A cross‐national analysis of affirmative action: an evolutionary psychological perspective

Cao, Yang; D'Souza, Geeta C.; Bapat, Ashwini S.; Colarelli, Stephen M

doi:10.1002/mde.1293

Cited by 10 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The literature on leveling the playing field and the debate around the same have been assessed from economic (Holzer and Neumark, 2000;Fryer Jr and Loury, 2005;Fang and Moro, 2011;Mealem and Nitzan, 2016), legal (Sturm and Guinier, 1996;Hyman et al, 2012;Somani, 2012;Schuck, 2014), psychological (Yang et al, 2006), and institutional (Murrell and Jones, 1996;Sowell, 2004;Kalev, Dobbin, and Kelly, 2006) perspectives, though most surveys in disciplines outside of Economics focus exclusively on AA. Murrell and Jones (1996) report existing statistical and literary findings on the impact of AA on employment, education, and business ownership.…”

Section: Related Surveys and The Scope Of The Present Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Heterogeneity, Leveling the Playing Field, and Affirmative Action in Contests

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The heterogeneous abilities of the players in various competitive contexts often lead to undesirable outcomes such as low effort provision, lack of diversity, and inequality. A range of policies are implemented to mitigate such issues by enforcing competitive balance, i.e., leveling the playing field. While a number of such policies are aimed at increasing competition, affirmative action (AA) policies are historically practiced in an ethical response to historical discrimination against particular social groups among winners. This survey summarizes the rapidly growing literature of contest theory on AA and other policies that level the playing field. Using a general theoretical structure, we outline research on player and contest designer behavior under a multitude of policy mechanisms; and discuss the theoretical, experimental, and empirical results in relation to some of the common debates surrounding AA.

show abstract

Section: Related Surveys and The Scope Of The Present Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Heterogeneity, Leveling the Playing Field, and Affirmative Action in Contests

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…EE policies have become important tools for reducing gender inequality worldwide (Tougas & Beaton, 1993; Yang et al, 2006). Yet, despite the fact that EE policies assist organizations in addressing past discrimination, promoting social justice, and increasing the pool of job candidates, employees tend to show low levels of support for EE policies (Harrison et al, 2006).…”

Section: Ee Policies and Ambivalent Sexismmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, approximately 40% of Financial Post 500 companies had no women at all on their board of directors (Catalyst, 2013a). To address these inequalities, gender-based employment equity (EE) 1 policies, or policies that aim to reduce discrimination and increase the hiring of women, have been implemented in many countries worldwide (Sowell, 2004; Yang, D’Souza, Bapat, & Colarelli, 2006). While EE policies have positive and socially beneficial goals which presumably should garner support from employees, a large body of research shows negative employee reactions to EE policies (see Harrison, Kravitz, Mayer, Leslie, & Lev-Arey, 2006, for a meta-analysis).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The compassionate sexist? How benevolent sexism promotes and undermines gender equality in the workplace.

Hideg¹,

Ferris²

2016

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although sexist attitudes are generally thought to undermine support for employment equity (EE) policies supporting women, we argue that the effects of benevolent sexism are more complex. Across 4 studies, we extend the ambivalent sexism literature by examining both the positive and the negative effects benevolent sexism has for the support of gender-based EE policies. On the positive side, we show that individuals who endorse benevolent sexist attitudes on trait measures of sexism (Study 1) and individuals primed with benevolent sexist attitudes (Study 2) are more likely to support an EE policy, and that this effect is mediated by feelings of compassion. On the negative side, we find that this support extends only to EE policies that promote the hiring of women in feminine, and not in masculine, positions (Study 3 and 4). Thus, while benevolent sexism may appear to promote gender equality, it subtly undermines it by contributing to occupational gender segregation and leading to inaction in promoting women in positions in which they are underrepresented (i.e., masculine positions). (PsycINFO Database Record

show abstract

“…Despite improvements in recent decades, women and ethnic minorities continue to face employment discrimination and other barriers to advancement (e.g., Bertrand & Mullainathan, 2004;Blau & Kahn, 2007;Leslie, King, Bradley, & Hebl, 2008). To level the playing field, organizations around the globe have implemented affirmative action plans (AAPs), which are policies designed to improve work outcomes for underrepresented groups by providing them with extra help in the employment process (Jain, Sloane, & Horwitz, 2003;Yang, D'Souza, Bapat, & Colarelli, 2006). AAPs increase the number of women and ethnic minorities in managerial positions (Holzer & Neumark, 2000;Kalev, Dobbin, & Kelly, 2006;Leonard, 1984), and thus help promote organizational diversity and redress societal injustice.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Stigma of Affirmative Action: A Stereotyping-Based Theory and Meta-Analytic Test of the Consequences for Performance

Leslie

Mayer

Kravitz

2014

AMJ

177

158

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Affirmative action plans (AAPs) are designed to facilitate workplace success for members of the groups they target (e.g., women, ethnic minorities), yet may have the ironic effect of stigmatizing AAP targets and, in turn, decreasing their performance outcomes. Prior work has focused on the stigma of incompetence as the primary mechanism that links AAPs to performance; however, the broader social psychological literature suggests that additional mechanisms may also play a role. We use stereotyping theories to develop a more comprehensive model of the pathways through which AAPs limit targets' performance outcomes. Drawing from the stereotype content model, we propose that the negative effect of AAPs on others' evaluations of targets' performance is driven by perceptions of incompetence and low warmth. Drawing from stereotype threat theory, we propose that the negative effect of AAPs on targets' self-evaluated and objective performance is driven by perceptions of low self-competence, negative state affect, and perceived stereotyping by others. Meta-analytic path analyses support our hypotheses. Our theory and findings demonstrate that multiple mechanisms explain the negative consequences of AAPs for targets' performance outcomes, highlight differences in reactions to AAP targets by others versus the self, and provide insight into preventing the unintended negative effects of AAPs.

show abstract

A cross‐national analysis of affirmative action: an evolutionary psychological perspective

Cited by 10 publications

References 20 publications

Heterogeneity, Leveling the Playing Field, and Affirmative Action in Contests

Heterogeneity, Leveling the Playing Field, and Affirmative Action in Contests

The compassionate sexist? How benevolent sexism promotes and undermines gender equality in the workplace.

The Stigma of Affirmative Action: A Stereotyping-Based Theory and Meta-Analytic Test of the Consequences for Performance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About