Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T10:36:56.029Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

L’âgisme : Adaptation française d’une mesure et test d’un modèle structural des effets de l’empathie, l’orientation à la dominance sociale et le dogmatisme sur l’âgisme

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2009

Valérian Boudjemad  and
Kamel Gana
Valérian Boudjemad
Affiliation:
Université de Nancy 2, France
Kamel Gana*
Affiliation:
Université de Bordeaux 2, France
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: / La correspondance concernant cet article doit être adressées à : Prof. Kamel Gana Département de psychologie Université de Bordeaux 2 3 Place de la Victoire 33076 Bordeaux ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article presents two studies dealing with ageism. The objective of the first study was to adapt to French language and validate the Fraboni of Ageism Scale-Revised (FSA-R) which contains 23 items, while the objective of the second study was to test a structural model containing ageism as measured by the FSA-R and the “Big Three”: empathy, social dominance orientation, and dogmatism, controlled for by sex and age. The results of the first study (n = 323) generated a version of the FSA-R comprising 14 items, of which the psychometric properties were very satisfactory. Using structural equation modelling and bootstrap procedure, the results of the second study (n = 284) showed a direct negative and significant effect of empathy on agism. They also showed that this negative effect was mediated by dogmatism and social dominance orientation, which both exerted a positive effect on ageism.

Résumé

Cet article présente deux études portant sur l’âgisme. La première avait pour objectif d’adapter et de valider la Fraboni Scale of Ageism-Revisited (FSA-R) comprenant 23 items, alors que la seconde se proposait de soumettre à l’épreuve des faits un modèle structural mettant en jeu l’âgisme mesuré par la FSA-R et le « Big Three », à savoir l’empathie, l’orientation à la dominance sociale, et le dogmatisme, sous le contrôle du sexe et de l’âge des participants. Les résultats de la première étude (n = 323) ont permis de retenir une version du FSA-R comprenant 14 items, dont les qualités psychométriques se sont révélées très satisfaisantes. Les résultats de la seconde étude (n = 284), en l’occurrence la modélisation structurale et la procédure de rééchantillonnage (Bootstrap Procedure), montrent un effet négatif direct de l’empathie sur l’âgisme. Ils montrent aussi que cet effet négatif est médiatisé par le dogmatisme et l’orientation à la dominance sociale qui exercent, quant à eux, un effet positif sur l’âgisme.

Keywords

âgismeFraboni Scale of Agismempathieorientation à la dominance socialedogmatismevalidationageismFraboni Scale of Ageismempathysocial dominance orientationdogmatismBig-Threevalidation
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement , Volume 28 , Issue 4 , December 2009 , pp. 371 - 389
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association on Gerontology 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Références bibliographiques

