Unit III Scholarly

CPA Gold Medal Award for Distinguished Lifetime Contributions to Canadian Psychology / Prix de la médaille d’or de la SCP pour contributions remarquables à la psychologie canadienne au cours de l’ensemble d’une carrière

A Journey Researching Prejudice and Discrimination

Public Significance Statement Experiments show that mere categorization of people as us versus them and ingroup identification is sufficient to trigger prejudice and discrimination between groups. There is mounting research documenting the negative mental and physical health consequences of being victim of systemic discrimination. Intergroup contact and diversity training help reduce prejudice and discrimination.

RICHARD Y. BOURHIS Université du Québec à Montréal

Abstract This paper surveys 1 of the author’s 3 lifetime research themes, namely the social psychology of prejudice and discrimination. We first re- view large-scale surveys documenting the prevalence of prejudice and discrimination suffered by minorities in Canada including In- digenous, African Canadians, Francophone minorities in English- Canada, and English-speaking communities in Quebec. There is growing evidence of the mental and physical health consequences of being victim of discrimination in Canada and elsewhere in the world. We review laboratory studies using the Minimal Group Par- adigm showing that the mere categorisation of people as us versus them and ingroup identification is sufficient to trigger prejudice and discrimination. In line with Social Identity Theory, the degree of ingroup identification and the need to achieve a positive social identity help account for the classic ingroup favoritism effect ob- tained in Minimal Group Paradigm studies. Thus, both social iden- tity needs (Social Identity Theory) and competition for scarce re- sources articulated within Realistic Conflict Theory combine to account for prejudice, discrimination, and intergroup antagonisms. Interventions to reduce prejudice and discrimination are discussed including intergroup contact and diversity training. As scientific consultant, the author helped develop the French Radio-Canada television documentary, La Leçon de Discrimination, which won best television educational program in the world and was success- fully adapted as a prodiversity pedagogical tool in Canada and worldwide.

Keywords: prejudice, discrimination, social identity, diversity training

Over the decades, I developed three ongoing research themes moving from the University of Bristol in England to McMaster University in Ontario and to the Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM). From my first degree at McGill University in Montreal to my PhD at the University of Bristol, I developed a first theme dealing with language, communication, and ethnolinguistic vitality (Bourhis, 2019b; Bourhis, Sachdev, Ehala, & Giles, 2019). At Bristol University, I also had the chance to participate in the first research team developing Social Identity Theory (SIT) headed by Henri Tajfel (Brown, 2020). As a result, I developed a second research theme dealing with the social psychology of prejudice and discrimination at McMaster University (Sachdev & Bourhis, 1991). My third research theme was launched following my move from the Ontario setting to the Québec French context at UQAM where I developed an intergroup approach to acculturation and immigrant/host majority group relations (Bourhis, Montaruli, El- Geledi, Harvey, & Barrette, 2010; Sioufi & Bourhis, 2018).

These three themes are served by researchers and scholars whose networks rarely overlap: The language and communication theme is addressed mostly by sociolinguist and communication scholars; the discrimination and intergroup relation theme is con- ducted mostly by mainstream social psychologists, whereas the immigrant/host majority acculturation theme is addressed mostly by cross-cultural psychologists. These three research themes were pursued as I held the multidisciplinary and bilingual Concordia- UQAM Chair in Ethnic Studies, and as director of the multidisci- plinary Centre d’Études Ethniques des Universités Montréalaises at the Université de Montréal. In addition to publishing contribu- tions in both French and English within each of these themes, I was also involved in the public policy implications of these research themes through collaboration with advocacy groups and public administrations in Canada and Europe (Bourhis, 2012, 2019a). The social psychology of prejudice and discrimination is the focus of the present contribution.

