Gender Differences in Attitudes Toward Affirmative ... - Springer Link

P1: GYK/HDT/HGL Sex Roles [sers]

P2: HDT/FZI

PP380-366661

QC: GLB

January 22, 2002

19:26

Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

C 2002) Sex Roles, Vol. 45, Nos. 5/6, September 2001 (°

Gender Differences in Attitudes Toward Affirmative Action Programs in Australia: Effects of Beliefs, Interests, and Attitudes Toward Women1 Alison M. Konrad2 Temple University

Linley Hartmann University of South Australia

This research identified mediators explaining the relationship between gender and attitudes toward affirmative action programs for women. Structural equation modeling was conducted on survey data obtained from academics at an Australian university (n = 198 with listwise deletion of missing data). Findings indicated that the relationship between gender and affirmative action attitudes was mediated by (1) perceptions of affirmative action’s impact on material self-interest, (2) belief in the existence of gender discrimination, and (3) traditional attitudes toward women. Implications for organizations, policymakers, and researchers are discussed.

Attitudes toward affirmative action (AA) programs have received significant research attention (Bobo, 1998; Bobo & Kluegel, 1993; Konrad & Linnehan, 1995; Kravitz & Platania, 1993; Steeh & Krysan, 1996). A minority of this research has examined attitudes toward AA programs for women. The research that does exist shows that women support these programs more than men do (Konrad & Spitz, 1999; Smith & Witt, 1990; Tougas & Beaton, 1993). 1A

previous version of this paper was presented at the Academy of Management meeting in August 2000 and was a runner-up for the Gender and Diversity in Organizations Division’s Dorothy Harlow Best Paper Award. 2 To whom correspondence should be addressed at Department of Human Resource Administration, Fox School of Business and Management, Temple University, 1810 N. 13th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19122-6083; e-mail: [email protected]. 415 C 2002 Plenum Publishing Corporation 0360-0025/01/0900-0415/0 °


P2: HDT/FZI

PP380-366661

416

QC: GLB

January 22, 2002

19:26


Konrad and Hartmann

Research on AA attitudes is beginning to examine the reasons for demographic group differences (Bell, Harrison, & McLaughlin, 1997; Bobo, 1998; Konrad & Spitz, 1999). Common sense implies that the differences are due to self-interest. The extent to which self-interest determines AA attitudes is a matter of debate, however. Sears and Funk (1990) argue that, in general, measures of self-interest are only weakly associated with policy attitudes. Bobo (1998) counters that AA attitudes reflect group interests because AA programs influence the distribution of important material outcomes among demographic groups. In addition to divergent interests, different values and beliefs may explain demographic group differences in AA attitudes. As standpoint theory argues, location in the social structure influences a person’s views of the social world in addition to affecting one’s interests (Dougherty, 1999; Hallstein, 1999). Previous research has shown that individualism, egalitarianism, attitudes toward women, and beliefs about the existence of discrimination influence attitudes toward AA. We argue below that these values and beliefs as well as feminist self-identification are likely to be associated with demographic group memberships and may explain group differences in AA attitudes. Understanding the reasons for demographic group differences in policy attitudes is important for both theoretical and practical reasons. Theoretically, it is important to move beyond the treatment of demographics as either proxies for theoretical constructs or sources of error variance that must be controlled. To make this kind of progress, research must identify the theoretical reasons why demographic groups are expected to differ and incorporate measures of the relevant theoretical constructs. Practically, it is useful to identify the sources of demographic group differences in policy attitudes in order for research to make a contribution beyond the dictates of simple common sense. Identifying the factors that explain demographic group differences in policy attitudes can help policymakers develop ways of presenting information that will be effective for building coalitions and generating support for various points of view.

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES AA programs consist of organizational goals for increasing the representation of historically excluded groups, timetables for achieving those goals, and organizational practices designed to achieve the goals within the stated time frames (Konrad & Linnehan, 1999). In Australia, AA programs began with the Affirmative Action (Equal Employment Opportunity for


P2: HDT/FZI

PP380-366661

QC: GLB

January 22, 2002

19:26


Affirmative Action Attitudes

417

Women) Act of 1986. The act created Australia’s Affirmative Action Agency, which required all organizations with 100 or more employees to develop and implement AA programs for women and to report annually on the progress of these programs. These programs were similar to the affirmative action plans required of federal contractors in the United States in that they required organizations to provide numerical goals for the employment of women and specify the time period in which the goals were to be achieved (Sheridan, 1998). One major difference from the situation in the United States is that in Australia, AA programs only focus on women, and other groups such as ethnic minorities are not covered. Australia’s Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act of 1999 explicitly moved away from the language of affirmative action to embrace the language of equal employment opportunity, reduced annual reporting requirements to biennial reports, and allowed employers more flexibility in program implementation. Employers are still required to present a quantitative workplace profile and action plan every 2 years under the new legislation (information on the Act can be found at http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/). Hence, even with the revisions, Australia’s legislative program continues to fit the definition of AA. Below, we develop hypotheses regarding mediators of the relationship between gender and attitudes toward AA for women in Australia.

