American Association for Public Opinion Research

Is Subtle Prejudice Really Prejudice?

Author(s): Roel W. Meertens and Thomas F. Pettigrew
Source: The Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 61, No. 1, Special Issue on Race (Spring, 1997), pp.
54-71
Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Association for Public Opinion Research
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2749511 .
Accessed: 10/09/2013 23:33

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Association for Public Opinion Research and Oxford University Press are collaborating with JSTOR
to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Public Opinion Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 131.94.16.10 on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 23:33:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 IS SUBTLE PREJUDICE
REALLY PREJUDICE?

ROELW. MEERTENS
THOMASF. PETTIGREW

A more subtleform of out-groupprejudicehas emergedin recentyears.

Observershave describedit in similartermsin France,Germany,Great
Britain,the Netherlands,andNorthAmerica(Barker1984;Bergmannand
Erb 1986; Essed 1984; Freriks1990; McConahay1983; Pettigrew1989;
PettigrewandMeertens1995; Sears 1988). Blatantprejudiceis the tradi-
tional form; it is hot, close, and direct. In contrast,subtle prejudiceis
cool, distant,and indirect.Blatantprejudiceremains,but proponentsof
the subtle-prejudiceconcept maintainthat a conceptualdistinctionbe-
tween the two is useful.
Despite this convergence of observations,Snidermanand Tetlock
(1986a, 1986b; Snidermanet al. 1991; Tetlock 1994) questionwhether
subtle prejudiceis distinctfrom traditionalforms or even whetherit is
prejudiceat all. They ignore other conceptualizations(Pettigrew1989)
andfocus on Sears's(1988) symbolicracism.Theyregardit as "a flawed
idea" (Snidermanand Tetlock 1986b, p. 130). Centralto their host of
criticismsis theirconcernthatsymbolicracismis confoundedby political
conservatismand indicts conservativesas racists.
In response,this paperemploys extensive survey data from Western
Europeto test these criticalpoints andtheirimplications.We seek to an-
swer the basic question:Is subtleprejudicereally prejudice?We question
the SnidermanandTetlock(1986a, 1986b;Snidermanet al. 1991;Tetlock
1994) contentionsand work from a differentperspective.We posit the
following: (1) Subtleprejudiceagainstout-groupscan be measuredreli-
ably and separatelyfrom the more traditionalform of blatantprejudice.

ROEL W. MEERTENS is a professorof social psychology at the Universityof Amster-

dam, the Netherlands.THOMAS F. PETTIGREW is a researchprofessorof social psychol-
ogy at the Universityof California,SantaCruz.They wish to thanktheir colleagues in
the WorkingGroupon InternationalPerspectiveson Race and EthnicRelationsfor their
help and intellectualstimulation:JamesJackson,JeanneBen Brika,GerardLemaine,Ul-
richWagner,andAndreasZick.An earlierversionof this articlewas presentedto thejoint
meetingof the EuropeanAssociationof ExperimentalSocial Psychologyand the Society
for ExperimentalSocial Psychology,Washington,DC, October1995.
Public Opimon Quarterly Volume 61:54-71 ? 1997 by the American Association for Public Opinion Research
All nghts reserved. 0033-362X/97/6101-0003$02.50

This content downloaded from 131.94.16.10 on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 23:33:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Is Subtle Prejudice Really Prejudice? 55

(2) Subtle prejudicewill relate closely to blatantprejudicebut is quite

distinctfrom political conservatism.(3) Moreover,we hold that subtle
prejudiceis an outgrowthof the establishmentof norms that proscribe
blatantexpressionsof prejudiceanddiscrimination.These normsarejust
developingin WesternEurope,as they are in NorthAmerica.Thus, the
blatant-subtledistinctionshouldprove especiallyuseful for those groups
and societies wheresuch an antiblatantnormhas takenroot-among the
well educated,the young, and the politicallyliberal.

