Abstract Thinking Increases Support for Affirmative Action
- 77 Downloads
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.
KeywordsAffirmative action Sex discrimination Abstraction Thinking Cognitive processes Construal level Quotas Gender
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.
All participants included in these studies gave informed consent.
- 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
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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/.
- 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
- 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
- Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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/10.1037/0022-3522.214.171.1244.Google Scholar
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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