Blatant and subtle prejudice: dimensions, determinants, and consequences; some comments on Pettigrew and Meertens

Abstract

Although it has become common to suggest a conceptual distinction between traditional and contemporary forms of prejudice, Pettigrew and Meertens have actually attempted to distinguish the two empirically and developed measures to gauge each. Replication of their study, on the distinction between blatant and subtle prejudice, discloses a number of methodological¯aws that have led to debatable substantial conclusions. We found two distinct measures, however, substantially different from the ones proposed by Pettigrew and Meertens. Our model shows, by all available indices, a better ®t to the data: a ®rst broad factor labelled general prejudice, and a small second factor labelled perceived cultural differences. The ®rst factor is well explained by a number of social characteristics; the second is rather poorly explained and has a rather poor discriminatory power. The ®rst one has strong effects on some consequential variables whereas the second has hardly any effects. Other evidence, considered to be crucial by Pettigrew and Meertens, contains other methodological¯aws, i.e. the neglect of interdependent items. After this correction, their piece of evidence turns out to be arti®cial. As a bene®t to future research, we try to clarify conditions for distinguishing empirically and conceptually between traditional and contemporary prejudice.

Guarding the gates of Europe: A typological analysis of immigration attitudes across 21 countries

“…While individualist gatekeepers were between the lenient and strict gatekeepers (see Coenders et al, 2001) on the first discriminant function, a second function yielded evidence, albeit less robust, of differences between lenient and individualist gatekeepers. On this dimension, lenient gatekeepers were more homophobic, younger, perceived less collective vulnerability, and had more immigrant friends than individualist gatekeepers.…”

“…Nevertheless, current‐day immigration involves larger numbers of people, growing migration from outside of the European Union (e.g., the Balkans or North Africa), and more complex reasons for migration than ever before (Castles & Miller, 2003; Coleman, 1999; Cornelius & Rosenblum, 2005; Sassen, 1999; Soysal, 1994). Hostile and xenophobic attitudes towards immigrants remain common, notwithstanding the context of expansion of the European Union to the East, and harmonizing of immigration and asylum regulations within the Union (e.g., Coenders, Scheepers, Sniderman, & Verberk, 2001; Deschamps & Lemaine, 2004; Jackson, Brown, Brown, & Marks, 2001; Pettigrew et al, 1998; Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995; Sanchez‐Mazas, 2004).…”

Is the attribution of cultural differences to minorities an expression of racial prejudice?

“…However, the distinction established by Pettigrew and Meertens (1995) between blatant and subtle prejudice and the inclusion of the perception of cultural differences as a dimension of subtle prejudice (the other dimensions were the explicit devaluation of minorities' culture and the negation of positive emotions) have been the object of controversy. In fact, Coenders, Scheepers, Sniderman, and Verberk (2001) analysed the dataset of Pettigrew and Meertens and sustain that the inclusion of the subscale “perceived differences” in the scale on “subtle prejudice” is based on methodological ambiguities. Specifically, Coenders et al argue that the subscale of “perceptions of cultural differences” of Pettigrew and colleagues (1998) does not measure prejudice but instead “perceptions of social reality” (see the comment of Pettigrew & Meertens, 2001).…”

Differentiating Contemporary Racial Prejudice from Old-Fashioned Racial Prejudice

“…Critiques of contemporary prejudice are: it has been measured in inconsistent ways leading to variation in its psychometric properties; rather than a single construct, it is a multidimensional construct representing a fusion of negative black affect with violation of American values; its measures are similar to policy outcomes it seeks to predict; it confounds political conservatism with racial prejudice; and finally, it is indistinguishable from old-fashioned prejudice (Coenders et al 2001; Henry and Sears 2002; Hughes 1997; Meertens and Pettigrew 1997; Schuman et al 1997; Sears et al 2000:18; Sniderman and Tetlock 1986; Tarman and Sears 2005:732; Wood 1994). Again, the present study addresses the last critique.…”