The Victims of Prejudice and Discrimination

In Canada as elsewhere in the world, discrimination remains a pervasive phenomenon that is corrosive for its victims and ulti-

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Richard Y. Bourhis, Département de psychologie, Université du Québec à Mon- tréal, CP 8888, succursale Centre-ville, Montréal, Québec H3C 3P8, Can- ada. E-mail: [email protected]

Canadian Psychology / Psychologie canadienne ISSN: 0708-5591 2020, Vol. 61, No. 2, 95–100 © 2020 Canadian Psychological Association http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cap0000214

95

mately dehumanizing for its perpetrators (Berry, 2001). Classic social psychological research has shown that people have a ten- dency to favor members of their own group relative to outgroup members (Brown, 2010). This ingroup-favoritism phenomenon occurs not only in the more positive evaluation of ingroup than outgroup members (prejudice) but also in the allocation of more resources to ingroup than outgroup members (discrimination). In critical domains such as jobs, promotions, housing, immigration, policing, and justice, discrimination has adverse effects on the mental and physical health of victims targeted because of their category ascriptions such as race, gender, ethnicity, language, and sexual orientation (Paradies et al., 2015). It is precisely because discrimination is a pervasive phenomenon that most countries adopted constitutions and charters of rights and freedoms prohib- iting social and systemic discrimination. Social psychologists have devoted much research efforts in understanding and finding ways of reducing prejudice and discrimination (American Psychological Association, 2012; Bourhis & Leyens, 1999; Brown, 2010; Gaert- ner & Dovidio, 2009; Tropp & Mallett, 2011).

The Ethnic Diversity Survey (EDS) was the largest postcensus questionnaire undertaken by Statistics Canada and Canadian Her- itage to monitor how group category memberships of Canadian citizens affect their participation in the social, economic, and cultural life of Canada while helping to understands how Canadi- ans of different immigrant backgrounds interpret and report their ethnicity. Based on the 2001 Canadian census, the EDS sampled a representative sample of the Canadian population made up of English and French Canadians, along with an oversampling of Canadian immigrants of first, second, and third generation. In 2002, more than 41,000 telephone interviews of 40 min were conducted in 15 languages constituting a 76% response rate at a cost of $7 million. Results obtained in the EDS module 8 dealt with how respondents experienced discrimination in Canadian society because of their ethnicity, race, language, accent, and religion. Reitz, Breton, Dion, and Dion (2009) analyzed much of the items in the EDS modules, given their relevance to the Cana- dian Multiculturalism Act whose goal is to preserve and enhance the multicultural heritage of Canadians while working to combat discrimination and achieve equal treatment of Canadians, regard- less of their category membership. Results showed that across Canada, 5% of White Canadians declared having been victim of discrimination, while 20% of visibly minority Canadians reported being victim of discrimination and this whether they resided in Vancouver (19%), Toronto (22%), or Montreal (19%).

Using the EDS survey results, Bourhis, Montreuil, Helly, and Jantzen (2007) analyzed Francophone and Anglophone responses to items dealing with being victim of discrimination in Québec and in the rest of Canada (ROC). In Quebec, results showed that whereas 8% of Francophones and 14% of Anglophones reported being victim of discrimination, 30% of visible minority respon- dents, regardless of linguistic background, were victim of discrim- ination. In the ROC, whereas 14% of Francophones and 11% of Anglophones reported being victim of discrimination, 35% of visible minority respondents were victim of discrimination. Re- sults showed that of the respondents who declared having been victim of discrimination, the majority of Anglophones and Fran- cophones in Quebec stated that discrimination was experienced mostly because of their accent or language (linguicism). In the ROC, of the respondents who stated they were victim of discrim-

ination, the majority of Anglophones stated it was due mainly to their skin color (racism), whereas the majority of Francophones reported it was due mainly to linguicism based on their accent or language.

Statistics Canada conducts regular national Aboriginal Peoples Surveys (2012 to present) on the social and economic conditions of indigenous people living off reserve, with the aim of identifying pressing needs, inform policy and programs, and improving the well-being of indigenous peoples. The First Nations Regional Health Survey is a nationally representative survey of First Nations People living on-reserve from across Canada and is run by the First Nations Information Governance Centre. Recent analyses of the First Nations Regional Health surveys of 2008 and 2015, showed that “adults living in First Nations communities across Canada who had a parent attend residential school reported higher levels of psychological distress, suicidal thoughts and attempts, and sub- stance use compared to First Nations adults without a family history of residential schools” (McQuaid, Bombay, & Matheson, 2020, p 12).

