A model of gender prejudice, power, and discrimination: How hierarchy-enhancing factors predominate over hierarchy-attenuating factors

Gender inequalities remain an issue in our society and particularly in the workplace. Several factors can explain this gender difference in top-level managerial positions such as career ambitions but also biases against women. In our chapter, we propose a model explaining why gender inequalities and particularly discrimination against women is still present in our societies despite social norms and existing legislation on gender equality. To this purpose, we review research on discrimination through two different approaches, (a) a prejudice approach through the justification-suppression model developed by Crandall and Eshleman (2003) and (b) a power approach through the social dominance theory (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). In our work, we integrate these two approaches and propose a model of gender prejudice, power and discrimination. The integration of these two approaches contributes to a better understanding of how discrimination against women is formed and maintained over time.

« On m'accuse de discrimination, moi ! » Tout est une histoire de perception

De nos jours, les comportements discriminatoires sont mal vus par la société. On tend à montrer du doigt les personnes s'engageant dans de tels comportements et à médiatiser les entreprises prises en flagrant délit de discrimination, tant au niveau du processus d'embauche (p. ex., rejet systématique des candidatures venant de candidats d'origine étrangère), qu'au niveau des différences de traitement au sein des entreprises (p. ex., différence de salaires entre les femmes et les hommes). Si les comportements discriminatoires sont si mal perçus, pourquoi sont-ils toujours d'actualité ? Comment est-ce que des personnes s'engageant dans de tels comportements peuvent garder à la fois une image positive d'eux-mêmes et éviter de se faire réprimander par d'autres personnes qui pourraient avoir connaissance de leurs mauvais agissements ? C'est à cette problématique que je m'atèle dans ma recherche. A travers une expérience sur le thème de la discrimination à l'embauche, je démontre que les individus ayant tendance à se désengager moralement de leur propre action sont plus à même de s'engager dans des comportements discriminatoires que les autres individus. Le désengagement moral est un processus par lequel les individus justifient leur propre comportement non-éthique afin de les rendre acceptable (Bandura, 1986). En particulier, les résultats ont révélé que cette relation entre désengagement moral et discrimination est modéré par le degré de préjugés des individus. Parmi les individus ayant des préjugés marqués envers les étrangers, plus leur tendance au désengagement moral est élevé, plus ils sont à même de s'engager dans des comportements discriminatoires.

Associations between perceived discrimination and health status among frequent Emergency Department users

Objective: Frequent Emergency Department (ED) users are vulnerable individuals and discrimination is usually associated with increased vulnerability. The aim of this study was to investigate frequent ED users' perceptions of discrimination and to test whether they were associated with increased vulnerability. Methods: In total, 250 adult frequent ED users were interviewed in Lausanne University Hospital. From a previously published questionnaire, we assessed 15 dichotomous sources of perceived discrimination. Vulnerability was assessed using health status: objective health status (evaluation by a healthcare practitioner including somatic, mental health, behavioral, and social issues - dichotomous variables) and subjective health status [self-evaluation including health-related quality of life (WHOQOL) and quality of life (EUROQOL) - mean-scores]. We computed the prevalence rates of perceived discrimination and tested associations between perceived discrimination and health status (Fischer's exact tests, Mann-Whitney U-tests)

The skill paradox: Explaining and reducing employment discrimination against skilled immigrants

Using a social identity theory approach, we theorized that recruiters might be particularly biased against skilled immigrant applicants. We refer to this phenomenon as a skill paradox, according to which immigrants are more likely to be targets of employment discrimination the more skilled they are. Furthermore, building on the common ingroup identity model, we proposed that this paradox can be resolved through human resource management (HRM) strategies that promote inclusive hiring practices (e.g., by emphasizing fit with a diverse clientele). The results from a laboratory experiment were consistent with our predictions: Local recruiters preferred skilled local applicants over skilled immigrant applicants, but only when these applicants were qualified for a specific job. This bias against qualified and skilled immigrant applicants was attenuated when fit with a diverse clientele was emphasized, but not when fit with a homogeneous clientele was emphasized or when the hiring strategy was not explained. We discuss the implications of our findings for research on employment discrimination against skilled immigrants, including the role of inclusiveness for reducing discriminatory biases.