The positive and negative framing of affirmative action: a group dominance perspective.
Using a sample of 328 White, Latino, and Black Los Angeles County adults, the authors examined the tendency to employ various affirmative action "frames" (e.g., affirmative action as a "tie-breaking" device or as a quota-based policy). All three groups agreed about which frames cast affirmative action in a positive light and which cast it in a negative light. Although minorities had a tendency to frame affirmative action in terms that most people find morally acceptable, Whites had a tendency to frame affirmative action in terms most people find unacceptable. In addition, compared to minorities, Whites were less supportive of affirmative action regardless of how it was framed. LISREL modeling also was employed to test two competing models regarding predictors of the tendency to use frames that one personally finds to be relatively negative versus positive. Consistent with the expectations of social dominance theory and a motivated cognition perspective, the authors found that social dominance orientation (SDO) had significant net direct and indirect effects on one's framing of affirmative action.
Haley
Hillary
H
University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1563, USA.
Sidanius
Jim
J
D000328:Adult; D001213:Asian / Q000523:psychology*; D001290:Attitude; D044383:Black People / Q000523:psychology*; D002140:California; D002961:Civil Rights / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence / Q000523:psychology; D003625:Data Collection; D005260:Female; D006630:Hispanic or Latino / Q000523:psychology*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D009341:Negativism; D011287:Prejudice; D011640:Public Policy; D012930:Social Dominance; D012933:Social Identification; D012935:Social Justice / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence / Q000523:psychology*; D044465:White People / Q000523:psychology*; D001741:Black or African American