Soi collectif et inégalités sociales : des conséquences sur les attitudes et les comportements

effets différents sur le concept de soi et les attitudes subséquentes en fonction du niveau d'auto-catégorisation (Chazal et al., 2012 ; Guimond et al., 2006). Alors que les différences de genre sont fortes lorsque la comparaison s'effectue entre personnes de sexe différent, activant une identité sociale, il n'y a plus de différences de genre sur le concept de soi avec une comparaison intragenre, quand l'identité personnelle est mise en exergue. Pour ce qui concerne les conséquences de l'activation d'une identité particulière selon les comparaisons, l'émergence d'un soi collectif influence donc certaines attitudes et comportements liés aux préjugés ou à la discrimination (Turner

et al., 1994). Lorsqu'il y a focalisation sur le soi collectif des individus, ceux-ci se différencient

profondément selon leur groupe d'appartenance en fonction de certains stéréotypes, les garçons adoptent par exemple des attitudes beaucoup plus inégalitaires envers les groupes sociaux que les filles (Guimond et al., 2006). C'est dans cette condition intergroupe que les garçons cautionnent le plus les inégalités sociales, mesurées par l'Orientation à la Dominance Sociale, alors que dans une condition intragroupe, la moyenne sur l'ODS ne diffère pas significativement de celle des filles, elle est même plus faible.

La question des effets de l'identité sociale sur les comportements est épineuse dans le sens où certains considèrent que le soi collectif est primordial pour les individus (Taylor, 2002), qu'il prédispose au changement social, à l'action de groupe (Reicher et al., 2010). Ainsi, le contexte social prédit certaines attitudes, de développement moral et de comportements soigneux, plus que le genre, lorsque les auto-évaluations s'effectuent à un niveau endogroupe, par un appariement inclusif soi-autrui, par rapport à un niveau exogroupe, d'appariement exclusif (Ryan, David & Reynolds, 2004). Le contexte collectif semble être le lieu du changement des normes ou habitudes sociales, le soi social est alors la source d'un engagement dans des dynamiques d'action collective (Blader & Tyler, 2009 ; Reicher et al., 2010). De fait, les croyances partagées par les membres d'un même groupe, et qui mènent à des représentations stéréotypiques de l'endogroupe et de l'exogroupe dans le cas de l'activation d'une identité sociale, peuvent être le symbole de l'expression d'une certaine

réalité sociale (Reicher et al., 2010). Elles permettent alors d'agir en référence à ce groupe d'appartenance. Lorsque le comportement des foules est étudié, il est démontré que les oppositions entre les groupes reposent sur deux asymétries : le contenu des stéréotypes et la position sociale (Drury & Reicher, 2000 ; Drury & Reicher, 2005). Si ces deux notions sont divergentes entre deux groupes sociaux en conflit ou en compétition, et que ces inégalités sont perçues comme illégitimes, les perceptions de soi devraient alors être propices aux intentions d'agir. Ceci conduit à un état de fait qui peut faire figure d'injonction paradoxale : le soi collectif est celui qui est le plus influencé par les stéréotypes, même lorsqu'ils sont négatifs, mais c'est aussi celui qui semble prédisposer le plus au changement social.

Dans une deuxième étude, les mesures d'un soi « collectif » devraient être reliées à certaines attitudes générales ou spécifiques mesurant les inégalités sociales. Les catégorisations en termes de rôles sociaux étant fortement diagnostiques des traits et des capacités des individus (Eagly & Wood, 1982), on peut tout d'abord s'attendre à de fortes variabilités dans les concepts de soi, agentique et relationnel, d'individus placés dans des situations distinctes de comparaison (par un appariement Groupe/Soi ou Soi/Groupe) et donc avec une identité activée là aussi différente, sociale ou personnelle. Dans un contexte collectif, l'adhésion aux stéréotypes de l'endogroupe, ou auto-stéréotypie, devrait expliquer ces différences de genre. Ce même contexte devrait aussi être plus relié à des attitudes d'acceptation ou de rejet des inégalités par rapport à un contexte individuel. L'influence de ces variables est présentée dans l'expérimentation suivante.

1.3.7. Article 2 : « Psychological differences between men and women: the case of the elites in an engineering school » (Chazal, Guimond & Darnon).

