Developmental Changes in Ingroup Favouritism among Bilingual and Unilingual Francophone and Anglophone Students

Abstract

Relations between bilingualism and intergroup attitudes are examined among 663 Francophone students in Quebec, 521 Anglophone cadets at an Ontario military college, and in a longitudinal Anglophone 271-student sample from an Ontario university. In each of the three samples, among older students, unilinguals display ingroupfavouritism; bilinguals do not. Educational level is positively related to ingroup favouritism among unilinguals. Among bilinguals, educational level and favouritism are negatively related in all samples but, while Anglophone bilinguals move from ingroup favouritism to equal evaluations at later levels, Francophone bilinguals move from outgroup favouritism at earlier levels to equal evaluations later. AmongAnglophone respondents, contact with the second-language group is associated with greater levels of ingroup favouritism among respondents with low levels of second-language proficiency. Longitudinal analyses, in the Anglophone university sample, suggest that unilinguals undergo negative contact effects, whereas at the military college, longitudinal analyses (n = 336) reveal increased ingroup favouritism by cadets experiencing failure in second-language training. Among Francophones, relations of bilingualism with attitudes toward other groups are mixed in direction, whereas among Anglophones, relations are uniformly positive. Results are discussed with respect to social identity theory and the social psychology of language.

Social identity, relative group status and intergroup attitudes: when favourable outcomes change intergroup relations…for the worse

“…Mullen et al, 1992; see also Brauer, 2001;Otten, Mummendey, & Blanz, 1996). Rather, our findings fit with a growing number of studies, both in the laboratory and in the field, which reveal more discriminatory attitudes and behaviours on the part of high-status, dominant social groups (see Boldry & Kashy, 1999;Brown, 1995Brown, , 2000Ellemers, Kortekaas, & Ouwerkerk, 1999;Ellemers & van Knippenberg, 1997;Guimond & Palmer, 1993;Kinket & Verkuyten, 1999;Sachdev & Bourhis, 1987;Shah, Kruglanski, & Thompson, 1998;Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). This is, in fact, the conclusion that Bettencourt et al (2001) have reached as a result of their meta-analysis of relevant studies.…”

La théorie de la privation relative et les réactions au handicap: Le rôle des comparaisons intrapersonnelles dans la gestion de l'estime de soi

“…Le contexte universitaire dans lequel se déroulait cette étude s'avère particulièrement intéressant pour plusieurs raisons. Lieu de socialisation , l'université peut permettre des contacts interpersonnels ou intergroupes entre des étudiants valides et des étudiants handicapés, ces contacts pouvant avoir des effets aussi bien béné ques que négatifs sur nos perceptions intergroupes, et de façon plus générale, sur notre perception du monde social (Guimond, 2000;Guimond, Dif, & Aupy, sous presse;Guimond & Palmer, 1993). Aussi, l'université est un lieu d'acquisitio n de connaissances, dans la perspective d'obtenir, en n de cursus, un emploi.…”

Ethnic in-group evaluation and adhesion to acculturation ideologies: The case of Moroccan immigrants in France

“…Other factors, such as the possibility of joining the majority group (Guimond, Dif & Aupy, 2002;Guimond & Palmer, 1993), the tendency to justify the social system (Jost & Banaji, 1994), or the adhesion to acculturation ideologies (Verkuyten, 2005;Ramos et al, 2013) can explain the variation in in-group evaluation among minority-group members. Moreover, group evaluation can be affected by social desirability norms (Reicher & Levine, 1994).…”