Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 2001, pp. 71–87 Affirmative Action: Psychological Contributions to Policy Faye J. Crosby University of California, Santa Cruz Susan Clayton College of Wooster Affirmative action is a controversial policy. Lauded by many, the attempt at social engineering has also been condemned by some as unnecessary and by others as counterproductive to the goal of social equality. As such, affirmative action is ideally situated to benefit from psychological research pertaining to the need for and the effectiveness of the policy. This article discusses both the potential benefits to American society of affirmative action and the potential costs of such a policy. Concluding that affirmative action is useful, we end with a look at ways to make affirmative action programs as effective as possible. For nearly a decade, affirmative action has been the object of intense national debate. Legal attacks on affirmative action have mounted in recent years. With some notable exceptions—including Judge Patrick J. Duggan’s decision in December 2000 in favor of race-sensitive undergraduate admissions policies at the University of Michigan and the 2001 decision by the regents of the University of California to rescind their earlier ban on affirmative action—affirmative action programs in both employment and education have been eroded by legal challenge. Affirmative action also has not fared well in public referenda. In both California and Washington, citizens endorsed proposals that have been characterized by the media as anti–affirmative action. Psychologists have a great deal to contribute to the debates on affirmative action. From our vantage point as students of people’s behaviors, thoughts, and *Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Faye Crosby, Psychology Department, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA 15064 [e-mail: [email protected]]. We would like to acknowledge the help of Valerie Jenni as well as Aarti Iyer. 71 72 Psychological Contributions to Affirmative Action Policy feelings, we are well equipped to see where the laws of the land conflict with or capitalize on the laws of human nature. Social psychologists, aware of how situational factors shape behavior, have been especially active in pointing out how affirmative action and other, similar policies can influence social arrangements, bringing out the worst or the best in us. Our article looks at affirmative action from a social psychological point of view. At the heart of the article are two intertwined questions. First, given what we know about prejudice and discrimination and about intergroup relations, what are the advantages and disadvantages to Americans of the policy of affirmative action? Second, how can we make affirmative action programs as effective as possible? Defining Affirmative Action Before plunging into the heart of the matter, it is necessary to define our terms. Affirmative action has meant many different things to many people (Clayton & Crosby, 1992; Tierney, 1997; Tomasson, Crosby, & Herzberger, 1996). An array of different governmental programs has at one time or another been labeled affirmative action (Stephanopoulos & Edley, 1995). The media have not been helpful in educating Americans about the philosophy of affirmative action as a policy (Crosby, 2000a, 2000b). Nor have they informed people about how affirmative action programs actually operate (Crosby & Cordova, 1996). People’s reactions to affirmative action depend greatly on what they understand or imagine affirmative action policy to be (Bell, Harrison, & McLaughlin, 2000; Golden, Hinkle, & Crosby, 2001; Kravitz et al., 2000). Several investigators have been able to demonstrate framing effects (Fine, 1992; Kravitz & Platania, 1993; Summers, 1995; Taylor-Carter, Doverspike, & Alexander, 1995). For psychologists as well as for laypeople, one’s (pre)conceptions of affirmative action influence how one approaches the topic (Iyer & Crosby, 2000). The American Psychological Association (1996) has provided the following definition of affirmative action: “Affirmative action occurs whenever an organization expends energy to make sure there is no discrimination in employment or education and, instead, equal opportunity exists” (p. 5). Affirmative action and equal opportunity differ from each other in terms of the philosophies that underlie them (Crosby, 1994). The policy of equal opportunity makes the assumption that the ways in which organizations treat and evaluate people are not normally discriminatory and that bias will result only through the intentional actions of prejudiced individuals. If a person is discriminated against by virtue of group membership, he or she will be able to identify the person or people responsible for the discrimination and seek legal remedy, because discrimination is against the law. Affirmative action, on the other hand, makes the assumption that the history of prejudice, discrimination, and group-based inequities in our country has resulted in standard organizational structures and practices that are biased toward the people Crosby and Clayton 73 who used to hold the most powerful jobs: White men. These practices may exert a discriminatory impact without discriminatory intent on the part of current employers and administrators. Under this assumption, victims of discrimination may not be able to identify a particular person as the source of the problem; even if they can, the same structural forces that diminish the victims’ opportunities from the start also give them unequal access to legal remedies. The law that most clearly and significantly prescribed affirmative action was Executive Order 11246, issued by Lyndon Johnson in 1965, which requires the federal government and each organization that has a contract with the federal government to have an affirmative action plan: a proactive attempt to ensure that people in protected gender or ethnic categories are treated fairly during employment, by making a comparison between (a) the availability of such people in relevant labor pools and (b) their actual utilization by the organization. It is worth noting that the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs helps organizations to calculate availability statistics based on Census data. Labor pools vary according to the job description, with some (such as those for clerical help) calculated on the basis of the local population and others (such as those for university faculty) drawing from a more regional or even national pool. If a problem is