Data and Measures

This researchexploits an unusuallyrich survey data source. These data
derive from 3,806 respondentsdrawn from seven nationalprobability
samples of four WesternEuropeannations.A variety of minoritiesare
the targetsof a wide rangeof prejudicemeasures.
The surveyswere conductedas partof the EuropeanCommunity'sEu-
robarometer30 surveyduringthe fall of 1988 in France,the Netherlands,
GreatBritain,andthen-WestGermany.Turkishimmigrantsservedas the
targetout-groupfor the entireWest Germansample.However,the study
drew two separatesamplesin each of the othercountries,so a varietyof
minoritiescouldserveas targetout-groups.In France,one samplefocused
on NorthAfricans,the otheron Asians(largelyVietnameseandCambodi-
ans). In the Netherlands,one focused on Surinamers,the otheron Turks.
In GreatBritain,one focusedon WestIndians,the otheron Asians(largely
Pakistanisand Indians).
We removedall minorityrespondents.This left a totalof 3,806 respon-
dents: 455 Frenchwere asked about North Africans;475 Frenchwere
askedaboutAsians;462 Dutchwere askedaboutSurinamers;476 Dutch
were askedaboutTurks;471 Britishwere askedaboutWest Indians;482
BritishwereaskedaboutAsians;and985 WestGermanswereaskedabout
Turks.Details of the samplingproceduresand the full schedule of the
Eurobarometer30 survey are availablein Reif and Melich (1991).
We used 10-itemLikertscales to measureBLATANTand SUBTLE
PREJUDICE(Pettigrewand Meertens 1995). The appendixshows the
scales in English.'StandardLikert-scalescoringwas used, with item re-
sponses scored 1, 2 (no 3), 4, and 5 as stronglydisagree,somewhatdis-
agree, somewhat agree, and strongly agree, respectively, dimension.
Higherscoresindicategreaterprejudice.Five items arereversalsin which
disagreementis scoredin theprejudiceddirection(items2-4 of the ANTI-

1. The Dutch,French,and Germanversionswere carefullyconstructedequivalentsusing

back-translation
methods.Copies of these scales are availablefrom Roel W. Meertens.

This content downloaded from 131.94.16.10 on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 23:33:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
56 Roel W. Meertens and Thomas F. Pettigrew

INTIMACYsubscaleandthe two items of the AFFECTIVEPREJUDICE

subscale).2
From a pool of more than 50 separateitems, we chose 10 items to
measureeach type of prejudiceon the basis of our conceptualizationof
the two forms and exploratoryfactoranalyses.Ourconceptualizationof
BLATANTPREJUDICEfollows the standardsocial psychologicalprac-
tice of viewing it as involvingthreatcombinedwith bothformalandinti-
mate rejectionof the out-group.
Our conceptualizationof SUBTLEPREJUDICEfollows the findings
of both field and laboratoryexperimentson the subjectsummarizedby
Crosby,Bromley,and Saxe (1980) andGaertnerandDovidio (1986). In-
deed, experimentalfindingsdirectlyinspiredtwo of the subscalesof our
subtle measure. The cultural differences subscale exploits Rokeach's
(1960) workon belief dissimilarity.He foundthatthe assumptionof belief
and value differenceswith the out-groupimportantlyreflectedprejudice.
Our four items in the appendixmeasuringthe perceived CULTURAL
DI'FFRENCESwith the out-grouptap this dimension.
The AFFECTIVEPREJUDICEsubscale combinesfindingsfrom the
experimentalwork of Dijker (1987) and Dovidio, Mann, and Gaertner
(1989). Dijkerdemonstrated thatrespondentson the streetsof Amsterdam
could easily reporton their emotionalreactionsto out-groups.Dovidio,
Mann,and Gaertnershowedhow subtleprejudiceinvolves the denial of
negativeattributesof out-groups.Theirsubjectsrejectednegativestereo-
types of the out-groupbut readilyassignedmore positive stereotypesto
their in-group.Thus, the out-groupwas seen as not worse than the in-
group,butthe in-groupwas seen as betterthanthe out-group.The appen-
dix's two AFFECTIVEPREJUDICEitems ask respondentswhetherthey
have ever experiencedtwo positive emotions-admiration and sympa-
thy-toward the out-group.3
The commoningredientin all 10 of the SUBTLEPREJUDICEitems
is theircovertness-their ostensiblynonprejudicialcharacter.Indeed,as
Kovel (1970) argues,the prejudicialnatureof subtleprejudiceis typically
hiddenfromthosewho adoptthesebeliefs.Thiskey ingredientis precisely
what disturbscritics.Yet it is how this modem form of prejudiceevades
proscriptivenorms against blatantexpressionsof intergroupprejudice.
The subtle items are socially acceptableways to expressprejudice.Not
perceivedas revealingbias,subtleprejudiceslipsin underantiblatantprej-
udice norms. Thus, the critical distinctionbetween blatantand subtle

