please complete
queadr
article_1.pdf
THE STIGMA OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: A STEREOTYPING- BASED THEORY AND META-ANALYTIC TEST OF THE
CONSEQUENCES FOR PERFORMANCE
LISA M. LESLIE New York University
DAVID M. MAYER University of Michigan
DAVID A. KRAVITZ George Mason University
Affirmative action plans (AAPs) are designed to facilitate workplace success for members of the groups they target (e.g., women, ethnic minorities), yet may have the ironic effect of stigmatizing AAP targets and, in turn, decreasing their performance outcomes. Prior work has focused on the stigma of incompetence as the primary mechanism that links AAPs to performance; however, the broader social psychological literature suggests that additional mechanisms may also play a role. We use stereo- typing theories to develop a more comprehensive model of the pathways through which AAPs limit targets’ performance outcomes. Drawing from the stereotype content model, we propose that the negative effect of AAPs on others’ evaluations of targets’ performance is driven by perceptions of incompetence and low warmth. Drawing from stereotype threat theory, we propose that the negative effect of AAPs on targets’ self-evaluated and objective performance is driven by perceptions of low self-compe- tence, negative state affect, and perceived stereotyping by others. Meta-analytic path analyses support our hypotheses. Our theory and findings demonstrate that multiple mechanisms explain the negative consequences of AAPs for targets’ performance outcomes, highlight differences in reactions to AAP targets by others versus the self, and provide insight into preventing the unintended negative effects of AAPs.
Despite improvements in recent decades, women and ethnic minorities continue to face employment discrimination and other barriers to advancement (e.g., Bertrand & Mullainathan, 2004; Blau & Kahn, 2007; Leslie, King, Bradley, & Hebl, 2008). To level the playing field, organizations around the globe have implemented affirmative action plans (AAPs), which are policies designed to improve work out- comes for underrepresented groups by providing them with extra help in the employment process
(Jain, Sloane, & Horwitz, 2003; Yang, D’Souza, Bapat, & Colarelli, 2006). AAPs increase the num- ber of women and ethnic minorities in managerial positions (Holzer & Neumark, 2000; Kalev, Dobbin, & Kelly, 2006; Leonard, 1984), and thus help pro- mote organizational diversity and redress societal injustice.1
Nevertheless, AAPs are not without drawbacks. They can stimulate backlash among non-beneficia- ries who may feel unfairly disadvantaged by these policies (Harrison, Kravitz, Mayer, Leslie, & Lev- Arey, 2006; Lynch, 1992; Shteynberg, Leslie, Knight, & Mayer, 2011). In addition, AAPs can cause the very employees they are intended to ben-
This research was conducted with support from a Grant-in-Aid from the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues. Portions of the results were pre- sented at the 2007 annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology and the 2011 annual conference of the International Association for Conflict Management. We are grateful to Yeonka Kim for her research assistance. We also thank Ray Sparrowe and three anonymous reviewers for their feedback.
1 For the sake of parsimony, we use the term “ethnic- ity” to refer to the confluence of race (e.g., Asian, Black, Native American, White) and ethnicity (Hispanic, non- Hispanic) (cf. Leslie, Snyder, & Glomb, 2013; Phin- ney, 1996).
964
� Academy of Management Journal 2014, Vol. 57, No. 4, 964–989. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0940
Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.
efit to be stigmatized as incompetent by both others and the self (e.g., Heilman, 1994). Existing theory used to explain the stigma of incompetence has been grounded primarily in discounting and re- lated notions of self-doubt. Specifically, the pres- ence of an AAP raises the possibility that members of the groups the AAP targets were hired or pro- moted due to their demographics, not their qualifi- cations. Scholars have theorized that others there- fore discount the possibility that AAP targets are competent (e.g., Garcia, Erskine, Hawn, & Casmay, 1981; Heilman, Block, & Lucas, 1992) and, in a parallel fashion, that AAPs and the associated pos- sibility that demographics played a role in selec- tion cause AAP targets to doubt their self-compe- tence (e.g., Heilman, Simon, & Repper, 1987; Niemann & Dovidio, 2005). Perceived incompe- tence is likely to result in poor performance out- comes (e.g., Heilman & Alcott, 2001). To the extent that AAPs and the associated stigma of incompe- tence limit targets’ performance, AAPs may have the opposite of their intended impact.
Understanding the mechanisms that drive the unintended consequences of AAPs is essential for ensuring that AAPs facilitate, rather than constrain, targets’ work outcomes. Existing theory grounded in discounting and self-doubt has focused on the stigma of incompetence, yet the broader social psy- chological literature suggests that additional mech- anisms contribute to the effects of AAPs on perfor- mance. For example, AAPs increase the ability of target groups to compete for jobs and other work- place resources. Several theories of stereotyping and intergroup relations suggest that a target group’s competitiveness threatens others and leads to perceptions of the competing group as cold and unlikable (e.g., Bobo, 2000; Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002), which negatively affects others’ evalua- tions of the competing group’s performance (Cardy & Dobbins, 1986; Nisbett & Wilson, 1977). Thus, the stigmatization of AAP targets by others may be more complex than prior theory suggests, such that others perceive AAP targets as lacking both compe- tence and warmth, each of which may contribute to the negative effect of AAPs on others’ evaluations of targets’ performance.
Similarly, in the case of targets’ own reactions to AAPs, mechanisms other than the stigma of incom- petence may link AAPs to performance. Prior work substantiates that AAPs negatively affect targets’ perceived self-competence (e.g., Heilman et al., 1987), and are thus likely to threaten targets’ desire to view the self favorably. A number of theories in
the broader literature on stereotyping and stigma suggest that threats to a positive self-image trigger negative emotions, such as stress and anxiety (e.g., Major & O’Brien, 2005; Steele, Spencer, & Aronson, 2002), which limit performance (Kaplan, Bradley, Luchman, & Haynes, 2009; Schmader, Johns, & Forbes, 2008). Thus, AAP targets are likely to ex- perience negative state affect, in addition to low self-competence, both of which may affect their performance negatively.
In summary, prior theory on why AAP targets are stigmatized by others and by the self is grounded primarily in discounting and self-doubt, respec- tively, and focuses on the stigma of incompetence; however, the broader social psychological litera- ture suggests that additional other-driven (e.g., per- ceived warmth) and self-driven (e.g., state affect) mechanisms contribute to understanding why AAPs negatively affect targets’ performance out- comes. An alternative theoretical framework may therefore be needed to gain a fuller understanding of the stigma of AAPs and the associated conse- quences for performance. To this end, we draw from stereotyping theories and build a more com- prehensive model in which the stigma of incompe- tence is only one of several mechanisms through which AAPs negatively affect targets’ performance outcomes.
In using the stereotyping literature to advance theory regarding the unintended negative effects of AAPs, we rely on two specific theories: the stereo- type content model (SCM) and stereotype threat theory (STT). In the literature on stereotyping and social cognition more broadly, self– other discrep- ancies— or differences in individuals’ perceptions of others in a given situation versus their percep- tions of the self when placed in the same situa- tion—are well documented (Jones & Nisbett, 1972; Malle & Knobe, 1997; Miller & Ross, 1975; Pronin, Lin, & Ross, 2002). It is therefore not surprising that scholars have developed distinct theories that de- tail how others react to negatively stereotyped in- dividuals versus how individuals react to negative stereotypes about the self. Specifically, the SCM and STT provide comprehensive accounts of how individuals are stereotyped by others and by the self, respectively, and also detail how negative ste- reotypes affect a number of outcomes, including performance (Cuddy, Glick, & Beninger, 2011; Fiske et al., 2002; Schmader et al., 2008; Steele et al., 2002). Consistent with the two fundamental stereotype content dimensions identified in the SCM, we theorize that others perceive AAP targets
2014 965Leslie, Mayer, and Kravitz
as lacking competence and warmth, both of which negatively affect others’ evaluations of targets’ per- formance. Consistent with key mechanisms identi- fied in STT, we theorize that AAP targets experi- ence low self-competence, negative state affect, and perceived stereotyping by others, each of which negatively affects their self-evaluated and objective performance.
We use path-analytic meta-analyses to test our hypotheses. Prior work has focused primarily on the effects of AAPs on competence and perfor- mance. Researchers, however, have also explored the effects of AAPs on other outcomes, including warmth, state affect, and perceived stereotyping (e.g., Brutus & Ryan, 1998; Heilman et al., 1992; Taylor, 1994). We are therefore able to test our theory with meta-analysis. Although our analyses are based on existing studies, we depart from prior work by testing a model in which competence, warmth, affect, and perceived stereotyping each contribute to the effect of AAPs on performance.
Our stereotyping-based theory and meta-analytic test advance knowledge by demonstrating that ste- reotyping theories provide a more comprehensive account of the unintended negative effects of AAPs. Consistent with prior theory, we propose that AAPs impede targets’ performance because targets are perceived as incompetent by both others and the self. At the same time, we build new theory by proposing that additional mechanisms contribute to the effect of AAPs on performance and that there are some differences in others’ reactions to AAP targets (e.g., perceived low warmth) versus the self’s own reactions to being an AAP target (e.g., negative state affect). A fuller understanding of the pathways through which AAPs impede perfor- mance is essential for preventing AAPs from hav- ing the opposite of their intended impact. Thus, from a practical standpoint, our research suggests novel strategies for ensuring that AAPs do not have the ironic effect of limiting the workplace outcomes of their intended beneficiaries.
THEORY DEVELOPMENT
AAPs are policies designed to improve the em- ployment outcomes of members of underrepre- sented social groups by providing them with extra help in the employment process (cf. Kovach, Krav- itz, & Hughes, 2004). AAPs originated with Execu- tive Order 11246, implemented by President John- son in 1965. Notably, AAPs differ from equal employment opportunity (EEO) policies, which
originated with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Spe- cifically, EEO policies mandate non-discrimina- tion, but AAPs go further by allowing positive ac- tions aimed at helping target groups (Kovach et al., 2004). Moreover, EEO policies are identity-blind policies that focus on equal treatment regardless of group membership, whereas AAPs are identity- conscious policies that target specific groups (James, Brief, Dietz, & Cohen, 2001; Konrad & Lin- nehan, 1995).
The positive actions provided by AAPs take dif- ferent forms that vary in strength (Harrison et al., 2006; Kovach et al., 2004). For example, opportu- nity enhancement (OE) AAPs—the weakest AAP type—provide extra resources to AAP targets, but do not give demographics any weight in employ- ment decisions (e.g., targeted recruitment). Weak preferential treatment (WPT) AAPs give targets preference in employment decisions if and only if their qualifications are equivalent to those of non- targets. Finally, strong preferential treatment (STP) AAPs give demographics a positive weight in em- ployment decisions, in addition to qualifications. For example, an AAP target may be hired over a more qualified non-target, assuming the target meets the minimum qualifications for the job. De- spite this variability, all AAP types share the com- mon goal of providing extra help to members of underrepresented groups to enable them to achieve more favorable outcomes.
Paradoxically, AAPs can stigmatize the very em- ployees they are intended to benefit (e.g., Garcia et al., 1981; Heilman, 1994). Current theory focuses on the stigma of incompetence and is grounded primarily in discounting and self-doubt. Specifi- cally, qualifications are the typical causal factor in employment decisions, which leads to perceptions that job incumbents are competent. AAPs raise the possibility that demographics also influence em- ployment decisions. In the case of stigmatization by others, scholars have drawn from the discounting principle, which states that the perceived impor- tance of a given cause is diminished when plausi- ble alternatives exist (Kelley, 1972) and have theo- rized that the assumption that demographics influence employment decisions causes others to discount the possibility that AAP targets are com- petent (e.g., Heilman et al., 1992; Resendez, 2002). In the case of stigmatization by the self, scholars have not drawn explicitly from discounting, but have similarly theorized that AAPs and the associ- ated assumption that demographics influence em- ployment decisions cause AAP targets to doubt
966 AugustAcademy of Management Journal
their self-competence (e.g., Brutus & Ryan, 1998; Heilman et al., 1987). Others’ perceptions that AAP targets are incompetent are likely to lead others to evaluate targets’ performance negatively, and AAP targets’ self-perceptions of incompetence are likely to lead to low self-evaluated and objective perfor- mance. Consistent with theory, evidence indicates that AAPs negatively affect the perceived compe- tence and performance outcomes of AAP targets (e.g., Evans, 2003; Heilman & Blader, 2001; Hei- lman et al., 1987; Resendez, 2002).
Existing theory provides a compelling account of why AAP targets are stigmatized as incompetent. At the same time, the stereotyping literature sug- gests that additional mechanisms may contribute to understanding why AAPs impede targets’ perfor- mance outcomes. We therefore use theories of stereo- typing to build a more comprehensive model of the mechanisms that link AAPs to performance. Notably, distinct stereotyping theories have emerged that de- tail how others react to negatively stereotyped in- dividuals versus how individuals react to negative stereotypes about the self. Thus, we use different theories to advance understanding of the other- driven (SCM) and self-driven (STT) processes that explain the negative effects on AAPs on targets’ performance outcomes.
