Altering Public University Admission Standards To Preserve White Group Position in United States Result From A Laboratory Experiment

Altering Public University Admission Standards to Preserve White Group Position in the
United States: Results from a Laboratory Experiment

Author(s): Frank L. Samson
Source: Comparative Education Review, Vol. 57, No. 3, Special Issue on Fair Access to Higher
Education (August 2013), pp. 369-396
Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the Comparative and International
Education Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/670664 .

Accessed: 12/08/2014 16:15
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The University of Chicago Press and Comparative and International Education Society are collaborating with
JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Comparative Education Review.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 136.145.182.24 on Tue, 12 Aug 2014 16:15:28 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Altering Public University Admission Standards

to Preserve White Group Position in the United States:
Results from a Laboratory Experiment
FRANK L. SAMSON
This study identifies a theoretical mechanism that could potentially affect public university admissions standards in a context of demographic change. I explore how demographic changes at a prestigious public university in the United States affect individuals evaluations of college applications. Responding to a line graph that randomly
displays a freshmen enrollment trend toward a white plurality or an Asian American
plurality, white student evaluators lower their minimum class rank standard for admitting
white applicants when exposed to an Asian American plurality trend. They also raise
the minimum test percentile standard for admitting Asian American applicants. Notably,
plurality trend does not affect Asian American student evaluators minimum standards
for recommending admission. Applications differed only by applicant race.
The declining proportion of whites in the United States population represents a possible sea change in the future meaning of diversity for higher
education administrators and staff. The US Census Bureau projects that in
2042, the country will become one in which current minority groups will
constitute the majority of the population. More recent demographic projections from the 2010 Census suggest that this shift may likely arrive well
before 2040 (Frey 2011b). William H. Frey (2011a) proposes that, among
infants, the United States has already passed the demographic tipping point,
with over half of infants under the age of 1 hailing from a nonwhite ethnoracial group. As this nonwhite infant population ages, the school-aged
I thank Lawrence D. Bobo, Hazel Markus, Alicia Simmons, Mary Murphy, MarYam Hamedani, and
members of the Stanford Sociology Departments Workshop on Social Psychology, especially Karen Cook
and Cecilia Ridgeway, for their feedback and support. I would particularly like to thank Amber Davis,
Alexandra Harwin, Whitney Martin, Trista Shi, and Roselyn Thomas, for their assistance with the data
collection. Finally, I thank the editors of Comparative Education Review and three anonymous reviewers
for their constructive criticism. This study was funded by a Graduate Dissertation Fellowship from
Stanford Universitys Research Institute for Comparative Studies in Race and Ethnicity, a Ford Foundation Diversity Dissertation Fellowship, and a Public Policy Institute of California Dissertation Fellowship
during various stages of the research. Data collection was funded by a National Science Foundation
Dissertation Improvement Grant (grant no. SES-0802645) and a grant from the Stanford University
Sociology Research Opportunity Fund. All errors are my own.
Received December 1, 2011; revised June 24, 2012; accepted October 9, 2012; electronically published May 13, 2013
Comparative Education Review, vol. 57, no. 3.
2013 by the Comparative and International Education Society. All rights reserved.
0010-4086/2013/5703-0003$10.00
Comparative Education Review

369
SAMSON
population will soon reflect this demographic shift. White residents are already a minority in four states: California, Texas, New Mexico, and Hawaii.
In the midst of such demographic flux, might a drop in group position affect
how whites (as the dominant group) evaluate applicants in a meritocratic
contest over scarce and desired educational opportunities?
The current Asian American student plurality at the University of California system,1 the top tier of public higher education in the state, provides
a nascent social context epitomizing a drop in group position among whites,
as the rise in Asian American enrollments over the past decade came largely
at the cost of white student enrollments. Group position theory, a framework
tested primarily with probability sample survey data (Bobo 1983, 1999; Bobo
and Tuan 2006; Charles 2006), posits a course of action among those who
occupy the dominant group position: they will adopt attitudes and behaviors
that allow them to preserve as much advantage and privilege for themselves
as they can within an institution where fairness and meritocracy are valued.
This article tests whether such a response can be detected in an applicantevaluations study using a controlled laboratory experiment.
This whiteAsian American group dynamic presents two puzzles for the
long-standing study of double standards in evaluations. Prior research has
largely focused on disparities in standards among groups possessing different
stereotypical attributes that can be ranked hierarchically (Biernat et al. 1991,
2003; Biernat and Manis 1994; Biernat and Kobrynowicz 1997). Such studies
typically compared the historically dominant group (i.e., whites) with a subordinate group (i.e., blacks). The first puzzle then is that unlike previous
studies on shifting standards of evaluation, both whites and Asian Americans
can be perceived to possess comparably high academic competence or ability.
Some studies have even ceded higher perceived competence to Asian Americans rather than whites (Wong et al. 1998; Fiske et al. 2002), making Asian
Americans prime competitors to whites. This leads to the second puzzle:
Does racial group positioning still matter in a nation increasingly viewed as
postracial? The real world phenomenon of competing interests in prestigious university enrollments between whites and Asian Americans allows the
use of credible cues signifying a change in group position. The present study
addresses these two puzzles using laboratory experiments that have previously
identified the effects of making group identifiers such as race or gender
salient.2
1
While the term majority is a more widely understood concept, we use the term plurality here
rather than majority to indicate a demographic context in which a group has become the most numerous
or predominant group among three or more groups, but without its percentage having surpassed 50
percent. This studys use of the term plurality is consistent with its use in popular media, e.g., Asian
plurality (Chandler 2008). Also the majority/plurality distinction is implied, though not defined, in
some scholarly studies (e.g., Blacks or Hispanics have become the population majority, or at least
plurality [McClain and Karnig 1990, 539]).
2
Biernat et al. (1991, 2003); Biernat and Manis (1994); Biernat and Kobrynowicz (1997); Biernat
and Fuegen (2001).
370
August 2013

PUBLIC UNIVERSITY ADMISSIONS AND GROUP POSITION
This studys basic aim is to determine whether a change in group position

causes individuals to employ altered standards when evaluating applicants to
an organization (a prestigious public university) where whites no longer
constitute the plurality. It is not designed to serve as a targeted exploration
of potential biases among highly trained, skilled college admissions counselors. Instead, the public university setting simply adds plausibility to the
group position cue by reflecting the actual phenomenon of Asian American
enrollments overtaking white enrollments on some prestigious college campuses. The research design consists of a 2 (white or Asian American applicant)
# 2 (white plurality or Asian American plurality) # 2 (white evaluator or
Asian evaluator) laboratory-based experiment using 128 students at a highly
selective university who are tasked with evaluating a college application. Results indicate that in an Asian American plurality context compared to a
white plurality context, white evaluators expect a lower minimum class rank
to admit a white applicant and expect a higher minimum percentile test
score to admit an Asian American applicant. Based upon a between-subjects
experimental design, the college applications are identical except for race
of applicant.
Literature Review
The University of Californias current demographic composition, where

white students are losing an increasing share of prestigious university enrollments, is not without historical precedent. The early twentieth century bore
witness to substantial changes in admissions criteria as a reaction by white elites
to Jewish encroachment (Karabel 1984, 2005; Wang 1988). Jerome Karabel
traces the developments and changes in such criteria at Harvard, Yale, and
Princeton throughout the twentieth century and documents how the Jewish
challenge to white Anglo Saxon, Protestant elite dominance influenced university admissions procedures. According to Karabel, the various changes in
admissions criteria in the early twentieth century included a deemphasis on
intellectual factors, on which Jews were perceived to excel, and the introduction
of geographic considerations given the concentration of Jews in urban areas,
whereas white Protestants were more widely dispersed residentially (see also
Dershowitz and Hanft 1979).
Herbert Blumers group position theory (Blumer 1958), because of its
preoccupation with group competition, provides a readily available sociological
account for how whites might react in this emergent demographic scenario
(Bobo 1999). Research in the group position tradition has found that under
conditions of zero-sum competition where the dominant group is losing a
substantial share of scarce and valuable resources to a subordinate group,
members of the dominant group are likely to react to preserve their groups
interest (Bobo 1983, 1999; Bobo and Tuan 2006; Charles 2006). Having largely
inspired studies using probability sample survey analysis (Quillian 2005, 2006)

