European Journal of Social Psychology Eur. J. Soc. Psychol.

35, 581598 (2005)

Published online 11 November 2004 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.238

Ideological beliefs as determinants of discrimination in positive and negative outcome distributions

CATHERINE E. AMIOT AND RICHARD Y. BOURHIS*
` Universite du Quebec a Montreal, Canada

Abstract Social identity theory proposes that discrimination contributes favourably to group members social identity. In minimal group paradigm (MGP) studies involving positive outcome distributions (e.g. money), discrimination is associated with a more positive social identity. But studies on the positivenegative asymmetry effect show that categorization leads to less discrimination when negative (salary cuts) than when positive outcomes (salary increases) are distributed. Using structural equation modelling, this study (N 279) tested whether discrimination involving negative outcome distributions could contribute as much to group members positive social identity as discrimination on positive outcomes. The study also tested if ideological beliefs (i.e. social dominance orientation, authoritarianism), measured one month before the MGP experiment, could predict positive and negative outcome discrimination. While the t of the hypothesized model was adequate, only social dominance orientation predicted both positive and negative outcome discrimination. Also, discrimination on positive outcomes but not on negative ones contributed to positive social identity. Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. It is one thing to explain why group members seek to benet their own group more than out-groups, but it is quite another to account for why some people are interested in discriminating by imposing more harmful outcomes on out-group others. A growing number of researchers have proposed conceptual models combining intrapersonal, interpersonal, intergroup, and ideological levels of explanation to better account for different types of discriminatory behaviours (Doise, 1986; Taylor & Moghaddam, 1995). The present study combines two levels of analysis to explain discrimination on positive vs. negative outcome distributions: the intergroup level, using social identity theory (SIT), and the ideological level, via belief structures such as social dominance orientation (SDO) and right-wing authoritarianism (RWA). The main goal of this study was to explore the role of ideological beliefs and social identity processes as complementary accounts of discriminatory behaviours on positive vs. negative outcome distributions.
` *Correspondence to: Dr R. Bourhis, Departement de psychologie, Universite du Quebec a Montreal, PO Box 8888, Succ. Centre Ville, Montreal, Quebec, H3C 3P8, Canada. E-mail: bourhis.richard@uqam.ca Contract/grant sponsor: Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC).

Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 9 February 2004 Accepted 25 June 2004

582

Catherine E. Amiot and Richard Y. Bourhis

As an intergroup level theory, SIT originated as an explanation of the discrimination effect obtained in the minimal group paradigm (MGP; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). In a typical minimal group experiment, members of two arbitrary groups allocate valued resources such as money to anonymous in-group and out-group members (Tajfel, Flament, Billig, & Bundy, 1971). There is no social interaction within or between the groups, no instrumental links between individuals responses and their personal selfinterest, and no previous history or relations between the groups (Bourhis, Turner, & Gagnon, 1997). Although these procedures were designed to eliminate classic factors accounting for discrimination, research has shown that categorizing people into us and them is sufcient to foster discriminatory behaviour (Bourhis & Gagnon, 2001; Brewer, 1979; Diehl, 1990). This mere categorization effect provides the cognitive basis needed to trigger the motivational processes leading to discriminatory behaviours. Social categorization, social identication, social comparison, and the need for a distinct and positive social identity are the key psychological variables proposed by SIT to account for discriminatory behaviour within the MGP (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Within this experimental situation, the arbitrary imposed us-them categorization provides participants with the opportunity to identify as group members. Degree of in-group identication, the cognitive component of social identity, refers to the strength of an individuals identication with the in-group, independently of whether the individual feels positive or negative about this identication (Gagnon & Bourhis, 1996). To the degree that individuals identify with their in-group in the MGP, desire for a distinct and positive social identity is achieved by seeking favourable comparisons between the in-group and the out-group on the only available dimension of comparison in the experiment, namely, the distributions of more valued resources to members of the in-group than to members of the out-group. In line with SIT, recent reviews have noted signicant links between degree of identication to the in-group and discriminatory behaviour (Brown, 2000; Rubin & Hewstone, 1998). Quality of social identity can be dened as the affective evaluation, positive or negative, of an individuals group membership (Gagnon & Bourhis, 1996). In their MGP studies using positive outcome distributions, Perreault and Bourhis (1998, 1999) obtained results showing that quality of social identity was more positive after group members discriminated than before they engaged in the resource distribution task. Thus, by discriminating on positive outcome distributions, participants in MGP studies are able to achieve a more positive social identity. From an SIT perspective, discrimination within the MGP is seen as functional, fullling the need for differentiation from the out-group and contributing to group members positive social identity (Tajfel & Turner, 1986).

THE POSITIVE-NEGATIVE ASYMMETRY EFFECT AND POSITIVE SOCIAL IDENTITY

Brewer (1979) noted that the distinction between in-group favouritism and out-group derogation is not always present in classic MGP research so it is often ambiguous whether the comparison rests on enhancement of the in-group, devaluation of the out-group, or both (p. 321). Mummendey and Otten (1998) noted that most MGP studies have focused on group members distribution of positive outcomes such as giving money or symbolic points to in-group and out-group members. The question is whether the conditions sufcient to elicit discrimination in the distribution of positive outcomes can function equivalently for discrimination involving negative outcome distributions such as inicting punishments, imposing extra hours of unpaid work, or enforcing salary cuts. Over 20 studies were conducted by the Mummendey research group to investigate the differential allocation of positive vs. negative outcome distributions (Mummendey & Otten, 1998). Generally,
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 35, 581598 (2005)

Ideological beliefs and discrimination

583

ndings demonstrated that categorization per se leads to less discriminatory behaviour when negative outcomes are distributed than when positive outcomes are distributed (Buhl, 1999). This phenomenon was identied as the positive-negative asymmetry effect (PNAE). But beyond the absolute amount of discrimination manifested when positive vs. negative outcomes are distributed between group members, the underlying psychological processes involved when distributing positive and negative outcomes remain to be investigated. For instance, within the PNAE, can discrimination involving negative outcome distributions contribute as much to group members positive social identity as was found to be the case for discrimination involving positive outcomes? In his analysis, Buhl (1999) noted that SIT does not take into account whether the dimension of comparison contributing to positive social identity is made up of desirable or aversive outcome distributions (Mummendey, 1995). Different processes may account for discrimination on positive vs. negative outcome distributions. Based on an elaboration of the perceptual differentiation hypothesis rst proposed by Doise (1976), one could expect group members to be mainly concerned with the distribution of outcomes in a manner that allows for the in-group and the out-group to receive different allocations, regardless of the valence of the outcomes being distributed. In line with this perceptual differentiation hypothesis, one could expect that discrimination on negative and positive outcome distributions may contribute equally to a perceptual differentiation between the in-group and the out-group, thus leading in both cases to a more positive social identity. However, discrimination on negative outcome distributions is often perceived as being even less socially desirable and less normatively appropriate than discrimination on positive outcome distributions (Amiot & Bourhis, 2003; Blanz, Mummendey, & Otten, 1997). Harming the out-group more than the in-group involves an undesirable dimension of intergroup comparison, which is unlikely to contribute to positive social identity. Thus, according to the discrimination valence hypothesis, discrimination on negative outcome distributions should be less likely to contribute to positive ingroup identity than discrimination on positive outcome distributions. Although recent MGP studies have shown that discrimination on positive outcome distributions are associated with a more positive social identity (Gagnon & Bourhis, 1996; Perreault & Bourhis, 1998), the effect of negative outcome discrimination on the quality of in-group identity remains to be investigated. The rst goal of this study was thus to explore the relative merit of the perceptual differentiation vs. discrimination valence hypotheses as competing processes underlying discrimination on positive vs. negative outcome distributions.

