Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The Positive and Negative Framing of Affirmative Action: A Group Dominance Perspective

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. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin SAGE

The Positive and Negative Framing of Affirmative Action: A Group Dominance Perspective

Loading next page...
 
/lp/sage/the-positive-and-negative-framing-of-affirmative-action-a-group-rgtJz6VyEQ

References (53)

Publisher
SAGE
Copyright
Copyright © by SAGE Publications
ISSN
0146-1672
eISSN
1552-7433
DOI
10.1177/0146167205283442
pmid
16702158
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

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.

Journal

Personality and Social Psychology BulletinSAGE

Published: May 1, 2006

There are no references for this article.