running head: INFLUENCE ON ATTITUDES TOWARDS AFFIRMATIVE ACTION The affirmative action debate: possible influences on individual attitudes towards its policies Abstract President John F. Kennedy proposed the first major legislation to combat discrimination in the workplace, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which led to President Clinton’s Affirmative Action legislation in 1996. This legislation was based upon existent prejudices within the workforce and was aimed to correct past inequities as well as present ones. Although American society has advanced a great deal since 1964 and even since Affirmative Action legislation was implemented, basic theories of human behavior assert that individuals will always hold prejudices and practice discrimination. Affirmative action policies have been criticized by non beneficiaries who believe that its policies do little to end discrimination and instead create unfair job opportunities for beneficiaries. However, a considerable amount of research has shown that many Americans are in support of affirmative action and that those who are not in support of its policies are simply unaware of how affirmative action truly works.
Discrimination against minorities in the United States has existed for centuries, and each generation makes its own attempt to end this discrimination. The Civil War brought emancipation, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 helped protected groups gain employment, and the Affirmative Action legislation of 1996 completed the gaps left by the Civil Rights Act. Although prejudices in American society have diminished greatly since the Civil War and even since the Civil Rights Act was passed, discrimination is still present within the United States. Because there is no guarantee that employers will hire based solely upon merit and abilities, legislation is necessary to ensure that members of protected groups are not treated unfairly during the hiring and promotional processes. Affirmative action policies help regulate employment opportunities for women and minorities so that they are not robbed of job opportunities because of their status as a woman or minority member. Affirmative action policies act as the babysitters for organizations, and while they may need revision, they are certainly still necessary.
... #9: Affirmative Action = Preferences Fact: Affirmative Action = Equal Opportunities Affirmative Action programs merely acknowledge that hundreds of years of discrimination cannot be ... It origin lies in the legislation that came out of the civil right movement of the 1960 ... a better understanding of affirmative action in today’s society. Affirmative action is a policy assigned to increase ...
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 While Affirmative Action is a fairly new government policy, its roots lie in the Civil Rights Act of 1964; however, America’s attempt to end discrimination in the workplace does not begin there. During their terms in the White House, both Eisenhower and Franklin Roosevelt took steps to end discrimination. Eisenhower’s executive orders on federal contract compliance led to Roosevelt’s Executive Order 88021 of 1941, which banned discrimination in war industries and in the armed services (Mills, 1994, p. 5).
Kennedy took the actions of these presidents one step further when he established the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), a branch of the federal government that is very active today.
Although Kennedy only used the phrase “affirmative action” once while outlining the Commission’s goals, he signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 two years later, giving America, and Bill Clinton, firm ground to begin Affirmative Action. While the federal government had long since regulated things, such as food and medicine, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the first instance of its regulation of human behavior (Muchinsky, 2003, p. 140).
Because African Americans were so underemployed, the government intervened in America’s hiring practices. Title VII of the Act allows the federal government to regulate and monitor the hiring practice that occurs within American organizations. The Civil Rights Act specifies that an employer may not refuse to hire based on one’s membership in a protected group, which the government defined as members of society who are granted legal recognition by virtue of a demographic characteristic, such as race, gender, national origin, color, age, religion, or disability.
... management involving effective participation and involvement by each member of the organization. The disciple of MBO makes each individual ... frame. There can be many such groups in an organization having their own group objectives. For Example: A medical device ... to influence people to strive willingly in order to attain group objectives: a. Influencing intrinsic factors – Monetary incentives, bonuses ...
Although protected groups encompass age, national origin, religion, and disability, most of the popular attention that the Civil Rights Act garnered was based upon race and gender. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 regulates all aspects of decision making and functions regarding personnel, including practices of training, promotion, retention, and performance appraisal. It also specifies that tests, interviews, assessment centers, and other on-the-job personnel evaluations and decisions are subject to the same guidelines and standards as hiring practices (Muchinsky, 2003, p. 140).
Kennedy carefully worded the Act so as not to give any preferential treatment to minority members, and, unlike Affirmative Action, the Civil Rights Act does not state that an employer must maintain a racial balance within his organization. The Act states that an employer cannot refuse to hire, or discharge, any person due to their membership in one of the protected groups. An employer may not separate or categorize applicants so as to deny anyone employment on the basis of their membership in any of the protected groups. The Act also states that, when advertising employment or training opportunities, an employer cannot indicate his preference for any group, protected or non (Muchinsky, 2003, p. 141).