371
SAMSON
and some sociohistorical research (Almaguer 1994), the group position paradigm has not involved any laboratory-based experiments exploring double
standards in application or resume evaluations.
Utilizing a resume evaluation experiment that has revealed a number of
outcome and standards disparities between ethno-racial groups (Pager 2003;
Bertrand and Mullainathan 2004; Correll et al. 2007), the present study draws
historically from Karabel and conceptually from Blumers group position
theory to test whether a change in group position would result in a change
of actual standards of evaluation by which a members of a group are evaluated.
The central hypotheses are these:
H1A:
When whites as the dominant group are primed with Asian American plurality, they will lower the standard of evaluation by which whites are judged,
and
H1B:
raise the standard of evaluation by which Asian Americans are judged.
H2A:
When whites as the dominant group are primed with Asian American plurality, they will increase the number of positive outcome recommendations
for whites, and
H2B:
decrease the number of positive outcome recommendations for Asian Americans.
Additional Explanations for Group-Based Double Standards in Evaluation
Other social psychologists have identified various mechanisms that result

in double standards of evaluation. First, the shifting standards model draws
upon group stereotypes as the bases for which minimum standards of competence are determined (Biernat et al. 1991, 2003; Biernat and Manis 1994;
Biernat and Kobrynowicz 1997). The model proposes that individuals are
evaluated within the bounds of group-specific distributions of minimum stereotypical competence; a double standard arises when the group distributions
of competence pertaining to particular groups do not overlap precisely. Second, studies on evaluation bias (Hodson et al. 2002; Norton et al. 2004) and
the construction of merit criteria (Uhlmann and Cohen 2005) also bear a
close resemblance to the present study. Unlike the whites and Asian Americans in the latter, Gordon Hodson et al. (2002), Michael Norton et al. (2004),
and Eric Uhlmann and Geoffrey Cohen (2005) draw on groups with clearly
differentiated group stereotyped competencies between the dominant group
and the subordinate group: whites and blacks in the first two studies, men
and women in the third. However, while whites remain the dominant group
in the United States and in virtually all of its higher educational institutions,
group stereotypes in the domain of academic proficiency give a slight stereotypical edge to a subordinate group, Asian Americans, in terms of tested
academic achievement (Goyette and Xie 1999) and math proficiency (Aronson et al. 1999), a stereotype supported by empirical data (Bunzel and Au
372
August 2013

1987; Espenshade and Radford 2009), which may mask academic performance differences between Asian American subgroups.3 Additionally, the
present studys university admissions evaluation task involves nonwhite applicants (Asian Americans) who are typically not among the target population
for higher education affirmative action policies and therefore unlikely to
expose evaluators to affirmative actionrelated pressures (Norton et al. 2004).
Finally, none of the aforementioned studies randomly assign participants to
different social (demographic) contexts under which the application evaluation is being conducted, the difference being whether the dominant group
retains or has lost its plurality share of scarce and desired opportunities.
Laboratory Experiment
To test these hypotheses, I draw upon data collected from students in

20089 in a controlled laboratory setting at a highly selective university. This
study site is not a part of the University of California system, the university
system hinted at in the cover story where Asian American undergraduates
have actually surpassed the number of white undergraduates to become the
plurality. Upon entering the laboratory space, participants were seated in
front of a computer terminal, where a researcher proceeded to read a cover
story. Because the study deals with topics such as racial inequality, the study
uses deception in the cover story to minimize social desirability pressures.
Cover Story
Participants are told that a prestigious taxpayer-funded public university

system is considering whether to incorporate student input into the university
admissions process. Furthermore, they are informed that to avoid conflict
with the public universitys labor union, the state university system has contracted with an independent university (the study sites research center) to
administer the study. Participants are asked to play the part of an admissions
officer, review an admissions application from a past admissions class, and
provide an evaluation of the applicant based solely on her or his academic
achievement. A separate evaluator would be responsible for judging the essay
and extracurricular portion of the applicants portfolio.4 Participants were
3
Some might question the characterization of Asian Americans as a subordinate group, given
decreasing whiteAsian American inequality on some aggregate socioeconomic indicators such as income
and educational attainment (Sakamoto et al. 2009; Kim and Sakamoto 2010). Since the present study
explicitly draws on the social psychological approach of group position theory, see Blumer (1958) and
Bobo (1999) for social psychological arguments against reducing the social construction of dominant
and subordinate groups and the hierarchical connection between them to relative rankings on a handful
of structural socioeconomic indicators.
4
Some might argue that solely evaluating an applicants academic record without including extracurricular activities and the personal essay threatens the external validity of the present study. However,
the University of California for a period of time used this particular college admissions procedure,
separating academic and nonacademic portions of an applicants portfolio for separate evaluation; the
current design was specifically modeled on this example.

373
SAMSON
told that the two independently scored sections would later be combined to
produce a comprehensive review score for the applicant. Apart from the outsourcing of research on student input in the admissions process, this cover
story closely resembles the cover story used in another laboratory-based experiment (Hodson et al. 2002) tasking undergraduate students to evaluate
university applications in order to test the theory of aversive racism (Dovidio
and Gaertner 2000; Hodson et al. 2004).5
Setting the University Context
After obtaining the participants informed consent, the participant was

left alone to engage in a series of tasks. First, the participant reviewed two
university web pages consisting of a mission statement (derived from an actual
public university systems mission statement) and an admissions web page
(also derived from the same public university system). Because the participant
is situated in the setting of a state university, the websites contain a bar graph
depicting the racial composition of the state, broken up into white, Asian
American, and other, and a line graph depicting the public universitys demographic enrollment trends. Experimenters randomly exposed the participants to two versions of the line graph as the group position cue, one representing the control condition, the other the treatment condition.
Group Position Manipulation
The studys main experimental manipulation (see fig. 1) consisted of

changing whether the demographic trend from 1997 to 2005 of new freshman
enrollment across all 10 campuses of the public university system indicated
that white or Asian American students would be the largest ethnoracial group at the university system by the year 2005. The experiment manipulated the universitys demographics using a line graph adapted from an
actual graph describing University of California enrollments. The original
graph was published on the front page of a major California newspaper in
2006 (Schevitz 2006).
In the control condition, a trend line indicated that from 1997 to 2005,
the number of Asian American freshman enrollments had dropped from 40
percent to 36 percent of the university systems population. Concurrently,
the number of white freshman enrollments had risen from 37 percent in
1997 to 41 percent in 2005. Since the trend lines for Latinos, African American, and American Indian enrollments remained fairly stable despite some
slight variation from 1997 to 2005, the increasing percentage of white fresh5
Unlike the University of California system with its Asian American student plurality, the present
studys sample was drawn from an undergraduate population where Asian American students represented almost a quarter of total undergraduate enrollments. Minority students (i.e., Asian American,
African American, Hispanic, and Native American) together constituted slightly less than half the total
undergraduate population. This difference necessitated the outsourcing component of the cover story,
rather than simply telling participants that they were admission committee members at their own
institution where no Asian American plurality existed.
374
August 2013

Fig. 1.Control and experimental prompts in laboratory-based study 1 counterbalanced the trend
lines colors for white and Asian American enrollments to minimize the possible influence that the
colors might have on the dependent variables.
man enrollments solidified the university system as a white plurality campus.

