Understanding Affirmative Action

Crosby, Faye J.; Iyer, Aarti; Sincharoen, Sirinda

doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190029

Cited by 186 publications

(129 citation statements)

References 155 publications

(133 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

107

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, compensatory favoritism may be connected with distributive justice based on a group's need rather than its merit. Certainly, there is evidence that members of low status groups are more attuned to the principle of need-based distributive justice (for a review, see Crosby, Iyer, & Sincharoen, 2006).…”

Section: Implications Limitations and Directions For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Low status groups show in-group favoritism to compensate for their low status and compete for higher status

Rubin

Badea

Jetten

2014

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present research investigated the intergroup allocation behavior of members of low status groups. In two studies where status relations were either relatively illegitimate (Study 1, N = 139) or legitimate (Study 2, N = 114), undergraduate students completed a minimal group resource allocation task that took into account the intergroup status hierarchy. In both studies, members of low status groups showed two forms of in-group favoritism. They selected resource allocation choices that (a) compensated for their low status and led to intergroup fairness (compensatory favoritism) and (b) competed with the out-group for status and led to positive distinctiveness for the in-group (competitive favoritism). These results suggest that members of low status groups use in-group favoritism to make their group (a) as good as the high status out-group and (b) better than the high status out-group. The findings support the idea that in-group favoritism can serve different functions.KEYWORDS: in-group favoritism; intergroup fairness; low status groups; social identity theory; minimal group. LOW STATUS GROUPS' IN-GROUP FAVORITISM 3Low Status Groups Show In-Group Favoritism to Compensate for their Low Status and to Compete for Higher Status Group status refers to the relative position of a group on an evaluative dimension based on intergroup comparisons with other relevant social groups (e.g., Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Previous research has demonstrated that members of low status groups sometimes show out-group favoritism (e.g., Riechl, 1997;Sachdev & Bourhis, 1987, 1991Turner & Brown, 1978) and sometimes show in-group favoritism (e.g., Branthwaite, Doyle, & Lightbown, 1979;Commins & Lockwood, 1979b;Klein & Azzi, 2001;Mummendey et al., 1992;Reichl, 1997;Sachdev & Bourhis, 1984;Scheepers, Spears, Doosje, & Manstead, 2006;Turner & Brown, 1978; van Knippenberg, 1984; for reviews, see Bettencourt, Charlton, Dorr, & Hume, 2001;Brewer, 1979;Mullen, Brown, & Smith, 1992). Key moderators of these in-group and out-group favoritism effects are the stability and legitimacy of the intergroup status hierarchy (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). When status relations are perceived to be unstable and illegitimate, members of low status groups tend to show in-group favoritism (e.g., Bettencourt et al., 2001). In contrast, when status relations are perceived to be stable and legitimate, members of low status groups tend to show out-group favoritism, especially on statusrelevant dimensions (Bettencourt et al., 2001;Mullen et al., 1992).Low status groups' out-group favoritism has generated considerable debate and discussion in the literature because it represents a theoretically-important exception to the more common in-group favoritism effect Rubin & Hewstone, 2004). Following social identity theory, Rubin and Hewstone (2004) conceptualize this low status group out-group favoritism as consensual discrimination because it reflects consensual perceptions of intergroup status that are held by members of both the high and low status groups. In contrast...

show abstract

Section: Implications Limitations and Directions For Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Low status groups show in-group favoritism to compensate for their low status and compete for higher status

Rubin

Badea

Jetten

2014

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Affirmative action refers to any proactive efforts made by an organization to avoid discrimination against women and minorities (Crosby, Iyer, & Sincharoen, 2006). In education and organizations, such efforts might include outreach to diversify the pool of applicants or considering broader organizational goals for diversity when hiring or admitting comparably qualified candidates.…”

Section: Affirmative Action Policies Seeking To Increase Representatmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stereotype Threat in School and at Work

Schmader

Hall

2014

Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In any diverse society, public policy can help to provide equal access to opportunities for achieving one’s potential in school and work. However, even as policies in the United States have sought to eradicate institutionalized discrimination on the basis of race or sex, women and minorities continue to underperform academically and are systematically underrepresented in the highest earning occupations. Social psychological research suggests that negative stereotypes about women and minorities can create subtle barriers to success through stereotype threat. This occurs when individuals become concerned that they might confirm a negative stereotype about their group. This article outlines current research on the processes that underlie stereotype threat and how this work informs effective policies to reduce its effects. Using an evidence-based analysis, we review the risks and the benefits of four policies to narrow gender and racial gaps in academic and workplace performance: affirmative action, diversity training, creating identity-safe environments, and teaching coping strategies. Policies informed by social psychological theory and research can help recover the lost human potential due to stereotype threat without disadvantaging or cuing backlash among the majority.

show abstract

“…Perhaps the most striking implication of the present analysis is that aYrmative action policies (Crosby et al, 2006) may have far deeper psychological roots. In the present analysis, people engage social category-based choice even when the social categories themselves (e.g., "Stanford," "California," and "PhD institution") are not gender or racial ones.…”

Section: Implications For Ayrmative Actionmentioning

confidence: 77%

“…While aYrmative action has changed the way we allocate resources on the basis of race and gender (Chen, 2006;Crosby, Iyer, & Sincharoen, 2006), aYrmative action policies make no special provisions for "students from Stanford," "faculty with PhDs from Rice," or "applicants from the East Coast"-that is utterly absurd. Yet, when selecting a winner from a highly competitive pool, our choices frequently become vulnerable to the dynamics of social category lines, even rather tepid and nominal ones.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%