CHAPTER 1 PART 1.

PREJUDICES, STEREOTYPES & DISCRIMINATION

INFORMATIONS COMPLEMENTAIRES ET
RESUME DES PRINCIPALES NOTIONS A CONNAITRE

Vous venez de lire le texte 6 intitulé « Prejudices, stereotypes and discrimination»

(Pages 20 à 25 de l’ouvrage « Anglais pour psychologues » de Masse, L. Pullin, W.
Hughes, E. et Shankland, R. (2011) édité chez Dunod.
Vous avez visionné le film No5 du DVD inclus dans cet ouvrage et intitulé « The effects
of social categorization ».

Nous ajoutons à ces supports de travail des informations complémentaires et nous

faisons un résumé des principales notions à connaître.

Social categories enable us to organize our perceptions about people, freeing us from the
burden of attending to all the characteristics of each person we meet. Once categories are
created, they can have profound consequences. They can lead to stereotyping, self-fulfilling
prophecies, and the division of the world into ingroups (endogroupe) and outgroups
(exogroupe).

A self-fulfilling prophecy (also called Rosenthal effect) is “a process in which we find

confirmation and proof for our stereotypes by unknowingly creating stereotypical behavior in
out-group members through our treatment of them”. This happens because our beliefs influence
our actions.
An employer who, for example, expects the employees to be disloyal will likely treat them in a
way that will elicit the very response he or she expects. Early examples of the self-fulfilling
prophecy are the Greek myths surrounding Oedipus. Oedipus fulfills the oracle’s prophecy that
he will kill his father and marry his mother, by striving to avoid the prophecy. This can be called
a self-fulfilling prophecy because it is Oedipus’ actions that make the prophecy come true.

Members of groups also provide judgments about their own group members (endostereotypes)
as well as judgments about the members of other groups (exostereotypes). Building upon
existing linguistic relations between the French and the Belgians, Yzerbyt, & al. (2005) asked
standard speakers (French), and non-standard speakers (Belgian) to rate the linguistic skills,
competence, and warmth of both groups.

As predicted by the authors, French participants evaluated standard speakers 1) as more skilled
linguistically than Belgians and 2) as more competent than warm (endosteretotype). They also

1
evaluated non-standard speakers as more warm than competent (exosterotype). The same
patterns were found in the Belgian population.

MODERN THEORIES OF INTERGROUP BIAS

Social identity theory was developed by Henri Tajfel and John Turner in 1979. Tajfel and
Turner proposed that there are three mental processes involved in evaluating others as “us” or
“them” (i.e. “in-group” and “out-group”. These take place in a particular order:

"Us" versus "them" categorizations tend to create intergroup conflict. Part of the reason stems
from the fact that a group (especially high in-group status) may view itself positively (ingroup
favoritism) and view other groups negatively (outgroup derogation).

Outgroup favoritism is when people (especially disadvantaged groups or low status groups)
tend to regard groups they do not belong to more positively than the groups of which they are
members. Some theorists argue that this is an example or manifestation of how some people
have unconsciously absorbed existing inequalities.
In other words, because people have a tendency to justify the societal status quo (which usually
consists of inequality among groups) and believe that it is fair and legitimate, certain people
from low status groups will accept and internalize that inequality (for example, a black person
would say “blacks are lazy whereas white persons are courageous” which combined ingroup
derogation (first statement) and outgroup favoritism (second statement).

The most prominent example of negative affect towards an ingroup was recorded in 1939 by
Mamie and Kenneth B. Clark (1947) using their now famous “Dolls Test”. In this test African
American children were asked to pick their favorite doll from a choice of otherwise identical
black and white dolls. A disturbingly high percentage of these African American children
indicated a preference for the white dolls (Voir le lien vers la video No1 ci-dessous ou recopier
le lien suivant dans votre navigateur: http://youtu.be/ybDa0gSuAcg ).

Social Identity Theory

According to social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner 1979), successful intergroup bias creates
or protects relatively high in-group status, thereby providing a positive social identity for
ingroup members and satisfying their need for positive self-esteem.

The Minimal group paradigm is a methodology proposed by Tajfel and his colleagues to
investigate the minimal conditions required for discrimination to occur between groups: this
methodology consists of two phases.
In the first phase, participants are randomly and anonymously divided into two groups (e.g.,
"Group A" and "Group B"), ostensibly on the basis of trivial criteria (e.g., preference for
paintings or the toss of a coin).
In the second phase, participants take part in an ostensibly unrelated resource distribution task.
During this task, participants distribute a valuable resource (e.g. money or points) between other
participants who are only identified by code number and group membership (e.g. "participant
number 34 of Group A"). Participants are told that, after the task is finished, they will receive
the total amount of the resource that has been allocated to them by the other participants.
Typically, minimal group experiments find that, although participants show a significant degree

2
of fairness in their allocations, they also show a significant tendency to allocate more money or
points to in-group members than to out-group members.

Optimal Distinctiveness Theory (Brewer 1991)

This theory proposes that social identity involves a compromise between two opposing needs:
the need for assimilation (to be like others) and the need for differentiation (to be different
from others). People are motivated to identify with groups that provide an optimal balance
between these two needs. Optimal distinctiveness theory puts forward two motivations for
intergroup bias. First, bias is motivated by the need to affirm the satisfaction derived from
identification with an optimally distinct group (Leonardelli & Brewer 2001). Second, given a
certain degree of identification, intergroup bias is motivated by the need for intergroup
differentiation (Brewer 1991).

