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?