Adorno, T.W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D.J., & Sanford, R.N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Akrami, N., & Ekehammar, B. (2006a). Prejudice: Personality or social psychology? Manuscript submitted for publication.Google ScholarPubMed
Akrami, N., & Ekehammar, B. (2006b). Right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation: Their roots in Big-Five personality factors and facets. Journal of Individual Differences, 27, 117–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akrami, N., & Ekehammar, B. (2007). Personality and prejudice: From Big Five personality factors to facets. Journal of Personality, 75, 899–925.Google Scholar
Allport, G.W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality.” In Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 47–92). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Anantharaman, R.N. (1979). Perception of old age by two generations. Journal of Psychological Researches, 23, 198–199.Google Scholar
Anderson, J.C., & Gerbing, D.W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aosved, A., & Long, P. (2006). Co-occurrence of rape myth acceptance, sexism, racism, homophobia, ageism, classicism, and religious intolerance. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 55, 481–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bäckström, M., & Björklund, F. (2007). Structural modeling of generalized prejudice: The role of social dominance, authoritarianism, and empathy. Journal of Individual Differences, 28, 10–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banaji, M.R. (1999). Unconscious isms: Examples from racism, sexism, and ageism. Document présenté lors de la conférence “the Way Women Lean Conference,” New Haven, CT.Google Scholar
Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barrow, G.M., & Smith, P.A. (1979). Aging, ageism, and society. New York: West Publishing.Google Scholar
Batson, C.D., Polycarpou, M.P., Harmon-Jones, E., Imhoff, H.J., Mitchener, E.C., Bednar, L.L., et al. (1997). Empathy and attitudes: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group improve feelings toward the group? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 105–118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bell, B.D., & Stanfield, G.G. (1973a). The aging stereotype in experimental perspective. The Gerontologist, 13, 341–344.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bell, B.D., & Stanfield, G.G. (1973b). Chronological age in relation to attitudinal judgments: An experimental analysis. Journal of Gerontology, 28, 491–496.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bentler, P.M. (1990). Fit indices, Lagrange multipliers, constraint changes, and incomplete data in structural models. Pyshologycal Bulletin, 88, 588–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berg, C.A., & Sterberg, R.J. (1992). Adults’ conceptions of intelligence across the adult life span. Psychology and Aging, 7, 221–231.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blaison, C., Chassard, D., Kop, J.-L., & Gana, K. (2006). L’IAT (Implicit Association Test) ou la mesure des cognitions sociales implicites: Revue critique de la validite et des fondements theoriques des scores qu’il produit. L’Année Psychologique, 106, 305–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, T.A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Bollen, K.A. & Long, J.S. (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Buswell, B.N. (2006). The role of empathy, responsibility, and motivations to respond without prejudice in reducing prejudice. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 66, 6968.Google Scholar
Butler, R.N. (1969). Age-ism; another form of bigotry. The Gerontologist, 9, 243–246.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Butler, R.N. (1978). Thoughts on aging. American Journal of Psychiatry, 135, 14–16.Google ScholarPubMed
Caruso, D.R., & Mayer, J.D. (1998). A measure of emotional empathy for adolescents and adults. Unpublished Manuscript.Google Scholar
Cheung, G.W., & Lau, R.S. (2008). Testing mediation and suppression effects of latent variables bootstrapping with structural equation models. Organizational Research Methods, 11, 296–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conger, A.J. (1974). A revised definition for suppressor variables: A guide to their identification and interpretation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34, 35–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dambrun, M., & Guimond, S. (2001). La théorie de la privation relative et l’hostilité envers les Nord-Africain. Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 1, 57–89.Google Scholar
Dardenne, B., Delacollette, N., Grégoire, C., & Lecocq, D. (2006). Structure latente et validation de la version française de l’Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: L’échelle de sexisme ambivalent (Latent Structure of the French Validation of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Echelle de Sexisme Ambivalent). L’année Psychologique, 106, 235–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, M.H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85.Google Scholar
Davis, M.H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 113–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deconchy, J.P., & Dru, V. (2007). L’Autoritarisme. Grenoble, France: Presses Universitaires de Grenoble.Google Scholar
Del Barrio, V., Aluja, A., & Garcia, L.F. (2004). Relationship between empathy and the Big Five personality traits in a sample of Spanish adolescents. Social Behavior and Personality, 32, 677–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeVellis, R.F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Dru, V. (1998). Dogmatisme et culture: facteurs permanents et spécifiques. Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée, 48, 97–102.Google Scholar
Dru, V. (2003). Relationships between an ego orientation scale and a hypercompetitive scale: Their correlates with dogmatism and authoritarianism factors. Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 1509–1524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duarte, S., Dambrun, M., & Guimond, S. (2004). Social dominance and legitimizing myths: Validation of a French form of the social dominance orientation scale. Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 4, 97–126.Google Scholar