RUNNING HEAD: Self-concept and categorization

Psychological differences between men and women: the case of the elites in an engineering school

Sébastien Chazal

Clermont University, Blaise Pascal University Serge Guimond

Clermont University, Blaise Pascal University Céline Darnon

Clermont University, Blaise Pascal University & University Institute of France

Sébastien Chazal, Serge Guimond & Céline Darnon, Laboratoire de Psychologie Sociale et Cognitive, Clermont Université, Université Blaise Pascal, Clermont-Ferrand, France. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Sébastien Chazal, Laboratoire de Psychologie Sociale et Cognitive, Clermont Université, Université Blaise Pascal, 34 Avenue Carnot, 63037 Clermont-Ferrand, Cedex, France. E-mail: sebastien.chazal@ac-clermont.fr

Psychological differences between men and women: the case of the elites in an engineering school

Abstract:

In this study, gender differences present in a collective context, for an agentic or relational self-concept, fade in a more individual context. Through the use of a new Group/Self paradigm and a population of university engineering students, these results confirm the idea of the existence of various levels of the self leading to different identities: a social identity and a personal identity. In a group context, adhesion to an agentic or relational ingroup’s stereotype mediates these gender differences on the corresponding self-concepts. Furthermore, in this same collective context, we show the influence of an assimilation process for men and a contrast process for women, with the scientific self stronger for each of the social groups of men and women in a group context compared to an individual context. Finally, agentic and relational self-concepts are related, positively for the agentic self and negatively for the relational self, to certain measures of social inequalities

perception’s in a group context, but not in an individual context. The implications for the

understanding of self-categorization theory (e.g. Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher & Wetherell, 1987) and the mechanisms leading to social change will then be discussed.

Psychological differences between men and women: the case of the elites in an engineering school In France, the grandes écoles represent the surest path to a position of social dominance. Largely recruited from the socially privileged classes (Duru-Bellat, 2002), and traditionally composed largely of men, the students of the grandes écoles receive an education that prepares them to occupy leadership positions in large companies or high public office. While university access is open to all those who obtained the Baccalauréat (the French high school qualification exam), admission to the grandes écoles is more selective (most often attained via a grandes écoles preparatory class), and only the students who have received the highest grades during their final year of school may gain access to these types of classes. It is, in a sense, in the integration of the “elite-in-the-making” that this population as such offers a certain interest for the social psychology of intergroup relations and of social dominance. In this article, we propose to examine the social and psychological orientations of students in such an elite engineering school, not only by studying relations of dominance, but also from the point of view of social comparison theory and the social relations based on gender. Precisely three central questions guide this work: Do important

differences exist in the self-concept of young men and women enrolled in an engineering school, and if so, what are the processes that explained these differences? Do these gender differences manifest themselves in the same way no matter the dimensions of self-concept considered? What are the potential consequences for these students of a self-definition as a member of a group (social identity) as opposed to a self-definition as a unique individual (personal identity)?

Psychological differences between men and women: the effects of context?

Numerous social psychology studies suggest the existence of fundamental psychological gender differences. For Cross and Madson (1997), the most fundamental of these differences is situated at the level of self-concept. Indeed, these authors propose that within Western societies, women tend to develop a self-concept as interdependent and relational, while men tend to construct

a self-concept as independent and agentic. A large quantity of research, using a variety of methods and instruments, suggests that women valorize relations with others (with friends, family, etc.) more than men do and often define themselves by these relations (Clancy & Dollinger, 1993; Eagly, 2009; Lippa, 1998; McGuire & McGuire, 1988). Men, on the other hand, are more self-centered and their personal objectives, and define themselves as autonomous agents, independent and distinct from others (Conway, Pizzamiglio & Mount, 1996). These self-evaluations correspond to stereotypical traits commonly attributed to men and women, and enable one to describe their personalities, their interests, their emotions, their relations, and their behaviors (Twenge, 1999), the influence of these gender stereotypes also supporting subsequent career choices (Miller & Budd, 1999).