Falling Asian American freshman enrollments left Asian Americans the second largest group at the public university system.
In the experimental condition, the position of whites and Asian American
students is reversed, leaving participants with the impression that Asian American freshman enrollments would secure their position as the plurality group.
The decrease in white enrollments would buttress their second place numerical status below Asian Americans. This scenario approximates the line

375
SAMSON
graphs published in 2006 of the University of California systems enrollment

trends, though the line graphs used to prime Asian American plurality were
manipulated to remove reference to the University of California.
Race of Applicant Manipulation and Application Materials
After reviewing these university web pages, the participant read a fabricated
admissions application that contained a second experimental manipulation: race
of applicant. The admissions applications were identical in all respects, except
for the race of applicant. A race of applicant check box on the application
portfolio indicated either white or Caucasian or Asian American. The applicant was also listed as a US citizen who spoke English at home.
Academic information provided on the fabricated application suggested
a well-qualified applicant. Because percentile rank served as a dependent
variable, the percentile ranks corresponding to the scores listed on the application, though provided below, were not included with the application.
The application first listed ACT scores of 31 for English (94th percentile for
students from the state of California), 28 for Math (85th percentile), 30 for
Reading (89th percentile), 27 for Science (90th percentile), and 29 for Composite (92nd percentile). The application next listed SAT I/Reasoning scores
of 670 for Verbal/Critical Reading, 590 Math, and 650 Writing. According
to College Board data, the hypothetical applicants composite SAT score
(1,910 p 670 590 650) corresponds to the 89th percentile among
college-bound seniors nationwide in 2007. SAT II/Subject Test scores were
listed for Literature (660, 70th percentile) US History (700, 75th percentile),
and Math IC (590, 42nd percentile). The application next listed an academic
honor: US History Award, eleventh grade. Finally, the application listed the
students senior year course selection: AP English II, AP Calculus AB, AP
French, Physics, and US History II. Neither GPA nor class rank (another
dependent variable) were included on the application. Taken together, the
hypothetical applicant presented respectable academic qualifications, scoring
generally in the top 12 percent or higher according to most of the applicants
test scores, and enrolled in challenging, advanced placement courses. Evaluators took note of the applicants good qualifications, describing the applicant as intelligent and capable, with ratings of 4.81 (intelligence) and 5.0
(capability) on a scale from 0 (not at all) to 7 (extremely).
Application Review
Throughout the review of the universitys web pages, the reading of the
admissions application, and the subsequent evaluation of the application, the
participant filled out a web-based survey containing questions about the university, the applicant, and a number of admissions-related items. To control
for possible cross-gender evaluation effects, the participant was matched with
same-gender application portfolios. The survey also included task engagement and manipulation checks.
376
August 2013

Dependent Variables
The current study employs three dependent variables: minimum class

rank, minimum standardized test percentile score, and admission recommendation. For minimum high school class rank, respondents were asked
an open-ended question to specify the minimum class rank that the applicant
under review would need to exceed in order to be recommended for admission by the study participant. It should be noted that recommendations
of lower values for minimum class rank represent expectations of higher
standards of student achievement. Respondents were asked a similar question
for minimum percentile score on standardized tests, where higher percentile
scores correspond to higher achievement expectations. See appendix A for
exact question wording.6 For admission recommendation, the following question was asked:
Based on the applicants academic profile that you have reviewed, would you
recommend admitting this applicant?
Please keep in mind that your evaluation of this applicants academic profile
may determine whether the applicant is admitted to the top public university in
the state, and widely-recognized as one of the best universities in the country. This
decision may deeply affect the applicants future employment and life chances.
Clearly and carefully select whether you would recommend admitting the applicant.
The admissions outcome variable was dichotomous and binary coded, with
1 indicating a recommendation for admission and 0 indicating no recommendation for admission.
Study Debriefing and Suspicion Probe
Upon completion of the tasks, the experimenter reentered the laboratory

space to ask the participant 13 follow-up semi-structured questions with openended responses. These questions verified how seriously engaged the participant was in the various tasks and checked for the second time that the two
experimental manipulations were in fact noticed and could still be recalled
by the participant at the studys conclusion. Subsequently, the experimenter
queried the participant regarding clarity of instructions and difficulty of tasks
and probed for suspicion. Finally, the experimenter debriefed the participant
regarding the true purpose of the study, provided another opportunity for
the participant to withdraw their data from the study in light of their full
understanding that the study was designed to detect racial bias, reminded
the participant that they continued to have the option to withdraw their data
even after departing the laboratory space and receiving compensation, and
finally paid the research subject for their participation in the study. No participant opted to withdraw their data.
6
Shelley Correll et al. (2007) utilize a similar dependent variable as the standardized test score
percentile measure in the present study in their evaluation-based study of motherhood as a status
characteristic.

377
SAMSON
Sample Characteristics
A research team of five researchers collected data from 195 subjects

during a 16-week time period. Based on participants self-identifications, data
were collected from 75 white (non-Hispanic origin) participants, 67 Asian
participants, and 54 nonwhite, non-Asian participants (e.g., African American,
Hispanic, American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander). Participants who identified as multiracial white and Asian were not
included in the white or Asian participant count; the sample consisted only
of those who checked one category alone. Participants were recruited through
a list of students who had previously participated in lab experimental studies,7
a separate list of students who had indicated an interest in participating in
lab experimental studies, and a third list of students who responded to recruitment e-mails sent to every undergraduate department and interdisciplinary program at the study site.
Suspicion lowered the number of participants analyzed. We established
conservative rules to determine suspicion, and subjects were dropped from
the sample if, based upon information shared during the post-study debriefing, participants indicated that (i) they believed the study was designed to
detect racial bias, or (ii) they did not believe the cover story, were certain
the study was contrived, and actively tried to discern its true purpose before
answering questions that constituted the dependent variables. Subjects who
met at least one of these two conditions were excluded from the sample as
being suspicious.
Exclusion of suspicious participants resulted in analyses based on 87 percent of the target sample. Of the 75 white students who participated in the
study, nine volunteered their racial bias suspicion, and two volunteered their
total disbelief suspicion. Therefore, these 11 participants were excluded from
the analysis, leaving a valid N of 64 white student participants.8 Of the 67
Asian participants, three volunteered their racial bias suspicion, and none
expressed total disbelief. These three were excluded from analysis to produce
a valid N of 64 Asian student participants. The distribution of expressed
suspicion by race of participant is nonrandom (x2 p .04, P ! .05), with white
participants expressing greater suspicion than Asian participants. However,
the distribution of suspicious white or Asian participants across the four
7
While using a pool of subjects who had previously participated in experiments is likely to increase
participant suspicion, the generally low recruitment yield for participation in sociological social psychology experiments, which did not fulfill course requirements as many experiments in introductory
psychology courses often do, necessitated the utilization of various means to recruit subjects. A high
standard of suspicion screening was therefore utilized. See Ralph Hertwig and Andreas Ortmann (2008)
for a discussion of suspicion in experiments.
8
Analysis on data that include suspicious subjects yielded the same results on minimum academic
standards as those found for nonsuspicious subjects alone. However, including suspicious subjects in
the sample does produce one significantly different finding on admission decision, providing support
for hypothesis 2A that is not available in the sample without suspicious subjects (see app. C).
378
August 2013