Duckitt, J. (1989). Authoritarianism and group identification: A new view of an old construct. Political Psychology, 10, 63–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duckitt, J. (2001). A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 41–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ekehammar, B., Akrami, N., Gylje, M., & Zakrisson, I. (2004). What matters most to prejudice: Big Five personality, social dominance orientation, or Right-wing authoritarianism? European Journal of Personality, 18, 463–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erber, J.T. (1989). Young and older adults’ appraisal of memory failures in young and older adult target persons. Journals of Gerontology, 44, 170–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Favre, D., Joly, J., Reynaud, C., & Salvador, L.L. (2005). Empathie, contagion émotionnelle et coupure émotionnelle Partie 1: historique critique de la notion d’empathie. Enfance, 4, 363–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fazio, R.H., & Olson, A.O. (2003). Implicit measures in social cognition research: Their meaning and use. Annual Review in Psychology, 54, 297–327.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Finkelstein, L.M., Burke, M.J., & Raju, N.S. (1995). Age discrimination in simulated employment contexts: An integrative analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 52, 652–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, K.J., McCallum, R.C., & Tait, M. (1986). The application of exploratory factor analysis in applied psychology: A critical review. Personnel Psychology, 39, 291–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraboni, M., Saltstone, R., & Hugues, S. (1990). The Fraboni scale of ageism: An attempt at a more precise measure of ageism. Canadian Journal on Aging, 9, 55–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galinsky, A.D., & Moskowitz, G.B. (2000). Perspective-taking: Decreasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 708–724.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gauthier, J., & Bouchard, S. (1993). Adaptation canadienne-française de la forme révisée du State-Trait Anxiety Inventory de Spielberger. Revue Canadienne des Sciences du Comportement, 25, 559–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glick, P., & Fiske, S.T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golde, P., & Kogan, N. (1959). A sentence completion procedure for assessing attitudes toward old people. Journal of Gerontology, 14, 355–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenwald, A.G., & Banaji, M.R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102, 4–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greenwald, A.G., McGhee, D.E., & Schwartz, J.L.K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464–1480.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guimond, S., Dambrun, M., Michinov, N., & Duarte, S. (2003). Does social dominance generate prejudice? Integrating individual and contextual determinants of intergroup cognitions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 697–721.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haccoun, R.R., (1987). Une nouvelle technique de vérification de l’équivalence de mesures psychologiques traduites. Revue Québécoise de Psychologie, 8(3), 30–39.Google Scholar
Haub, C. (2003). World population data sheet. Washington, DC: Population Reference Bureau. http://www.prb.org (consultépour la dernière fois le 13 février 2008).Google Scholar
Haub, C. (2005). World population data sheet. Washington, DC: Population Reference Bureau. http://www.prb.org (consultépour la dernière fois le 13 février 2008).Google Scholar
Hogan, R. (1969). Development of an empathy scale. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 33, 307–316.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hu, L., & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hummert, M.L. (1994). Stereotypes of the elderly and patronizing speech style. In Hummert, M.L., Wiemann, J.M. & Nussbaum, J.F. (Eds.), Interpersonal communication in adulthood: Interdisciplinarity theory and research (pp. 162–185). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Hummert, M.L., Gartska, T.A., O’Brien, T., Greenwald, A.G., & Mellott, S. (2002). Using the implicit association test to measure age differences in implicit social cognition. Psychology and Aging, 17, 482–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hummert, M.L., Gartska, T.A., & Shaner, J.L. (1997). Stereotyping of older adults: The role of target facial cues and perceiver characteristics. Psychology and Aging, 12, 107–114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hummert, M.L, Garstka, T.A., Shaner, J.L., & Strahm, S. (1995). Judgments about stereotypes of the elderly: Attitudes, age associations, and typicality ratings of young, middle-aged, and elderly adults. Research on Aging, 17, 168–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Intrieri, R.C., Von Eye, A., & Kelly, J.A. (1995). The aging semantic differential: A confirmatory analysis. The gerontologist, 35, 616–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbor, D. (1993a). Lisrel 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Jöreskog, K.G., & Sörbor, D. (1993b). Lisrel 8: User’s reference guide. Chicago: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
Karpinski, A., & Steinman, R.B. (2006). The single category implicit association as a measure of implicit social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 16–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kilty, K.M., & Feld, A. (1976). Attitudes toward aging and toward the needs of older people. Journal of Gerontology, 31, 586–594.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kite, M.E., Stockdale, G.D., Whitley, B.E., & Johnson, B.T. (2005). Attitudes toward younger and older adults: An updated meta-analytic review. Journal of Social Issues, 61, 241–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kline, R.B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Kogan, N. (1961). Attitudes toward old people: The development of a scale and an examination of correlates. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62, 44–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kogan, N., & Shelton, F.C. (1962). Differential cue value of age and occupation in impression formation. Psychological Reports, 7, 203–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LeCompte, W.A., & Oner, N. (1976). Development of the Turkish edition of the state-trait anxiety inventory. In Spielberger, C.D. & Guerrero, D. (Eds.), Cross Cultural Anxiety (pp. 51–68). Washington, DC: Hemisphere Publishing Corp.Google Scholar
Légal, J.-B., & Delouvée, S. (2008). Stéréotypes, préjugés et discrimination. Paris: Dunod.Google Scholar
