Previous research on willingness to support affirmative action has examined groups that are historically advantaged or disadvantaged. We argue and show that support for affirmative action depends on whether people are induced to think of the in-group as having something to gain or as something to lose from affirmative action, and the self-regulatory focus this elicits. We hypothesized that group members should be more inclined to adopt a focus on promotion when in-group benefits of affirmative action are emphasized, while a focus on prevention should emerge when addressing potential in-group losses due to affirmative action. Data in support of this hypothesis were obtained in an experimental study asking university students (N = 83) to report emotions indicating a focus on promotion or prevention. Results further indicate that emphasizing in-group benefits (vs. non-benefits) enhances support for affirmative action, and that these effects are mediated by the regulatory focus adopted. Importantly, only promotion-oriented emotions predict support when the in-group is seen to benefit from affirmative action, whereas prevention emotions only predict support when the in-group is portrayed as standing to lose from affirmative action. Theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.
Aberson, C.L. ( 2007). Diversity, merit, and discrimination beliefs as predictors of support for affirmative-action policy actions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37, 2451-2474.
2.
Baron, R.H., & Kenny, D.A. ( 1986). The moderator- mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistic considerations . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
3.
Barreto, M., & Ellemers, N. ( 2005a). The perils of political correctness: Responses of men and women to old-fashioned and modern sexism. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68, 75-88.
4.
Barreto, M., & Ellemers, N. ( 2005b). The burden of "benevolent sexism: How it contributes to the maintenance of gender inequalities. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 633-642.
5.
Barreto, M., Ellemers, N., & Palacios, M. ( 2004). The backlash of token mobility: The impact of past group experiences on individual ambition and effort. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1433-1445.
6.
Bobocel, D.R., Davey L.M., Son Hing, L.S., & Zanna, M.P. ( 2001). The concern for justice and reactions to affirmative action: Cause or rationalization? In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: From theory to practice (pp. 121-143). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.
Bobocel, D.R., Son Hing, L.S., Davey, L.M., Stanley, D.J., & Zanna, M.P. ( 1998). Justice-based opposition to social policies: Is it genuine?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 653-669.
8.
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.
9.
Brockner, J., & Higgins, E.T. ( 2001). Regulatory focus theory: Implications for the study of emotions at work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 35-66.
10.
Brodish, A.B., Brazy, P.C., & Devine, P.G. ( 2008). More eyes on the prize: Variability in white Americans perceptions of progress toward racial inequality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 513-527.
11.
Brodscholl, J.C., Kober, H., & Higgins, E.T. ( 2007). Strategies of self-regulation in goal attainment versus goal maintenance. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 628-648.
12.
Crosby, F.J., Ferderman, B.M., & Wingate, B.R. ( 2001). Addressing and redressing discrimination: Affirmative action in social psychological perspective. In R. Brown & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intergroup processes (pp. 495-513). New York: Blackwell.
13.
Crosby, F.J., Iyer, A., & Sincharoen, S. (2006). Understanding affirmative action. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 585-611.
14.
Derks, B., Van Laar, C., & Ellemers, N. ( 2006). Striving for success in outgroup settings: Effects of contextually emphasizing ingroup dimensions on stigmatized group members social identity and performance styles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 576-588.
15.
Dovidio, J.F. ( 2001). On the nature of contemporary prejudice: The third wave . Journal of Social Issues, 57, 829-849.
16.
Dovidio, J.F., & Gaertner, S.L. (2004). Aversive racism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 1-56.
17.
Eibach, R.P., & Ehrlinger, J. ( 2006)."Keep your eyes on the prize": Reference points and racial differences in assessing progress toward equality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 66-77.
18.
Eibach, R.P., & Keegan, T. ( 2006). Free at last? Social dominance, loss aversion, and white and black Americans differing assessments of racial progress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 453-467.
19.
Fine, T.S. ( 1992). The impact of issue framing on public opinion: Toward affirmative action programs. The Social Science Journal, 29, 323-334.
20.
Förster, J., Grant, H., Idson, L.C., & Higgins, E.T. ( 2001). Success/failure feedback, expectancies, and approach/avoidance motivation: How regulatory focus moderates classic relations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 253-260.
21.
Gaertner, S.L., & Dovidio, J.F. ( 1986). The aversive form of racism. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 61-89). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
22.
Gamliel, E. ( 2007). To accept or to reject: The effect of framing on attitudes toward affirmative action. Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 37, 683-702.
23.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S.T. ( 1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491-512.
24.
Glick, P., & Fiske, S.T. ( 2001). Ambivalent sexism. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology . San Diego: Academic Press.
25.
Haley, H., & Sidanius, J. ( 2006). The positive and negative framing of affirmative action: A group dominance perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 656-668.
26.
Higgins, E.T. ( 1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist , 52, 1280-1300.
27.
Higgins, E.T. ( 2000). Making a good decision: Values from fit. American Psychologist, 55, 1217-1230.
28.
