J. Gatto & M. Dambrun: Authoritarianism, Social Dominance, and Prejudice SocialP sychology Among © 2012 2012; Junior Hogrefe Vol. Police 43(2):61–66 Publishing Officers
Original Article
Authoritarianism, Social Dominance, and Prejudice Among Junior Police Officers The Role of the Normative Context Juliette Gatto and Michaël Dambrun Clermont Université, Université Blaise Pascal, CNRS, France Abstract. The aim of this study was to determine the respective impact of group socialization and social projection to explain prejudice among newly recruited police officers (N = 301). The first approach predicts that both right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO), two fundamental determinants of prejudice, should be driven by specific norms. The second approach predicts that the perceived norms of the reference group reflect the social projection of our own attitudes and norms. These two models were tested with structural equation modeling. Emphasizing the determinant role of social norms and social influence, the results provide stronger support for the group socialization model (GSM) than the social projection model (SPM). Keywords: authoritarianism, social dominance, group socialization, social projection, prejudice
While the police institution condemns unethical behavior and attitudes (see the Code of Ethics, France, 1986), prejudice and discrimination are robust phenomena in the police (e.g., Carlson & Sutton, 1975; Gatto, Dambrun, Kerbrat, & De Oliveira, 2010; Teahan, 1975). An informal intolerant norm supporting prejudice still persists in the police institution. In fact, the institutional normative police environment promotes the organization of all social relations into a hierarchy in which conventionalism, authoritarian submission, and authoritarian aggression are salient (Police Employment Rule, France, 2009). Numerous research has shown that both right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO) are relevant variables in the police (e.g., Haley & Sidanius, 2005). RWA is a construct proposed by Altemeyer (1988) that comprises three dimensions: authoritarian aggression, authoritarian submission, and conventionalism. Social dominance theorists (e.g., Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) define SDO as “the degree to which individuals desire and support the group-based hierarchy and the domination of ‘inferior’ groups by ‘superior’ groups.” A high level on these two constructs (i.e., RWA and SDO) has been found to be strongly and independently associated with prejudice toward various disadvantaged groups (e.g., Altemeyer, 1998; Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994; Whitley, 1999). From this perspective, we tested the respective specific roles of these two variables in the police. More particularly, our re© 2012 Hogrefe Publishing
search deals with the origins of RWA, SDO, and intergroup prejudices among junior police officers. Among the various approaches that are discussed in the literature for explaining the origins of these prejudices, we focused on the powerful impact of social norms. More specifically, we compared two main approaches in which social norms are central: (1) the group socialization model (GSM; i.e., the influence of the reference group’s norm on people’s attitudes) and (2) the social projection model (SPM; i.e., the social projection of our own attitudes on the reference group). The influence exerted by the normative police environment on junior police officers is central to the construction of their professional attitudes, even at the beginning of group socialization. Integrating into the police institution is a fundamental stage of constructive change for junior police officers; they incorporate specific norms and specific values (Gorgeon, 1996; Van Maanen, 1975). We predicted that this new social context would influence their attitudes and/or beliefs as soon as one month after beginning police training. The group socialization approach argues that specific attitudes and behaviors result from group socialization, through which the individual learns to adjust to a group norm and to behave in a manner approved by the reference group (Guimond, 2000; Harris, 1995). Junior police officers are under the influence of the social norm of the reference group, hence, they learn to conform to the rules of other group members (Crandall, Esleman, & O’Brien, 2002). Hogan, Barrett, and Hogan Social Psychology 2012; Vol. 43(2):61–66 DOI: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000081
62
J. Gatto & M. Dambrun: Authoritarianism, Social Dominance, and Prejudice Among Junior Police Officers
the perceived normative SDO) and intergroup prejudice should be driven by RWA and SDO. The GSM predicts that if one controls for social ideologies, the relationships between social norms and prejudice should be reduced significantly, while the SPM does not predict any specific relationship between social norms and prejudice. We tested both the group socialization model and the social projection model using structural equation modeling.