2. "Don't know" or missingresponseswereassignedthe individual'smeanon those scale

questionsanswered.This procedurewas used only for those answeringat least 4 of the
scale's 10 questions.Removingrespondentswith less thanfouranswersto the BLATANT
or SUBTLEscales resultedin samplelosses of less than 3 percent.
3. Consistentwith the findingsof Dovidio, Mann, and Gaertner(1989), two equivalent
items using negativeemotions-fear and irritation-did not scale.

This content downloaded from 131.94.16.10 on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 23:33:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Is Subtle Prejudice Really Prejudice? 57

forms of prejudiceinvolves the differencebetween overt expressionof

norm-breakingviews againstminoritiesand the covertexpressionof so-
cially acceptableantiminorityviews.
We used as controlsseven variablesthathave, over years of research,
significantlypredictedprejudice(Allport 1954). The first controlis that
stressedby SnidermanandTetlock(1986a, 1986b;Snidermanet al. 1991;
Tetlock1994). Self-placementon a 10-pointscale rangingfromthe politi-
cal left to right assessed POLITICALCONSERVATISM.High scorers
are more conservative.To measureINTERGROUPFRIENDS,respon-
dentswere showna list: "Peopleof anothernationality,Peopleof another
race,Peopleof anotherreligion,Peoplewith anotherculture,"and "Peo-
ple belongingto anothersocial class." Interviewersaskedfor each item,
:'Are theremany such people" (scored3), "a few" (2), "or none" (or
no answer,scored 1) "thatcount amongyour friends?"
GROUPRELATIVEDEPRIVATION(GRD)is measuredby a single
item drawnfromVannemanand Pettigrew(1972): "Wouldyou say that
overthe last five yearspeoplelike yourselfin [France]havebeen econom-
ically a lot betteroff, betteroff, the same, worse off, or a lot worse off
thanmost [NorthAfricans]living here." High scorersfeel relativelyde-
privedin groupterms.
Two POLITICALINTERESTitems ask respondentshow interested
they are in politics generallyand in EuropeanCommunitypolitics spe-
cifically. High scorers report keen interest in both. To measure NA-
TIONALPRIDE,respondentsreportedhow proudtheywereto be British,
Dutch, French,or German.EDUCATIONreflects the respondent'sre-
portedage duringthe last year of schooling. We calculatedAGE from
reportedbirthdate.
Policy preferencesaboutimmigration,a key minorityissue in Europe,
providedependentvariablesfor ouranalyses.Definingimmigrantsas peo-
ple who reside in the nation but are citizens of neitherthe nation nor
the EuropeanCommunity,the surveysprovidea varietyof items about
immigration.One asks about the RIGHTS OF IMMIGRANTS:"we
should extend their rights" (scored 1), "restricttheir rights" (3), or
"leave things as they are" (2). Anotherasks whetherthe "presence"of
immigrantsis "a good thing" (1), "good to some extent" (2), "bad to
some extent" (3), "or a bad thingfor the futureof our country?"(4). A
thirdquestionaskswhethertherespondentthinks"thegovernmentshould
make every effort to improvethe social and economicpositionof [West
Indians] living in [Britain]-agree strongly" (1), "agree" (2), "dis-
agree" (4)" or "disagreestrongly" (5).
Anotherset of questionsconcernsPREFERREDMEANS "to improve
relationsbetweenthe [British]and [non-British]living here." Interview-
ers askedrespondentsif they thoughtit a "a good idea" or "a badidea"
to adopteach of nine differentactions.The mostcontroversialalternatives

