Abstract
To test the position that some people’s willingness to endorse affirmative action is influenced by the match between beneficiary group and the attributional underpinnings of the programs, endorsement of four programs that could be used to benefit either women or men were assessed among 95 undergraduate students in Ontario, Canada. Students preferred the use of a remedial program that suggested that beneficiaries are under-qualified and need to develop job relevant skills for female versus male beneficiaries. This was driven by perceptions of the effectiveness of the program. For male beneficiaries, participants were more supportive of a mentorship development program that implied the necessity of structural change than they were of the remedial program. These effects were independent of participant gender.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aberson, C. L. (2007a). Diversity, merit, fairness, and discrimination beliefs as predictors as support for affirmative action policy actions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 2451–2474.
Aberson, C. L. (2007b). Diversity experiences predict changes in attitudes toward affirmative action. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13, 285–294.
Aberson, C. L., & Haag, S. C. (2003). Beliefs about affirmative action and diversity and their relationship to support for hiring policies. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 3, 121–138.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Beaton, A. M., & Tougas, F. (2001). Reactions to affirmative action: Group membership and social justice. Social Justice Research, 14, 61–78.
Beaton, A. M., Tougas, F., & Joly, S. (1996). Neosexism among male managers: Is it a matter of numbers? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 2189–2203.
Bobo, L., & Kluegel, J. R. (1993). Opposition to race-targeting: Self-interest, stratification ideology, or racial attitudes? American Sociological Review, 58, 443–464.
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.
Brickman, P., Rabinowitz, V. C., Daruza, J., Jr., Coates, D., Cohn, E., & Kidder, L. (1982). Models of helping and coping. American Psychologist, 37, 368–383.
Cejka, M. A., & Eagly, A. H. (1999). Gender-stereotypic images of occupations correspond to the sex segregation of employment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 413–423.
Crosby, F. J., & Franco, J. L. (2003). Connections between the ivory tower and the multicolored world: Linking abstract theories of social justice to the rough and tumble of affirmative action. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 362–373.
Crosby, F. J., Iyer, A., Clayton, S., & Downing, R. A. (2003). Affirmative action: Psychological data and the policy debates. American Psychologist, 58, 93–115.
Crosby, F. J., Iyer, A., & Sincharoen, S. (2006). Understanding affirmative action. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 585–611.
Esses, V. M., & Seligman, C. (1996). The individual-group distinction in assessments of strategies to reduce prejudice and discrimination: The case of affirmative action. In R. M. Sorrentino & T. E. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition, vol. 3: The interpersonal context (pp. 570–590). New York: Guilford.
Evans, J., & Frank, B. (2003). Contradictions and tensions: Exploring relations of masculinities in the numerically female-dominated nursing profession. The Journal of Masculinities, 11, 277–292.
Feather, N. T., & Boeckmann, R. J. (2007). Beliefs about gender discrimination in the workplace in the context of affirmative action: Effects of gender and ambivalent attitudes in an Australian sample. Sex Roles, 57, 31–42.
Federico, C. M., & Sidanius, J. (2002). Racism, ideology, and affirmative action revisited: The antecedents and consequences of “principled objections” to affirmative action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 488–502.
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.
Haley, H., & Sidanius, J. (2006). The positive and negative framing of affirmative action: A group dominance perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 656–668.
Hegarty, P., & Pratto, F. (2001). The effects of social category norms and stereotypes on explanations for intergroup differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 723–735.
Hegarty, P., & Pratto, F. (2004). The differences that norms make: Empiricism, social constructionism, and the interpretation of group differences. Sex Roles, 50, 445–453.
Human Resources and Skills Development Canada. (2001). Employment Equity Act review. Retrieved from http://www.rhdcc-hrsdc.gc.ca.
Jackson, L. M., & Esses, V. M. (1997). Of scripture and ascription: The relation between religious fundamentalism and intergroup helping. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 893–906.
Jackson, L. M., & Esses, V. M. (2000). Effects of perceived economic competition on people’s willingness to help empower immigrants. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 3, 419–435.
Jackson, L. M., Esses, V. M., & Burris, C. T. (2001). Contemporary sexism and discrimination: The importance of respect for men and women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 48–61.
Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of system justification in stereotyping and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1–27.
Jost, J. T., & Kay, A. C. (2005). Exposure to benevolent sexism and complementary gender stereotypes: Consequences for specific and diffuse forms of system justification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 498–509.
Jost, J. T., Burgess, D., & Mosso, C. O. (2001). Conflicts of legitimation among self, group, and system: The integrative potential of system justification theory. In J. T. Jost & B. Major (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 363–388). Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system-justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25, 881–919.
Kinder, D. R., & Sears, D. O. (1981). Prejudice and politics: Symbolic racism versus threats to the good life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 414–431.
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.
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.
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.
Lowery, B. S., Unzueta, M. M., Goff, P. A., & Knowles, E. D. (2006). Concern for the ingroup and opposition to affirmative action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 961–974.
Minister of Justice. (2009). Employment equity regulations. Retrieved from http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca.
Murrell, A. J., & James, E. H. (2001). Gender and diversity in organizations: Past, present and future directions. Sex Roles, 45, 243–257.
Nadler, A. (2002). Inter-group helping relations as power relations: Maintaining or challenging social dominance between groups through helping. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 487–502.
Noseworthy, G. F., Lea, J. A., & Lindsay, R. C. (1995). Opposition to affirmative action: Racial affect and traditional value predictors across four programs. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 314–337.