conditions is not significantly different from a random distribution; no condition was more likely than another to elicit suspicion.
The sample of 128 participants varied along some demographic and social
characteristics. Sixty-four percent of the sample was female, with post hoc
chi-square analysis revealing a random distribution of participants gender
across experimental conditions. The average age was 19.6 years (SD p 1.27),
with 47 percent identifying as freshmen, 25 percent as sophomores, 10 percent as juniors, 15 percent as seniors, and 2 percent as graduate students.
Participants also hailed from a wide variety of campus majors: 13 percent
from the humanities, 21 percent from the social sciences, 39 percent in
sciences or engineering, 15 percent were undeclared, and the remainder
identified as double majors across multiple disciplinary categories.
Finally, using a controlled laboratory experiment among college students
to identify differences in admission standards might raise reasonable concerns
about external validity. However, previous research identifying a theoretical
mechanism using a laboratory experiment that placed college students in
the role of employers found results similar to those produced by an audit
study of actual employers (Correll et al. 2007). While the present study is
not meant to identify evaluator biases in college admissions processes per se
but to more broadly determine if a change in group position might cause
individuals in general to alter their standards of evaluation, it does propose
a new theoretical mechanism that could produce a previously undocumented
bias in evaluations that skilled evaluators should at the least be trained to
avoid, even though we are not arguing that this mechanism is producing the
already observed inequality in qualifications between white and Asian American students (Bunzel and Au 1987; Espenshade and Radford 2009).9
Results
A 2 # 2 # 2 between-subjects analysis of variance (race of applicant #

university demographics # race of evaluator) on class rank suggested that the
interaction between race of applicant and university demographics was meaningful (see table 1). The three-way interaction between race of applicant, university demographics, and race of evaluator was marginally significant (F(1,
120) p 3.88, P p .051), providing possible evidence for hypothesis 1.
Using a one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) to analyze
minimum class rank and minimum test percentile score as multiple measures
9
Studies published 2 decades apart using college admissions data uncovered markedly disparate
academic qualifications between white and Asian American college students. One report (Bunzel and
Au 1987) found that, among those admitted to Harvard in 1982, Asian Americans had to score on
average 112 points higher on the SAT than the Caucasians. The data also reveal a similar pattern for
Princeton in 1982 and 1983 and for classes entering Brown in the period 197983, with Asian Americans
having average combined SAT scores that were higher than those of nonminorities (Bunzel and Au
1987, 55). Thomas Espenshade and Alexandria Radford (2009) found similar margins in standardized
test scores between whites and Asians by analyzing college admissions data from 1997.

379
SAMSON
TABLE 1
Analysis of Variance for Minimum Class Rank and Standardized Test Percentile
(Pooled Sample)
Partial SS
Class rank (N p 128):
Model
Race of applicant
School demographics
Race of applicant # school
demographics
Race of evaluator
Race of evaluator # race of
applicant
Race of evaluator # school
demographics
Race of evaluator x race of
applicant # school demographics
Residual
Total
R2
Standardized test percentile
(N p 128):
Model
Race of applicant
School demographics
Race of applicant # school
demographics
Race of evaluator
applicant
Race of evaluator # school
demographics
applicant # school
demographics
Residual
Total
R2
df
MS
Prob 1 F
3,195.34
325.13
2.00
7
1
1
456.48
325.13
2.00
1.87
1.33
.01
.08
.25
.93
871.53
128.00
1
1
871.53
128.00
3.57
.53
.06
.47
318.78
318.78
1.31
.26
603.78
603.78
2.48
.12
1
120
127
946.13
243.79
255.51
3.88
.05
1,479.13
648.00
.03
7
1
1
211.30
648.00
.03
.75
2.31
0
.63
.13
.99
603.78
18.00
1
1
603.78
18.00
2.15
.06
.15
.80
40.50
40.50
.14
.70
11.28
11.28
.04
.84
1
120
127
157.53
281.04
277.20
.56
.46
946.13
29,254.88
32,450.22
.0985
157.53
33,724.75
35,203.88
.042
Note.The data source is a controlled laboratory study conducted by the author. Partial SS: partial sum of squares.
MS: mean sum of squares. Total: total sum of squares.
of the applicants academic qualifications confirmed the two-way factorial

ANOVA findings for white evaluators.10 None of the main effects were significant, but a significant interaction effect between race of applicant and
university demographics was found for white evaluators (Pillais trace p 0.129,
F(2, 59) p 4.370, P p ! .05, partial h2 p .129).
Analyzing white evaluators and Asian evaluators separately revealed that
white evaluators, but not Asian evaluators, applied significantly different minimum standards depending upon the race of the applicant and university
demographics. On minimum class rank (see table 2), there was a significant
10
I am indebted to an anonymous reviewer for suggesting the use of multivariate analysis of

variance.
380
August 2013

TABLE 2
Analysis of Variance for Minimum Class Rank and Standardized Test Percentile
by Race of Evaluator
Class rank (N p 64):

White evaluator:
Model
Race of applicant
School demographics
Race of applicant #
school demographics
Residual
Total
R2
Asian evaluator (N p 64):
Model
Race of applicant
School demographics
Race of applicant #
school demographics
Residual
Total
R2
Standardized test percentile:
White evaluator:
Model
Race of applicant
School demographics
Race of applicant #
school demographics
Residual
Total
R2
Asian evaluator:
Model
Race of applicant
School demographics
Race of applicant #
school demographics
Residual
Total
R2
Partial SS
df
2,085.05
.02
268.14
3
1
1
1,816.89
13,312.06
15,397.11
.14
MS
Prob 1 F
695.02
.02
268.14
3.13
0
1.21
.0320*
.993
.276
1
60
63
1,816.89
221.87
244.40
8.19
.0058**
982.30
643.89
337.64
3
1
1
327.43
643.89
337.64
1.23
2.42
1.27
.306
.125
.264
.77
15,942.81
16,925.11
.06
1
60
63
.77
265.71
268.65
.957
1,201.56
506.25
6.25
3
1
1
400.52
506.25
6.25
2.33
2.95
.04
.083
.091
.849
689.06
10,294.88
11,496.44
.10
1
60
63
689.06
171.58
182.48
4.02
.0496*
259.56
182.25
5.06
3
1
1
86.52
182.25
5.06
.22
.47
.01
.881
.497
.910
72.25
23,429.88
23,689.44
.01
1
60
63
72.25
390.50
376.02
.19
.669
Note.The data source is a controlled laboratory study conducted by the author. Partial SS: partial sum of squares.
MS: mean sum of squares. Total: total sum of squares.
* P ! .05.
** P ! .01.
interaction between race of applicant and university demographics (F(1, 60)

p 8.19, P ! .01).
As figure 2 indicates, white study participants were willing to recommend
white applicants for admission if they met a lower minimum class rank standard (t p 2.63, Satterthwaites df p 23.51, P ! .01, one-tailed) in an Asian
American plurality (M p 32.56, SD p 19.55) than in a white plurality (M
p17.81, SD p 10.91).
Similarly, on minimum percentile score, there was a significant interaction
effect (F(1, 60) p 4.02, P ! .05) between race of applicant and university