Method Participants
Figure 1. Predictions derived from the group socialization model (GSM; A) and from the social projection model (SPM; B). (2007) demonstrated that the personal responses of job applicants change as a function of their degree of knowledge of the normative responses. The influence exerted by the perceived norm seems to be an important determinant of prejudice (Alwin, Cohen, & Newcomb, 1991). Based on the GSM (see Figure 1a), we predicted that RWA would mediate the effect of the perceived normative RWA on prejudice among junior police officers toward disadvantaged groups (i.e., prejudice toward Arabs and prejudice toward youths from the suburbs). Similarly, we predicted that SDO would mediate the effect of the perceived normative SDO on prejudice toward disadvantaged groups. The group socialization approach argues that the relation between junior police officers and the normative context is not linear but interactive and dynamic (Delobbe & Vandenberghe, 2000; Guimond, 2000). Interestingly, another relation between RWA, SDO, and prejudice is predicted based on the social projection approach, which proposes that people do not simply perceive a specific norm in the social environment, but rather they make a social projection of their own norms on the social environment (e.g., Krueger & Robbins, 2005). Krueger and Clement (1996) argued that people make a social projection of their own egocentric perception on the reference group. Contrary to the GSM, the social projection model (SPM) proposes that perceived normative ideologies (i.e., perceived normative RWA and perceived normative SDO) are a consequence rather than a cause of social ideologies (i.e., RWA and SDO). In other words, while the GSM predicts that social norms would shape social ideologies, the SPM predicts that social norms would be simple projections of social ideologies. Thus, according to the SPM (see Figure 1b), both the perceived social environment (i.e., the perceived normative RWA and Social Psychology 2012; Vol. 43(2):61–66
A total of 301 newly recruited police officers at the French National School of Police participated. The sample included 241 males and 60 females. All police officers completed a questionnaire one month after beginning police training. Because sociodemographic information is strictly confidential in the French police institution, we were not authorized to obtain information such as ethnicity and socioeconomic status. The mean age was 26.4.
Procedure The newly recruited police officers were asked to fill out a questionnaire during a lecture at the beginning of their training. The study was presented as a completely anonymous opinion survey.
Materials For each scale, all the participants were asked to rate on a 7-point scale the extent to which they disagreed (1) or agreed (7) with the items. The questionnaire included various measures.
Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) Twelve items of the RWA scale developed by Altemeyer (1988) were selected. The α for the 12-item RWA scale was .71 (e.g., “The only way our country can get through the coming crisis is to get back to our traditional values, put some tough leaders in power, and silence the troublemakers spreading negative ideas.”).
Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) Because of time constraints, the full 16-item SDO scale developed by Pratto et al. (1994) could not be used. Only 10 items of this scale were selected (e.g., “Some groups of people are simply inferior to other groups.”). The α for the 10-item SDO scale was .82. © 2012 Hogrefe Publishing
J. Gatto & M. Dambrun: Authoritarianism, Social Dominance, and Prejudice Among Junior Police Officers
Perceived SDO Norm
Results
Five items were selected from the 16-item SDO scale and were adapted. A procedure based on research done by Prentice and Miller (1993; see also Dambrun, Guimond, & Duarte, 2002) was followed to measure the perception of social norms among newly recruited police officers. Participants were asked to indicate the position of most newly recruited police officers toward each SDO item (e.g., “Most newly recruited police officers think that some groups of people are simply inferior to other groups.”). The α for this five-item scale was .73.
Perceived RWA Norm Four items were selected from our 12-item RWA scale and were adapted. Participants were asked to indicate the position of most newly recruited police officers toward each RWA item (e.g., “Most newly recruited police officers think that the only way our country can get through the coming crisis is to get back to our traditional values, put some tough leaders in power, and silence the troublemakers spreading negative ideas.”). The α for this four-item scale was low (.39; for similar results with RWA items, see Stack, 2000) and was attributed to the heterogeneity of the four items. Correlation analyses indicate an adequate convergent validity. As expected, the perceived RWA norm was found to be positively and significantly correlated to RWA (.58) and to various measures of prejudice (.34; see Table 1). Importantly, the correlation between the perceived RWA norm and RWA (.58) was comparable in size to the correlation between the perceived SDO norm and SDO (.52). However, because of its low Cronbach’s α, results obtained with this scale should be taken with caution.
Measures of Prejudice Toward Disadvantaged Groups Two measures of prejudice were included: A nine-item scale of prejudice toward Arabs (Dambrun, 2007; α = 84), and an eight-item scale of prejudice toward youths from the suburbs (Gatto & Dambrun, 2010; α = .91). High scores on these measures indicated greater prejudice.