Legal Theories of Discrimination The consequences of in compliance with the Civil Rights Act are based upon two legal theories of discrimination, adverse, or disparate, impact and disparate treatment. According to the Act and to the federal government, adverse impact occurs when the result of using a particular personnel selection method results in an adverse effect on protected group members, in comparison with majority group members (Muchinsky, 2003, p. 141).
For example, if there is evidence that an organization is refusing or failing to hire an entire group, such as African Americans or the aged, then adverse impact has occurred.
Disparate treatment involves the treatment of a member of members of a protected group based. According to the Civil Rights Act, all job applicants should receive equal treatment and consideration during the hiring process. If an organization is singling out a member or members of a protected group and treating them differently during the employment process, then the organization is engaging in disparate treatment of these individuals (Muchinsky, 2003, p. 141).
... groups who have been systematically denied it. Affirmative action is not the source of discrimination, but the vehicle for removing the effects of discrimination. Affirmative Action ... to promote the hiring it is designed to protect. The logic underlying this presumption is simple ... Civil Rights Act provided the initial legal basis for affirmative action for women in the workplace. Affirmative action is ...
Adverse impact is operational ized in the “80%” or “4/5 ths” rule. This rule examines the selection ratio, the number of those hired divided by the number of those who applied, within an organization.
According to the rule, if the selection ratio for any one of the protected groups is less than eighty percent of the selection ratio for another group, then adverse impact has occurred. The EEOC investigates charges of adverse impact, and offers one of two ways for an organization to correct the problem: the organization may either prove that the test they are using is genuinely a valid predictor of job performance, or they must use a different test or measure that does not result in adverse impact (Muchinsky, 2004, p. 142).
While the Civil Rights Act and the involvement of the EEOC in personnel decision- making benefited minorities entering the workforce, it was not enough to create equality. Simply changing the guidelines for hiring practices does not allow any minority group to “catch up” to the others; it simply allows them to join the employment game in which they are so far behind. Psychological Theories of Discrimination Although the government has lent its own theories and definitions of discrimination to the Affirmative Action debate, the driving force of discrimination lies within human nature; the basic concept of discrimination is a psychological one that has been examined for centuries.
In 1957, Gary Becker asserted that certain groups have a tendency to discriminate based upon an aversion to other groups. Becker asserts that the two most blatant and frequent forms of discrimination are racial discrimination and sexual discrimination. Through marriage, men and women diminish the amount of gender discrimination because marriage often promotes equality within the home, which furthers equality within the workplace. However, interracial marriage is still taboo within American society, providing few opportunities to breach the gap among races and. Becker asserts that the fundamental basis of all discrimination is a lack of understanding or knowledge of race, ethnicity, and gender; people are afraid of, and therefore discriminate against, that which they do not understand.
... Affirmative Action is "reverse discrimination' — let's stop giving special rights to certain groups while others are left out. Fact: Affirmative Action is fair! Affirmative Action ... the primary target of goal setting through affirmative action. For an organization to be effective with goals, they ... is more skilled and competent than an employee protected by seniority. (1999).' Richard Lester, author of ...
Discrimination against immigrants may result from their tendency to live in areas where other immigrants of their own country have already settled. DeFreitas (2000) found that over half of the Mexican immigrants in the United States work principally with other Mexican immigrants, and they most often work in small establishments (p. 102).
This separation often leads to a smaller customer pool; most of the customers who frequent the immigrants’ establishments were also Mexican immigrants.
These customers were more likely to demand products of which the immigrant has particular knowledge, discouraging him from expanding his knowledge of other skills or products. DeFreitas also asserts that the language barrier between many immigrants and other members of American society lends to discrimination; by associating primarily, or solely, with members of their own ethnicity, these workers were not given incentive to learn the English language. Kossoudiji (1988) found that a lack of English language does not lead to a lack of productivity; it merely leads to a resistance to assimilate. If immigrants are able to thrive socially as well as productively within their own enclaves in America, then they have no incentive to break down cultural barriers. Therefore, they have neither the drive nor the ability to join the workforce outside of their communities, and this separation lends to discrimination.