Subjective Uncertainty Reduction Theory (Hogg 2000, Hogg & Abrams 1993)

This theory proposes that people are motivated to reduce subjective uncertainty. One way to
reduce subjective uncertainty is to identify with social groups that provide clear normative
prescriptions for behavior. Early studies have shown how uncertainty translates into conformity
and connection to groups. Think about Sherif’s experiment and his autokinetic effect: when
individuals felt uncertain about some task, they became increasingly likely to comply with the
norms and behaviors of the group, presumably as a means to diminish this uncertainty.

Terror Management Theory (see Solomon et al. 1991)

This theory proposes that people have a need for self-preservation, and that this need is
frustrated by their awareness of the inevitability of their own death. According to terror
management theory, people with high self-esteem feel that they are meeting the values espoused
by their cultural worldview, and therefore feel more confident in attaining some form of
immortality. Hence, cultural worldviews and, more specifically, self-esteem provide buffers
against the anxiety caused by the awareness of death. Terror management theory proposes that
people evaluate in-group members positively because similar others are assumed to support,
and therefore validate, their own cultural worldview; but they evaluate out-group members
negatively because dissimilar others are assumed to threaten their worldview.

Social Dominance Theory (Sidanius & Pratto 1999) and system justification theory (Jost &
banaji, 1994; Jost & Burgess, 2000). (Nous ajoutons la 2ème théorie qui n’est pas dans l’article).

The first theory proposes that society contains ideologies that either promote or attenuate
intergroup hierarchies. Individual differences in the extent to which these competing ideologies
are accepted are represented by social dominance orientation (SDO).
Individuals with a high SDO have a strong desire to promote intergroup hierarchies and for
their ingroups to dominate their out-groups.
The second theory proposes that people are motivated to rationalize and justify instances of
inequality in order to preserve and defend the legitimacy of the system or status quo. Since high
status group members regularly benefit from the prevailing system, they are expected to rarely
be presented with examples that would threaten the legitimacy of the system. In contrast, it is
expected that low status group members who do not benefit from the system, would be
presented more regularly with threats to the legitimacy of the system and status quo. Thus, it is
expected for system justification tendencies to increase in societies with more substantial group

3
inequalities, and low status group members will be more inclined than high status group
members to provide more intense justifications to rationalize and uphold the prevailing systems
and status quo.

Measures of Intergroup Bias

EXPLICIT MEASURES

Researchers often use a large number of well-established explicit measures in the same study.
Responses are made consciously and are typically assessed by traditional self-report measures
including attribution of group traits (stereotypes), group evaluations (prejudice), and
differential behavior toward in-group and out-group targets (discrimination).
However, measures of these three cognitive, affective, and behavioral components,
respectively, are often empirically dissociated (e.g., Stangor et al. 1991; see Mackie & Smith
1998), with modest-to-weak overall relationships between measures (see meta-analysis by
Dovidio et al. 1996).
Studies using multiple measures of bias have tended to show a pattern of inconsistent responses
across different measures, which can sometimes be attributed to perceivers making a
compromise between the desire to evaluate their own group positively and the wish to maintain
a self-image of fair-mindedness (Singh et al. 1998).

IMPLICIT MEASURES

Implicit measures of bias are evaluations and beliefs that are automatically activated by the
mere presence of the attitude object (i.e., the target group) (see Dovidio et al. 2001). Implicit
measures tap unintentional bias, of which well-intentioned and would-be unprejudiced people
are largely unaware; they include :
(a) the relative concreteness-abstractness of written language in response to expectancy-
consistent vs. inconsistent behaviors (for a review, see Maass 1999);
(b) indirect self-report measures (e.g., involving attributional biases) (Von Hippel et al. 1997);
(c) response-latency procedures following priming (e.g., Dovidio et al. 1997, Fazio et al. 1995,
Judd et al. 1995, Wittenbrink et al. 1997);
(d ) memory tasks (e.g., Crisp & Hewstone 2001, Sherman et al. 1998); and
(e) psychophysiological measures (e.g., Phelps et al. 2000, Vanman et al. 1997).

The promise of implicit measures is to assess the true extent of people’s bias, given pressures
to conform to socially desirable or politically correct norms (see Devine et al. 2001, Judd et
al. 1995). The most powerful implicit measures can tap biases despite these norms, because
they are beyond both intentional control and awareness.

Un des test implicites les plus connus en psychologie sociale s’intitule l’IAT (Implicit
Association Test , Dasgupta et al. 2000, Greenwald et al. 1998).
Si vous souhaitez "tester" vos préjugés à l'égard de différentes catégories de personnes,
voir les liens plus-bas dans ce chapitre ou l’adresse des sites à recopier dans votre
navigateur ci-dessous; vous aurez le choix entre plusieurs objet attitudinaux :

En anglais :
http://www.understandingprejudice.org/iat/index2.htm

4
En anglais ou français (selon le drapeau du pays que vous choisissez à gauche)
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/selectate bas àst.html

En français (onglet du haut « méthode » et choisir « mesurer vos préjugés »:

http://www.observatoiredesdiscriminations.fr/spip.php?rubrique15

Une fois que vous aurez pris connaissance des différents supports du livre ainsi que
de ce texte, vous irez dans la rubrique EXERCICE de la plate-forme « MOODLE »
et ouvrirez l’exercice intitulé « PREJUDICES, STEROTYPES AND
DISCRIMINATION (PSD)». Vous pourrez évaluer votre compréhension de ces
supports de travail et vous entraînez ainsi à l’examen…

Pour celles et ceux qui veulent aller plus loin, nous mettons à disposition un
excellent article de Hewstone, Rubin & Willis, (2002) dont est extrait une partie du
texte ci-dessus. Vous le trouverez plus bas dans la rubrique « Documents
complémentaires » ou en suivant le lien ci-dessous :

http://www1.psych.purdue.edu/~willia55/392F-%2706/HewstoneRubinWillis.pdf