381
Fig. 2.Minimum class rank standard by applicant race and university demographics (white evaluators)
demographics (see table 2). As figure 3 displays, white evaluators raised the
minimum standardized test score percentile (t p 2.01, df p 30, P ! .05,
one-tailed) for Asian American applicants in an Asian American plurality (M
p 74.06, SD p 9.35) compared to when such applicants applied to a white
plurality university (M p 66.88, SD p 10.78). No other group comparisons
Asian evaluators on class rank or test percentile or white evaluators on class
rank for Asian American applicants or test percentile for white applicants
were significantly different (means and t-statistics are available in app. B).
That white evaluators manipulated only class rank for white applicants and
test percentile for Asian American applicants will be addressed in the discussion section.
Comparing minimum academic standards between applicants, holding
plurality constant, also provided notable results. In an Asian American plurality condition, white evaluators lowered the class rank standard (t p 1.926,
P ! .05, Satterthwaites dfp 22.98) for the white applicant (M p 32.56, SD
p 19.55) compared to the Asian American applicant (M p 21.88, SD p
10.49). Also, white evaluators raised the test percentile standard for the Asian
American applicant (M p 74.06, SD p 9.35) compared to the white applicant
(M p 61.86, SD p 14.24). These results were consistent with the hypotheses.
However in a white plurality, white evaluators showed favoritism toward the
Asian American out-group by setting a lower class rank admission standard
(M p 28.43, SD p 16.60) for Asian Americans than the standard set (M p
17.81, SD p 10.91) for the in-group (t p 2.14, P ! .05). This finding was
unexpected and has implications for social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner
1979, 1986), as detailed in the Discussion section.
Analyses of admissions recommendations did not support hypothesis 2

Fig. 3.Minimum test percentile standard by applicant race and university demographics (white
evaluators).
(see fig. 4); they did however yield a notable, unanticipated finding. White
evaluators denied admissions recommendations to three out of 16 white
applicants in a white plurality, but did not deny admission to any of the white
applicants in an Asian American plurality; this difference was not significant
using Fishers Exact test for small sample sizes (however, see note 8). Nevertheless, the lack of denials of white applicants in an Asian American plurality
was still revealing (Asymmetric Sympathy, fig. 4). While white evaluators demonstrated sympathy for white applicants in an Asian American plurality, this
sympathy did not extend to Asian American applicants in a white plurality
(P p .051, Fishers Exact test). When Asian American applicants were at a
racial disadvantage in a white plurality university, four white evaluators still
denied admission recommendations to Asian American applicants.
Discussion
Operating in a society where dominant American ideologies give widespread legitimacy to fairness and meritocracy, it is not surprising that the
results of this study only confirm some of the hypotheses. A change in group
position does prompt members of the dominant group to selectively change
the standard of evaluation in order to slightly lower the bar for co-ethnics
on one criterion, while slightly raising the bar on a second criterion to obstruct a successful decision outcome for members of the ascending out-group.
The fact that white evaluators do not strongly defend their groups position by making biased admissions recommendations (i.e., denying many,
rather than a few, Asian American applicants) does not weaken group position
theorys predictions. Instead, it attests to the importance of organizational

383
SAMSON
Fig. 4.Admissions recommendations by race of evaluators, race of applicant, and demographic

context. Data source is controlled laboratory study conducted by the author.
imperatives such as meritocracy and procedural fairness that can attenuate

in-group bias practiced by members of the dominant group. The present
studys findings indicate that meritocracy, as an organizational policy of most
universities, cannot be simply disregarded in the face of changes to the demographic makeup of prestigious public universities. Instead, members of
the dominant group might pressure a public university to redefine the criteria
it uses to measure merit by downgrading the importance of conventional
384
August 2013

academic criteria, as occurred at Ivy League institutions in response to the

rise in Jewish enrollments during the early twentieth century (Karabel 2005).
As an alternative to a group position perspective, one might reasonably
be tempted to interpret the present studys results using an argument derived
from the shifting standards model.11 This line of reasoning would argue that
white evaluators lower standards for white applicants in an Asian American
plurality after inferring from the declining white enrollment trends that these
white applicants are less smart than Asian Americans. Similarly, white evaluators raise standards for Asian American applicants because they judge these
Asian American applicants, based on the rising trend of Asian American
enrollments, to be smarter or more competent than their white counterparts.
The present data allows us to empirically test this argument. In addition to
the admissions-related items in the present study, evaluators were asked to
rate their initial impressions of the applicant based on competence items
identical to the competence items utilized in the resume evaluation study by
Correll et al. (2007). No statistically significant difference was found in white
evaluators ratings of perceived competence between the white applicant and
the Asian American applicant, despite white evaluators applying a double
standard in evaluation between them.12
Another alternative interpretation to the present studys findings might
argue that white evaluators are committed to the notion of campus-state parity,
a form of distributional fairness (distinct from the present studys focus on
procedural fairness) that would argue that public universities should reflect
the demographic makeup of the state as a whole. Accordingly, white evaluators might penalize Asian American applicants when their student representation far exceeds Asian Americans share of the states population, or
assist white applicants under demographic conditions in which whites are
underrepresented relative to their proportion in the state at large. While a
reasonable alternative explanation for the present studys findings, whites
commitments to campus-state parity was also tested using a survey-based experiment conducted on a random sample of white adults in California who
were primed with Asian group overrepresentation in the University of California system (Samson 2009). Results of the survey-based experiment revealed
that Asian overrepresentation in the University of California system either
had no effect or tended to decrease white commitment to the notion of
campus-state parity, contingent upon whether or not white Californians were
11
Biernat et al. (1991, 2003); Biernat and Manis (1994); Biernat and Kobrynowicz (1997); Biernat
and Fuegen (2001).
12
The indicator for competence was constructed by averaging the scores on six items measured
on a scale from 1 to 7 that asks evaluators to rate, based on first impressions drawn from the application,
the extent to which the applicant is capable, efficient, organized, skilled, self-confident, and intelligent.
The alpha internal reliability for the present studys competence scale is .86. Note that the competence
scale items are very close, but are not identical, to the scale items used by Susan Fiske et al. (2002).
The t-test results are available upon request.