Stereotype Content and Others’ Reactions to AAP Targets
The SCM (Fiske et al., 2002) is a useful frame- work for building theory regarding why and how others react to AAP targets, given that this theory provides a comprehensive account of the dimen- sions along which individuals are negatively ste- reotyped by others. Although any number of more specific stereotypes may exist, a core tenet of the SCM is that the two overarching dimensions of stereotype content are competence and warmth. The basis for the two dimensions of stereotype content stems from individuals’ basic need to un- derstand whether others have the capacity and in- tent to do them harm. Individuals are therefore motivated to evaluate others in terms of their com- petence (i.e., capacity) and their warmth (i.e., in- tent) (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2008; Fiske et al., 2002; Fiske, Cuddy, & Glick, 2007). Consistent with theory, research indicates that competence and warmth are the primary dimensions of person per- ception and explain more than 80% of individuals’ global evaluations of others (Asch, 1946; Woj- ciszke, Bazinska, & Jaworski, 1998). In addition to
identifying competence and warmth as the primary dimensions of stereotype content, the SCM also specifies the conditions under which individuals form competence- and warmth-based stereotypes about others, as well the consequences of these stereotypes (e.g., Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2007; Cuddy et al., 2011; Fiske et al., 2002). We therefore draw from the SCM and build theory regarding why others are likely to perceive AAP targets as lacking both competence and warmth, as well as why both of these stereotypes cause others to evaluate AAP targets’ performance negatively.
According to the SCM, status is the key anteced- ent of competence-based stereotypes and lack of competition is the key antecedent of warmth-based stereotypes (Cuddy et al., 2008; Fiske et al., 2002). More specifically, the status– competence linkage is explained by just-world beliefs; namely, the ba- sic human motivation to believe that individuals get what they deserve (Cuddy et al., 2008). Individ- uals assume that members of low status groups deserve their low status because they lack compe- tence, whereas members of high status groups have earned their status through competence and hard work. The connection between lack of competition and warmth is explained by the basic human mo- tivation to enhance self-interest (Cuddy et al., 2008). Individuals seek to maximize their own out- comes and therefore view those with whom they must compete for valuable resources as a source of frustration. Moreover, individuals assume that oth- ers’ competitive behaviors stem from malice and intent to do harm, and groups who are able to compete for resources are therefore perceived as lacking in warmth. Consistent with theory, evi- dence indicates that a group’s status positively af- fects the perceived competence of group members and that a group’s ability to compete for resources negatively affects the perceived warmth of group members (Caprariello, Cuddy, & Fiske, 2009; Fiske et al., 2002).
AAPs simultaneously signal that AAP targets have low status and increase targets’ ability to com- pete for resources. Drawing from the SCM, we therefore propose that others stigmatize AAP tar- gets as lacking in both competence and warmth. AAPs, by definition, provide extra help to target group members to improve their employment out- comes. The notion that certain groups require extra help is likely to create perceptions that the group has poor outcomes and thus occupies a position of low status (e.g., Maio & Esses, 1998; Steele, 1990). Given that AAPs signal that targets have low status,
2014 967Leslie, Mayer, and Kravitz
and status is the key antecedent of competence, others are likely to perceive members of a given group as less competent when the group is targeted by an AAP than when it is not. AAPs are similarly likely to affect perceived warmth. The goal of the extra help provided by AAPs is to enable target groups to compete for workplace resources (e.g., jobs, promotions). Given that AAPs increase tar- gets’ competitiveness, and lack of competition is the key antecedent of warmth, others are likely to perceive members of a given group as less warm when the group is targeted by an AAP than when it is not (e.g., Aquino, Stewart, & Reed, 2005).
Importantly, stereotypes are context dependent (Crocker, Major, & Steele, 1998) and the presence of an AAP in a given setting is therefore likely to affect the perceived competence and warmth of any group it targets in that setting, regardless of whether the group is chronically negatively stereo- typed in the broader society. For example, ethnic minorities are generally stereotyped as lower in competence than Whites, yet both groups are seen as incompetent if portrayed as poor and as compe- tent if portrayed as professionals (e.g., Fiske et al., 2002). Thus, AAPs are likely to affect the perceived competence and warmth of any group they target.
The tendency to view AAP targets as lacking in both competence and warmth is consequential, given that stereotypes of incompetence and low warmth negatively affect how others view and treat stereotype targets. Research on the consequences of competence and warmth stereotypes has focused largely on emotions (e.g., contempt) and behaviors (e.g., harassment) (Cuddy et al., 2007). More re- cently, however, SCM scholars have suggested that competence and warmth judgments also affect workplace evaluations (Cuddy et al., 2011). Specif- ically, others’ evaluations of a target’s performance are vulnerable to subjective influences, such that individuals perceive others in stereotype-consis- tent ways; for example, by seeking out and attend- ing to stereotype-confirming, but not stereotype- disconfirming, information (e.g., Dunning & Sherman, 1997; Feldman, 1981). If others perceive a target as competent, and thus have high perfor- mance expectations for that target, they are more attentive to that target’s successes than failures, resulting in favorable impressions of performance, whereas the reverse is true if others perceive a target as incompetent. Thus, the perceived compe- tence of a target is likely to be positively related to evaluations of that target’s performance.
Perceived warmth is also likely to shape perfor- mance evaluations. Due to preferences for consis- tency, evaluators are subject to a halo effect. Spe- cifically, if a target is positively stereotyped on a given dimension, evaluators’ subsequent judg- ments— even on unrelated dimensions—tend to be consistent with that positive impression (Feldman, 1981; Nisbett & Wilson, 1977). For example, evi- dence documents that positive perceptions of a tar- get’s warmth lead to positive judgments of that target’s physical attractiveness (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977). As a result, when others evaluate the perfor- mance of a target they perceive as warm, they seek out and attend to information that confirms their positive impression, whereas the reverse is true for a target they perceive as cold. Thus, others’ percep- tions of a target’s warmth, similar to perceptions of competence, are likely to be positively related to others’ evaluations of the target’s performance.
The above arguments suggest that perceptions of incompetence and low warmth are both mecha- nisms through which AAPs negatively affect oth- ers’ evaluations of AAP targets’ performance (see Figure 1A). Notably, the predicted effect of AAPs on perceived competence is consistent with prior work grounded in discounting, which has focused on the stigma of incompetence. Our SCM-based theory advances prior work, however, by suggest- ing that a stigma of low warmth is a second mech- anism that links AAPs to evaluations of targets’ performance and thus provides a more comprehen- sive account of the stigmatizing effects of AAPs.
Hypothesis 1. The presence of an AAP has an indirect negative effect on others’ evaluations of AAP targets’ performance through perceived competence.
Hypothesis 2. The presence of an AAP has an indirect negative effect on others’ evaluations of AAP targets’ performance through perceived warmth.
Stereotype Threat and Self-Reactions among AAP Targets
The SCM provides a useful framework for build- ing theory regarding how others react to AAP tar- gets, but is less relevant to the self’s own reactions to being an AAP target. For example, we draw from the SCM and propose that, because AAPs increase targets’ ability to compete for resources and threaten non-targets’ work outcomes, others per- ceive AAP targets as low in warmth. Yet this logic
968 AugustAcademy of Management Journal
does not apply to targets’ self-reactions because AAPs increase, rather than decrease, targets’ likeli- hood of receiving resources, and are thus unlikely to lead to self-perceptions of low warmth. It is therefore not surprising that distinct theories have emerged that explain reactions to negative stereotypes about the self. In particular, STT (Steele et al., 2002) provides a detailed account of how individuals react to being negatively stereo- typed, as well as the consequences for their per- formance. We therefore draw from STT to build theory regarding the self-driven process that link AAPs to performance.
Stereotype threat— defined as the risk of con- firming that a negative stereotype about one’s group applies to the self—is a psychological state with the potential to inhibit performance (Steele, 1997; Steele & Aronson, 1995; Steele et al., 2002). Ac- cording to STT, negative cognitions (e.g., low self- competence) and negative state affect (e.g., anxiety, fear, etc.) are two key mechanisms that play a role in explaining why negative stereotypes limit per- formance (Cadinu, Maass, Rosabianca, & Kiesner,
2005; Schmader et al., 2008). Notably, stereotype threat is not a unitary phenomenon, but takes dif- ferent forms depending on the source of the threat (Shapiro & Neuberg, 2007). Specifically, self-as- source stereotype threat is driven by one’s own concern that a group stereotype may be true of the self, whereas other-as-source stereotype threat is driven by a concern that others may believe a group stereotype is true of the self. Self-as-source stereotype threat therefore suggests a direct effect of negative stereotypes on self-competence and state affect, whereas other-as-source stereotype threat suggests an indirect effect through per- ceived stereotyping by others. Drawing from STT, we build theory regarding the negative effects of AAPs and propose that self-competence, state af- fect, and perceived stereotyping serve as mecha- nisms through which AAPs negatively affect tar- gets’ performance.
According to self-as-source STT, negative stereo- types breed negative cognitions, including self- doubt (e.g., Cadinu et al., 2005), and negative affect, including anxiety and fear (e.g., Keller & Dauen-
FIGURE 1 Hypothesized Mediated Models
A) Others’ Reactions to AAP Targets; B) Self-Reactions among AAP Targets
Hypothesis 1: Hypothesis 2:
AAP � Competence � Performance AAP � Warmth � Performance
B)
Hypotheses 3a–3b: Hypotheses 4a–4b:
AAP � Self-Competence � Performance AAP � State Affect � Performance
Hypotheses 5a–5b: AAP � Perceived Stereotyping � Self-Competence � Performance Hypotheses 6a–6b: AAP � Perceived Stereotyping � State Affect � Performance
Affirmative Action Plan
(AAP)
Perceived Target
Competence
Perceived Target
Warmth
Evaluations of Target
Performance
– +
– +
Affirmative Action Plan
(AAP)
Perceived Self-
Competence
State Affect
Perceived Stereotyping by
Others
Performance Self-evaluated•
• Objective
+
+
+
–
–
–
–
A)
2014 969Leslie, Mayer, and Kravitz
heimer, 2003; Osborne, 2001). If a group stereotype of incompetence exists, group members question whether the stereotype applies to them personally and thus doubt their own competence. Negative stereotypes also increase negative affect; stereo- types are a source of anxiety because they are in- compatible with a self-interested desire to view the self favorably and lead to a fear of performing poorly and confirming that a stereotype is true of the self (Schmader et al., 2008; Spencer, Steele, & Quinn, 1999; Steele et al., 2002). For example, con- sistent with theory, the presence of negative stereo- types about women’s math ability causes women to report low self-competence and negative state af- fect, and negative stereotypes about ethnic minori- ties’ academic ability have corresponding effects on ethnic minority individuals (Cadinu et al., 2005; Keller & Dauenheimer, 2003; Osborne, 2001; Spen- cer et al., 1999; Steele & Aronson, 1995).
Stereotype threat research has focused on stereo- types about women’s math ability and ethnic mi- norities’ academic ability that are activated, for ex- ample, by indicating that group-based performance differences exist on a given test (e.g., Cadinu et al., 2005; Keller & Dauenheimer, 2003; Spencer et al., 1999). AAPs also are likely to activate a negative stereotype and thus affect targets’ self-competence and state affect. Specifically, AAPs provide target groups with extra help in the employment process, signaling that they cannot achieve favorable out- comes on their own and creating the stereotype that AAP targets lack competence. To the extent that AAPs create a negative stereotype, STT suggests that individuals experience lower self-competence and higher negative state affect when their group is the target of an AAP than when it is not.
Notably, like the SCM, STT suggests that stereo- type threat is a context-dependent phenomenon that can affect any group in certain settings, even if the group is not chronically negatively stereotyped in the broader society (Aronson, Lustina, Good, Keough, Steele, & Brown, 1999; Steele et al., 2002). For example, Whites are generally stereotyped as high in competence, yet fall victim to stereotype threat in contexts where their performance is com- pared to that of a higher ability group, such as Asians (Aronson et al., 1999). Thus, STT suggests that the presence of an AAP in a given setting creates a negative stereotype about any group it targets in that setting and, in turn, has detrimental consequences for the perceived self-competence and state affect of AAP targets.
The negative cognitions (i.e., low perceived self- competence) and state affect (e.g., anxiety, fear) triggered by negative stereotypes inhibit self-eval- uated and objective performance. STT holds that individuals engage in self-regulatory processes, such that they seek to suppress unwanted negative cognitions and negative affect in an attempt to pre- vent them from impeding performance (Schmader et al., 2008). Yet attempts at suppression require effort and diminish individuals’ cognitive capacity and ability to concentrate (e.g., Gross, 2002; Mu- raven & Baumeister, 2000). Cognitive resources are critical to performance, and such attempts at sup- pression therefore have the paradoxical effect of inhibiting performance (Schmader et al., 2008; Schmader & Johns, 2003). Consistent with theory, evidence indicates that negative stereotypes impair the performance of members of the groups they target and that this effect is driven by both low self-competence and negative state affect (e.g., Cadinu et al., 2005; Keller & Dauenheimer, 2003; Osborne, 2001). It follows that the low self-compe- tence and negative state affect triggered by AAPs are likely to inhibit AAP targets’ self-evaluated and objective performance.
The above arguments, derived from self-as-source STT, suggest that AAPs negatively affect the self- evaluated and objective performance of AAP targets through two pathways. Specifically, the negative ef- fect of the presence of an AAP on targets’ perfor- mance outcomes is explained by both low self-com- petence and negative state affect (see Figure 1B).
Hypothesis 3. The presence of an AAP has an indirect negative effect on AAP targets’ (a) self- evaluated and (b) objective performance through perceived self-competence.