Levin, S. (2004). Perceived group status differences and the effects of gender, ethnicity, and religion on social dominance orientation. Political Psychology, 25, 31–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, G., & Deary, I.J. (1998). Personality traits. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University.Google Scholar
MacKinnon, D.P. (2008). Introduction to statistical mediation analysis. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
MacKinnon, D.P., Krull, J.L., & Lockwood, C.M. (2000). Equivalence of the mediation, confounding and suppression effect. Prevention Science, 1, 173–181.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacKinnon, D.P., Lockwood, C.M., Hoffmann, J.M., West, S.G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test the significance of mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83–104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacKinnon, D.P., Lockwood, C.M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 99–128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCallum, R.C., Browne, R.W., & Sugawara, H.M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modelling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McFarland, S. (2008). Authoritarianism, social dominance, and other roots of generalized prejudice. Paper submitted for publication.Google Scholar
McFarland, S., & Adelson, S. (1996, July). An omnibus study of personality and prejudice. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Vancouver, Canada.Google Scholar
McFarland, S.G. (1998). Toward a typology of prejudiced persons. Paper presented at the annual convention of the International Society for Political Psychology, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
McFarland, S.G. (2001). Prejudiced people: Individual differences in explicit prejudice. Manuscript, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green.Google Scholar
Mehrabian, A., & Epstein, N. (1972). A measure of emotional empathy. Journal of Personality, 40, 525–543.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Netemeyer, R.G., Bearden, W.O., & Sharma, S. (2003). Scaling procedures: Issues and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nussbaum, J.F., Pitts, M.J., Huber, F.N., Krieger, J.L.R., & Ohs, J.E. (2005). Ageism and ageist language across the life span: Intimate relationships and non-intimate interactions. Journal of Social Issues, 61, 287–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ontario Welfare Council, Section on Aging. (1971). Opinions about people, Form A: Guidelines and manual. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Queen’s Park.Google Scholar
Palmore, E.B. (2001). The ageism survey: First findings. The Gerontologist, 41, 572–575.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Palmore, E.B. (2004). The future of ageism. http://www.ilcusa.org (consultépour la dernière fois le 13 février 2008).Google Scholar
Pettigrew, T.F., Jackson, J.S., Ben Bricka, J., Meertens, R.W., Wagner, U., & Zick, A. (1998). Outgroup prejudice in Western Europe. European Review of Social Psychology, 8, 241–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preacher, K.J., & Hayes, A.F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Rosencranz, H.A., & McNevin, T.E. (1969). A factor analysis of attitudes toward the aged. The Gerontologist, 3, 55–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubio, M.D., & Gillespie, D.F. (1995). Problems with errors in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 2, 367–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rupp, D.E., Vodavovich, S.J., & Crédé, M. (2005). The multidimensional nature of ageism: Construct validity and group differences. Journal of Social Psychology, 145, 335–362.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Russell, D.W., Kahn, J.H., Spoth, R., & Altmaier, E.M. (1998). Analyzing data from experimental studies: A latent variable structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 18–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salter, C.A., & Salter, C.D. (1976). Attitudes toward aging and behaviors toward the elderly among young people as a function of death anxiety. The Gerontologist, 16, 232–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saroglou, V., Pichon, I., Trompette, L., Verschueren, M., & Dernelle, R. (2005). Prosocial behavior and religion: New evidence based on projective measures and peer ratings. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 44, 323–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheppard, A. (1981). Attitude toward aging: Analysis of an attitude inventory for younger adults. Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 11, 9–27.Google Scholar
Shrout, P.E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422–445.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidianus, J., Pratto, F., Van Laar, C., & Levin, S. (2004). Social dominance theory: Its agenda and method. Political Psychology, 25, 845–880.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Streiner, D.L. (2003). Starting at the beginning: An introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80, 99–103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J.C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Worchel, S. & Austin, W. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–48). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J.C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Worchel, S. & Austin, W. (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.Google Scholar
Thornton, S., & Thornton, D. (1995). Facets of empathy. Personality and Individual Differences, 19, 765–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thouez, J.P. (2001). Territoire et vieillissement. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, Coll. Médecine et Société.Google Scholar
Tournois, J., Mesnil, F., & Kop, J.-L. (2000). Autoduperie et Hétéroduperie: Un instrument de mesure de la désirabilité sociale. Revue Européenne de Psychologie Appliquée, 50, 219–232.Google Scholar
Tuckman, J., & Lorge, I. (1953). Attitudes toward old people. Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 249–260.Google Scholar
Turner, J.C., Hogg, M.A., Oakes, P.J., Reicher, S.D., & Wetherell, M.S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, England: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Vallerand, R.J. (1989). Vers une méthodologie de validation transculturelle des questionnaires psychologiques: Implications pour la recherche en langue française. Canadian Psychology, 30, 662–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolf, L.M. (1998). Ageism. http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/ageism.html (consultépour la dernière fois le 13 février 2008).Google Scholar