Le travail humain
P.U.F.
I.S.B.N.2130555845
96 pages
p. 305 à 315
doi: en cours
Veille sur la revue
Veille sur l'auteur
P.U.F.
I.S.B.N.2130555845
96 pages
p. 305 à 315
doi: en cours
Veille sur la revue
Veille sur l'auteur
Vous consultez
Volume 69 2006/4
Biais de discrimination et statut social.
Une étude de terrain sur les relations intergroupes
Ph. Castel M.-F. Lacassagne C. Viry
Cette recherche concerne l’approfondissement des biais de discrimination dans le cadre des relations statutaires. Un dispositif d’inspiration expérimentale a permis d’étudier les relations entre les trois services d’une entreprise de réparation de téléphones portables en crise. Chaque sujet devait évaluer des opérateurs de chaque groupe sur trois composantes : l’habileté, l’intelligence et la sociabilité. Les résultats confirment la place statutaire de chaque groupe ainsi que la présence de biais de discrimination. Plus précisément, conformément aux hypothèses, les sujets mettent en place un biais d’allodéfavoritisme vis-à-vis des membres de groupes de plus bas statut. Par contre, ils semblent respecter les positions hiérarchiques des membres de groupes de plus haut statut qu’eux, soit en manifestant de l’autofavoritisme, soit même en faisant de l’allofavoritisme lorsqu’ils occupent la place la plus élevée.
Mots-clés :
Catégorisation sociale, Statut, Entreprise, Discrimination, Biais évaluatif..
This study concerns discrimination bias in relations between work groups. As new developments in categorisation theory have shown, several factors modulate the effects of inter-group categorisation. Among these, status is viewed as introducing conflict between groups.
We studied the impact of this factor in a work situation where status was not linked to power, choosing a firm in which relations between groups were conflict provoking. Three work groups within the same mobile phone firm were selected on the basis of their status : the “ Hard ” group, considered as high status in relation to the low status “ Administration ” group, and the “ Production ” group with an intermediary position. Thirty-five participants completed a questionnaire evaluating staff members (seven chosen at random from each group) by giving a score (from 0 to 10) for ability, intelligence and sociability.
The results confirm the statutory position of each group : “ Hard ” has the highest status, “ Administration ” the lowest, and “ Production ” an intermediate status relatively close to the production group. The results also confirm the existence of a discrimination bias and show different strategies linked to status. The high status group discriminate against the lower groups through an “ out-group de-favouritism ” bias in order to maintain their dominant position, while the lower groups seek to improve their social standing through an “ in-group favouritism ” bias or even an “ out-group favouritism ”. Keywords : Social categorisation, Discrimination, Evaluative bias, Firm.
We studied the impact of this factor in a work situation where status was not linked to power, choosing a firm in which relations between groups were conflict provoking. Three work groups within the same mobile phone firm were selected on the basis of their status : the “ Hard ” group, considered as high status in relation to the low status “ Administration ” group, and the “ Production ” group with an intermediary position. Thirty-five participants completed a questionnaire evaluating staff members (seven chosen at random from each group) by giving a score (from 0 to 10) for ability, intelligence and sociability.
The results confirm the statutory position of each group : “ Hard ” has the highest status, “ Administration ” the lowest, and “ Production ” an intermediate status relatively close to the production group. The results also confirm the existence of a discrimination bias and show different strategies linked to status. The high status group discriminate against the lower groups through an “ out-group de-favouritism ” bias in order to maintain their dominant position, while the lower groups seek to improve their social standing through an “ in-group favouritism ” bias or even an “ out-group favouritism ”. Keywords : Social categorisation, Discrimination, Evaluative bias, Firm.
• I. CADRE THÉORIQUE
• II. CONTEXTE DE L’ÉTUDE
• III. MÉTHODE
— III . 1. PARTICIPANTS
— III . 2. MATéRIEL
— III . 3. PROCéDURE
• IV. RÉSULTATS
— IV . 1. VALIDATION DE LA HIéRARCHIE ENTRE LES GROUPES
— IV . 2. LES BIAIS DE DISCRIMINATIONS
— IV . 3. COMPARAISON DES TROIS GROUPES ENTRE EUX
• V. DISCUSSION
• RéFéRENCES
© Cairn 2007
Vie privée |
Conditions d’utilisation |
Conditions générales de vente
À propos | Éditeurs | Bibliothèques | Aide à la navigation | Plan du site | Raccourcis
À propos | Éditeurs | Bibliothèques | Aide à la navigation | Plan du site | Raccourcis
Retour en haut de page
Ici s'achève le contenu de la page, la suite ne concerne que les attributs d'affichage