IDEOLOGICAL BELIEFS, DISCRIMINATION, AND THE PNAE Whereas studying the associations between positive and negative discrimination on group members quality of social identity allows one to tap into the consequences of these discriminatory behaviours, investigating the antecedent variables predicting the manifestation of positive and negative discrimination is also of importance. In such a context, are some individuals more prone to discriminate on both positive and negative outcome distributions? As a second goal, the present investigation seeks to identify the ideological beliefs that predict both positive and negative discrimination. Recently, Duckitt (2001) as well as Guimond, Dambrun, Michinov, and Duarte (2003) argued that while a tradition of research has considered authoritarianism and SDO as stable personality traits, these intraindividual constructs can be more adequately understood in terms of ideological beliefs. Duckitt, Wagner, du Plessis, and Birum (2002) also propose that ideological beliefs are analogous to motivational goals schemas, which can become more or less salient depending on the specic context. Indeed, the RWA and Facism scales have been shown to be highly reactive to situational threat
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 35, 581598 (2005)

584

Catherine E. Amiot and Richard Y. Bourhis

manipulations (Duckitt et al., 2002; see also Guimond et al., 2003, for the moderating role of ideological beliefs in specic contexts). In the present context, both positive and negative outcome distributions may be likely to reect ideological beliefs about how outcomes should be distributed between group members. Respondents endorsement of relevant ideological beliefs assessed one month prior to the conduct of the MGP study will be used to test whether such ideological beliefs can predict discriminatory behaviour on both positive and negative outcome distributions. Ideological beliefs such as authoritarianism (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950) or RWA (Altemeyer, 1998) as well as SDO (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994) have been consistently linked to intergroup attitudes and behaviours. While RWA has been labelled as a submissive authoritarianism and SDO as a dominant authoritarianism, these two ideological beliefs show weak to moderate correlations with one another and have been associated with distinct correlates (for reviews, see Altemeyer, 1998; Pratto, 1999). As proposed by Altemeyer (1998), right-wing authoritarians believe in submission to established authorities and the social norms these authorities endorse, even if these norms involve aggression. According to Whitley (1999), people high in authoritarianism tend to organize their worldviews in terms of in-groups and out-groups and perceive members of out-groups as threatening the traditional values authoritarians hold dear (p. 126). There is also a strong body of research showing that RWA can predict racism and prejudice against visible and low-status out-groups (Adorno et al., 1950; Altemeyer, 1988, 1998; Duckitt, 2001; Duckitt et al., 2002; Duriez & van Hiel, 2002). Within an intergroup experiment using a modied version of the MGP, Altemeyer (1994) found that individuals scoring high on authoritarianism rated their minimal in-group more positively than did individuals scoring low on authoritarianism. There is also some evidence for the association between authoritarianism and discrimination involving negative outcome distributions, revealing that highly authoritarian individuals were more punitive and aggressive than low authoritarians (Christie, 1993). Elms and Milgram (1966) found that authoritarianism was the only ideological belief associated with destructive obedience, a result also obtained in a learning study conducted by Altemeyer (1988). Finally, according to Altemeyer (1998), submissive authoritarians tend to see the world as a dangerous place, which triggers fear and instigates aggression in them (see also Duckitt, 2001). Combined with their tendency to be self-righteous, submissive authoritarians would appear prone to manifesting both positive and negative outcome discrimination in the context of the MGP. We thus expect that the more group members endorse authoritarianism (RWA), the more they should discriminate on both positive and negative outcome distributions in the MGP. SDO is dened as the tendency to consider ones own primary in-group to be better than, superior to, and dominant over relevant out-groups (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). According to Pratto et al. (1994), high-SDO individuals are theorized to be relatively conservative, racist, ethnocentric, and prejudiced, and they should show little empathy for lower status others (p. 744). Studies have shown a strong relationship between SDO and both prejudice and racism (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Social dominance theory (SDT) has made explicit suggestions about how SDO could be linked to discrimination involving out-group derogation and negative outcome distributions. According to Sidanius, Pratto, and Mitchell (1994), the desire to actively oppress out-groups has been given a central role within SDT. In fact, SDT proposes that oppressive forms of intergroup behaviours (i.e. ethnic cleansings, lynchings) reect more a desire to actively dominate and oppress out-groups than a motivation to benet the ingroup and improve positive in-group identity. Thus, SDT appears well-suited to account for the dominance motives underlying the distribution of both positive and negative outcome distributions. In line with such analyses, a number of questionnaire studies have shown that high SDO individuals have a propensity for cruelty (Altemeyer, 1998), while also being more likely to support punitive policies (Sidanius, Liu, Shaw, & Pratto, 1994). In a MGP study, Sidanius, Pratto et al. (1994) found that high and low SDO individuals displayed different affective reactions to the out-group. High SDO individuals
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 35, 581598 (2005)

Ideological beliefs and discrimination

585

reported a greater desire for social distance from out-group members while also claiming less willingness to cooperate with out-group than in-group members. In another MGP study, Federico (1998, Study 2) found that among high status group members, SDO was positively associated with evaluative favouritism for their in-group (i.e. using positive adjectives), while this relationship was not signicant among low status group members. Although these MGP studies reveal that low and high SDO individuals differ in their affective and evaluative reactions toward minimal in-group and out-group members, SDO remains to be associated with actual discriminatory behaviour on both positive and negative outcome distributions. In this regard, we expect that the more group members endorse the SDO, the more they should discriminate on both positive and negative outcome distributions in the MGP.

