The Effect of Contextual Factors on the Association between Different Forms of Prejudice: A Cross-National Approach on Generalized Prejudice

Abstract

Traditional prejudice research departs from the theoretical expectation that specific types of prejudice targeting different outgroups are strongly correlated and can be summarized in a 'general prejudice' factor. The assumption is that different forms of prejudice have a mutual origin and can be triggered by the same factors. In this paper, we strive to answer two research questions: (1) do different types of prejudice have the same causes, and (2) how can the structure of prejudice, i.e. the correlation between different types -be explained. We focus on country-level factorseconomic and culturalas these are important covariates of prejudice and are not yet included in the theory on generalized prejudice. Data from the European Social Survey are used to analyze the research questions. Results show that different types of prejudice not necessarily have the same causes and that contextual factors explain target-specific prejudices rather than the common core of generalized prejudice.Further, the structure of prejudice is explained by the dominant religion in a country and a country's dominant view with regard to hierarchy vs. egalitarianism. Contrary to the expectations of the groups threat theory, the economic situation of a country has only a very limited impact on prejudice.

Comparing a Variable-Centered and a Person-Centered Approach to the Structure of Prejudice

“…Based on previous research in the variable-centered tradition, we know that some predictors primarily relate to the generalized prejudice dimension, while others relate to particular forms of prejudice. On the one hand, we expect that education, generalized trust, RWA, and a left-right ideology are primarily related to the generalized prejudice continuum (e.g., Meeusen & Kern, 2016). On the other hand, we expect that predictors such as moral progressiveness and religious practice are especially related to attitudes toward groups characterized by different moral and religious value systems (e.g., sexual and religious minorities), and that evaluations of the economic situation and perceptions of threat due to immigration primarily explain attitudes toward ethnic minorities.…”

“…Why do people have lower or higher levels of generalized prejudice? Like the notion of interrelated prejudices, this question has been addressed using variable-centered techniques, such as regression analysis and structural equation modeling, with the aim of finding an explanatory model of generalized prejudice factors that applies to all respondents (e.g., Bergh et al, 2016; Meeusen & Kern, 2016; Zick et al, 2008). Typical examples of explanatory variables are social dominance orientation (a preference for group hierarchies), right-wing authoritarianism (RWA: a belief in conventionalism, authoritarian submission, and aggression), reduced generalized trust, low cognitive ability, low education level, and being ideologically rightist (Duckitt, 1992; Hodson & Dhont, 2015).…”

“… 3. See Meeusen (2017) for more information regarding the position of the seven target groups in Belgium. …”

Television News Content of Minority Groups as an Intergroup Context Indicator of Differences Between Target-Specific Prejudices

“…This consistency in targetspecific prejudices is conceptualized as 'generalized prejudice' and ascribed to authoritarian and competitive personality traits (Allport 1954;Duckitt 1992). Empirical research has highlighted, however, that beyond overall levels of generalized prejudice across groups, individuals also differentiate between target groups (Meeusen and Kern 2016). This suggest that there are triggers outside of one's personality that make individuals more prone to certain types of prejudice compared to others.…”

Between solidarity and competitive threat?

“…In other words, we expect that the concrete realization of attitudes towards particular outgroups is dependent on the structural position of the ingroup vis-à-vis the outgroup and the specific setting of the ingroup-outgroup relations. As such, intergroup attitudes are always embedded in a social space as particular intergroup configurations, competitive contexts and cultural settings shape the intensity as well as contents of prejudice (Gorodzeisky & Glikman, 2018;Hellwig & Sinno, 2017;Meeusen & Kern, 2016;Meuleman et al, 2018). This implies that Turkish and Moroccan Belgians' attitudes towards immigrants may vary according to the ethnic outgroup at stake and its characteristics.…”