Predicting attitudes toward affirmative action by fairness, merit and typicality of policy types

The current study examined the role of beliefs about fairness, merit and the typicality of different Affirmative Action policies (AAPs) in predicting support for Affirmative Action (AA). The goal of this study was to expand on research pertaining to the impact of beliefs about the fairness of AA and endorsement of the merit principle (e.g., belief that the most qualified applicant should get the job regardless of minority status) on support for different AAP types. Additionally, I explored the impact of beliefs regarding common AA practices on support for AA in general. Consistent with predictions, beliefs that AA is unfair related to opposition toward AAPs involving strong preferential treatment (such as the hire of unqualified applicants). Fairness beliefs also related to opposition to AAPs employing to softer approaches (such as AAPs involving efforts to recruit minority applicants). Beliefs that AA is unfair did not relate to race-blind or training policies, suggesting that beliefs about fairness do not always predict attitudes toward specific AAPs. Endorsement of the merit principle more strongly predicted attitudes toward AAPs than beliefs about fairness. Consistent with predictions, endorsement of the merit principle related to opposition toward AAPs involving the hire or less qualified or unqualified applicants and those using quotas. As predicted, belief in the typicality of different AAPs predicted attitudes toward AA in general, with the belief that the hire of less qualified applicants is typical of AAPs significantly predicting opposition toward AA.