Material Interests and AA Attitudes Lawrence Bobo (1998; Bobo & Hutchings, 1996; Bobo & Kluegel, 1993) is one of the foremost proponents of the argument that material interests drive people’s attitudes toward AA programs. Bobo has focused his work on attitudes toward government programs designed to reduce inequality between African Americans and European Americans. In essence, he maintains that, “any social system with long-standing racial identities and institutionalized racial inequality in life chances sets the stage for realistic or meaningful struggle over group interests defined along racial lines” (Bobo, 1998, p. 988). In other words, the facts that (1) racial categories are imbued with meaning in a society and (2) social resources are unequally distributed among those categories lead people to link material self-interest to the fortunes of their racial group as a whole. Historically dominant groups perceive policies like AA that intentionally shift resources toward deprived groups as threatening. Historically deprived groups, on the other hand, view such policies positively because they are perceived as benefiting their material interests.


P2: HDT/FZI

PP380-366661

QC: GLB

January 22, 2002

19:26


418

Konrad and Hartmann

The material interests argument can be applied to the issue of AA programs for women. Like racial categories, gender categories are imbued with social meaning, and social resources are unequally divided between women and men. Hence, the two preconditions for the development of a sense of shared group interests are met in the case of gender categories. AA programs for women are intended to shift resources, status, and privileges to women, and may engender negative attitudes among men who perceive these programs as threatening to their self-interests. On the other hand, women who see AA programs as enhancing their material self-interests may develop positive attitudes toward those programs. H1: The effect of gender on AA attitudes is mediated by perceptions of AA’s effects on material self-interest.

Standpoints and AA Attitudes Standpoint theories argue that material position in society determines one’s consciousness, including values, beliefs, and worldview (Dougherty, 1999; Hallstein, 1999). When social categories are used to channel people into a structured set of life experiences, people’s views of society and social relations become limited by their category membership(s) (Hartsock, 1987). In a gender-stratified society, women and men are assigned to experience sets that shape perceptions and outcomes differently, resulting in gender differences in values and worldview (Harding, 1991). As such, standpoints are not immutable or inherent within women and men, rather, standpoints are socially constructed (Dougherty, 1999). Standpoint theory implies that gender will influence people’s values and worldview. According to standpoint theory’s materialist assumption, women and men develop differing views of the social world because of their different sets of life experiences. Four worldview aspects have been linked to attitudes toward AA programs: egalitarianism, individualism, belief in the existence of discrimination, and traditional attitudes toward women. We argue below that gender may influence each of these and add feminist self-identification as a possible predictor of AA attitudes.

Egalitarianism Egalitarianism is defined as the belief that inequality is harmful to a society (Feldman, 1988). Conversely, inegalitarianism is the belief that inequality serves a positive function for society by rewarding individual ability


P2: HDT/FZI

PP380-366661

QC: GLB

January 22, 2002

19:26



419

and effort. Because AA programs are designed to reduce inequality between groups of people, egalitarians are more likely than their inegalitarian counterparts to support AA (Feldman, 1988; Kluegel & Smith, 1983; but egalitarianism was not a significant predictor in Bobo, 1998). Previous research has shown that women score more highly on measures of egalitarianism than men do (Konrad & Spitz, 1999). There are two theoretical reasons for this gender difference in egalitarianism. First, because women are disadvantaged by the current stratification system, it is in their material interests to reduce inequality. Second, gender ideology may cause women to show a higher level of egalitarianism than men do. Masculine ideology pressures men to value dominance, prowess, success, and status (Thompson, Pleck, & Ferrera, 1992). Women, in contrast, are pressured to comply with feminine ideology, which dictates that they should be nurturing and altruistic (Burn, 1996). Egalitarianism is part of an ethic of caring (Gilligan, 1982), focusing on providing for the needs of all members of society regardless of their “meritoriousness.” As such, it is more compatible with the feminine value of nurturing than with the masculine values of prowess, status, and dominance. Compliance with gender-typed norms and values should lead women to embrace egalitarianism more than men. H2: Egalitarianism mediates the relationship between gender and AA attitudes. Individualism Individualism is defined as the belief that people’s life chances are determined by demonstrated ability and individual effort (Kluegel & Smith, 1983). Conversely, nonindividualists (or structuralists) believe that life chances are determined to a significant extent by external factors beyond the individual’s control. Individualists are less likely than structuralists to support AA programs because they see these programs as unneeded interference in a well-functioning meritocracy (Kluegel & Smith, 1983; but individualism was not a significant predictor in Bobo, 1998). The logic of standpoint theory implies that men will be more likely than women to endorse individualistic values. As members of a privileged group, men (particularly White professionals) have relatively few experiences where they are the targets of prejudice or discrimination. For this reason, they are less likely to be aware of the structural barriers to status attainment experienced by women or other groups historically excluded from positions of power. As a result, they are more likely than disadvantaged groups to develop beliefs that individual effort and ability are the major factors influencing life outcomes.