Evans (2003) found that whites may be less likely to discriminate in an affirmative action environment due to a sense of guilt. The majority of white participants reported a sense of guilt, a self – focused emotion, in association with discrimination towards African Americans in the workforce. Personal guilt is often associated with restitution, and the study found white guilt to be predictive of support for affirmative action. Guidelines of Federal Affirmative Action In 1995, because of the continuing debate over affirmative action, Clinton requested a review of all affirmative action programs, and, despite noticeable need for improvement, Clinton judged Federal affirmative action programs to be fair (White House, 1995).
... Defence of Affirmative Action Affirmative action has been created as a policy with the purpose to increase the opportunities for usually discriminated groups that are ... antidiscrimination. Under the Constitution discrimination is an action or behavior that limits an individuals or groups right to their opportunities in housing, jobs ...
Affirmative Action built upon the Civil Rights Act of 1964; however, instead of simply helping protected groups enter the workforce, Affirmative Action aimed to create employment equity for those who received the initial “push” from the Civil Rights Act. The first goal of affirmative action explicitly states that the legislation is aimed at correcting past inequities and remedying the effects of those iniquities.
This section of Affirmative Action is perhaps the least understood and most debated because it does not specify as to how Americans are supposed to correct the discrimination that dates back to the foundation of this country. The remaining purposes of Affirmative Action are geared towards correcting current discrimination within the workforce. It proposes to promote diversity within the government and private organizations, asserting that increasing the number of minorities in any work environment will lead to an increase in the diversity of skills, ideas, and values. Affirmative Action aims to promote inclusion and representation in occupations and to improve the economic standing of minorities and women (White House, 1995).
Types of Affirmative Action within an Organization According to Ledvinka and Scarpello (1991), there are five types, or levels, of affirmative action within an organization.
The first of these levels is recruitment, in which an organization specifically aims its recruitment policies towards protected group members. The second involves removing discriminatory obstacles; in order to do so, an organization must take action in such ways as altering training programs, creating special training programs, and to identify and revise policies that result in discrimination. The third type of affirmative action is referred to as soft preferential treatment, and is possibly the second most controversial aspect of affirmative action. Ledvinka and Scarpello operational ized soft preferential treatment in terms of selecting or choosing the protected group member; if a protected group member and a non protected group member apply for the same position, the organization hires the protected group member. This treatment is most frequently used when both applicants are equally qualified for the position. However, soft preferential treatment is sometimes used even when the protected group member meets the basic qualifications necessary to perform the job, even though the non protected group member is more qualified overall.
... the past. This plan goes by the name of Affirmative Action. Affirmative Action is a federally subsidized program that encourages universities and other ... Affirmative Action? Affirmative Action has been frivolously debated throughout the past 135 years ... man labored intensely. Along with public advertising, many prominent individuals came out and spoke vehemently against the establishment of compensatory ...
The most controversial type of affirmative action, hard preferential treatment, is operational ized in terms of selecting a protected group member due solely to their membership in the protected group. Those who oppose this treatment have proposed that it is synonymous with reverse discrimination, although it is exemplified in common practices, such as the use of quotas or race nor ming (Ledvinka & Scarpello, 1991).
The fifth level of affirmative action is diversity, whose efforts are aimed at creating a multicultural work environment. Attitude and Trait Theories A large part of understanding the basis and possible reactions to Affirmative Action in the workplace is understanding certain theories associated with the idea. Fishbein and Ajzen’s reasoned action theory (1975) asserts that people are rational decision makers who carefully examine available information when forming an attitude. Human beings are viewed as rational, cautious decision makers in all aspects of their lives.
Fishbein and Ajzen examine the actual behavior of an individual, not the reaction to a proposed policy or to another person. The best predictor of their behavior is the expressed intention to behave in a certain manner, and behavior is directed towards a certain object. In the case of Affirmative Action within the workplace, the object is another person. For example, the reasoned action theory would apply to the behavior of a male employee towards a female employee whom he believes was hired due to Affirmative Action guidelines, and experimenters would measure his behavior towards this female. In another scenario, the theory would apply to the way in which one involved in personnel decision – making might behave when asked to comply with Affirmative Action within his own organization (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1975).
The two primary components used to predict behavioral intentions are the individual’s attitudes or beliefs about performing the behavior and the individual’s subject norm, or the pressure on the individual to either perform or not perform the behavior (Fishbein, 1980).