THE PRESENT STUDY The rst aim of this study was to explore how discrimination on positive vs. negative outcome distributions could affect group members quality of social identity. According to the perceptual differentiation hypothesis, it is predicted that discrimination on both positive and negative outcome distributions should lead to a more positive social identity. However, the discrimination valence hypothesis predicts that discrimination on positive outcomes should contribute to positive social identity while discrimination on negative outcome distributions should not be related to a more positive social identity. The second goal of the study was to test whether different ideological beliefs assessed one month before the conduct of the MGP experiment can predict discrimination involving both positive and negative outcome distributions. The ideological beliefs hypothesis proposes that RWA and SDO should predict discrimination involving the distribution of both positive and negative outcome distributions.

METHOD Participants Two-hundred-and-seventy-nine college students (194 women, 84 men, one participant did not report his/her gender) from a French language college (CEGEP) in Montreal participated in the two parts of the study. In Quebec, students must complete a two-year college programme at the CEGEP level before being eligible to apply as undergraduates at the university level. Most respondents were social science college students while none were enrolled in a business programme. The mean age of the students who took part in the study was 18.2 years old (SD 0.72, range 1724 years old). None of the Quebec Francophone participants included in the study were members of a visible minority group.

Design Part 1 of the study involved the completion of a questionnaire assessing participants ideological beliefs, while the second part, conducted a month later, involved a standard MGP experiment. In the rst part of the study, CEGEP students were recruited during class time and were told that the questionnaire dealt with the validation of a number of psychological scales. Ostensibly, the study was presented as being conducted by a team of researchers from the Psychology Department of one of the
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 35, 581598 (2005)

586

Catherine E. Amiot and Richard Y. Bourhis

two Francophone universities in Montreal. The questionnaire consisted of various scales including SDO and authoritarianism (RWA). Just over a month after this rst study, the MGP experiment was conducted during class time with the same students. This MGP experiment was allegedly unrelated to the previous study as participants were recruited by a female experimenter from the other Francophone university in Montreal. The experimenter presented herself as a graduate student in industrial/ organizational psychology interested in the study of decision-making processes involved in the context of mergers and acquisitions. This procedure insured that respondents had no reason to surmise that their participation in the MGP study was at all related to a study conducted by researchers from another university one month earlier. Three independent variables were manipulated in the MGP experiment. First, half the respondents distributed salaries, while the other half distributed hours of unpaid work, making this a betweensubjects factor. Second, the valence of the outcomes distributed, a within-subjects factor, was manipulated. This was made possible by asking participants in the salary distribution condition to distribute both salary increases and salary cuts. Participants in the unpaid work condition distributed both increases and cuts in hours of work. Based on the taxonomy of discriminatory behaviours proposed by Mummendey (1995; Amiot & Bourhis, 2003), positive outcomes were conceptualized as either salary increases or cuts in unpaid hours of work. Negative outcomes were conceptualized as either cuts in salaries or increases in unpaid hours of work. Finally, the order of the outcomes distributed was manipulated so as to counterbalance the design. Group members in the order 1 condition rst allocated positive outcome distributions then allocated negative outcomes. Group members in the order 2 condition rst allocated negative outcomes then allocated positive outcomes between group members. This third independent variable was a between-subjects factor.

Procedures Used in the MGP Experiment Participants in the MGP experiment were instructed that for the purpose of the decision-making task, they would be randomly divided into two groups. Ostensibly, the outcome of a coin toss performed privately by each respondent in the presence of the experimenter determined their group membership in group K or group W of the newly merged corporation. Respondents were in fact randomly assigned to their group, and arrangements were made for group memberships to remain anonymous throughout the entire MGP experiment. The experimenter explained that because the study was concerned with decision-making with minimum information, participants would allocate outcomes to anonymous in-group and out-group others but never to themselves. These procedures represent the standard method used to eliminate self-interest as a motive in minimal group experiments (Bourhis, Sachdev, & Gagnon, 1994). Before each outcome distribution, participants were told that they would be making decisions about the distribution of salary increases or reductions in hours of unpaid work (in the positive outcome allocation phase) and salary cuts or increases in unpaid hours of work (in the negative outcome phase). It was made clear that salary distributions did not involve variations in quantity or quality of work, and that hours of work distributions did not involve variations in salaries. The outcome distributions were justied by informing participants that such distributions took place in the context of a recent corporate merger. Participants were told that group K and group W were branches of the same merged organization and that, because of the organizational changes, they were asked to decide how outcomes should be distributed between these two branches. Negative outcome distributions were legitimized by specifying that when mergers are not well planned, a decrease in corporate efciency and a drop in nancial assets can occur. For the sake of insuring a successful merger, it becomes necessary for the corporation to impose salary cuts and increases in hours of unpaid work on its employees. Positive outcome distributions were justied by specifying that when mergers are well planned, an increase in
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 35, 581598 (2005)

Ideological beliefs and discrimination

587

efciency and prot can follow, leading the corporation to provide employees with salary increases and reductions in hours of work with no loss in salary. Participants were instructed to imagine themselves as decision-makers within their respective corporate branch (K or W), which had just completed the corporate merger. Due to variations in prots following the merger, participants were asked to distribute resources to anonymous members of the K and W branches using the Tajfel matrices. At the very end of the minimal group study, respondents completed a scale measuring the quality of their social identity as members of their respective corporate branches. The instructional set was constructed to insure experimental realism, encourage the emotional involvement of the participants, and minimize the social desirability responses associated with the negative outcome distribution task. In both parts of the study, participants were informed that they were free to end their participation at any time. They were informed that there was no wrong or right answer when completing the questionnaires and their outcome distributions booklets. They were assured that their answers would remain anonymous and condential and would serve for research purposes only. For matching purposes, participants were asked to indicate their date of birth on both the part 1 ideological beliefs questionnaire, and on the part 2 response booklets completed during the MGP experiment one month later. At the end of the second part of the study, participants were fully debriefed.

Measures Ideological Beliefs In part 1 of the study, respondents completed the SDO and the RWA scales using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from do not agree at all to agree completely. Using a back translation procedure, the SDO scale (Pratto et al., 1994) was translated from English to French. Previous studies using the 16-item English language SDO scale have found it to be both reliable and valid (Pratto et al., 1994; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). In the present study only the eight-item hierarchy-enhancing (i.e. group-based dominance) subscale was used given our interest in beliefs pertaining to group inequality and intergroup derogation. Doing so was justied on the basis of evidence from conrmatory factor analyses suggesting a factorial distinction between hierarchy-enhancing and hierarchy-attenuating (i.e. equality) components of the SDO scale (Jost & Thompson, 2000). In the present study, the reliability of the French language SDO hierarchy-enhancing subscale was acceptable (Cronbach alpha 0.78). Authoritarianism was assessed using a 16-item French-language version of the RWA scale (RWA; Altemeyer, 1998). For computation purposes, negatively-worded items were reversed so that all items indicate greater authoritarianism. The reliability obtained for this French language RWA scale was acceptable (Cronbach alpha 0.72).

