Opposition to Affirmative Action: Racial Affect and Traditional Value Predictors Across Four Programs¹

Abstract

Research on white opinions of such compensatory policies as busing and affirmative action has suggested that prejudice is the primary determinant of policy attitudes (Jacobson, 1985;McConahay, 1982). Often, however, racism is measured in a manner that confounds prejudice with values and concerns about justice. A study was conducted in which undergraduates ( N = 185) were told that one of four affirmative-action programs for black students would be implemented at their university either in the following year or in 5 years. We found that: (a) support varied considerably across programs and was greater when implementation was imminent; (b) separate operationalizations of race prejudice and dispositional justice beliefs accounted for equal, and at times greater, variance in affirmative action opinions relative to a measure of symbolic racism; and (c) correlates of policy endorsement, including dispositional justice beliefs but not racial affect, varied from program to program. It is suggested that future research should explicitly distinguish race prejudice from values as predictors. It is also suggested that justice concerns, particularly regarding policy specifics, are important predictors of affirmative action attitudes that to date have largely been overlooked.

Independent Self-Construal and Opposition to Affirmative Action: The Role of Microjustice and Macrojustice Preferences

“…In Study 1, we found that people are more opposed to the PT policy which places conflict between microjustice and macrojustice principles than the Tie policy which satisfies microjustice and macrojustice concerns simultaneously. Our finding that the strength of people's opposition to affirmative varies as a function of policy type is consistent with prior research demonstrating that attitudes toward affirmative action are highly influenced by how the policy is described and understood (e.g., Bobocel et al, 1998;Heilman et al, 1998;Kravitz & Platania, 1993;Nosworthy et al, 1995; see also Crosby et al, 2006). Consistent with prior research (Kemmelmeier, 2003;Ozawa et al, 1996), we found (Studies 1 and 3) that independent self-construal predicted opposition to the PT policy, such that the stronger people's independence, the greater their opposition.…”

“…Given that the Tie policy upholds both justice principles whereas the PT policy upholds only principles of macrojustice, we expected people within the North American culture to be overall less opposed to the Tie policy than to the PT policy, consistent with past research (e.g., Bobocel et al, 1998;Heilman, Battle, Keller, & Lee, 1998;Kravitz, 1995;Kravitz & Platania, 1993;Nosworthy, Lea, & Lindsay, 1995). Furthermore, we did not expect a significant relation between independent self-construal and opposition to the Tie, because the policy upholds a sense of justice among both those with a weaker independent self-construal and those with a stronger independent self-construal.…”

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

“…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).…”

“…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.…”

Persistent Poverty in the Netherlands : A sociological study

“…Especially in the US, scholars pay attention to this phenomenon 85 (cf. Nosworthy et al, 1995;Tougas et al, 1995;Hughes 1997;Hing et al, 2002;Lowery et al, 2006 …”