The Role of Threat in Attitudes Toward Affirmative Action and Its Beneficiaries¹

Abstract

This set of two studies employed the integrated threat theory to examine attitudes toward affirmative action (AA). The first study found that opposition to the policy of AA was predicted by realistic threats, symbolic threats, and personal relevance; while attitudes toward the beneficiaries of AA were predicted by three of the four threat variables (symbolic threats, intergroup anxiety, and negative stereotypes), and in-group identity. The second study replicated and expanded on the first study and found that the effects of several individual-difference variables (racism, antiBlack affect, and political conservatism) on opposition to AA were mediated by three of the threats in the integrated threat theory (realistic threats, symbolic threats, and negative stereotypes). The implications of the results are discussed.For over 30 years, affirmative action has been one of the most controversial social policies of our times. Opponents question whether or not affirmative action is needed or necessary and whether it violates the norm of meritocracy (fairness) that is so dear to many Americans. Many opponents view affirmative action as offering preferential treatment to its beneficiaries while creating reverse discrimination for nonbeneficiaries of affirmative action. Proponents, on the other hand, suggest that affirmative action assists the achievement of women and minorities, and provides female and minority role models. Proponents also view affirmative action as helping to remedy past discriminatory practices, offsetting current discrimination, and increasing diversity in the workplace.Overall, Americans tend to support the idea of equal opportunity, yet there is widespread opposition to affirmative action (Kinder & Sanders, 1 The authors thank Cookie Stephan for her comments on an earlier version of this manuscript; Larry Gregory and Douglas Gillan for serving as statistical consultants; and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments.

Intergroup Anxiety

“…As previously indicated, studies of integrated threat theory show that perceived realistic and symbolic threats to the ingroup are consistently related to intergroup anxiety (Berrenberg et al, 2002;Corenblum & Stephan, 2001;Renfro et al, 2006;W. G. Stephan et al, 1999;W.…”

“…Several studies have found that strength of identity with the ingroup is positively correlated with intergroup anxiety (Aberson & Gaffney, 2008;Corenblum & Stephan, 2001;Renfro et al, 2006;Suzuki-Crumly & Hyers, 2004). Similarly, considering the ingroup to be highly distinctive has also been found to be positively correlated with intergroup anxiety (González, Sirlopú, & Kessler, 2010), perhaps because ingroup members are worried that their feeling of distinctiveness will be undermined during interactions with outgroup members.…”

Help Less or Help More —Perceived Intergroup Threat and Out-Group Helping

“…Although the relationship between intergroup threat and negative responses has been extensively studied, only a small number of studies have focused on how intergroup threat influences positive behavior (Renfro, Duran, Stephan, & Clason, 2006;Sawires & Peacock, 2000). Logically, negative responses to threat not only entail the promotion of direct intergroup conflicts, such as aggression, discrimination and stereotyping, but also encompass an indirect reduction in positive behavior.…”

“…Logically, negative responses to threat not only entail the promotion of direct intergroup conflicts, such as aggression, discrimination and stereotyping, but also encompass an indirect reduction in positive behavior. For instance, when exposed to threat, individuals responded by opposing policies favoring the out-group (Renfro, et al, 2006;Sawires & Peacock, 2000). The present research focuses on how intergroup threat may affect out-group helping behavior, which is particularly important in social life.…”

The effect of perspective taking on negative cognitive responses induced by intergroup threat

“…For example, researchers have found that people respond to intergroup threat by opposing a policy that is advantageous to out-group members, for example, affirmative action in the United States (Renfro, Duran, Stephan, & Clason, 2006). This kind of opposition, which stems from intergroup threat, can impede the implementation of a positive policy, and is likely to restrict the ability of the out-group members to move forward.…”