P2: HDT/FZI

PP380-366661

QC: GLB

January 22, 2002

19:26


420

Konrad and Hartmann

H3: Individualism mediates the relationship between gender and AA attitudes. Belief in Gender Discrimination Those who believe that discrimination exists in a society are more likely to support AA programs. Those who believe that discrimination does not exist do not support AA programs because they see no need for them (Bobo & Kluegel, 1993; Kluegel, 1985; Kluegel & Smith, 1983; Konrad & Spitz, 1999; Tougas & Beaton, 1993; Tougas & Villieux, 1990). Men are less likely than women to believe that gender discrimination exists (Coontz, 1995; Kern, 1994; Konrad & Spitz, 1999; Tougas & Beaton, 1993). One reason for this difference may be the development of self-serving biases whereby members of privileged groups come to attribute their higher status to their own merit rather than to their unearned advantages (Jacques, 1997). Privileged groups may be unaware of their unearned advantages and assume that all people have access to the resources they need to compete successfully in the labor market (Sidanius, Pratto, Martin, & Stallworth, 1991). Privileged groups also tend to assume that all people are treated with the same deference and respect that they experience in interpersonal interaction (McIntosh, 1990). Because discrimination is not as much a part of their experience, members of privileged groups come to believe that discrimination is not a problem in their society. As members of a marginalized group, women are more likely to experience disrespectful treatment and discrimination on the basis of gender (Benokraitis, 1997), and as a result of their different life experiences, they are more likely to believe that gender discrimination exists. H4: Belief in the existence of discrimination mediates the effect of gender on AA attitudes. Traditional Attitudes Toward Women Those holding traditional attitudes toward women consider women and men to be suited to different types of activities (Spence & Helmrich, 1978). Traditional attitudes toward women are likely to be associated with negative attitudes toward AA. To the extent that people consider women to be less suitable for activities traditionally assigned to men, they are likely to see AA programs as placing women into roles for which they will be unfit. According to this logic, the result of AA programs is that men experience reverse discrimination and organizations perform more poorly. Previous research


P2: HDT/FZI

PP380-366661

QC: GLB

January 22, 2002

19:26



421

has supported the assertion that traditional attitudes toward women lead to negative attitudes toward AA programs for women (Konrad & Spitz, 1999). Other research has shown that the related construct of sexism, or prejudice against women, also has a negative effect on attitudes toward AA for women (Bobocel, Son Hing, Davey, Stanley, & Zanna, 1998). Research has consistently shown that women are less likely than men to hold traditional attitudes toward women (Twenge, 1997). H5: Traditional attitudes toward women mediate the effect of gender on AA attitudes. Feminist Self-Identification People who identify themselves as feminists may have more positive attitudes toward AA programs for women than do their nonfeminist counterparts. Self-identification as a feminist means identifying women as a social group facing systemic forces that maintain inequality between the genders (Myaskovsky & Wittig, 1997). Nonfeminists, on the other hand, believe that women should be held individually responsible for their lower status relative to men (Renzetti, 1987). Because feminists believe that structural forces play a role in producing gender inequality, they may be more likely to see a need for structural remedies to reduce inequality. In Australia, the most frequently employed AA activities concern reviewing personnel decision-making systems for discriminatory practices, and the second most common activities seek to assist employees with work and family balance (Sheridan, 1998). Both employment discrimination and unequal family responsibilities have concerned feminists, and programs addressing these concerns are likely to receive their support. Because women are more likely than men to hold feminist ideals (Morgan, 1996) and have more positive attitudes toward feminism than men do (Smith & DeMan, 1996), self-identification as a feminist may be a significant mediator of the relationship between gender and support for women’s AA programs. H6: Feminist self-identification mediates the effect of gender on AA attitudes. METHOD Data Collection During the Fall of 1999, we administered a survey to all academics on the faculty of an Australian university. Of the 866 academics receiving the survey, 238 (27%) provided usable responses. Listwise deletion of missing