This content downloaded from 131.94.16.10 on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 23:33:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
58 Roel W. Meertens and Thomas F. Pettigrew

concernedmaking "naturalizationeasier," "learn[ing]the languageof

others,"and "know[ing]the culturalcustomsof others."Othersinvolved
nominalremediesthatrequireno effortby the respondentandwereuncon-
troversial- "promotethe teachingof tolerance... in schools," "encour-
age (intergroup)contact,""insurethatpeople ... treat[British]and[non-
British]equally,"and "expandinternationalexchangeprograms."Using
the entiresampleof 3,806 respondents,we formeda NOMINALREME-
DIES scale of these four items. High scorerssupportedall four modest
actions;the scale yields a marginalalphaof .70.
Again with the entiresample,we formeda six-itemmeasureof OPPO-
SITIONTO IMMIGRATION. The highestscorersbelieve thatimmigra-
tionis a badthing,immigrants'rightsshouldbe restricted,andthe govern-
mentshouldneithermakeeffortsto improvethe immigrants'positionnor
make naturalizationeasier.High scorersalso thinkit is "a bad idea" to
learnthe immigrants'languageandculturalcustoms.For the entiresam-
ple, the alphafor the OPPOSITIONTO IMMIGRATIONscale is .75.
A finalitem focuses on IMMIGRATION POLICY:"Thereare a num-
ber of policy options concerningthe presenceof [Turkish]immigrants
living here. In your opinion which is the one policy that the government
should adopt in the long run?" The respondent selected from six alterna-
tives listed on a card.4They rangedfromnot sending "backto theirown
country"any of the out-groupto sendingthemall back.The intermediate
choices varied who should be sent back: those "not born" here, those
"not contributing"to the economy,those "who have committedserious
criminaloffenses," or those "who have no immigrationdocuments."

Results

We pose eight empiricalquestionsrelevantto ourhypothesesconcerning

subtleprejudice:
1. Cansubtleprejudicebe effectivelymeasuredacrossnationalsamples
andfor a varietyof out-grouptargets?The scalingsuccess of the identical
BLATANTand SUBTLEPREJUDICEscales acrossseven samples,six
targetgroups,and four nationsoffers an affirmativeanswerto this ques-
tion. The median alphas for the BLATANT (.90) and SUBTLE (.77)
scales acrossthe seven samplesreach acceptablelevels.
The clarityof our factoranalyticresultsoffers additionalsupport.By
use of principle-components analyses, exploratoryfactor analysesyield
similarresultsacrossthe total sampleandthe seven nationalsamples.For
the BLATANTscale with the total sample,two primaryfactorsemerged

4. Since some of the alternatives are not mutually exclusive, more than one response was
allowed. The respondents averaged 1.6 responses each.

This content downloaded from 131.94.16.10 on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 23:33:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Is Subtle Prejudice Really Prejudice? 59

Table 1. Correlations between Blatant and Subtle Prejudice

and Political Conservatism

Correlations
Partial
Blatant-
Subtlewith
Blatant- Conservatism Blatant- Subtle-
Subtle Controlled Conservatism Conservatism

Britishon Asians +.65 +.63 +.21 +.20

Britishon West
Indians +.69 +.65 +.25 +.24
Dutch on Surinamers +.53 +.50 +.26 +.19
Dutch on Turks +.48 +.45 +.25 +.16
Frenchon North
Africans +.70 +.63 +.32 +.33
Frenchon Asians +.65 +.61 +.24 +.22
Germanson Turks +.63 +.62 +.26 +.15
Total sample +.60 +.58 +.25 +.20

after varimax rotation: the four INTIMACY items (eigenvalue = 3.85)