Table 1. Correlations between various measures (n = 301) 1
2
3
4
5
1. Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) – 2. Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) .45* – 3. Prejudice toward Arabs
.55* .51* –
4. Prejudice toward youths from suburbs .46* .45* .72* – 5. Perceived Normative RWA
.58* .18* .34* .34* –
6. Perceived normative SDO Note. *p < .01.
.31* .52* .44* .36* .26*
© 2012 Hogrefe Publishing
63
Relationships Between Variables As shown in Table 1, and replicating past research, SDO and RWA were significantly and positively correlated (r = .45). As expected, they were also strongly correlated with prejudice toward Arabs and youth from the suburbs. After controlling for each one individually, SDO and RWA still remained significantly and positively correlated with prejudice toward disadvantaged groups. Finally, and as expected, both perceived normative RWA and perceived normative SDO were significantly related to RWA, SDO, and prejudice.
Testing the Models: Group Socialization and Social Projection The two models were statistically tested by means of path analysis using the EQS Structural Equation Program (Bentler & Wu, 1995). The covariance matrix with the five observed variables was used as a database for the present framework, which was tested with standardized coefficients obtained from the maximum likelihood estimation method. Several indices of fit (NFI, NNFI, CFI, and RMSEA) are reported for each model tested.
Model of Group Socialization Using structural equation modeling, we tested the mediating role of both RWA and SDO on prejudice toward Arabs and youth from the suburbs sequentially. The predicted models are shown in Figures 1a and 1b. First, we tested the model without the dotted lines using prejudice toward Arabs (see Figure 2a). The χ² was low; χ²2(4) = 14.94, p < .001, χ²2/df = 3.74, and the various indices were adequate (NFI = .97, NNFI = .94, CFI = .98, RMSEA < .10). As depicted in Figure 2a, while the effect of normative RWA on prejudice toward Arabs was fully mediated by RWA, the effect of normative SDO on prejudice toward Arabs was only partially mediated by SDO. The second model tested the effect of the perceived group norm on prejudice toward youths from the suburbs and is shown in Figure 2b. We tested the model without the dotted lines. The χ² was low; χ²2(4) = 10.13, p < .05, χ²2/df = 2.53, and the various indices were adequate (NFI = .97, NNFI = .96, CFI = .98, RMSEA < .10). As expected, the relationships between normative ideologies (i.e., normative SDO and RWA) and prejudice toward youths from the suburbs were fully mediated by personal ideologies (i.e., respectively, SDO and RWA). Thus, as expected, specific norms drive specific personal ideologies. Social Psychology 2012; Vol. 43(2):61–66
64
J. Gatto & M. Dambrun: Authoritarianism, Social Dominance, and Prejudice Among Junior Police Officers
Model of Social Projection The model derived from the social projection theory was tested using structural equation modeling. First, concerning prejudice toward Arabs, we tested the model depicted in Figure 3a without the dotted lines. The χ² was low; χ²2(4) = 25.43, p < .001, but higher than the χ² obtained with the GSM. Also, the various indices were lower (NFI = .94, NNFI = .88, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .14). Secondly, similar results were obtained concerning prejudice toward youths from the suburbs. We tested the model depicted in Figure 3b without the dotted lines. Again, the χ² was low; χ²2(4) = 21.89, p < .001, but higher than the one obtained with the GSM and the various indices were also lower (NFI = .94, NNFI = .89, CFI = .95 RMSEA = .13). As expected on the basis of the SPM, personal ideologies (i.e., SDO and RWA) significantly predicted both normative ideologies (respectively, normative SDO and normative RWA) and prejudice. Intriguingly, a significant negative relation emerged between SDO and normative RWA.
Figure 2. Group socialization model: RWA and SDO as mediators of the effect of perceived norms on prejudice toward Arabs (A) and prejudice toward youths from the suburbs (B).
Comparisons Between Models As mentioned above, we found stronger support for the GSM than the SPM. Further validation of the GSM rests in the fact that we did not find better support for alternative models (see Table 2).
