Leanne S. Son Hing

Justice-based opposition to social policies : Is it genuine ?

Three studies examined whether the concern for justice can be a genuine determinant of attitudes toward affirmative action (AA) or whether justice-based opposition merely masks prejudice. In line with the hypothesis of justice as a cause, we found that, independent of their level of prejudice, people were opposed to AA programs that violate distributive and procedural justice norms, as a result of genuine beliefs in the principles of fairness that the programs violate. Nevertheless, in line with the hypothesis of justice as a rationalization, we also found that peoples prejudice level was positively associated with opposition to AA programs that were not explicitly justice violating; moreover, the effect of prejudice was mediated through the tendency to construe these programs as justice violating. The present research has implications for understanding attitudes toward social policies where it is possible that justice concerns could be a genuine source of opposition or a rationalization of prejudice.

Inequality and Risk-Taking

Inequality has been associated with risk-taking at the societal level. However, this relationship has not been directly investigated at the individual level. Risk-sensitivity theory predicts that decision makers should increase risk-taking in situations of disparity between one’s present state and desired state. Economic inequality creates such a disparity. In two experiments, we examined whether imposed economic inequality affects risk-taking. In Experiment 1, we examined whether victims of inequality engaged in greater risk-taking compared to beneficiaries of inequality and those not experiencing inequality. In Experiment 2, we examined whether ameliorating inequality for victims reduced risk-taking. In both experiments, victims of inequality engaged in greater risk-taking compared to beneficiaries of inequality and those not experiencing inequality. Among victims, amelioration of inequality contributed to decreased risk-taking. These findings provide further evidence in support of risk-sensitivity theory and suggest that reductions in economic inequality may lead to lower risk-taking.

RESPONSES TO STIGMATIZATION The Moderating Roles of Primary and Secondary Appraisals 1

The more that devalued group members experience stigmatization, the worse their physical and mental health, well-being, and performance will be. However, the effects of stigmatization are often mixed, weak, and conditional. We should expect such variability in how devalued group members respond to stigmatization because resilience in the face of challenges is possible, depending on how stressful stigmatization is for people. Using the transactional model of stress (Lazarus and Folkman, 1984 ) as an organizing framework, I provide evidence that people will have different reactions to stigmatization depending on primary appraisals —that is, how harmful and self-relevant they appraise it to be—and on secondary appraisals —that is, whether or not they believe that they have the resources to cope with it. My review of the literature suggests that a stronger ingroup identification, stronger identification with a negatively stereotyped domain, chronic beliefs about stigmatization, and beliefs about meritocracy create vulnerabilities to stigmatization because they lead people to appraise stigmatization as more harmful and self-relevant. Furthermore, psychological optimism, a sense of control, self-esteem, as well as high socioeconomic status, a stronger identification with ones ingroup, and positive evaluations of the ingroup create resilience to discrimination because they allow people to perceive themselves as having the resources needed to cope with stigmatization. In conclusion, people will respond to the same potential stressor in different ways, depending on how self-relevant and harmful they perceive it to be and whether or not they perceive themselves as having the resources to cope. Thus, attention should be directed to developing families, communities, institutions, and societies that can provide people with the resources that they need to be resilient.

The Justice Motive in Everyday Life: Policies to Redress Social Injustice: Is the Concern for Justice a Cause Both of Support and of Opposition?

CAMILLA M. HOLMVALL, AND MARK P. ZANNA tice. In a second line of research, we have examined whether objections rooted in the concern for justice can be mitigated by situational variables; from a justice perspective, we have focused on the role of situational variables that highlight unfairness in the status quo in particular, the violation of meritocracy in the distribution of outcomes. The principal argument we hope to make in the present chapter is this: By truly appreciating the idea that justice matters to people, researchers can better understand why people sometimes oppose certain social policies designed to redress injustice; on the basis of that knowledge, they can then elucidate conditions under which peoples reactions will be less polarized. From a methodological perspective, Lerner advocated the importance of studying justice issues within situations that are highly psychologically involving, in order to allow researchers to uncover the complexities of the justice motive. As we will describe in the next sections, we have followed Lerners tradition in the design of our research, as well as in our theoretical analysis. The chapter is divided into three main sections. In the first section, we describe an initial series of studies in which we set the stage by asking whether the concern for justice can be a genuine cause of opposition to social policies. In the second section, we describe a more recent line of research examining whether justice-based opposition can be mitigated. In particular, we describe two sets of studies using different research paradigms that converge on the idea that opposition may be reduced when people perceive a violation of meritocracy in the status quo. In the third section, we summarize and highlight the central implications of the research program. 12. Policies to Redress Social Injustice: Is the Concern for Justice a Cause Both of Support and of Opposition?

Gender inequalities in the workplace: the effects of organizational structures, processes, practices, and decision makers’ sexism

Gender inequality in organizations is a complex phenomenon that can be seen in organizational structures, processes, and practices. For women, some of the most harmful gender inequalities are enacted within human resources (HRs) practices. This is because HR practices (i.e., policies, decision-making, and their enactment) affect the hiring, training, pay, and promotion of women. We propose a model of gender discrimination in HR that emphasizes the reciprocal nature of gender inequalities within organizations. We suggest that gender discrimination in HR-related decision-making and in the enactment of HR practices stems from gender inequalities in broader organizational structures, processes, and practices. This includes leadership, structure, strategy, culture, organizational climate, as well as HR policies. In addition, organizational decision makers’ levels of sexism can affect their likelihood of making gender biased HR-related decisions and/or behaving in a sexist manner while enacting HR practices. Importantly, institutional discrimination in organizational structures, processes, and practices play a pre-eminent role because not only do they affect HR practices, they also provide a socializing context for organizational decision makers’ levels of hostile and benevolent sexism. Although we portray gender inequality as a self-reinforcing system that can perpetuate discrimination, important levers for reducing discrimination are identified.