Hypothesis 4. The presence of an AAP has an indirect negative effect on AAP targets’ (a) self- evaluated and (b) objective performance through state affect.
In addition to the two hypotheses derived from self-as-source STT, other-as-source STT suggests that AAPs affect performance through two other pathways. Negative group stereotypes have not only a direct effect on self-competence and state affect, but also indirect effects through perceived stereotyping by others. When a negative group stereotype exists, members of that group are aware that others may believe the stereotype is true of them personally (e.g., Steele & Aronson, 1995; Steele et al., 2002). To the extent that AAPs provide target groups with extra
970 AugustAcademy of Management Journal
help, and thus create a stereotype of incompetence, individuals are more likely to perceive that others believe a stereotype of incompetence applies to them personally when their group is targeted by an AAP than when it is not.
Perceived stereotyping by others, in turn, is likely to negatively affect self-competence and state affect. In addition to the direct effect of negative stereotypes on self-competence, targets’ percep- tions that others believe a stereotype of incompe- tence applies to them personally reinforces the pos- sibility that the stereotype is true and causes targets to further doubt their self-competence (Gunderson, Ramirez, Levine, & Beilock, 2012; Jacobs, 1991; Par- sons, Adler, & Kaczala, 1982). Perceived stereotyp- ing by others also increases negative affect by cre- ating anxiety and fear of performing poorly and confirming that the stereotype is true of the self, not only in one’s own mind, but also in the eyes of others (Steele & Aronson, 1995; Steele et al., 2002). As previously noted, low self-competence and neg- ative state affect inhibit performance. Thus, draw- ing from other-as-source STT, we propose that AAPs increase perceived stereotyping by others, which inhibits self-competence, state affect, and, ultimately, targets’ self-evaluated and objective performance (see Figure 1B).
Hypothesis 5. The presence of an AAP has an indirect negative effect on the (a) self-evalu- ated and (b) objective performance of AAP tar- gets through perceived stereotyping by others and perceived self-competence.
Hypothesis 6. The presence of an AAP has an indirect negative effect on the (a) self-evalu- ated and (b) objective performance of AAP tar- gets through perceived stereotyping by others and state affect.
In summary, we draw from STT and theorize that AAPs negatively affect targets’ self-evaluated and objective performance through four pathways (i.e., Hypotheses 3– 6). Notably, consistent with prior theory grounded in self-doubt, we propose that low perceived self-competence explains why AAPs negatively affect targets’ performance outcomes, at least in part. At the same time, our hypotheses differ from past work by providing a more compre- hensive account of the self-driven mechanisms that explain the negative effects of AAPs on targets’ performance. In particular, we propose that AAPs lead to negative state affect and perceived stereo- typing by others, in addition to low perceived self-
competence, and that the pathways through which AAPs have indirect negative effects on targets’ per- formance include self-competence, negative affect, perceived stereotyping and self-competence, and perceived stereotyping and negative affect.
METHOD
We used a meta-analytic approach to test our hypotheses. To identify relevant studies, we searched databases—including ABI-Inform, Busi- ness Source Premier, ERIC, and PsycINFO—as well as the programs for the annual meetings of the Academy of Management and Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology using Boolean com- binations of relevant search terms (“affirmative ac- tion,” “preferential selection,” and “employment discrimination” with “stigma”, “competence,” “evaluation,” “judgment,” “perception,” “qualifi- cation,” “warmth,” “affect,” “attitude,” “perfor- mance,” and “career”). No start date was specified and our search included papers available through the end of 2011. We also manually searched 19 high-quality management journals, identified by Gomez-Mejía and Balkin (1992), and six high-qual- ity social psychology journals that often publish affirmative action research (from 1980 through 2011).2 Finally, we requested unpublished work by posting on discussion groups and contacting affir- mative action scholars.
Studies were included in the meta-analysis if they investigated the effects of AAPs on one of the dependent variables of interest and reported the statistics necessary to calculate effect sizes (e.g., t-statistics, correlations, etc.). We conducted an ini- tial inspection of each paper identified through the search procedures, which resulted in 85 potentially relevant manuscripts. The 85 manuscripts were coded in greater detail by one of the authors or a research assistant. The first author then indepen- dently coded all studies initially coded by someone else (40% of studies). Agreement in the coding was almost perfect (kappa � .87; Landis & Koch, 1977) and all coding discrepancies were resolved through discussion. The coding revealed that 35 manuscripts met our inclusion criteria. These
2 The social psychology journals were Basic and Ap- plied Social Psychology, the Journal of Applied Social Psychology, the Journal of Experimental Social Psychol- ogy, the Journal of Personality, the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, and the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
2014 971Leslie, Mayer, and Kravitz
manuscripts included data from 6,432 individu- als, across 45 independent samples. Tables 1 and 2 summarize the studies included in the sample.
Independent and Dependent Variables
The independent variable was the extent to which an AAP was present in the study setting. The studies in the sample assessed the presence of an AAP in one of two ways. Researchers either con- ducted a field study and asked participants to re- port the extent to which an AAP was present in their organization or conducted a laboratory study and manipulated the extent to which an AAP was present—for example, by providing participants with a rationale for why they were chosen for a task. Most laboratory studies manipulated the pres- ence versus absence of an AAP, but some manipu- lated the presence of a stronger versus weaker AAP.
We conducted separate analyses for others’ reac- tions to AAP targets and AAP targets’ own reac- tions. The variables included in the other-driven model were perceptions of targets’ competence, warmth, and performance. For competence, we included both ability-based competence (e.g., competence, ability, efficacy, qualifications) and agency-based competence (e.g., ambition, po- tency, activity). For warmth, participants rated targets’ interpersonal characteristics (e.g., warmth, sincerity, likability). Performance evalua- tions included perceptions of targets’ actual and expected performance either on a specific task or in their career in general.
The variables included in the self-driven model were perceived stereotyping by others, self-compe- tence, state affect, and self-evaluated and objective performance. Perceived stereotyping captured par- ticipants’ perceptions regarding the extent to which they expected to be evaluated as incompetent by others. Perceived self-competence included both ability-based and agency-based competence. State affect captured participants’ ratings of their general affect at a given point in time (e.g., nervous– calm, tense–relaxed), coded so that high ratings indicate positive affect and low ratings indicate negative affect.3 Performance evaluations included partici-
pants’ perceptions of their actual performance and expectations for future performance. Objective per- formance included objective measures of partici- pants’ task performance.
Meta-Analytic Procedures
We used Hunter and Schmidt’s (2004) random effects methodology to calculate meta-analytic ef- fect sizes. The analyses were conducted in SAS, using the programs provided by Arthur, Bennett, and Huffcutt (2001). We first transformed the effect size reported in each study into a correlation and corrected the correlations for unreliability. If the reliability of a variable was not reported in a given study, we used the average reliability reported in other studies for the same variable. We assumed perfect reliability for manipulations of the presence of an AAP, which is a conservative approach. When a sample contributed more than one effect size for a given dependent variable, we transformed the correlations to z-scores, averaged the z-scores, and used the back-transformed average correlation in the analyses to maintain independence across effect sizes (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). Following prior work, we calculated a meta-analytic effect size for a given dependent variable if at least three studies were available (e.g., Bhaskar-Shrinivas, Harrison, Shaffer, & Luk, 2005; Dalton, Certo, & Roengpitya, 2003).
We report the uncorrected sample-weighted mean effect sizes (r), the variance of the uncor- rected effect sizes (var. r), the corrected sample- weighted mean effect sizes (�), and the variance of the corrected effect sizes (var. �). We also report 95% confidence intervals (CI95) and conclude that an effect is significant if the CI95 excludes 0. We report the Q-statistic and the credibility interval around �; significant Q-values and/or credibility intervals that are large or include 0 indicate that there is substantial variability across studies and suggest that moderators may be present. Finally, to address the file drawer problem (i.e., the possibility that non-significant studies are unlikely to be pub- lished and, therefore, unlikely to be included in meta-analyses), we calculated the fail-safe k statis- tic (Dalton, Aguinis, Dalton, Bosco, & Pierce, 2012; Orwin, 1983; Rosenthal, 1979). Fail-safe k (kFS) in- dicates the number of additional studies, each pro- ducing an effect size of 0, that would be needed to nullify a significant effect.
To identify potential outliers, we calculated the sample-adjusted meta-analytic deviancy (SAMD)
3 There is a debate regarding whether positive and neg- ative state affect are distinct constructs or bipolar ends of a single dimension (e.g., Brief & Weiss, 2002). Consistent with the approach taken in the studies in our sample, we treat state affect as a unidimensional construct.
972 AugustAcademy of Management Journal
T A
B L
E 1
S tu
d ie
s o f
O th
er s’
R ea
ct io
n s
to A
A P
T a rg
et s
S tu
d y
A A
P T
a rg
et G
ro u
p (s
) A
A P
T y p
e( s)
a R
es ea
rc h
S et
ti n
g P
er ce
iv ed
C o m
p et
en ce
b P
er ce
iv ed
W a rm
th b
P er
fo rm
a n
ce E
v a lu
a ti
o n
sb
A q u
in o
et al
. (2
0 0 5 ),
S tu
d y
1 E
th n
ic m
in o ri
ti es
S P
T L
ab o ra
to ry
— —
N S
A q u
in o
et al
. (2
0 0 5 ),
S tu
d y
2 E
th n
ic m
in o ri
ti es
S P
T L
ab o ra
to ry
N S
N S
N S
D eM
at te
o ,
D o b
b in
s, M
y er
s, an
d F
ac te
au (1
9 9 6 )
W o m
en S
P T
L ab
o ra
to ry
S IG
— M
IX E
v an
s (2
0 0 3 )
E th
n ic
m in
o ri
ti es
W P
T ,
S P
T F
ie ld
M IX
— M
IX G
il b er
t an
d S
te ad
(1 9 9 9 ),
S tu
d y
1 W
o m
en G
E N
L ab
o ra
to ry
S IG
— —
G il
b er
t an
d S
te ad
(1 9 9 9 ),
S tu
d y
2 E
th n
ic m
in o ri
ti es
G E
N L
ab o ra
to ry
S IG
— —
H ei
lm an
, B
at tl
e, K
el le
r, an
d L
ee (1
9 9 8 ),
S tu
d y
2 W
o m
en W
P T
, S
P T
, G
E N
L ab
o ra
to ry
S IG
S IG
S IG
H ei
lm an
an d
B la
d er
(2 0 0 1 )
W o m
en G
E N
L ab
o ra
to ry
S IG
— S
IG H
ei lm
an et
al .
(1 9 9 8 ),
S tu
d y
3 W
o m
en W
P T
, S
P T
, G
E N
L ab
o ra
to ry
M IX
M IX
— H
ei lm
an et
al .
(1 9 9 2 ),
S tu
d y
1 W
o m
en G
E N
L ab
o ra
to ry
S IG
N S
N S
H ei
lm an
et al
. (1
9 9 2 ),
S tu
d y
2 E
th n
ic m
in o ri
ti es
, W
o m
en G
E N
F ie
ld S
IG S
IG S
IG H
ei lm
an ,
B lo
ck ,
an d
S ta
th at
o s
(1 9 9 7 ),
S tu
d y
1 W
o m
en G
E N
L ab
o ra
to ry
S IG
— —
H ei
lm an
et al
. (1
9 9 7 ),
S tu
d y
2 W
o m
en G
E N
L ab
o ra
to ry
S IG
— S
IG H
ei lm
an et
al .
(1 9 9 6 )
W o m
en S
P T
L ab
o ra
to ry
S IG
N S
— Ja
co b so
n an
d K
o ch
(1 9 7 7 )
W o m
en S
P T
L ab
o ra
to ry
— —
S IG
M ai
o an
d E
ss es
(1 9 9 8 )
E th
n ic
m in
o ri
ti es
G E
N L
ab o ra
to ry
M IX
— M
cG la
sh an
, W
ri gh
t, an
d M
cC o rm
ic k
(1 9 9 5 )
W o m
en S
P T
L ab
o ra
to ry
— —
N S
R es
en d
ez (2
0 0
2 ),
S tu
d y
1 E
th n
ic m
in o ri
ti es
G E
N L
ab o ra
to ry
M IX
— N
S R
es en
d ez
(2 0 0
2 ),
S tu
d y
2 E
th n
ic m
in o ri
ti es
W P
T ,
S P
T L
ab o ra
to ry
S IG
— S
IG S
ei jt
s an
d Ja
ck so
n (2
0 0 1 )
E th
n ic
m in
o ri
ti es
W P
T L
ab o ra
to ry
N S
— —
S u
m m
er s
(1 9 9
1 )
W o m
en G
E N
L ab
o ra
to ry
N S
— —
T ra
v er
an d
A ll
ig er
(1 9 9 9 )
W o m
en G
E N
L ab
o ra
to ry
N S
— —
U n
zu et
a, L
o w
er y ,
an d
K n
o w
le s
(2 0 0 8 ),
S tu
d y
2 E
th n
ic m
in o ri
ti es
, W
o m
en S
P T
F ie
ld S
IG —
— %
si gn
if ic
a n
t 6 0 %
3 3 %
4 6 %
% m
ix ed
2 0 %
1 7 %
1 5 %
% n
o n
-s ig
n if
ic a n
t 2 0 %
5 0 %
3 8 %
a G
E N
� ge
n er
ic ;
W P
T �
w ea
k p
re fe
re n
ti al
tr ea
tm en
t; S
P T
� st
ro n
g p
re fe
re n
ti al
tr ea
tm en
t. b
S IG
� si
gn if
ic an
t ef
fe ct
in th
e p
re d
ic te
d d
ir ec
ti o n
; M
IX �
m ix
ed su
p p
o rt
(e .g
., u
se o f
m u
lt ip
le m
ea su
re s,
so m
e o f
w h
ic h
p ro
d u
ce d
si gn
if ic
an t
re su
lt s)
; N
S �
n o n
-s ig
n if
ic an
t ef
fe ct
. D
as h
es in
d ic
at e
th at
th e
d ep
en d
en t
v ar
ia b
le w
as n
o t
m ea
su re
d in
th e
st u
d y .
