Advertisement

Sex Roles

pp 1–19 | Cite as

Abstract Thinking Increases Support for Affirmative Action

  • Alexandra FleischmannEmail author
  • Pascal Burgmer
Original Article
  • 77 Downloads

Abstract

Affirmative action is the proactive process of using resources to ensure that people are not discriminated against based on their group membership, such as gender or ethnicity. It is an effective way to reduce discrimination, but attitudes toward affirmative action are often negative, especially in groups implementing affirmative action. Previous research identified different influences on attitudes toward affirmative action, but mainly unchangeable ones. We focus on the influence of abstract thinking on support for affirmative action because abstract thinking is a changeable characteristic that can direct attention to the purpose of affirmative action policies. Across five studies with U.S. MTurk workers—focusing on women as the target group, but including other target groups as well—we show that thinking abstractly improves attitudes toward affirmative action. We observe this effect using correlational (Study 1, n = 251) and experimental (Studies 2–5, ns = 201–515) designs. Additionally, we test whether perceived discrimination increases the impact of abstract thinking on attitudes toward affirmation action (Studies 2–5). We report a meta-analysis across our studies. Overall, thinking abstractly about affirmative action clearly leads to more favorable attitudes toward it, and this effect is somewhat stronger when discrimination is perceived to be high. Consequently, companies and policymakers that would like to increase support for affirmative action policies could use abstract thinking to do so, for example by encouraging employees to think about and discuss why (vs. how) affirmative action policies are implemented.

Keywords

Affirmative action Sex discrimination Abstraction Thinking Cognitive processes Construal level Quotas Gender 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The present research was funded by a Junior Researcher Award awarded by the Research Unit FOR 2150 Relativity in Social Cognition of the German Research Foundation to Alexandra Fleischmann and Pascal Burgmer.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. The reported studies were supported by a Junior Researcher Award awarded by the Research Unit FOR 2150 Relativity in Social Cognition of the German Research Foundation to Alexandra Fleischmann and Pascal Burgmer.

Informed Consent

All participants included in these studies gave informed consent.

Supplementary material

11199_2019_1068_MOESM1_ESM.docx (264 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 263 kb)