Table 2. Comparisons between predicted and alternative models χ²2
NFI
NNFI
CFI
RMSEA
14.94**
.97
.94
.98
.09
25.43***
.94
.88
.95
.14
136.53***
.70
.25
.70
.34
(df = 4) Prejudice toward Arabs Predicted models 1. Group socialization model (GSM) Norms → Ideologies → Prejudice 2. Social projection model (SPM) Ideologies → Norms → Prejudice Alternative models 1. Norms → Prejudice → Ideologies 2. Prejudice → Norms → Ideologies
78.89***
.82
.58
.83
.25
3. Prejudice → Ideologies → Norm
25.43***
.94
.88
.95
.14
10.13*
.97
.96
.98
.07
21.89***
.94
.89
.95
.13
1. Norms → Prejudice → Ideologies
152.11***
.62
.05
.62
.36
2. Prejudice → Norms → Ideologies
47.30***
.88
.72
.89
.19
3. Prejudice → Ideologies → Norm Note. *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001
21.89***
.94
.89
.95
.13
Prejudice toward youths from suburbs Predicted models 1. Group socialization model (GSM) Norms → Ideologies → Prejudice 2. Social projection model (SPM) Ideologies → Norms → Prejudice Alternative models
Social Psychology 2012; Vol. 43(2):61–66
© 2012 Hogrefe Publishing
J. Gatto & M. Dambrun: Authoritarianism, Social Dominance, and Prejudice Among Junior Police Officers
Figure 3. Social projection model: SDO and RWA as main predictors of perceived norms and prejudice toward Arabs (A) and prejudice toward youths from the suburbs (B).
Discussion The results obtained among junior police officers after only one month’s immersion in the police environment provide evidence in support of the role of group socialization on the transmission of negative intergroup attitudes and ideological beliefs. These findings are consistent with the result of studies on military students (Guimond, 2000). The originality of this study lies in the fact that it shows that: (1) the effect of group socialization is precocious and (2) the model of group socialization is predominant for explaining negative intergroup attitudes than the social projection model. Normative influence at the beginning of group socialization is an important process behind police socialization. Thus, even at an early stage of socialization, group norms play a central role, but it is not clear whether the attitudinal conformism is deep-seated or not. Does it involve private acceptance of reference group norms (i.e., internalization; Kelman, 1958) or does it involve only public acceptance (i.e., compliance)? It would be worthwhile to test at which levels this attitudinal conformism lies according to the duration of ingroup socialization. For example, a recent comparison between newly recruited police officers and those with one year of training revealed the internalization of a © 2012 Hogrefe Publishing
65
prejudice norm during group socialization (Gatto et al., 2010). The social projection phenomenon appears to be a less powerful explanation for negative intergroup attitudes than the GSM. However, the statistics obtained using the SPM are not null, suggesting that the main effect of group socialization can mask a minor effect of social projection. Because social projection promotes in-group bias, this may lead one to suppose that the correspondence between their own normative attitudes and the normative attitude of the police environment is not a completely false consensus. Social projection also has the potential to be a normative strategic induction. This is consistent with McNamara’s (1967) data, which suggest that, in general, the same type of authoritarian personality is attracted to police work. McNamara also notes that the police institution tends to recruit members from a relatively authoritarian class of people. This raises the question of whether the role of self-selection and institutional selection explain the negative attitudes of the newly recruited police officers (Feather, 1975; Haley & Sidanius, 2005). Kappeler, Sluder, and Alpert (1998) noted that police officers are selected, socialized, and placed in a working environment that instills within them an ideology and a shared culture that breeds unprecedented conformity to traditional police norms. Future research may examine the articulation between these distinct but complementary processes, which underlie the high level of intolerance in the police institution. This study has some limitations. First, because our design is correlational, it is difficult to provide strong claims about causality. The fact that we did not find better support for alternative models (see Table 2) increases the confidence in the causal directions proposed by the GSM. However, future studies may profitably test these predictions using both experimental and longitudinal designs. Finally, while the results are similar for normative SDO and normative RWA, the internal consistency of this last scale was low. Thus, results implicating this scale must be taken with caution. Finally, the present results are compatible with theories emphasizing the determinant role of social norms and social influence. According to the group socialization approach, prejudices are not only cognitive constructs, they are flexible and reflect the social context in which social norms operate through social influence. Results of the present study are consistent with this perspective.