S o m
e ef
fe ct
s re
p o rt
ed in
th e
ta b le
co u
ld n
o t
b e
in cl
u d
ed in
th e
m et
a- an
al y si
s b ec
au se
th e
n ec
es sa
ry st
at is
ti cs
w er
e n
o t
p ro
v id
ed .
T A
B L
E 2
S tu
d ie
s o f
S el
f- R
ea ct
io n
s a m
o n
g A
A P
T a rg
et s
S tu
d y
A A
P T
a rg
et G
ro u
p (s
) A
A P
T y p
e( s)
a R
es ea
rc h
S et
ti n
g P
er ce
iv ed
S te
re o ty
p in
gb P
er ce
iv ed
C o m
p et
en ce
b S
ta te
A ff
ec tb
P er
fo rm
a n
ce E
v a lu
a ti
o n
sb O
b je
ct iv
e P
er fo
rm a n
ce b
B ro
w n
et al
. (2
0 0 0 ),
S tu
d y
1 W
o m
en W
P T
, S
P T
L ab
o ra
to ry
— —
N S
— M
IX B
ro w
n et
al .
(2 0 0 0 ),
S tu
d y
2 E
th n
ic m
in o ri
ti es
, W
h it
es S
P T
F ie
ld —
S IG
— —
S IG
B ru
tu s
an d
R y an
(1 9 9 8 )
W o m
en S
P T
L ab
o ra
to ry
— N
S N
S N
S N
S C
h ac
k o
(1 9 8 2 )
W o m
en S
P T
F ie
ld —
— M
IX —
— D
ei tc
h ,
B ri
ef ,
R o b er
so n
, an
d B
lo ck
(2 0 0 1 )
E th
n ic
m in
o ri
ti es
G E
N F
ie ld
S IG
— —
— —
H at
tr u
p (1
9 9 8 )
W o m
en S
P T
L ab
o ra
to ry
— —
— S
IG N
S H
ei lm
an an
d A
lc o tt
(2 0 0 1 ),
S tu
d y
1 W
o m
en S
P T
L ab
o ra
to ry
S IG
S IG
S IG
— —
H ei
lm an
an d
A lc
o tt
(2 0 0 1 ),
S tu
d y
2 W
o m
en S
P T
L ab
o ra
to ry
S IG
S IG
S IG
— —
H ei
lm an
et al
. (1
9 9 8 ),
S tu
d y
1 W
o m
en G
E N
, W
P T
, S
P T
L ab
o ra
to ry
— M
IX M
IX M
IX —
H ei
lm an
et al
. (1
9 9 0 )
W o m
en ,
M en
S P
T L
ab o ra
to ry
— S
IG S
IG S
IG —
H ei
lm an
et al
. (1
9 9 1 ),
S tu
d y
1 W
o m
en ,
M en
S P
T L
ab o ra
to ry
— M
IX S
IG —
— H
ei lm
an et
al .
(1 9 9 1 ),
S tu
d y
2 W
o m
en S
P T
L ab
o ra
to ry
— S
IG N
S —
— H
ei lm
an et
al .
(1 9 8 7 )
W o m
en ,
M en
S P
T L
ab o ra
to ry
— S
IG N
S S
IG —
M o ro
s (2
0 0 4 )
W o m
en ,
M en
, E
th n
ic m
in o ri
ti es
, W
h it
es S
P T
L ab
o ra
to ry
— —
— N
S —
N ac
o st
e (1
9 8 5
) W
o m
en S
P T
L ab
o ra
to ry
— —
S IG
— —
N ie
m an
n an
d D
o v id
io (2
0 0 5 )
E th
n ic
m in
o ri
ti es
S P
T F
ie ld
— S
IG —
— —
N ac
o st
e an
d L
eh m
an (1
9 8 7 )
W o m
en S
P T
L ab
o ra
to ry
N S
— —
— —
S ta
n u
sh ,
A rt
h u
r, an
d D
o v er
sp ik
e (1
9 9 8 )
E th
n ic
m in
o ri
ti es
G E
N L
ab o ra
to ry
S IG
N S
S IG
— —
T ay
lo r
(1 9 9 4 )
W o m
en ,
E th
n ic
m in
o ri
ti es
G E
N F
ie ld
— N
S N
S —
—
T u
rn er
an d
P ra
tk an
is (1
9 9 3 )
W o m
en S
P T
L ab
o ra
to ry
— —
— M
IX N
S U
n zu
et a,
G u
ti ér
re z,
an d
G h
av am
i (2
0 1 0 ),
S tu
d y
1 W
o m
en G
E N
, S
P T
F ie
ld —
S IG
— —
—
V an
L aa
r et
al .
(2 0 0 8 )
E th
n ic
m in
o ri
ti es
G E
N F
ie ld
N S
— —
S IG
S IG
% si
gn if
ic a n
t 6 7 %
6 2 %
4 6 %
5 0 %
3 3 %
% m
ix ed
0 %
1 5 %
1 5 %
2 5 %
1 7 %
% n
o n
-s ig
n if
ic a n
t 3 3 %
2 3 %
3 8 %
2 5 %
5 0 %
a G
E N
� ge
n er
ic ;
W P
T �
w ea
k p
re fe
re n
ti al
tr ea
tm en
t; S
P T
� st
ro n
g p
re fe
re n
ti al
tr ea
tm en
t. b
S IG
� si
gn if
ic an
t ef
fe ct
in th
e p
re d
ic te
d d
ir ec
ti o n
; M
IX �
m ix
ed su
p p
o rt
(e .g
., u
se o f
m u
lt ip
le m
ea su
re s,
so m
e o f
w h
ic h
p ro
d u
ce d
si gn
if ic
an t
re su
lt s)
; N
S �
n o n
-s ig
n if
ic an
t ef
fe ct
. D
as h
es in
d ic
at e
th at
th e
d ep
en d
en t
v ar
ia b
le w
as n
o t
m ea
su re
d in
th e
st u
d y .
S o m
e ef
fe ct
s re
p o rt
ed in
th e
ta b le
co u
ld n
o t
b e
in cl
u d
ed in
th e
m et
a- an
al y si
s b ec
au se
th e
n ec
es sa
ry st
at is
ti cs
w er
e n
o t
p ro
v id
ed .
statistic for each study. The SAMD statistic cap- tures the deviation of each effect size from the weighted average of the remaining effect sizes (Huf- fuctt & Arthur, 1995). Two studies had SAMD val- ues greater than 3 and were thus identified as po- tential outliers (Arthur et al., 2001). The authors of one of these studies used an idiosyncratic method- ology, not used in any other study, by asking White participants to imagine they were Black. Given the artificiality of this task, we excluded this study. We reviewed the other study that was identified as a potential outlier and did not detect any method- ological anomalies. We therefore included the study in the analyses; however, excluding it had no impact on our statistical conclusions.
We used the corrected effect sizes (�s) to con- duct meta-analytic path analyses (Shadish, 1996; Viswesvaran & Ones, 1995). Meta-analytic path analysis requires effect sizes for the relationships among the dependent variables. We therefore gathered intercorrelations among the dependent variables from the studies in our sample and used them to calculate corrected meta-analytic effect sizes (see Table 3). Sample sizes varied across studies and we therefore used the harmonic mean across studies as the sample size for the path models (Viswesvaran & Ones, 1995). We con- cluded that a path model fit the data well if the comparative fit index (CFI) was at least .95, the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was .06 or less, and the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) was .08 or less (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
To calculate a given hypothesized indirect (i.e., mediated) effect, we multiplied the path coefficients involved in that indirect effect. To test for statistical
significance, we used the delta method to calculate the standard errors of the indirect effects (Muthén & Muthén, 2007). We were unable to use bootstrapped confidence intervals, a more common approach for testing indirect effects, because the dataset included correlations rather than individual observations. In addition to the hypothesized models, we tested plau- sible alternative models. If an alternative model was nested within the hypothesized model, we used a chi-square difference test to compare the fit of the two models. If an alternative model was not nested within the hypothesized model, we could not assess relative model fit. Instead, we evaluated the alternative mo- del’s absolute fit.
RESULTS
We first calculated the meta-analytic effect size for each dependent variable to determine whether AAPs have generalizable effects. We then used path analyses to test Hypotheses 1– 6.
Meta-Analytic Effect Sizes
For studies of others’ reactions to AAP targets, AAPs had a significant effect on each outcome in the expected direction (see Table 4, top half). AAPs were negatively related to others’ perceptions of targets’ competence (� � �.27, CI95 � �.33 to �.17) and this finding held when we separated measures of ability-based (� � �.30, CI95 � �.38 to �.19) and agency-based (� � �.25, CI95 � �.39 to �.05) com- petence. We used the program provided by Lipsey and Wilson (2001) to compare the magnitude of the effects for the two competence measures and found that the effects did not differ (QB � 0.24, n.s.).
4
AAPs were also negatively related to others’ per- ceptions of targets’ warmth (� � �.28, CI95 � �.45 to �.05) and performance (� � �23, CI95 � �.30 to �.10). Moreover, the effect sizes did not differ for perceived (� � �.16, CI95 � �.22 to �.06) and expected (� � �.26, CI95 � �.37 to �.09) perfor- mance (QB � 0.74, n.s.).
For studies of AAP targets’ own reactions, AAPs also had significant effects on each dependent vari- able in the expected direction (see Table 4, bottom
4 This procedure is analogous to conducting an analy- sis of variance, in which the effect sizes are the depen- dent variable and a categorical variable that captures the measure type (ability versus agency) is the independent variable. This analysis produces a QB statistic, which has a chi-square distribution and is analogous to an F-test.
TABLE 3 Relationships among the Dependent Variables
Ratings of Others 1 2 3 4
1. Competence — 2. Warmth .71 — 3. Performance evaluations .65 .67 —
Ratings of the Self 1 2 3 4
1. Perceived stereotyping — 2. Self-competence �.36 — 3. State affect �.36 .24 — 4. Performance evaluations �.25 .49 .40 — 5. Objective performance �.11 .28 .09 .33
Note. Values are corrected correlation coefficients (�s).
2014 975Leslie, Mayer, and Kravitz
half). AAPs were positively related to perceived stereotyping (� � .26, CI95 � .06 to .41) and nega- tively related to self-competence (� � �.22, CI95 � �.27 to �.13), state affect (� � �.28, CI95 � �.37 to �.15), performance evaluations (� � �.32, CI95 � �.38 to �.21), and objective performance (� � �.19, CI95 � �.26 to �.08). Due to insufficient sample sizes, we could not compare the effect sizes for ability- and agency-based competence or ex- pected and perceived performance. In all, the re- sults indicate that AAPs have a significant, gener- alizable effect on each outcome of interest.
Path Models for Others’ Reactions to AAP Targets: Hypotheses 1–2
We tested the fit of the hypothesized model and significance of the hypothesized indirect effects (see Figure 1A). We used the overall effect sizes for competence and performance because the effect
sizes did not differ for the two competence (ability, agency) and two performance (perceived, expected) measures. We allowed competence and warmth to covary in all models because both may be driven by others’ general impressions of the target.
The hypothesized other-driven model fit the data well (CFI � 1.00; RMSEA � .00; SRMR � .01; �2(1) � 0.40, n.s.; see Figure 2A). Moreover, the path coefficients revealed that the presence of an AAP was negatively related to both perceived competence (� � �.27, p � .01) and perceived warmth (� � �.28, p � .01), and that both com- petence (� � .35, p � .01) and warmth (� � .42, p � .01) were positively related to performance evaluations.