P2: HDT/FZI

PP380-366661

QC: GLB

January 22, 2002

19:26


422

Konrad and Hartmann

data reduced the number of participants included in the analysis to 198. It was agreed with university administration that only one mailing of the questionnaire would be distributed and no reminders would be sent. Measures Demographic information was obtained from survey responses. About half of the respondents (49%) were women, which is comparable to women’s representation among academics at this university (46%). Feminist identity was determined from responses to an item reading, “I consider myself to be a feminist/feminist supporter,” with response options of yes (coded 1), probably (coded 2), and no (coded 3). Age, educational level (a dummy variable indicating whether or not the respondent held a PhD), and political conservatism (ranging from a low of 1 to a high of 6) were controlled in the analysis because previous research has shown that these factors can affect AA attitudes (Konrad & Linnehan, 1999). All other measures used in the study consisted of multiple item indices described below. For all items, response options were on a 6-point scale ranging from 1 (disagree) to 6 (agree). Support for AA Programs Targeting Women Three survey items adapted from Bell, Harrison, and McLaughlin (1997) assessed support for AA programs targeting women. The items read as follows: (1) EEO programs that encourage the hiring and promotion of women are a good idea, (2) EEO programs advance less qualified women over men (reverse coded), and (3) EEO programs for women academics displace men from positions they deserve (reverse coded). The index was scored so that a high value indicated greater support for AA. The phrase, “EEO programs” was used instead of “affirmative action programs” to reflect terminology more commonly used in Australia. Material Self-Interest The perceived impact of AA programs on self-interest was assessed by the following survey items: (1) EEO programs for women academics have a damaging effect on my career (reverse coded) and (2) EEO programs for women academics hurt my chances for promotion (reverse coded). The index was scored so that a high value indicated perceptions that AA programs do not damage one’s material interests.


P2: HDT/FZI

PP380-366661

QC: GLB

January 22, 2002

19:26



423

Egalitarianism Items developed by Feldman (1988) were modified to measure egalitarianism. The items read as follows: (1) If people were treated more equally, we would have fewer problems; (2) In general, I think inequality is a good idea (reverse coded); (3) The inequality resulting from market competition is a valuable asset to our society (reverse coded); and (4) It is better to try to minimize inequality. The index was scored so that a high value indicated endorsement of egalitarian values.

Individualism Items developed by Feldman (1988) were adapted for use in this study. The items read: (1) Unequal outcomes are due to differences in individual ability, talent, or qualification; (2) Inequality is caused by differences in performance; and (3) Inequality is due to lack of effort on the part of unsuccessful people. The index was scored so that a high value indicated endorsement of an individualistic perspective.

Belief in Gender Discrimination Tougas and Veilleux’s measure of belief in the existence of gender discrimination (Tougas & Veilleux, 1990) was adapted for use in this study. The items read: (1) Women academics experience discrimination in hiring or promotion decisions; (2) Perhaps there used to be sex discrimination against women academics, but this is not the case today (reverse coded); and (3) Academic promotion decisions are biased by sex so that men are advantaged. The index was scored so that a high value indicated a stronger belief in the existence of gender discrimination.

Traditional Attitudes Toward Women We adapted portions of Spence and Helmrich’s Attitudes toward Women Scale (Spence & Helmrich, 1972) for use in this study. The items read as follows: (1) I’m not sure it’s such a good idea for women to be competing fully in the job market, (2) Women are more suited to housekeeping and child care than are men, (3) It is appropriate that men hold most top executive positions, and (4) It is appropriate that most top political


P2: HDT/FZI

PP380-366661

QC: GLB

January 22, 2002

19:26


424

Konrad and Hartmann

positions are held by men. The index was scored so that a high value indicated stronger endorsement of traditional attitudes toward women.

