Explaining Demographic Group Differences in Affirmative Action Attitudes

Explaining Demographic Group Differences in Affirmative Action Attitudes'

ALISON M. KONRAD~ JANET SPITZ Department of Human Resource Administration

Temple Universiiy School of Business

College of Saint Rose

This research identified mediators and a moderator of the relationship between demographic category and attitudes toward affirmative action (AA). Data were collected kom national samples of sociologists and business academics. The results indicate that racism, traditional attitudes toward women, and belief in the existence of gender and race discrimination in academe were significant predictors of AA attitudes. Several findings provide support for the prediction that these factors mediate the relationship between demographic group membership and AA attitudes. Additionally, male sociologists who believed they personally experienced discrimination had more negative attitudes toward AA. Perceiving personal discrimination increased support of AA among female business academics. Implications for attitude and intergroup conflict theories are discussed.

Affirmative action (AA) in employment consists of organizational goals for increasing the representation of historically excluded groups, timetables for achieving those goals, and organizational practices designed to achieve the goals within the stated time frames (Konrad & Linnehan, 1999). In the United States, AA was created from a series of executive orders covering the federal government and its contractors. The executive orders require that organizations receiv- ing a federal contract in excess of $50,000 with more than 50 employees have a written plan to match the utilization of people in protected categories to the avail- ability of qualified people in that category. When utilization falls short of avail- ability, the organization must develop plans for increasing representation (Crosby & Cordova, 1996). The Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), which oversees AA, requires that contractors make a good-faith effort, with documented practices, to meet their utilization goals, but failure to meet goals is not punishable in and of itself (Crosby & Cordova, 1996).

'An earlier version of this paper was presented at the August 1999 meeting of the Academy of Management in Chicago, Illinois. The research was supported by the College of Saint Rose and Tem- ple University. The first author gratefully acknowledges support from the Fox School of Business and Management's Boettner Research Fellowship.

2Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Alison M. Konrad, who is now at Richard Ivey School of Business, University of Western Ontario, 1151 Richmond Street North, Lon- don, Ontario N6A 3K7, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]

1618

Journal of Applied Social P.sycho/ogy, 2003,33,8, pp. 161 8-1 642. Copyright 0 2003 by V. H. Winston & Son, Inc. All rights reserved.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ATITUDES 1619

Ethnicity and gender are consistent predictors of attitudes toward AA in the United States (Bobo, 1998; Harrison, Kravitz, & Stahl, 2000; Steeh & Krysan, 1996). White men are less supportive of AA programs than are other demographic groups (Bobo & Kluegel, 1993; Kluegel & Smith, 1983). Studies examining the attitudes of Asian or Hispanic Americans are relatively rare and have shown that these groups fall between African Americans and Whites in their level of support for AA (Bell, Harrison, & McLaughlin, 1997; Bobo, 1998; Kravitz & Klineberg, 2000; Kravitz & Platania, 1993). Studies examining AA programs targeting women have found that women support these programs more than men do (Konrad & Hartmann, 2001; Tougas & Beaton, 1993), and White women support programs targeting women more strongly than programs targeting people of color (Smith & Witt, 1990).

Research on AA attitudes is beginning to examine the reasons for demographic group differences (Bell et al., 1997; Bobo, 1998; Konrad & Hartmann, 2001; Kravitz & Klineberg, 2000; Kravitz et al., 2000). Understanding the reasons for demographic group differences in policy attitudes is important for moving research beyond the treatment of demographics as either proxies for theoretical constructs or sources of error variance that must be controlled. Common sense would suggest that demographic group differences in AA attitudes are a result of self-interest. Sears (1998) argues, however, that measures of self-interest are only weakly associated with policy attitudes. As a test of the impact of self-interest, we examine whether demographics moderate the association between AA attitudes and the perception that one has experienced discrimination personally. The logic of self- interest would suggest that experiencing discrimination should increase AA support among beneficiary groups, while decreasing support among nonbeneficiaries.

In addition to divergent interests, different beliefs may explain demographic group differences in AA attitudes. Many people have a limited or inaccurate understanding of AA (JSravitz & Platania, 1993), and opponents have character- ized AA as unjustified set-asides and preferential treatment, despite the fact that preferences given without regard to either qualifications or the availabilityhtiliza- tion ratio would not survive an OFCCP compliance review (Crosby & Cordova, 1996). Beliefs about the way AA functions mediate the relationship between demographics and AA attitudes (Kravitz & Klineberg, 2000; Kravitz et al., 2000). In this article, we use the expectancy-value model of attitude formation (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) to identify other beliefs that may mediate the relationship between demographics and AA attitudes; specifically, racism, attitudes toward women, and belief in the existence of discrimination.

Background and Hypotheses

Fishbein and Ajzen (1975; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980) developed an expectancy- value model of attitudes. In their model, beliefs regarding whether an attitude

1620 KONRAD AND SPlTZ

object has desirable or undesirable traits are important determinants of attitudes. People who believe that an object has desirable traits develop a positive attitude toward the object, while those who believe the object has undesirable traits develop a negative attitude. Other research has used Fishbein and Ajzen's approach to show that beliefs about the outcomes of AA programs significantly predict AA attitudes (Bell et al., 1997; Bell, Harrison, & McLaughlin, 2000). We link various beliefs to AA attitudes using expectancy-value logic in order to theo- rize about demographic group differences.

Self-liaterest and Experiences of Discrimination

Beliefs about AA's impact on self-interest may influence AA attitudes. Demographic groups benefiting from AA may develop positive attitudes because they believe that AA will provide them with material gains. Nonbeneficiaries may develop negative attitudes if they believe that AA programs are harmhl to their self-interests. Previous research has linked beliefs about self-interest to AA attitudes (Bobo, 1998; Jacobson, 1985; Konrad & Hartmann, 2001).

Perceptions of experiencing labor-market discrimination are linked to AA's impact on self-interest and likely have a divergent effect on AA attitudes for beneficiaries and nonbeneficiaries. Members of beneficiary groups who believe they have experienced discrimination may see AA as a possible solution to their personal plight. Consistent with this reasoning, Kravitz and Klineberg (2000) found that African Americans who reported experiencing discrimination were more supportive of AA. On the other hand, members of nonbeneficiary groups who perceive themselves as experiencing discrimination may reject AA as a possible cause of their problems. The belief that AA causes discrimination against nonbeneficiaries is rather common among nonbeneficiary groups (Steeh & Krysan, 1996). Kravitz and Klineberg found that perceptions of experiencing discrimination were unrelated to AA attitudes among Whites, but they did not disaggregate the responses of women and men. Because White women are AA beneficiaries while White men are not, gender is a potential moderator of the relationship between personal discrimination and AA attitudes. We test this possibility as follows:

Hypothesis I. The perception of experiencing discrimination will reduce support for AA programs among men and Whites while enhancing support among women and people of color.