Tajfel Matrices Adapted Tajfel matrices were used to assess group members distributions of positive and negative outcomes in the MGP experiment. Although other matrices have been used to monitor resource distribution strategies (e.g. Gaertner & Insko, 2001, Study 2), the present study adopted the Tajfel matrices as they have been found to tap peoples social orientations in a valid, reliable and sensitive manner (Bourhis & Gagnon, 2001; Bourhis, Gagnon, & Sachdev, 1997; Brown, Tajfel, & Turner, 1980; Diehl, 1990; Messick & Mackie, 1989; Turner, 1980, 1983). Four basic strategies are measured using the Tajfel matrices (for more complete information on the use and scoring of the Tajfel matrices, see Bourhis et al., 1994). Parity (P) represents a choice that awards an equal amount of outcomes,
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 35, 581598 (2005)

588

Catherine E. Amiot and Richard Y. Bourhis

whether they be positive or negative, to in-group and out-group recipients. Maximum in-group prot (MIP) represents a choice that awards the highest absolute amount of positive outcomes to in-group recipients regardless of awards made to out-group others. When distributing negative outcomes, opting for this strategy involves awarding the minimal amount of negative outcomes to in-group recipients regardless of negative outcomes distributed to out-group others. When distributing positive outcomes, maximum differentiation (MD) is a discrimination strategy that maximizes the difference in outcomes awarded to two recipients, the difference being in favour of the in-group member but at the cost of sacricing absolute in-group prot. When distributing negative outcomes, MD is a strategy that maximizes the difference of negative outcomes distributed to the two recipients, the difference being in favour of the in-group member but at the cost of sustaining greater negative outcomes to the ingroup. When used in positive outcome distributions, maximum joint prot (MJP) is a choice that maximizes the total amount of outcomes distributed to both in-group and out-group recipients. When used in negative outcome distributions, the MJP strategy minimizes the total amount of negative outcomes distributed to both in-group and out-group recipients. In this MGP experiment, three matrix types designed to assess discriminatory strategies were used. The rst matrix type compared the strength of in-group favouritism (FAV) on P: FAVon P. FAV is made up of the strategies of MIP and MD: FAV MIP MD. The second matrix type pitted FAV against MJP: FAV on MJP. The third matrix compared MD against combined MIP and MJP: MD on MIP MJP. Each matrix type was presented once in its original form (in-group/out-group) and once in its reverse form (out-group/in-group) to obtain pull scores. Each of these strategies was used in both positive and negative outcome distributions. In total, this resulted in six matrix presentations for the positive outcome distributions and another six matrix presentations for the negative outcome distributions. In the present study, each pull score had a theoretical range from 6 to 6. The order of presentation of each matrix within the booklet was randomized for each respondent. The Cronbach alphas obtained for these three discrimination matrices were satisfactory, both when positive (0.83) and when negative outcomes (0.80) were distributed. Given that positive and negative outcomes should have similar psychological weights, care was taken to achieve economic equivalence of salary distributions and hours of unpaid work distributions. Equivalence was achieved using national statistics pertaining to the average pay earned, as well as the average number of hours worked by employees whose education prole matched that of the respondents who took part in the experiment (Statistiques Canada, 1999). Based on these statistics, the Tajfel matrices were constructed so as to match salary matrices with hours of work matrices. Participants also completed a zero-sum distribution where outcomes were distributed to an in-group opposed to an out-group member. The zero-sum task completed by participants in the salary condition involved distributing either a salary increase or a salary cut of $100 in weekly pay, while participants in the hours of work condition distributed either a decrease or an increase of 10 hours in their weekly work schedule. Hours of work distributions were rescaled so as to match the 100-point scale used for salary distributions, and negative outcome distributions were reversed so that higher amounts indicated greater bias in favour of an in-group member as opposed to an out-group member. Quality of In-group Identication At the very end of the MGP experiment, respondents completed the quality of social identity scale using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from not at all to completely. As in previous MGP studies, this scale was composed of items measuring the extent to which respondents liked being a member of their own group, and how much they felt at ease and secure as a member of their own group (Gagnon & Bourhis, 1996; Perreault & Bourhis, 1998). Reliability for this three-item scale was acceptable (Cronbach alpha 0.91).
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 35, 581598 (2005)

Ideological beliefs and discrimination Parcelling of the Items

589

Parcels of items were formed on the ideological belief scale of authoritarianism and on the groupbased dominance subscale of the SDO scale (Little, Cunningham, Shahar, & Widaman, 2002). Several reasons underlie the use of parcels for these instruments in the present study. First, in comparison to individual items, parcels present advantageous psychometric properties. Second, models based on parcelled data are more parsimonious, have fewer chances for residuals to be correlated, and lead to reductions in various sources of sampling error. Third, parcels can be recommended when the number of items included in a full model is high, thus allowing for a more optimal variable to sample size ratio and yielding more stable parameter estimates (see Duckitt et al., 2002, for an application with ideological beliefs measures). Finally, the present study focused primarily on the relations among latent variables rather than on the exact relations among the individual items. With respect to the authoritarianism measure, the procedure taken to regroup items into parcels involved including, within the same parcel, an equal number of items of different directions of wording. This procedure reduced systematic error due to method effects such as direction of wording (Altemeyer, 1988). Each parcel contained either two items (in the case of the group-based dominance subscale of the SDO scale) or four items (in the case of the authoritarianism scale).

RESULTS Valence, Stimulus Type and Gender Effects on Resource Distributions in the MGP An outcome valence by stimulus type by order by sex Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was rst conducted to test the effect of the three independent variables composing our experimental design and of sex on the discrimination matrices and the zero-sum distribution in the MGP part 2 study. Results of this four-way repeated-measures MANOVA did not reveal any signicant main or interaction effect for either order or sex (F ratios ranged from 0.46 to 2.01). The effects obtained for valence of outcome were not signicant. The only signicant effect to emerge was the stimulus main effect. In light of these results, and given the importance of the valence of outcome variable, an outcome valence by stimulus type repeated-measures MANOVA was next conducted on the four discrimination measures. As can be seen in Table 1, the main effect for valence was not signicant (F (4, 274) 1.10), suggesting the lack of a PNAE in the present study. While the valence by stimulus interaction was also non-signicant (F (4, 274) 0.47), the main effect for stimulus type was signicant (F (4, 274) 3.59, p < 0.01). At the univariate level, stimulus had a signicant effect on each of the four discrimination measures, revealing a greater use of these strategies when salaries were distributed than when hours of unpaid work were distributed. Further interpretations for the lack of the PNAE and for the emergence of the stimulus main effect are presented in the discussion section.1 The mean pull score obtained for each discrimination measure in each experimental condition was tested for signicance. One-sample t-tests (two-tailed) comparing each pull scores on the Tajfel
1 Given the signicant effect of stimulus type on discriminatory behaviour, hierarchical moderated multiple regressions (HMMRs) were conducted to test for the potential moderating role of stimulus type in each of the six associations tested in the SEM model. To do so, HMMRs were conducted on each of the three dependent variables (i.e. positive outcome discrimination, negative outcome discrimination, quality of social identity) (Aiken & West, 1991). Results revealed no signicant interaction effect. However, stimulus type had a signicant main effect in two of the regressions, revealing more positive as well as more negative outcome discrimination when salary than when hours of unpaid work were distributed. These results replicate those obtained in the MANOVA.

Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 35, 581598 (2005)

590
Table 1.

Catherine E. Amiot and Richard Y. Bourhis

Mean pull scores of participants distribution strategies as a function of outcome valence and stimulus Outcome valence Outcome valence Positive Stimulus Salary Cuts in hours increases of work n 133 n 146 Salary Increases in cuts hours of work 1.10 Multivariate tests (4, 274) F 3.59** 0.47 Negative Stimulus Outcome valence by stimulus

Univariate tests (1, 277) F FAV on MJP MD on MIP MJP FAV on P Zero-sum distribution 0.83*** 0.79*** 0.70*** 54.55*** 0.24* 0.29* 0.26* 51.23y 0.76*** 0.61*** 0.71*** 53.55*** 0.29* 0.15 0.46*** 51.48* 0.02 1.38 1.00 0.43 13.25*** 8.71** 6.08* 9.43** 0.36 0.03 0.84 1.18

Note: Tajfel matrices range from 6 to 6. Zero-sum distribution: Zero-sum distribution of either $100 or 10 hours of work/ week distributed between an in-group and an out-group member. In order to make salary and hours of work comparable on zero-sum distributions, hours of work were multiplied by 10. To allow comparison between positive and negative outcomes, negative outcome distributions were inversed. Therefore, zero-sum scores represent bias in favour of the in-group. On the zerosum scores, a score of 50 represents P (no bias), while scores departing from 50 and increasing represent a corresponding increase in in-group bias. ***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05; y p < 0.10.

matrices from zero, and each zero-sum distribution from 50 (i.e. a score of P) were conducted to determine if these discriminatory strategies were used beyond chance level by participants. In nearly all experimental conditions, participants made signicant use of each of the four discrimination strategies. Given that group members discriminated signicantly on both positive and negative outcome distributions, we proceeded to investigate whether ideological beliefs could predict the use of these discriminatory strategies as well as for how discrimination on positive vs. negative outcome distributions could contribute to positive social identity. These analyses were conducted using structural equation modelling (SEM).

Descriptive Statistics for the Variables Included in the SEM Model Table 2 presents the correlations between computed aggregates of the manifest variables included in the SEM model as well as the means, standard deviations, skewness and kurtosis values for those computed variables. Univariate normality proved satisfactory and correlations among the variables suggest the absence of multicollinearity. The statistics for the entire set of manifest variables used in the model are available from the authors upon request.

Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) Version 5.7 of the EQS/Windows program was used to test for the validity of the hypothesized SEM model. Doing so rst involved the conduct of conrmatory factor analyses on each of the instruments
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 35, 581598 (2005)

Ideological beliefs and discrimination

591

Table 2. Correlation matrix, means, standard deviations, skewness, and kurtosis for the computed variables of the model Variables 1. Social dominance (SDO) 2. Authoritarianism (RWA) Discrimination: Positive outcomes 3. Discrimination Tajfel matrices 4. Zero-sum Discrimination: Negative outcomes 5. Discrimination Tajfel matrices 6. Zero-sum 7. Positive social identity Mean 2.23 3.74 0.51 52.82 0.49 52.47 4.46 SD SK KU 1 0.22 0.16 0.16 0.12 0.11 0.05 2 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.77 0.37 0.35 0.19 0.38 0.41 0.15 0.74 0.10 0.04 3 4 5 6

0.92 0.75 0.26 0.68 0.17 0.06 1.31 8.87 0.72 1.20 2.31 3.38 2.92 3.61 0.09

1.37 0.80 8.84 1.13 1.36 0.61

Note: Correlation coefcients above 0.12 are signicant at p < 0.05. SD standard deviation; SK skewness, KU kurtosis. The variables presented were computed from the parcels. The social dominance and the authoritarianism computes are each composed of four parcels (i.e. sdohep1, sdohep2, sdohep3, sdohep4 and authop1, authop2, authop3, authop4, respectively). The compute regrouping positive discrimination Tajfel matrices is composed of the strategies of FAV on P (i.e. fav/p), MD on MIP MJP (i.e. md/mjp), and FAV on MJP (i.e fav/mjp), while the negative discrimination Tajfel matrices compute is composed of these same strategies but when negative outcomes were distributed (i.e. fav/p, md/mjp, fav/mjp). The positive social identity compute is composed of the qid1, qid2, and qid3 variables.

included in the model. All t indices and parameters obtained in these conrmatory factor analyses (CFAs) were acceptable. Detailed results of these analyses are available from the rst author upon request. The maximum likelihood estimation procedure was used to estimate model t. Given the diversity of the t indices available, and in view of the controversies concerning measures of overall t (Byrne, 1994), several t indices will be reported. As for the chi-square ratio, it is desirable to obtain a chisquare that is not signicant. But when sample size is large, the chi-square can be signicant even when the difference between the hypothesized and observed covariance matrices is minimal. While it is generally not valid to use the chi-square ratio to test the null hypothesis of the overall t, it will be reported here for sake of convention as well as to allow the comparison of different models. The standardized RMR represents the average difference between the sample variances and covariances and the estimated population variances and covariances. The standardized Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) has a range of 0 to 1, where values less than 0.10 are desired. The Root Mean Squared Error of Approximation (RMSEA) assesses the estimated discrepancy, per degree of freedom, between the population covariance matrix and the model. Whereas the RMSEA value would be 0 if the t was perfect, values smaller than 0.05 indicate a good t, and values smaller than 0.08 represent a reasonable t. The Comparative Fit Index (CFI) compares the chi-square of the estimated model with the chi-square of a null model. The values of the CFI range from zero to one, with a CFI value greater than 0.90 serving as the conventional lower cut-off of acceptable t of the model to the data. Finally, the parsimony t index (PCFI) adjusts the CFI to take complexity of the model into account and varies from 0 to 1. Values equal to or higher than 0.50 are considered acceptable. The Lagrange Multiplier Test (LM Test) was also used as a guide in identifying parameters initially constrained to zero that could contribute most to a signicantly better tting model if these parameters were freely estimated. Post-hoc model tting was considered appropriate only when there was sound statistical, theoretical, and empirical justication to do so (Byrne, 1994). To assess the extent to which a respecied model represents an improvement in t, the differences in 2 can be used to compare models. This variation is 2-distributed, with degrees of freedom equal to the difference in degrees of freedom of the two models. A signicant difference in 2 indicates a substantial improvement in model t. Finally, the Wald Test was used to identify non-signicant parameters.
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 35, 581598 (2005)