RESULTS Reliability and Validity of the Measures Means, standard deviations, and correlations for all measures are shown in Table I. For multiple item indices, Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients are shown on the diagonal of the correlation matrix. All met the traditional criterion of .70 except that for egalitarianism, which approached acceptability at .68. We conducted a confirmatory factor analysis to test the convergent and discriminant validity of the multiple item indices included in our analysis (results available from the first author). We assessed model fit with the use of several statistics. First, we used the chi-square test that assesses the goodness of fit between the estimated and observed covariance matrices. The significant chi-square statistic, χ 2 (137) = 192.21, p < .000, indicated that the data departed significantly from the theoretical factor structure. Other fit statistics that are not sensitive to sample size indicated an adequate level of fit, however (GFI = .90, AGFI = .86, IFI = .97, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .05). All items loaded significantly and strongly (all standardized coefficients except one >.55) on their intended factors, supporting the construct validity of the measures. We assessed discriminant validity by testing a model in which all items loaded together on one factor. If the chi-square increased significantly when compared to the confirmatory factor analysis, this would indicate that the model fit better when these factors were modeled distinctly. The model with all items loading on one factor fit poorly, χ 2 (152) = 879.66, p < .000; GFI = .65; AGFI = .57; IFI = .57; CFI = .57; RMSEA = .17. The chi-square increased by a significant amount, 1χ 2 (15) = 681.12, p < .000, providing evidence for the discriminant validity of the factors.

Hypothesis-Testing Analyses Structural equation modeling was used for hypothesis testing (Arbuckle, 1997). Our hypotheses focused on mediators between the independent variable (IV) of gender and the dependent variable (DV) of support for AA. For mediation to be demonstrated, three findings must be present. First, the IV must be a significant predictor of the DV. To test this condition, a

0.50 0.92 1.12 0.88 0.87 1.12 0.89 0.82 1.22 8.89 0.47

— −.51∗ −.70∗ −.22∗ .29∗ −.55∗ .45∗ .36∗ .08 .03 .33∗ .85 .71∗ .37∗ −.49∗ .74∗ −.56∗ −.50∗ −.31∗ .08 −.11

2

.83 .25∗ −.41∗ .64∗ −.48∗ −.48∗ −.20∗ .00 −.17∗

3

.68 −.51∗ .37∗ −.35∗ −.31∗ −.40∗ .16∗ −.07

4

.78 −.55∗ .39∗ .41∗ .44∗ −.17∗ .14

5

.85 −.57∗ −.47∗ −.28∗ −.01 −.20∗

6

.76 .49∗ .32∗ −.03 .18∗

7

— .47∗ −.15∗ .16∗

8

— −.22∗ −.02

9

— .08

10

19:26

425

∗p

—

11

January 22, 2002

Note. Cronbach’s alpha reliability statistics for multiple item indices are shown on the diagonal. With listwise deletion of missing data, n = 198. < .05.

1.52 4.35 4.03 4.54 2.85 3.74 1.86 1.73 2.85 43.92 0.33

1. Gender (1 = F, 2 = M) 2. Supportive AA attitude 3. AA does not hurt self-interest 4. Egalitarianism 5. Individualism 6. Belief in gender discrimination 7. Traditional attitude toward women 8. Feminist (1 = Yes, 2 = Probably, 3 = No) 9. Conservatism (1 = Low, 6 = High) 10. Age 11. PhD (1 = Yes, 0 = No)

1

P2: HDT/FZI

SD

Table I. Descriptive Statistics

PP380-366661

Mean

Sex Roles [sers]

Variable

P1: GYK/HDT/HGL QC: GLB Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999


P2: HDT/FZI

PP380-366661

QC: GLB

January 22, 2002

19:26


426

Konrad and Hartmann

structural equation model was estimated predicting the latent AA attitude variable from respondent gender, age, political conservatism, and education. The data fit the model well (χ 2 = 5.38, df = 8, p = .72; GFI = .99; AGFI = .97; IFI = 1.00; CFI = 1.00; RMSEA = .00). Gender (standardized coefficient = −.60, p < .05) was a significant predictor of AA attitude when political conservatism, age, and education were controlled, fulfilling the first condition for mediation. Of the three control variables, political conservatism was a significant predictor of AA attitude (standardized coefficient = −.33, p < .05), but age (standardized coefficient = −.01, ns) and education (standardized coefficient = .09, ns) were not significant. The second condition for demonstrating mediation is that the IV must be a significant predictor of the mediator, and the third condition is that the mediator must be a significant predictor of the DV. Partial mediation occurs when the IV has a significant direct effect on the DV in addition to the portion of the effect explained by the mediators. If the IV has no significant direct effect on the DV when the mediators are controlled, the relationship between the IV and DV is said to be fully mediated. To make these tests, we estimated a structural equation model indicating gender, conservatism, age, and education as IVs, interests, belief in discrimination, egalitarianism, individualism, traditional attitudes toward women, and feminist identification as mediators, and attitudes toward AA for women as the DV. The data showed an acceptable level of fit to the model (χ 2 = 254.98, df = 202, p < .05; GFI = .88; AGFI = .84; IFI = .97; CFI = .97; RMSEA = .04). Table II shows the standardized and Table II. Structural Relationships Among Predictors of Affirmative Action Attitudes Effect Gender → AA does not hurt self-interest Gender → Egalitarianism Gender → Individualism Gender → Belief in discrimination Gender → Traditional attitude to women Gender → Feminist identification Gender → Support for AA AA does not hurt interests → Support for AA Egalitarianism → Support for AA Individualism → Support for AA Belief in discrimination → Support for AA Traditional attitude to women → Support for AA Feminist identification → Support for AA

