are admissions decisions based on family ties fairer than those that consider race?
Social dominance orientation and attitudes toward legacy vs. affirmative action policies
Angélica S. Gutiérrez and Miguel M. Unzuetaaa
Introduction
A large body of literature has examined people’s attitudes toward affirmative action policies (Bobo, 2000; Dovidio & Gartner, 1996; Sears, Hetts, Sidanius, & Bobo, 2000; Lowery, Unzueta, Knowles, & Goff, 2006). Intended to increase the representation of underrepresented groups in higher education and in the workplace, affirmative action is a collection of policies that takes into consideration racial group membership in hiring and admissions decisions (Gurin, Dey, Hurtado, & Gurin, 2002). Although examining individuals’ reactions to affirmative action is important, examining reactions to other selection policies like legacy admissions policies may provide insight into people’s underlying motivations for supporting or opposing such policies.
Previous research suggests that opposition to affirmative action policies is motivated by principled motives (Sniderman & Piazza, 1993). Scholars contend that although racism once influenced attitudes toward affirmative action, opposition is now driven by race-neutral values such as fairness and merit (Carmines & Merriman, 1993; Sniderman, Crosby, & Howell, 2000). In the present paper we challenge the view that meritocratic principles are the only source of opposition to policies that provide opportunities on the basis of beneficiaries’ group membership. Although some opponents of affirmative action may legitimately oppose these policies on the premise that they violate meritocracy—i.e., the ideal that people should be rewarded based only on competence and effort rather than group membership (Bobocel, Son Hing, Davey, Stanley, & Zanna, 1998; Heilman, Battle, Keller, & Lee, 1998)—we argue that there may be others who, consistent with their desire to maintain social inequality, differentially support policies that deviate from meritocracy. To test this hypothesis we examine reactions to two policies that grant selection preferences to individuals based on group membership: legacy policies and affirmative action.
What are legacy policies?
Legacy policies give an admissions boost to children and grandchildren of university alumni (Ladewski, 2010). Given that legacy admissions are based on past patterns of university enrollment, legacy preferences disproportionately benefit White applicants, whose parents are more likely than parents of racial minority applicants to have attended universities (Lamb, 1993). Studies suggest that applicants whose parents graduated from a university are 45% more likely to gain admission over applicants with no familial connection to the university in question; applicants who have a sibling, aunt, uncle, or grandparent who graduated from a university are 14% more likely to be admitted relative to someone with no legacy status (Hurwitz, 2011).
How legacy policies may differ from affirmative action policies
One reason why people may react differently to legacy vs. affirmative action policies is that these policies have opposing consequences for racial equality. Whereas affirmative action policies promote equality by attempting to reduce racial gaps in access to jobs and educational opportunities (Blumer, 1958; Bobo, 1998; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999), legacy policies could be thought of as promoting inequality by primarily benefitting members of the dominant racial group (i.e., Whites; Ladewski, 2010). Given that affirmative action and legacy policies may have distinct consequences for the racial hierarchy, people’s social dominance orientation (SDO)—i.e., the degree to which individuals desire inequality between social groups (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994)—may differentially predict support for these policies. Specifically, if such policies are, in fact, thought to have opposing effects on racial equality, then SDO should predict opposition to hierarchy-attenuating affirmative action policies and support for hierarchy-enhancing legacy policies.
The present research
In the present research we examine whether the differential effect of legacy and affirmative action policies on the racial hierarchy affects people’s support for such policies. In Study 1, we assess people’s support for legacy vs. affirmative action as a function of SDO. Consistent with social dominance theory (Sidanius, Liu, Pratto, & Shaw, 1994; van Laar, Sidanius, Rabinowitz, & Sinclair, 1999), we argue that support for these policies reflects individuals’ desire to preserve or minimize racial inequality regardless of whether such policies actually benefit the ingroup. To this end, in Study 2 we directly assess whether SDO reflects a general desire to maintain inequality (Pratto, Sidanius, & Levin, 2006; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) or a specific desire to protect ingroup interests (Lehmiller & Schmitt, 2007; Schmitt, Branscombe, & Kappen, 2003) by manipulating the purported beneficiaries of legacy admission policies.
Study 1
Study 1 tested the hypothesis that a desire to preserve the racial hierarchy differentially influences people’s attitudes towards legacy vs. affirmative action policies. Consistent with past research, we expect to find that affirmative action is opposed as a function of SDO (Pratto et al., 1994). Conversely, given that legacy policies are likely to reinforce the racial hierarchy by overwhelmingly benefitting Whites (Ladewski, 2010), we expect to find a positive relationship between legacy policy support and SDO.
Participants
Eighty participants (51 women, 29 men) were recruited from an online participant database maintained at UCLA (38 Asians, 36 Whites, 4 Latinos, 2 participants indicated more than one racial identity). The age ranged from 18 to 36 (M = 20.76, SD = 2.87).