identified, with a particular company or organization employing a smaller proportion of qualified White women or qualified people of color than is suggested by their availability in the labor pool, then corrective action must be taken. The corrective action plan usually includes organizational goals, timelines, and specification of legal and appropriate methods for meeting the goals within the timelines. Such methods cannot include firing male employees or setting aside certain positions to be filled only by people of color, but they can include targeted recruitment, or hiring a qualified person from a beneficiary group even if that person’s qualifications appear less strong than those of a majority-group member candidate for the same job. No punitive action is taken against an organization that fails to meet its goals as long as it makes a good faith effort to do so. What about education? California provides an example of how affirmative action has worked in higher education. According to California’s Master Plan for Education, the top 12.5% of high school students are admitted to the University of California, with grades and scores on standardized tests determining rankings. Some time ago, administrators noticed that Latinos comprised a much smaller percentage of matriculates at the university than would be expected on the basis of grades and test scores. Having noticed the discrepancy, the administrators were also able to locate the sources of the trouble: A set of high school courses, called eligibility requirements, constituted one stumbling block. Apparently guidance counselors were less likely to steer Latinos than Whites into the courses. Uneven access to advanced placement courses constituted another stumbling block. Currently, the University of California has exempted the highest tier of students from 74 Psychological Contributions to Affirmative Action Policy the eligibility requirements and is also working to make advanced placement courses available online. What Are the Benefits of Affirmative Action? Affirmative action policy has two direct positive outcomes. First, affirmative action increases the ethnic and gender diversity in schools and at work. Second, it increases true justice in American society. In both regards affirmative action is more effective than passive policies of equal opportunity. Diversity Many proponents argue in favor of affirmative action on the grounds of diversity. Diversity was the plank on which the legal team for the University of Michigan defended the school’s admission system in two suits, one concerning the university’s undergraduate school and the other concerning its law school. Citing social science research, the university was able to show that diversity in education benefits all members of society, not just people of color. Using previously collected data from a large number of campuses around the country and analyzing new data from a study conducted at the University of Michigan, Patricia Gurin (Gratz et al. v. Bolinger et al., 2001) found that diversity has immediate benefits for White students. Contact within the classroom and on the campus with ethnic-minority students has been found to affect a number of aspects of learning among White students. Most significantly affected are listening ability, critical thinking, writing skills, and foreign language skills (Gratz et al. v. Bolinger et al., 2001). Some of the benefits of affirmative action are long-term. With records from more than 80,000 students who had matriculated at 28 elite colleges and universities in 1951, 1976, and 1989, researchers at the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation looked at what occurred to ethnic-minority students who were “special admits” and contrasted their fate with that of other students. The special admits graduated from college and attended and graduated from professional and graduate schools at the same rate as White students and held professional jobs at the same rate; but they differed in one salient regard. Decades after graduation, those who were special admits are even more likely than their White counterparts to be active civic leaders (Bowen & Bok, 1998). Fairness Social scientists know that ethnic and gender disparities in occupation, income, and other social indicators have not been entirely erased in the United States (Fiske, 1998). Women still earn less than exactly comparable men (Reskin, Crosby and Clayton 75 1998). People of color still lag behind Whites in terms of earnings, assets, and financial opportunities (Brief, Dietz, Pugh, & Vaslow, 2000; Williams, 1991). Social psychology has delineated a number of processes by which discrimination occurs. Systematic research has demonstrated that discrimination is due only partly to deliberate prejudice. Some unfairness derives from unconscious stereotypes (Devine, 1989; Devine, Monteith, Zuwerink, & Elliot, 1991; Fiske, 1998). Dovidio and his colleagues (e.g., Dovidio & Gaertner, 1996; Gaertner et al., 1999) have demonstrated the persistence of discriminatory attitudes among supposedly unprejudiced White students. Most of the White participants in their studies hold values such as fairness and equality that are antithetical to the concept of racism (Dovidio & Gaertner, 1996) and refuse to admit that they see Blacks as inferior to Whites. However, they consistently rate White targets more favorably than Blacks. If job supervisors and managers are similar to the subjects in Dovidio’s experiments, they will have no hostility toward Blacks but will perceive White applicants as better qualified than Blacks for jobs, raises, and promotions. Such subtle pro-White bias is harder to identify, and thus to prosecute, than overt racial bigotry, but ultimately, it is no less deadly. Even if the perpetrators of discrimination are not aware of the import of their actions, surely the victims are. Why not leave it to the victims to protest the injustices that affect them? Why not rely on traditional reactive systems of justice? Why insist on the more proactive policy of affirmative action? The answer is that people often do not acknowledge the extent to which they are personally affected by systematic injustices. Social psychologists have long known that people tend to perceive themselves as happier or better off than the average person (Dalbert, 1997; Klar & Giladi, 1999). Self-deception, at least about one’s present circumstances, seems to be a mainstay of well-being (Robinson & Ryff, 1999; S. E. Taylor & Brown, 1988). A large body of research demonstrates that even