Attitudes and behavior stem from two different sources, the first being the individual’s estimate of the probability that the behavior will have a particular outcome. The second component is the individual’s evaluation of each single outcome; he must perceive the outcome as either favorable or unfavorable. For example, if one were going to predict the behavior of a personnel officer was going to react to the implementation of Affirmative Action policies which he opposes, one must first examine the officer’s beliefs regarding the outcome of implementing the policy; one must examine whether the officer believes that, by following Affirmative Action guidelines, he must hire more minority employees (or, from the officer’s viewpoint, whether he could avoid hiring these minorities).
Secondly, one must also examine the extent to which the officer believes that, by sabotaging the implementation of Affirmative Action policies, he could actually accomplish his intended goal of not hiring minorities. One must also examine other perceptions that the officer may hold, such as the belief that his own performance appraisal may suffer if he does not hire minorities.
By weighing all components of the officer’s attitude, one is able to predict whether he will indeed sabotage the implementation of Affirmative Action. The attribution theory (Heider, 1958) examines how people evaluate others and how people make inferences about the causes of individual behavior, as well as about the causes of events. This theory allows researchers to study the impact that Affirmative Action may have on both others’ perceptions of its beneficiaries and the beneficiaries’ perceptions of their own abilities. In simplified terms, the attribution theory states that people are motivated to understand the underlying causes of all human behavior. Trope (1986) classified these causes as either situational or disposition al. Situational attributions are those which assign the cause of the behavior to some external or environmental event.
Dispositional attributions place the cause of behavior within an individual. For example, a student with situational attributions would decide that he scored well on a test because the test was easy. A student with disposition al attributions would decide that he scored well on the test because he prepared well for it. Using the basic principles of the attribution theory, one can examine the ways in which people evaluate the beneficiaries of Affirmative Action; the theory helps investigate the ways in which these policies affect people’s views of the abilities of those who benefit from such policies. Under Affirmative Action and preferential treatment guidelines, women and minorities may be hired or promoted partially because of their membership in a protected group. This treatment does not guarantee that all minority members and women are unqualified and therefore hired solely due to their protected group status.
However, research has found that many people believe that Affirmative Action places more emphasis on group status than it does on ability when employment decisions are made (Eberhardt & Fiske, 1994; Kravitz et al. , 1999).
It may be this belief system, and not people’s objective opinion of the reality of the work environment, that cause some to oppose Affirmative Action. The attribution theory suggests that some people will make situational attributions to the hiring or success of beneficiaries when they believe such success is based upon preferential treatment. In a non-Affirmative Action based work environment, people may be more likely to attribute others’s successes in a disposition al manner; one would likely believe that a coworker received a pay raise due to his job performance.
However, in an Affirmative Action environment, employees may be more likely to attribute successes in a situational manner (Eberhardt & Fiske, 1994).
When a race – or sex – based policy is present, workers have an alternate explanation for the successes achieved by those as a result of such policies. This attribution allows people to question the competency and abilities of the beneficiaries, and this external attribution is likely to increase when stronger forms of Affirmative Action are used. Non beneficiaries are likely to attribute the success of beneficiaries in part, if not completely, to the affects of the policy. According to the attribution theory, Affirmative Action policies may lead to negative attributions towards beneficiaries because non beneficiaries may overestimate their own abilities when comparing themselves to minorities or women, especially when in competition for an opportunity (Larwood, 1982).
One who is considered an “average” worker may believe that he possesses qualifications superior to those of a beneficiary.
This system of beliefs would cause the non beneficiary to perceive the beneficiary more negatively, attributing the beneficiary’s success to affirmative action, an external factor. The attribution theory also examines beneficiaries’ perception of their own abilities and merit. The attribution theory predicts that, like their non beneficiary competitors or coworkers, beneficiaries may attribute their own success to the implementation of affirmative action policies. However, Eberhardt and Fiske (1994) assert that this may not always be the case. Humans tend to evaluate themselves in more positive terms than they evaluate others, and this bias may actually negate some potentially negative effects of affirmative action. Secondly, beneficiaries may feel a sense of entitlement to affirmative action benefits, and the benefits may in turn lend to the beneficiary’s self – confidence (Stewart & Shapiro, 1999).