Yet, in a series of experimental studies, Guimond, Chatard, Martinot, Crisp, and Redersdorff (2006) showed that these gender differences at the level of their self-concepts, far from being inherent in men and women, in fact vary systematically according to social context. More precisely, Guimond et al. (2006) proposed that gender differences occur principally on self-concepts when women and men compare themselves to the opposite sex (intergroup social comparison), and not when they compare themselves to members of the same sex (intragroup comparison). Three studies showed the effect of such a social comparison on self-concept. The results confirmed the

hypothesis, according to which, in an intergroup comparison (woman vs. man), the principal of self-stereotyping (Hogg & Turner, 1987; Turner & Onorato, 1999), identified in self-categorization theory (Turner, 1987; 1999; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher & Wetherell, 1987), is present, the self-definition thus relying on stereotyped characteristics of one's own gender. In this way, women’s tendency to present a relational self-identity was revealed as mediated by women’s tendency to define their gender as more relational than men. However, the mediation of an agentic ingroup’s stereotype was only partial, with gender always influencing an agentic self-concept even when controlling the effects of the stereotype on the agentic self. In reapproaching these hypotheses with

a new paradigm, we hope, in a first phase, to replicate the results of gender differences that are more significant in a Group/Self condition compared to a more individual condition, where such

differences of gender fade completely. Nevertheless, participants in our study are distinctive, they are older and they have a status of students in an engineering school, which should lead them to perceive their group as more independent than, for example, secondary school students. As the roles attributed to men and women depend precisely on their status (Eagly & Diekman, 2002; Eagly & Steffen, 1984), and as the context of an engineering school should be marked by status and power aspect's, the agentic dimension should be more important and strongly valued for these participants with regard to secondary school students. A self-concept close to an agentic self is indeed also a function of status, it increased in women over the past twenty years (Twenge, 2001); and it develops particularly after secondary school, when the question of a career comes into play (Abele, 2003). Gender differences should remain in the two measures of agentic and relational self-concept in a collective Group/Self context, and disappear in an individual Self/Group context, but, in the collective condition, the effects of gender on agentic and relational self-concepts should be totally explained by the adherence to an agentic ingroup’s stereotype or a relational ingroup’s, respectively. The self-perception of competence: Am I gifted in math?

Although Cross and Madson’s (1997) model focuses only on relational and agentic

dimensions of the self, one can conceive that other dimensions of importance exist for young men and women. For example, a recent study confirms the effects of social comparison on academic self-concept, in which the gender differences are strongly present for an intergroup comparison, while they fade during intragroup comparison (Chazal, Guimond & Darnon, 2012). Thus, boys consider themselves more gifted in mathematics and less gifted in French language, while conversely girls think they are more literary and less scientific in a context that includes a comparison between genders. These differences do not exist when self-evaluations are made in comparison with individuals of the same gender. This self-concept depends, then, on the nature of

the comparisons and on the self-other relations more than on the gender in and of itself (Ryan, David & Reynolds, 2004). With the activation of a level of self-categorization and the identity that applies to it (e.g. Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Turner, 1987; Turner, Oakes, Haslam & McGarty, 1994), a collective self or a personal self emerges, depending on the comparison. From a cognitive point of view, as soon as this process of self-categorization occurs at an intergroup level, categorical

differences of the intergroup are accentuated and intragroup similarities are increased (Turner et al., 1994).

How will the students of an engineering school, in a pre-professional but always academic context, then, evaluate themselves on a scientific dimension that constitutes for them a powerful attitude indicator (Marsh, Trautwein, Lüdtke, Köller & Baumert, 2005)?

A first hypothesis would be that the effects of gender on relational and agentic self-concepts should confirm the effects of gender previously obtained on a scientific self-concept. More

precisely, in a group context women should evaluate themselves as less scientific than men. Indeed, the salience of gender stereotypes persists when students evaluate their abilities in math, science, and in French language (Chatard, Guimond & Selimbegovic, 2007; Guimond & Roussel, 2001; 2002). In these studies conducted in secondary school or at the university, a negative effect on girls of assimilation of the scientific ingroup’s stereotype is usually observed. This stereotype then influences the perceptions that girls have of their own abilities in math and science. This

phenomenon of assimilation of the ingroup’s perceptions is quite significant (see Brewer & Weber, 1994), since when individuals define themselves as typical members of their group, they attribute to themselves the characteristics of their group. This assimilation effect is even more significant when the group is a minority (Brewer, 1991). On the contrary, during interpersonal comparison, self-other contrast effects occur, which have an effect on the self-concept, influencing a posteriori the

perception of abilities (Brewer & Gardner, 1996). For girls, gender stereotypes can thus lead to self-evaluations that negatively estimate math and science abilities. They evaluate themselves,

incidentally, often less competent in sciences than boys (Eccles, Wigfield, Harold & Blumenfeld, 1993; Herbert & Stipek, 2005; Marsh et al., 2005; Plante, Théoret & Eizner Favreau, 2009), even when their objective results are not so different from that of boys (for a review, see Else-Quest, Hyde & Linn, 2010).