recognizing that one’s own group is discriminated against does not always translate into a sensitivity to one’s own disadvantage. The phenomenon has been variously labeled “the denial of personal discrimination,” “the denial of personal disadvantage,” and the “personal/group discrimination discrepancy” (PGDD). When people awaken to the fact that they personally are discriminated against, a great deal of anger erupts (Crosby & Ropp, 2001). But prior to the epiphany, people may not recognize that they have been ill treated and thus may not come forward on their own to demand justice for the wrongs they have suffered (Sincharoen & Crosby, in press). Explanations for the disconnection between the personal and the group can be sorted into two categories centering on motivational and cognitive factors. The motivation to deny personal discrimination is based primarily on a self-protective impulse. To acknowledge discrimination is to acknowledge vulnerability, lack of control, and at least some measure of devaluation of oneself by others. Research has shown that people who recognize personal discrimination experience 76 Psychological Contributions to Affirmative Action Policy decreased levels of personal self-esteem (Branscombe, 1998; Branscombe, Schmitt, & Harvey, 1999). In addition, there can be negative social consequences to making the claim of discrimination (Kaiser & Miller, 2001). Research on the cognitive component of the PGDD, which is more substantial than research on the motivational component, focuses on the difficulty of obtaining and processing the information that will allow an individual to conclude that discrimination has occurred. A series of studies has shown that it is difficult to perceive discrimination when information is presented on a case-by-case basis rather than in aggregate form (Crosby, Burris, Censor, & MacKethan, 1986; Crosby, Clayton, Alksnis, & Hemker, 1986; Rutte, Diekmann, Polzer, Crosby, & Messick, 1994; Twiss, Tabb, & Crosby, 1989). The phenomenon exists when the discrimination is consistent with our gender stereotypes (e.g., places women in the disadvantaged position); when it is inconsistent with them (e.g., places men in the disadvantaged position); and when sex stereotypes are avoided by using neutral circumstances (e.g., comparing Plant A and Plant B). It is also independent of ideology: Strong feminists are no more likely than sexists to perceive sex discrimination when they encounter materials in which the discrimination has been built in disaggregated form (Crosby, 1984). Motivation and cognition also function in concert. Postmes, Branscombe, Spears, and Young (1999) demonstrated that individuals think about themselves in a different way than they think about groups. Decisions or judgments of personal disadvantage, on the one hand, and decisions or judgments of group disadvantage appear to be based on “different comparison standard[s], and it appears that each comparison standard activates a particular level of identity (personal or social), each with different motives” (Postmes et al., 1999, p. 336). Research by Moghaddam, Stolkin, and Hutcheson (1997) suggests that the PGDD may be a more specific form of a general tendency for individuals to perceive themselves to be less affected by particular phenomena than are groups to which they belong. In Sum Because it is difficult for individuals to perceive and to acknowledge that they have been victimized by discrimination, a legal system that relies exclusively on the aggrieved to press their case is likely to be ineffective. Add to the psychological resistance the disparity between the economic and informational resources of the individual and those of institutions. For the most part, the status quo is likely to continue until the injustices become so intolerable that a dramatic event occurs (Martin, 1986; Olson & Hafer, in press). At this point, people become so disturbed that they will endorse draconian measures (Crosby & Ropp, 2001; Foster & Matheson, 1995, 1999). Affirmative action attempts to avert potential problems before they occur rather than to allow problems to occur and then correct them. Such a proactive policy is likely to contribute to social stability. By articulating fairness as a goal and Crosby and Clayton 77 endorsing the value that people of color and White women are competent members of our society, affirmative action can contribute to a sense of procedural as well as distributive justice. What Are the Costs of Affirmative Action? Several prominent commentators think that affirmative action is not a good policy and see it as detrimental to American society or to parts of American society. It is our view that research does not substantiate the fears of those who oppose affirmative action. We do, however, acknowledge that the policy of affirmative action has come at a cost, although not in the ways its detractors imagine. Alleged Disadvantage: Deflecting White Energy Shelby Steele’s (1990) attack on affirmative action in his beautifully written book The Content of Our Character is as famous as are the well-reasoned defenses of affirmative action written by his brother Claude (1997, 1999). One major problem with affirmative action, writes Shelby Steele, is that it panders to White guilt. By reducing White guilt, affirmative action presumably saps the will of White people to make fundamental change in American society. At least one set of studies has documented that White guilt does figure in the reactions that White students and nonstudent adults have to affirmative action that can be characterized as retribution (Swim & Miller, 1999). More specifically, acknowledgment of social inequities leads to support for retributive affirmative action only when the research participant also experiences guilt over the privileges of White people. Thus, Swim’s findings could be seen as supporting Shelby Steele’s worries. But other evidence counters the worry that affirmative action is nothing but a sop to the guilty conscience of Whites. A follow-up to the original study showing the connections between White guilt and support for affirmative action replicated the findings—but only when affirmative action was framed as retribution against Whites. When affirmative action was framed more neutrally, the association did not hold (Iyer & Crosby, 2000). Alleged Disadvantage: Driving a Wedge Wilson (1984, 1987) has voiced serious doubts about the effectiveness of affirmative action by noting that the policy may have unintentionally driven a wedge between African Americans who can achieve