and the six THREAT AND REJECTION items (eigenvalue = 1.09) listed
in the appendix. The same patternemerged in four of the national samples,
while one factor emerged in two samples and three in one sample. For
the SUBTLE scale with the total sample, three primary orthogonal factors
emerged after varimax rotation in the total sample: the four TRADI-
TIONAL VALUES items (eigenvalue = 1.69), the four CULTURAL
DIFFERENCES items (eigenvalue = 2.52), and the two AFFECTIVE
PREJUDICE items (eigenvalue = 1.13) of the appendix. This patternalso
emerged in all seven national samples.
2. How are the BLATANT and SUBTLE PREJUDICE measures re-
lated? Table 1 shows that the SUBTLE and BLATANT PREJUDICE
scales yield moderately high relationships in all samples-ranging from
+.48 to +.70. Controls for CONSERVATISM barely reduce this associa-
tion. The correlations between SUBTLE and BLATANT, with CONSER-
VATISM partialed out, still range between +.45 and +.65. This same
level emerges in American studies using diverse measures (+.49 by Ja-
cobson [1985], +.58 by McConahay [1982], and +.65 by McClendon
[1985]).
These results provide solid convergent validity for SUBTLE PREJU-
DICE. Yet, beyond measurement error, there is still room for differences

This content downloaded from 131.94.16.10 on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 23:33:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
60 Roel W. Meertens and Thomas F. Pettigrew

Mean Effect Size (Pearson's r)

0.3

0.2

0. 1

0
EDUCATION FRIENDS AGE G.R.D. POL.INTERESTNAT.PRIDE

| Blatant Prejudice Subtle Prejudice

Figure 1. Predictorsof blatantand subtleprejudice.Source:Euro-

Barometer 30 survey, 1988.

between the two prejudicetypes to justify their delineation.But these

correlationscannot settle the issue. We must turnto their relationships
with both independentand dependentvariablesas well as confirmatory
factoranalyticevidence.
3. Do the samevariablespredictbothprejudicescales?Thereis a close
parallelbetweenthe predictorsof BLATANTandSUBTLEPREJUDICE
in figure 1. On both measures,those scoringhigh tend to be poorly edu-
cated,older,have only in-groupfriends,experiencegroupdeprivationrel-
ativeto the out-group,lack politicalinterest,andboastconsiderablepride
in theirnationality.
4. How do the prejudicescales relateto politicalconservatism?In table
1, conservativerespondentsscore significantlyhigheron both prejudice
scalesin all samples.Contraryto SnidermanandTetlock's(1986a, 1986b;
Snidermanet al. 1991; Tetlock 1994) concerns, however, BLATANT
PREJUDICEis more closely relatedto CONSERVATISM(r = +.25)
thanis SUBTLEPREJUDICE(r = +.20) in the totalsampleandin three
of the nationalsamples.Moreover,this relationshipemergeswith or with-
out controlsfor the six predictorsof figure 1.
5. Do CONSERVATISMand SUBTLEPREJUDICEsharethe same
predictors?Anotherway to test the Snidermanand Tetlock contention
(1986a, 1986b;Snidermanet al. 1991;Tetlock1994) concerningthe con-
founding of political conservatismwith subtle prejudiceis to compare
theirpredictors.As shownin figure2, SUBTLEPREJUDICEand CON-

This content downloaded from 131.94.16.10 on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 23:33:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Is Subtle Prejudice Really Prejudice? 61

Mean Effect Size (Cohen's D)

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4-

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
DIVERSE FRIENDS EDUCATION POLITICAL INTEREST GRD

_ Subtle Prejudice Polit. Conservatism

Figure 2. Predictorsof subtleprejudiceand conservatism.Source:

Euro-Barometer 30 survey, 1988.