References

  1. Aberson, C. L. (2007). Diversity, merit, fairness, and discrimination beliefs as predictors of support for affirmative-action policy actions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 2451–2474.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2007.00266.x.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2006). Power, optimism, and risk-taking. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 511–536.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.324.Google Scholar
  3. Aust, F., Diedenhofen, B., Ullrich, S., & Musch, J. (2013). Seriousness checks are useful to improve data validity in online research. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 527–535.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-012-0265-2.Google Scholar
  4. Baldwin, M., & Lammers, J. (2016). Past-focused environmental comparisons promote proenvironmental outcomes for conservatives. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113, 14953–14957.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1610834113.Google Scholar
  5. Beaton, A. M., & Tougas, F. (2001). Reactions to affirmative action: Group membership and social justice. Social Justice Research, 14, 61–78.  https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1012575724550.Google Scholar
  6. Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com's mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20, 351–368.  https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpr057.Google Scholar
  7. Berry, R. M. (2004). Affirmative action in higher education: Costs, benefits, and implementation. Journal of Public Budgeting, Accounting & Financial Management, 16, 257–276.  https://doi.org/10.1108/JPBAFM-16-02-2004-B007.Google Scholar
  8. Bobo, L. (1998). Race, interests, and beliefs about affirmative action: Unanswered questions and new directions. American Behavioral Scientist, 41, 985–1003.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764298041007009.Google Scholar
  9. Bobo, L., & Kluegel, J. R. (1993). Opposition to race-targeting: Self-interest, stratification ideology, or racial attitudes? American Sociological Review, 58, 443–464.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2096070.Google Scholar
  10. Bobocel, D. R., & Farrell, A. C. (1996). Sex-based promotion decisions and interactional fairness: Investigating the influence of managerial accounts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 22–35.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.1.22.Google Scholar
  11. Bobocel, D. R., Son Hing, L. S., Davey, L. M., Stanley, D. J., & Zanna, M. P. (1998). Justice-based opposition to social policies: Is it genuine? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 653–669.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.653.Google Scholar
  12. Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon's mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980.Google Scholar
  13. Cancian, M. (1998). Race-based versus class-based affirmative action in college admissions. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 17, 94–105.  https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6688(199824)17:1<94::AID-PAM6>3.0.CO;2-C.Google Scholar
  14. Choi, I., Koo, M., & Choi, J. A. (2007). Individual differences in analytic versus holistic thinking. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 691–705.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167206298568.Google Scholar
  15. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155.Google Scholar
  16. Crosby, F. J. (1994). Understanding affirmative action. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15, 13–41.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.1994.9646071.Google Scholar
  17. Crosby, F. J., Iyer, A., & Sincharoen, S. (2006). Understanding affirmative action. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 585–611.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190029.Google Scholar
  18. Danziger, S., Montal, R., & Barkan, R. (2012). Idealistic advice and pragmatic choice: A psychological distance account. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 1105–1117.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027013.Google Scholar
  19. Del Re, A. C. (2013). compute.es: Compute Effect Sizes. R package version 0.2-2. Retrieved from http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/compute.es.
  20. DeNavas-Walt, C., & Proctor, B. D. (2015). Current population reports, income and poverty in the United States: 2014. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  21. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). GPower 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.  https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146.Google Scholar
  22. Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, S. L. (1990). A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 1–74). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  23. Fortune Editors. (2017). These are the women CEOs leading Fortune 500 companies. Fortune. Retrieved from http://fortune.com/2017/06/07/fortune-500-women-ceos/.
  24. Freitas, A. L., Gollwitzer, P., & Trope, Y. (2004). The influence of abstract and concrete mindsets on anticipating and guiding others' self-regulatory efforts. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 739–752.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2004.04.003.Google Scholar
  25. Galinsky, A. D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Magee, J. C. (2003). From power to action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 453–466.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.453.Google Scholar
  26. Golden, H., Hinkle, S., & Crosby, F. (2001). Reactions to affirmative action: Substance and semantics. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 73–88.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb02483.x.Google Scholar
  27. Harrison, D. A., Kravitz, D. A., Mayer, D. M., Leslie, L. M., & Lev-Arey, D. (2006). Understanding attitudes toward affirmative action programs in employment: Summary and meta-analysis of 35 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1013–1036.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1013.Google Scholar
  28. Hauser, D. J., & Schwarz, N. (2015). Attentive Turkers: MTurk participants perform better on online attention checks than do subject pool participants. Behavior Research Methods, 48, 400–407.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0578-z.Google Scholar
  29. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  30. Hitt, M. A., & Keats, B. W. (1984). Empirical identification of the criteria for effective affirmative action programs. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 20, 203–222.  https://doi.org/10.1177/002188638402000302.Google Scholar