Individual – Collectivism focuses on how individual and cultural differences shape one’s opinions of others, especially within a work environment. Triandis (1996) suggests that the attributes associated with individual – collectivism can be defined by the meaning of the self, the structure of goals, norms and attitudes, and the degree of focus on the need of the group. Individualistic people can be defined as those who stress individual efforts and competitiveness. They give priority to personal goals and view the self and social space in terms of individuals. Collectivists rely upon groups as the primary unit of analysis, and for collectivists, behavior is a function of group norms and then attitudes. Individualists view relationships in the work environment in terms of exchange, while collectivists view these relationships in more communal terms; collectivists tend to have beliefs which center on solidarity and group well – being.
For collectivists, the workplace and its employees comprise a community in which each person must work for the betterment of the “family.” Individualists tend to view the workplace as an opportunity for personal betterment. Affirmative action programs require individualists to operate in a collectivistic manner; these individuals must often sacrifice or alter their own goals for the good of the group. Therefore, one would predict that individualists would strongly oppose affirmative action, while collectivists would easily comply with the programs. The “Big Five” approach to personality, also referred to as the five – factor personality model (McCrae & Costa, 1985), helps predict individual’s opinions of and reactions to affirmative action based upon their personality type. According to this theory, one can reduce any of the possible personality related attributes to five basic factors using any number of different statistical methods.
The first factor in the “Big 5” theory is neuroticism, the individual’s level of stability versus instability. The second factor is extra version, the individual’s tendency to be assertive, sociable, active, talkative, outgoing, and energetic. The third factor is openness to experience; one who is open is curious, imaginative, and unconventional. The fourth factor is agreeableness, the individual’s disposition to be cooperative, helpful, and easy to get along with. The final factor of the theory is conscientiousness, the individual’s tendency to be purposeful, organized, controlled, and determined; one who is conscientious is likely to be viewed as a good worker (Muchinsky, 2003, p. 145-146).
Although very little research has been done on the Big Five personality traits in relation to view on affirmative action, one would imagine that certain personality traits would cause an individual to be more or less opposed to the policy. For example, one who is very agreeable may be more likely to accept and agree with affirmative action implementation in his work place. However, one who is very conscientiousness may be too concerned with his own success and abilities to agree with the policy. The Backlash Against Affirmative Action The principles of affirmative action make the policies’ intended goals and benefits clear. Affirmative action aims to increase the number of minority members and women within the workforce, as well as helping these beneficiaries receive the job opportunities that they deserve. Affirmative action does not propose to create opportunities for those who do not deserve them; instead, it proposes to give opportunities to those who rightly deserve them but may be discriminated against due to their status in a protected group.
Ideally, a company complying with affirmative action policies would offer a competent, qualified female a promotion because of her job performance. Affirmative action guidelines would ensure that the company did not overlook or refuse to promote the woman because of her gender. However, many believe that affirmative action causes companies and organizations to give members of protected groups special, often undeserved opportunities, while prohibiting non beneficiaries from receiving well – deserved job opportunities. This belief is a major contributor to the common opposition to affirmative action within American society. Affirmative action is an inclusive policy; it not only benefits African Americans, but it also benefits females, immigrants, the disabled, and any other minority in the United States. The only major societal group that affirmative action does not benefit is white males, who many have begun to refer to as the new minority.
Affirmative action is designed to compensate for victims of past discrimination, and, as a whole, white male are the only group that has not experienced such discrimination. Fobanjong (2001) refers to affirmative action as the “steel ceiling” for white males (p. 51).
Because affirmative action does not benefit these males, they tend to believe that it is impossible for them to advance within the workforce. In some cases, this feeling of helplessness is so strong that white males have actually attempted to gain minority status because they believed that it was their only hope in receiving employment opportunities or promotions.
One such case involves fifty three white San Francisco police officers who hoped to gain promotional slots that were reserved for Native Americans. These men reportedly obtained false birth certificates that classified them as Native Americans (Henry, 1999, p. 133).
While the case of the San Francisco police officers is extreme, it illustrates the frustration that affirmative action has caused numerous white males. As a result of this frustration, many white males have formed negative opinions regarding affirmative action. A policy that covers nearly nine out of ten Americans will undoubtedly alienate the one group not covered (Henry, 1999, p.
Because the reproduction rate of minorities in the United States tends to be higher than that of Caucasians, and women make up over half of the population, white males are beginning to perceive themselves as the new minority (Henry, 1999, p. 315).