Racism Against African Americans

The dictionary definition of racism is the belief that some races are by nature superior to others, as well as discrimination on the basis of this belief (Mish,

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AITITUDES 1621

1989). Social scientists have identified various forms of racism, ranging from overt bigotry to more covert and subtle expressions. Traditional overt racism is based on negative stereotypes of African Americans as lazy, unintelligent, mor- ally corrupt, aggressive, and violent, and may involve a belief that African Amer- icans are inherently biologically inferior (Devine & Elliot, 1995; Sidanius, Pratto, & Bobo, 1996). U.S. opinion polls have shown a substantial decline in overt expressions of racism over time such that “White people are less likely than ever before to say disparaging things about Blacks” (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1996,

Many racism scholars argue that the substantial reduction in overt expressions of racism does not necessarily imply a massive change in attitudes toward African Americans, and that racial attitudes have changed less than social norms regarding what is acceptable to say (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1996). In the attempt to assess racial attitudes in a context where overt negative comments are socially unacceptable, scholars have developed several conceptualizations of the “new racism” (Sears, van Laar, Carrillo, & Kosterman, 1997). New racism concepts share the assumption that Whites continue to hold negative attitudes toward African Americans resulting from negative images promulgated in U.S. society. Because overt expressions of racism are generally unacceptable, racism becomes subtle and covert as people attempt to conceal their negative feelings toward African Americans.

For instance, the concept of symbolic racism suggests that the new racism is a combination of negative affect toward African Americans and a perception that they violate cherished values, such as the work ethic and meritocracy (Sears et al., 1997). As such, symbolic racism is stated in abstract, ideological terms that allow people to express their negative feelings about African Americans without acknowledging them either to themselves or others (e.g.. “Racial discrimination is a thing of the past” or “African Americans get more attention from the government than they deserve”).

Another influential view of the new racism is the concept of aversive racism, or the combination of negative affect toward African Americans with a desire to be egalitarian and nonracist (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1996). The result of aversive racism is that when the racial implications of one’s behavior are clear, people choose the egalitarian action. When the racial implications of a behavior are unclear or a discriminatory action can be attributed to something other than race, aversive racism results in negative behavior toward African Americans.

Researchers have examined the relationship of AA attitudes with all three forms of racism. Most of this research has used White samples only, and, to our knowledge, the present study is the first to examine racism as a potential mediator of the relationship between ethnicity and AA attitudes. In a large, nationally representative survey study, Bob0 and Kluegel(l993) linked overt racism to negative attitudes toward race-targeted public policies among White respondents.

p. 53).

1622 KONRAD AND SPIT2

Examining data for Whites in four large representative surveys, Sears et al. (1 997) linked measures of symbolic racism to negative attitudes toward AA. In a survey study of 738 undergraduate students, Little, Murry, and Wimbush (1998) linked a measure of symbolic racism to anti-AA attitudes. Although 21% of their participants were non-White, they did not test whether racism mediated the relationship between ethnicity and AA attitudes. Studies of the impact of aversive racism require experimental manipulation to demonstrate subtle effects. For instance, Murrell, Dietz-Uhler, Dovidio, Gaertner, and Drout (1994) linked aversive racism to AA attitudes among Whites by showing that lack of justification of AA had a larger negative impact on attitudes toward programs targeting African Americans than on programs targeting the elderly or the disabled.

Given that our study used a non-experimental survey methodology, we had the choice of using either a measure of overt racism or a measure of symbolic racism to test for effects on AA attitudes. The problem with the symbolic racism concept for AA attitude studies is that opposition to government programs assist- ing African Americans is consistent with the definition of symbolic racism, mak- ing the link between symbolic racism and AA attitudes tautological. As a result of this problem, studies linking symbolic racism to AA attitudes have been criticized as overstating the strength of the relationship between AA opposition and racism (Bobo, 1998). For example, the notion that African Americans have received more attention from the government than they deserve may subsume negative attitudes toward several specific government programs, including AA. This problem is inherent in scale items used in both the Sears et al. (1997) study (e.g., “Do Blacks get much more attention from the government than they deserve?”) and the Little et al. (1998) study (i.e.¶ “The government has shown more respect to minorities and women than they deserve”). McConahay’s (1986) modern racism measure has similar problems.

Because of the problems involved in symbolic racism measures, we used a measure of overt racism to test for effects on AA attitudes in this research. Given the decline in overt expressions of racism, some authors refer to this form of racism as old-fashioned (e.g., McConahay, 1986), and others have argued that it is likely to have little impact on contemporary policy attitudes (Sears et al., 1997). The I994 publication of The Bell Cuwe (Hermstein & Murray, 1994), however, attempted to raise the notion of inherent African American inferiority to the level of respectable academic scholarship. Although the book was much criticized (e.g., Fraser, 1995), some members of the academic community concurred with its conclusions. While academics might be disinclined to express such beliefs, and overt racism measures are likely to have low means and minimal variation, even slight expressions of overt racism may overlap substantially with negative attitudes toward AA programs.

We argue here that overt racism mediates the association between demographic ethnic category and AA attitudes. People who hold racist beliefs that

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ATTITUDES 1623

African Americans are inferior are likely to regard AA programs as advancing less qualified candidates, with the result that more qualified Whites are unfairly passed over and organizational performance is damaged. Negative affect toward African Americans may also result in negative attitudes toward AA programs, because increasing the hiring and promotion of African Americans results in increased exposure to them in the workplace. Data show that Whites are considerably more likely than African Americans to express overt negative beliefs about African Americans (Bobo & Kluegel, 1993) and to hold negative affect toward African Americans (Fazio & Towles-Schwen, 1999).

Theoretically, African Americans should show lower racism against their own group as a result of racial identity development processes. For African Americans and other disadvantaged minorities, a critical early step in developing a positive self-image is to disavow the negative messages about one’s own group expressed in the dominant culture (Cross, 1978). Data show that most African Americans pass through this stage to reject racist messages implying that they are inferior (e.g.. Thomas & Speight, 1999).

Ethnic identity development models for other groups, including Whites, also involve rejecting notions of the superiority of some races over others to attain an appreciation of diversity and a desire to interact with members of other racial groups (Helms, 1990; Phinney, 1992). Research consistently shows that Whites score lower on racial/ethnic identity development indexes than do African Americans, Asian Americans, or Hispanics (Konrad, Ross, & Linnehan, 2001; Linnehan, Konrad, Reitman, Greenhalgh, & London, 2003; Phinney, 1992). As such, a smaller percentage of Whites than of other ethnic groups has attained that stage of racial identity development where they have discarded notions that some racial groups are inferior to others and openly desire contact with members of other races. Enhanced racial identity development among all groups of people of color is likely to be associated with lower overt racism scores, resulting in more positive attitudes toward AA.

