Attributional Ambiguity of Affirmative Action

Understanding organizational diversity management programs: A theoretical framework and directions for future research

“…This should lead to the attraction and retention of a larger proportion of women and minorities, resulting in a more diverse workforce. Consistent with our additive arguments regarding the effects of the two types of values, prior research on reactions to rationales for selection decisions (Major & Crocker, ; Major et al, ) suggests that the expression of a terminal value does not detract from the perceptions of achievement‐oriented individuals, as long as an instrumental value is also expressed. Thus, on the basis of our theoretical arguments above, we propose: Proposition Organizations with an emphasis on diversity as a dual value will demonstrate greater diversity than organizations with an emphasis on diversity only as an instrumental value, which will in turn demonstrate greater diversity than organizations with an emphasis on diversity only as a terminal value.…”

Stereotype Threat in School and at Work

“…In addition, clear communication that all candidates are qualified is essential. In one study, women who learned that they were selected for a leadership position based both on their merit and their gender were equally likely to recognize that they had the skill and ability for the job as those who believed that only merit had played a role (Major, Feinstein, & Crocker, 1994). The final component of this informed approach is advocacy for the policy from the central leadership of the organization.…”

Gender‐Based Preferential Selection: Influences of Perceptions of Procedurally Unfair Advantage on Performance and Self‐Evaluations

“…With regard to job gender type (i.e., masculine and feminine), different scales were used across the different studies (i.e., the pilot study, the main study, and the follow‐up study). A consistent measure of perceived sex linkage of roles (e.g., Major et al., ) would lead to less ambiguity…”

“…Instead, their competence is left open to question (Heilman, ; Heilman et al., , ). As indicated by Major, Feinstein, and Crocker (), preferential selection procedures establish a causal link between group membership and outcomes, but leave unclear whether the favorable outcome would have or could have been obtained based on individual merit. In contrast, selection procedures based on merit “are more likely to result in the belief that outcomes are deserved” (Major et al., , p. 116).…”

“…As indicated by Major, Feinstein, and Crocker (), preferential selection procedures establish a causal link between group membership and outcomes, but leave unclear whether the favorable outcome would have or could have been obtained based on individual merit. In contrast, selection procedures based on merit “are more likely to result in the belief that outcomes are deserved” (Major et al., , p. 116). We contend that those who believe they have been preferentially selected may not only view themselves as hired through a procedurally unfair advantage (), but also that this may, in turn, prompt uncertainty and thus the investment of less effort, thereby leading to lower post‐hire task performance and ultimately to less favorable self‐evaluations of performance.…”