Subtle and Blatant Prejudice in Europe T. Pettigrew & R. Meertens.

Subtle and Blatant Prejudicein Europe

T. Pettigrew & R. Meertens

Types of Prejudice

• Much prejudice now covert: “new racism,” “latent” prejudice, “aversive” racism, “symbolic racism”

• Blatant: hot, close, direct

• Subtle: cool, distant, indirect

– [ parallels Kovel’s dominative & aversive? ]

Blatant & Subtle Prejudice

• Blatant: inferiority & avoidance of contact

• Subtle:

defense of traditional values

exaggeration of cultural differences

denial of positive emotions

Hypotheses

1. Blatant & subtle can be distinguished and measured

2. Will be moderately inter-correlated

3. Will be similar in characteristics which predict them

4. Will predict different responses to out-groups & immigrant policy

Samples: 1988 Survey

• France about Asians & North Africans

• Netherlands about Turks & Surinamers

• England about West Indians & Asians

• West Germany about Turks

Scale Construction

• Survey contained 50 items (questions) about ethnic attitudes

• Used “exploratory” factor analysis to find related Q-s

• Then must show reliability and validity– Reliability: Crombach’s alpha– Validity: similar predictors + dif outcomes

Vocabulary

• Item: 1 question or task

• Scale: Set of items that measure a single

trait or characteristic

• Test: Usually large set of items thatmeasure one or several traits

May consist of several scales or“subtests” (IQ; SAT; ACT)

Likert Scale

• Item with following response forms:Strongly Strongly

Agree Agree Disagree Disagree

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

Strongly Strongly Agree [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Disagree

Reliability

Does test consistently measure what it measures?

Internal consistency

Test-retest reliability

Validity

Does test measure what it aims to measure?

Convergent Validity: Correlations with other measures of same trait.

Divergent Validity: Non-correlation with measures of different traits.

Correlation• Strength of association of scale measures

• r = -1 to 0 to +1

+1 perfect positive correlation

-1 perfect negative correlation

0 no correlation

• Interpret r in terms of variance

Survey of Classn = 42

• Height• Mother’s height• Mother’s education• SAT• Estimate IQ• Well-being

(7 pt. Likert)

• Weight• Father’s education• Family income• G.P.A.• Health (7pt Likert)• How many pieces of

cherry pie could you eat if you had to?

  Height Father Height

Mother Height

Weight Pie Pieces

Father Educ

Mother Educ

G.P.A. S.A.T. I.Q. Income Health Happy

Height 1.0 .36* .57*** .59** .57*** .20 .05 .04 .21 .25 -.09 .06 .10

F Height   1.0 .30 .05 .16 .23 .08 .25 .38* .37* -.04 -.40* -.01

M Height     1.0 .19 .29 .08 .003 .05 .001 .09 -.23 -.10 .03

Weight       1.0 .54*** -.06 -.10 -.02 .04 .05 -.07 .16 -.09

Pie         1.0 .16 .19 .03 .25 .35* .03 .21 -.02

F Educ           1.0 .62*** -.21 -.02 .10 .29 -.32* -.06

M Educ             1.0 -.07 .06 .23 .30 .005 .22

G.P.A.               1.0 .63*** .51*** -.19 .13 .10

S.A.T.                 1.0 .67*** -.22 .15 .28

I.Q.                   1.0 -.14 .25 .19

Income                     1.0 -.15 -.23

Health                       1.0 .36*

Happy                         1.0

  Weight Pie Pieces G.P.A. S.A.T. I.Q. Health Happy

Height .59** .57*** .04 .21 .25 .06 .10

Weight   .54*** -.06 -.10 .05 .16 -.09

Pie Pieces     .03 .25 .35* -21 -.02

G.P.A.       .63*** .51*** .13 .10

S.A.T.         .67*** .15 .28

I.Q.           .25 .19

Health             .36*

  Weight Pie Pieces

G.P.A. S.A.T. I.Q. Health Happy

Height .59** .57*** .04 .21 .25 .06 .10

Weight   .54*** -.06 -.10 .05 .16 -.09

Pie Pieces

    .03 .25 .35* -21 -.02

G.P.A.       .63*** .51*** .13 .10

S.A.T.         .67*** .15 .28

I.Q.           .25 .19

Health             .36*

Three Factors

• “Size”

• “Smarts”

• “Good Life”

Scale Construction

• Blatant Prejudice Scale (10 items)– Threat & rejection items – 6 items

– Anti-intimacy items – 4 items

• Subtle Prejudice Scale (10 items)– Traditional values items – 4 items

– Cultural differences items – 4 items

– Positive emotions items -- 2 items

Independent Variables(these will predict types of prejudice)

• Ethnocentrism

• Approval of racist movements

• Intergroup friends

• Political conservatism

• Group relative deprivation

Results

• Ethnocentrism blatant & subtle

• Racist movement approval blatant (strong) & subtle (weak)

• Conservatism blatant & subtle

• Intergroup friends blatant & subtle

• Relative Deprivation blatant

Dependent Variables( types of prejudice will predict these )

• Rights of immigrants

• Immigration policy

• Preferred means to improve relations

Typology of Prejudice

+ -

+ bigot error

- subtle egalitarian

Subtle Prejudice

Bla

tant

Pre

judi

ce

How to remedy “problem”?

• Bigots: send immigrants back

• Subtles: teach tolerance in schools

• Egalitarians: make citizenship easier & prosecute hate crimes

Conclusions• Validity of types

– Scales can be created (distinct & reliable)– Factor analyses– Specific correlates of each (indep. vars.)– Specific effects of each (dep. vars.)

• Subtle Prejudice:“The socially acceptable rejection of

minorities for ostensibly non-prejudicial reasons…”

Conclusions• Results support other theories:

• Authoritarian personality– Cluster of ethnocentrism, political

conservativism, national pride predicts prejudice

• Contact theory– More friends less prejudice

• Relative deprivation (group)– Deprived & alienated more prejudice

Conclusions

“Western European countries have been developing a norm against Blatant Prejudice… Egalitarians internalize this norm, Bigots ignore or reject it. Subtles comply with the norm, and express their negative inter group views only in ostensibly non-prejudiced ways that ‘slip under the norm.’”

Question

• Concept of “subtle” prejudice:

= Prejudice but conforms to P.C. norms?

= Anti-prejudice but succumbs to stereotypes?