Hypothesis 2. Racism will mediate the relationship between ethnicity and attitudes toward AA.

Traditional Attitudes Toward Women

Traditional attitudes toward women differ from racism in that rather than focusing directly on women’s inferiority to men, traditional attitudes toward women consider women and men to be suited to different types of activities (Twenge, 1997). We argue that traditional attitudes toward women will be associated with negative attitudes toward AA. To the extent that people consider women to be less suitable for activities traditionally assigned to men, they are likely to see AA programs as placing women into roles for which they will be

1624 KONRAD AND SPITZ

unfit. According to this logic, AA programs cause men to experience reverse discrimination and organizations to perform more poorly. Other research has shown that the related construct of sexism has a negative effect on attitudes toward AA (Bobocel, Son Hing, Davey, Stanley, & Zanna, 1998).

Research has shown consistently that women are less likely than men to hold traditional attitudes toward women (Twenge, 1997). One reason for this difference might be that women overcome limiting messages promulgated in the larger society as they develop positive self-identities, similar to the process of ethnic identity development documented for disadvantaged minorities (Downing & Roush, 1985). Another possible reason is the development of the women’s movement, which generated a clear alternative to traditional gender ideology (Henderson-King & Stewart, 1997). Women’s rejection of traditional gender roles in favor of feminist views might explain why women have more positive attitudes toward AA.

Konrad and Hartmann (200 1) found that traditional attitudes toward women mediated the relationship between gender and AA attitudes in a sample of Aus- tralian academics. Because the Australian equivalent of AA focuses solely on women, it is possible that attitudes toward women have a greater impact on AA attitudes in that country. We examine whether this result is replicated in the United States, where AA may be more strongly associated in people’s minds with African Americans and Hispanics than with women (Kravitz et al., 2000).

Hypothesis 3 . Traditional attitudes toward women will mediate the relationship between gender and attitudes toward AA.

Belief in the Existence of Discrimination

One of the strongest predictors of AA attitudes is the extent to which respondents believe that discrimination exists (Bobo 8z Kluegel, 1993; Kluegel & Smith, 1983; Kravitz et al., 2000; Tougas & Beaton, 1993; Tougas & Veilleux, 1990). Research has shown that Whites are less likely than African Americans to believe that racial discrimination exists (Bobo & Kluegel, 1993; Kravitz & Klineberg, 2000; Kravitz et al., 2000), and men are less likely than women to believe that gender discrimination exists (Konrad & Hartmann, 2001; Tougas & Beaton, 1993). One reason for these differences may be privileged groups’ attri- butions that their higher status is a result of their own merit, rather than unearned advantages (Jacques, 1997).

Privileged groups may also be unaware of their unearned advantages. One reason for this lack of awareness may be the fact that discrimination is oRen dif- ficult to detect on a case-by-case basis. If they desire to do so, people can often explain away unfavorable outcomes received by members of disadvantaged groups by identifying idiosyncratic aspects of each individual case. When


multiple cases are presented together to allow easy detection of a pattern, however, most people can identify systematic discrimination (Cordova, 1992). Because organizational allocation decisions occur in a discrete manner, raising awareness of discrimination may require reminding people of a series of decisions over a substantial time period. Raising this issue carries risks, however (Miceli, Rehg, Near, & Ryan, 1999).

People who believe that discrimination does not exist see no need for AA programs. In this view, labor markets function well to reward merit for anyone, regardless of demographics (Kluegel & Smith, 1993). Since women and people of color are more likely than White men to believe that discrimination problems exist, they may believe AA programs provide a potential solution. Conversely, those who believe discrimination does not exist may believe that AA programs are needlessly burdensome or unfair. To our knowledge, the present study is the first to examine whether belief in discrimination mediates the relationship between demographics and AA attitudes. Kravitz and Klineberg (2000) examined belief in discrimination as part of a set of potential mediators of the relationship between demographics and AA attitudes, but they did not test whether belief in discrimination or the other factors in their model were responsible for the observed mediating effects.

Hypothesis 4. Belief in the existence of discrimination will mediate the relationship between gender and ethnicity and attitudes toward AA.

Method

In Spring 1998, a mail survey was administered to two national samples of United States college and university faculty. The first sample consisted of 750 sociologists listed in the same randomly selected position on each page of the 1998 edition of the American Sociological Association’s membership directory. The second sample of 630 consisted of every fourth person included in a current alphabetical listing of the members of a single division of the Academy of Man- agement. The selected division did not specialize in human resources, social issues, or issues of workforce diversity.

After two mailings, both of which included a copy of the questionnaire and a self-addressed return envelope, 268 sociologists (36%) and 153 business academics (24%) returned usable responses. Resource limitations precluded firther contact with nonrespondents. Listwise deletion of missing data resulted in a total sample of 254 sociologists and 15 1 business academics. Sample sizes vary slightly in the analyses reported here, depending on the number of missing data points. The samples did not differ significantly from their respective populations on gender, business academics, x2(1, n = 1849) = 0.03, ns; sociologists,


x2(1, n = 13309) = 1.01, ns; or ethnicity, business academics, xZ(1, n = 1427) =

0.02, ns; sociologists, x2( 1, n = 13309) = 1.89, ns.

Measures

Measures were based on responses to survey items. Response options for all multiple-item indexes were rated on a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly dis- agree) to 4 (strongly agree).

Demographics. Because of their small numbers, we combined African Amer- icans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, and Native Americans into a single group of “people of color.” With listwise deletion of missing data, the sample of business academics included 9 1 White men, 30 White women, 24 men of color, and 6 women of color; and the sample of sociologists included 104 White men, 1 13 White women, 20 men of color, and 17 women of color.

Attitudes toward AA programs. Items taken from Bell et al. ( 1997) were mod- ified for use in the present study. The two items measuring attitudes toward AA programs for African Americans are “Affirmative action programs that encourage the hiring and promotion of African American faculty are a good idea,” and “Affirmative action advances less qualified African American faculty” (reverse scored). Items measuring attitudes toward AA programs for women are “Affir- mative action programs that encourage the hiring and promotion of women faculty are a good idea”; and “Affirmative action advances less qualified women faculty” (reverse scored). Exploratory factor analysis indicates that these four items constituted a single factor explaining 80% of the variation. We took the mean of the four items to create an index of AA attitude (business academics, a =

.90; sociologists, a = .91). Higher scores indicate stronger support for AA. Racism against African Americans. Items used by Kluegel and Smith (1983),

Bob0 and Kluegel(l993), and Jacobson (1985) were adapted for use as a measure of overt racism. The four items are: “Racial inequality is partly due to Afii- can Americans’ lack of an inborn ability to learn”; “Racial inequality is partly due to the way African Americans are brought up at home”; “Many African Americans prefer to live off welfare”; and “On average, African Americans are somewhat less capable of contribution to economic production than are White people.” The four items constitute a single factor explaining 53% of the variation. We took the mean of the four items to create a racism index (business academics, a = .70; sociologists, a = S6).

