Diversity policy, social dominance, and intergroup relations: Predicting prejudice in changing social and political contexts.

Serge Guimond · Richard John Crisp · Pierre De Oliveira · Rodolphe Kamiejski · Nour Kteily · Beate Küpper +6 more

235 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Personality and Social Psychology

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Social and Intergroup Psychology Migration, Refugees, and Integration Cultural Differences and Values

Abstract

In contrast to authors of previous single-nation studies, we propose that supporting multiculturalism (MC) or assimilation (AS) is likely to have different effects in different countries, depending on the diversity policy in place in a particular country and the associated norms. A causal model of intergroup attitudes and behaviors, integrating both country-specific factors (attitudes and perceived norms related to a particular diversity policy) and general social-psychological determinants (social dominance orientation), was tested among participants from countries where the pro-diversity policy was independently classified as low, medium, or high (N = 1,232). Results showed that (a) anti-Muslim prejudice was significantly reduced when the pro-diversity policy was high; (b) countries differed strongly in perceived norms related to MC and AS, in ways consistent with the actual diversity policy in each country and regardless of participants' personal attitudes toward MC and AS; (c) as predicted, when these norms were salient, due to subtle priming, structural equation modeling with country included as a variable provided support for the proposed model, suggesting that the effect of country on prejudice can be successfully accounted by it; and (d) consistent with the claim that personal support for MC and AS played a different role in different countries, within-country mediation analyses provided evidence that personal attitudes toward AS mediated the effect of social dominance orientation on prejudice when pro-diversity policy was low, whereas personal attitudes toward MC was the mediator when pro-diversity policy was high. Thus, the critical variables shaping prejudice can vary across nations.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 235 citations exist upstream.

References

1991Culture and the Self: Implications for Cognition, Emotion, and Motivation 1983Culture's Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values.2004The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior 1989LISREL 7 : user's reference guide 2001The Authoritarian Personality 1989The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts.1997Manuscript Preparation 2005Acculturation: Living successfully in two cultures

Cited by

2016Social Dominance Theory: Explorations in the Psychology of Oppression 2014Living in a multicultural world: Intergroup ideologies and the societal context of intergroup relations 2020Beyond direct contact: The theoretical and societal relevance of indirect contact for improving intergroup relations 2019On melting pots and salad bowls: A meta-analysis of the effects of identity-blind and identity-conscious diversity ideologies.2021From Seats at the Table to Voices in the Discussion: Antecedents of Underrepresented Director Participation in Board Meetings

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.