Procedure
Participants were told that they would be completing two unrelated surveys. Participants first completed an SDO measure, which was described as a survey of individuals’ views of groups in society. The second survey was described as a survey of individuals’ policy views. Participants were randomly assigned to evaluate either a legacy or an affirmative action policy. In the legacy condition, participants read a vignette indicating that Ivy League schools and other major universities, including UCLA,bb currently use a legacy admissions policy; this policy was described as giving children and grandchildren of alumni a “nudge” in the admissions process. In the affirmative action condition, participants read a similar vignette but the term “legacy” was substituted with “affirmative action” and the beneficiaries of this policy were described as “university applicants who are underrepresented at a particular institution.” Participants were then asked to indicate their support for the policy.
Measures
Social dominance orientation. SDO was measured using an eight-item scale (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Participants were asked to indicate how negatively or positively they felt about various items. Sample items include: “If certain groups stayed in their place, we would have fewer problems” and “It’s probably a good thing that certain groups are at the top and other groups are at the bottom” (1 = very negative, 7 = very positive; α = .93; M = 2.43, SD = .94).
Policy support
To assess participants’ policy support, they were asked to respond to the following items: “How fair do you think is this policy?” (1 = not fair at all, 7 = very fair), “To what extent do you agree or disagree that this policy is legitimate and should be continued?” (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree), “How much do you oppose or support the policy that you read in the previous screen?” (1 = strongly oppose, 7 = strongly support), “This admissions policy will help admit highly qualified individuals,” “UCLA will be a much better place if this policy continues to be used in the admissions process,” “Given that university rankings are based on the caliber of students that attend an institution, UCLA will continue to increase in rankings with this admissions policy,” “As a future alumnus of UCLA, I am more likely to be engaged in university activities if UCLA continues to use this admissions policy than if it were to discontinue its use,” “If money is no obstacle in the future, I will donate money to UCLA if it continues to use this admissions policy” (1 = strongly disagree, 7 strongly agree; α = .92; M = 3.05, SD = 1.16).
Discussion
Study 1 uncovered a positive relationship between SDO and policy support in the legacy condition, a finding consistent with the idea that people motivated to preserve status hierarchies support policies that reinforce racial inequality by benefitting the dominant racial group. Conversely, and consistent with past research, SDO was negatively associated with support for hierarchy-attenuating affirmative action policies—i.e., policies that benefit minority group members.
Although the present findings are consistent with the idea that dominance motives predict support for legacy admissions preferences and opposition to affirmative action preferences, it is possible that these findings reflect a desire to protect the ingroup and not status hierarchies per se. Specifically, the positive relationship between SDO and legacy policy support in Study 1 may reflect participants’ support for a policy from which they think their group will benefit. Recent research suggests that social dominance orientation may not capture a general desire to maintain status hierarchies but rather a specific desire to maintain hierarchies in which one’s ingroup stands to benefit. This research posits that the position of one’s ingroup in the social structure is an important influence on attitudes towards inequality (Oakes, Haslam, & Turner, 1994; Schmitt et al., 2003; Turner & Reynolds, 2003). According to the group-interest perspective, groups that benefit from inequality are more likely to support it relative to groups that are disadvantaged by it because inequality protects the status and power of the privileged group. As such, a desire to protect ingroup interests and not a general desire to protect the status hierarchy may explain why SDO was positively related to support for legacy policies in Study 1. Consistent with this alternative explanation is the fact that the sample used in Study 1 is primarily White and Asian, two groups that are well represented at UCLA and therefore likely to benefit from legacy admission preferences in the future.cc
Study 2
Study 2 was designed to examine whether a general desire to maintain the status hierarchy or a specific desire to protect ingroup interests explains differential attitudes towards legacy policies. Recall that Study 1 did not explicitly state who would likely benefit from legacy preferences. As such, it is possible that both Asian and White participants, who composed the majority of our sample and are currently the most well-represented groups in the university where these studies were conducted, believed that their own group would benefit from legacy policies. If both groups believed that their own group would benefit, then policy support may reflect a desire to protect the ingroup’s interests and not a desire to maintain status hierarchies.
Examining the attitudes of Asian participants when they are told that either the ingroup (i.e., Asians) or an outgroup (i.e., Whites) would benefit from legacy admissions policies would enable us to determine whether a desire to protect ingroup interests or a desire to protect the status hierarchy accounts for differences in policy support. To this end, in Study 2 we explicitly stated that either the ingroup or the dominant outgroup (i.e., Whites) benefits from these policies. If SDO is capturing a general desire for hierarchy maintenance (Sibley, Robertson. & Wilson, 2006; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999), then as a function of SDO, Asian perceivers should support a legacy policy that benefits Whites but oppose one that benefits fellow Asians. However, if SDO is capturing ingroup interests (Lehmiller & Schmitt, 2007; Schmitt et al., 2003), then we should find that SDO predicts support for a policy that benefits Asians and opposition for a legacy policy that benefits Whites.