As we anticipated, relatively few respondents endorsed the overt racism items, resulting in distributions that were significantly positively skewed (business academics, skewness = 1.23, SE = .21; sociologists, skewness = 1.77, SE =

.I6). We tried a number of transformations to normalize the distributions and found that a reciprocal transformation performed the best (business academics, skewness = -0.10, SE = .21; sociologists, skewness = -0.59, SE = .16). We used

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AlTITUDES 1627

the reciprocal of the racism index in our analyses; hence, a higher score indicates less overt racism.

Traditional attitudes toward women. We used a short version of Spence and Helmreich’s (1972) Attitudes Toward Women scale. The 6 items read: “It is inap- propriate for women to try to work in a man’s field such as construction”; “There are some professions or types of business that are more suitable for men than women”; “I’m not sure it’s such a good idea for women to be competing fully in the job market”; “On average, women are somewhat less capable of contribution to economic production than are men”; “Women with children should not work outside the home if they don’t have to financially”; and “Women are more suited to housekeeping and child care than are men.” The six items constitute a single factor explaining 47% of the variation. We took the mean of the six items to create an index (business academics, cx = .76; sociologists, cx = .70).

Relatively few respondents endorsed the items, resulting in distributions that were significantly positively skewed (business academics, skewness = 0.98, SE =

.2 1 ; sociologists, skewness = 2.02, SE = .16). A reciprocal transformation was again the most effective for normalizing these distributions (business academics, skewness = -0.04, SE = .2 1 ; sociologists, skewness = - 1.15, SE = .16). We used the reciprocal of the attitudes toward women index in our analyses; hence, a higher score indicates a less traditional attitude toward women.

Belief in labor market discrimination. Tougas and Veilleux’s (1 990) measure was adapted for use in this study. Three items assessed belief in the existence of race discrimination: “African American faculty experience discrimination in hiring and salary”; “African American faculty experience discrimination in promotion and tenure decisions”; and “African American faculty experience discrimination in student evaluations.” The three items assessing belief in the existence of gender discrimination were as follows: “Women faculty experience discrimination in hiring and salary”; “Women faculty experience discrimination in promotion and tenure decisions”; and “Women faculty experience discrimination in student evaluations.” Exploratory factor analysis shows that these six items constituted a single factor explaining 72% of the variation. We took the mean of the six items to create an index (business academics, a = .92; sociologists, cx = .90) where a higher score indicates a stronger belief in the existence of discrimination.

Perceived experience of discrimination. We assessed the perception of personally experiencing discrimination on the basis of race and gender. The three items measuring perceived race discrimination were: “I earn less money than members of other races who are equally qualified”; “I work at a less prestigious institution than members of other races who are equally qualified”; and “I am at a lower academic rank than members of other races who are equally qualified.” The items measuring perceived gender discrimination were: “I earn less money than members of the opposite sex who are equally qualified”; “I work at a less


prestigious institution than members of the opposite sex who are equally qualified”; and “I am at a lower academic rank than members of the opposite sex who are equally qualified.” Exploratory factor analysis indicates that these six items constituted a single factor explaining 65% of the variation. We took the mean of the six items to create an index (business academics, a = .90; sociologists, a = 3 8 ) where a higher score indicates a stronger perception of having experienced discrimination personally.

Analysis

Table 1 shows descriptive statistics for the two samples. Because tests for equality of variances showed significant differences on three of the four multiple- item indexes used in the study, we analyzed the data for business academics and sociologists separately.

Hypothesis 1 was tested with moderated regression analysis, using dummy- coded categorical predictors and a centered continuous predictor, as recom- mended by Aiken and West (1991). Hypotheses 2 through 4 identified mediators of the relationship between demographics and AA attitudes and were tested with a series of regression analyses (Baron & Kenny, 1986). We used one-tailed sig- nificance tests for the hypothesis-testing analyses because all of our predictions were directional.

Results

Business academics and sociologists differed significantly on several of the variables included in the analysis (see means depicted in Table 1). Sociologists showed more support for AA, lower overt racism scores, less traditional attitudes toward women, and a stronger belief in the existence of discrimination in academe. Sociologists were more likely to be female, but the percentage of Whites was similar in the two samples. Business academics and sociologists did not differ in the perception of personally experiencing discrimination.

Hypothesis 1 predicted that the perception that one has personally experienced discrimination would moderate the relationship between demographic category and support for AA programs. Specifically, we predicted that experiencing discrimination would be related positively to support for AA among women and people of color, while showing a negative relationship among men and Whites. Table 2 shows the results of the moderated regression analyses testing Hypothe- sis 1. Findings indicate that the Male x Experiencing Discrimination interaction was statistically significant for both business academics and sociologists. The interactions added significantly to the percentage of explained variance in AA attitudes for sociologists, but not for business academics.

To aid in the interpretation of the significant interactions, we plotted the regression results (Figure 1). The findings for business academics indicate that

Tabl

e 1

Mea

ns, S

tand

ard

Dev

iatio

ns, a

nd C

orre

latio

ns fo

r Stu

dy V

aria

bles

Bus

ines

s ac

adem

ics

Soci

olog

ists

V

aria

ble

M

SD

M

SD

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 1.

Sup

port

for AA

2.87

0.

81

3.41

***8

0.

73*

-

.47*

**

.32*

**

,63*

**

-.lo

-.1

1 -.3

2***

2.

Rac

ism (r

ecip

roca

l)b

0.70

0.

23

0.82

****

a 0.

20**

.5

5***

-

.46*

**

.42*

**

-.01

.01

-.36*

**

3. T

radi

tiona

l atti

tude

s to

war

d w

omen

(re

cipro

ca1)

C

0.73

0.

22

0.87

***'

0.18

***

.39*

**

.36*

** -

.26*

**

.02

.13*

-.3

1***

4.

Bel

iefi

n

5. E

xper

ienc

e di

scri

min

atio

n 2.

32

0.78

2.

99**

* 0.

73

.54*

**

.41*

**

.36*

** -

.07

-.07

-.36*

**

disc

rim

inat

ion

1.93

0.

