Subtle and Blatant Prejudice
in Europe
T. Pettigrew & R. Meertens
Types of Prejudice
• Much prejudice now covert: “new
racism,” “latent” prejudice, “aversive”
racism, “symbolic racism”
• Blatant:
• Subtle:
hot, close, direct
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 outgroups & 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 that
measure one or several traits
May consist of several scales or
“subtests” (IQ; SAT; ACT)
Likert Scale
• Item with following response forms:
Strongly
Agree
[]
Strongly
Agree [ ]
Agree
Disagree
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
Strongly
Disagree
[]
[]
Strongly
[ ] 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: Noncorrelation 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 Class
n = 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
F Height
M Height
Weight
Pie
F Educ
M Educ
G.P.A.
S.A.T.
I.Q.
Income
Health
Happy
Height
Father
Height
Mother
Height
Weight
Pie
Pieces
Father
Educ
Mother
Educ
G.P.A.
S.A.T.
I.Q.
Income
Health
Happy
1.0
.36*
.57***
.59**
.57***
.20
.05
.04
.21
.25
-.09
.06
.10
1.0
.30
.05
.16
.23
.08
.25
.38*
.37*
-.04
-.40*
-.01
1.0
.19
.29
.08
.003
.05
.001
.09
-.23
-.10
.03
1.0
.54***
-.06
-.10
-.02
.04
.05
-.07
.16
-.09
1.0
.16
.19
.03
.25
.35*
.03
.21
-.02
1.0
.62***
-.21
-.02
.10
.29
-.32*
-.06
1.0
-.07
.06
.23
.30
.005
.22
1.0
.63***
.51***
-.19
.13
.10
1.0
.67***
-.22
.15
.28
1.0
-.14
.25
.19
1.0
-.15
-.23
1.0
.36*
1.0
Height
Weight
Pie Pieces
G.P.A.
S.A.T.
I.Q.
Health
Weight
Pie Pieces
G.P.A.
S.A.T.
I.Q.
Health
Happy
.59**
.57***
.04
.21
.25
.06
.10
.54***
-.06
-.10
.05
.16
-.09
.03
.25
.35*
-21
-.02
.63***
.51***
.13
.10
.67***
.15
.28
.25
.19
.36*
Height
Weight
Pie
Pieces
G.P.A.
S.A.T.
I.Q.
Health
Weight
Pie
Pieces
G.P.A.
S.A.T.
I.Q.
Health
Happy
.59**
.57***
.04
.21
.25
.06
.10
.54***
-.06
-.10
.05
.16
-.09
.03
.25
.35*
-21
-.02
.63***
.51***
.13
.10
.67***
.15
.28
.25
.19
.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
Blatant
Prejudice
Subtle Prejudice
+
-
+
bigot
error
-
subtle
egalitarian
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?