Page 347 - Discrimination at Work The Psychological and Organizational Bases

ARTHUR AND DOVERSPIKE
314
level of structure is not commonly used in practice (van der Zee, Bakker, &
Bakker, 2002) but less restrictive levels of structure (e.g., Level 3, Huffcutt
& Arthur, 1994) can be used with the same objective of minimizing internal
bias. The use of high structure interviews can and should also be coupled
with interviewer training interventions such as frame-of-reference training
(Woehr & Huffcutt, 1994).
In summary, organizations should strive to maximize the perceived
fairness and the validity of selection systems. Minority test-takers view
cognitive ability tests with suspicion, yet respond positively to face valid
tests (Chan & Schmitt, 1997; Chan et al., 1997). Hence, it is suggested that
employers use valid, job-relevant tests and attempt to maximize the face
validity of these tests. By doing so, not only is the process perceived as
being more equitable and merit-based, but also the test-taking motivation
of minority applicants is likely to be increased. In addition, beyond the le­
gal stipulations, research suggests that the use of fair selection procedures
aids minority recruitment efforts.

Altering the Behavior of Majority Croup Members Through Selection
Can selection and employment testing be used to identify majority group
members who will be less likely to engage in discrimination and also
more likely to participate in diversity programs (i.e., pro-diversity major­
ity group members)? In theory, yes—if there are characteristics associated
with pro-diversity attitudes and behaviors, then tests can be used to select
for these characteristics. The question then is what characteristics might be
associated with pro-diversity orientations and attitudes in majority group
members?
An individual difference variable explored in a number of studies
is racism (Jacobson, 1985; Sidanius, Pratto, & Bobo, 1996). For exam­
ple, Kravitz (1995) found that racism was associated with opposition to
affirmative action in general, and toward specific affirmative action plans.
Overall, racism appears to be related to pro-diversity attitudes with cor­
relations ranging from .19 for classic racism and opposition to affirmative
action (Sidanius, Pratto, & Bobo, 1996) to —.38 for modern racism and sup­
port for affirmative action (Jacobson, 1985). Similarly, modern sexism was
found to be related to attitudes toward affirmative action (Tougas, Brown,
Beaton, & Joly, 1995; Tougas, Crosby, Joly, & Pelchat, 1995).
Given that personality traits are thought to be an influential source of
individual differences, coupled with the ubiquity of the five-factor model
(FFM) of personality (Digman, 1990), it is surprising that individual differ­
ences in the FFM personality factors have not received greater attention as
predictors of pro-diversity attitudes (cf. Douthitt, Eby, & Simon, 1999). Not
only would one expect the FFM personality factors in general to be related
to attitudes toward affirmative action, in particular, but also one would