72

1.96

0.

74

-.13

-.07

-.07

.09

-

-.17*

-.1

8**

6. W

hite

0.

80

0.40

0.

85

0.35

-.1

7*

-.I5

.0

7 -.1

6 .1

3 -

-.04

7. M

ale

0.76

0.

43

0.49

***

0.50

-.2

5**

-.17*

-,4

3***

-.30

**

-.lo

-.0

5 -

Not

e. A

A =

affir

mat

ive a

ctio

n. W

hite

: 0 =

No,

1 =

Yes

. Mal

e: 0

= N

o, 1

= Y

es. H

ighe

r sco

res o

n th

e m

ultip

le-it

em in

dexe

s ind

icat

e mor

e su

ppor

t for

AA

, les

s rac

ism

, les

s tra

ditio

nal a

ttitu

des t

owar

d w

omen

, a s

trong

er be

lief i

n th

e ex

iste

nce o

f gen

der a

nd ra

ce d

iscr

imin

atio

n,

and

a st

rong

er p

erce

ptio

n of

hav

ing

pers

onal

ly e

xper

ienc

ed d

iscr

imin

atio

n. C

orre

latio

ns fo

r bus

ines

s ac

adem

ics (

n =

151

) are

sho

wn

belo

w th

e di

agon

al, w

hile

thos

e for

soci

olog

ists

(n =

254)

are

show

n ab

ove t

he d

iago

nal.

asig

nific

ance

test

doe

s not

ass

ume

equa

l var

ianc

es. b

Hig

her s

core

s ind

icat

e les

s ove

rt ra

cism

. CH

ighe

r sco

res i

ndic

ate l

ess t

radi

tiona

l atti

- tu

des t

owar

d wom

en.

*p <

.05

(two-

taile

d). *

*p <

-01 (

two-

taile

d). *

**p <

.001

(tw

o-ta

iled)

.


Table 2

Regressions Testing Experienced Discrimination as a Moderator

Business academics Sociologists

Step Variable Step 1 p Final p Step 1 p Final f3

1 White -. 16* Male -.27** Experience discrimination -. 14 Change in R2 .11**

2 White x Discrimination

Male x Discirmination

Change in R2 Overall model F 7.63 Overall adjusted R2 .09** N 151

-. 17* -.25** .28 .11**

-.12

-.33*

.02 6.19

.lo** 151

-.15* -.16** -.36*** -.35*** -.19** .OO .15*** .15***

.09

-.36***

.06** 16.10 14.42

.14*** .19*** 255 255

Note. Standardized regression coefficients are reported. White: 0 = No, 1 = Yes. Male: 0 =No, 1 = Yes. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

experiencing discrimination personally showed a positive relationship to support for AA among women, but almost no relationship to AA attitudes among men. The findings for sociologists indicate that experiencing discrimination showed almost no relationship to AA attitudes among women, but a negative effect on support for AA among men. As such, both sets of findings indicate partial support for the hypothesis.

Hypothesis 2 predicted that racism would mediate the relationship between ethnicity and AA attitudes. For mediation to be demonstrated, four results must be found (Baron & Kenny, 1986). First, the independent variable (IV) must be a significant predictor of the dependent variable (DV). Second, the IV must be a significant predictor of the mediator. Third, the mediator must be a significant predictor of the DV. Finally, when the mediator is controlled, the association between the IV and the DV must be substantially reduced. Partial mediation occurs when the IV has a significant direct effect on the DV in addition to the portion of the effect explained by the mediator. If the IV has no significant direct effect on the DV when the mediator is controlled, the relationship between the IV and the DV is said to be hl ly mediated.


r

Q g 2.0 - $ 1.5 -

1.0 - 0.5 -

Business academics

4.0 1

LOW High

Experienced discrimination

Sociologists

4.0 1

$ 1.5

A:: I , , 0

LOW High

Experienced discrimination

-+- Women tMenI Figure 1, Plots of the moderating effect of experiencing discrimination on the relationship between gender and support for affirmative action (AA).

Table 3 shows the results of the regressions testing racism as a mediator between ethnicity and AA attitudes. The findings indicate that racism mediated the relationship between ethnicity and AA attitudes among business academics. For this group, the White dummy variable was a significant predictor of the reciprocal of the overt racism index, indicating that Whites showed more overt racism than did people of color. The White dummy variable was also a significant predictor in Step 1 of the AA attitudes equation, with Whites showing less support for AA than people of color. Step 2 of the equation showed that overt racism was a significant predictor of AA attitudes, and those expressing more racism were less likely to support AA. When racism was controlled, the White dummy variable was no longer a significant predictor of AA attitudes. Together, these results indicate that racism fully mediated the effect of ethnicity on AA attitudes for business academics.

Overt racism was a significant predictor of AA attitudes in the hypothesized direction among sociologists. However, the White dummy variable was not a significant predictor of overt racism among this group. Hence, racism did not mediate the relationship between ethnicity and AA attitudes for sociologists.

Hypothesis 3 predicted that attitudes toward women would mediate the relationship between gender and AA attitudes. Table 4 shows the results of the


Table 3

Regressions Testing Racism as a Mediator ~~

Business Sociology

Step Step 1 j3 Final j3 Step 1 j3 Final p DV = Racism (reciprocal)

1 White Change in R2

Overall model F Overall adjusted R2

DV = Support for AA 1 White 2 Racism (reciprocal)


N

Change in R2

-.14* .02*

3.18

.01*

-.17*

.03* 4.31

.02* 154

-.14* .02*

-.09 .53*** .30***

32.09 .29*** 154

.02 .02 -00 .oo

0.09 .oo .oo

-.ll* -.12* .46***

.01* .21*** 2.96 37.13

.01* .22*** 259 259

~

Note. DV = dependent variable, AA = afirmative action. Standardized regression coefficients are reported. White: 0 = No, 1 = Yes. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

regression analyses testing this hypothesis. The findings support the hypothesis for both business academics and sociologists. Gender was a significant predictor of attitudes toward women for both groups, with men showing more traditional attitudes. Gender was also a significant predictor in Step 1 of the AA attitudes equation, with men showing less support for AA than women in both groups. Step 2 of the equation showed that traditional attitudes toward women were associated with less support for AA, and when attitudes toward women were controlled, the effect of gender was reduced substantially. For business academics, the gender effect was no longer significant when attitudes toward women were controlled, indicating full mediation. For sociologists, the gender effect was reduced by 33%, but was still significant when attitudes toward women were controlled, indicating partial mediation.