Participants
Fifty-four self-identified Asian participants (16 men, 37 women, 1 unreported) were recruited from an online participant database maintained at UCLA. The age ranged from 18 to 35 (M = 20.31, SD = 2.53).
Procedure
The same procedure from Study 1 was used, but the scenarios also explicitly stated that either Asians or Whites would benefit from the legacy admissions policy. Since our main predictions concern differences in these two key conditions, we omitted the affirmative action condition in Study 2.
Measures
Social dominance orientation. SDO was assessed using the same scale in Study 1 (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999; α = .93; M = 2.77, SD = .97).
Policy support. Policy support was assessed using the same eight-item measure as Study 1 (α = .93; M = 3.41, SD = 1.07).
Discussion
Study 2 found a positive relationship between SDO and policy support among Asian participants in the condition in which Whites were the perceived beneficiaries of the legacy policy. Conversely, there was a non-significant negative relationship between SDO and policy support among Asians in the condition where Asians were the perceived beneficiaries of the legacy policy. These findings suggest that legacy policy support depends, in part, on its effect on the status hierarchy and not on its effect on the ingroup.
In sum, Study 2 suggests that as a function of SDO, Asian participants support legacy policies thought to benefit Whites. The positive relationship in the condition in which Whites were the perceived beneficiaries is consistent with the group dominance perspective, which suggests that groups will support policies that are hierarchy enhancing even when these policies disadvantage their own ingroup (Pratto et al., 2006; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Additionally, the non-significant relationship in the condition where Asians were the perceived beneficiaries suggests that group-interest may not explain differential reactions to legacy preferences (Lehmiller & Schmitt, 2007; Schmitt et al., 2003). Instead, the present study suggests that a desire to preserve status hierarchies in general explains why legacy policies are supported by individuals relatively high in SDO.
General discussion
The present findings provide a direct test of the competing hypotheses that attitudes towards inequality reflect group interests (Schmitt et al., 2003) vs. a generalized orientation towards status hierarchies (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). The results from two studies provide evidence that general dominance motives seem to account for differential reactions to policies that disproportionately privilege some groups and disadvantage others. Even when the ingroup (Asians; Study 2) is privileged by legacy policies, there is a predisposition to support such policies consistent with one’s level of SDO only when such policies benefit the dominant group (i.e., Whites).
Moreover, our studies suggest that meritocratic principles are not the core reason why people high in SDO oppose affirmative action. If this were the case, then we should have found that SDO predicts opposition to both affirmative action and legacy policies. However, in Study 1 we found that SDO actually predicts legacy policy support. This finding is consistent with past work suggesting that “. . . seemingly mainstream values . . . simply mask desires for group dominance . . .” (Frederico & Sidanius, 2002, p. 489; see also Sidanius & Pratto, 2001). In all, these findings suggest that attitudes toward selection policies (i.e., legacy, affirmative action) will depend not on their specific content or objectives, but rather on their assumed effect on status hierarchies.
Conclusion
The reported studies, to our knowledge, are the first to explore attitudes toward legacy admission policies. These studies suggest that individuals motivated to maintain social inequality support legacy policies because these policies are thought to benefit the dominant racial group and, by extension, maintain racial inequality. As such, the reported studies cast further doubt on the idea that attacks on affirmative action are purely based on the desire to uphold the principle of meritocracy (see also Frederico & Sidanius, 2002). Rather, it appears that some “unmeritocratic” policies are acceptable so long as these policies contribute to the enhancement, rather than the attenuation, of race-based inequality.
references
Blumer, H. (1958). Race prejudice as a sense of group position. The Pacific Sociological Review, 1, 3–7.
Bobo, L. (1998). Race, interests, and beliefs about affirmative action. American Behavioral-Scientist, 41, 985–1003.
Bobo, L. (2000). Race and beliefs about affirmative action. In D. O. Sears, J. Sidanius, & L. Bobo (Eds.), Racialized politics: The debate about racism in America (pp. 137–164). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
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.
Carmines, E. G., & Merriman, R. W., Jr. (1993). The changing American dilemma: Liberal values and racial policies. In P. M. Sniderman, P. E. Tetlock, & E. G. Carmines (Eds.), Prejudice, politics, and the American dilemma (pp. 237–255). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Dovidio. J. F., & Gartner, S. L. (1996). Affirmative action, unintentional racial biases, and intergroup relations. Journal of Social Issues, 52, 51–75.