  31. Huff, C., & Tingley, D. (2015). “Who are these people?” Evaluating the demographic characteristics and political preferences of MTurk survey respondents. Research & Politics, 2(3), 1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168015604648.Google Scholar
  32. Jackson, L. M., & Garcia, D. M. (2010). Endorsement of group change and organization change affirmative action programs for male and female beneficiaries. Sex Roles, 63, 239–250.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9796-0.Google Scholar
  33. Jaffé, M. E., Rudert, S. C., & Greifeneder, R. (2018). You should go for diversity, but I’d rather stay with similar others: Psychological distance modulates the preference for diversity. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  34. Jourová, V. (2016). Gender balance on corporate boards. Bruxelles: European Comission Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/document.cfm?doc_id=46280.Google Scholar
  35. Kirby, K. N., & Gerlanc, D. (2013). BootES: An R package for bootstrap confidence intervals on effect sizes. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 905–927.  https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-013-0330-5.Google Scholar
  36. Kivetz, Y., & Tyler, T. R. (2007). Tomorrow I’ll be me: The effect of time perspective on the activation of idealistic versus pragmatic selves. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 102, 193–211.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.07.002.Google Scholar
  37. Konrad, A. M., & Hartmann, L. (2001). Gender differences in attitudes roward affirmative action programs in Australia: Effects of beliefs, interests, and attitudes toward women. Sex Roles, 45, 415–432.  https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1014317800293.Google Scholar
  38. Konrad, A. M., & Linnehan, F. (1995). Race and sex differences in line managers' reactions to equal employment opportunity and affirmative action interventions. Group & Organization Management, 20, 409–439.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601195204003.Google Scholar
  39. Kravitz, D. A. (1995). Attitudes toward affirmative action plans directed at Blacks: Effects of plan and individual differences. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 2192–2220.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.tb01833.x.Google Scholar
  40. Kravitz, D. A., & Klineberg, S. L. (2000). Reactions to two versions of affirmative action among Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 597–611.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.4.597.Google Scholar
  41. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.6.928.Google Scholar
  42. 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 variables and with beliefs about targets, actions, and economic effects. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 1109–1136.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02513.x.Google Scholar
  43. Krings, F., Tschan, F., & Bettex, S. (2007). Determinants of attitudes toward affirmative action in a Swiss sample. Journal of Business and Psychology, 21, 585–611.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-007-9042-0.Google Scholar
  44. Lammers, J. (2012). Abstraction increases hypocrisy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 475–480.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.07.006.Google Scholar
  45. Levi, A. S., & Fried, Y. (2008). Differences between African Americans and Whites in reactions to affirmative action programs in hiring, promotion, training, and layoffs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1118–1129.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.5.1118.Google Scholar
  46. Levy, S. R., Freitas, A. L., & Salovey, P. (2002). Construing action abstractly and blurring social distinctions: Implications for perceiving homogeneity among, but also empathizing with and helping, others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1224–1238.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.5.1224.Google Scholar
  47. Liberman, N., & Trope, Y. (1998). The role of feasibility and desirability considerations in near and distant future decisions: A test of temporal construal theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 5–18.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.5.Google Scholar
  48. Liberman, N., Trope, Y., McCrea, S. M., & Sherman, S. J. (2007). The effect of level of construal on the temporal distance of activity enactment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 143–149.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.12.009.Google Scholar
  49. Linton, L. L., & Christiansen, N. D. (2006). Restoring equity or introducing bias? A contingency model of attitudes toward affirmative action programs. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 1617–1639.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00073.x.Google Scholar
  50. Little, B. L., Murry, W. D., & Wimbush, J. C. (1998). Perceptions of workplace affirmative action plans: A psychological perspective. Group & Organization Management, 23, 27–47.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601198231003.Google Scholar
  51. Luedecke, D. (2018). esc: Effect size computation for Meta analysis. R package version 0.4.1. Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=esc.
  52. McCrea, S. M., Wieber, F., & Myers, A. L. (2012). Construal level mind-sets moderate self- and social stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 51–68.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026108.Google Scholar
  53. Moss-Racusin, C. A., Dovidio, J. F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M. J., & Handelsman, J. (2012). Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, 16474–16479.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1211286109.Google Scholar
  54. Mullinix, K. J., Leeper, T. J., Druckman, J. N., & Freese, J. (2016). The generalizability of survey experiments. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 2, 109–138.  https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2015.19.Google Scholar
  55. Murrell, A. J., Dietz-Uhler, B. L., Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Drout, C. (1994). Aversive racism and resistance to affirmative action: Perception of justice are not necessarily color blind. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15, 71–86.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.1994.9646073.Google Scholar
  56. Nolan, S. A., Buckner, J. P., Marzabadi, C. H., & Kuck, V. J. (2008). Training and mentoring of chemists: A study of gender disparity. Sex Roles, 58, 235–250.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9310-5.Google Scholar
  57. Noonan, R. (2017). Women in STEM: 2017 Update (ESA Issue Brief #06–17). Retrieved from http://www.esa.doc.gov/sites/default/files/women-in-stem-2017-update.pdf.
