How affirmative action can pass consitutional and social psychological muster

Journal of Social Issues

Volumn 52, Issue 4, 1996, Pages 133-144

  Nacoste, Rupert W ^a,b  

^a NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b SPSSI Council

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0001104576     PISSN: 00224537     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1996.tb01854.x     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Federico Pena, Secretary of Transportation, et al, 115 S. Ct. 515 (1995).
2. Brooks, R. L. (1990). Rethinking the American race problem. Berkeley: University of California Press.
3. City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co., 109 S. Ct. 706 (1989).
4. Fiscus, R. (1992). The constitutional logic of affirmative action. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
5. Heilman, M. (1994). Affirmative Action: Some unintended consequences for working women. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 125-169). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc.
6. Cheryl Hopwood, et al. v. University of Texas, et al, 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, #94-50569 (1995).
7. Kravitz, D. A. (1995). Attitudes toward affirmative action plans directed at Blacks: Effects of plan and individual differences. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 2192-2220.
8. Kravitz, D. A., & Platania, J. (1993). Attitudes and beliefs about affirmative action: Effects of target and of respondent sex and ethnicity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 928-938.
9. Nacoste, R. W. (1985). Selection procedures and responses to affirmative action: The case of favorable treatment. Law and Human Behavior, 9, 225-242.
10. Nacoste, R. W. (1987a). But do they care about fairness: The dynamics of preferential treatment and minority interest. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 8, 177-185.
11. Nacoste, R. W. (1987b). Affirmative action in American politics: Strength or weakness. Political Behavior, 9, 291-304.
12. Nacoste, R. W. (1990). Sources of stigma: Analyzing the psychology of affirmative action. Law and Policy, 12, 175-195.
13. Nacoste, R. W. (1992). Toward a psychological ecology of affirmative action. Social Justice Research, 5, 51-71.
14. Nacoste, R. W. (1993). Procedural justice and preferential treatment: A brief review and comment. Current Psychology: Research & Reviews, 12, 230-235.
15. Nacoste, R. W. (1994a). If empowerment is the goal . . .: Affirmative action and social interaction. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15, 87-112.
16. Nacoste, R. W. (1994b). Policy schemas for affirmative action. In L. Heath, R. Scott Tindale, J. Edwards, E. J. Posavac, F. B. Bryant, E. Henderson-King, Y. Suarez-Balcazar & J. Myers (Eds.), Applications of heuristics and biases to social issues (pp. 205-221). New York: Plenum Press.
17. Nacoste, R. W., & Hummels, B. (1994). Affirmative action and the behavior of decisionmakers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 595-613.
18. Nacoste, R. W., & Lehman, D. R. (1987). Procedural stigma. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 17, 25-38.
19. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, No. 76-811, slip op. (Supreme Court June 28, 1978).
20. Shaver, P. (1977). Principles of social psychology. New York:
21. Thomas, C. (1987). Affirmative action goals and timetables: Too tough? Not tough enough! Yale Law and Policy Review, 5, 402-411.