We hypothesized that AAPs have indirect nega- tive effects on performance evaluations through perceived competence (Hypothesis 1) and per- ceived warmth (Hypothesis 2). In support of Hy- potheses 1 and 2, the indirect effects of AAPs on
TABLE 4 Meta-Analytic Estimates for the Effects of AAPs
Dependent Variable kb Nc rd Var. r CI95 e �f Var. � CrI80
g Qh kFS i
Others’ reactions to targets Competencea 20 2,791 �.25 .04 �.33 to �.17 �.27 .03 �.50 to �.03 111.33** 1,419
Ability-based 19 2,621 �.29 .04 �.38 to �.19 �.30 .04 �.56 to �.05 126.63** 1,713 Agency-based 5 742 �.22 .04 �.39 to �.05 �.25 .04 �.50 to .01 31.38** 73
Warmth 5 686 �.25 .05 �.45 to �.05 �.28 .05 �.57 to .02 38.71** 90 Performance evaluations 13 1,995 �.20 .03 �.30 to �.10 �.23 .03 �.46 to .01 71.43** 434
Perceived 5 626 �.14 .01 �.22 to �.06 �.16 .00 �.23 to �.09 6.37 21 Expected 8 1,369 �.23 .04 �.37 to �.09 �.26 .04 �.53 to .01 62.45** 248
Self-reactions among targets Perceived stereotyping 6 1,060 .23 .05 .06 to .41 .26 .05 �.03 to .55 54.83** 197 Self-competence 13 2,009 �.20 .02 �.27 to �.13 �.22 .01 �.38 to �.07 37.53** 433
Ability-based 12 1,690 �.24 .01 �.30 to �.17 �.26 .01 �.36 to �.14 24.73** 425 Agency-based 1 — — — — — — — — —
State affect 9 1,204 �.26 .03 �.37 to �.15 �.28 .02 �.48 to �.08 37.39** 295 Performance evaluations 7 1,017 �.29 .01 �.38 to �.21 �.32 .01 �.45 to �.19 17.13** 220
Perceived 6 744 �.31 .02 �.42 to �.20 �.34 .01 �.49 to �.18 16.88** 148 Expected 1 — — — — — — — — —
Objective performance 6 1,122 �.17 .01 �.26 to �.08 �.19 .01 �.31 to �.07 14.67* 78
a Some studies of others’ reactions to AAP targets included multiple competence measures and thus contributed effects to the ability- and agency-based competence estimates. To maintain independence of samples, the effects for all competence measures in a study were averaged to calculate the overall competence effect. For this reason, the sum of studies for the more specific competence measures is greater than the total number of studies for the overall competence measure.
b k is the number of studies. c N is the number of participants across studies. d r is the mean sample-weighted effect size. e CI95 is the 95% confidence interval around r. f � is the mean corrected effect size. g CrI80 is the 80% credibility interval around �. h Q is the chi-square test statistic for homogeneity of effect sizes. i kFS is the fail-safe k statistic. * p � .05. ** p � .01.
976 AugustAcademy of Management Journal
performance through competence (� � �.10, p � .01) and warmth (� � �.12, p � .01) were both significant, as was the total indirect effect of AAPs on performance through both competence and warmth (� � �.21, p � .01).
We compared the hypothesized model to three plausible alternatives. First, scholars have sug- gested that others view AAPs as unfair and thus negatively evaluate AAP targets on a number of dimensions (e.g., Heilman, McCullough, & Gilbert, 1996). A fairness-based perspective suggests that AAPs have a direct effect on performance, in addi- tion to the direct effects on competence and warmth, but does not suggest indirect effects on performance through competence and warmth. We therefore tested a model that included direct effects from AAPs to competence, warmth, and perfor- mance, but no indirect effects, and found it did not fit the data well (CFI � .56; RMSEA � .57; SRMR � .27; �2(2) � 388.75, p � .01). Second, unlike the
SCM, the discounting principle suggests that AAPs have a direct effect on competence, but does not suggest a direct effect on warmth. We therefore tested a competence-only model by removing the path from AAPs to warmth from the hypothesized model to test the alternative possibility that any effect of AAPs on warmth is accounted for by the correlation between competence and warmth. The fit of this model was poor (CFI � .94; RMSEA � .20; SRMR � .13; �2(2) � 48.49, p � .01) and signifi- cantly worse than the fit of the hypothesized model (��2 (1) � 48.09, p � .01).
Third, our theory suggests that competence and warmth fully mediate the effect of AAPs on perfor- mance evaluations. We investigated the alternative possibility of partial mediation by testing whether AAPs have a direct effect on performance evalua- tions, after accounting for the indirect effects through competence and warmth. We could not use path analysis to test this model because the model
FIGURE 2 Path Model Results
A) Others’ Reactions to AAP Targets: Hypothesized and Final Model; B) Self-Reactions among AAP Targets: Hypothesized Model; C) Self-Reactions among AAP Targets: Final Model
-.27
-.28
.35
.42
Presence of an AAP
Perceived Competence
Performance Evaluations
Perceived Warmth
.69
.10
-.33
-.31
.30
.26 .27
- .14
-.20
.42
Presence of an AAP
Self- competence
Objective Performance
State Affect
Perceived Stereotyping
Performance Evaluations
.02
.24
.10 .22
.39
-.33
-.31 .26
.26 .25
-.14
-.20
-.16
.01
Presence of an AAP
Self- competence
Objective Performance
State Affect
Perceived Stereotyping
Performance Evaluations
-.14
B)
C)
A)
Note. Standardized path coefficients (�s) are reported. Solid paths are significant at p � .05; dashed paths are not significant. n � 589 for Figure 2A; n � 301 for Figures 2B and 2C.
2014 977Leslie, Mayer, and Kravitz
has 0 degrees of freedom. Instead, we regressed performance evaluations on competence, warmth, and AAPs simultaneously. Competence (� � .35, p � .01) and warmth (� � .42, p � .01) were positively related to performance evaluations, but AAPs were not (� � �.02, n.s.), indicating that the effect of AAPs on performance evaluations is fully mediated by perceived competence and warmth. We therefore adopted the hypothesized model as the final model for others’ reactions to AAP targets.
Path Models for Self-Reactions among AAP Targets: Hypotheses 3–6
We tested the fit of the hypothesized model and significance of the hypothesized indirect effects (see Figure 1B). To mirror the other-driven model, we used the overall effect sizes for competence and performance evaluations; however, using ability- based competence and perceived performance pro- duced the same conclusions. We allowed perceived self-competence and state affect to covary because both variables may reflect general evaluations of the self. We also allowed self-evaluated and objec- tive performance to covary because they are likely related.
The hypothesized model fit the data reasonably well (CFI � .97; RMSEA � .09; SRMR � .04; �2(4) � 13.73, p � .01; see Figure 2B), although the RMSEA was above the .06 cutoff. The coefficients revealed that AAPs had negative effects on both self-competence (� � �.14, p � .05) and state affect (� � �.20, p � .01), and a positive effect on per- ceived stereotyping (� � .26, p � .01). Perceived stereotyping was negatively related to both self- competence (� � �.33, p � .01) and state affect (� � �.31, p � .01). Finally, self-competence was positively related to both evaluated (� � .42, p � .01) and objective (� � .27, p � .01) performance, and state affect was positively related to evaluated (� � .30, p � .01), but not objective (� � .02, n.s.), performance.
We hypothesized that AAPs have an indirect negative effect on (a) self-evaluated and (b) objec- tive performance through self-competence (Hy- pothesis 3) and state affect (Hypothesis 4). In sup- port of Hypotheses 3a and 3b, the indirect effects of AAPs on performance, through perceived self-com- petence, were significant (self-evaluated: � � �.06; objective: � � �.04; both ps � .05). The indirect effect of AAPs on performance, through state affect, was significant for self-evaluated (� � �.06, p � .01), but not objective (� � .00, n.s.), performance.
Thus, Hypothesis 4a was supported, but Hypothe- sis 4b was not.
We also hypothesized that AAPs have indirect effects on (a) self-evaluated and (b) objective per- formance through perceived stereotyping and self- competence (Hypothesis 5) and through perceived stereotyping and state affect (Hypothesis 6). In sup- port of Hypotheses 5a and 5b, the indirect effects of AAPs on performance, through perceived stereo- typing and self-competence, were significant (self- evaluated: � � �.04, objective: � � �.02, both ps � .01). The indirect effect of AAPs on perfor- mance, through perceived stereotyping and state affect, was significant for self-evaluated (� � �.02, p � .01), but not objective (� � .00, n.s.), perfor- mance, which supports Hypothesis 6a, but not Hy- pothesis 6b. The total indirect effects of AAPs on self-evaluated (� � �.18, p � .01) and objective (� � �.07, p � .01) performance were also significant.
We assessed the fit of three plausible alternative models. First, given that prior work has focused on direct effects rather than mediated relationships, we tested a direct effects model in which the pres- ence of an AAP has a direct effect on perceived stereotyping, self-competence, state affect, and self- evaluated and objective performance, but no indi- rect effects. This model did not fit the data well (CFI � .47; RMSEA � .25; SRMR � .16; �2(8) � 159.14, p � .01). Second, theory grounded in self- doubt suggests that the presence of an AAP affects perceived self-competence, but not state affect or perceived stereotyping. We therefore tested a com- petence-only model in which AAPs do not have a direct effect on perceived stereotyping and state affect, and any effect of AAPs on these variables is instead accounted for by their correlations with self-competence. Specifically, this model included a directional path from AAPs to competence, a correlation between competence and perceived ste- reotyping, a correlation between competence and state affect, and directional paths from competence, perceived stereotyping, and state affect to self-eval- uated and objective performance. This model did not fit the data well (CFI � .60; RMSEA � .24; SRMR � .15; �2(5) � 89.70, p � .01).
Third, we theorized that self-competence, state affect, and perceived stereotyping mediate the ef- fects of AAPs on performance. We investigated the possibility that the mediation is only partial by testing a model that differed from the hypothesized model in that it included additional paths from AAPs to both performance outcomes (see Fig-
978 AugustAcademy of Management Journal
ure 2C). The resulting model fit the data well (CFI � 1.00; RMSEA � .00; SRMR � .01; �2(2) � 0.45, n.s.) and significantly better than the hypoth- esized model (��2(2) � 13.28, p � .01). The paths from AAPs to self-evaluated (� � �.16, p � .01) and objective (� � �.14, p � .01) performance were significant; however, the direction and significance of all other paths and indirect effects remained unaltered. Given the superior fit of the partial me- diation model, we adopted this alternative model as the final model and concluded that perceived stereotyping by others, perceived self-competence, and state affect partially mediate the effects of AAPs on targets’ self-evaluated and objective performance.
In the final model, we used 95% confidence in- tervals to compare the magnitude of the total indi- rect effects and direct effects of AAPs on perfor- mance. The magnitude of the total indirect effects and direct effects did not differ for self-evaluated (total indirect effect: � � �.16, CI95 � �.22 to �.10; direct effect: � � �.16, CI95 � �.26 to �.06) or objective (total indirect effect: � � �.05, CI95 � �.10 to �.01; direct effect: � � �.14, CI95 � �.25 to �.02) performance. Thus, the portion of the effect of AAPs on performance that is explained by our theory (i.e., the indirect effects) is roughly equiva- lent to the portion that is not (i.e., the direct effects).
Robustness Checks
Our theory suggests that the negative effects of AAPs hold across a number of potential boundary conditions, including the group targeted by the AAP, the AAP type, and the research setting. We used the program provided by Lipsey and Wilson (2001) to conduct post-hoc analyses to determine whether our findings are robust across potential moderators. We focused the moderated analyses on competence because the sample was too small for other outcomes.
Stereotyping theories posit that any group can be negatively stereotyped in certain settings, even if the group is not chronically negatively stereotyped in the society (Aronson et al., 1999; Fiske et al., 2002). Notably, this assumption differs from prior claims that AAPs only have negative consequences if the target is chronically negatively stereotyped (e.g., Brown, Charnsangavej, Keough, Newman, & Renfrow, 2000; Gilbert & Stead, 1999; Heilman et al., 1987; Nacoste, 1985; Resendez, 2002). Most studies in our meta-analysis investigated AAPs that
target chronically negatively stereotyped groups— specifically, women and ethnic minorities— but a few studies of targets’ self-reactions investigated AAPs that target groups that are not chronically negatively stereotyped (e.g., Whites, men; Brown et al., 2000; Heilman, Rivero, & Brett, 1991). We com- pared the effect of AAPs on competence for groups that are (� � �.24, CI95 � �.31 to �.12, k � 13) and are not (� � �.16, CI95 � �.24 to �.05, k � 4) chronically negatively stereotyped and found that the magnitude of the two effect sizes did not differ (QB � 2.70, n.s.).
AAPs may be implemented in different ways that vary in strength and scholars have suggested that some AAP types are more likely to produce stigma than others (e.g., Evans, 2003). In spite of this vari- ability, all AAPs provide extra help to target group members and should therefore stigmatize their tar- gets. We tested if the effect sizes differed for AAPs that provide OE, WPT, SPT, or are generic (i.e., strength is not specified; Harrison et al., 2006). For studies of others’ reactions to targets, the stigma of incompetence did not differ for SPT (� � �.41, CI95 � �.56 to �.20, k � 7), WPT (� � �.32, CI95 � �.55 to �.05, k � 5), or generic AAPs (� � �.38, CI95 � �.49 to �.21, k � 10; QB � 1.20, n.s.). For studies of targets’ self-reactions, the stigma of in- competence did not differ for SPT (� � �.32, CI95 � �.35 to �.21, k � 11) and generic AAPs (� � �.20, CI95 � �.40 to .02, k � 3; QB � .01, n.s.). (There were insufficient studies to calculate effects for studies of OE and studies of targets’ self-reac- tions to WPT.)
Finally, some scholars have suggested that AAPs may not have stigmatizing effects in the field, argu- ing that AAP targets who are aware they are quali- fied will not question their competence (Crosby, Iyer, & Sincharoen, 2006; Taylor, 1994). Although aware of absolute qualifications, AAP targets may be unaware of their qualifications relative to the qualifications of others and may thus question their competence. We compared the effect of AAPs across research settings. The stigma of incompe- tence occurred in the laboratory and the field and the effect sizes did not differ across settings for studies of both others’ reactions (laboratory: � � �.25, CI95 � �.31 to �.15, k � 17; field: � � �.39, CI95 � �.64 to �.08, k � 3; QB � 1.45, n.s.) and self-reactions (laboratory: � � �.25, CI95 � �.32 to �.14, k � 9; field: � � �.19, CI95 � �.29 to �.06, k � 4; QB � 0.75, n.s.).
