Presentation on theme: "Subtle and Blatant Prejudice in Europe T. Pettigrew & R. Meertens."— Presentation transcript:
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: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 that measure one or several traits May consist of several scales or “subtests” (IQ; SAT; ACT)
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 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?
HeightFather Height Mother Height WeightPie Pieces Father Educ Mother Educ G.P.A.S.A.T.I.Q.IncomeHealthHappy 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 18.104.22.168.08.003.05.001.09-.23-.10.03 Weight 1.0.54***-.06-.10-.02.04.05-.07.16-.09 Pie 22.214.171.124.03.25.35*.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
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?