Hypothesis 4 predicted that belief in discrimination would mediate the relationship between gender and ethnicity and AA attitudes. The findings indicate that among business academics, belief in discrimination mediated the effects of

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION AlTITUDES 1633

Table 4

Regressions Testing Traditional Attitudes Toward Women as a Mediator

Business Sociology

Step Step 1 p Final p Step 1 p Final p DV = Traditional attitude to women (reciprocal)

1 Male -.43 * * * -.43 * * * -.30* * * -.30* * * Change in R2 .19*** .19*** .09*** .09* * *

Overall model F 35.23 35.23 25.86 25.86 Overall adjusted R2 .18*** .18*** .@*** .@***

DV = Support for AA 1 Male -.27** -.12 -32*** -.24***

2 Traditional attitude toward women (reciprocal) .34*** .24***

Change in R2 .07** .09*** .lo*** .05*** Overall model F 11.60 14.76 28.83 23.28 Overall adjusted R2 .06** .15*** .lo*** .15*** N 156 156 260 260

Note. DV = dependent variable, AA = affirmative action. Standardized regression coefficients are reported. Male: 0 = No, 1 = Yes. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

both gender and ethnicity on AA attitudes. Among sociologists, belief in discrimination mediated the effect of gender on AA attitudes.

Table 5 shows the results of the regression analyses testing this hypothesis. Among business academics, both gender and ethnicity were significant predictors of belief in discrimination, with women and people of color expressing a stronger belief that gender and race discrimination exist in academia. Among sociologists, gender was a significant predictor of belief in discrimination, but ethnicity was not.

For both groups of respondents, gender and ethnicity significantly predicted AA attitudes, with men and Whites showing less support. For both groups, belief in discrimination was a significant positive predictor of AA support, and the effects of gender and ethnicity were reduced substantially when belief in discrimination was controlled. Among business academics, the effects of gender and ethnicity were not significant when belief in discrimination was controlled, indicating fill mediation of demographic effects. Among sociologists, the effect of


Table 5

Regressions Testing Belief in Discrimination as a Mediator

Step

Business Sociology

Step 1 p Final p Step 1 p Final p DV =Belief in discrimination

1 White Male Change in R2


DV = Support for AA 1 White

Male

Change in R2

Overall model F Overall adjusted R2 N

2 Belief in discrimination

-.17* -.17* -.30*** -3o*** .11*** .]I***

.lo*** .lo*** 9.48 9.48

-.18* -.I0 -.26** -.12

.48*** .lo** .20***

7.94 20.89 .08** .28*** 152 152

-.08 -.08 -37*** -.37*** .14*** .14***

20.58 20.58 .13*** .13***

-.12* -.08 -*33*** -. 1 1 *

.58*** .12*** .29***

17.04 58.37 .11*** .40*** 258 258

Note. DV = dependent variable, AA = affirmative action. Standardized regression coefficients are reported. White: 0 = No, 1 = Yes. Male: 0 = No, 1 = Yes. *p<.O5. **p<.Ol .***p<.OOI.

ethnicity was not significant, but the gender effect remained significant when belief in discrimination was controlled. Hence, belief in discrimination partially mediated the effect of gender on AA attitudes among sociologists, but because ethnicity was not a significant predictor of belief in discrimination, it did not kl- fill the criteria for mediation of the ethnicity effect.

Table 6 shows regressions testing all three potential mediators simultaneously. We conducted this analysis because the three mediators were moderately correlated with each other, and we desired to document whether each mediator significantly predicted AA attitudes when the other two were controlled. The findings indicate that all three mediators-racism, traditional attitudes toward women, and belief in discrimination-were significant predictors of AA attitudes in the final regression equation. Among business academics, the effects of the demographic variables were reduced to nonsignificance when all


Table 6

Regressions Examining All Mediators Simultaneously __ _ _ ~ ~ __

Business Sociology

Step Step 1 p Final p Step 1 p Final p _ _ _ _

DV = support for AA 1 White

2 Racism (reciprocal) Male

Traditional attitude toward women (reciprocal)

Belief in discrimination Change in R2

Overall model F Overall adjusted R2 N

-.18* -.07 -.26** -.04

.35***

.14*

.32*** .09** .35***

7.63 23.17 .08** .43*** 151 151

-.12* -.09* -.32*** -.04

.20**

.lo* SO***

.11*** .35***

.11*** .45*** 254 254

16.04 42.20

Note. DV = dependent variable; AA = affirmative action. Standardized regression coefficients are reported. White: 0 = No, 1 = Yes. Male: 0 = No, 1 =Yes. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

three mediators were controlled, indicating full mediation. Among sociologists, the gender effect was fully mediated in the final equation, but as established in the earlier analyses, ethnicity was not a significant predictor of the mediators. For this reason, the results did not meet the criteria for mediation of the ethnicity effect.

Discussion

These results contribute to the literature by providing some new explanations for demographic group differences in AA attitudes. Previous studies have shown that beliefs about the characteristics and outcomes of AA programs can explain demographic group differences in AA attitudes (Bell et al., 2000; Kravitz & Klineberg, 2000; Kravitz et al., 2000). To our knowledge, this study is the first to identify racism as a mediator of the relationship between ethnicity and AA attitudes. This study is also the first in the United States to document that attitudes toward women mediate the relationship between gender and AA attitudes. Konrad and Hartmann (2001) found that attitudes toward women were a


significant mediator of this relationship in Australia, where AA programs target women only, and our replication of that finding indicates the importance of gender attitudes on AA support in the United States. Finally, this study is the first to show that the perception of personally experiencing discrimination moderates the relationship between gender and attitude toward AA in a direction consistent with self-interest.

We followed previous authors (Bell et al., 1997, 2000) by using an expectancy-value approach to predict AA attitudes. In developing our hypotheses, we reasoned that perceptions of personal experiences, beliefs about African Ameri- cans and women, and views on the existence of gender and race discrimination in academia would logically lead to outcomes that were positive or negative for the perceiver, resulting in either support for or opposition to AA programs. Our findings provide at least partial support for all of our predictions, justifying the use- fulness of the expectancy-value framework for predicting policy attitudes.

First, the impact of self-interest received some support from significant interaction effects demonstrating that the perception of experiencing discrimination moderated the relationship between gender and AA attitudes. Specifically, among business academics, women who believed they had experienced discrimination were more supportive of AA programs, fulfilling our expectation that beneficiary groups who believed they had experienced discrimination would embrace AA as a potential solution to their problems. Among sociologists, men who believed they had experienced discrimination had more negative attitudes toward AA. This finding supported our argument that nonbeneficiary groups who believed they had experienced discrimination would reject AA as a possible cause of their material losses.