SERVATISMdiffer sharplyon many variables.The prejudicemeasure

is far more closely associatedthan CONSERVATISMwith less EDU-
CATION, less POLITICALINTEREST,not having INTERGROUP
FRIENDS,and feeling more GROUPRELATIVEDEPRIVATION.
6. By use of confirmatoryfactoranalyses,do the BLATANTandSUB-
TLE PREJUDICEmeasuresfit betterwith one-factoror two-factormod-
els? Criticshold thata one-factormodelis sufficient,while the distinction
between the blatantand subtleforms requiresa two-factormodel. Con-
firmatoryfactor analyses supportthe distinction.In all seven samples,
two-factormodelsprovidesignificantlybetterfits thanone-factormodels
(Pettigrewand Meertens1995, pp. 65-66). Given the tentativenesswith
whichstructuralmodelsmustbe evaluated(Bollen 1989,chap.7), replica-
tion acrossthe seven samplesis vital for comparingthe models.
We testedfourmodels. (1) A one-factormodeltests whetherthe corre-
lationalmatrixof the 20 items fromthe BLATANTand SUBTLEscales
is best representedby one latentfactor-prejudice. (2) An uncorrelated
two-factormodel tests whetherthe dataform two separate,uncorrelated
latent factors-BLATANT and SUBTLE PREJUDICE.(3) The corre-
latedtwo-factormodel tests whetherthe item matrixis best describedby
two separateandcorrelatedlatentfactors.Finally(4), a second-orderfac-
tor model tests whetherthe matrixcan be best accountedfor by two first-
orderfactors(blatantand subtle) that are subordinateto a second-order

This content downloaded from 131.94.16.10 on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 23:33:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
62 Roel W. Meertens and Thomas F. Pettigrew

Table 2. Predicting Attitudes toward Immigration with Blatant

Prejudice, Subtle Prejudice, and Political Conservatism

RegressionResults
Standardized
Beta t p R

Oppositionto Immigrationscale: .61

BlatantPrejudice .4250 26.12 <.0001
SubtlePrejudice .2170 13.50 <.0001
Conservatism .0953 7.19 <.0001
NominalRemediesscale: .39
BlatantPrejudice -.4250 -21.10 <.0001
SubtlePrejudice .0114 0.61 n.s.
Conservatism .0207 1.34 n.s.

NOTE.-Total sample;N = 3,806.

latent factor (prejudice).For three of the samples, the correlatedtwo-

factor model provided the closest fit. For the remainingsamples, the
second-orderfactormodelprovedbest.Forourpresentpurposes,the most
importantresultis thatboththe one-factorandthe uncorrelatedtwo-factor
models provideinferiorfits in all samples.
7. Is the blatant versus subtle distinction useful? Does it sharpen the
specificationbetweenprejudiceandvariousdependentvariables?We test
these questionsin two interrelatedways. First,we use the entiresample
andpredictthe OPPOSITIONTO IMMIGRATION andNOMINALRE-
MEDIALscales with BLATANTPREJUDICE,SUBTLEPREJUDICE,
andPOLITICALCONSERVATISM. Thenwe look at how the two preju-
dice measuresform three types of respondentswho responddifferently
with our variousmeasuresof attitudestowardimmigrationpolicy.
Table2 providesthe multipleregressionresultsforpredictingimmigra-
tion andremedyattitudeswith our threecriticalmeasuresusing all 3,806
respondents.Forthe OPPOSITIONTO IMMIGRATION scale, the BLA-
TANTPREJUDICEmeasureis the dominantpredictor,butnote thatboth
SUBTLEPREJUDICEand CONSERVATISMsignificantlyadd to the
prediction.Withonly minorexceptions,thispatternis repeatedthroughout
theresultsof the nationalsamples.5Forthe NOMINALREMEDIESscale,
however,only BLATANTPREJUDICEnegativelyrelatesto these mod-
5. In six samples the BLATANT scale was the dominant predictor of OPPOSITION TO
IMMIGRATION. In one sample SUBTLE PREJUDICE was the dominant predictor, and
in two samples CONSERVATISM failed to predict.