The growth of minority populations, combined with the already large number of women in America, seems to be squeezing white males out of the workforce. Although minorities and women are no longer at the numerical disadvantage that they once were, these groups are continuing to receive the benefits of affirmative action policies. The population of white males, on the other hand, is not increasing as quickly; however, these males still do not receive any sort of benefit from affirmative action.
Therefore, many of them view affirmative action as an unfair policy that gives advantages to those who no longer truly need them, while preventing qualified white males from receiving the opportunities that they deserve. White males are not the only group who oppose affirmative action; many African Americans believe that the quotas attached to affirmative action policies are actually detrimental to the success of their race within the workforce. The most extreme interpretation of affirmative action is quota interpretation, the setting aside of a specific number of promotions or job opportunities for members of specific protected groups. Organizations using quota interpretation use local or national norms to staff themselves with precise percentages of protected groups, so that the percentages are representative of the population as a whole (Muchinsky, 2003, p.
Those who oppose quota interpretation assert that it places emphasis on numbers instead of individual merits and abilities. African Americans who oppose quotas view them as an oppressing, rather than helpful, force; a company that uses quota interpretation is able to allow a certain number of African Americans opportunities, but once that quota is attained, the company has no further obligation to hire or promote African Americans. The quotas are, in a sense, a door that opens to allow a certain number inside.
Once that number has entered, the door closes, and no more African Americans may receive opportunities, no matter how qualified they are. If quota interpretation becomes a legal standard for all organizations, then hiring beyond the designated quota would actually be a violation of the law that put the policy in place (Fobanjong, 2001, p. 54).
Therefore, many African Americans view quotas as a short – term solution that could create many long – term problems. Another argument opposing affirmative action is that its policies cause non beneficiaries to hold a negative view of beneficiaries who receive employment opportunities and promotions.
These non beneficiaries tend to attribute the employment opportunities of minorities and women to their status in a protected group, rather than to each individual’s merits and abilities. One study found that both men and women rated the promotion of a female employee as more fair when they were not told that the organization promoting the female followed affirmative action guidelines. These participants also found the female to be more qualified than a male coworker who also applied for the promotion. When informed that the organization followed affirmative action guidelines, both male and female participants were less likely to view the female as competent and her promotion as fair (Elkins, Bozeman, & Phillips, 2003).
A similar study by Resendez (2002) yielded the same results as the previously mentioned study. The study examined the attitudes of 457 undergraduate and graduate students towards the beneficiaries of affirmative action, focusing on the merits of these beneficiaries. Participants evaluated the affirmative action hired as less competent and unlikely to have been hired because of qualifications, regardless of the hi rees’ actual qualifications. Participants attributed the hi rees’s success to his or her protected group status, even when the hired was obviously qualified for the position. In the second part of Resendez’s study, affirmative action plan had no effect on participants’ evaluations.
However, association with an affirmative action plan produced negative evaluations of competence, career progress, and hiring because of qualifications. Affirmative action had a stronger affect on evaluation of the hi rees’ job performance than it did on evaluations of the hi rees’ qualifications. Both studies support the idea that, while affirmative action policies do create job opportunities for protected groups, these policies cause non beneficiaries to doubt the abilities of their beneficiary coworkers. Evidence to Support Affirmative Action Much of the research done on affirmative action lends evidence in support of its policies, both by combating results from previous studies and by proposing means in which to better affirmative action or to change individuals’ attitudes towards affirmative action. Aberson (2003) surveyed 387 undergraduate and graduate students in order to examine their perceptions regarding the benefits of affirmative action in terms of satisfaction and opportunity. Participants rated both the benefits of and satisfaction associated with opportunities gained through affirmative action policies as high.
When the policies were presented with justification, they received even more support and the benefits were perceived as greater than those policies presented without justification. Aberson also found that, although minorities were more likely to perceive affirmative action benefits as greater, minority status did not affect participants’s support of affirmative action. Weeks (2002) found that racist hiring preferences are still prevalent within American society. Participants read resumes and interview evaluations for equally qualified applicants for several positions. Participants also saw pictures of an African American or Caucasian man associated with each resume, and participants were asked to evaluate each applicant on competence, qualifications, and a variety of traits. They then chose an applicant to hire, after the experimenter told them to remember to consider affirmative action laws and not to use stereotypes.
