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.

Least squares analyses (e.g., ANOVAs, linear regressions) of hierarchical data leads to Type-I error rates that depart severely from the nominal Type-I error rate assumed. Thus, when least squares methods are used to analyze hierarchical data coming from designs in which some groups are assigned to the treatment condition, and others to the control condition (i.e., the widely used “groups nested under treatment” experimental design), the Type-I error rate is seriously inflated, leading too often to the incorrect rejection of the null hypothesis (i.e., the incorrect conclusion of an effect of the treatment). To highlight the severity of the problem, we present simulations showing how the Type-I error rate is affected under different conditions of intraclass correlation and sample size. For all simulations the Type-I error rate after application of the popular Kish (1965) correction is also considered, and the limitations of this correction technique discussed. We conclude with suggestions on how one should collect and analyze data bearing a hierarchical structure.

No abstract

Why does university exposure to a hierarchy-attenuating (HA) academic major (e.g., social science) lead to a decrease in anti-egalitarianism and group domination (social dominance orientation, SDO)? The reason for this well-documented phenomenon remains unclear. In the social sciences, the origins of differences in both behavior and personality are attributed more to social and environmental factors than to genetic ones. We hypothesized that the normative and informational influences of this academic major would lead to perceptions that genes have a less important role than nurture in the shaping of human behavior and personality. Our main hypothesis was confirmed. Decreased SDO among psychology students was mediated significantly by a decrease in belief in genetic determinism, the factor we calledBeginning with Newcomb's (1943) classic Bennington studies, several researchers have examined the effect of educational institutions on both sociopolitical and intergroup attitudes (Alwin, Cohen, & Newcomb, 1991;Baudelot, Leclercq, Chatard, Gobille, & Satchkova, 2004;Bobo & Licari, 1989;Collard-Bovy & Galand, 2003;Feldman & Newcomb, 1969;Guimond, Dambrun, Michinov, & Duarte, 2003;Guimond & Palmer, 1996;Pascarella, Edison, Amaury, Serra, & Terenzini, 1996;Sidanius, Pratto, Martin, & Stallworth, 1991;Sinclair, Sidanius, & Levin, 1998). However, as Levine and Moreland (1994) have noted: ''In spite of all this research, relatively little attention has been devoted to the socialization process'' and the way in which socialization processes affect intergroup attitudes (Guimond, 2000;Levine, Moreland, & Ryan, 1998). In the present study, we examine a mechanism that we believe mediates the effect of university socialization in social sciences on intergroup attitudes.Originally, Newcomb and his colleagues found that students' sociopolitical attitudes changed dramatically during their years at college (Newcomb, 1943). Because these changes remained relatively stable for the next 50 years, it appeared that the effects of university socialization were relatively stable and profound (Alwin et al., 1991). More recently, several studies have shown that prejudice toward disadvantaged groups tends to decrease with increasing exposure to higher education (e.g., Bobo & Licari, 1989;Pascarella et al., 1996;Sinclair et al., 1998). For example, in a study done by Sinclair et al. (1998), at UCLA, students became significantly less racist and more egalitarian after being in the university for only 9 months. However, several studies show that the type of academic major pursued moderates this general trend significantly. For example, Sidanius et al., 1991 found that among students who had the same amount of university experience, those in commerce showed a smaller decrease in prejudice than did those enrolled in sociology. Additionally, Guimond et al., 2003 showed that the effects were opposite when law and psychology students were compared. While upper-level psychology students were significantly less prejudiced toward an ethnic minori...

Des travaux récents ont montré que la conception actuelle de la laïcité pouvait être reliée aux préjugés envers les minorités ethniques et religieuses (Kamiejski et al., 2012). Notre étude propose d'examiner ce lien de façon expérimentale afin de vérifier dans quelle mesure le climat social actuel peut légitimer l'exercice de pression normative à l'encontre des personnes d'origine maghrébine. Dans cette perspective, deux études ont été menées en France auprès de 334 participants ayant des préjugés plus ou moins élevés envers les personnes d'origine maghrébine. Les participants devaient évaluer et rapporter leur intention d'exercer de la pression normative sur une cible d'origine maghrébine adoptant ou non une attitude allant à l'encontre de la nouvelle laïcité (Etude 1) et sur une cible d'origine musulmane ou catholique adoptant une attitude allant à l'encontre de la laïcité (Etude 2). Les résultats de l'étude 1 montrent que les personnes ayant de forts préjugés évaluent plus négativement et exercent plus de pression normative à l'encontre de la cible contre-normative que de la cible normative. Par ailleurs, les résultats de l'étude 2 montrent que les personnes à forts préjugés évaluent plus négativement et exercent plus de pression à l'encontre d'une cible musulmane qu'à l'encontre d'une cible catholique. Ces premiers résultats soutiennent l'idée que la laïcité est susceptible d'être mobilisée afin de légitimer des attitudes préjudiciables envers les personnes d'origine maghrébine par les personnes ayant initialement de forts préjugés. Mots clés: laïcité; préjugés; modèle républicain d'intégration; influence socialeRecent research has shown that French secularism (laïcité) could be linked to prejudice against ethnic and religious minorities (Kamiejski et al. 2012). This study provides an experimental test of this relation and investigates the impact of laïcité on the tendency to exert normative pressures on minority group members. 334 French participants with low or high prejudice against North Africans were asked, in Study 1, to report their intention to express normative pressure on a North African target adopting (or not) a deviant attitude regarding laïcité. In Study2, Muslim vs. Catholic target adopted a deviant attitude regarding laïcité. Results from Study 1 showed that people with strong prejudice evaluate more negatively and exert more normative pressure against the deviant target than against the normative target. Results from Study 2 showed that people with strong prejudice evaluate more negatively and exert more pressure against a Muslim target than against a Catholic target. These results support the idea that laïcité is likely to be mobilized by people who are high in prejudice in order to legitimize negative attitudes towards North Africans.