Advertisement

Sex Roles

, Volume 62, Issue 5–6, pp 347–360 | Cite as

Attitudes about Affirmative Action for Women: The Role of Children in Shaping Parents’ Interests

  • Anastasia H. ProkosEmail author
  • Chardie L. Baird
  • Jennifer Reid Keene
Original Article

Abstract

This paper uses pooled cross-sectional data from the 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006 General Social Surveys (GSS), a nationally representative sample of the U.S. adult population, to assess how employed parents’ attitudes about affirmative action for women are influenced by their children’s gender. The analytic sample includes 1,695 employed respondents. Findings based on logistic regression indicate that having daughters (and no sons) magnifies employed mothers’ support for affirmative action for women and minimizes employed fathers’ support. Conversely, having sons (and no daughters) does not suppress mothers’ support for affirmative action for women, nor does it differentiate men’s attitudes about affirmative action. We speculate about how these patterns in parents’ attitudes relate to self interest and group interest (i.e., their children’s future work experiences).

Keywords

Affirmative action for women Attitudes Children 

References

  1. Baunach, D. M. (2002). Progress, opportunity, and backlash: Explaining attitudes toward gender-based affirmative action. Sociological Focus, 35, 345–362.Google Scholar
  2. Belsley, D. A., Kuh, E., & Welsch, R. E. (1980). Regression diagnostics: Identifying influential data and sources of collinearity. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  3. Bianchi, S. M. (2000). Maternal employment and time with children: Dramatic change or surprising continuity? Demography, 37, 401–414.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Blair-Loy, M. (2003). Competing devotions: Career and family among women executives. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bobo, L. (1988). Group conflict, prejudice, and the paradox of contemporary racial attitudes. In P. A. Katz & D. A. Taylor (Eds.), Eliminating racism: Profiles in controversy (pp. 85–116). New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bobo, L. (1998). Race, interests, and beliefs about affirmative action: Unanswered questions and new directions. American Behavioral Scientists, 41, 985–1003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bobo, L., & Kluegel, J. R. (1993). Opposition to race-targeting: Self-interest, stratification ideology, or racial attitudes? American Sociological Review, 58, 443–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Budig, M. J., & England, P. (2001). The wage penalty for motherhood. American Sociological Review, 66, 204–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Correll, S., Benard, S., & Paik, I. (2007). Getting a job: Is there a motherhood penalty? American Journal of Sociology, 112, 1297–1338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crosby, F. (1984). The denial of personal discrimination. American Behavioral Scientists, 27, 371–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dietz-Uhler, B., & Murrell, A. J. (1998). Evaluations of affirmative action applicants: Perceived fairness, human capital, or social identity? Sex Roles, 38, 933–951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dion, K. L., & Kawakami, K. (1996). Ethnicity and perceived discrimination in Toronto: Another look at the personal/group discrimination discrepancy. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 28, 203–213.Google Scholar
  13. Garcia, D. M., Desmarais, S., Branscombe, N. R., & Gee, S. S. (2005). Opposition to redistributive employment policies for women: The role of policy experience and group interest. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 583–602.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Hays, S. (1996). The cultural contradictions of motherhood. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hill, M. (1979). The wage effects of marital status and children. Journal of Human Resources, 14, 579–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hillary Clinton endorses Barack Obama. (2008, June 7). The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/07/us/politics/07/text-clinton.html.
  17. Jencks, C. (2008, October 17). Reinventing the American dream. Chronicle of Higher Education, pp. B6.Google Scholar
  18. Kane, E. W., & Whipkey, K. J. (2009). Predictors of public support for gender-related affirmative action: Interests, gender attitudes, and stratification beliefs. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73, 223–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kobrynowicz, D. D., & Biernat, M. (1997). Decoding subjective evaluations: How stereotypes provide shifting standards. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 579–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Morgan, S. P., Lye, D. N., & Condran, G. A. (1988). Sons, daughters, and the risk of marital disruption. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 110–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Olson, J. M., Roese, N. J., Meen, J., & Robertson, D. J. (1995). The preconditions and consequences of relative deprivation: Two field studies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 944–964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Operario, D., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). Judgements of personal versus group discrimination and evaluations of subtle versus blatant bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 550–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Orloff, A. (1996). Gender and the welfare state. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 51–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Raley, S., & Bianchi, S. (2006). Sons, daughters, and family processes: Does gender of children matter? Annual Review of Sociology, 32, 401–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sears, D. O., & Funk, C. L. (1991). The role of self-interest in social and political attitudes. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental psychology: Vol. 24 (pp. 1–91). San Diego: Academic Press Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Strolovitch, D. Z. (1998). Playing favorites: Public attitudes toward race- and gender-targeted antidiscrimination policy. NWSA Journal, 10, 27–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Swim, J. K., & Cohen, L. L. (1997). Overt, covert, and subtle sexism: A comparison between the attitude toward and modern sexism scales. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 103–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Terkel, S. (1974). Working: People talk about what they do all day and how they feel about what they do. New York: Random House, Inc.Google Scholar
  31. Tougas, F., Crosby, F., Joly, S., & Pelchat, D. (1995). Men’s attitudes toward affirmative action: Justice and intergroup relations at the crossroads. Social Justice Research, 8, 57–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Townsend, N. W. (2002). The package deal: Marriage, work and fatherhood in men’s lives. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Tuch, S. A., & Hughes, M. (1996). Whites’ racial policy attitudes. Social Science Quarterly, 77, 723–745.Google Scholar
  34. Walzer, S. (1998). Thinking about the baby: Gender and transitions into parenthood. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Warner, R. L., & Steel, B. S. (1999). Child rearing as a mechanism for social change: The relationship of child gender to parents’ commitment to gender equity. Gender & Society, 13, 503–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Washington, E. (2008). Female socialization: How daughters affect their legislator fathers’ voting on women’s issues. American Economic Review, 98(1), 311–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anastasia H. Prokos
    • 1
    Email author
  • Chardie L. Baird
    • 2
  • Jennifer Reid Keene
    • 3
  1. 1.Iowa State UniversityAmesUSA
  2. 2.Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Social WorkKansas State UniversityManhattanUSA
  3. 3.University of Nevada Las VegasLas VegasUSA

Personalised recommendations