Prejudice, systemic discrimination, and violence were reported by indigenous peoples in the Truth and Reconciliation Commis- sion of Canada (2015; www.trc.ca), the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls (2019; www .mmiwg-ffada.ca), and the Viens Public Inquiry Commission on relations between indigenous peoples and Quebec public services (2019; www.cerp.gouvqc.ca).

As Pointed out by Danto and Ansloos (2020): Entire systems, including the residential school system, the

practice of forced adoption of Indigenous children into White settler families known as the Sixties Scoop as well as ingrained and institutionalized racism have resulted in a pattern of intergen- erational disparities and a complex of societal imbalances that continue to disadvantage indigenous peoples across a variety of health and social indicators. Unfortunately, the discipline of psy- chology in Canada is complicit in this legacy, and indeed, many of the field’s ongoing practices are part of the problem (Danto & Ansloos, 2020, p. 4).

The negative psychological impact of Canadian residential schools on indigenous children was reviewed in a recent paper documenting harmful practices such as deficient institutional care, forced acculturation, acculturation stress, racism and discrimina- tion, maltreatment, psychological abuse, bullying, and trauma (Barnes & Josefowitz, 2019). Using a model of risk resilience factors impacting psychological functioning, the review docu- mented the ill effects of residential schools on indigenous children, adolescents, and adults, in domains such as mental disorders, complex traumatic reactions, lifelong negative cascading of events, poor educational achievement, and marginalisation. Pros- pects for psychologists to work collaboratively with indigenous peoples to help redress the intergenerational harm of residential schools were proposed in line with the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015; www.trc .ca).

A public health study of aboriginals in Australia documented a strong relationship between the experience of racial discrimination suffered by aboriginals and their poor mental and physical health (Larson, Gillies, Howard, & Coffin, 2007). This Australian study corroborated the link between being the victim of discrimination and poor mental and physical health among African Americans

96 BOURHIS

(Pieterse, Todd, Neville, & Carter, 2012), African Canadians (James et al., 2010), and ethnic minorities in the United Kingdom (Wallace, Nazroo, & Bécares, 2016). Clearly, being the victim of prejudice and institutional discrimination does undermine the well- being of stigmatized minorities and challenge majority govern- ments and institutions to adopt the public policies needed to reduce racism and linguicism for the sake of improving the mental and physical health of all citizens within multiethnic and multilingual states.

The Social Psychology of Prejudice and Discrimination

Why do people discriminate? Classic research based on Realis- tic Conflict Theory has shown that cooperative or competitive relations between groups can determine intergroup attitudes and behaviors (Jackson, 1993; Sherif, 1966). Cooperation between groups to reach common goals can promote favorable intergroup attitudes and behaviors. However, competition over scarce re- sources such as jobs, housing, education, health care, wealth, and political power often leads to prejudice, discrimination and antag- onism between groups. Such effects were obtained in Sherif’s classic summer camp field experiments and were also found in studies of host majority attitudes toward immigrants seen as eco- nomic competitors for scarce jobs in Canada (Esses, Jackson, & Armstrong, 1998) and the United States (Zarate, Garcia, & Hitlan, 2004).

Competition for scarce resources may not be a necessary con- dition for prejudice and discrimination. SIT proposed that positive social identity needs may also help account for the emergence of prejudice and discrimination between groups (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). The Minimal Group Paradigm (MGP) was created to ex- plore the baseline conditions in which discrimination could occur between groups categorized as us versus them in laboratory set- tings (Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, & Flament, 1971). Five features characterize the classic minimal group paradigm often presented as a task designed to explore decision-making processes about the distribution of valued resources to ingroup and outgroup others: (a) Participants in a classroom or organizational setting are randomly categorized in two groups using a coin toss to label individuals as members of Group K or Group W, thus highlighting the arbitrary nature of the us/them categorization; (b) membership in Group K versus Group W is anonymous during the 40-min experiment, such that real-life friends or rivals could be either members of the ingroup or the outgroup; (c) there is no social interaction within the ingroup or between the groups, thus eliminating the development of ingroup liking or outgroup antipathy; (d) there is no history of competition or conflict of interest between the two groups and no disparaging ideology against outgroups or glorifying narrative in favor of the ingroup, thus eliminating the weight of history and ideology characterizing many real-life intergroup relations; and (e) participants are asked to make decisions about the distribution of valued resources between anonymous members of the ingroup and the outgroup, never to themselves, thus eliminating economic self-interest, accounting for discrimination in real-life settings in which jobs, promotions, and other desired advantages fuel inter- group competition.