592

Catherine E. Amiot and Richard Y. Bourhis

The Hypothesized Model The hypothesized full model to be tested is presented in Figure 1. In line with the ideological beliefs hypothesis, it was anticipated that SDO and RWA would each predict discrimination on both positive and negative outcome distributions. The two ideological beliefs were also hypothesized to correlate with one another. The perceptual differentiation hypothesis predicted positive links between discrimination on positive and negative outcome distributions and positive social identity. Although the discrimination valence hypothesis predicted the absence of a signicant relationship between discrimination on negative outcome and positive social identity, this relation was nevertheless tested in the model to determine its exact strength. Finally, the residuals representing the error of prediction of all regression equations were hypothesized to be signicant, and the covariance between these residuals was hypothesized to be zero. Goodness-of-t values were as follows: 2 (145) 314.60, p < 0.001, CFI 0.929, RMR 0.099, RMSEA 0.065 (condence interval 0.0550.074), PCFI 0.788. Examination of the multivariate LM 2 coefcients revealed improvement in model t to be gained from the additional specication of a structural path between the two discrimination factors or by adding cross-loadings between parcels or items and factors to which they did not originally belong. Because of the already adequate t of the model to the data, and because of the lack of theoretical and empirical evidence supporting the modications proposed by the LM Test, it was decided not to add any parameters to the model. Doing so also enhances the potential replicability of the present model and minimizes the problem of capitalization on chance. Analyses of power within the context of analysis of covariance structure revealed adequate levels of power for the model tested (power 0.999; MacCallum, Browne, & Sugawara, 1996). Although presenting an acceptable t to the data, this model presented three non-signicant parameters, which were also identied by the Wald Test. As can be seen on Figure 1, authoritarianism was not signicantly related to discriminatory behaviour on positive or negative outcome distributions. Only SDO predicted both positive and negative outcome discrimination, thus providing partial support for the ideological beliefs hypothesis. Also, the association between discrimination on negative outcome distribution and positive social identity was not signicant, thus providing support for the discrimination valence hypothesis rather than for the perceptual difference hypothesis. A nal model, which excluded these non-signicant associations, was thus tested. Goodness-of-t values for this nal model were as follows: 2 (148) 314.97, p < 0.001, CFI 0.930, RMR 0.100, RMSEA 0.064 (condence interval 0.0540.073), PCFI 0.805. Although more parsimonious, this nal model did not differ from the hypothesized model (2(3) 0.37, n.s.). The Wald Test did not reveal any nonsignicant associations in this nal model.

DISCUSSION The MGP results obtained in this study showed that group members discriminated as much on negative as on positive outcome distributions. By evoking the need to achieve a successful corporate merger within a competitive economic market, the present study provided participants with a plausible ideological justication for discriminating on both positive and negative outcomes (Amiot & Bourhis, 2003). The prot motive guiding successful mergers may have made negative outcome distributions appear more acceptable and meaningful for group members in our study, thus eliminating the usual PNAE obtained by the Mummendey research group. As proposed by Mummendey and Otten (1998), discrimination involving negative outcomes requires additional aggravating conditions (Otten, Mummendey, & Blanz, 1996). In our study, the intergroup context of corporate mergers driven by
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 35, 581598 (2005)

Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Ideological beliefs and discrimination 593

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 35, 581598 (2005)

Figure 1. Structural equation model testing the hypothesized associations between ideological beliefs, positive and negative discrimination, and quality of social identication; *p < 0.05

594

Catherine E. Amiot and Richard Y. Bourhis

the prot motive can be seen as an aggravating condition providing group members with the readymade ideological justication needed to facilitate discrimination on both positive and negative outcomes. In contrast, the rationale used in the original PNAE studies conducted by Mummendey and her colleagues to investigate the distribution of negative outcomes seemed less compelling as they evoked abstract ideals of advancing the cause of science. In these studies, participants were told that negative outcome distributions were ostensibly allowing researchers to explore basic psychological processes and were thus distributed for the implicit cause of advancing fundamental research (e.g. Mummendey et al., 1992; Blanz, Mummendey, & Otten, 1995; Otten et al., 1996). The PNAE results obtained in those studies suggest that the implicit justication involving the cause of science may not have been sufcient to legitimize discrimination on negative outcome distributions. Clearly, future studies should systematically manipulate the intensity and valence of the ideologies used to justify discriminatory behaviours on positive and negative outcome distributions. Analysis of variance results obtained in the present MGP study only revealed a stimulus main effect, showing that more discrimination took place when salaries where distributed than when hours of work were distributed. In organizational settings, salary distributions seem to be a more relevant dimension of intergroup comparison than distributions of unpaid hours of work. By virtue of their comparative and zero-sum nature, salary distributions can elicit quite vivid and strong emotions (Furnham & Argyle, 1998). In contrast, hours of work can be conceived as a more complex and exible resource, which is not necessarily associated with negative consequences (e.g. if ones work is enjoyable, self-actualizing, or status-enhancing). However, stimulus type did not moderate any of the relationships obtained in the study, suggesting that the relationships investigated in the SEM analysis applied equivalently for both salaries and hours of work conditions. Results obtained in the SEM analysis showed that the psychological experience of discriminating using positive vs. negative outcomes was qualitatively different. SEM results revealed a signicant positive association between discrimination on positive outcome distributions and the achievement of a positive social identity. In contrast, the association between discrimination on negative outcome distribution and positive social identity was not signicant. These results provide support for the discrimination valence hypothesis rather than for the differentiation hypothesis. Although discrimination is a fundamentally undesirable behaviour, it remains that FAV involving the distribution of positive outcomes such as salary increases and cuts in hours of unpaid work can contribute to the positive social identity of group members engaged in such behaviour. These results corroborate patterns obtained in a study conducted by Perreault and Bourhis (1999) also showing that discrimination on positive outcome distributions (i.e. money) contributed to the positive social identity of group members. Taken together these two studies support the fundamental SIT proposition that discriminatory behaviour can contribute to positive social identity when positive outcomes are distributed between group members (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). However, the SEM analysis also showed that discrimination on negative outcome distributions such as salary cuts and increases in unpaid hours of work did not improve the positive social identity of group members. Harming the out-group more than the in-group does not seem to be a dimension of comparison which contributes to the achievement of a more positive social identity. Thus, although the ideological context of the present study may have legitimized the use of negative outcome discrimination, this type of discrimination did not provide a meaningful basis for achieving a more positive social identity (Reynolds, Turner, & Haslam, 2000). The fact that discrimination on negative outcome distributions did not contribute to a more positive social identity not only renes the SIT explanation of discriminatory behaviour in the MGP, but also provides a complementary account of the PNAE. However, it remains that real life instances of discrimination on negative outcome distributions is prevalent worldwide and is more likely to occur when it is done for a compelling and ideologically good cause, however dened.
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 35, 581598 (2005)

