.
Nacoste, R. W. (1985). Selection procedure and responses to affirmative action: The case of
favorable treatment. Law and Human Behavior, 9, 225-242.
Nacoste, R. W. (1987). But do they care about fairness? The dynamics of preferential treatment
and minority interest. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 8, 177-191.
Nacoste, R. W. (1989). Affirmative action and self-evaluation. In F. A. Blanchard & F. J.
Crosby (Eds.), Affirmative action in perspective (pp. 103-109). New York: Springer-
Verlag.
Nacoste, R. W. (1994). Policy schemas for affirmative action. In L. Heath, R. S. Tindale, J.
Edwards, E. J. Posavac, F. B. Bryant, E. Hendeson-King, Y. Suarez-Balcazar, & J. Myers
(Eds.) Applications of heuristics and biases to social issues (pp. 205-221). New York:
Plenum Press.
Nacoste, R. W. (1995). Procedural-interdependence: A general approach to the psychology of
affirmative action. Unpublished manuscript.
Nacoste, R. W., & Hummels, B. (1994). Affirmative action and the behavior of decision
makers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 595-613.
Nacoste, R. W., & Lehman, D. (1987). Procedural stigma. Representative Research in Social
Psychology, 17, 25-38.
Newman, J. D. (1989). Affirmative action and the courts. In F. A. Blanchard & F. J. Crosby
(Eds.), Affirmative action in perspective (pp. 31-49). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Noble, A., & Winett, R. A. (1978). Chairpersons' and hirees' opinions, knowledge, and
experiences with affirmative action guidelines. Journal of Community Psychology, 6,
194-199.
Northcraft, G. B., & Martin, J. (1982). Double jeopardy: Resistance to affirmative action from
potential beneficiaries. In B. Gutek (Ed.), Sex role stereotyping and affirmative action
policy (pp. 81-130). Los Angeles: University of California, Institute of Industrial
Relations.
Nosworthy, G. J., Lea, J. A., & Lindsay, R. C. L. (1995). Opposition to affirmative action:
Racial affect and traditional value predictors across four programs. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 25, 314-337.
 61

Osterman, P. (1982). Affirmative action and opportunity: A study of female quit rates. Review
of Economics and Statistics, 64, 604-612.
Ozawa, K., Crosby, M., & Crosby, F. (1996). Individualism and resistance to affirmative action:
A comparison of Japanese and American samples. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
26, 1138-1152.
Pace, J. M., & Smith, Z. (1995). Understanding affirmative action: From the practitioner's
perspective. Public Personnel Management, 24, 139-147.
Pettitgrew, T. F., & Martin, J. (1987). Shaping the organizational context for Black American
inclusion. Journal of Social Issues, 43(1) 41-78.
Rasinski, K. A. (1987). What's fair is fair--or is it? Value differences underlying public views
about social justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 201-211.
Reid, P. T., & Clayton, S. (1992). Racism and sexism at work. Social Justice Research, 5, 249-
268.
Saal, F. E., & Moore, S. C. (1993). Perceptions of promotion fairness and promotion
candidates' qualifications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 105-110.
Sears, D. O. (1988). Symbolic racism. In P. A. Katz & D. A. Taylor (Eds.), Eliminating racism:
Profiles in controversy (pp. 53-84). New York: Plenum Press.
Sharf, J. C. (1988). Litigating personnel measurement policy. Journal of Vocational Behavior,
33, 235-271.
Sherman, M. F., Smith, R. J., & Sherman, N. C. (1983). Racial and gender differences in
perceptions of fairness: When race is involved in a job promotion. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 57, 719-728.
Sidanius, J., Devereux, E., & Pratto, F. (1992). A comparison of symbolic racism theory and
social dominance theory as explanations for racial policy attitudes. Journal of Social
Psychology, 132, 377-395.
Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., & Bobo, L. (1996). Racism, conservatism, affirmative action, and
intellectual sophistication: A matter of principled conservatism or group dominance?
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 476-490.
Sigelman, L., & Welch, F. (1991). Black American's views of racial inequality. Cambridge,
MA: Cambridge University Press.
Singer, M. (1990). Individual differences in category width and fairness perception of selection
decisions. Social Behavior and Personality, 18, 87-94.
Singer, M. S. (1992). The application of relative deprivation theory to justice perception of
preferential selection. Current Psychology: Research & Reviews, 11, 128-144.
Singer, M. S. (1993). Gender-based preferential selection: Perceptions of injustice and empathy
of deprivation. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 1, 184-202.
Singer, M. (1996). 'Merit', 'preferential' or 'diversity-based' selection: Effect of information
frame and informant gender on the public's views on preferential treatment in selection.
International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 4, 1-11.
Smith, E. R., & Kluegel, J. R. (1984). Beliefs and attitudes about women's opportunity:
Comparisons with beliefs about blacks and a general perspective. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 47, 81-95.
Smith, J. & Welch, F. (1984). Affirmative action and labor markets. Journal of Labor
Economics, 2, 269-301.
Sniderman, P. M., Piazza, T., Tetlock, P. E., & Kendrick, A. (1991). The new racism.
American Journal of Political Science, 35, 423-447.
 62