Thus, other than the us versus them categorization, the MGP excluded the above aggravating factors known to foster prejudice and discrimination found in real-life intergroup relations. It was

expected that under such minimal conditions, there would be no rational reason for people to discriminate in the allocation of resources: Group members should distribute the resources equally between ingroup and outgroup members. The Tajfel matrices were used to monitor the various parity and discrimination strategies that could be used by participants to distribute valued resources (money, course credits, candies) between ingroup and outgroup others (Bourhis & Gagnon, 2001). Surprisingly, results showed that the us versus them categorization and ingroup identification was sufficient to trigger not only parity as expected but also more ingroup than outgroup liking as well as discrimination through the allocation of more resources to ingroup than outgroup others, results that were corroborated across 30 years of MGP research (Hewstone, Rubin, & Willis, 2002).

The SIT proposed that this minimal group discrimination effect reflects a motivation for a positive social identity (Turner & Reynolds, 2010). Following the us versus them categorization in the MGP, group members want to differentiate themselves posi- tively from anonymous outgroup others. Giving more resources to ingroup than outgroup others is a way of achieving a positive social identity in this otherwise Kafkaesque intergroup situation. We set out to test this fundamental premise of SIT and conducted MGP studies that showed that individuals who identified strongly with their own group discriminated, whereas those who weakly identified did not discriminate but instead used only parity: giving as many resources to ingroup members as to outgroup ones (Bourhis, Turner, & Gagnon, 1997). In another MGP study, par- ticipants in a voluntary group condition were given the option of choosing the Group K or Group W to which they wished to belong. In the control condition, participants were randomly assigned to their ad hoc Group K or W (coin toss) by the experimenter as in the usual MGP studies. Results showed that individuals who chose their group membership identified more strongly with their own group and engaged in more discriminatory behavior than respon- dents who were randomly assigned to their group (Perreault & Bourhis, 1999). MGP studies also showed that group members felt more happy, satisfied and “liked being members of their own group” more after they discriminated than before, supporting the basic SIT premise that people discriminate to achieve a more positive social identity (Perreault & Bourhis, 1998). Results of this study also showed that compared with the degree of identification measured prior to discrimination, participants identified more with their own group after they discriminated, showing that discrimi- nation does contribute to stronger identification with the ingroup. Taken together, these results showed that discriminatory behavior can contribute to both heightened ingroup identification and more positive social identity as proposed within SIT. A reinforcing cycle of ingroup identification and discrimination may also lead to an escalation in the severity of discriminatory behaviors, especially when spurred by ethnocentric, nationalistic, or populist political ideologies glorifying the ingroup and depicting stigmatized out- groups as threatening adversaries.

We conducted other MGP studies exploring social identity theory, interdependence and self-interest as competing or comple- mentary explanations of the minimal group discrimination effect on parity and discriminatory behaviors (Gagnon & Bourhis, 1996; Turner & Bourhis, 1996). The role of individual differences related to ethnocentrism and social dominance orientation measured weeks before MGP studies showed that respondents endorsing

97JOURNEY RESEARCHING PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION

such ideological orientations was predictive of their degree of ingroup identification and discrimination in subsequent MGP stud- ies (Amiot & Bourhis, 2003, 2005b; Perreault & Bourhis, 1999).

As established in the social stratification literature, more often than not, intergroup relations occur between groups differing in power, wealth, demographic weight, and social status. Combining our field and laboratory research, we explored the independent and combined effects of these variables on the parity and discrimina- tory behavior of group members created within MGP experiments. Using variations of the MGP paradigm, we examined the parity and discriminatory behavior of group members whose structural position in laboratory settings varied systematically as high- versus low-status groups, dominant versus subordinate groups, and rich versus poor group members (Amiot & Bourhis, 2005a; Harvey & Bourhis, 2012, 2013; Sachdev & Bourhis, 1991). These experi- ments contribute to our understanding of how group member’s positions in the social structure affect their intergroup perceptions, their parity and their discriminatory behaviors (Brauer & Bourhis, 2006).

Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination

What interventions are possible for reducing prejudice and discrimination? Intergroup contacts and educational interventions are parts of the large toolbox for reducing prejudice and discrim- ination. Based on Allport’s (1954) classic contact hypothesis, studies showed that intergroup contact could help reduce prejudice and discrimination under the following five circumstances: (a) Ingroup and outgroup members must have equal status within the specific contact setting; (b) both groups must cooperate to achieve a common goal; (c) the intergroup contact must be approved and supported by rules and officials in authority positions who promote social norms of equality and harmony; (d) emergence of cross- group friendships facilitate equal status relations, and encourage intergroup trust, enhanced empathy, and intimacy; and (e) inter- group contacts involving multiple members of the outgroup, not just a few token individuals labeled as outstanding exceptions to the rule, help reduce prejudice toward all outgroup members (Brown, 2010).

Pettigrew and Tropp (2011) conducted meta-analyses of more than 500 studies of intergroup contact in 38 countries designed to reduce prejudice and discrimination. Results revealed that inter- group contact studies respecting one or more of the above five conditions were successful in reducing prejudice. Intergroup con- tacts respecting the above conditions were found to reduce subtle as well as blatant prejudice and implicit association prejudices as well as direct measures of prejudice. The meta-analysis showed that the positive effects of intergroup contact in reducing prejudice did generalize to the entire outgroup involved, not just those individuals who were met in the intergroup contact situation. Intergroup contact also reduced intercultural anxiety, fear of out- groups, and feelings of personal and collective threat in the pres- ence of outgroups. The meta-analysis also revealed that reduction of prejudice obtained through intergroup contact were more sig- nificant for participants belonging to advantaged majority groups than for those belonging to vulnerable minorities. For individuals from the majority group, the contact was often the first opportunity to meet members of a minority group and to experience firsthand their cultural, linguistic, and ethnic differences while appreciating

their personal qualities. For minority groups, contact with individ- uals from the majority was often unavoidable, given the predom- inance of majority members in positions of control in mainstream private and government institutions. Vulnerable minority members may perceive that they have experienced prejudice and discrimi- nation in the past and may expect similar outcomes in the future, thus attenuating the beneficial impact of favorable intergroup contact. Although minorities want to highlight similarities with the majority, they are also concerned with asserting their distinctive identities, thus validating their unique minority group qualities and experiences within majority settings.

Educational interventions have used learning material such as assigned readings, film documentaries, and guest speakers to coun- ter prevailing prejudices against vulnerable minorities and help majorities appreciate cultural, ethnic, linguistic, and religious di- versity as an asset rather than a liability. I was the scientific consultant for the documentary, La Leçon de Discrimination, produced and aired on French Radio-Canada television in 2006 – 2007 across Canada. Using the classic us versus them categoriza- tion of the MGP laboratory experiments, the documentary shows how a French third-year primary school teacher divided her French class in two groups: one with tall pupils and the other with short pupils (median split), a variant of the Eye of the Storm documen- tary conducted in an Iowa classroom during the 1970s. While respecting ethical issues, the teacher described the short group as being better behaved and more academically promising than the tall group who was less valued and made to wear an identifying red shirt. The better group was granted classroom privileges by the teacher. On day 1 of the experiment, many pupils belonging to the advantaged short group expressed prejudiced attitudes and behav- iors toward the devalued outgroup pupils. The roles were reversed by the teacher the next day using a credible bogus rationale, resulting in the formerly disadvantaged tall group being assigned as the better group. Although having suffered as the devalued group on day 1, newly advantaged tall group members expressed prejudice attitudes and behaviors toward the less valued short group on day 2, replicating what American pupils had done in the 1970 documentary. The teacher very carefully debriefed her pupils at the end of the second day as shown in the television documen- tary. In a documentary with the same pupils 10 years later, shown on French Radio-Canada television in 2016 (La Leçon de Discrim- ination,10 Ans Plus Tard), the former pupils attested to the use- fulness of the original experiment as a learning experience, high- lighted the skill of their former teacher in debriefing them, and helping them better appreciate and include minority and stigma- tized individuals in their primary and secondary classrooms and in their everyday encounters as young adults.