a living wage and those who cannot. Noting that affirmative action policies benefit only those who are or who can be in the paid labor force, Wilson raised the possibility that affirmative action has lead to a bifurcation of fortunes. Many Blacks, and especially many Black 78 Psychological Contributions to Affirmative Action Policy women, are unable to join the paid labor force because of poor preparation or family burdens. Could it be that affirmative action has lead relatively advantaged Blacks to amass some savings, to move out of the cities, and to leave behind the truly disadvantaged? Plausible though it is, the notion that affirmative action drives a wedge in the Black community has not been borne out by empirical investigations. Crosby, Allen, and Opotow (1992) examined archival data on the distribution of wealth among Black citizens between the years 1947 and 1989. Using 1965 as the year when affirmative action became the law (through the signing of Executive Order 11246), the investigators did find Black wealth being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands. But they also found the same pattern among Whites, meaning that business cycles or similar forces were operating on both Whites and Blacks. Also pertinent is the finding, cited above, that special admits to a university are significantly more likely than other students to give back to their communities after graduation (Bowen & Bok, 1998). Rather than moving away from needy communities of origin, many Black students seek ways to share the blessings that have been bestowed on them. Thus, trickle down has been shown to provide a more apt metaphor than driving a wedge. Alleged Disadvantage: Undermining Self-Esteem Several researchers have maintained that affirmative action programs undermine their intended beneficiaries by encouraging the attribution of successes to affirmative action rather than individual qualifications (Heilman, 1994; Heilman, McCullough, & Gilbert, 1996; Nacoste, 1987, 1989). Researchers like Heilman and Nacoste echo the familiar refrain of prominent conservatives of color like Stephan Carter (1991), Ward Connerly (1995), Dinesh D’Souza (1991), Richard Rodriquez (1981), and Shelby Steele (1990). However, much of the experimental research has been based on an unrealistic and simplified model in which affirmative action means paying little or no attention to merit (Kravitz, 1995; Nacoste, 1987). Real-world studies have found that most potential beneficiaries—people of color and women—do not feel undermined and, in fact, endorse affirmative action (Ayers, 1992; Bergmann, 1996; Schmermund, Sellers, Mueller, & Crosby, in press; M. C. Taylor, 1994; Truax, Wood, Wright, Cordova, & Crosby, 1998). Other studies (Branscombe, 1998) demonstrate that it is White males who are the ones who feel uncomfortable and undermined when attention is drawn to demographic groupings. Partial Disadvantage: Complicating Issues About How to Assess Merit A principal complaint about affirmative action is that it rewards the underqualified (target group members with lower SAT scores, poorer interview ratings, Crosby and Clayton 79 etc.) with limited job or educational slots and thus penalizes those who are more highly qualified (majority-group members with degrees from more prestigious schools, higher GPAs, etc.). The claim about violating meritocracy assumes that we have an objective way to measure merit. One of the mixed blessings of affirmative action policy is how it has complicated the issues of testing and of standards (Crosby & Blanchard, 1989). Psychometricians and other educators have long been concerned about the possible biases in standardized tests (e.g., Cicchetti, 1994), but the policy implications made salient by debates over affirmative action have prompted creative new research (Brown, 1994; Ford, Kraiger, & Schechtman, 1986; Gutman, 1993; Hunter & Schmidt, 1976; Schmidt, 1988, 1991; Tett, Jackson, & Rothstein, 1991). Affirmative action has forced us to investigate and become aware of the cultural biases inherent in some tests (Nelson, 2000; Reynolds, 2000; Suzuki & Kugler, 1995). We are forced, moreover, to recognize that it is difficult to overcome such biases, because all tests incorporate values. How we construct a test determines what differences will be found among groups. Our preconceptions about what group differences exist in reality, furthermore, determine how we construct the test. The desire to maximize sensitivity to the abilities of members of underrepresented groups, driven partly by affirmative action and partly by the changing demographics of the labor force, invites thoughtfulness about how to define and assess talent (Helms, 1985). Even if we have carefully defined and operationalized a measure of ability, group differences on this measure may not imply group differences in merit. It is possible that the groups differ not on the trait, but simply on their testing behavior. Research by Brenda Allen and Wade Boykin, for example, has shown that inner city African American children perform better than other children on tests that are administered under conditions that White middle-class educators might consider noisy (Allen, 1996; Allen & Boykin, 1991, 1992; Boykin, 1994; Boykin & Allen, 1988). Thus we need to reevaluate not only whether the content of the tests we use is biased against certain groups, but also whether the testing conditions are biased. Real but Partial Disadvantage: Disruption of Complacency The last problem caused by affirmative action is one that also carries potential advantages for society as a whole. The problem is that the mere existence of the policy disrupts our unquestioning acceptance of the operation of individual meritocracy in the United States. In this regard affirmative action differs dramatically from the more neutral-sounding policy of equal opportunity (Crosby, 1994). Recognition that vigilance is mandated not by personal inadequacies but rather by the imbalances of the existing system can be more unsettling to those who have enjoyed privilege within the status quo. It is comforting to presume that our individual accomplishments are due mostly to our own merit rather than to 80 Psychological Contributions to Affirmative Action Policy accidents of birth and privilege. Anything that threatens the presumption may be most menacing to people who are White and to people who are male. As one of us noted recently: Throughout my life I have been sheltered and protected by vast amounts of good fortune. Challenges have—of course—abounded, but