  58. Paluck, E. L., & Green, D. P. (2009). Prejudice reduction: What works? A review and assessment of research and practice. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 339–367.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163607.Google Scholar
  59. Parker, C. P., Baltes, B. B., & Christiansen, N. D. (1997). Support for affirmative action, justice perceptions, and work attitudes: A study of gender and racial–ethnic group differences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 376–389.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.3.376.Google Scholar
  60. Peterson, Z. D., & Lamb, S. (2012). The political context for personal empowerment: Continuing the conversation. Sex Roles, 66, 758–763.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-012-0150-6.Google Scholar
  61. R Core Team. (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar
  62. Richard, F. D., Bond Jr., C. F., & Stokes-Zoota, J. J. (2003). One hundred years of social psychology quantitatively described. Review of General Psychology, 7, 331–363.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.7.4.331.Google Scholar
  63. Ritov, I., & Zamir, E. (2014). Affirmative action and other group tradeoff policies: Identifiability of those adversely affected. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 125, 50–60.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.04.002.Google Scholar
  64. Schönbrodt, F. D., & Perugini, M. (2013). At what sample size do correlations stabilize? Journal of Research in Personality, 47, 609–612.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.05.009.Google Scholar
  65. Sczesny, S., Spreemann, S., & Stahlberg, D. (2006). Masculine = Competent? Physical appearance and sex as sources of gender-stereotypic attributions. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 65, 15–23.  https://doi.org/10.1024/1421-0185.65.1.15.Google Scholar
  66. Semin, G. R., Higgins, T., de Montes, L. G., Estourget, Y., & Valencia, J. F. (2005). Linguistic signatures of regulatory focus: How abstraction fits promotion more than prevention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 36–45.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.1.36.Google Scholar
  67. 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, 476–490.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.476.Google Scholar
  68. Siddiqui, R. A., May, F., & Monga, A. (2014). Reversals of task duration estimates: Thinking how rather than why shrinks duration estimates for simple tasks, but elongates estimates for complex tasks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 50, 184–189.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.10.002.Google Scholar
  69. Simonsohn, U. (2014). No-way interactions. Retrieved from http://datacolada.org/17.  https://doi.org/10.15200/winn.142559.90552.
  70. Smith, P. K., & Trope, Y. (2006). You focus on the forest when you're in charge of the trees: Power priming and abstract information processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 578–596.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.578.Google Scholar
  71. Smith, P. K., Wigboldus, D. H. J., & Dijksterhuis, A. (2008). Abstract thinking increases one’s sense of power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 378–385.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2006.12.005.Google Scholar
  72. Son Hing, L. S., Bobocel, D. R., Zanna, M. P., Garcia, D. M., Gee, S. S., & Orazietti, K. (2011). The merit of meritocracy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 433–450.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024618.Google Scholar
  73. Steiger, J. H. (2004). Beyond the F test: Effect size confidence intervals and tests of close fit in the analysis of variance and contrast analysis. Psychological Methods, 9, 164–182.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.9.2.164.Google Scholar
  74. Susskind, A. M., Brymer, R. A., Kim, W. G., Lee, H. Y., & Way, S. A. (2014). Attitudes and perceptions toward affirmative action programs: An application of institutional theory. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 41, 38–48.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2014.04.003.Google Scholar
  75. Tougas, F., & Beaton, A. M. (1993). Affirmative action in the work place: For better or for worse. Applied Psychology, 42, 253–264.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1993.tb00741.x.Google Scholar
  76. Tougas, F., Brown, R., Beaton, A. M., & Joly, S. (1995a). Neosexism: plus ca change, plus c'est pareil. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 842–849.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167295218007.Google Scholar
  77. Tougas, F., Crosby, F., Joly, S., & Pelchat, D. (1995b). Men's attitudes toward affirmative action: Justice and intergroup relations at the crossroads. Social Justice Research, 8, 57–71.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02334826.Google Scholar
  78. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110, 403–421.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.110.3.403.Google Scholar
  79. Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117, 440–463.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018963.Google Scholar
  80. Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Wakslak, C. (2007). Construal levels and psychological distance: Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17, 83–95.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S1057-7408(07)70013-X.Google Scholar
  81. Vallacher, R. R., & Wegner, D. M. (1989). Levels of personal agency: Individual variation in action identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 660–671.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.4.660.Google Scholar
  82. Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1–48.  https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03.Google Scholar
  83. Walker, H. J., Feild, H. S., Giles, W. F., Bernerth, J. B., & Jones-Farmer, L. A. (2007). An assessment of attraction toward affirmative action organizations: Investigating the role of individual differences. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 28, 485–507.  https://doi.org/10.1002/job.434.Google Scholar
  84. Williams, L. E., Stein, R., & Galguera, L. (2014). The distinct affective consequences of psychological distance and construal level. Journal of Consumer Research, 40, 1123–1138.  https://doi.org/10.1086/674212.Google Scholar
  85. Zdaniuk, A., & Bobocel, D. R. (2011). Independent self-construal and opposition to affirmative action: The role of microjustice and macrojustice preferences. Social Justice Research, 24, 341–364.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-011-0143-6.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Social Cognition Center CologneUniversity of CologneKölnGermany
  2. 2.School of Psychology, Keynes CollegeUniversity of KentCanterburyUK

Personalised recommendations