Education, academic program and intergroup attitudes

Abstract

Plusieurs études ont montré l'existence d'une relation positive entre le degré d'instruction et les attitudes intergroupes. Ces résultats suggèrent à certains chercheurs que l'éducation réduit les préjugés mais d'autres soutiennent que les gens les plus instruits ont simplement plus de facilités à cacher leurs préjugés. De façon similaire, si plusieurs considèrent que l'éducation rend les gens plus réceptifs à l'idéologie dominante, d'autres maintiennent l'inverse. La présente recherche évalue un modèle intégrant ces positions apparement contradictoires. Le modèle propose que les effets de l'instruction varient en fonction du domaine d'études. Alors que les étudiants/étudiantes d'un secteur d'études peuvent devenir plus favorables a l'égard d'un groupe social donné, ceux et celles d'un autre domaine peuvent maintenir leur attitude ou devenir plus negatifs à l'égard de ce même groupe. Le modèle présume que l'éducation constitue un processus de socialisation et que les domaines d'études professent des idéologies différentes. Une étude transversale menée auprès de 675 étudiants/étudiantes de trois niveaux scolaires et de trois domaines d'études a permis de recueillir des évaluations de sept groupes sociaux. II ressort que les étudiants/étudiantes en sciences sociales sont plus favorables à l'égard des ‘socialistes’à mesure que leur niveau scolaire augmente alors que les étudiants/étudiantes en administration deviennent moins favorables. L'inverse se produit par rapport à l'évaluation des ‘militaires’ et des ‘conservateurs’. Les résultats appuient le modèle qui propose un effet différentiel du domaine d'études sur les attitudes intergroupes. La discussion souligne les implications de ces résultats pour les recherches étudiant l'incidence de l'instruction sur les attitudes sociales et politiques et pour les théories sociologiques de l'éducation. Several studies have shown a positive relation between education and intergroup attitudes, with such results usually being taken as evidence that education reduces prejudice. Others have argued that the better‐educated simply have a greater ability to disguise their prejudice. Similarly, while many have argued that education increases support for the dominant ideology, others maintain the opposite. The present study tests a model that would permit reconciliation of these seemingly contradictory positions. The model proposes that effects of education on intergroup attitudes will vary as a function of academic discipline. While students in one area of study may become more positive toward a given social group, students in another area may not change or may become more negative toward that same group. The model assumes education is a socialization process and that academic areas differ in the ideology they promulgate. A cross‐sectional survey of 675 students at three levels of education, in three fields of study, collected ratings of seven groups. Social science students were found to give more positive ratings to 'socialist as their level of education increased while business st...

Individual- and Community-level Determinants of Support for Immigration and Cultural Diversity in Canada*

“…A third general theory proposes that more education leads to more accepting attitudes towards immigrants because people learn to think more positively about them (Guimond, Palmer and Begin, 1989;Chandler and Yung-Mei, 2001). Essentially, (some OF) the learning that takes place in high schools, colleges and, particularly, universities can counter prejudicial and xenophobic beliefs.…”

Class Position, Class Ideology and Class Voting: Mobilization of Support for the New Democratic Party in the Canadian Election of 1984*

“…Its members are sigdicantly more likely than others to support union strength. To the extent to which graduates in these fields have degrees of the same type, these results support Guimond et al's (1989) finding that social science graduates are more favourably inclined than others to unions (but see Lambert, 1990 andPalmer, 1994). Heath et al (1985) have argued that the New Class emphasizes a humane society where individual and collective rights are safeguarded more than economic equality.…”

“…Previous research has been inconsistent on the relationship between education and class consciousness. Some writers argue that formaleducation fosters conservative socio-economic attitudes andbehaviour (Mann, 1970;Curtis andlambert, 1976;Lmnbert and Curtis, 1979;Baer and Lambert, 1982) while others see formal education as a seedbed of radical ideology (Robinson and Bell, 1978;Omstein et al, 1980;Guimond et al, 1989), or as a source of liberalism on social issues (Kluegel and Smith, 1986). Our findings suggest that there are elements of truth in each view.…”

“…(For varied notions of the concept, see, for example, BruceBriggs, 1979; Gouldner, 1979;Wuthnow and Shrum, 1983;Calloway and Tomaskovic-Devey, 1989;Lerner et al, 1990;and Heuberger, 1992. ) Here it is defined to include those with university degrees who work in social-scientific, artistic, and literary oc~upations.~ Degree holders in these fields will often have been trained in the social sciences and humanities, thus combining an education that has attempted to sensitize them to problematic aspects of society (see Guimond et al, 1989;Guimond and Palmer, 1994), with occupations that require ongoing attention to its workings.8 To check the possibility that one element or the other in our definition of the New Class might account for its apparent effect on attitudes or voting, we defined two further variables, one identifying those in social-scientific, artistic, and literary occupations, but without degrees, and a second identifying degree holders working in other fields.…”

Les sous-cultures politiques du savoir

“…En plus de l'autosélection en amont des études supérieures, des auteurs ont décelé un processus de socialisation en aval. Se basant sur un échantillon de répondants du Québec et de l'Ontario, Guimond, Palmer et Bégin (1989) ont établi que les 18. Les physiciens se sont bâti une réputation de gauchistes (Benguigui, 1986).…”