Results indicated that prejudice level significantly affected participants’ ratings of applicants’ competence, qualifications, and traits. Low prejudice participants who felt a sense of guilt were more likely to hire the African American applicant. Both high prejudice participants who felt a sense of guilt and low prejudice participants who felt no guilt were more likely to hire the white applicant. These results show that racial prejudices still affect individuals’ perceptions of minorities and affect the hiring practices of non- minority members.
Research has suggested that the stigma of incompetence attached to many beneficiaries of affirmative action may be significantly reduced as the preferences granted to those beneficiaries become more moderate. Evans (2003) researched this theory using both undergraduate students and corporate employees to determine whether the stigmatization of African Americans would differ under different hiring practices. Participants rated African American and Caucasian target employees working under three different affirmative action circumstances: an illegal policy of selection of unequal candidates, a legal policy of selection of comparable candidates, or equal opportunity. Participants were more likely to rate African American targets’ qualifications and abilities lower than those of Caucasian targets only when the proposed organization was practicing the illegal policy; under the legal policy, participants rated the qualifications and abilities of African American and Caucasian targets equally.
Evans’ findings suggest that many of those in opposition to affirmative action are not actually opposed to the policy itself; instead, these individuals may believe that most organizations follow illegal forms of affirmative action. When presented with a personnel – selection scenario that involves implementing affirmative action policies and also hiring only those who are qualified, individuals tend to view the policies as fair. Fubara (2002) asserts that the ethical frameworks by which individuals evaluate the outcome of an action affects their perception of affirmative action. Fubara grouped participants into two categories, and.
Consequential ists believe that the value of an action is derived solely from its consequences, while view the consequences of an action as merely part of the action’s value. Individuals using a more consequential ist ethics approach were more negatively disposed towards affirmative action. These individuals are more likely to think in an individualistic manner, valuing actions that have benefits such as a pay raise or promotion; affirmative action policies are intended to benefit society as a whole. The study suggests that ethics training may impact some individuals, depending on their previously held ethical frameworks.
If ethics training is affective in manipulating the ethical framework of, then these individuals may began to view affirmative action policies in a positive manner because they help so many members of society. Discussion Because the United States is a country still plagued by racism and prejudice, affirmative action policies are needed to ensure that all individuals receive fair and equal employment opportunities. However, previous research shows that modification of both the policies and individuals’ attitudes towards actions within their work environments are necessary as well; before affirmative action can benefit protected groups and American society as a whole, more people must support its policies and beneficiaries. In order to decide which modifications are necessary, researchers must further examine the way in which individuals view affirmative action, and why they view it in such ways. American society is a dynamic one, and each generation brings a different, more modern opinion of the growing number of ethnic minorities, women working outside of the home, and prejudices towards protected groups.
Although Affirmative Action legislation was written less than a decade ago, the research upon which it is founded is already extremely outdated. More research is needed to assess current attitudes towards those benefiting from affirmative action policies; researchers must study prejudices within hiring and employment practices today, instead of relying on the sparse research that was conducted in the few years before Affirmative Action legislation was instated. Based upon today’s statistics, affirmative action policies can be revised so that they accurately reflect both the progress that has been made and the problems that still exist within the workforce. More up – to -date policies will be likely to win the support of those who oppose affirmative action because they do not believe that exactly what it proposed to do in 1996 is still what America needs now.
Most of the current research surrounding affirmative action treats the policies as though they are intended to benefit African Americans only. More research is needed to examine the benefits, and possible harms, that affirmative action carries for other minorities. An extremely insignificant amount of research has examined attitudes of and towards elderly beneficiaries, and the Americans with Disabilities Act has drawn attention away from the fact that affirmative action policies include the disabled. Without examining individuals’ attitudes towards every protected group that benefits from affirmative action, researchers cannot accurately assess opinions surrounding the policies. Theories regarding individualistic and collectivistic personality types as well as ethical frameworks are relatively unexplored realms of research that could both explain attitudes towards affirmative action, as well as provide solutions for its unintended negative consequences. First, research is needed to determine how much, if any, of an influence these traits and frameworks have on one’s view of affirmative action.
If it is determined that they do influence individuals’ attitudes in a significant manner, then research is needed to further examine how and why certain personality traits and ethical frameworks shape are associated with or influence attitudes towards affirmative action. This research could provide ways to slightly alter traits and frameworks in a manner that give the individual a different perspective on affirmative action; if alterations are not possible, then a better understanding of these personality types may lead to ways in which their attitudes can be redefined. Aside from further research, education is the most important contributor to remedying and eliminating the negative consequences of affirmative action. Educational programs in secondary and undergraduate schools could teach students about the policies and implementation of affirmative action in a detailed manner.