Sniderman, P. M., & Tetlock, P. E. (1986a). Reflections on American racism. Journal of Social
Issues, 42(2), 173-187.
Sniderman, P. M., & Tetlock, P. E. (1986b). Symbolic racism: Problems of motive attribution
in political analysis. Journal of Social Issues, 42(2), 129-150.
Son, I. S., Model, S. W., & Fisher, G. A. (1989). Polarization and progress in the Black
community: Earnings and status gains for young Black males in the era of affirmative
action. Sociological Forum, 4, 309-327.
Steel, B. S., & Lovrich, N. P. (1987). Equality and efficiency tradeoffs in affirmative action --
Real or imagined? The case of women in policing. Social Science Journal, 24, 53-70.
Steele, C. (1992, April). Race and the schooling of Black Americans. Atlantic Monthly, 68-78.
Steffy, B. D., & Ledvinka, J. (1989). The long-range impact of five definitions of "fair"
employee selection on black employment and employee productivity. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 44, 297-324.
Stout, K. D., & Buffum, W. E. (1993). The commitment of social workers to affirmative action.
Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 20(2), 123-135.
Summers, R. J. (1991). The influence of affirmative action on perceptions of a beneficiary's
qualifications. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 1265-1276.
Summers, R. J. (1995). Attitudes toward different methods of affirmative action. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 25, 1090-1104.
Taylor-Carter, M. A., Doverspike, D., & Alexander, R. (1995). Message effects on the
perceptions of the fairness of gender-based affirmative action: A cognitive response
theory-based analysis. Social Justice Research, 8, 285-303.
Taylor-Carter, M. A., Doverspike, D., & Cook, K. (1995). Understanding resistance to sex and
race-based affirmative action: A review of research findings. Human Resource
Management Review, 5(2), 129-157.
Taylor, M. C. (1994). Impact of affirmative action on beneficiary groups: Evidence from the
1990 General Social Survey. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15, 143-178.
Thomas, R. R., Jr. (1990). From affirmative action to affirming diversity. Harvard Business
Review, 90, 107-117.
Tickamyer, A., Scollay, S., Bokemeier, J., & Wood, T. (1989). Administrators' perceptions of
affirmative action in higher education. In F. A. Blanchard & F. J. Crosby (Eds.),
Affirmative action in perspective (pp. 125-138). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Tougas, F., & Beaton, A. M. (1993). Affirmative action in the work place: For better or for
worse. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 42, 253-264.
Tougas, F., Beaton, A. M., & Veilleux, F. (1991). Why women approve of affirmative action:
The study of a predictive model. International Journal of Psychology, 26, 761-776.
Tougas, F., Brown, R., Beaton, A. M., & Joly, S. (1995). Neosexism: Plus ça change, plus c'est
pareil. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 842-849.
Tougas, F., Crosby, F., Joly, S., & Pelchat, D. (1995). Men’s attitudes toward affirmative
action: Justice and intergroup relations at the crossroads. Social Justice Research, 8, 57-
71.
Tougas, F., & Veilleux, F. (1988). The influence of identification, collective relative
deprivation, and procedure of implementation on women's response to affirmative action:
A causal modeling approach. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 20, 15-28.
Tougas, F., & Veilleux, F. (1989). Who likes affirmative action: Attitudinal processes among
men and women. In F. A. Blanchard & F. J. Crosby (Eds.), Affirmative action in
perspective (pp. 111-124). New York: Springer-Verlag.
 63

Tougas, F., & Veilleux, F. (1990). The response of men to affirmative action strategies for
women: The study of a predictive model. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 22,
424-432.
Turner, M. E., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1993). Effects of preferential and meritorious selection on
performance: An examination of intuitive and self-handicapping perspectives. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 47-58.
Turner, M. E., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1994a). Affirmative action as help: A review of recipient
reactions to preferential selection and affirmative action. Basic and Applied Social
Psychology, 15, 43-69.
Turner, M. E., & Pratkanis, A. R. (1994b). Affirmative action: Insights from social
psychological and organizational research. Basic and Applied Psychology, 15, 1-11.
Turner, M. E., Pratkanis, A. R., & Hardaway, T. (1991). Sex differences in reactions to
preferential selection: Towards a model of preferential selection as help. Journal of Social
Behavior and Personality, 6, 797-814.
Uri, N. D., & Mixon, J. W. (1991). Effects of U. S. affirmative action programs on women's
employment. Journal of Policy Modeling, 13, 367-382.
Veilleux, F., & Tougas, F. (1989). Male acceptance of affirmative action programs for women:
The results of altruistic or egoistical motives? International Journal of Psychology, 24,
485-496.
Warner, R. L., & Steel, B. S. (1989). Affirmative action in times of fiscal stress and changing
value priorities: The case of women in policing. Public Personnel Management, 18, 291-
309.
Witt, S. (1990). Affirmative action and job satisfaction: Self-interested v. public spirited
perspectives on social equity - some sobering findings from the academic workplace.
Review of Public Personnel Administration, 10(3), 73-93.
Wright, P., Ferris, S. P., Hiller, J. S., & Kroll, M. (1995). Competitiveness through management
of diversity: Effects on stock price valuation. Academy of Management Journal, 38,
272-287.

X. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Preparation of this review profited from comments by Ramona Bobocel, Jim Breaugh,
Faye Crosby, Rupert Barnes Nacoste, Ann Marie Ryan and Jim Sharf, and we are very grateful
for their help. We would also like to acknowledge the contribution of Wanda Chaves to this
manuscript. Any remaining problems with this review, of course, are the responsibility of the
authors.