Educators in primary, high school, and university settings re- ported the efficacy of the 2006 documentary as a pedagogical tool in helping students better understand the realities and conse- quences of us versus them categorizations, the impact of teachers as authority figures in using subtle language cues to establish valued versus devalued pupils and subgroups, and the ease with which advantaged pupils endorse prejudices and discriminatory behaviors that maintain their advantaged position within their classroom settings. Seen by more than 6 million viewers on French Radio-Canada TV over the decade and adopted for viewing on 30 television channels in Europe and Asia, the 2006 documentary won many awards in Canada (Gemini in Toronto, Grand Prix

98 BOURHIS

Judith Jasmin in Montreal) and internationally, including the Japan Grand Prize for best television educational program in the world in 2007 and the Governor of Tokyo Award for best educational program of 250 television documentary submissions. The 2006 documentary remains among the best-selling audiovisual docu- mentary used as a prodiversity pedagogical tool in Quebec schools. The English subtitled documentary was used as a pedagogical tool in southern Ontario schools and communities, the Canadian Race Relations Foundation and in units of the Canadian Army across Canada. Our pedagogical guide for the documentary (La leçon de discrimination.curio.ca) also won an award of distinction from the Canadian Race Relations Foundation for best practice in antira- cism. I had the chance to use the documentary for diversity training in schools, colleges, local communities, and government settings in Canada, Europe, and Asia. Such public interventions are not only enriching for the author and participants but also highlight the need for scholars to reach broader audiences and to further explore and challenge the theoretical, applied, and public policy relevance of their research.

Résumé Cet article examine l’un des 3 thèmes de recherche privilégiés par l’auteur au cours de sa carrière, notamment la psychologie sociale des préjugés et de la discrimination. Sont d’abord examinées les enquêtes à grande échelle qui documentent l’étendue des préjugés et de la discrimination à l’égard des minorités au Canada, à savoir les Autochtones, les Afro-Canadiens, les minorités francophones dans le Canada anglais et les minorités anglophones au Québec. Il existe des preuves grandissantes des répercussions de la discrim- ination sur la santé mentale et physique des victimes, au Canada et ailleurs dans le monde. L’auteur passe en revue les études en laboratoire ayant utilisé le paradigme des groupes minimaux qui ont révélé que la catégorisation des gens « eux contre nous » et la détermination de groupes suffisent à favoriser l’apparition de préjugés et de discrimination. Conformément à la théorie de l’identité sociale, le niveau d’identification au sein d’un groupe et le besoin d’atteindre une identité sociale positive contribuent à l’effet classique de favoritisme au sein d’un groupe, mis en relief dans le cadre d’études reposant sur le paradigme des groupes minimaux. Ainsi, à la fois les besoins d’une identité sociale (théo- rie de l’identité sociale) et la concurrence pour des ressources limitées, décrite dans la théorie du conflit réaliste, agissent de concert et expliquent les préjugés, la discrimination et les antago- nismes intergroupes. L’article se termine par une discussion des interventions visant à amoindrir les préjugés et la discrimination, dont les contacts intergroupes et la formation sur la diversité. En tant que consultant scientifique, l’auteur a contribué à la produc- tion du documentaire télévisé La leçon de discrimination, pour la chaîne francophone de Radio-Canada. Ce documentaire, qui a remporté le prix mondial du meilleur programme éducatif pour la télévision, a été adapté avec succès pour en faire un outil péda- gogique en faveur de la diversité au Canada et dans le monde entier.

Mots-clés : préjugé, discrimination, identité sociale, formation sur la diversité.

References

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. New York, NY: Doubleday Anchor Books.

