Evaluations of Affirmative Action Applicants: Perceived Fairness, Human Capital, or Social Identity?

Evaluations of Affirmative Action Applicants: Perceived Fairness, Human Capital, or Social Identity? This study examined three explanations forevaluations of an affirmative action universityapplicant: type of policy, the human capital model, andsocial identity. Seventy-nine (84% white, 11% black, 3% Asian, and 2% other) participants read auniversity's admissions policy that varied the type ofpolicy (quota or standard), qualifications of theapplicant (weak, strong), and group affiliation(ingroup, outgroup). Then they rated the applicant,policy, and university. Results indicated support forthe social identity perspective. The ingroup applicantwas evaluated more favorably when the affirmative action policy was perceived to be fair. But theingroup member was derogated when the affirmative actionpolicy was perceived as unfair. The perceived fairnessof the affirmative action policy seemed to have little effect on evaluations of the outgroup member.The implications of these findings arediscussed. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Sex Roles Springer Journals

Evaluations of Affirmative Action Applicants: Perceived Fairness, Human Capital, or Social Identity?

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer_journal/evaluations-of-affirmative-action-applicants-perceived-fairness-human-DlQyharsrr
Publisher
Kluwer Academic Publishers-Plenum Publishers
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 by Plenum Publishing Corporation
Subject
Psychology; Gender Studies; Sociology, general; Medicine/Public Health, general
ISSN
0360-0025
eISSN
1573-2762
D.O.I.
10.1023/A:1018870408588
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

This study examined three explanations forevaluations of an affirmative action universityapplicant: type of policy, the human capital model, andsocial identity. Seventy-nine (84% white, 11% black, 3% Asian, and 2% other) participants read auniversity's admissions policy that varied the type ofpolicy (quota or standard), qualifications of theapplicant (weak, strong), and group affiliation(ingroup, outgroup). Then they rated the applicant,policy, and university. Results indicated support forthe social identity perspective. The ingroup applicantwas evaluated more favorably when the affirmative action policy was perceived to be fair. But theingroup member was derogated when the affirmative actionpolicy was perceived as unfair. The perceived fairnessof the affirmative action policy seemed to have little effect on evaluations of the outgroup member.The implications of these findings arediscussed.

Journal

Sex RolesSpringer Journals

Published: Oct 6, 2004

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 12 million articles from more than
10,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Unlimited reading

Read as many articles as you need. Full articles with original layout, charts and figures. Read online, from anywhere.

Stay up to date

Keep up with your field with Personalized Recommendations and Follow Journals to get automatic updates.

Organize your research

It’s easy to organize your research with our built-in tools.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve Freelancer

DeepDyve Pro

Price
FREE
$49/month

$360/year
Save searches from Google Scholar, PubMed
Create lists to organize your research
Export lists, citations
Read DeepDyve articles
Abstract access only
Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles
Print
20 pages/month
PDF Discount
20% off