Stereotype threat : effects of stereotype endorsement and emotions on the performance of stigmatized individuals

Dans le cadre de cette thèse, nous nous intéressons aux mécanismes sous-jacents à la menace du stéréotype (Steele & Aronson, 1995). Notre objectif principal est de proposer une explication à l’effet délétère de menace du stéréotype sur la performance des individus stigmatisés à travers les conséquences comportementales et cognitives des émotions émergeant dans cette situation. Nos travaux s’articulent autour de deux objectifs de recherche. En premier lieu, nous souhaitons montrer que la situation de menace du stéréotype est susceptible de déclencher aussi bien de la peur que de la colère chez les individus stigmatisés. Nous postulons que l’adhésion ou la non adhésion des individus au stéréotype dont ils sont la cible déterminerait l’émergence de peur ou de colère respectivement. En second lieu, nous examinerons les processus cognitifs et motivationnels par lesquels ces deux émotions diminuent la performance des individus stigmatisés.In this PhD thesis, we investigate specific mechanisms underlying stereotype threat (Steele & Aronson, 1995). Our main claim is that deleterious effect of stereotype threat on the performance of stigmatized individuals can be explained by the behavioral and cognitive consequences of the emotions emerging in this situation. The aim of the research program is twofold. First, we tested the idea that stereotype threat is likely to trigger fear, but also anger, in stigmatized individuals. Specifically, we assume that the endorsement vs non- endorsement to the stereotype respectively determines the emergence of fear or anger. Second, we investigate the cognitive and motivational processes through which these two emotions lead to a decrease in the performance of stigmatized individuals

Dual Effects of Partner's Competence: Resource Interdependence in Cooperative Learning at Elementary School

A partner’s competence should logically favor cooperative learning. However, research in cooperative learning has shown that a partner’s competence may or may not activate a threatening social comparison and yields dual effects: It is beneficial when students work on complementary information while it is detrimental when students work on identical information. Two studies conducted at elementary school (study 1 with 24 fourth graders working on encyclopedic texts, and study 2 with 28 fifth graders working on argumentative texts) replicated that interaction: Information distribution (complementary vs. identical information) moderated the relationship between partner’s competence and pupils’ learning outcomes. The relation between partner’s competence and students’ performances was positive when working on complementary information, but negative when working on identical information. A third study confirmed that working on identical information led to a competitive social comparison whereas complementary information reinforced the pupils’ cooperation perception. Contributions to cooperative learning research are discussed in terms of the competitive comparisons that may arise during cooperative learning at elementary school.</p

A Three-Stage Psychosocial Engineering-Based Method to Support Controversy and Promote Mutual Understanding between Stakeholders: The Case of CO₂ Geological Storage

Subsurface engineering projects with high socio-environmental impacts raise strong controversies among stakeholders, which often affects the projects’ implementation. These controversies originate from a loss of public confidence in the decision-making process, lack of information about new technologies, and the desire of some promoters to avoid conflict. The lack of methodologies to structure each stage of the debate can, in this context, lead to the crystallization of the stakeholders’ positions and to the failure of the project. To promote mutual understanding and constructive exchanges, this article presents a combination of methods based on psychosocial engineering principles to support debate and encourage stakeholders to participate with an openness posture. The method is based on a set of studies conducted as part of the “Social Governance for Subsurface Engineering” project and includes three stages: (1) develop stakeholders’ knowledge so that they are able to participate in the debate with an informed viewpoint; (2) commit stakeholders to participate in the debate by adopting a posture conducive to constructive exchanges; and (3) structure exchanges between stakeholders through the use of cooperative methods facilitating the adoption of an openness posture

A Three-Stage Psychosocial Engineering-Based Method to Support Controversy and Promote Mutual Understanding between Stakeholders: The Case of CO2 Geological Storage

International audienceSubsurface engineering projects with high socio-environmental impacts raise strong controversies among stakeholders, which often affects the projects’ implementation. These controversies originate from a loss of public confidence in the decision-making process, lack of information about new technologies, and the desire of some promoters to avoid conflict. The lack of methodologies to structure each stage of the debate can, in this context, lead to the crystallization of the stakeholders’ positions and to the failure of the project. To promote mutual understanding and constructive exchanges, this article presents a combination of methods based on psychosocial engineering principles to support debate and encourage stakeholders to participate with an openness posture. The method is based on a set of studies conducted as part of the “Social Governance for Subsurface Engineering” project and includes three stages: (1) develop stakeholders’ knowledge so that they are able to participate in the debate with an informed viewpoint; (2) commit stakeholders to participate in the debate by adopting a posture conducive to constructive exchanges; and (3) structure exchanges between stakeholders through the use of cooperative methods facilitating the adoption of an openness posture