Amiot, C. E., & Bourhis, R. Y. (2003). Discrimination and the positive- negative asymmetry effect: Ideological and normative processes. Per- sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 597– 608. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1177/0146167203029005005

Amiot, C. E., & Bourhis, R. Y. (2005a). Discrimination between dominant and subordinate groups: The positive-negative asymmetry effect and normative processes. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 289 –308. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/014466604X17605

Amiot, C., & Bourhis, R. Y. (2005b). Ideological beliefs as determinants of discrimination in positive and negative outcome distributions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 581–598. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ ejsp.238

American Psychological Association. (2012). Dual pathway to a better America. Preventing discrimination and promoting diversity. Washing- ton, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pubs/info/reports/ promoting-diversity.aspx

Barnes, R., & Josefowitz, N. (2019). Indian residential schools in Canada: Persistent impact on Aboriginal students’ psychological development and functioning. Canadian Psychology, 60, 65–76. http://dx.doi.org/10 .1037/cap0000154

Berry, J. W. (2001). A psychology of immigration. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 615– 631. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00231

Bourhis, R. Y. (2019a). Evaluating the impact of Bill 101 on the English- speaking communities of Quebec. Language Problems and Language Planning, 43, 198 –229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/lplp.00042.bou

Bourhis, R. Y. (2019b). Howie’s first graduate student: A few research tales. In J. Harwood, J. Gasiorek, H. Pierson, J. Nussbaum, & C. Gallois (Eds.), Language, communication and intergroup relations (pp. 118 – 125). New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor Francis.

Bourhis, R. Y. (Ed.), (2012). Decline and prospects of the English- speaking communities of Quebec (Déclin et enjeux des communautés de langue anglaise du Québec). Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Heritage, Pat- rimoine Canadien.

Bourhis, R. Y., & Gagnon, A. (2001). Social orientations in the minimal group paradigm. In R. Brown & S. Gaertner (Eds.), Blackwell handbook in social psychology: Vol. 4. Intergroup processes (pp. 89 –111). Ox- ford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.

Bourhis, R. Y., & Leyens, J. P. (Eds.). (1999). Stéréotypes, discrimination et relations intergroupes (2nd ed). Spirmont, Belgique: Mardaga. Adapted in Spanish as: R. Y. Bourhis, J. P. Leyens, F. Morales, & D. Paez (Eds.) (1996). Estereotipos, discriminacion y relaciones entre gru- pos. Madrid: McGraw-Hill.

Bourhis, R. Y., Montaruli, E., El-Geledi, S., Harvey, S. P., & Barrette, G. (2010). Acculturation in multiple host community settings. Journal of Social Issues, 66, 780 – 802. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2010 .01675.x

Bourhis, R. Y., Montreuil, A., Helly, D., & Jantzen, L. (2007). Discrimi- nation et linguicisme au Québec: Enquête sur la diversité ethnique au Canada [Discrimination and linguicism in Quebec: Survey on ethnic diversity in Canada]. Études ethnique au Canada [Canadian Ethnic Studies], 39, 31– 49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/ces.0.0001

Bourhis, R. Y., Sachdev, I., Ehala, M., & Giles, H. (2019). Assessing 40 years of group vitality research and future directions. Journal of Lan- guage and Social Psychology, 38, 409 – 422. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0261927X19868974

Bourhis, R. Y., Turner, J. C., & Gagnon, A. (1997). Interdependence, social identity and discrimination. In R. Spears, P. J. Oakes, N. Ellemers, & S. A. Haslam (Eds.), The social psychology of stereotyping and group life (pp. 273–295). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers.

Brauer, M., & Bourhis, R. Y. (2006). Social power. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 601– 616. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.355

99JOURNEY RESEARCHING PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION

Brown, R. (2010). Prejudice. Its social psychology (2nd ed.). Chichester, United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell.

Brown, R. (2020). Henri Tajfel. Explorer of identity and difference. Eu- ropean monographs in social psychology. New York, NY: Routledge.

Danto, D., & Ansloos, J. (2020). Indigenous peoples mental health and wellbeing: Updates in Canadian psychology practice. Psynopsis, 41, 4 –5.

Esses, V. M., Jackson, L. M., & Armstrong, T. L. (1998). Intergroup competition and attitudes towards immigrants and immigration: An instrumental model of group conflict. Journal of Social Issues, 54, 699 –724. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1998.tb01244.x

Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2009). A common ingroup identity: A categorization based approach for reducing intergroup bias. In T. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice (pp. 489 –505). Philadelphia, PA: Taylor & Francis.