385
SAMSON
also thinking about potential perceived group competition from either blacks,
Hispanics, or Asians.
The reason why white evaluators only manipulated class rank for white
applicants and only test percentile score for Asian American applicants requires theoretical justification. Why did certain academic criteria attach themselves to particular groups? The nature of the comparison criteria themselves
provides a possible explanation. Stephen Garcia and Avishalom Tor (2007)
argue that task performance, as measured by test scores, should be differentiated from scale scores, such as rank, which measure a general, underlying
skill. Because Asian American academic achievement is stereotypically attributed to test-taking proficiency (Goyette and Xie 1999), white evaluators utilizing this Asian American stereotype would reasonably manipulate standardized test percentile, which encompasses test-taking performance (e.g.,
answering multiple choice questions under timed pressure) rather than solely
measuring academic knowledge. On the other hand, the high academic
achievement of whites is not stereotypically attached to well-developed testtaking proficiency; thus, manipulating a particular task performance criterion
would have little bearing for white applicants. Instead, altering the class rank
standard, as a more general measure of underlying academic skills, would
prove more beneficial for a group (whites) whose academic success stereotypically is not partially attributed to test-taking task proficiency.
Some of the results of the current study are consistent with aspects of
social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner 1986) though some cannot be easily
assimilated into this long-standing approach to group categorization and
intergroup bias/behavior. Consistent with early formulations of social identity
theory (Tajfel and Turner 1979, 1986; Turner 1982), whites display in-group
favoritism when positive self-esteem has been threatened (the decline in white
enrollments in the Asian American plurality). However, social identity theory
not only proposed the pursuit of positive self-esteem as a behavioral motivation, but also the maintenance and enhancement of self-esteem (Tajfel and
Turner 1979, 40). The control condition in the present study, with a white
plurality and Asian American enrollments falling, would have been an optimal
condition under which white evaluators could have acted to maintain or
enhance positive self-esteem by favoring the dominant in-group. This was not
the case. Recall, however, that white evaluators favored Asian American applicants over white applicants on class rank in the white plurality. Yet despite
this Asian American out-group favoritism in minimum class rank standard,
white evaluators showed neither in-group nor out-group favoritism when making an admission recommendation in a white plurality condition (three white
applicants denied, four Asian American applicants denied). Thus, white ingroup favoritism is seen only in a setting where whites move downward in
group position, potentially qualifying the scope (in terms of social/institutional context) under which in-group bias operates ( Jost 2001). The possible
386
August 2013

loss in white enrollment by favoring the Asian American applicant in a white

plurality condition is also consistent with research indicating that individuals
in high power situations, that is, white evaluators faced with a white plurality
condition, are less loss averse than those in lower power situations, that is,
when whites are no longer in the plurality (Inesi 2010).
These findings confirm the mixed results obtained by researchers challenging the centrality of the self-esteem/motivation dimension of social identity theory (for a review, see Hogg and Abrams [1990]). Michael Hogg and
Dominic Abrams (1990, 39) state that a need for self-esteem may be involved,
but it may not have the status of ultimate cause or primal mover. . . . Intergroup behavior is quite likely to be multiply caused. . . . Interaction between
different motivational pressures becomes particularly relevant when we abandon the minimal intergroup context and consider the self-esteem hypothesis
in the broader context of relations between social categories which have
history and content. We agree with this statement. One such motivational
pressure for out-group favoritism in the minimum class rank applied to Asian
Americans, who exemplify the model minority, might be found in system
justification theory as a defense of the status quo ( Jost et al. 2004). Further
research is sure to find and clarify other motivating factors in specific sociohistorical, institutional settings that can expand or refine the institutional
scope of social identity theory. Finally, Asian evaluators exhibited neither ingroup favoritism nor out-group favoritism on any of the dependent outcomes
under any of the conditions, a result unanticipated by social identity theory.
Taken together, the results of the present study suggest that, while social
identity theory has launched a fruitful, decades-long research tradition exploring group identification and intergroup behavior, there is still uncharted
ground to be explored.
The absence of an altered standard of evaluation among Asian evaluators
deserves further comment, although the data do not allow us to empirically
verify these propositions. Lawrence Bobo and Vincent Hutchings (1996) argued that traditional minority groups and their attendant sense of racial
alienation (rather than a sense of group dominance) could cause subordinate
groups to view others as group competitors. The results suggest that as a
relatively recent, voluntarily incorporated subordinate group, Asians may be
less likely to endure feelings of racial alienation: Feelings of alienation . . .
are the product of social and collective processes that derive from the longterm experiences and conditions that members of a racial group have faced
(Bobo and Hutchings 1996, 95657). Despite Asian Americans success at
the University of California system, Asian evaluators do not react to a change
in group position as might be expected by those who experience a sense of
racial alienation. The arrival of many Asian American professionals to the
United States during the post-1965 period of immigration, and subsequently

387
SAMSON
benefiting from post-Civil Rights gains, appears to push against a socially and
historically crystallized sense of racial alienation.
Previous research outside the group position tradition can also explain
Asian evaluators lack of either an altered standard in evaluation or a bias in
admission recommendations. Asians might be unwilling to show bias on academic dimensions that partially constitute their own group stereotype, and
possibly, their own sense of selves (Kao 2000).
The present study has its share of limitations. First, the results are based
on a small sample size, which can potentially obscure differences that might
be statistically significant if the cell sizes were larger. Second, while the study
was based on random assignment to one of four experimental conditions,
the sample itself is not randomly selected nor is it representative of the United
States population as a whole. Rather, the study drew on students enrolled at
a highly selective university, students whose academic and nonacademic
achievements are generally higher than might typically be found in the US
population. While random assignment to experimental conditions allows us
to identify causal social psychological processes, such mechanisms may not
necessarily be found among student evaluators at less selective universities
or geographic areas in the United States where a change in white group
position is not a concern. Third, the current study was not designed to yield
a comparative assessment of competing theories accounting for differences
in group-based standards. While its results do point to insufficient theoretical
coverage in some of these alternative accounts (i.e., shifting standards model
and social identity theory), additional studies, designed specifically to identify
the scope conditions under which possibly competing explanations are relevant, will be necessary to determine which process is ultimately at work in
a given evaluation scenario.
Conclusion
Universities in the United States recognize the value of diversity.13 Many

implement policies designed to achieve such. However, the present findings
suggest that for members of the current dominant ethnoracial group, an
increase in institutional diversity can cause a drop in group position, producing attitudes among dominant group individuals that run counter to the
diversity that universities are attempting to achieve (e.g., Shteynberg et al.
2011). Such was the case in the present study: the shift to an Asian American
plurality provoked a reaction that caused white evaluators to create an altered
standard when weighing the academic merits of college applicants. However,
this reaction to Asian American plurality was muted, likely because public
universities also value meritocracy and procedural fairness alongside diversity.
As the US Census Bureau projects that whites will become a numerical
13
Karabel (2005); Kalev et al. (2006); Lipson (2007); Denson and Chang (2009); Berrey (2011).
388
August 2013