Peterson, R. (1994). The role of values in predicting fairness judgments and support of affirmative action. Journal of Social Issues, 50(4), 95–115.
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741–763.
Quinn, K. A., Ross, E. M., & Esses, V. M. (2001). Attributions of responsibility and reactions to affirmative action: Affirmative action as help. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 321–331.
Reyna, C., Henry, P. J., Korfmacher, W., & Tucker, A. (2006). Examining the principles in principled conservatism: The role of responsibility stereotypes as cues for deservingness in racial policy decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 109–128.
Sears, D. O. (1988). Symbolic racism. In P. A. Katz & D. A. Taylor (Eds.), Eliminating racism (pp. 53–84). New York: Plenum.
Sears, D. O., & Henry, P. J. (2003). The origin of symbolic racism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 259–275.
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Sidanius, J., Singh, P., Hetts, J., & Federico, C. (2000). It’s not affirmative action, it’s the Blacks: The continuing relevance of race in Americal politics. In D. O. Sears, J. Sidanius, & L. Bobo (Eds.), Racialized politics: Values, ideology, and prejudice in American public opinion (pp. 183–219). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sniderman, P. M., & Carmines, E. G. (1997). Reaching beyond race. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Sniderman, P. M., & Piazza, T. (1993). The scar of race. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Sniderman, P. M., Piazza, T., Tetlock, P. E., & Kendrick, A. (1991). The new racism. American Journal of Political Science, 35, 423–447.
Son Hing, L. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Zanna, M. P. (2002). Meritocracy and opposition to affirmative action: Making concessions in the face of discrimination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 493–509.
Tougas, F., Brown, R., Beaton, A. M., & Joly, S. (1995). Neosexism: Plus ca change, plus c’est pareil. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 842–849.
Veilleux, F., & Tougas, F. (1989). Male acceptance of affirmative action programs for women: The results of altruistic or egotistical motives. International Journal of Psychology, 24, 485–496.
Weiner, B. (1995). Judgments of responsibility: A foundation for a theory of social conduct. New York: Guilford.
Xu, Y. (2008). Men in nursing: Origin, career path, and benefits to nursing as a profession. Home Health Care Management and Practice, 21, 72–73.
Acknowledgement
We thank Victoria Esses for her comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
Sample Stimulus Materials for Male Beneficiary Condition for Nutritional Science Domain
Balanced Admission
Some universities have considered using “balanced admission” procedures. This type of policy is based on the concern that, for a variety of reasons, more women than men apply for spots in Nutritional Science programs. The policy is geared toward ensuring that equal numbers of women and men gain degrees in Nutritional Science. Here is how balanced admission works:
Only students who achieve the minimal requirement for graduating high school grades (e.g., B+) are considered for admission. Given that this requirement is met, equal numbers of male and female applicants are admitted into the program. For example, a university that had openings for 100 students in Nutritional Science would accept the 50 women with the highest high school grades and the 50 men with the highest high school grades. Because many more women men than men tend to apply for these spots, it is possible that some of the women who are not admitted will have higher graduating high school grades than some of the men who are admitted (although all would have at least a B+ average). It is assumed that gender balance in the field of nutrition can eventually be achieved through this university admission procedure.
Mentorship Development
Some universities have considered using “mentorship development” procedures. This type of policy is based on the concern that, because most faculty members who teach in Nutritional Science programs are women, female students have more role models and receive better mentorship than do male students. Here is how mentorship development works:
Students with the highest high school graduating grades are admitted to the program, regardless of their gender. Upon admission, male students are paired with a male faculty member who acts as a mentor and advisor. The role of the mentor is to provide the sort of role modeling and advice that female students are thought to already receive from their many female teachers. For example, mentors are encouraged to meet once a month with their students to assist with course selection, provide advice regarding study skills, and help the students prepare for the eventual job search. It is assumed that gender balance in the field of nutritional science can eventually be achieved by ensuring that women and men receive equal mentorship during their educations.
Remedial Education
Some universities have considered using “remedial education” procedures. This type of policy is rooted in the concern that men may not have the same qualifications for work in Nutrition that women do (in terms of things like knowledge about food and experience with food preparation). Therefore, remedial education involves provision of workshops and seminars for male students. Here is how remedial education works:
Students with the highest grades are admitted to the program, regardless of their gender. Upon being advised of their acceptance into the program, male students are encouraged to attend a series of workshops and seminars during the summer prior to their first year of study. The workshops and seminars deal with the development of knowledge about food groups and food preparation. It is assumed that participation in these seminars and workshops will provide men with the skills required for their chosen field so that eventually men will be more successful as Nutritionists and that this will create gender balance in the field.
Standard Procedures
Some universities have considered using standard procedures. This approach is rooted in the assumption that gender balance among Nutritionists will eventually be achieved if more men seek entrance to Nutritional Science programs and succeed in them. From this perspective, no special programs are required. Here is how standard procedures work:
Students with the highest grades are admitted to the program, regardless of their gender. Any programs offered to students (workshops, mentorship, etc.) are offered to both women and men. It is assumed that if, over time, more men apply to the program, and if they perform competently, gender balance among Nutritionists will eventually occur.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jackson, L.M., Garcia, D.M. Endorsement of Group Change and Organization Change Affirmative Action Programs for Male and Female Beneficiaries. Sex Roles 63, 239–250 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9796-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9796-0