The alternative hypothesis proposes that, in a group context, there shouldn’t be a gender effect on the scientific self. Indeed, because of their high level of education, the studied population, contrary to population that have yet to make an affirmative choice of orientation (students of 15-16 years at the 10^th grade, for example), students in engineering school have already chosen an

education route. Individuals can use certain strategies of differentiation from the standard of

comparison, especially subjects with a high self-esteem in order to protect the self (see Mussweiler, Gabriel & Bodenhausen, 2000). This allows avoiding the deleterious effects of upward comparisons and the stereotype threat (e.g. Spencer, Steele & Quinn, 1999). To respond to an identity threat, these individuals adopt strategies of changing their social identities (Mussweiler et al, 2000), and even, especially in the case of a weak engagement with the group, strategies of individual mobility (Ellemers, Spears & Doosje, 2002). Thus, self-evaluations of skilled engineers on a scientific dimension could be more influenced by their social position than by gender.

More recently, it was demonstrated that the assimilation or contrast process depends predominantly on the perception of similarity to the standard or status of the target (Mussweiler, 2003). Contrast effects appear especially when the target is identified as a distant exemplar (Haddock, MacRae & Fleck, 2002). With the anchor of the self and the target representing the gauge of comparison (Mussweiler & Strack, 2000a), access to a consistent exemplar mediates the effects of the comparison on this subjective anchoring (Mussweiler & Strack, 2000c). In evaluation situations, individuals make use of information based on the exemplars or the categories: when the target is judged as distant from one’s own self-concept, the consequences of the comparison lead to

a contrast between the self and the target. These assimilation and contrast effects also depend on context, and they can be moderated by a respectively interdependent or independent self-concept (Bry, Follenfant & Meyer, 2008; Kemmelmeier & Oyserman, 2001). For women enrolled in an engineering school, the self-evaluation of a scientific self may, thus, move away from the

categorical target of women in general, leading them to perceive themselves more positively in this other dimension, that is, in a less stereotyped way.

In short, in accordance with the principles of re-categorization (Turner et al. 1987), women here may have a particular interest in changing their group affiliation, redefining their ingroup to belong to a group of superior status (Elmore & Oyserman, 2012), here, for example, the group of engineers instead of that of women. Thus, the young men and women should evaluate themselves as more scientific in a group context, where self-evaluations are made primarily in reference to the group membership, compared to a more individual context where self-evaluation happens principally in reference to a personal self. According to the principle of assimilation, men should estimate themselves as more competent in math in a context that primarily activates the collective self, because the stereotypes are more salient. In a scientific dimension less ambiguous for women, they, in turn, should distinguish themselves from the group of women in general, because they are far from the standard of comparison. For female students enrolled at an engineering school that represents the scientific elite, having crossed many barriers and attained a level not shared by many, the general abilities of men and women should, then, constitute relatively weak standards. They should assess themselves as superior in mathematics and science in a Group/Self condition compared to a Self/Group condition.

Identity and consequences: when intergroup categorical activation orients attitudes

Cross-category comparisons benefit from a certain primacy in evaluations (Fiske &

the consequences of an agentic or relational self-definition on attitudes? Is individuals’ propensity to accept or reject social inequality explained by their level of self-categorization? Does the use of a stereotype reinforce the social hierarchy, or is it a motor of social change?

It has already been proven that strong links unite self-concepts, global or specific, and behaviors (Swann, Chang-Schneider & McClarty, 2007), but without taking into account group memberships and without specifying the distinction between social identity and personal identity (Reynolds & Turner, 2006). Furthermore, ideas of dominance and power must be especially pronounced in certain circles, which constitute the elite at the top of a hierarchic social structure. Possibly students and future engineers do not question themselves about the legitimacy of inequalities, but accept it. Indeed, these students overcame many obstacles before attaining this level of study; they represent the best student, and, as a result of their status in the social sphere, they may be subjected to social pressure and adopt certain attitudes of reject of disadvantaged groups. This research will examine the links between the relational self, the agentic self, and attitudes toward inequalities on this population. Two different scales of perceptions of inequalities between groups will be used: Social Dominance Orientation (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999), which