minority by 2042, it is reasonable to imagine a not-too-distant future where

diversity goals may expand to target white students as underrepresented minorities. It is noteworthy that members of the current dominant group are
already willing to give advantages to the white university applicant when whites
appear to be losing their dominant share of a scarce and desired public
higher educational opportunity. While previous studies have documented
white opposition to affirmative action for reasons such as self-esteem (Unzueta
et al. 2008), or modern racism and collective relative deprivation (Shteynberg
et al. 2011), the present study points to a concrete setting (white drop in
group position) where whites alter the evaluation standard to produce a
double standard benefiting whites, a notable finding given that affirmative
action opponents at times rely on a perceived qualifications gap when
challenging that policy.14 As the nations population and schools undergo
historic demographic shifts, universities and other educational institutions
may have to rethink the meaning of diversity while possibly guarding against
pressures from the dominant group reacting to a perceived drop from their
dominant group position.
Appendix A
Web-Based Survey Questions for the Study
Minimum Class Rank
Because grade point averages (GPA) are difficult to compare between college
preparatory institutions, the University finds that class rank provides a better indicator of the applicants academic achievements relative to her or his classmates.
What MINUIMUM CLASS RANK would the applicant need to exceed in order
for you to recommend that she or he be admitted to the University?
The applicant would need to be in the Top XX% of their high schools senior
class.
Minimum Standardized Test Percentile
While the University exists as part of a larger system of high-quality public

education that the state offers, the number of applicants far exceeds the number
of available openings for undergraduate admissions. Before making the decision
to admit an applicant, the University requires that the potential applicants take a
standardized, college entrance exam (e.g., SAT or ACT) to provide evidence about
potential for college success. Scores on this exam will be considered in conjunction
with other criteria from the applicants portfolio.
Like class rank in the earlier question, the percentile rank compares individuals
to each other by indicating what percentage of other test takers scored below the
individual. For example, an applicant with a test score at the 63rd percentile would
have a score that is higher than 63% of the people who took the test. Above what
14
Susan Sturm and Lani Guinier (1996) provide a critical analysis of selection processes and the
assumptions they create about affirmative action.

389
SAMSON
MINIMUM PERCENTILE RANK should the applicant score on the SAT or ACT
in order for you to recommend that she or he be admitted to the University? The
applicant would have to possess test scores better than this percentage of all other
test takers.
This candidate would need to score above the XX percentile on his or her
standardized college entrance exam.
Admissions Recommendation
Based on the applicants academic profile that you have reviewed, would you
recommend admitting this applicant?
Please keep in mind that your evaluation of this applicants academic profile
may determine whether the applicant is admitted to the top public university in
the state, and widely recognized as one of the best universities in the country. This
decision may deeply affect the applicants future employment and life chances.
Clearly and carefully select whether you would recommend admitting the applicant.
No
Yes
390
August 2013

Appendix B
TABLE B1
Minimum Academic Standards (Means) for Recommending University Admissions by Race of
Evaluators, Race of Applicant, and University Demographic Context
N
White evaluators:
White applicant:
White plurality university
Asian American plurality
university
t-statistic
df
Asian American applicant:
White plurality university:
university
t-statistic
df
Asian evaluators:
White applicant:
White plurality university
university
t-statistic
df
Aian American applicant:
White plurality university:
university
t-statistic
df
16
16
Class Rank
17.81
32.56
2.63**
23.51a
SD
Standardized
Test
Percentile
SD
10.91
67.81
16.73
19.56
61.88
1.08
30
14.24
16
28.44
16.61
66.88
10.78
16
21.88
1.34
30
10.49
74.06
2.01*
30
9.35
16
28.75
22.02
66.56
20.23
16
23.94
.71
30
15.86
63.88
.35
30
22.93
16
22.19
12.78
67.81
14.02
16
17.81
.97
30
12.78
69.38
.25
30
20.76
Note.Controlled laboratory study conducted by the author.

a Satterthwaites degrees of freedom (unequal variances).
* P ! .05 (one-tailed test).
** P ! .01.

391
SAMSON
Appendix C
Fig. C1.Admissions recommendations by race of evaluators, race of applicant, and demographic

context (with and without suspicious subjects). Data source is controlled laboratory study conducted
by the author.
References
Almaguer, Tomas. 1994. Racial Fault Lines: The Historical Origins of White Supremacy
in California. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Aronson, Joshua, Michael J. Lustina, Catherine Good, Kelli Keough, Claude M.
Steele, and Joseph Brown. 1999. When White Men Cant Do Math: Necessary
392
August 2013

and Sufficient Factors in Stereotype Threat. Journal of Experimental and Social

Psychology 35:2946.
Berrey, Ellen C. 2011. Why Diversity Became Orthodox in Higher Education, and
How It Changed the Meaning of Race on Campus. Critical Sociology 37 (5): 573
96.
Bertrand, Marianne, and Sendhil Mullainathan. 2004. Are Emily and Greg More
Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market
Discrimination. American Economic Review 94 (4): 9911013.
Biernat, Monica, and Kathleen Fuegen. 2001. Shifting Standards and the Evaluation of Competence: Complexity in Gender-Based Judgment and Decision Making. Journal of Social Issues 57 (4): 70724.
Biernat, Monica, and Diane Kobrynowicz. 1997. Gender- and Race-Based Standards of Competence: Lower Minimum Standards but Higher Ability Standards
for Devalued Groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72 (3): 54457.
Biernat, Monica, Diane Kobrynowicz, and Dara L. Weber. 2003. Stereotypes and
Shifting Standards: Some Paradoxical Effects of Cognitive Load. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 33 (10): 206079.
Biernat, Monica, and Melvin Manis. 1994. Shifting Standards and Stereotype-Based
Judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 66 (1): 520.
Biernat, Monica, Melvin Manis, and Thomas E. Nelson. 1991. Stereotypes and
Standards of Judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60 (4): 495
502.
Blumer, Herbert. 1958. Race Prejudice as a Sense of Group Position. Pacific
Sociological Review 1 (1): 37.
Bobo, Lawrence. 1983. Whites Opposition to Busing: Symbolic Racism or Realistic
Group Conflict? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45 (6): 11961210.
Bobo, Lawrence. 1999. Prejudice as Group Position: Microfoundations of a Sociological Approach to Racism and Race Relations. Journal of Social Issues 55 (3):
44572.
Bobo, Lawrence, and Vincent L. Hutchings. 1996. Perceptions of Racial Group
Competition: Extending Blumers Theory of Group Position to a Multiracial
Social Context. American Sociological Review 61 (6): 95172.
Bobo, Lawrence, and Mia Tuan. 2006. Prejudice in Politics: Group Position, Public
Opinion, and the Wisconsin Treaty Rights Dispute. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bunzel, John H., and Jeffrey K. D. Au. 1987. Diversity or Discrimination? Asian
Americans in College. Public Interest 87 (Spring): 4962.
Chandler, Michael Alison. 2008. At Magnet School, an Asian Plurality; Group
Forms 45% of Freshmen at Thomas Jefferson. Washington Post, July 7, A1.
Charles, Camille Z. 2006. Wont You Be My Neighbor? Class, Race, and Residence in a
Prismatic Metropolis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Correll, Shelley J., Stephen Benard, and In Paik. 2007. Getting a Job: Is There a
Motherhood Penalty? American Journal of Sociology 112 (5): 12971339.
Denson, Nida, and Mitchell J. Chang. 2009. Racial Diversity Matters: The Impact
of Diversity-Related Student Engagement and Institutional Context. American
Educational Research Journal 46 (2): 32253.
Dershowitz, Alan M., and Laura Hanft. 1979. Affirmative Action and the Harvard

