Does social dominance generate prejudice? Integrating individual and contextual determinants of intergroup cognitions.

Guimond, Serge; Dambrun, Michaël; Michinov, Nicolas; Duarte, Sandra

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.697

Cited by 316 publications

(412 citation statements)

References 83 publications

(178 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

351

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Ideological orientations have been shown to account for some of these different effects of threat by shaping the experience of threat which subsequently drives antiimmigration stances (Cohrs & Stelzl, 2010;Duckitt, 2006;Guimond, Dambrun, Michinov, & Duarte, 2003;see Feldman, Chapter 20). Recent research in the U.S. and Switzerland demonstrated that when immigrants were portrayed as adapting to the values of the receiving society (i.e., becoming similar to the national majority), anti-egalitarian (high SDO) nationals motivated to enforce status boundaries were more willing than low SDO nationals to persecute immigrants than when they did not make such integrative efforts (Thomsen, Green, & Sidanius, 2008).…”

Section: Threatening the Values Of The National Ingroupmentioning

confidence: 99%

Migration and Multiculturalism

Green¹,

Staerklé²

2013

Oxford Handbooks Online

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

"Multiculturalism has utterly failed", German Chancellor Angela Merkel declared inOctober 2010, "immigrants need to do more to integrate in German society". A few months later, in February 2011, British Prime Minister David Cameron also condemned his country's long-standing policy of multiculturalism as a failure, claiming that many young British Muslims were drawn to violent ideology because they found no strong collective identity in Britain. These two quotes from leading European politicians exemplify how migration and multiculturalism have become key issues in contemporary societies. Virtually all countries in the world need to deal with the steady flow of people crossing international borders that have made societies in our globalized world more and more diverse. Despite its contested nature as a normative model for organizing diversity in receiving societies, multiculturalism has become an inescapable reality to which countries need to adapt.This chapter is concerned with two major questions concerning migration and multiculturalism. First, it looks at the social and psychological processes at work in the migrant experience. Second, it deals with how members of receiving societies react to the increased and diversified immigrant presence in their societies. 1 Our review draws mainly upon research and theory in political and social psychology. Reflecting the diversity of classic and recent empirical work on migration and multiculturalism, we present research covering a Migration and multiculturalism 2 wide range of methodological approaches, including survey, experimental and qualitative studies. The chapter emphasizes how historical and political contexts affect the nature of intergroup relations between migrant groups and receiving societies. It furthermore highlights the role of widely shared social representations in processes of migration and multiculturalism, expressed in ideological belief systems, political discourse and everyday cultural repertoires. We argue that a political psychology perspective to migration and multiculturalism will gain from taking a interdisciplinary approach in which different levels of analysis-including individual, group and societal factors-are combined and articulated (Castles & Miller, 2009;Chryssochoou, 2004;Deaux, 2006;Verkuyten, 2005a).The chapter is organized in four parts. The first part outlines some historical benchmarks of modern migration and briefly presents two key notions of a psychological approach to migration-assimilation and multiculturalism-in their historical context. In a second part, we summarize empirical research that focuses on the psychological dynamics involved in the migrant experience, in particular the interactionist and complex nature of migrant identities, acculturation and adaptation in receiving societies, and intergroup approaches to acculturation and multiculturalism. The third part analyses the role of threat regarding immigrants and immigration in the reactions, attitudes and beliefs of majority populations in receiving societies. The...

show abstract

Section: Threatening the Values Of The National Ingroupmentioning

confidence: 99%

Migration and Multiculturalism

Green¹,

Staerklé²

2013

Oxford Handbooks Online

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Besides these inter correlations among different prejudice elements, some studies have presented more profound empirical evidence for generalized prejudice by either developing reliable scales including several prejudices (Guimond, Dambrun, Michinow and Durarte 2003), or by forming a second order factor of several prejudices (Heyder and Schmidt 2003;Ekehammar, Akrami, Gylje and Zakrisson 2004;Bratt 2005). For instance, a highly reliable scale of prejudices against 17 different ethnic out-groups was created by Guimond and his co-workers (2003).…”

Section: Generalized Prejudice: the Concept Of Group-focused Enmity Amentioning

confidence: 99%

Level and change of group-focused enmity in Germany: unconditional and conditional latent growth curve models with four panel waves

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study we investigate and explain the level and change of six elements of group-focused enmity (GFE; see Zick et al. 2008) in Germany between 2002 and 2006: racism, xenophobia, antiSemitism, homophobia, exclusion of homeless people and support for rights of the established. For the data analysis, a representative 4-year panel study of the adult non-immigrant German population collected during the years 2002-2006 is used, and the development of each GFE component is tested by using an unconditional second-order latent growth curve model (LGM) (with full information maximum likelihood, FIML). We find that the level of 5 of the 6 components (racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism, homophobia, exclusion of homeless people) displays an increase at the beginning of the observed period followed by a decrease. However, the sixth aspect, rights of the established, displays a continuous linear increase over time. The different developmental pattern stands in contrast to Allport's hypothesis (1954) for the strong link between the components and their development over time. We try to explain this different developmental pattern by several sociodemographic characteristics. This is performed by using a conditional second-order latent growth curve model. This is a pre-copy-editing, author-produced PDF of an article accepted for publication in the journal AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis 2011 95(4):481-500 following peer review. It was first published online in this journal on October 18, 2011. The definitive publisher-authenticated version is available online at: between the components and their development over time. We try to explain this different developmental pattern by several sociodemographic characteristics. This is performed by using a conditional second-order latent growth curve model.

show abstract

“…primes (Duckitt & Fisher, 2003;Guimond, Dambrun, Michinov, & Duarte, 2003;Schmitt, Branscombe, & Kappen, 2003). These considerations suggest that they seem to be better construed as measuring two social attitude dimensions of a broadly ideological nature, rather than personality or behavioural dispositions.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Right wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and the dimensions of generalized prejudice

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prior research suggests that individuals' prejudiced attitudes form a single generalized dimension predicted by Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO). A dual process approach, however, expects different domains of generalized prejudice that relate differentially to RWA and SDO. To test this, 212 participants rated attitudes to 24 typically disliked groups. Factor analysis revealed three distinct generalized prejudice dimensions. Hierarchical Linear Modelling indicated that attitudes towards a 'dangerous' groups domain was significantly related only with RWA, attitudes toward a second 'derogated' groups domain was related only to SDO, and attitudes toward a third, 'dissident' groups, domain was significantly related to both, but powerfully with RWA and weakly with SDO. These findings have implications for explaining and reducing prejudice.

show abstract

Does social dominance generate prejudice? Integrating individual and contextual determinants of intergroup cognitions.

Cited by 316 publications

References 83 publications

Migration and Multiculturalism

Migration and Multiculturalism

Level and change of group-focused enmity in Germany: unconditional and conditional latent growth curve models with four panel waves

Right wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and the dimensions of generalized prejudice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About