Fabrice Gabarrot

Being similar versus being equal: Intergroup similarity moderates the influence of in-group norms on discrimination and prejudice

In two studies, we examined the influence of in-group norms of anti- and pro-discrimination on prejudice and discrimination as a function of intergroup similarity (Studies 1 and 2) and in-group identification (Study 2). In a condition where there was no information about intergroup similarity (Study 1) or intergroup similarity was low (Study 2), prejudice and discrimination were lower when norms prescribe anti-discrimination compared to pro-discrimination. In contrast, when intergroup similarity was high, prejudice and discrimination were higher when the in-group norm represents anti-discrimination compared to pro-discrimination. This pattern was most apparent among highly identified in-group members (Study 2). The paradoxical effect of the anti-discrimination norm in the high similarity condition is interpreted as a response to the threat this situation introduces to in-group distinctiveness.

Conformity and Identity Threat: The Role of Ingroup Identification

Two studies investigated the impact of national (Swiss) identification, perceived threat to ingroup identity, and pro- vs. antidiscrimination ingroup norms on discrimination against foreigners. As expected, ingroup identification was positively related to discrimination when perceived threat was high, but not when it was low: those with high ingroup identification conformed to the prodiscrimination norm, but counterconformed to the antidiscrimination norm. These findings suggest that group members do not conform blindly to group norms, but that they selectively follow the norms that are in line with their personal motivations (i.e., the extent of ingroup identification) and intergroup context (i.e., perceived intergroup threat). When norms clash with group members’ perceptions and personal motivations, they can even give rise to counterconformity dynamics.

A regulatory fit perspective in majority versus minority support to attitudes toward homosexuals

Three studies examined the attitude toward homosexuals as a function of regulatory focus and social support for non-discrimination. Regulatory orientation toward non-discrimination was measured by differentiating promotion and prevention emotions when anticipating a non-discriminatory (studies 1 and 2) and a discriminatory interaction with homosexuals (study 2). Study 3 assessed attitude toward non-discrimination through a social dominance orientation (SDO) scale and manipulated experimentally regulatory focus. Across the three studies, social support was manipulated by informing participants that either a majority or a minority of the Swiss population supported non-discrimination in general (study 1), or specifically toward homosexuals (studies 2 and 3). Results showed more positive attitudes toward homosexuals when non-discriminatory participants were regulated in terms of prevention focus and non-discrimination was supported by a majority, and when non-discriminatory participants were regulated in terms of promotion focus and non-discrimination was supported by a minority. These findings are consistent with a regulatory fit perspective on the interplay between regulatory focus and social support.