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 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

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