2014 979Leslie, Mayer, and Kravitz
DISCUSSION
Organizations around the globe have taken af- firmative action to counteract continued discrim- ination and facilitate employment success for underrepresented groups. AAPs increase the rep- resentation of women and ethnic minorities in managerial positions, but also have the potential to produce ironic effects by negatively affecting the very employees they are intended to benefit. Prior theory suggests that perceptions that AAP targets lack competence, both in the eyes of others and in the eyes of targets themselves, explain why AAPs negatively affect targets’ performance. Yet the broader social psychological literature suggests that additional mechanisms also play a role. Using the- ories of stereotyping, we developed a more compre- hensive theory of the unintended negative effects of AAPs, which we tested using meta-analytic path analyses.
Drawing from the SCM, we theorized and found that a perceived lack of both competence and warmth explain why others evaluate AAP targets’ performance negatively. Drawing from STT, we theorized and found that self-competence, state af- fect, and perceived stereotyping by others each contribute to explaining why AAP targets experi- ence low performance. The other- and self-driven models derived from stereotyping theories fit the data better than models derived from alternative theoretical frameworks. The present research there- fore substantiates that stereotyping theories pro- vide a useful lens for understanding the negative consequences of AAPs. In the other-driven model, competence and warmth fully mediated the effects of AAPs on performance; however, in the self- driven model, self-competence, state affect, and perceived stereotyping partially mediated the ef- fects of AAPs on performance. Thus, although the findings for self-reactions among AAP targets sup- port our hypotheses, additional mechanisms not included in our theory likely exist.
Implications for Theory
We advance theory by demonstrating that stereo- typing theories provide a more comprehensive un- derstanding of the unintended negative effects of AAPs on targets’ performance outcomes, as com- pared to prior theory grounded in discounting and self-doubt, which focuses on the stigma of incom- petence. Specifically, we propose that competence is only one of several mechanisms that explain why
AAPs negatively affect targets’ performance out- comes. At the same time, our theory does not con- tradict prior work on the stigma of incompetence. Scholars have previously argued that AAPs and the associated possibility that demographics influence employment decisions lead others to assume that AAP targets lack competence and similarly lead targets to doubt their self-competence. In the other- driven model, we propose that AAPs and the asso- ciated assumption that demographics play a role in selection signals that AAP targets lack status, which leads others to assume that AAP targets are incompetent. Thus, although our SCM-based expla- nation invokes notions of status, the two explana- tions are convergent, not contradictory. Similarly, in the self-driven model, we propose that AAPs and the associated assumption that demographics play a role in selection creates a stereotype that AAP targets lack competence, which leads targets to doubt their self-competence. Thus, although our STT-based explanation invokes the concept of ste- reotyping, it also converges with prior theory.
Our primary contribution is using stereotyping theories to build a more comprehensive under- standing of the unintended negative effects of AAPs. Although discounting and self-doubt have been the primary theoretical frameworks in this literature, a handful of prior studies have similarly drawn from stereotyping theories. We extend pre- vious work by more fully developing the implica- tions of stereotyping theories for understanding the effects AAPs on targets’ performance. For example, Aquino and colleagues (2005) used the SCM to hypothesize that AAPs affect warmth, but used dif- ferent rationales to justify why AAPs affect other outcomes. Thus, whereas past work suggests that multiple theories are needed to understand all of the dimensions along which others devalue AAP targets, we propose that the SCM provides a single, unifying framework that explains how AAPs affect others’ evaluations of targets’ competence, warmth, and performance, as well as the interrelationships among these outcomes. Similarly, a few prior stud- ies of self-reactions among targets have drawn from STT (Brown et al., 2000; Van Laar, Levin, & Sin- clair, 2008), but have focused on the implications of STT for only a subset of the outcomes and path- ways through which AAPs affect performance that are included in our theory. Thus, we build on prior work by using STT to develop a fuller understand- ing of the mechanisms that contribute to the nega- tive effect of AAPs on targets’ performance.
980 AugustAcademy of Management Journal
Our theory and findings also suggest that there are differences in the other- and self-driven mech- anisms that link AAPs to performance. Specifi- cally, we propose that the other-driven mecha- nisms include competence and warmth, while the self-driven mechanisms include self-competence, state affect, and perceived stereotyping. Notably, the rationale for why others perceive AAP targets as lacking warmth does not apply to AAP targets’ own reactions and the rationale for why AAP targets experience negative affect and perceived stereotyp- ing by others does not apply to others’ reactions to AAP targets. It is therefore not surprising that these possibilities have not been investigated empirically and, as a result, our meta-analytic approach did not allow a test of whether the unique mechanisms in our other-driven model apply to the self-driven model and vice versa. The present research there- fore offers suggestive, rather than definitive, evi- dence of differences in the other- and self-driven mechanisms that link AAPs to performance.
We also contribute to theory by proposing and finding that AAPs have negative effects on any group they target, even if the group is not chroni- cally negatively stereotyped in the broader society. This possibility is consistent with stereotyping the- ories, which indicate that stereotypes are context dependent and that any group can be negatively stereotyped in certain settings. At the same time, our stereotyping-based perspective differs from prior claims that AAPs only have negative conse- quences for target groups that are chronically neg- atively stereotyped (e.g., Brown et al., 2000; Gilbert & Stead, 1999; Heilman et al., 1991; Nacoste, 1985; Resendez, 2002). Theoretical and empirical evi- dence that groups that are not chronically nega- tively stereotyped are negatively affected by AAPs has implications that extend beyond the AAP liter- ature. For example, our stereotyping-based theory may be relevant to other types of preferential treat- ment, such as nepotism or legacy admissions to colleges and universities.
In addition, the present work has several impli- cations for the SCM. First, the SCM posits that stereotypes are often ambivalent, in that they in- volve trade-offs between competence and warmth. As a result, most groups are stereotyped as lacking in either competence or warmth, but not both (Bergsieker, Leslie, Constantine, & Fiske, 2012; Fiske et al., 2007). For example, individuals gener- ally perceive housewives as warm, but not compe- tent, and perceive businesswomen as competent, but not warm (Fiske et al., 2002). Thus, business-
women’s gain in competence comes at the cost of low warmth. Although competence–warmth trade- offs are common, our theory suggests that, because AAPs simultaneously indicate that AAP target groups have low status and increase their ability to compete for resources, AAPs stigmatize their tar- gets as low in both competence and warmth. Thus, AAP targets provide a relatively rare example of a group that is negatively stereotyped on both funda- mental dimensions of person perception.
Second, although SCM scholars have suggested that competence and warmth stereotypes are rele- vant for workplace evaluations (Cuddy et al., 2011), SCM research has focused largely on the conse- quences of competence and warmth outside of or- ganizations. For example, research has assessed whether competence and warmth stereotypes are associated with the tendency to help versus de- mean stereotype targets (e.g., Cuddy et al., 2007). Moreover, there is some question regarding whether competence, warmth, or both affect perfor- mance evaluations. Theoretically, perceptions of low competence are more likely than perceptions of low warmth to result in passive harm, such as rating targets’ performance lower than deserved, although some evidence suggests that competence and warmth both predict passive harm (Cuddy et al., 2007). We develop a rationale for why percep- tions of warmth, in addition to competence, are likely to affect performance evaluations, and thus help to advance theory regarding the relevance of the SCM—a social psychological theory—for work- place phenomena.
Our theory similarly has implications for STT. Scholars have argued that stereotype threat re- search is narrow in scope, given that it focuses primarily on the consequences of negative stereo- types for students’ performance on academic tests (e.g., Shapiro & Neuberg, 2007) and less is known regarding whether and how stereotype threat oper- ates in the workplace (e.g., Roberson & Kulik, 2007). We provide insight into these issues by the- orizing that AAPs, which are common workplace policies, activate negative stereotypes about the so- cial groups they target and therefore trigger stereo- type threat. Moreover, we demonstrate that the in- terrelationships among the negative consequences of AAPs are consistent with predictions derived from STT.
We also make strides toward advancing under- standing of the mechanisms that drive stereotype threat. Many mechanisms have been proposed yet ambiguity persists regarding the processes that un-
2014 981Leslie, Mayer, and Kravitz
derlie stereotype threat, in part because prior stud- ies have tended to focus on a single explanatory mechanism (e.g., Schmader et al., 2008). In using STT to build theory regarding the self-driven pro- cesses that link AAPs to targets’ performance out- comes, we propose that three distinct mechanisms— self-competence, state affect, and perceived stereotyping by others— each play a role. More- over, we contribute to recent theory that has differ- entiated self- and other-as-source stereotype threat (Shapiro & Neuberg, 2007) by theorizing and find- ing that these two types of stereotype threat operate simultaneously and independently and that AAPs negatively affect targets’ performance through four self-driven pathways (i.e., Hypotheses 3– 6).
Finally, the present work contributes to theory on the SCM and STT by demonstrating that both theories apply to groups with permeable boundar- ies, not just groups with impermeable boundaries. Specifically, research on the SCM and STT has often focused on groups based on immutable char- acteristics, such as gender and race. We demon- strate that the principles of the SCM and STT ad- vance understanding of the experiences of a group that is defined by the situation (i.e., AAP targets), with the result that individuals may belong to the group in some settings but not others (e.g., organi- zations with and without AAPs).
Implications for Practice
Our theory and findings also offer practical in- sights. As shown in Tables 1 and 2, the percentages of prior studies that find a significant effect of AAPs on the outcomes included in our theory range from 33 to 67, which raises questions regard- ing the robustness of this phenomenon and whether it should be of concern for organizations. Our meta-analyses demonstrate that AAPs have a significant, generalizable effect on each outcome of interest, which indicates that prior null findings stem from statistical artifacts (e.g., sampling error, unreliability), not the absence of true effects. Sim- ilarly, some scholars have questioned the robust- ness of the stigma of AAPs by suggesting that it is an artifact of the laboratory (Crosby et al., 2006; Taylor, 1994) or that it only applies to AAPs that involve strong preferences (e.g., Evans, 2003). In contrast to these claims, we find that the stigma of AAPs occurs in the laboratory and in the field and that the magnitude of the effect does not differ for AAPs that vary in strength. Our findings therefore substantiate that the stigma of AAPs is a real-world
phenomenon with the potential to derail organiza- tional efforts to create and maintain a diverse workforce.
The present research also offers novel insights for preventing AAPs from having negative effects on their targets. We found that perceived incompe- tence and low warmth both explain why others negatively evaluate AAP targets’ performance. Eliminating the negative effects of AAPs therefore requires addressing stigmatization along both di- mensions. Publicizing the qualifications of an AAP target—a well-supported and commonly recom- mended strategy for preventing the stigmatizing consequences of AAPs (e.g., Heilman, Lucas, & Ka- plow, 1990; Heilman et al., 2001)— eliminates the stigma of incompetence, but is unlikely to affect perceptions that AAP targets lack warmth. Low warmth stereotypes are driven by perceptions that AAPs increase targets’ ability to compete for work- place resources and thus threaten non-targets’ out- comes. Our theory and findings suggest that organ- izations should address perceptions that AAPs are at odds with the interests of non-targets, perhaps by stressing that the increased diversity associated with AAPs has the potential to improve organizational per- formance and thus benefit everyone in the organiza- tion (e.g., Ely & Thomas, 2001).
Similarly, we theorized and found that AAPs have direct effects on the self-competence and state affect of AAP targets (self-as-source stereotype threat), as well as indirect effects through perceived stereotyping by others (other-as-source stereotype threat). It follows that eliminating the self-driven processes that link AAPs to performance requires addressing each of these pathways. For example, AAP targets need to know not only that they are qualified, to prevent low perceived self-compe- tence, but also that others are aware of their quali- fications, to prevent perceived stereotyping by others.
Whereas prior work suggests that AAPs only stig- matize groups that are chronically negatively ste- reotyped, we theorized and found that the stigma of AAPs also applies to groups that are not chroni- cally negatively stereotyped. Thus, our research suggests that, in settings where groups that are not typically negatively stereotyped are underrepre- sented (e.g., men in nursing), and may thus be targeted by AAPs, organizations must be vigilant to prevent stigma.
The present research reveals that AAPs have neg- ative implications for a range of outcomes, includ- ing AAP targets’ performance. Thus, in some ways,
982 AugustAcademy of Management Journal
our findings present a discouraging picture of the future of AAPs, and one could argue that organiza- tions should not implement these policies. At the same time, it is important to acknowledge that, although important, our focus on performance presents a narrow view of the potential effects of AAPs. For example, the adoption of AAPs facili- tates increased representation of women and ethnic minorities in management positions (Holzer & Neu- mark, 2000; Kalev et al., 2006; Leonard, 1984). In addition, if AAPs increase the number of women and ethnic minorities in high-level positions, these role models may decrease implicit assumptions that women and ethnic minorities lack the ability needed for such positions, thus mitigating discrim- ination and the need for AAPs in the future. The implementation of AAPs, along with efforts to max- imize their effectiveness, is therefore more likely to lead to favorable long-term outcomes than is the elimination of AAPs.
