What about me? Personal and group interest in reactions towards equal opportunity policies

Non-beneficiary group's reactions towards equal opportunity policies (EOPs) in relation to EOP effects on self interest (incl. group and personal interest) were investigated. The aim was to establish whether non-beneficiaries would show stronger negative reactions towards an EOP affecting both personal and group interest (high self interest), compared to an EOP affecting group interest only (low self interest) when focusing on the EOP's negative impact on their ingroup (i.e. ingroup loss), but not when focusing on the EOP's positive impacts on the beneficiary outgroup (outgroup gain). Eighty four female University of Queensland psychology students responded to EOPs aimed at increasing male student representation within the School of Psychology. EOPs were presented as either "decreasing the number of female students (ingroup loss) or as "increasing the number of male students" (outgroup gain). EOPs were presented as having low self interest or high self interest in the degree to which they affected females' admissions into further psychology degrees. Reactions towards EOPs were measured by; perceived fairness, affect (i.e. resentment and optimism), policy support and intentions to protest the policy. Firstly it was predicted that non-beneficiary group members (i.e. females in psychology) would show more negative reactions towards an EOP presented as an ingroup loss than an EOP presented as an outgroup gain. This was supported for all dependent measures except policy support. Secondly, it was predicted that non-beneficiary group members would show more negative reactions towards a high self interest EOPs than a low self interest EOP. This was not supported. The third and central prediction was that non-beneficiary group members would show stronger negative reactions towards a high self interest EOP than towards a low self interest EOP only for an EOP presented in terms an ingroup loss, not as an outgroup gain. This prediction was not supported. Evidence for the first prediction has implications for increasing acceptance and effectiveness of these controversial policies