Gagnon, A., & Bourhis, R. Y. (1996). Discrimination in the minimal group paradigm: Social Identity or self-interest? Personality and Social Psy- chology Bulletin, 22, 1289 –1301. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 01461672962212009

Harvey, S. P., & Bourhis, R. Y. (2012). Discrimination in wealth and power structure. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15, 21–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1368430211408364

Harvey, S. P., & Bourhis, R. Y. (2013). Discrimination between the rich and the poor under contrasting conditions of wealth stratification. Jour- nal of Applied Psychology, 43, E351–E366. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ jasp.12041

Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 575– 604. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev .psych.53.100901.135109

Jackson, J. (1993). Realistic Conflict Theory: A review and evaluation of the theoretical and empirical literature. Psychological Record, 43, 395– 414.

James, C., Este, D., Bernard, W. T., Benjamin, A., Lloyd, B., & Turner, T. (2010). Race & well-being. The lives, hopes, and activism of African Canadians. Halifax, Winnipeg: Fernwood Publishing.

Larson, A., Gillies, M., Howard, P. J., & Coffin, J. (2007). It’s enough to make you sick: The impact of racism on the health of Aboriginal Australians. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 31, 322–329. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-6405.2007.00079.x

McQuaid, R. J., Bombay, A., & Matheson, K. (2020). Contextualizing indigenous mental health and wellness by understanding historical trauma and resilience. Psynopsis, 41, 12–13.

Paradies, Y., Ben, J., Denson, N., Elias, A., Priest, N., Pieterse, A., . . . Gee, G. (2015). Racism as a determinant of health: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE, 10, e0138511. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0138511

Perreault, S., & Bourhis, R. Y. (1998). Social identification, interdepen- dance and discrimination. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 1, 49 – 66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1368430298011005

Perreault, S., & Bourhis, R. Y. (1999). Ethnocentrism, social identification and discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 92–103. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167299025001008

Pettigrew, T., & Tropp, L. (2011). When groups meet: The dynamic of intergroup contacts. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Pieterse, A. L., Todd, N. R., Neville, H. A., & Carter, R. T. (2012). Perceived racism and mental health among Black American adults: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59, 1–9. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026208

Reitz, J. G., Breton, R., Dion, K., & Dion, K. (2009). Multiculturalism and social cohesion. Potentials and challenges of diversity. New York, NY: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9958-8

Sachdev, I., & Bourhis, R. Y. (1991). Power and status differentials in minority and majority group relations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 1–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420210102

Sherif, M. (1966). Group conflict and cooperation: Their social psychol- ogy. London, UK: Routledge.

Sioufi, R., & Bourhis, R. Y. (2018). Acculturation and linguistic tensions as predictors of Quebec Francophone and Anglophone desire for internal migration in Canada. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 37, 136 –159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0261927X17714571

Tajfel, H., Billig, M., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social catego- rization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychol- ogy, 1, 149 –178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420010202

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), The psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.

Tropp, L. R., & Mallett, R. K. (Eds.). (2011). Moving beyond prejudice reduction. Pathways to positive intergroup relations. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/12319- 000

Turner, J. C., & Bourhis, R. Y. (1996). Social Identity, interdependence and the social group: A reply to Rabbie et al. In P. Robinson (Ed.), Social groups and identities: Developing the legacy of Henri Tajfel (pp. 25– 63). Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.

Turner, J. C., & Reynolds, K. (2010). The story of social identity. In T. Postmes & N. R. Branscombe (Eds.), Rediscovering social identity (pp. 13–32). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Wallace, S., Nazroo, J., & Bécares, L. (2016). Cumulative effect of racial discrimination on the mental health of ethnic minorities in the United Kingdom. American Journal of Public Health, 106, 1294 –1300. http:// dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303121

Zarate, M., Garcia, B., & Hitlan, R. (2004). Cultural threat and perceived realistic group conflict as dual predictors of prejudice. Journal of Ex- perimental Social Psychology, 40, 99 –105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0022-1031(03)00067-2

Received January 9, 2020 Revision received January 13, 2020

Accepted January 13, 2020 �

100 BOURHIS