Many organizations implement AAPs as part of broader diversity initiatives (Kelly & Dobbin, 1998), which may include efforts to facilitate a multicul- tural climate, in which differences are acknowl- edged and valued, and the implementation of flex- ible and other family-friendly policies intended to attract groups of employees who tend to have sig- nificant personal-life responsibilities (e.g., women, parents). Like AAPs, these efforts are largely effec- tive; multicultural climates facilitate engagement and reduce perceived discrimination (Avery, Mc- Kay, Wilson, & Tonidandel, 2007; Leslie & Gelfand, 2008; Plaut, Thomas, & Goren, 2009) and flexible and family-friendly policies improve job attitudes and reduce turnover intentions (Butts, Casper, & Yang, 2013; Gajendran & Harrison, 2007). Yet, just as AAPs have unintended consequences, multicul- turalism can lead non-targets to feel excluded (Plaut, Garnett, Buffardi, & Sanchez-Burks, 2011) and use of flexible and family-friendly practices can have nega- tive career consequences (Leslie, Manchester, & Dahm, 2013; Leslie, Manchester, Park, & Mehng, 2012; Manchester, Leslie, & Kramer, 2010, 2013). The parallels between AAPs and other diversity policies suggest that strategies similar to those needed to pre- vent AAPs from having negative effects may be needed to maximize the effectiveness of other aspects of diversity initiatives.
Limitations and Future Research
Meta-analysis is a powerful empirical tool, but is also limited by its reliance on existing studies. For
example, we found support for the hypothesized mechanisms that link AAPs to performance, but our ability to make causal claims was somewhat limited. Many studies in our sample were experi- ments that manipulated the presence on an AAP and demonstrate that AAPs have a causal impact on a number of outcomes, but the causal order among the outcomes is less clear. We tested alter- native causal models and generally found that our hypothesized models fit the data better than the alternatives. Nevertheless, we cannot provide defini- tive evidence for the causal order among the endog- enous variables in our models. Similarly, all of the studies in our sample investigated the stigmatization of AAP targets by either others or the self. We were therefore able to test the other- and self-models inde- pendently, but not simultaneously.
Another potential limitation is that the number of studies contributing to some meta-analytic effect sizes was relatively small. Even when based on few studies, however, the number of individuals con- tributing to the effect sizes was large, which lends stronger confidence to our conclusions than to those based on single studies. In addition, our ef- fect sizes may be inflated to the extent that studies with significant results were more likely to be pub- lished and are thus overrepresented in our sample (i.e., the file drawer problem). The file drawer prob- lem is likely not a concern, however, given that the fail-safe k-values for our main effect estimates were generally large (M � 414; see Table 4). Moreover, empirical evidence indicates that the file drawer problem has little impact on the validity of meta- analytic estimates (Dalton et al., 2012).
In the other-driven model, perceived competence and warmth fully accounted for the effect of AAPs on performance evaluations. Conversely, in the self-driven model, AAPs had a direct effect on per- formance after accounting for all of the hypothe- sized explanatory mechanisms, which indicates that additional factors play a role in linking AAPs to targets’ performance in the self-driven model. Stereotype threat research indicates that negative stereotypes affect not only self-reported affect but also biological anxiety responses (Steele et al., 2002). Thus, future research should explore whether physiological anxiety, as well as other mechanisms, help explain the effect of AAPs on self-evaluated and objective performance.
State affect was related to self-evaluated, but not objective, performance. One possible explanation is that the negative state affect associated with AAPs leads targets to believe that they failed to
2014 983Leslie, Mayer, and Kravitz
perform to the best of their ability, but this belief does not translate into reality. Alternatively, the relationship between state affect and performance may be more complex. Consistent with the Yerkes– Dodson law (Yerkes & Dodson, 1908), the effect may be curvilinear such that performance is weaker at low and high levels of negative state affect than it is at moderate levels. Alternatively, the null finding may stem from the presence of boundary condi- tions. For example, the effect of state affect on objective performance may be small, with the result that it only emerges for tasks that are particularly challenging. Future work on these possibilities will help clarify whether the effects of AAPs on objec- tive performance are driven by state affect, in ad- dition to self-competence and perceived stereotyp- ing by others.
A key contribution of this research is using ste- reotyping theories to build a more comprehensive understanding of the negative effects of AAPs on targets’ performance. Linking stereotyping theories to the AAP literature may also spur future research. For example, evidence demonstrates that the detri- mental effects of stereotype threat can be avoided by emphasizing learning goals (Goff, Steele, & Da- vies, 2008). Future work should therefore explore whether fostering an organizational climate for learning, instead of performance, can prevent the detrimental effects of AAPs on the self-evaluated and objective performance of AAP targets.
Finally, future research should integrate the lit- erature on the negative effects of AAPs with other literatures, such as identity management (e.g., Paet- zold, Dipboye, & Elsbach, 2008). Identity is a dy- namic construct and individuals may change the groups they identify with to avoid a stigmatized identity (e.g., Hogg & Abrams, 1988). As a result, the presence of an AAP in a given organization and the associated stigmatizing consequences may cause AAP targets to disassociate from their organ- izational identity, which could have additional negative consequences for workplace outcomes. In- vestigations that explore this and related questions will help further link the stigma of AAPs to other core topics in the management literature.
CONCLUSION
AAPs improve employment outcomes for women and ethnic minorities (e.g., Kalev et al., 2006), yet also have unintended consequences in that they can negatively affect the very groups of employees they are intended to benefit. We used stereotyping
theories to advance understanding of these ironic effects of AAPs. Specifically, we extended prior work by proposing and testing a theory that speci- fies multiple pathways through which AAPs nega- tively affect the performance outcomes of their in- tended beneficiaries, and also suggests that there are differences in the other- and self-driven mech- anisms that link AAPs to targets’ performance out- comes. A more comprehensive understanding of the unintended consequences of AAPs is useful for developing strategies to prevent the negative effects of AAPs on their intended beneficiaries and thus facilitate social justice in the workplace and in society at large.
REFERENCES5
*Aquino, K., Stewart, M. S., and Reed II, A., . 2005. How social dominance orientation and job status influ- ence perceptions of African-American affirmative action beneficiaries. Personnel Psychology, 58: 703–744.
Aronson, J., Lustina, M. J., Good, C., Keough, K., Steele, C. M., & Brown, J. 1999. When White men can’t do math: Necessary and sufficient factors in stereotype threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35: 29 – 46.
Arthur, W., Jr., Bennett, W., Jr., & Huffcutt, A. I. 2001. Conducting meta-analysis using SAS. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Asch, S. E. 1946. Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 41: 258 –290.
Avery, D. R., McKay, P. F., Wilson, D. C., & Tonidandel, S. 2007. Unequal attendance: The relationships be- tween race, organizational diversity cues, and absen- teeism. Personnel Psychology, 60: 875–902.
Bergsieker, H. B., Leslie, L. M., Constantine, V. S., & Fiske, S. T. 2012. Stereotyping by omission: Elimi- nate the negative, accentuate the positive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102: 1214 – 1238.
Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. 2004. Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. American Economic Review, 94: 991–1013.
Bhaskar-Shrinivas, P., Harrison, D. A., Shaffer, M. A., & Luk, D. M. 2005. Input-based and time-based models of international adjustment: Meta-analytic evidence and theoretical extensions. Academy of Manage- ment Journal, 48: 257–281.
5 An asterisk indicates that the study was included in the meta-analysis.
984 AugustAcademy of Management Journal
Blau, F. D., & Kahn, L. M. 2007. The gender pay gap: Have women gone as far as they can? Academy of Man- agement Perspectives, 21: 7–23.
Bobo, L. D. 2000. Racial attitudes and relations at the close of the twentieth century. In M. J. Smelser, W. J. Wilson & F. Mitchell (Eds.), America becoming: Racial trends and their consequences, vol. 1: 264 – 301. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. 2002. Organizational behav- ior: Affect in the workplace. Annual Review of Psy- chology, 53: 279 –307.
*Brown, R. P., Charnsangavej, T., Keough, K. A., New- man, M. L., & Renfrow, P. J. 2000. Putting the “af- firm” into affirmative action: Preferential selection and academic performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79: 736 –747.
*Brutus, S., & Ryan, A. M. 1998. A new perspective on preferential treatment: The role of ambiguity and self-efficacy. Journal of Business and Psychology, 13: 157–178.
Butts, M. M., Casper, W. J., & Yang, T. S. 2013. How important are work-family support policies? A meta- analytic investigation of their effects on employee outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98: 1–25.
Cadinu, M., Maass, A., Rosabianca, A., & Kiesner, J. 2005. Why do women underperform under stereotype threat? Evidence for the role of negative thinking. Psychological Science, 16: 572–578.
Caprariello, P. A., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Fiske, S. T. 2009. Social structure shapes cultural stereotypes and emotions: A causal test of the stereotype content model. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 12: 147–155.
Cardy, R. L., & Dobbins, G. H. 1986. Affect and appraisal accuracy: Liking as an integral dimension in evalu- ating performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71: 672– 678.
*Chacko, T. I. 1982. Women and equal employment op- portunity: Some unintended effects. Journal of Ap- plied Psychology, 67: 119 –123.
Crocker, J., Major, B., & Steele, C. 1998. Social stigma. In S. Fiske, D. Gilbert & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology, vol. 2: 504 –553. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Crosby, F. J., Iyer, A., & Sincharoen, S. 2006. Understand- ing affirmative action. Annual Review of Psychol- ogy, 57: 585– 611.
Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. 2007. The BIAS map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereo- types. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 92: 631–348.
Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. 2008. Warmth and competence as universal dimensions of social per-
ception: The stereotype content model and the BIAS map. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.). Advances in Experimen- tal Social Psychology, 40: 61–149.
Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Beninger, A. 2011. The dynamics of warmth and competence judgments, and their outcomes in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 31: 73–98.
Dalton, D. R., Aguinis, H., Dalton, C. M., Bosco, F. A., & Pierce, C. A. 2012. Revisiting the file drawer problem in meta-analysis: An assessment of published and non-published correlation matrices. Personnel Psy- chology, 65: 221–245.
Dalton, D. R., Certo, S. T., & Roengpitya, R. 2003. Meta- analyses of financial performance and equity: Fusion or confusion? Academy of Management Journal, 46: 13–26.
*Deitch, E. A., Brief, A. P., Roberson, L., & Block, C. J. 2001. Stereotype threat in the workplace and the well-being of African American professionals. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Washington, D.C.
*DeMatteo, J. S., Dobbins, G. H., Myers, S. D., & Facteau, C. L. 1996. Evaluations of leadership in preferential and merit-based leader selection situations. Leader- ship Quarterly, 7: 41– 62.
Dunning, D., & Sherman, D. A. 1997. Stereotypes and tacit inference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73: 459 – 471.
Ely, R. J., & Thomas, D. A. 2001. Cultural diversity at work: The effects of diversity perspectives on work group processes and outcomes. Administrative Sci- ence Quarterly, 46: 229 –273.
*Evans, D. C. 2003. A comparison of the other-directed stigmatization produced by legal and illegal forms of affirmative action. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 121–130.
Feldman, J. M. 1981. Beyond attribution theory: Cogni- tive processes in performance appraisal. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66: 127–148.
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., & Glick, P. 2007. Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth then com- petence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11: 77– 83.
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., Glick, P., & Xu, J. 2002. A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82: 878 –902.
Gajendran, R. S., & Harrison, D. A. 2007. The good, the bad, and the unknown about telecommuting: Meta- analysis of psychological mediators and individual consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 1524 –1541.
Garcia, L. T., Erskine, N., Hawn, K., & Casmay, S. R. 1981.
2014 985Leslie, Mayer, and Kravitz
The effect of affirmative action on attributions about minority group members. Journal of Personality, 49: 427– 437.
*Gilbert, J. A., & Stead, B. A. 1999. Stigmatization revis- ited: Does diversity management make a difference in applicant success? Group and Organization Management, 24: 239 –256.
Goff, P. A., Steele, C. M., & Davies, P. G. 2008. The space between us: Stereotype threat and distance in inter- racial contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94: 91–107.
Gomez-Mejía, L. R., & Balkin, D. B. 1992. Determinants of faculty pay: An agency theory perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 35: 921–955.
Gross, J. J. 2002. Emotion regulation: Affective, cognitive, and social consequences. Psychophysiology, 39: 281–291.
Gunderson, E. A., Ramirez, G., Levine, S. C., & Beilock, S. L. 2012. The role of parents and teachers in the development of gender-related math attitudes. Sex Roles, 66: 153–166.
Harrison, D. A., Kravitz, D. A., Mayer, D. M., Leslie, L. M., & Lev-Arey, D. 2006. Understanding attitudes toward affirmative action programs in employment: Summary and meta-analysis of 35 years of research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91: 1013–1036.
*Hattrup, K. 1998. The role of self-perception in reac- tions to preferential and merit-based hiring. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28: 225–334.
Heilman, M. E. 1994. Affirmative action: Some unin- tended consequences for working women. Research in Organizational Behavior, 19: 125–169.
*Heilman, M. E., & Alcott, V. B. 2001. What I think you think of me: Women’s reactions to being viewed as beneficiaries of preferential treatment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 574 –582.
*Heilman, M. E., & Blader, S. L. 2001. Assuming prefer- ential selection when the admissions policy is un- known: The effects of gender rarity. Journal of Ap- plied Psychology, 86: 188 –193.
