Abstract
When social resources are limited, improving the lot of the underprivileged comes at the expense of others. Thus, policies such as Affirmative Action (AA)-designed to increase the representation of minority people in higher education or employment-implicitly entail tradeoffs between groups. We propose that, while aversion to person- or group-tradeoffs of this sort is widespread, the identifiability of those who stand to lose is a moderating factor. In five experiments, we compared support for several hypothetical AA procedures that are equivalent in terms of the overall harm and benefit, but differ with respect to the identifiability of those who stand to lose from its implementation. Results support the claim that the identifiability of those adversely affected reduces support for AA policies and for similar procedures that are unrelated to civil rights issues. Possible determinants of this effect are discussed.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 50-60 |
| Number of pages | 11 |
| Journal | Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes |
| Volume | 125 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Sep 2014 |
UN SDGs
This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
-
SDG 4 Quality Education
-
SDG 8 Decent Work and Economic Growth
-
SDG 10 Reduced Inequalities
-
SDG 16 Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
Keywords
- Affirmative action
- Do-no-harm principle
- Identifiable victim
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Affirmative action and other group tradeoff policies: Identifiability of those adversely affected'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver