Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

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

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Subtle and Blatant Prejudice in Europe T. Pettigrew & R. Meertens."— Presentation transcript:

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

2 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? ]

3 Blatant & Subtle Prejudice Blatant: inferiority & avoidance of contact Subtle: defense of traditional values exaggeration of cultural differences denial of positive emotions

4 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

5 Samples: 1988 Survey France about Asians & North Africans Netherlands about Turks & Surinamers England about West Indians & Asians West Germany about Turks

6 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

7 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)

8 Likert Scale Item with following response forms:Strongly AgreeAgreeDisagreeDisagree [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Strongly Agree [ ][ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Disagree

9 Reliability Does test consistently measure what it measures? Internal consistency Test-retest reliability

10 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.

11 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

12 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?

13 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***. F Height*.37*-.04-.40*-.01 M Height Weight 1.0.54***-.06-.10-.02.04.05-.07.16-.09 Pie*.03.21-.02 F Educ 1.0.62***-.21-.02.10.29-.32*-.06 M Educ 1.0-. 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

14 WeightPie PiecesG.P.A.S.A.T.I.Q.HealthHappy Height.59**.57***. 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*

15 WeightPie Pieces G.P.A.S.A.T.I.Q.HealthHappy Height.59**.57***. 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*

16 Three Factors “Size” “Smarts” “Good Life”

17 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

18 Independent Variables (these will predict types of prejudice) Ethnocentrism Approval of racist movements Intergroup friends Political conservatism Group relative deprivation

19 Results Ethnocentrism  blatant & subtle Racist movement approval  blatant (strong) & subtle (weak) Conservatism  blatant & subtle Intergroup friends  blatant & subtle Relative Deprivation  blatant

20 Dependent Variables ( types of prejudice will predict these ) Rights of immigrants Immigration policy Preferred means to improve relations

21 Typology of Prejudice +- + bigot error - subtleegalitarian Subtle Prejudice Blatant Prejudice

22 How to remedy “ problem ” ? Bigots:send immigrants back Subtles: teach tolerance in schools Egalitarians: make citizenship easier & prosecute hate crimes

23 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…”

24 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

25 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.’”

26 Question Concept of “subtle” prejudice: =Prejudice but conforms to P.C. norms? =Anti-prejudice but succumbs to stereotypes?

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

Similar presentations

Ads by Google