Ideological beliefs and discrimination

595

SEM results provided partial support for the ideological beliefs hypothesis. While endorsement of authoritarian beliefs (RWA) was unrelated to discriminatory behaviours in the MGP experiment, SDO was predictive of discrimination on both positive and negative outcome distributions. The role played by SDO (hierarchy enhancing component) in predicting discriminatory behaviours is particularly noteworthy given that ideological beliefs were monitored in an ostensibly unrelated study conducted one month prior to the actual MGP study. Why did SDO emerge as the sole predictor of discriminatory behaviour on positive and negative outcome distributions? A number of recent studies investigated the psychological correlates of both SDO and RWA (Altemeyer, 1998; Duckitt et al., 2002; Duriez & van Hiel, 2002; Pratto et al., 1994). Self-report studies showed that socially dominant individuals tend to be cold, vindictive, aggressive, and hostile. Social dominants are also characterized by toughmindedness, lack of empathy, machiavellianism, and power motivation. SDO has also been associated with overt aggressiveness, and with a desire to humiliate and triumph over others. These psychological correlates of the SDO ideology may combine to account for the discriminatory behaviours obtained on both positive and negative outcome distributions within this MGP experiment. While SDO has been associated with different affective and evaluative reactions in the MGP (Sidanius, Pratto et al., 1994) as well as with various undesirable intergroup attitudes in survey studies, the present study extends those results by providing evidence for the role of SDO in predicting actual discriminatory behaviours involving both positive and negative outcome distributions. RWA beliefs were not predictive of discriminatory behaviours in this MGP study. Unlike SDO, which involves intergroup beliefs about social stratication, submissive authoritarianism is more closely related to intra-group beliefs about how individuals relate with in-group authority gures and adhere to in-group norms (Duckitt, 2001). Studies also suggest that submissive authoritarians tend to be more defensive and conforming while displaying less boldness when expressing their negative intergroup attitudes and behaviours. For instance, Lippa and Arad (1999) proposed that prejudice may serve different functions for submissive vs. dominant authoritarians. For submissive authoritarians, prejudice may reect submission to in-group norms decreed by authority gures and defence against intrapsychic threat. However, for dominant authoritarians (SDO), prejudice may represent a route to superiority and power in a dog eat dog world and thus serve a more instrumental function (Duriez & van Hiel, 2002). Given the absence of any in-group norms and authority gure prescribing discrimination in the present MGP experiment, results could reect the role of discrimination in serving a more instrumental and meaningful function for socially dominant individuals than for submissive authoritarians. Also, whereas both SDO and RWA are good predictors of prejudice, SDO has been shown to predict prejudice against a great variety of social groups, while RWA is a particularly good predictor of prejudice against homosexuals or religious out-groups (Altemeyer, 1998; Duckitt, 2001; Pratto, 1999). The ad-hoc nature of the ephemeral groups created within the MGP may also be more concordant with the generic groups evoked within the SDO scale used to monitor dominant authoritarians than with the more specic groups and values evoked in the RWA scale used to monitor submissive authoritarians. An integrated view of discrimination on positive and negative outcome distributions that combines the SIT and SDT perspective may be proposed on the basis of the present ndings. MGP results showed that discrimination involving positive outcome distributions was predicted by SDO and also contributed positively to quality of social identity. Discrimination on positive outcomes may be fostered by both the need for a positive social identity and the desire to socially dominate out-group others. Favouring the in-group more than the out-group on positive outcome distributions contributes to positive social identity on a valued dimension of comparison. Moreover, for dominant authoritarians (SDO), discrimination on positive outcomes also achieves domination of the in-group over a relevant out-group. However, negative outcome discrimination, which involves the distribution of more
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 35, 581598 (2005)

596

Catherine E. Amiot and Richard Y. Bourhis

negative outcomes to out-group than to in-group members, implies a negative dimension of intergroup comparison unlikely to contribute to positive social identity. As one could expect from SDT, people motivated by desires for social dominance may be less concerned about social desirability and more interested in actively dominating and oppressing out-groups (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Thus, group members who discriminate on negative outcome distributions may be those more concerned with asserting dominance over out-groups rather than to achieve a more positive social identity. It remains that discrimination in this study was obtained in a context of corporate mergers which provided an economic justication for discrimination on both positive and negative outcome distributions. Would socially dominant individuals discriminate on negative outcome distributions in an intergroup context providing no ideological justication for the unequal treatment of in-group/ out-group members? Future studies should more systematically explore the effect of different types of ideological justications favouring or sanctioning discrimination on positive and negative outcome distributions. Given that college students in this study weakly endorsed the social dominance ideology, future studies should also involve population samples who more strongly endorse SDO beliefs. Very high SDO individuals may be those most likely to improve their positive social identity as a result of discriminating not only on positive but also on negative outcome distributions. Taken together, results from the SEM analysis demonstrated that ideological beliefs assessed one month prior to the conduct of a MGP experiment could predict actual discriminatory behaviours on both positive and negative outcome distributions in the MGP. Although group members pre-existing ideological beliefs were never central within the SIT explanation of discrimination in the MGP, the present study demonstrated that such ideological constructions can be usefully included as complementary explanations of discriminatory behaviours obtained in MGP studies involving positive and negative outcome distributions (Perreault & Bourhis, 1999). This study also showed that ideological beliefs held by group members participating in PNAE studies can no longer be ignored. Although results of this study raise empirical and theoretical issues that remain to be solved, they do illustrate the value of addressing the problem of discrimination using a combination of explanatory levels including the intergroup and ideological levels, as originally recommended within the epistemological framework proposed by Willem Doise (1986).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research was made possible thanks to a grant to the second author from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). The authors would like to thank the professors and students who collaborated and participated in this study. We also thank Denyse Lemay and Simon Niset for their precious help at various stages of the study.