Unstandardized Standardized coefficient SE coefficient −1.27 −0.26 0.56 −1.32 0.36 0.46 −0.04 0.39 0.03 0.01 0.36 −0.29 −0.07

.17 .13 .17 .19 .09 .11 .14 .09 .10 .09 .07 .12 .07

−.62* −.17 .28* −.51* .32* .28* −.02 .41* .03 .01 .48* −.17* −.06

Note. With listwise deletion of missing data, n = 198. Gender is coded as 1 = F, 2 = M. Feminist identification is coded as 1 = Yes, 2 = Probably, 3 = No. ∗ p < .05.


P2: HDT/FZI

PP380-366661

QC: GLB

January 22, 2002


19:26


427

unstandardized estimates of the structural coefficients and their significance levels. Results for the control variables (not shown in the table) indicated that political conservatism significantly affected all of the posited mediators. As expected, conservatives were less egalitarian, less likely to believe in the existence of gender discrimination, less likely to consider themselves feminists, more individualistic, more traditional in their attitudes toward women, and more likely to perceive AA as a threat to their self-interests. Political conservatism did not have a significant direct effect on AA attitude, indicating that its impact was fully mediated by the other predictors in the model. Age had a significant effect on individualism only, with younger academics showing higher levels of individualism than did their older counterparts. Education had a significant effect on the perceived impact of AA on self-interest such that PhD qualified academics viewed AA as less of a threat to their career outcomes. Gender had no significant direct effect on AA attitude when the mediators were incorporated into the model, indicating that the gender effect was fully mediated by other factors. Results of the hypothesis tests are reported below. H1 predicted that the effect of gender on support for AA programs would be mediated by perceptions of AA’s effects on material self-interest. This hypothesis was supported. Men were significantly more likely to perceive AA programs as a threat to their careers, and those who perceived AA as a threat were significantly less likely to support AA. H2’s prediction that egalitarianism would mediate the relationship between gender and AA attitudes received no support. Gender was not a significant predictor of egalitarianism, and egalitarianism was not a significant predictor of support for AA programs. H3’s prediction that individualism would mediate the relationship between gender and AA attitudes was not supported. Gender was a significant predictor of individualism in the predicted direction where women were less likely than men to endorse individualistic beliefs. Individualism was not a significant predictor of AA attitudes, however. H4 predicted that belief in the existence of discrimination would mediate the effect of gender on AA attitudes. Results supported this prediction. Women were significantly more likely than men to believe that gender discrimination exists, and those who believed in gender discrimination were significantly more likely to support AA. H5’s prediction that traditional attitudes toward women would mediate the effect of gender on AA attitudes was supported. Results showed that men were more likely than women to hold traditional attitudes toward


P2: HDT/FZI

PP380-366661

QC: GLB

January 22, 2002

19:26


428

Konrad and Hartmann

women and that people with traditional attitudes toward women were significantly less likely to support AA. H6’s prediction that feminist identity would mediate the effect of gender on AA attitudes was not supported. Women were significantly more likely than men to identify themselves as feminists, but feminist selfidentification had no significant effect on AA attitudes when the other variables in the model were controlled. Tests determining whether the effects were the same for women and men were conducted by estimating the structural equation model for women and men simultaneously. A significance test for differences between the coefficients was obtained by comparing the chi-square fit statistic for the model when each coefficient was constrained to be equal for both groups to the chi-square obtained when the model was unconstrained. The difference between the two chi-square statistics is distributed as chi-square with one degree of freedom. These tests resulted in one significantly different structural effect. The impact of belief in the existence of gender discrimination was significantly stronger for men (standardized coefficient = .68, p < .05) than it was for women (standardized coefficient = .37, p < .05; 1χ 2 (1) = 2.18, p < .05). Additionally, traditional attitudes toward women did not significantly predict AA attitudes for men. It was a significant predictor for women, but the difference between the women’s and men’s coefficients was not statistically significant. The impact of perceived self-interest was significant for both women and men and did not differ in strength between the two groups. No other factors were significant predictors of AA attitudes for women or men.

