Beliefs About Affirmative Action and Diversity and Their Relationship to Support for Hiring Policies

Abstract

Two hundred seventy-three White undergraduates participated in an investigation of how beliefs relate to support for affirmative action (AA) policies. Beliefs included belief in the fairness of AA, belief in merit, and belief in the value of diversity. Analyses predicted support for a general affirmative action policy, a tiebreak policy, and a policy using banding from beliefs and individual-level variables such as future benefit from AA and demographics. For the general policy, each belief predicted support for AA. Fairness and value of diversity predicted support for a tiebreak policy. Value of diversity predicted support for aptitude testing. Individual characteristics improved prediction for AA in general but not for tiebreak policy or aptitude testing. We discuss predictions and results in terms of procedural and distributive justice, fairness heuristic theory, and models of support for AA.Affirmative action policies began in the United States in 1965 with Executive Order 11246. Since that time, affirmative action (AA) has become a near constant source of controversy. Despite the controversy, AA remains federal law, meaning that many organizations must implement such policies. Unfortunately, reactions to affirmative action policies are often negative.This article explores factors influencing support for affirmative action. We add belief in merit and valuing of diversity to a model of support for AA proposed by

Diversity Experiences and Intergroup Attitudes

“…Research regarding the relationship between belief in the value of diversity and support for affirmative action demonstrated positive relationships with support for affirmative action in general (Aberson & Haag, 2003) and support for specific affirmativeaction policies such as those employing banding or tiebreak procedures (Aberson, 2007b). In each of these studies, diversity beliefs predicted attitudes even when controlling for other relevant beliefs such as belief in meritocracy, fairness of affirmative action, and prevalence of discrimination.…”

Endorsement of Group Change and Organization Change Affirmative Action Programs for Male and Female Beneficiaries

“…This is important because the perceived fairness of affirmative action is frequently cited as a central determinant of endorsement of it (e.g., Aberson and Haag 2003;Bobocel et al 1998;Kravitz and Klineberg 2000;Noseworthy et al 1995;Son Hing et al 2002). Although the perceived fairness of programs likely shapes general reactions to programs, different factors, such as beliefs about what will work, appear to account for the differential endorsement of those programs to particular beneficiary groups.…”

“…Sniderman and colleagues (e.g., Sniderman and Carmines 1997;Sniderman and Piazza 1993;Sniderman et al 1991) proposed that people are commonly wary of affirmative action programs that treat groups differently because such programs violate the principle of meritocracy by linking people's outcomes, in part, to group identity markers rather than to individual merit alone. Evidence consistent with this "principled conservatism" view shows that people tend to show a degree of dislike for programs that is proportional to the extent to which the programs deviate from the principle of merit (e.g., Aberson and Haag 2003;Bobocel et al 1998;Kravitz and Klineberg 2000;Noseworthy et al 1995) and judgments of fairness influence program support (Peterson 1994). However, when people are made aware of the group-based discrimination and inequality that make affirmative action necessary, opposition is reduced (Son Hing et al 2002).…”

The Texas 10% law and its impact on admitted students.

“…This section examines the attitudes and perceptions of students regarding issues of race, diversity, and AA in admissions. Aberson and Haag (2003) looked at how beliefs related to a person's support for AA policies. A positive correlation was found between support for AA and perceptions that AA is fair and that diversity is valuable.…”

“…Findings suggested that the most effective rationale for an AA plan was the utilitarianism justification that emphasized benefits to both minority and majority groups. Aberson and Haag (2003) looked at how a person's beliefs related to support for AA policies. Specifically, the study focused on reactions to three distinct AA policies: a general AA policy, a tie-break policy that favored African Americans over Whites if they were equally qualified, and a policy using a general aptitude test that considered those who reached a certain cutoff score to be equal.…”