The difference in findings for sociologists and business academics is note- worthy because the pattern is consistent with competition theories of intergroup conflict. Competition theories argue that as a socially subordinate group increases in relative size, it becomes more of a threat to the dominant group’s control over power and resources (Tolbert, Graham, & Andrews, 1999). Women constitute a substantially larger percentage of academics in the field of sociology than in the field of business. In the year our data were collected, the American Sociological Association estimated that about 48% of academic sociologists were women, compared to the Academy of Management’s estimate of about 25% of business academics in the division we surveyed. Hence, women pose considerably more competition for male sociologists than they do for male business academics. As such, the finding that male sociologists, but not male business academics, who perceived themselves as experiencing discrimination were less likely to support AA programs is consistent with the greater perceived threat to men posed by women in sociology. Future research could contribute to the intergroup conflict literature by examining the effects of the proportionate representation of women and people of color on AA attitudes.


We identified three mediators of the relationship between demographics and AA attitudes; specifically, racism, traditional attitudes toward women, and belief in the existence of discrimination. All three of these factors were significant predictors of AA attitudes in both samples, with those expressing more racism, more traditional attitudes toward women, and less belief in discrimination showing less support for AA. Among business academics, all of the predicted mediating relationships were supported. Specifically, racism and belief in discrimination mediated the effect of ethnicity (i.e., White vs. person of color) on AA attitudes, and attitudes toward women and belief in discrimination mediated the effect of gender on AA attitudes.Ethnicity did not significantly interact with experienced discrimination to affect AA attitudes, but this may be a result of limited statistical power arising from the small number of people of color in our data set, which required that we combine Asian Americans, Native Americans, Hispanic Ameri- cans, and African Americans into a single group. For this reason, we caution the reader against placing an emphasis on this nonsignificant effect.

Among sociologists, the effect of gender was significantly mediated by attitudes toward women and belief in discrimination, but no significant mediators of the effect of ethnicity on AA attitudes were found. The White dummy variable was not a significant predictor of either overt racism or belief in discrimination in our sample of sociologists, probably because the sociologists showed very liberal attitudes across the board compared to business academics. Specifically, because sociologists were considerably less likely to endorse overt racism items and considerably more likely than business academics to believe that race and gender discrimination exists in academe, ethnic group differences were substantially smaller among sociologists than among their business counterparts. Additionally, the small number of people of color included in the sample of sociologists (only 37 out of 254) limits the statistical power of our study to detect such a small effect. Finally, the overt racism measure had a low reliability among sociologists, further limiting our ability to detect a true effect. For these reasons, we caution the reader against interpreting our inability to identify mediators of the ethnicity effect for sociologists.

One limitation of our study is the moderate response rate we obtained for our survey. If we had access to the resources to interview our respondents via tele- phone, to send more mailings, or to offer premiums for participation in the study, we might have been able to enhance response. The moderate response rate limits the generalizability of our findings. Additionally, our findings may have been influenced by the fact that our respondents were academics and possibly familiar with research on racism, discrimination, and affirmative action. As such, our findings should not be generalized beyond academia.

The demographic distributions of our samples were consistent with the populations from which they were drawn, however, suggesting that they may have been representative. Furthermore, the two samples differed from each


other on gender and the expression of liberal versus conservative attitudes, but despite these differences, they showed consistent findings supporting overt racism and belief in discrimination as predictors of AA attitudes and attitude toward women and belief in discrimination as mediators of the relationship between gender and AA attitudes. The fact that two disparate samples demonstrated consistent findings should enhance confidence in the generalizability of these particular results.

Another limitation is the fact that we had too few African American respondents to examine their attitudes separately. Because African Americans were indicated as the beneficiaries of AA programs in our survey, their responses are most relevant to the question of whether self-interest or other factors explain the association between ethnicity and support for AA. Our sample included only 4 African American business academics (2 women, 2 men) and 11 African Ameri- can sociologists (6 women, 5 men). Future research on this topic could make a contribution by finding a way to oversample African Americans in order to ensure a sufficient sample size to examine their attitudes directly. In particular, the inclusion of more African Americans in the sample might also have resulted in larger differences between Whites and people of color on our measure of racism against African Americans. Unfortunately, with the sampling frames we used for this study, oversampling African Americans was not possible.

Additionally, the small number of women of color limited our ability to deter- mine whether gender and ethnicity had additive or interactive effects on AA attitudes. An exploratory ANCOVA (available from the first author), which combined the data from business academics and sociologists and controlled for academic field, shows significant main effects for the White and male dummy variables @s < .01) and a nonsignificant two-way interaction (p > .20). Women of color (M = 3.74, SE = .15) showed significantly more support for AA than did White men (M = 2.96, SE = .05), but the 95% confidence intervals around the means for women of color, men of color (M= 3.26, SE = . I l), and White women (M= 3.44, SE = .06) overlapped. White men showed significantly less support for AA than did White women or women of color, but the 95% confidence intervals around the means for White men and men of color overlapped slightly.

Finally, we did not measure other factors that may affect AA attitudes; specifically, fairness perceptions and people’s identification with their demographic or other identity groups. Perceptions of the fairness of AA programs influence AA attitudes, although fairness perceptions have been shown to be tainted by sexism (Bobocel et al., 1998) and may be biased by racism as well. Social identities influence the extent to which people are concerned about the welfare of the groups to which they belong (Davidson & Friedman, 1998) and share beliefs held by their identity group (Spitz, 1998). Hence, social identities may influence attitudes toward AA policies.


References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S . G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1 986). The moderator-mediator variable distinc- tion in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical consideration. Journal of Personalify and Social Psychology, 51, 1 173- 1 182.

Bell, M. P., Harrison, D. A., & McLaughlin, M. E. (1997). Asian American attitudes toward affirmative action in employment: Implications for the model minority myth. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 33,

Bell, M. P., Harrison, D. A., & McLaughlin, M. E. (2000). Forming, changing, and acting on attitude toward affirmative action programs in employment: A theory-driven approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,784-798.

Bobo, L. (1998). Race, interests, and beliefs about affirmative action. American Behavioral Scientist, 41,985-1 003.

Bobo, L., & Kluegel, J. R. (1993). Opposition to race-targeting: Self-interest, stratification ideology, or racial attitudes? American Sociological Review, 58,

Bobocel, D. R., Son Hing, L. S., Davey, L. M., Stanley, D. J., & Zanna, M. P. (1 998). Justice-based opposition to social policies: Is it genuine? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75,653-669.

Cordova, D. I. (1992). Cognitive limitations and affirmative action: The effects of aggregate versus sequential data in the perception of discrimination. Social Justice Research, 5,319-333.