This content downloaded from 131.94.16.10 on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 23:33:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Is Subtle Prejudice Really Prejudice? 63

PERCENTAGE AGREEMENT
100

80

60

40

20

0
Extend Rights Leave As Is Restrict Citizenship Nominal Remedies

| Equalitarians Subtles Z Bigots

Figure 3. Threeprejudicetypes and attitudeson immigrants'rights

and remedies.Source:Euro-Barometer30 survey, 1988.

est proposals.6Conservativesand the subtleyprejudicedtend not to op-

pose these noncommnitting actions.
Anotherway to analyzethesedatais to formthreetypesof respondents.
SUBTLEscalemeansareconsistentlyhigherthanthoseof theBLATANT
scale, because the former's items are more socially acceptable.This
allows an analysis of three types of prejudice.We separatedhigh from
low prejudiceat the centralpoint of the scales, not the empiricalmeans.
One quadrantdropsout, with less than 1 percentof the respondentsscor-
ing high on BLATANTandlow on SUBTLE.Those low or high on both
prejudicescales arethe familiar"equalitarians"and "bigots" long stud-
ied in social psychology.It is the "subtles" who areof specialinterest-
those who score high on the SUBTLEbut low on the BLATANTmea-
sures.Theyrejectcrudeexpressionsof prejudice.Still, they view the new
minoritiesas "a people apart" who violate traditionalvalues and for
whomthey feel no sympathyor admiration.Withthese operationaldefini-
tions, bigots compriseone-sixthof the total sample,subtlesone-half,and
equalitariansone-third.
Figure3 shows for the total samplehow the threetypes respondto the
questionaboutimmigrants'rights-differences thatare consistentacross
6. In two samplesCONSERVATISMaddedsignificantlyto the predictionof the NOMI-
NAL REMEDIESscores-once as a positivepredictorand once as a negativepredictor.
SUBTLEPREJUDICEcontributedpositivelyin only one sample.

This content downloaded from 131.94.16.10 on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 23:33:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
64 Roel W. Meertens and Thomas F. Pettigrew

PERCENTAGEAGREEMENT
60

50

40

30

20

10

0
Send All BackForeignBorn Uneconomic Criminals No Documents All Stay

: Equalitarians 1 Subtles [ Bigots

Figure 4. Threeprejudicetypes and preferredimmigrationpolicies.

Source: Euro-Barometer 30 survey, 1988.

all seven national samples. Bigots are disproportionatelyamong those

who wish to restrictimmigrants'rightsfurther.Equalitariansdispropor-
tionatelyfavorextendingthe rightsof immigrants.By contrast,a plurality
of subtlesassumea middle,ostensiblynonprejudicialposition;they sim-
ply wish to leave the issue as it is. Similarly,the subtlesarefarless likely
than the equalitariansto supportmakingnationalizedcitizenshipeasier
but do join with them in supportingall four of the merely NOMINAL
REMEDIES.
Figure 4 relates the three prejudicetypes to the immigrationpolicy
question.Only bigots in any numberssupportsuch drasticmeasuresas
"sendingback" massive numbersof immigrants-all of them or those
notbornin the countyor arenot contributingto the economy.But a major-
ity of subtlesjoin the bigots in wantingto send "home" those for whom
thereis an ostensiblynonprejudicial reasonto do so-criminals andthose
withouttheirimmigrationdocuments.Moreover,they sharplyreject the
policy of allowing all immigrantsto remainin the country.Note how
many subtles requirea reason to express their oppositionto immigra-
tion-criminality or no documents.We regardthis featureof SUBTLE
PREJUDICEto be crucial.Subtlesfollow the normsagainstblatantex-
pressionof prejudice.But when offeredan ostensiblynonprejudicialrea-
son to express their attitudes,their thresholdfor prejudiceproves lower
than thatof equalitarians.
8. Is theblatantversessubtledistinctionespeciallymeaningfulforthose
groupswhere an antiblatantnormhas takenroot?We take our cue from

This content downloaded from 131.94.16.10 on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 23:33:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Is Subtle Prejudice Really Prejudice? 65