If students learn how affirmative action works when its policies are followed correctly, then they will enter the workforce with a clear understanding of its principles, which could possible lend to a more positive attitude towards affirmative action and its beneficiaries. Lastly, current members of the workforce need to complete educational programs as well. Much of the backlash against affirmative action is due to employees’ misunderstandings of the policies and how these policies function within their own work environment. For example, if a white male believes that a less qualified Hispanic male received a promotion due to his status as a minority member, the white male is likely to oppose affirmative action and resent his Hispanic coworker.
Were this man to complete a thorough educational program on affirmative action, he may then understand that the Hispanic male was promoted not only because of his ethnicity, but primarily because of his qualifications. The combination of more research and educational programs will change individuals’ attitudes towards affirmative action and its beneficiaries, allowing the policies to produce their intended benefits. ReferencesAberson, C. L.
Support for race – based affirmative action: Self – interest and procedural justice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 1212-1225. Becker, G. S. (1993).
Nobel lecture: the economic way of looking at behavior. Journal of Political Economy, 101, 385. DeFreitas, G. (2000).
Inequality at work: Hispanics in the U. S.
labor force. New York, NY: Oxford U. Press. Eberhardt, J. L. , & Fiske, S.
Affirmative action in theory and practice: Issues of power, ambiguity, and gender versus race. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15, 201-220. Elkins, T. , Bozeman, D.
P. , Phillips, J. (2003).
Promotion decisions in an affirmative action environment: can social accounts change fairness perceptions? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 1111-1139. Evans, D. C.
A comparison of the other – directed stigmatization produced by legal and illegal forms of affirmative action. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 121-130. Fishbien, M.
A theory of reasoned action: Some applications and implications. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 27, 65-116. Fishbien, M.
& Ajzen, I. (1975).
Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior. Reading, MA: Addison – Wesley. Fobanjong, J. Understanding the backlash against affirmative action.
Huntingdon, NY: Nova Science. Fubara, E. I. (2002).
Alleviating the unintended consequences of affirmative action: Achieving attitude change by invoking alternative ethical frameworks.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 4243-4250. Heider, F. (1958).
The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York, NY: Wiley.
Henry, N. (1999).
Public administration and public affairs. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kossoudji, S. (1988).
English language ability and the labor market opportunities of Hispanic and East Asian men. Journal of Labor Economics, 6, 40-61.
Kravitz, D. A. , Harrison, D. A. , Turner, M.
A. , Levine, E. L. , Chaves, W. , Bran nick, M. T.
, Denning, D. L. , Russell, C. J.
, & Conrad, M. A. (1997).
Affirmative Action: A review of psychological and behavioral research. Bowling Green, OH: Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology.
Larwood, L. (1982).
The importance of being right when you think you are: Self – serving bias in equal employment opportunity. Sex role stereotyping and affirmative action policy. Los Angeles, CA: Institute of Industrial Relations. Ledvinka, J.
, & Scarpello, V. G. (1991).
Federal regulation of personnel and human resource management. Boston, MA: PWS – Kent.
McCrae, R. R. , & Costa, P. T. (1985).
Validation of the five – factor model of personality across instruments and observers.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 710-721. Mills, N. (1994).
Debating affirmative action: race, gender, ethnicity, and the politics of inclusion. New York, NY: Dell. Muchinsky, P.
Psychology applied to work, 7 th ed. Belmont, CA: Thompson – Wadsworth. Resendez, M. G.
The stigmatizing effects of affirmative action: An examination of moderating variables. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 185-206. Stewart, M.
M. , & Shapiro, D. L. (1999).
Selection based on merit versus demography: Implications across race and gender lines.
Paper presented at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, GA. Triandis, H. C. (1996).
The psychological measurement of cultural syndromes. American Psychologist, 51, 407-415.
Trope, Y. (1986).
Identification and inferential processes in disposition al attribution. Psychological Review, 93, 239-257.
Weeks, K. P. (2002).
Levels of prejudice and motivation as explanations for race discrimination on selection interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 1910-1923. White House.
Affirmative action review: Report to the President. Retrieved November 3, 2003 from the World Wide Web: web OP/html / aa /aa-index.