ABSTRACT
Affirmative action programs (AAPs) are controversial employment policies in the United States and elsewhere. A large body of evidence about attitudinal reactions to AAPs in employment has accumulated over 35 years: at least 126 independent samples involving 29,000 people. However, findings are not firmly established or integrated. In the current article, the authors summarize and meta-analytically estimate relationships of AAP attitudes with (a) structural features of such programs, (b) perceiver demographic and psychological characteristics, (c) interactions of structural features with perceiver characteristics, and (d) presentation of AAP details to perceivers, including justification of the AAP. Results are generally consistent with predictions derived from self-interest considerations, organizational justice theory, and racism theories. They also suggest practical ways in which AAPs might be designed and communicated to employees to reduce attitudinal resistance.
Subject(s)
Attitude , Employment/legislation & jurisprudence , Female , Humans , Male , Prejudice , United StatesABSTRACT
Mock jurors (N = 800) viewed a videotaped trial that included information about a lineup identification procedure. Suggestiveness of the eyewitness identification procedure varied in terms of foil, instruction, and presentation biases. Expert testimony regarding the factors that influence lineup suggestiveness was also manipulated. Criteria included juror ratings of lineup suggestiveness and fairness, ratings of defendant culpability, and verdicts. Jurors were sensitive to foil bias but only minimally sensitive to instruction and presentation biases. Expert testimony enhanced juror sensitivity only to instruction bias. These results have implications for the effectiveness of cross-examination and expert testimony as safeguards against erroneous convictions resulting from mistaken identifications.