References Altemeyer, B. (1988). Enemies of freedom: Understanding rightwing authoritarianism. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 47–92. Alwin, D. F., Cohen, R. L., & Newcomb, T. M. (1991). Political Social Psychology 2012; Vol. 43(2):61–66
66
J. Gatto & M. Dambrun: Authoritarianism, Social Dominance, and Prejudice Among Junior Police Officers
attitudes over the life span: The Bennington women after fifty years. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Bentler, P. M., & Hu, E. J. C. (1995). EQS for windows user’s guide. Encino, CA: Nova Science Multivariate Software. Carlson, H. M., & Sutton, M. S. (1975). The effects of different police roles on attitudes and values. Journal of Psychology, 91, 57–64. Crandall, C. S., Eshleman, A., & O’Brien, L. (2002). Social norms and the expression and suppression of prejudice: The struggle for internalization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 359–378. Dambrun, M. (2007). Understanding the relationship between racial prejudice and support for the death penalty: “The racist punitive bias hypothesis.” Social Justice Research, 20, 228–249. Dambrun, M., Guimond, S., & Duarte, S. (2002). The impact of hierarchy enhancing vs. attenuating academic major on stereotyping: The mediating role of perceived social norm. Current Research in Social Psychology, 7, 114–136. Delobbe, N., & Vandenberghe, C. (2000). Socialisation organisationelle: Processus et facteurs d’adaptation à un nouveau contexte organisationnel [Organizational socialization: Process and adjustements factors to new organisational context]. Revue Québécoise de Psychologie, 21, 111–132. Feather, N. (1975). Values in education and society. New York: Free Press. Gatto, J., & Dambrun, M. (2010). Autoritarisme et préjugés dans la police: L’effet d’une position d’infériorité numérique et le rôle du contexte normatif [Authoritarianism and prejudice in the police: The effect of a position of numeric inferiority and the role of the normative context]. Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale/International Review of Social Psychology, 23, 123–158. Gatto, J., Dambrun, M., Kerbrat, C., & De Oliveira, P. (2010). Prejudice in the police: On the processes underlying the effects of selection and group socialization. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 252–269. Gorgeon, C. (1996). Socialization professionnelle des policiers: Le rôle de l’école [Professional socialization of police officers: Role of school]. Criminologie, 29, 141–163. Guimond, S. (2000). Group socialization and prejudice: The social transmission of intergroup attitudes and beliefs. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 333–354. Haley, H., & Sidanius, J. (2005). Person-organization congruence and the maintenance of group-based social hierarchy: A social dominance perspective. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 8, 185–203. Harris, J. R. (1995). Where is the child’s environment? A group socialization theory of development. Psychological Review, 102, 458–489. Hogan, J., Barett, P., & Hogan, R. (2007). Personality measurement, faking, and employment selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1270–1285.
Social Psychology 2012; Vol. 43(2):61–66
Kappeler, V., Sluder, R., & Alpert, G. (1998). Forces of deviance: Understanding the dark side of policing. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland. Kelman, H. C. (1958). Compliance, identification and internalization: Three processes of opinion change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 51–60. Krueger, J., & Clement, R. W. (1996). Inferring category characteristics from sample characteristics: Inductive reasoning and social projection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125, 52–68. Krueger, J., & Robbins, J. M. (2005). Social projection to ingroups and outgroups: A review and meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 32–47. McNamara, J. J. (1967). Uncertainties in police work: The relevance of police recruits’ backgrounds and training. In D. J. Bordua (Ed.). The police: Six sociological essays (pp. 163–252). New York: Wiley. Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741–763. Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (1993). Pluralistic ignorance and alcohol use on campus: Some consequences of misperceiving the social norm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 243–256. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press. Teahan, J. E. (1975). A longitudinal study of attitude shifts among black and white police officers. Journal of Social Issues, 31, 47–56. Van Maanen, J. (1975). Police socialization: A longitudinal examination of job attitudes in a urban police department. Administration Science Quarterly, 20, 207–228. Whitley, B. E. (1999). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 126–134.
Received July 8, 2010 Final revision received March 25, 2011 Accepted March 29, 2011
Juliette Gatto Université Blaise Pascal, LAPSCO 34 avenue Carnot 63037 Clermont-Ferrand France E-mail
[email protected]
© 2012 Hogrefe Publishing
