The help that hinders? A meta‐analysis of reactions to affirmative action

Abstract

AbstractMany organizations use affirmative action to increase diversity in their workforce. Although these programmes are well intentioned, previous research suggests there may be negative consequences that undermine or reduce their benefits. This three‐level meta‐analysis investigates responses to affirmative action by integrating 437 effect sizes from 78 studies. The results show that affirmative action elicits small to moderate negative effects. These negative reactions are moderated by three key factors: (1) the age of the study, with negative effects diminished in more recent studies; (2) the strength of affirmative action, with policies that provide more preferential treatment to their recipients regarded more negatively and (3) the outcome being measured, with judgments regarding fairness showing the largest negative effects. Notably, behavioural and intrapersonal outcomes, as well as tiebreak affirmative‐action policies, do not appear to result in negative reactions. Although beneficiary status did not moderate the effect, subgroup analyses suggest that responses of non‐beneficiaries were more unfavourable than those of beneficiaries. Analysis of possible publication bias and study quality suggest acceptable evidentiary value of the overall effect. Finally, the meta‐analysis identifies important gaps that need to be addressed in future research to inform and optimize diversity, equity and inclusion policies and practices.