Higgins, E.T., Shah, J., & Friedman, R. ( 1997). Emotional responses to goal attainment: Strength of regulatory focus as moderator. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 72, 515-525.
29.
Johnson, S.E., Mitchell, M.A., Bean, M.G., Richeson, J.A., & Shelton, J.A. ( 2010). Gender moderates the self-regulatory consequences of suppressing emotional reactions to sexism. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13(2), 215-226.
30.
Jost, J.T., & Banaji, M.R. ( 1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1-27.
31.
Kravitz, D.A., & Klineberg, S.L. (2000). Reaction to two versions of affirmative action among Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 597-611.
32.
Lerner, M.J. ( 1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York: Plenum.
33.
Linton, L.L., & Christiansen, N.D. (2006). Restoring equity or introducing bias? A contingency model of attitudes toward affirmative action programs. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 1617-1639.
34.
Lowery, B.S., Knowles, E.D., & Unzueta, M.M. ( 2007). Framing inequity safely: Whites motivated perceptions of racial privilege. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 33, 1237-1250.
35.
Lowery, B.S., Unzueta, M.M., Knowles, E.D., & Goff, P.A. ( 2006). Concern for the in-group and opposition to affirmative action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 961-974.
36.
Murrell, A.J., Dietz-Uhler, B.L., Dovidio, J.F., Gaertner, S.L., & Drout, C. ( 1994). Aversive racism and resistance to affirmative action: Perceptions of justice are not necessarily color blind. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15, 71-86.
37.
Ouwerkerk, J.W., De Gilder, D., & De Vries, N.K. (2000). When the going gets tough, the tough get going: Social identification and individual effort in intergroup competition. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1550-1559.
38.
Oyserman, D., Uskul, A.K., Yoder, N., Nesse, R.M., & Williams, D.R. (2007). Unfair treatment and self-regulatory focus. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 502-512.
39.
Preacher, K.J., & Hayes, A.F. ( 2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891.
40.
Renfro, C.L., Duran, A., Stephan, W.G., & Clason, D.L. ( 2006). The role of threat in attitudes toward affirmative action and its beneficiaries. Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 36, 41-74.
41.
Resendez, M.G. ( 2002). The stigmatizing effects of affirmative action: An examination of moderating variables. Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 32, 185-206.
42.
Sassenberg, K., & Hansen, N. ( 2007). The impact of regulatory focus on affective responses to social discrimination. European Journal of Social Psychology , 37, 421-444.
43.
Sassenberg, K., Jonas, K.J., Shah, J.Y., & Brazy, P.C. ( 2007). Why some groups just feel better: The regulatory fit of group power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 92, 249-267.
44.
Sassenberg, K., & Woltin, K.-A. ( 2008). Group-based self-regulation: The effects of regulatory focus. European Review of Social Psychology, 19, 126-164.
45.
Scheepers, D.T., & Ellemers, N. ( 2005). When the pressure is up: The assessment of social identity threat in low and high status groups. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41, 192-200.
46.
Scheepers, D., Ellemers, N., & Sassenberg, K. (submitted). The power of accountability: How power differences within groups and status differences between groups affect promotion and prevention choices in decision making. Manuscript submitted for publication.
47.
Scheepers, D., Ellemers, N., & Sintemaartensdijk, N. (2009). Suffering from the possibility of status loss: Physiological responses to social identity threat in high status groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 1075-1092.
48.
Seibt, B., & Förster, J. (2004). Stereotype threat and performance: How self-stereotypes influence processing by inducing regulatory foci. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 38-56.
49.
Shah, J.Y., Brazy, P.C., & Higgins, E.T. ( 2004). Promoting us or preventing them: Regulatory focus and manifestations of intergroup bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 433-446.
50.
Shah, J., & Higgins, E.T. ( 1997). Expectancy X value effects: Regulatory focus as determinant of magnitude and direction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 447-458.
51.
Slaughter, J.E., Bulger, C.A., & Bachiochi, P.D. (2005). Black applicants reactions to affirmative action plans: Influence of perceived procedural fairness, anticipated stigmatization, and anticipated remediation of previous injustice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 2437-2476.
52.
Stroebe, K.E., Ellemers, N., Barreto, M., & Mummendey, A. ( 2009). For better or for worse: The congruence of personal and group outcomes on targets responses to discrimination. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 576-591.
53.
Turner, R.N., & Crisp, R.J. ( 2010). Explaining the relationship between ingroup identification and intergroup bias following recategorization: A self-regulation theory analysis . Group Processes and & Intergroup relations, 13(2), 251-261.
54.
Truax, C., Cordova, D., Wood, A., Wright, E., & Crosby, F.J. ( 1998). Undermined? Affirmative action from the targets point of view. In J. K. Swim & C. Stangor (Eds.), Prejudice: The target s perspective (pp. 172-188). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
55.
Watson, D., Clark, L.A., & Tellegen, A. ( 1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.
56.
Wright, S.C., Taylor, D.M., & Moghaddam, F.M. (1990). Responding to membership in a disadvantaged group: From acceptance to collective protest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 994-1003.