the resources to meet the challenges have always been at hand. Privilege bred in me the overestimation of my own capabilities that is the hallmark of the nondepressed person. In my more mature days it has occurred to me to question whether “[others] have passed through life with the same optimism and confidence that became mine.” At whatever “level” one’s family is in the American social hierarchy, it is surely easier to feel in possession of this country when your skin is White than when it is more darkly colored. (Crosby, 1997, p. 183) Not only does affirmative action remind us that none of us may take sole credit for our accomplishments; it also reminds us that no individual deserves full blame or full praise for his or her situation. Affirmative action, in other words, poses a threat to the American ideal of individual merit. Ozawa, Crosby, and Crosby (1996) demonstrated differences in the degree to which Japanese and American students were individualistic or collectivist in their outlook. Ozawa et al. (1996) presented the students with information about a company in which underqualified men were hired instead of well-qualified women. The American students expressed more outrage than the Japanese students did about the discrimination. Yet when presented with a variety of solutions, the American students expressed less support than did the Japanese students for collectivist remedies that represented affirmative action. A recent study by Kemmelmeier (2000) corroborated the conclusions of Ozawa et al. (1996). Kemmelmeier (2000) showed that priming individualistic attitudes increased hostility toward affirmative action. Designing Effective Affirmative Action Programs A good affirmative action program is one that achieves the objective of equality without jeopardizing other valued goals like social harmony, intergroup peace, individual happiness, efficiency, profitability, and so on. Organizational and social psychologists, along with counseling and clinical psychologists, have assembled valuable observations concerning the effective functioning of affirmative action. At the outset, it is important to recognize that affirmative action carries many different meanings for most people and that disagreements may be more semantic than substantive. One careful study of a randomly selected portion of citizens in a large Midwestern town, for example, has documented that people’s definitions of affirmative action statistically predict their evaluations of the policy, even after controlling for gender, ethnicity, household income, education, political orientation, feminist ideology, and satisfaction with one’s standard of living (Golden, Hinkle, & Crosby, 2001). People who think that affirmative action means quotas dislike the policy, whereas those who think that affirmative action means a monitoring system endorse the policy. Crosby and Clayton 81 A simple piece of practical advice flows from the first empirical observation: To minimize unproductive opposition to affirmative action, it behooves advocates and administrators to educate people about what affirmative action is in principle and in practice. Given the charged political rhetoric surrounding affirmative action, a great deal of misinformation has permeated public life (Crosby, 2000a, 2000b; Opotow, 1996; Plous, 1996). Meanwhile, even responsible journalists do little to let the public know what affirmative action is or how affirmative action plans in fact operate (Crosby & Cordova, 1996). Of course, to educate people fully about the workings of affirmative action may require more than a simple presentation of facts and figures. A substantial literature shows that prejudice statistically predicts resistance to affirmative action (Crosby, Ferdman, & Wingate, 2001; Kravitz et al., 1997; Tierney, 1997). To be sure, many nonprejudiced citizens oppose affirmative action because the policy appears to them to fly in the face of distributive and procedural justice (Kuklinski et al., 1997), but it is equally clear that many men oppose affirmative action for women because of conscious or unconscious sexism (Tougas, Brown, Beaton, & Joly, 1995; Tougas, Crosby, Joly, & Pelchat, 1995) and that many Whites oppose affirmative action for people of color because of conscious or unconscious racism (Bobo & Kleugel, 1993). When resistance is due to prejudice, facts and figures may do little to melt away the opposition to affirmative action. Sometimes the prejudice is more subtle than blatant. Illuminating is a study by Clayton (1996), who investigated attitudes toward different identity groupings (race, sex, religion) used for different purposes on a college campus (as the basis for a social group, a political group, or consideration in admission). Clayton found that it was more acceptable to White students to use some groups for certain purposes than for others—for example, using racial groupings was acceptable, but not for admissions—and that the acceptability of a certain practice, such as affirmative action, varied according to the group that was identified as the direct beneficiary. Drawing on a close reading of the psychological literature and on their own experiences as experts and consultants, Pratkanis and Turner (1994a) advise administrators to tackle nagging issues of preferential treatment directly. According to their research, administrators inhibit the perception of preferential treatment if they first establish rigorous and unambiguous standards for selection (in admission or hiring), then provide clear information about how newcomers meet or exceed the standard. Administrators should also focus attention on the structural barriers that remain to be dismantled (Pratkanis & Turner, 1994a, p. 58). It is also crucial for those in the position of traditional privilege to see how they stand to benefit in the long or short term from affirmative action. Groups are easier to integrate if people’s fates are interdependent and are not in competition (Pettigrew, 2000; Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995). Also helpful are techniques that facilitate the individuated treatment of the newcomers as full human beings, rather than two-dimensional representations 82 Psychological Contributions to Affirmative Action Policy of demographic groups. Activities that enhance empathy are, as Pratkanis and Turner (1994a) point out, vital to the success of affirmative action. It is encouraging to note that several studies have shown that employees—even White male employees—express neutral to positive attitudes toward the affirmative