Search

A program designed for either women, visible minorities, or disabled persons was rated by 264 women and men respondents. An analysis of variance revealed that reactions to affirmative action varied according to the sex of the respondent and the group targeted by the policy. Further analyses were conducted to examine the effects of two social justice concerns on support for affirmative action, that is, scope of justice (extending fair treatment onto others) and perceived threat on behalf of nondesignated groups. According to findings, the link between social justice concerns and reactions to the policy was affected by the group targeted by affirmative action. Furthermore, both social justice concerns were not equally important predictors of attitudes toward affirmative action for women and men respondents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The first part of this paper sketches a profile of women who endorse affirmative action, showing that women who approve of affirmative action identify with a nontraditional image of women and experience discontent when perceiving discrimination on the basis of sex. We also examine the impact of the implementing procedure. Studies conducted with French-Canadian women show that those who fit the above profile readily endorse equal opportunity policies. What about policies that advocate preferential treatment? Early studies indicated that women did not endorse these policies. Recent studies, however, revealed a dramatic change in the pattern of responses. Women who were dissatisfied with their collective situation and identified with a nontraditional image of their group predominantly approved of preferential treatment. What factors triggered this change in attitudes? Are the merit principle and preferential treatment policies truly incompatible? We address these questions in the second part of this paper as well as the implications of this shift in attitudes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]