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.
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. (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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155.
Crosby, F. J. (1994). Understanding affirmative action. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15, 13–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.1994.9646071.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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/.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Jourová, V. (2016). Gender balance on corporate boards. Bruxelles: European Comission Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/document.cfm?doc_id=46280.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Lammers, J. (2012). Abstraction increases hypocrisy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 475–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.07.006.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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/.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Simonsohn, U. (2014). No-way interactions. Retrieved from http://datacolada.org/17. https://doi.org/10.15200/winn.142559.90552.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2003). Temporal construal. Psychological Review, 110, 403–421. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.110.3.403.
Trope, Y., & Liberman, N. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117, 440–463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018963.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
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.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
ESM 1
(DOCX 263 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fleischmann, A., Burgmer, P. Abstract Thinking Increases Support for Affirmative Action. Sex Roles 82, 493–511 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01068-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01068-2