REFERENCES
Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Altemeyer, B. (1988). Enemies of freedom. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Altemeyer, B. (1994). Reducing prejudice in right-wing authoritarians. In M. P. Zanna, & J. M. Olson (Eds.), The social psychology of prejudice: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 7, pp. 131148). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 35, 581598 (2005)

Ideological beliefs and discrimination

597

Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other authoritarian personality. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 4792). San Diego: Academic. Amiot, C. E., & Bourhis, R. Y. (2003). Discrimination and the positive-negative asymmetry effect: Ideological and normative processes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 597608. Blanz, M., Mummendey, A., & Otten, S. (1995). Perceptions of relative group size and group status: Effects on intergroup discrimination in negative evaluations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 231247. Blanz, M., Mummendey, A., & Otten, S. (1997). Normative evaluations and frequency expectations regarding positive versus negative outcome allocations between groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 165 176. Bourhis, R. Y., & Gagnon, A. (2001). Social orientations in the minimal group paradigm. In R. Brown, & S. Gaertner (Eds.), Intergroup processes: Blackwell handbook in social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 89111). Oxford: Blackwell. Bourhis, R. Y., Sachdev, I., & Gagnon, A. (1994). Intergroup research with the Tajfel matrices: Methodological notes. In M. P. Zanna, & J. M. Olson (Eds.), The social psychology of prejudice: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 7, pp. 209232). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Bourhis, R. Y., Gagnon, A., & Sachdev, I. (1997). Les matrices de Tajfel: Un guide methodologique pour la recherche intergroupes [The Tajfel Matrices: a methodological guide for intergroup research]. Cahiers Internationaux de Psychologie Sociale, 34, 1128. Bourhis, R. Y., Turner, J. C., & Gagnon, A. (1997). Interdependence, social identity and discrimination. In R. Spears, P. Oakes, N. Ellemers, & S. A. Haslam (Eds.), The social psychology of stereotyping and group life (pp. 273295). Oxford: Blackwell. Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal group situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307324. Brown, R. J. (2000). Social identity theory: Past achievements, current problems, and future challenges. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 745778. Brown, R. J., Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1980). Minimal group situations and intergroup discrimination: Comments on the paper by Aschenbrenner and Schaefer. European Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 399414. Byrne, B. M. (1994). Structural equation modeling with EQS and EQS/Windows: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Buhl, T. (1999). Positive-negative asymmetry in social discrimination: Meta-analytic evidence. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 2, 5158. Christie, R. (1993). Some experimental approaches to authoritarianism: II. Authoritarianism and punitiveness. In W. F. Stone, G. Lederer, & R. Christie (Eds.), Strengths and weaknesses: The authoritarian personality today (pp. 99143). New York: Springer-Verlag. Diehl, M. (1990). The minimal group paradigm: Theoretical explanations and empirical ndings. In W. Stroebe, & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (pp. 263292). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Doise, W. (1976). Larticulation psychosociologique et les relations entre groupes [Social psychological articulation and relations between groups]. Bruxelles: A. de Boek. Doise, W. (1986). Levels of explanation in social psychology. London: Cambridge University Press. Duckitt, J. (2001). A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 41112). San Diego: Academic. Duckitt, J., Wagner, C., du Plessis, I., & Birum, I. (2002). The psychological bases of ideology and prejudice: Testing a dual process model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 7593. Duriez, B., & van Hiel, A. (2002). The march of modern fascism: A comparison of social dominance orientation and authoritarianism. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 11991213. Elms, A. C., & Milgram, S. (1966). Personality characteristics associated with obedience and deance toward authoritative command. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 4, 282289. Federico, C. M. (1998). The interactive effects of social dominance orientation, group status, and perceived stability on favouritism for high status groups. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 2, 119143. Furnham, A., & Argyle, M. (1998). The psychology of money. London: Routledge. Gaertner, L., & Insko, C. A. (2001). On the measurement of social orientations in the minimal group paradigm: Norms as moderators of the expression of in-group bias. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 143154. Gagnon, A., & Bourhis, R. Y. (1996). Discrimination in the minimal group paradigm: Social identity or selfinterest? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 12891301. Guimond, S., Dambrun, M., Michinov, N., & Duarte, S. (2003). Does social dominance generate prejudice? Integrating individual and contextual determinants of intergroup cognitions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 697721.

Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 35, 581598 (2005)

598

Catherine E. Amiot and Richard Y. Bourhis

Jost, J. T., & Thompson, E. P. (2000). Group-based dominance and opposition to equality as independent predictors of self-esteem, ethnocentrism, and social policy attitudes among African Americans and European Americans. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 209232. Lippa, R., & Arad S. (1999). Gender, personality, and prejudice: The display of authoritarianism and social dominance in interviews with college men and women. Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 463493. Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151173. MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modelling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130149. Messick, D. M., & Mackie, D. M. (1989). Intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 40, 4581. Mummendey, A. (1995). Positive distinctiveness and social discrimination: An old couple living in divorce. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 657670. Mummendey, A., & Otten, S. (1998). Positive-negative asymmetry in social discrimination. In M. Hewstone, & W. Stroebe (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 9, pp. 107143). Chichester: Wiley. Mummendey, A., Simon, B., Dietze, C., Gruenert, G. H., Kessler, S., Lettgen, S., & Schaferhoff, S. (1992). Categorization is not enough: Intergroup discrimination in negative outcome allocation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 125144. Otten, S., Mummendey, A., & Blanz, M. (1996). Intergroup discrimination in positive and negative outcome allocations: Impact of stimulus valence, relative group status, and relative group size. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 568581. Perreault, S., & Bourhis, R. Y. (1998). Social identication, interdependence, and discrimination. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 1, 4966. Perreault, S., & Bourhis, R. Y. (1999). Ethnocentrism, social identication, and discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 92103. Pratto, F. (1999). The puzzle of continuing group inequality: Piecing together psychological, social, and cultural forces in social dominance theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 31, pp. 191263). New York: Academic. Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741763. Reynolds, S., Turner, J. C., & Haslam, S. A. (2000). When are we better than them and they worse than us? A closer look at social discrimination in positive and negative domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 6480. Rubin, M., & Hewstone, M. (1998). Social identity theorys self-esteem hypothesis: A review and some suggestions for clarication. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 4062. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Sidanius, J., Liu, J. H., Shaw, J. S., & Pratto, F. (1994). Social dominance orientation, hierarchy attenuators and hierarchy enhancers: Social dominance theory and the criminal justice system. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 338366. Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., & Mitchell, M. (1994). In-group identication, social dominance orientation, and differential intergroup social allocation. Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 151167. Statistiques Canada. (1999). Le Canada en statistiques: Recensement de 1996 [Canada in statistics: The 1996 census] (No. 72F0002-XDF). Ottawa: Canada. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In S. Worchel, & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 724). Chicago: Nelson-Hall. Tajfel, H., Flament, C., Billig, M. G., & Bundy, R. P. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149178. Taylor, D. M., & Moghaddam, F. M. (1995). Theories of intergroup relations: International social psychological perspective. New York: Praeger. Turner, J. C. (1980). Fairness or discrimination in intergroup behaviour? A reply to Branthwaite, Doyle, and Lightbown. European Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 131147. Turner, J. C. (1983). Some comments on . . . the measurement of social orientations in the minimal group paradigm. European Journal of Social Psychology, 13, 351367. Whitley, B. E. (1999). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 126134.

Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 35, 581598 (2005)