*Heilman, M. E., Battle, W. S., Keller, C. E., & Lee, R. A. 1998. Type of affirmative action policy: A determi- nant of reactions to sex-based preferential selection? Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 190 –205.
*Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., & Lucas, J. A. 1992. Pre- sumed incompetent? Stigmatization and affirmative action efforts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 77: 536 –544.
*Heilman, M. E., Block, C. J., & Stathatos, P. 1997. The affirmative action stigma of incompetence: Effects of performance information ambiguity. Academy of Management Journal, 40: 603– 625.
*Heilman, M. E., Lucas, J. A., & Kaplow, S. R. 1990. Self-derogating consequences of sex-based preferen- tial selection: The moderating role of initial self- confidence. Organizational Behavior and Decision Making Processes, 46: 202–216.
*Heilman, M. E., McCullough, W. F., & Gilbert, D. 1996. The other side of affirmative action: Reactions of nonbeneficiaries to sex-based preferential selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 346 –357.
*Heilman, M. E., Rivero, J. C., & Brett, J. F. 1991. Skirting the competence issue: Effects of sex-based preferen- tial selection on task choices of women and men. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 99 –105.
*Heilman, M. E., Simon, M. C., & Repper, D. P. 1987. Intentionally favored, unintentionally harmed? Im- pact of sex-based preferential selection on self-per- ceptions and self-evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72: 62– 68.
Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. 1988. Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes. London, England: Routledge.
Holzer, H. J., & Neumark, D. 2000. What does affirmative action do? Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 53: 240 –271.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. 1999. Cutoff criteria for fit in- dexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equa- tion Modeling, 6: 1–55.
Huffuctt, A. I., & Arthur, W. 1995. Development of a new outlier statistic for meta-analytic data. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80: 327–334.
Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. 2004. Methods of meta- analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Jacobs, J. E. 1991. Influence of gender stereotypes on parent and child mathematics attitudes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83: 518 –527.
*Jacobson, M. B., & Koch, W. 1977. Women as leaders: Performance evaluation as a function of method of leader selection. Organizational Behavior and Hu- man Performance, 20: 149 –157.
Jain, H. C., Sloane, P. J., & Horwitz, F. M. 2003. Employ- ment equity and affirmative action: An interna- tional comparison. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
James, E. H., Brief, A. P., Dietz, J., & Cohen, R. R. 2001. Prejudice matters: Understanding the reactions of Whites to affirmative action programs targeted to benefit Blacks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 1120 –1128.
Jones, E. E., & Nisbett, R. E. 1972. The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of be- havior. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins & B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribu-
986 AugustAcademy of Management Journal
tion: Perceiving the causes of behavior: 79 –94. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. 2006. Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporate af- firmative action and diversity policies. American Sociological Review, 71: 589 – 617.
Kaplan, S., Bradley, J. C., Luchman, J. N., & Haynes, D. 2009. On the role of positive and negative affectivity in job performance: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 162–172.
Keller, J., & Dauenheimer, D. 2003. Stereotype threat in the classroom: Dejection mediates the disrupting threat effect on women’s math performance. Person- ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29: 371–381.
Kelley, H. H. 1972. Attribution in social interaction. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins & B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
Kelly, E., & Dobbin, F. 1998. How affirmative action became diversity management: Employer response to antidiscrimination law, 1961–1996. American Behavioral Scientist, 41: 960 –984.
Konrad, A. M., & Linnehan, F. 1995. Formalized HRM structures: Coordinating equal employment opportu- nity or concealing organizational practices. Acad- emy of Management Journal, 38: 787– 820.
Kovach, K. A., Kravitz, D. A., & Hughes, A. A. 2004. Affirmative action: How can we be so lost when we don’t even know where we are going? Labor Law Journal, 55: 53– 61.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33: 159 –174.
Leonard, J. S. 1984. The impact of affirmative action on employment. Journal of Labor Economics, 2: 439 – 463.
Leslie, L. M., & Gelfand, M. J. 2008. The who and when of internal gender discrimination claims: An interac- tional model. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 107: 123–140.
Leslie, L. M., King, E. B., Bradley, J. C., & Hebl, M. R. 2008. Triangulation across methodologies: All signs point to persistent stereotyping and discrimination in organizations. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1: 399 – 404.
Leslie, L. M., Manchester, C. F., & Dahm, P. C. 2013. Ironic effects of flexible work practices on parents’ career success. Academy of Management Proceed- ings.
Leslie, L. M., Manchester, C. F., Park, T.-Y., & Mehng, S. A. 2012. Flexible work practices: A source of
career premiums or penalties? Academy of Manage- ment Journal, 55: 1407–1428.
Leslie, L. M., Snyder, M., & Glomb, T. M. 2013. Who gives? Multilevel effects of gender and ethnicity on workplace charitable giving. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98: 49 – 62.
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. 2001. Practical meta- analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Lynch, F. R. 1992. Invisible victims: White males and the crisis of affirmative action. New York, NY: Praeger.
*Maio, G. R., & Esses, V. M. 1998. The social conse- quences of affirmative action: Deleterious effects on perceptions of groups. Personality and Social Psy- chology Bulletin, 24: 65–74.
Major, B., & O’Brien, L. T. 2005. The social psychology of stigma. Annual Review of Psychology, 56: 393– 421.
Malle, B. G., & Knobe, J. 1997. Which behaviors do peo- ple explain? A basic actor-observer asymmetry. Jour- nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72: 288 – 304.
Manchester, C. F., Leslie, L. M., & Kramer, A. 2010. Stop the clock policies and career success in academia. American Economic Review, 100: 219 –223.
Manchester, C. F., Leslie, L. M., & Kramer, A. 2013. Is the clock still ticking? An evaluation of the conse- quences of stopping the tenure clock. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 66: 2–32.
*McGlashan, K. E., Wright, P. M., & McCormick, B. 1995. Preferential selection and stereotypes: Effects on evaluation of female leader performance, subordi- nate goal commitment, and task performance. Sex Roles, 33: 669 – 686.
Miller, D. T., & Ross, M. 1975. Self-serving biases in the attribution of causality: Fact or fiction? Psychologi- cal Bulletin, 82: 213–225.
*Moros, A. 2004. The effect of preferential selection on beneficiaries’ self-evaluations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Chicago, IL.
Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R. F. 2000. Self-regulation and depletion of limited resources: Does self-control resemble a muscle? Psychological Bulletin, 126: 247–259.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. 2007. Mplus user’s guide (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
*Nacoste, R. W. 1985. Selection procedure and responses to affirmative action: The case of favorable treat- ment. Law and Human Behavior, 9: 225–242.
*Nacoste, R. W., & Lehman, D. 1987. Procedural stigma. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 17: 25–38.
2014 987Leslie, Mayer, and Kravitz
*Niemann, Y. F., & Dovidio, J. F. 2005. Affirmative action and job satisfaction: Understanding underlying pro- cesses. Journal of Social Issues, 61: 507–523.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. 1977. The halo effect: Evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 10: 385–397.
Orwin, R. G. 1983. A fail-safe N for effect size in meta- analysis. Journal of Educational Statistics, 8: 157– 159.
Osborne, J. W. 2001. Testing stereotype threat: Does anx- iety explain race and sex differences in achieve- ment? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26: 291–310.
Paetzold, R. L., Dipboye, R. L., & Elsbach, K. D. 2008. A new look at stigmatization in and of organizations. Academy of Management Review, 33: 186 –183.
Parsons, J. E., Adler, T. F., & Kaczala, C. M. 1982. Social- ization of achievement attitudes and beliefs: Parental influences. Child Development, 53: 310 –321.
Phinney, J. S. 1996. When we talk about American ethnic groups, what do we mean? American Psychologist, 51: 918 –927.
Plaut, V. C., Garnett, F. G., Buffardi, L., & Sanchez-Burks, J. 2011. “What about me?” Perceptions of exclusion and Whites. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- chology, 101: 337–353.
Plaut, V. C., Thomas, K. M., & Goren, M. J. 2009. Is multiculturalism or color blindness better for minor- ities? Psychological Science, 20: 444 – 446.
Pronin, E., Lin, D. Y., & Ross, L. D. 2002. The bias blind spot: Perceptions of bias in self versus others. Per- sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28: 36 – 381.
*Resendez, M. G. 2002. The stigmatizing effects of affir- mative action: An examination of moderating vari- ables. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32: 185–206.
Roberson, L., & Kulik, C. T. 2007. Stereotype threat at work. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21: 24 – 40.
Rosenthal, R. 1979. The file drawer problem and toler- ance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86: 638 – 641.
Schmader, T., & Johns, M. 2003. Converging evidence that stereotype threat reduces working memory ca- pacity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 85: 440 – 452.
Schmader, T., Johns, M., & Forbes, C. 2008. An integrated process model of stereotype threat effects on perfor- mance. Psychological Review, 115: 336 –356.
*Seijts, G. H., & Jackson, S. E. 2001. Reactions to employ-
ment equity programs and situational interviews: A laboratory study. Human Performance, 14: 247– 265.
Shadish, W. R. 1996. Meta-analysis and the exploration of causal mediating processes: A primer of examples, methods, and issues. Psychological Methods, 1: 47– 65.
Shapiro, J. R., & Neuberg, S. L. 2007. From stereotype threat to stereotype threats: Implications of a multi- threat framework for causes, moderators, mediators, consequences, and interventions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11: 107–130.
Shteynberg, G., Leslie, L. M., Knight, A. P., & Mayer, D. M. 2011. But affirmative action hurts us! Race- related beliefs shape perceptions of White disadvan- tage and policy unfairness. Organizational Behav- ior and Human Decision Processes, 115: 1–12.
Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M., & Quinn, D. M. 1999. Ste- reotype threat and women’s math performance. Jour- nal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35: 4 –28.
*Stanush, P., Arthur, W., & Doverspike, D. 1998. His- panic and African American reactions to a simulated race-based affirmative action scenario. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 20: 3–16.
Steele, C. M. 1990. The content of our character: A new vision of race in America. New York, NY: St Mar- tin’s.
Steele, C. M. 1997. A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. Amer- ican Psychologist, 52: 613– 629.
Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. 1995. Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Ameri- cans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 85: 797– 811.
Steele, C. M., Spencer, S. J., & Aronson, J. 2002. Contend- ing with group image: The psychology of stereotype and social identity threat. Advances in Experimen- tal Social Psychology, 34: 379 – 440.
*Summers, R. J. 1991. The influence of affirmative action on perceptions of a beneficiary’s qualifications. Jour- nal of Applied Social Psychology, 21: 1265–1276.
*Taylor, M. C. 1994. Impact of affirmative action on beneficiary groups: Evidence from the 1990 general social survey. Basic and Applied Social Psychol- ogy, 15: 143–178.
*Traver, H. A., & Alliger, G. M. 1999. Evaluations and attributions of beneficiaries and nonbeneficiaries of affirmative action in mental and physical tasks. Poster presented at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology annual Conference, At- lanta, GA.
*Turner, M. E., & Pratkanis, A. R. 1993. Effects of prefer- ential and meritorious selection on performance: An
988 AugustAcademy of Management Journal
examination of intuitive and self-handicapping per- spectives. Personality and Social Psychology Bul- letin, 19: 47–58.
*Unzueta, M. M., Gutiérrez, A. S., & Ghavami, N. 2010. How believing in affirmative action quotas affects White women’s self-image. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46: 120 –126.
*Unzueta, M. M., Lowery, B. S., & Knowles, E. D. 2008. How believing in affirmative action quotas protects White men’s self-esteem. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 105: 1–13.
*Van Laar, C., Levin, S., & Sinclair, S. 2008. Social iden- tity and personal identity stereotype threat: The case of affirmative action. Basic and Applied Social Psy- chology, 30: 295–310.
Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. 1995. Theory testing: Combining psychometric meta-analysis and struc- tural equations modeling. Personnel Psychology, 48: 865– 886.
Wojciszke, B., Bazinska, R., & Jaworski, M. 1998. On the dominance of moral categories in impression forma- tion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24: 1245–1257.
Yang, C., D’Souza, G., Bapat, A., & Colarelli, S. M. 2006. A cross-national analysis of affirmative action: An evolutionary psychological perspective. Managerial and Decision Economics, 27: 203–216.
Yerkes, R. M., & Dodson, J. D. 1908. The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-formation.
Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychol- ogy, 18: 459 – 482.
Lisa M. Leslie ([email protected]) is an associate pro- fessor in the Management and Organizations Department at the Stern School of Business, New York University. She received her Ph.D. in organizational psychology from the University of Maryland. Her research focuses on diversity in organizations, cross-cultural organizational behavior, and conflict management.
David M. Mayer ([email protected]) is an associate professor in the Management and Organizations Area at the Ross School of Business, University of Michigan. He received his PhD from the University of Maryland. His interests include social and ethical issues in organiza- tions and his research focuses on behavioral ethics, or- ganizational justice, and workplace diversity.
David A. Kravitz ([email protected]) is a professor in the Management Area at the School of Management, George Mason University. He received his PhD in social psychology from the University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign. His research focuses on affirmative action and diversity in organizations. He is particularly inter- ested in closing the gap between diversity researchers and practitioners.
2014 989Leslie, Mayer, and Kravitz
Copyright of Academy of Management Journal is the property of Academy of Management and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