DISCUSSION In summary, we found that the effect of gender on attitudes toward AA programs for women was fully mediated by perceptions of self-interests, belief in the existence of gender discrimination, and traditional attitudes toward women. Men were less likely to support AA programs for women because they were more likely to view these programs as a threat to their careers, because they were less likely to believe that women academics experience gender discrimination, and because they held more traditional attitudes toward women. Our finding that perceptions of material interests affected attitudes toward AA programs supported Bobo’s position (Bobo, 1998). Bobo (1998)


P2: HDT/FZI

PP380-366661

QC: GLB

January 22, 2002


19:26


429

maintained that people develop a sense of demographic group interests in a society that makes meaningful distinctions among people based on demographics and distributes resources unequally among those demographic groups. Interests had a relatively strong impact on AA attitudes in our study in comparison to the weak relationships between interests and policy attitudes reported by Sears and Funk (1990). Perhaps one reason for our divergent findings is the fact that our study participants were highly educated relative to the general public. Highly educated people may be more aware of the content of public policy and the impact of policy on their interests. Future research should examine whether level of education moderates the relationship between interests and policy attitudes. Because perceived threats to self-interest seem to affect AA attitudes, organizations wishing to develop positive employee attitudes toward their AA practices should communicate advancement opportunities to all qualified employees, base promotions on qualifications, and share information about the qualifications of all people receiving promotions. For high quality employees, demonstrating that career advancement is based on merit should diminish the perceived threat posed by AA programs. Besides interests, belief in the existence of discrimination was a relatively strong predictor of AA attitudes. This finding implies that providing information on the extent of labor market discrimination might increase support for AA programs. Unfortunately, demonstrating that discrimination has occurred is often difficult, and research findings are usually ambiguous and open to alternative explanations. Academics in particular are likely to be cognizant of the limitations of discrimination research. Hence, their attitudes are probably difficult to influence in this manner. The challenge for AA supporters is to develop new, creative ways to document the existence of labor market discrimination that will convince a larger portion of the academic community. Like all studies, this research has its limitations. The results of our research are limited in generalizability because respondents came from a single organization. The response rate of 27% is modest and limits the extent to which we can generalize even to the population of academics at the university in which the study was conducted. Supporting our study’s generalizability at this level, the gender distribution of the survey respondents was similar to that of all academics at the university. Another limitation is the fact that we obtained measures of the IVs, mediators, and DV from the same survey form. As such, our results are subject to possible common methods bias, and the correlations among the measures could be due to the fact that they were obtained by the same methods rather than to true associations among the theoretical constructs.


P2: HDT/FZI

PP380-366661

QC: GLB

January 22, 2002

19:26


430

Konrad and Hartmann

Confirmatory factor analysis supported the convergent and divergent validity of the multiple-item indices assessing the mediators and the DV, however, supporting our approach. Future research can build on our efforts by collecting data from a representative sample or at least from other organizations to see if our findings are replicated. Also, measures of attitudes toward AA could be assessed on a separate survey form administered at a different time from the survey assessing the IVs and the mediators. This method would reduce the potential for common methods bias. However, it is not always practical in field research, because it requires organizational permission to administer two surveys instead of just one, which was not possible in our case.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The first author gratefully acknowledges support from the Fox School of Business and Mangement’s Boettner Research Fellowship.

REFERENCES Arbuckle, J. L. (1997). AMOS (Version 3.61). Chicago: SmallWaters. Bell, M. P., Harrison, D. A., & McLaughlin, M. E. (1997). Asian American attitudes toward affirmative action in employment: Implications for the model minority myth. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 33, 356–377. Benokraitis, N. V. (1997). Subtle sexism: Current practice and prospects for change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bobo, L. (1998). Race, interests, and beliefs about affirmative action. American Behavioral Scientist, 41, 985–1003. Bobo, L., & Hutchings, V. L. (1996). Perceptions of racial group competition: Extending Blumer’s theory of group position to a multiracial social context. American Sociological Review, 61, 951–972. Bobo, L., & Kluegel, J. R. (1993). Opposition to race-targeting: Self-interest, stratification ideology, or racial attitudes? American Sociological Review, 58, 443–464. 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. Burn, S. M. (1996). The social psychology of gender. New York: McGraw-Hill. Coontz, P. D. (1995). Gender bias in the legal profession: Women “see” it, men don’t. Women and Politics, 15, 1–22. Dougherty, D. S. (1999). Dialogue through standpoint: Understanding women’s and men’s standpoints of sexual harassment. Management Communication Quarterly, 12, 436–468. Feldman, S. (1988). Structure and consistency in public opinion: The role of core beliefs and values. American Journal of Political Science, 32, 416–440. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Hallstein, D. L. O. (1999). A postmodern caring: Feminist standpoint theories, revisioned caring, and communication ethics. Western Journal of Communication, 63, 32–56.