Frederico, C. M., & Sidanius, J. (2002). Sophistication and the antecedents of Whites’ racial policy attitudes: Racism, ideology, and affirmative action in America. Public Opinion Quarterly, 66, 145–176.
Gurin, P., Dey, E. L., Hurtado. S., & Gurin, G. (2002). Diversity and higher education: Theory and impact on educational outcomes. Harvard Educational Review, 72, 330–366.
Heilman, M. E., Battle, W. S., Keller, C. E., & Lee, R. A. (1998). Type of affirmative action policy: A determinant of reactions to sex-based preferential selection. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 190–205.
Hurwitz, M. (2011). The impact of legacy status on undergraduate admissions at elite colleges and universities. Economics of Education Review, 30, 480–492.
Ladewski (2010). Preserving a racial hierarchy: A legal analysis of the disparate racial impact of legacy preferences in university admissions. Michigan Law Review, 10, 577–601.
Lamb, J. D. (1993). The real affirmative action babies: Legacy preferences at Harvard and Yale. Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems, 26, 491–521.
Lehmiller, J. J., & Schmitt, M. T. (2007). Group domination and inequality in context: Evidence for the unstable meanings of social dominance and authoritarianism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 704–724.
Lowery, B. S., Unzueta, M. M., Knowles, E. D., & Goff, P. A. (2006). Concern for the ingroup and opposition to affirmative action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 961–974.
Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & Turner, J. C. (1994). Stereotyping and social reality. Oxford: Blackwell.
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., & Levin, S. (2006). Social dominance theory and the dynamics of intergroup relations: Taking stock and looking forward. European Review of Social Psychology, 17(1), 271–320.
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741–763.
Schmitt, M. T., Branscombe, N. R., & Kappen, D. M. (2003). Attitudes toward group-based inequality: Social dominance or social identity? The British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 161–186.
Sears, D. O., Hetts, J. J., Sidanius, J., & Bobo, L. (2000). Race in American politics. In D. O. Sears, J. Sidanius, & L. Bobo (Eds.), Racialized politics: The debate about racism in America (pp. 1–43). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sibley, C. G., Robertson, A., & Wilson, M. S. (2006). Social dominance orientation and right wing authoritarianism: Additive and interactive effects. Political Psychology, 27, 755–768.
Sidanius, J., Liu, J., Pratto, F., & Shaw, J. (1994). Social dominance orientation, hierarchy-attenuators and hierarchy-enhancers: Social dominance theory and the criminal justice system. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 338–366.
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (2001). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sniderman, P. M., Crosby, G. C., & Howell, W. G. (2000). The politics of race. In D. O. Sears, J. Sidanius. & L. Bobo (Eds.), Racialized politics: Values, ideology, and prejudice in American public opinion (pp. 236–279). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sniderman, P. M., & Piazza, T. (1993). The scar of race. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Turner, J., & Reynolds, K. (2003). Why social dominance theory has been falsified. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 42(2), 199–206.
van Laar, C., Sidanius, J., Rabinowitz, J., & Sinclair, S. (1999). The three Rs of academic achievement: Reading, riting, and racism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 139–151.
a Gutiérrez, Angélica S., and Miguel M. Unzueta. “Are admissions decisions based on family ties fairer than those that consider race? Social dominance orientation and attitudes toward legacy vs. affirmative action policies.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 49 (2013) 554–558. DOI:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.10.011. Copyright © 2012 Published by Elsevier Inc. Adapted with permission from Elsevier.
b Participants were debriefed with UCLA’s admissions policy and told that UCLA does not grant preferential treatment on the basis of an applicant’s family ties (i.e., legacy) or race (i.e., affirmative action).
c UCLA does not employ legacy or affirmative action policies in the university admissions review process. The following is UCLA’s admissions policy: Each year, UCLA considers many more excellent applicants for freshmen admission than it can possibly admit. The goal of the campus’ admissions review process is to single out from a large and growing pool of academically strong applicants those unique individuals who have demonstrated the intellectual curiosity, tenacity, and commitment to community service expected of the UCLA graduate. These select applicants are the ones who would contribute the most to UCLA’s dynamic learning environment: they are also the applicants who would make the most of being immersed in it. Although high school grade point average and standardized test scores are important indicators of academic achievement used in UCLA’s admissions review, they only tell part of the story. As a public, land grant institution of higher learning, UCLA has a mandate to serve the State of California by educating its future leaders in research, industry, and the arts. California’s future depends heavily on this important charge. While California law prohibits the consideration of an applicant’s race and/or gender in individual admission decisions, the University also has a mandate to reflect the diversity of the state’s population in its student body. Student diversity is a compelling interest at UCLA. It contributes to a rich and stimulating learning environment, one that best prepares leaders-in-the-making for the challenges and opportunities of California, the nation, and beyond (http://www.admissions.ucla.edu/policies.htm).