Article summary with Advantaged group members’ reaction to tokenism by Richard & Wright - 2010

What is this article about?

Even though diversity and multiculturalism dominate current conversations about Western society, it seems that some organizations are far from diverse and multicultural. For instance, in the North American workplace, data shows that nearly half of the organizations had fewer than 10% minority employees, with many having no minority employees at all. There are different potential explanations of why there are continuing disparities, and a number of accounts point to the role of ‘tokenism’. Tokenism is a circumstance that can lead to different, subtle forms of prejudice. Tokenism is defined as the numerical representation of minority group members within an organization. When the numerical representation of a particular group is low, then the situation is described as ‘tokenism’ and minority group members are described as ‘tokens’.

What is an intergroup relations perspective?

Other researchers tied tokenism more directly to the concept of ‘boundary permeability’, which is ‘the degree to which disadvantaged groups can, through individual effort and ability, move from their disadvantaged group into a more advantaged group or position’. They defined tokenism as: “any intergroup context in which the boundaries between the advantaged and disadvantaged groups are not entirely closed, but where there exists severe restrictions on access to advantaged positions on the basis of group membership”. Tokenism can thus be described as a situation in which individual opportunity to move into a more advantaged group exists, while at the same time many of these qualified members are prevented from gaining access to the opportunities afforded by members of higher status groups. A lot of research has been conducted on the negative consequences of token status for individual tokens. By describing tokenism in terms of boundary permeability, this concept is connected to to the social identity perspective and the broader intergroup relations literature. Thus, the impact of different levels of permeability (group boundaries open or closed), was also considered with relation to responses of members of the disadvantaged group.

In one study, members of a low-status group were denied entry to a high-status group for one of three reasons:

1. They were told that their performance fell below the required level for advancement (open-group condition);
2. Thet were told that all members of their group were excluded from the high status-group (closed-group condition);
3. They were told that only 2% of the qualified members of their particular group were granted access, but that they were not among these 2% (tokenism-condition)

Participants in the tokenism-condition, in contrast to the closed-group condition, did not show collective actions. Instead, they preferred individual actions, as did the open-group condition. This ‘tokenism effect’, in which a small number of the qualified members of a disadvantaged groups is admitted, is sufficient to reduce interest in collective protest. Tokenism is thus one means through which organizations maintain group-based inequalities and reduce or even prevent disruptive collective action.

What is the role of ambiguity?

One explanation for the ‘tokenism effect’ is that there is an inherent ambiguity. A closed system is clearly illegitimate, and an open system is legitimate. However, tokenism falls between these two poles, as both group members and individual performance are criteria for success. Observers are therefore uncertain about how to respond: is their non-admission due to their performance, or due to their group-membership? This uncertainty leads to that they fall back on more familiar, less potentially costly, and less socially disruptive actions. It also known that people are driven to reduce subjective uncertainty, and one method through which this can be achieved is through paying attention to any available information. Thus, when another group member expresses their anger and/or clearly labelled tokenism as ‘discrimination’, collective action is much more likely. There is however more research needed on possible ways of reducing uncertainty in the tokenism context.

What is the role of advantaged group members?

It is also important to examine the way that advantaged group members respond to tokenism. Questions such as: ‘when will they support a policy that results in tokenism?’, and ‘will they respond more positively to tokenism than to a completely closed or completely open meritocratic context?’. There is also evidence that when these group members express the belief that the disadvantaged group is being treated unfairly, that disadvantaged group members respond more positively, and are more likely to protest. There is however little research on when advantaged group members are likely to act out in support of disadvantaged group members.

What was examined in the current study?

The current study sought to examine both how advantaged group members perceive tokenism and what actions they would take in response to a policy that produced tokenism. It also sought to examine potential methods of resolving the ambiguity inherent in a tokenism context and to examine the influence on advantages group members’ responses to tokenism. It was hypothesized that tokenism might lead advantaged group members to be particularly attentive to cues that help to reduce uncertainty. It was manipulated whose interest the participants were focused on while evaluating and responding to the university policy. It was hypothesized that this manipulation would have relatively little effect on responses in the open and closed context, and that changing the group that is the target of attention would influence the responses in the tokenism context. Advantaged group members who focus on the impact of tokenism on their own ingroup should be inclined to recognize the elements of the tokenism context that are fair and meritocratic (e.g., ‘some people advance through personal qualifications’), whereas those focused on the disadvantaged group should be more likely to notice elements of the context that represent group-based discrimination (e.g., ‘qualified people are rejected because of their group membership’).

What were the used methods?

This experiment was a 3 (context: open, closed, or tokenism) by 2(focus of attention: advantaged ingroup, disadvantaged outgroup), between-subjects design. There were 103 participants, who were undergraduate students at the University of California. During class, researchers visited classrooms and told the participants that they wanted to conduct a survey for the university administration to gather ‘student input’ on university policies. Participants in the open condition were presented with a policy statement indicating that the university admitted all students from two countries who met the minimum academic and English language requirements. In the closed condition, it was indicated that the university did not admit any students from other countries, no matter what they scored on tests. In the tokenism condition, it was indicated that there were strict restrictions on the admission of students from other countries, such that only 2% of those who exceeded the minimum academic and English requirements were admitted. Participants then completed a short questionnaire to (dis)approve the policy. Participants were also given the opportunity to donate money.

What were the findings in this study?

The results of this study fit the predictions. Members of the advantaged group thus responded most positively to and donated the least to the outgroup in response to the open policy. The closed system produced the least favorable response from members of the advantaged group, and a large donation to the outgroup. Responses to the tokenism fell between these two outcomes. When participants had to evaluate the policy of tokenism, they were highly influenced by the manipulation of focus of attention. When they were encouraged to think about other American students (their ingroup), they disapproved the tokenism condition less strongly than those in the closed context. When they were encouraged to think about students from disadvantaged African groups, they disapproved tokenism and closed systems equally. A single statement to ‘think about’ one group is thus sufficient to change responses to tokenism. This finding is consistent with the idea that tokenism creates uncertainty which people try to reduce. Thus, those faced with tokenism should be especially susceptible to messages which might help resolve the ambiguity and reduce the aversive state of subjective uncertainty.