P2: HDT/FZI

PP380-366661

QC: GLB

January 22, 2002


19:26


431

Harding, S. (1991). Who’s science? Who’s knowledge? Thinking from women’s lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Hartsock, N. C. M. (1987). The feminist standpoint: Developing the ground for a specifically feminist historical materialism. In S. Harding (Ed.), Feminism and methodology (pp. 157– 180). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Jacques, R. (1997). The unbearable whiteness of being: Reflections of a pale, stale male. In P. Prasad, A. J. Mills, M. Elmes, & A. Prasad (Eds.), Managing the organizational melting pot: Dilemmas of workplace diversity (pp. 80–106). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kern, J. A. (1994, August). Making sense of gender inequality: An investigation of ideology in organizations. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Academy of Management, Dallas, TX. Kluegel, J. R. (1985). “If there isn’t a problem, you don’t need a solution”: The bases of contemporary affirmative action attitudes. American Behavioral Scientist, 28, 761– 784. Kluegel, J. R., & Smith, E. R. (1983). Affirmative action attitudes: Effects of selfinterest, racial affect, and stratification beliefs on whites’ views. Social Forces, 61, 797– 824. Konrad, A. M., & Linnehan, F. (1995). Race and sex differences in line managers’ reactions to equal employment opportunity and affirmative action interventions. Group and Organization Management, 20, 409–439. Konrad, A. M., & Linnehan, F. (1999). Affirmative action: History, effects and attitudes. In G. N. Powell (Ed.), Handbook of gender and work (pp. 429–452). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Konrad, A. M., & Spitz, J. (1999, August). Explaining demographic group differences in affirmative action attitudes. Paper presented at the meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago, IL. Kravitz, D. A., & Platania, J. (1993). Attitudes and beliefs about affirmative action: Effects of target and of respondent sex and ethnicity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 928– 938. McIntosh, P. (1990, Winter). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. Independent School (pp. 31–36). (Reprinted from Peace and Freedom, July/August, 1989). Morgan, B. L. (1996). Putting the feminism into feminism scales: Introduction of a liberal feminist attitude and ideology scale (LFAIS). Sex Roles, 34, 359–390. Myaskovsky, L., & Wittig, M. A. (1997). Predictors of feminist social identity among college women. Sex Roles, 37, 861–883. Renzetti, C. M. (1987). New wave or second stage? Attitudes of college women toward feminism. Sex Roles, 16, 265–277. Sears, D. O., & Funk, C. L. (1990). Self-interest in American’s political opinions. In J. J. Mansbridge (Ed.), Beyond self-interest (pp. 147–170). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Sheridan, A. (1998). Patterns in the policies: Affirmative action in Australia. Women in Management Review, 13, 243–252. Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., Martin, M., & Stallworth, L. M. (1991). Consensual racism and career track: Some implications of social dominance theory. Political Psychology, 12, 691–721. Smith, S. M., & DeMan, A. F. (1996). Selected personality characteristics and attitudes toward feminism. Social Behavior and Personality, 24, 273–278. Smith, E., & Witt, S. (1990). Black faculty and affirmative action at predominantly white institutions. Western Journal of Black Studies, 14(1), 9–16. Spence, J. T., & Helmrich, R. (1972, Spring). The attitude toward women scale: An objective instrument to measure attitudes toward the rights and roles of women in contemporary society. (JSAS) Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 2, 66–67. Spence, J. T., & Helmrich, R. (1978). Masculinity and femininty: Their psychological dimensions, correlates, and antecedents. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Steeh, C., & Krysan, M. (1996). Affirmative action and the public, 1970–1995. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60, 128–158.


P2: HDT/FZI

PP380-366661

432

QC: GLB

January 22, 2002

19:26


Konrad and Hartmann

Thompson, E. H., Jr., Pleck, J. H., & Ferrera, D. L. (1992). Men and masculinities: Scales for masculinity ideology and masculinity-related constructs. Sex Roles, 27, 573–607. Tougas, F., & Beaton, A. M. (1993). Affirmative action in the work place: For better or for worse. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 42, 253–264. Tougas, F., & Veilleux, F. (1990). The response of men to affirmative action strategies for women: The study of a predictive model. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 22, 424– 432. Twenge, J. M. (1997). Attitudes toward women, 1970–1995: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 35–51.