319–35. equality diversity and inclusion at work
Ai rmative action attitudes
253 variables and with beliefs about targets, actions, and economic ef ects’, Journal
of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 1109–36.
Kuklinski, J.H., Sniderman, P.M., Knight, K., Piazza, T., Tetlock, P.E., Lawrence, G.R. and Mellers, B. 1997, ‘Racial prejudice and attitudes toward ai rmative
action’, American Journal of Political Science, 41, 402–19.
Lowery, B.S., Unzueta, M.M., Knowles, E.D. and Gof , P.A. 2006, ‘Concern for the ingroup and opposition to ai rmative action’, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 90, 961–74.
Murrell, A.J., Dietz-Uhler, B.L., Dovidio, J.F., Gaertner, S.L. and Drout, C. 1994, ‘Aversive racism and resistance to ai rmative action: perceptions of
justice are not necessarily color blind’, Basic and Applied Social Psychology,
151 2, 71–86.
Nosworthy, G.J., Lea, J.A. and Lindsay, R.C.L. 1995, ‘Opposition to ai rma- tive action: racial af ect and traditional value predictors across four programs’,
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 314–37.
Pace, J.M. and Smith, Z. 1995, ‘Understanding ai rmative action: from the prac-
titioner’s perspective’, Public Personnel Management, 24, 139–47.
Reyna, C., Tucker, A., Korfmacher, W. and Henry, P.J. 2005, ‘Searching for common ground between supporters and opponents of ai rmative action’,
Political Psychology, 26, 667–82.
Sidanius, J., Pratto, F. and Bobo, L. 1996, ‘Racism, conservatism, ai rmative action, and intellectual sophistication: a matter of principled conservatism or
group dominance?’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 476–90.
Smith, E.R. and Kluegel, J.R. 1984, ‘Beliefs and attitudes about women’s oppor- tunity: comparisons with beliefs about Blacks and a general perspective’, Social
Psychology Quarterly, 47, 81–94.
Sniderman, P.M., Piazza, T., Tetlock, P.E. and Kendrick, A. 1991, ‘The new
racism’, American Journal of Political Science, 35, 423–47.
Steeh, C. and Krysan, M. 1996, ‘Ai rmative action and the public: 1970–1995’,
Public Opinion Quarterly, 60, 128–58.
Stoker, L. 1998, ‘Understanding Whites’ resistance to ai rmative action: the role of principled commitments and racial prejudice’, in J. Hurwitz and M. Peffl ey
eds, Perception and Prejudice: Race and Politics in the United States, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, pp. 135–70.
Stout, K.D. and Buf um, W.E. 1993, ‘The commitment of social workers to
ai rmative action’, Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 20, 123–35.
Strolovitch, D.Z. 1998, ‘Playing favorites: public attitudes toward race- and
gender-targeted anti-discrimination policy’, NWSA Journal, 103, 27–53.
254
19. Headcounts and equal opportunity: people accounting
in the workplace
Stephen M. Garcia, Mitchell J. Meyle and Eric A. Provins
INTRODUCTION
CEOs, executives, directors, and managers routinely decide the outcomes of highly competitive events, whether making the i nal call on a hiring
decision or selecting one star employee among many to be the coveted ‘employee of the year’. In this latter case, for example, imagine that the
two top candidates are Ms. Jones – a marketing analyst – and Ms. Smith – a i nancial analyst. Assuming they both are highly qualii ed, both can-
didates would have a 5050 chance, so to speak, of earning the title of ‘employee of the year’. However, imagine further that in four of the past
i ve years, the award has always gone to someone in marketing. In this case, we posit that the award-winning chances would precipitously fall
for the marketing candidate and precipitously increase for the i nance candidate.
While ai rmative action policies Zurif , 2004; Crosby et al., 2006 have arguably changed the way we allocate awards and opportunities on the
basis of gender or race, ai rmative action policies obviously make no special provisions for employees from ‘marketing’ versus ‘i nance’. In this
chapter, however, we extend the implications of a social psychological theory called ‘people accounting’ Garcia and Ybarra, 2007 to human
resource management to demonstrate how headcounts along a wide range of mundane social category lines have the potential to af ect how we allo-
cate rewards and opportunities in the workplace.
Headcounts and equal opportunity 255
WHY EVEN MUNDANE SOCIAL CATEGORIES MATTER
The social categorization literature Turner et al., 1987; McGarty, 1999 has established that people attach emotional value to their social cat-
egory memberships Abrams and Hogg, 1988, 1999. In fact, more recent research suggests that it is especially dii cult for groups from dif erent
social categories, say an ‘American’ company versus a ‘French’ company, to maximize joint gains Garcia et al., 2005. For instance, Americans
would rather have less-lucrative equal outcomes for example, 500 – Americans 500 – French than more-lucrative but disadvantageously
unequal outcomes where the French earn more from a joint venture than themselves for example, 600 – Americans 800 – French. On the other
hand, if both companies were from the same social category that is, Americans, then people would be willing to maximize joint gains, even
if it means they will proi t less than the other company. Thus, the impli- cation is that group members will experience a greater pain of upward
social comparison when they are getting paid less than another group in inter-category situations that is, Americans versus French than in intra-
category situations that is, Americans versus Americans.
While actual group members become sensitive to inequalities in inter- category situations, third parties also become more sensitive to inequali-
ties in inter-category situations than intra-category ones Beggan et al., 1991; Garcia and Miller, 2007. Although third parties do not experience
the same pain of upward social comparison as actual group members do, Garcia and Miller show that third parties can certainly recognize
an af ective disparity – the ‘hedonic gap’ – that would arise between the winning and losing sides of an inter-category situation. Garcia and Miller
hypothesize that third parties will consequently become more averse to using winner-take-all solutions to resolve inter-category disputes than
intra-category ones, even when such winner-take-all outcomes are created by the fair toss of a coin see Elster, 1989, 1992; Blount, 1995; Bolton et
al., 2005.
To illustrate this point, Garcia and Miller conducted a series of decision- making studies about whether or not to resolve conl ict with winner-take-all
solutions. In one particular study, University of Michigan undergraduates were asked to read one of two conl ict situations. Participants in the intra-
category condition read the following:
The Class of 1994 is deciding where to host their class reunion. Six hundred alumni were asked to rank a list of seven possible hotels. As you can see below,
the alumni are divided on their i rst choice: half the alumni want the Marriott