393
SAMSON
College Diversity Discretion Model: Paradigm or Pretext? Cardozo Law Review 1:

379424.
Dovidio, John F., and Samuel L. Gaertner. 2000. Aversive Racism and Selection
Decisions, 1989 and 1999. Psychological Science 11 (4): 31519.
Espenshade, Thomas, and Alexandria Walton Radford. 2009. No Longer Separate,
Not Yet Equal: Race and Class in Elite College Admission and Campus Life. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Fiske, Susan T., Amy J. C. Cuddy, Peter Glick, and Jun Xu. 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 (6): 878902.
Frey, William H. 2011a. America Reaches Its Demographic Tipping Point. August
26. http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2011/0826_census_race_frey.aspx.
Frey, William H. (Guest). 2011b. US Will Have Minority Whites Sooner, Says Demographer. National Public Radio, June 27. http://www.npr.org/2011/06/27/
137448906/us-will-have-minority-whites-sooner-says-demographer
Garcia, Stephen M., and Avishalom Tor. 2007. Rankings, Standards, and Competition: Task versus Scale Comparisons. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 102 (1): 95108.
Goyette, Kimberly, and Yu Xie. 1999. Educational Expectations of Asian American
Youths: Determinants and Ethnic Differences. Sociology of Education 72 (1): 22
36.
Hertwig, Ralph, and Andreas Ortmann. 2008. Deception in Experiments: Revisiting the Arguments in Its Defense. Ethics and Behavior 18 (1): 5992.
Hodson, Gordon, John F. Dovidio, and Samuel L. Gaertner. 2002. Processes in
Racial Discrimination: Differential Weighting of Conflicting Information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28 (4): 46071.
Hodson, Gordon, John F. Dovidio, and Samuel L. Gaertner. 2004. The Aversive
Form of Racism. In The Psychology of Prejudice and Discrimination: Racism in America,
ed. Jean Lau Chin. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Hogg, Michael A., and Dominic Abrams. 1990. Social Motivation, Self-Esteem, and
Social Identity. In Social Identity Theory: Constructive and Critical Advances, ed.
Dominic Abrams and Michael A. Hogg. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Inesi, M. Ena. 2010. Power and Loss Aversion. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes 112 (1): 5869.
Jost, John T. 2001. Outgroup Favoritism and the Theory of System Justification:
An Experimental Paradigm for Investigating the Effects of Socio-Economic Success on Stereotype Content. In Cognitive Social Psychology: The Princeton Symposium
on the Legacy and Future of Social Cognition, ed. Gordon B. Moskowitz. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Jost, John T., Mahzarin R. Banaji, and Brian A. Nosek. 2004. A Decade of System
Justification Theory: Accumulated Evidence of Conscious and Unconscious Bolstering of the Status Quo. Political Psychology 25 (6): 881917.
Kalev, Alexandra, Frank Dobbin, and Erin Kelly. 2006. Best Practices or Best
Guesses? Assessing the Efficacy of Corporate Affirmative Action and Diversity
Policies. American Sociological Review 71 (4): 589617.
Kao, Grace. 2000. Group Images and Possible Selves among Adolescents: Linking
394
August 2013

Stereotypes to Expectations by Race and Ethnicity. Sociological Forum 15 (3): 407

30.
Karabel, Jerome. 1984. Status-Group Struggle, Organizational Interests, and the
Limits of Institutional Autonomy: The Transformation of Harvard, Yale, and
Princeton, 19181940. Theory and Society 13 (1): 140.
Karabel, Jerome. 2005. The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at
Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Kim, ChangHwan, and Arthur Sakamoto. 2010. Have Asian American Men
Achieved Labor Market Parity with White Men? American Sociological Review 75
(6): 93457.
Lipson, Daniel N. 2007. Embracing Diversity: The Institutionalization of Affirmative Action as Diversity Management at UC-Berkeley, UT-Austin, and UWMadison. Law and Social Inquiry 32 (4): 9851026.
McClain, Paula D., and Albert K. Karnig. 1990. Black and Hispanic Socioeconomic
and Political Competition. American Political Science Review 84 (2): 53545.
Norton, Michael I., Joseph A. Vandello, and John M. Darley. 2004. Casuistry and
Social Category Bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 87 (6): 81731.
Pager, Devah. 2003. The Mark of a Criminal Record. American Journal of Sociology
108 (5): 93775.
Quillian, Lincoln. 1995. Prejudice as a Response to Perceived Group Threat: Population Composition and Anti-Immigrant and Racial Prejudice in Europe. American Sociological Review 60 (4): 586611.
Quillian, Lincoln. 1996. Group Threat and Regional Change in Attitudes toward
African-Americans. American Journal of Sociology 102 (3): 81660.
Sakamoto, Arthur, Kimberly A. Goyette, and ChangHwan Kim. 2009. Socioeconomic Attainments of Asian Americans. Annual Review of Sociology 35 (1): 255
76.
Samson, Frank L. 2009. Race and the Limits of American Meritocracy. PhD diss.,
Stanford University.
Schevitz, Tanya. 2006. Opponent of Racial Preferences Takes Quest to Michigan
/ PROP. 209 AFTERMATH: Public Colleges Less Diverse, but Initiative Backers
Tout Fairness. San Francisco Chronicle, October 30, A1. http://www.sfgate.com/
education/article/Opponent-of-racial-preferences-takes-quest-to-2485596.php.
Shteynberg, Garriy, Lisa M. Leslie, Andrew P. Knight, and David M. Mayer. 2011.
But Affirmative Action Hurts Us! Race-Related Beliefs Shape Perceptions of
White Disadvantage and Policy Unfairness. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes 115 (1): 112.
Sturm, Susan, and Lani Guinier. 1996. The Future of Affirmative Action: Reclaiming the Innovative Ideal. California Law Review 84 (4): 9531036.
Tajfel, Henri, and John Turner. 1979. An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict. In The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, ed. William G. Austin and
Stephen Worchel. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Tajfel, Henri, and John Turner. 1986. The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup
Behavior. In Psychology of Intergroup Relations, ed. Stephen Worchel and William
G. Austin. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Turner, John C. 1982. Towards a Cognitive Redefinition of the Social Group. In

395
SAMSON
Social Identity and Intergroup Relations, ed. Henri Tajfel. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Uhlmann, Eric L., and Geoffrey L. Cohen. 2005. Constructed Criteria: Redefining
Merit to Justify Discrimination. Psychological Science 16 (6): 47480.
Unzueta, Miguel M., Brian S. Lowery, and Eric D. Knowles. 2008. How Believing
in Affirmative Action Quotas Protects White Mens Self-Esteem. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes 105 (1): 113.
Wang, L. Ling-Chi. 1988. Meritocracy and Diversity in Higher Education: Discrimination against Asian Americans in the Post-Bakke Era. Urban Review 20 (3):
189209.
Wong, Paul, Chienping Faith Lai, Richard Nagasawa, and Tieming Lin. 1998. Asian
Americans as a Model Minority: Self-Perceptions and Perceptions by Other Racial
Groups. Sociological Perspectives 41 (1): 95118.
396
August 2013


Altering Public University Admission Standards To Preserve White Group Position in United States Result From A Laboratory Experiment

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Altering Public University Admission Standards To Preserve White Group Position in United States Result From A Laboratory Experiment

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Altering Public University Admission Standards to Preserve White Group Position in the

United States: Results from a Laboratory Experiment

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/670664 .

This content downloaded from 136.145.182.24 on Tue, 12 Aug 2014 16:15:28 PM