Crosby, F. J., & Cordova, D. I. (1996). Words worth of wisdom: Toward an understanding of affirmative action. Journal of Social Issues, 52(4), 33-49,

Cross, W. E., Jr. (1 978). Models of psychological nigrescence: A literature review. Journal of Black Psychology, 5 , 13-3 1.

Davidson, M., & Friedman, R. A. (1998). When excuses don’t work: The persis- tent injustice effect among Black managers. Administrative Science Quar- terly, 43, 154-183.

Devine, P. G., & Elliot, A. J. (1995). Are racial stereotypes really fading? The Princeton Trilogy revisited. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21,

Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (1996). Afirmative action, unintentional racial biases, and intergroup relations. Journal of Social Issues, 52, 5 1-75.

Downing, N. E., & Roush, K. L. (1 985). From passive acceptance to active com- mitment: A model of feminist identity development in women. Counseling Psychologist, 13,695-709.

356-377.

443-464.

1 139-1 150.


Fazio, R. H., & Towles-Schwen, T. (1999). The MODE model of attitude- behavior processes. In s. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 97- 1 16). New York, NY: Guilford.

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1 975). Beliej attitude, intention, and behavior. Read- ing, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Fraser, S. (Ed.). (1995). The bell curve wars: Race, intelligence, and thefirture of America. New York, NY Basic Books.

Harrison, D. A., Kravitz, D. A., & Stahl, A. (2000, April). Individual dzflerences in reactions to afjrmative action programs: A theory-driven meta-analysis. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organiza- tional Psychology, New Orleans, LA.

Helms, J. E. (1 990). Black and White racial identity: Theory, research, andprac- tice. Westport, C T Greenwood.

Henderson-King, D., & Stewart, A. J. (1 997). Feminist consciousness: Perspec- tives on women’s experience. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,

Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. A. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American life. New York, I W Free Press.

Jacobson, C. K. (1985). Resistance to affmative action. Journal of Conzict Res- olution, 29,306-329.

Jacques, R. (1997). The unbearable whiteness of being: Reflections of a pale, stale male. In P. Prasad, A. J. Mills, M. Elmes, & A. Prasad (Eds.), Managing the organizational melting pot: Dilemmas of workplace diversity (pp. 80- 106). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kluegel, J. R., & Smith, E. R. (1983). Affirmative action attitudes: Effects of self-interest, racial affect, and stratification beliefs on Whites’ views. Social Forces, 61,797-824.

Konrad, A. M., & Hartmann, L. (2001). Gender differences in attitudes toward affirmative action programs in Australia: Effects of beliefs, interests, and attitudes toward women. Sex Roles, 45,415-432.

Konrad, A. M., & Linnehan, F. (1999). Affirmative action: History, effects, and attitudes. In Ci N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender and work (pp. 429-452). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Konrad, A. M., Ross, G., 111, & Linnehan, F. (2001, August). Is promoting an African American unfair? Findings from two experimental studies. Paper presented at the meeting of the Academy of Management, Washington, DC.

Kravitz, D. A., & Klineberg, S. L. (2000). Reactions to two versions of affirmative action among White, Blacks, and Hispanics. Journal of Applied Psychol-

Kravitz, D. A., Klineberg, S. L., Avery, D. R., Nguyen, A. K., Lund, C., & Fu, E. J. (2000). Attitudes toward affirmative action: Correlations with demographic

23,415-426.

O ~ V , 85,597-61 1 .


variables and with beliefs about targets, actions, and economic effects. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 1 109-1 136.

Kravitz, D. A., & Platania, J. (1993). Attitudes and beliefs about affirmative action: Effects of target and of respondent sex and ethnicity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78,928-938.

Linnehan, F., Konrad, A. M., Reitman, F., Greenhalgh, A., & London, M. (2003). Behavioral goals for a diverse organization: The effects of attitudes, social norms, and racial identity for Asian Americans and Whites. Journal of AppliedSocial Psychology, 33, 1331-1359.

Little, B. L., Murry, W. D., & Wimbush, J. C. (1998). Perceptions of workplace affirmative action plans: A psychological perspective. Group and Organiza- tion Management, 23,27-47.

McConahay, J. R. (1 986). Modern racism, ambivalence, and the Modem Racism scale. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 9 1 - 125). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Miceli, M. P., Rehg, M., Near, J. P., & Ryan, K. C. (1999). Can laws protect whistle-blowers? Results of a naturally occurring field experiment. Work and Occupations, 26, 129-151.

Mish, F. C. (Ed.). (1989). The new Merriam- Webster dictionary. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster.

Murrell, A. J., Dietz-Uhler, B. L., Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Drout, C. (1994). Aversive racism and resistance to affirmative action: Perceptions of justice are not necessarily color blind. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15,71-86.

Phinney, J. S . (1992). The multigroup ethnic identity measure: A new scale for use with diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7, 156-176.

Sears, D. L. (1998). Racism and politics in the United States. In J. L. Eberhardt & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Confi-onting racism: The problem and the response (pp. 76- 100). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sears, D. O., van Laar, C., Carrillo, M., & Kosterman, R. (1997). Is it really racism? The origins of White Americans’ opposition to race-targeted policies. Public Opinion Quarterly, 61, 16-53.

Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., & Bobo, L. (1996). Racism, conservatism, affirmative action, and intellectual sophistication: A matter of principled conservatism or group dominance? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1-1 5.

Smith, E., & Witt, S. (1990). Black faculty and affirmative action at predomi- nantly White institutions. Western Journal of Black Studies, 14( l), 9-16.

Spence, J . T., & Helmreich, R. (1972, Spring). The Attitude Toward Women scale: An objective instrument to measure attitudes toward the rights and roles of women in contemporary society. (JSAS) Catalog of Selected Docu- ments in Psychology, 2,66-67.

Spitz, J . (1998). Human nature and judicial interpretation of equal employment law. Managerial and Decision Economics, 19, 52 1-535.


Steeh, C., & Krysan, M. (1996). Affirmative action and the public, 1970-1995. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60, 128-158.

Thomas, A. J., & Speight, S. L. (1999). Racial identity and racial socialization attitudes of African American parents. Journal of Black Psychology, 25,

Tolbert, P. S., Graham, M. E., & Andrews, A. 0. (1999). Group gender composi- tion and work group relations. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender and work (pp. 179-202). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tougas, F., & Beaton, A. M. (1993). Affirmative action in the work place: For better or for worse. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 42,

Tougas, F., & Veilleux, F. (1990). The response of men to affirmative action strat- egies for women: The study of a predictive model. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 22,424-432.

Twenge, J. M. ( 1997). Attitudes toward women, 1970- 1995: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 35-5 1.

152-1 70.

253-264.

Documents

Explaining Demographic Group Differences in Affirmative Action Attitudes