action programs at their own workplace and do not interpret support for these programs as indicating a loss of career development opportunities for themselves personally or organizational injustice in general (Konrad & Linnehan, 1995; Parker, Baltes, & Christiansen, 1997). Final Reflection Given people’s inability to detect systematic unfairnesses from unsystematic data, affirmative action is a policy that adds to social justice and stability in America. Yet the policy remains controversial. There are several reasons for the controversy, but it seems to us that the primary reason is that affirmative action brings forcefully to the surface challenges about collective and individual needs and merits that might otherwise lie buried under the ideology of individualism and of meritocracy. References Allen, B. A. (1996). Staying within the academy. In K. F. Wyche and F. J. Crosby (Eds.), Women’s ethnicities: Journeys through psychology (pp. 9–26). Boulder, CO: Westview. Allen, B. A., & Boykin, A. W. (1991). The influence of contextual factors on Black and White children’s performance: Effects of movement opportunity and music. International Journal of Psychology, 26, 373–387. Allen, B. A., & Boykin, A. W. (1992). African American children and the educational process: Alleviating cultural discontinuity through prescriptive pedagogy. School Psychology Review, 21, 586–596. American Psychological Association. (1996). Affirmative action: Who benefits? Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Ayers, L. R. (1992). Perceptions of affirmative action among its beneficiaries. Social Justice Research, 5, 223–238. Bell, M. P., Harrison, D. A., & McLaughlin, M. E. (2000). Forming, changing, and acting on attitude toward AA programs in employment: A theory-driven approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 784–798. Bergmann, B. (1996). In defense of affirmative action. New York: Basic. Bobo, L., & Kleugel, J. R. (1993). Opposition to race-targeting: Self interest, stratification ideology, or racial attitudes? American Sociological Review, 58, 443–464. Bowen, W. G., & Bok, D. (1998). The shape of the river: Long-term consequences of considering race in college and university admissions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Boykin, W. A. (1994). Afro-cultural expression and its implications for schooling. In E. Hollis (Ed.), Teaching diverse populations. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Boykin, W. A., & Allen, B. A. (1988). Rhythmic movement facilitation of learning in working class Afro-American children. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 149, 335–348. Branscombe, N. R. (1998). Thinking about one’s gender group’s privileges or disadvantages: Consequences for well-being in women and men. British Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 167–184. Crosby and Clayton 83 Branscombe, N. R., Schmitt, M. T., & Harvey, R. D. (1999). Perceiving pervasive discrimination among African Americans: Implications for group identification and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(1), 135–149. Brief, A. P., Dietz, J., Pugh, S. D., & Vaslow, J. B. (2000). Just doing business: Modern racism and obedience to authority as explanations for employment discrimination. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81, 72–97. Brown, D. C. (1994). Subgroup norming: Legitimate testing practice or reverse discrimination? American Psychologist, 49, 927–928. Carter, S. J. (1991). Reflections of an affirmative action baby. New York: Basic. Cicchetti, D. V. (1994). Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology. Psychological Assessment, 6, 284–290. Clayton, S. D. (1996). Reactions to social categorization: Evaluating one argument against affirmative action. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 1472–1493. Clayton, S. D., & Crosby, F. J. (1992). Justice, gender, and affirmative action. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Connerly, W. (1995, May 3). U.C. must end affirmative action. San Francisco Chronicle. Crosby, F. J. (1984). The denial of personal discrimination. American Behavioral Scientist, 27(3), 371–386. Crosby, F. J. (1994). Understanding affirmative action. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15, 13–41. Crosby, F. J. (1997). Confessions of an affirmative action mama. In M. Fine, L. Weis, L. C. Powell, & L. M. Wong (Eds.), Off white: Readings on race, power, and society (pp. 179–186). New York: Routledge. Crosby, F. J. (2000a). Introduction. In F. J. Crosby and C. VanDeVeer (Eds.), Sex, race, and merit: Debating affirmative action in education and employment (pp. 1–10). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Crosby, F. J. (2000b, September). Affirming action. Invited keynote address for the Eighth International Conference on Social Justice, College of Management, Rishon LeZion, Israel. Crosby, F. J., Allen, B., & Opotow, S. (l992). Changing patterns of income among Blacks and Whites before and after E.O. 11246. Social Justice Research, 5, 335–341. Crosby, F. J., & Blanchard, F. A. (1989). Affirmative action and the question of standards. In F. A. Blanchard & F. J. Crosby (Eds.), Affirmative action in perspective (pp. 3–7). New York: Springer-Verlag. Crosby, F. J., Burris, L., Censor, C., & MacKethan, E. R. (1986). Two rotten apples spoil the justice barrel. In H. Bierhoff, R. Cohen, & J. Greenberg (Eds.), Justice in social relations (pp. 267– 281). New York: Plenum. Crosby, F. J., Clayton, S., Alksnis, O., & Hemker, K. (1986). Cognitive biases in the perception of discrimination: The importance of format. Sex Roles, 14(11/12), 637–646. Crosby, F. J., & Cordova, D. I. (1996). Words worth of wisdom: Toward an understanding of affirmative action. Journal of Social Issues, 52(4), 33–49. Crosby, F. J., Ferdman, B. M., & Wingate, B. R. (2001). Addressing and redressing discrimination: Affirmative action in social psychological perspective. In R. Brown & S. Gaertner (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Vol. 4. Intergroup processes (pp. 495–513). London: Blackwell. Crosby, F. J., & Ropp, S. (2001). Awakening and discrimation. In M. Ross and D. Miller (Eds.), The Justice Motive in Everyday Life: Festschrift for Melvin Lerner (pp. 382–396. New York: Cambridge University Press. Dalbert, C. (1997). Coping with an unjust fate: The case of structural unemployment. Social Justice Research, 10, 175–189. Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5–18. Devine, P. G., Monteith, M. J., Zuwerink, J. R., & Elliot, A. J. (1991). Prejudice with and without compunction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 817–830. D’Souza, D. (1991). Illiberal education: The politics of race and sex on campus. New York: Free. Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (1996). Affirmative action, unintentional racial biases, and intergroup relations. Journal of Social Issues, 52(4), 51–75. 84 Psychological Contributions to Affirmative Action Policy Fine, T. S. (1992). The impact of issue framing on public opinion toward affirmative action programs. Social Science Journal, 29(3), 323–334. Fiske, S. T. (1998). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindsey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 357–411). New York: McGraw Hill. Ford, J. K., Kraiger, K., & Schechtman, S. L. (1986). Study of race effects in objective indices and subjective evaluations of performance: A meta-analysis of performance criteria. Psychological Bulletin, 99, 330–337. Foster, M. D., & Matheson, K. (1995). Double relative deprivation: Combining the personal and the political. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21(11), 1167–1177. Foster, M. D., & Matheson, K. (1999). Perceiving and responding to the personal/group discrimination discrepancy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(10), 1319–1329. Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Rust, M. C., Nier, J. A., Banker, B. S., Ward, C. M., Mottola, G. R., & Houletter, M. (1999). Reducing intergroup bias: Elements of intergroup cooperation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(3), 388–402. Golden, H., Hinkle, S., & Crosby, F. J. (2001). Reactions to affirmative action: Substance and semantics. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 73–88. Gratz et al. v. Bollinger et al., No. 97-CV-75231-DT (E.D.Mi., 2001) (expert testimony of P. Gurin). Gutman, A. (1993). EEO law and personnel practices. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Heilman, M. E. (1994). Affirmative action: Some unintended consequences for working women. Research in Organizational Behavior, 16, 125–169. Heilman, M. E., McCullough, W. F., & Gilbert, D. (1996). The other side of affirmative action: Reactions of non-beneficiaries to sex-based preferential selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 346–357. Helms, J. E. (1985). Why is there no study of cultural equivalence in standardized cognitive ability testing? In N. R. Goldberger & J. B. Veroff (Eds.), The culture and psychology reader (pp. 674–719). New York: New York University Press. Hunter, J. D., & Schmidt, F. L. (1976). Critical analysis of the statistical and ethical implications of various definitions of test bias. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 1053–1071. Iyer, A., & Crosby, F. J. (2000, June). Beliefs about inequality and attitudes toward affirmative action: The mediating role of White guilt. Poster presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, Minneapolis, MN. Kaiser, C. R., & Miller, C. T. (2001). Stop complaining: The social costs of making attributions to discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 254–263. Kemmelmeier, M. (2000, June). The individualist self and attitudes toward affirmative action: Experimental evidence. Paper presented at the convention of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, Minneapolis, MN. Klar, Y., & Giladi, E. E. (1999). Are most people happier than their peers, or are they just happy? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 585–594. Konrad, A. M., & Linnehan, F. (1995). Race and sex differences in line managers’ reactions to equal employment opportunity and AA interventions. Group and Organization Management, 20, 409–439. 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. Kravitz, D. A., Harrison, D. A., Turner, M. E., Levine, E. L., Chaves, W., Brannick, M. T., Denning, D. L., Russell, C. J., & Conrad, M. A. (1997). Affirmative action: A review of psychological and behavioral research. Bowling Green, OH: Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Kravitz, D. A., Klineberg, S. L., Avery, D. P., Nguyen, A. K., Lim, 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. 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(6), 928–938. Kuklinski, J. H., Sniderman, P. M., Knight, K., Piazza, T., Tetlock, P. E., Lawrence, G. R., & Mellers, B. (1997). Racial prejudice and attitudes toward affirmative action. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 402–419. Crosby and Clayton 85 Martin, J. (1986). The tolerance of injustice. In J. M. Olson & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Relative deprivation and social comparison: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 4, pp. 217–242). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Moghaddam, F. M., Stolkin, A. J., & Hutcheson, L. S. (1997). A generalized personal/group discrepancy: Testing the domain specificity of a perceived higher effect of events on one’s group than on oneself. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 743–750. Nacoste, R. W. (1987). But do they care about fairness? The dynamics of preferential treatment and minority interest. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 8, 177–191. Nacoste, R. W. (1989). Affirmative action and self-evaluation. In F. A. Blanchard and F. J. Crosby (Eds.), Affirmative action in perspective (pp. 103–109). New York: Springer-Verlag. Nelson, L. D. (2000). Introduction to the special section on methods and implications of revising assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 12, 235–236. Olson, J. M., & Hafer, C. L. (in press). Tolerance of personal deprivation. In J. Jost & B. Major (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Opotow, S. (1996). Affirmative action, fairness, and the scope of justice. Journal of Social Issues, 52(4), 19–24. Ozawa, K., Crosby, M., & Crosby, F. (1996). Individualism and resistance to affirmative action: A comparison of Japanese and American samples. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 1138–1152. Parker, C. P., Baltes, B. B., & Christiansen, M. 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. Pettigrew, T. F. (2000). Systemizing the predictors of prejudice. In D. O. Sears, J. Sidanius, & L. Bobo (Eds.), Racialized politics: The debate about racism in America (pp. 280–301). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pettigrew, T. F., & Meertens, R.W. (1995). Subtle and blatant prejudice in western Europe. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 57–75. Plous, S. (1996). Ten myths about affirmative action. Journal of Social Issues, 52(4), 25–31. Postmes, T., Branscombe, N. R., Spears, R., & Young, H. (1999). Comparative processes in personal and group judgments: Resolving the discrepancy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(2), 320–338. Pratkanis, A. R., & Turner, M. E. (1994a). Nine principles of successful affirmative action: Mr. Branch Rickey, Mr. Jackie Robinson, and the integration of baseball. Nine: A Journal of Baseball History and Social Policy Perspectives, 3, 36–65. Reskin, B. F. (1998). The realities of affirmative action in employment. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association. Reynolds, C. R. (2000). Why is psychometric research on bias in mental testing so often ignored? Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 6, 144–150. Robinson, M. D., & Ryff, C. D. (1999). The role of self-deception in perceptions of past, present, and future happiness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 595–606. Rodriguez, R. (1981). Hunger of memory: The education of Richard Rodriquez. Boston: D. R. Godine. Rutte, C. G., Diekmann, K. A., Polzer, J. T., Crosby, F. J., & Messick, D. M. (1994). Organizing information and the detection of gender discrimination. Psychological Science, 5, 226–231. Schmermund, A., Sellers, R., Mueller, B., & Crosby, F. J. (in press). Attitudes toward affirmative action as a function of racial identity among Black college students. Political Psychology. Schmidt, F. L. (1988). The problem of group differences in ability test scores in employment selection. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 33, 272–292. Schmidt, F. L. (1991). Why all banding procedures in personnel selection are logically flawed. Human Performance, 4, 265–277. Sincharoen, S., & Crosby, F. J. (in press). Affirmative action. In J. Worell (Ed.), Encyclopedia of gender. San Diego, CA: Academic. Steele, C. (1997). A threat in the air. American Psychologist, 52, 613–629. Steele, C. (1999). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. In R. F. Baumeister (Ed.), The self in social psychology (pp. 372–390). Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis. Steele, S. (1990). The content of our character: A new vision of race in America. New York: Harper Collins. 86 Psychological Contributions to Affirmative Action Policy Stephanopoulos, G., & Edley, Jr., C. (1995). Affirmative action review: Report to the president. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office. Summers, R. J. (1995). Attitudes toward different methods of affirmative action. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 1090–1104. Suzuki, L., & Kugler, J. F. (1995). Intelligence and personality assessment: Multicultural perspectives. In J. G. Ponterotto & M. Casas (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling (pp. 493–515). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Swim, J., & Miller, D. (1999). White guilt: Its antecedents and consequences for attitudes toward affirmative action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 500–514. Taylor, M. C. (1994). Impact of affirmative action on beneficiary groups: Evidence from the 1990 General Social Survey. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15, 143–178. Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193–210. Taylor-Carter, M. A., Doverspike, D., & Alexander, R. (1995). Message effects on perceptions of fairness of gender-based affirmative action: A cognitive response theory–based analysis. Social Justice Research, 8(3), 285–303. Tett, R. P., Jackson, D. N., & Rothstein, M. (1991). Personality measures as predictors of job performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 44, 703–742. Tierney, P. (1997). The influence of cognitive climate on job satisfaction and creative efficacy. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12(4), 831–847. Tomasson, R. F., Crosby, F. J., & Herzberger, S. D. (1996). Affirmative action: The pros and cons of policy and practice. Washington, DC: American University Press. Tougas, F., Brown, R., Beaton, A., & Joly, S. (1995). Neosexism: Plus ca change, plus c’est pareil. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 842–849. Tougas, F., Crosby, F. J., Joly, S., & Pelchat, D. (1995). Men’s attitudes toward affirmative action: Justice and intergroup relations at the crossroads. Social Justice Research, 8, 57–71. Truax, K., Wood, A., Wright, E., Cordova, D. I., & Crosby, F. J. (1998). Undermined? Affirmative action from the targets’ point of view. In J. K. Swim & C. Strangor (Eds.). Prejudice: The target’s perspective (pp. 171–188). New York: Academic. Twiss, C., Tabb, S., & Crosby, F. J. (1989). Affirmative action and aggregate data: The importance of patterns in the perception of discrimation. In F. Blanchard & F. J. Crosby (Eds.), Affirmative action in perspective (pp. 159–167). New York: Springer-Verlag. Williams, P. (1991). The alchemy of race and rites. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wilson, W. J. (1984). Race-specific policies and the truly disadvantaged. Yale Law Policy Review, 2, 272–290. Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Web Resources <http://www.feminist.org/other/ccri/cahome.html> (pro–affirmative action site with an emphasis on women’s stake in affirmative action) <http://www.aadap.org/> (anti–affirmative action site that nonetheless carries many stories that show the value of affirmative action) FAYE J. CROSBY is a social psychologist and professor of psychology at the University of California, Santa Cruz. She is a past president and ardent supporter of SPSSI. Her research focuses on justice issues. She has published extensively on affirmative action, often in collaboration with Susan Clayton. Crosby’s most recent book on affirmative action, coedited with Cheryl Van De Veer and published in 2000 by the University of Michigan Press, is entitled Sex, Race, and Merit: Debating Affirmative Action in Education and Employment. Crosby and Clayton 87 SUSAN CLAYTON is an associate professor of psychology at the College of Wooster. Her research focuses on social issues and how people conceptualize social justice. She has recently focused on environmental topics, publishing in journals such as the Journal of Social Issues and Environment and Behavior. With Faye Crosby, she wrote a 1992 book on affirmative action, Justice, Gender, and Affirmative Action (University of Michigan Press), which received an Outstanding Book Award from the Gustavus Myers Center for the Study of Human Rights.