two recentstudies,both of which used the sameprejudicescales detailed

in the appendix.In theirstudyof educationaleffects on prejudicein Ger-
many, Wagnerand Zick (1995) uncovereda significantinteractionbe-
tweenthe two types of prejudiceandthe educationallevel of theirrespon-
dents. Using a repeated-measuresanalysis of variance with the two
prejudicescales as dependentvariables,they found the differencesbe-
tween the educationalgroupswere significantlylargerfor the BLATANT
thanfor the SUBTLEscale scores.The poorlyeducatedevincedconsider-
ableprejudiceon bothscales,while the well educatedexposedtheirpreju-
dice primarilyon the SUBTLEscale.
In Italy, Arcuriand Boca (1996) used the BLATANTand SUBTLE
scales in their study of the relationshipbetween prejudiceand political
affiliation.They askeda sampleof 500 Italiancitizens for theirattitudes
towardNorthAfricanimmigrantsanduncovereda similarinteraction.On
BLATANTPREJUDICE,left-wingrespondentswere far less prejudiced
thanright-wingrespondents,but, on the SUBTLEPREJUDICEmeasure,
there was no significantdifferencebetweenthe two groups.
We conductedsimilaranalyseson our total sampleas well as each of
the seven nationalsamples.Ourresultsparallelthose of the Germanand
Italianstudies.Younger,well-educated,and left-wing respondentsin all
samplesare distinctivefor theirrelativelylow means on the BLATANT
scale. But their SUBTLEmeans more closely approachthose of older,
less well-educated,and conservativerespondents.Note that this finding
is the oppositeof the Snidermanand Tetlock (1986a, 1986b;Sniderman
et al. 1991;Tetlock 1994) expectations.The SUBTLEPREJUDICEscale
is most useful for detectingthe covertprejudiceof the politicalleft, not
the politicalright.
To displaytheseconsistentresultsgraphically,we dividedthe EDUCA-
TION,AGE andPOLITICALCONSERVATISMvariablesat theirmedi-
ans for each sample.GroupA in figure5 includesthe less-educated,older,
more conservativerespondents;group B comprisesthe bettereducated,
younger,and more left-wing respondents.In every comparisonof figure
5, groupA's meanson bothprejudicescales are significantlyhigherthan
those of groupB. Yet in every case the meandifferencebetweenthe two
groups on SUBTLEPREJUDICEis markedlysmallerthan that of the
mean differenceon BLATANTPREJUDICE.Thus, groupB shows the
widest and groupA the narrowestdiscrepanciesbetweentheirSUBTLE
and BLATANTPREJUDICEscores.7
These findingssupporta normativeinterpretation of the two forms of
prejudice.We posit the existenceamongwell-educated,younger,andleft-
wing Europeansof a strongnormthatproscribesblatantforms of preju-
7. Also observethe large averagediscrepanciesbetween the scale score means for both
Dutch samples.Elsewherewe explorethis findingin detail in orderto shed light on the
uniqueintergrouprelationsof the Netherlands(Pettigrewand Meertens1996).

This content downloaded from 131.94.16.10 on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 23:33:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
66 Roel W. Meertens and Thomas F. Pettigrew

SUBTLE-BLATANTSCALE MEANS

3-

2
o
0
Total German Dutch:T Dutch:S French:NA French:A UK:Asians UK:W.lnd.

Group A: Blatant Group B: Blatant

[I Group A. Subtle = Group B. Subtle

Figure S. Two normativetypes and subtle-blatantprejudicemeans.

Source:Euro-Barometer 30 survey, 1988.

dice and discriminationagainstoutsiders.Such overtexpressionsviolate

what these groupsconsideracceptable.Yet these groupsdo not perceive
the less directitems of the SUBTLEPREJUDICEscale as invokingthe
anti-BLATANTPREJUDICEnorm.In short,these groupsrejectcrude,
blatantexpressionsof intergrouphostility.Nonetheless,they expressindi-
rect, subtle forms of prejudicethat predictout-grouprejectionin ways
similarto thatof BLATANTPREJUDICE.Note how the cleardistinction
between the two forms of prejudice,blatantand subtle, allows a more
precise descriptionof intergroupattitudesamong such groups.

Conclusions
We have tested the empiricalviability of the subtle prejudiceconcept
with one of the most extensive,cross-nationaldatasets on prejudiceever
collected,andwe have shownthatit can be reliablymeasuredanddistin-
guishedfromblatantprejudice.OurSUBTLEPREJUDICEscaleprovides
consistentfactorialstructuresacross the seven samples.The BLATANT
and SUBTLEscales correlatebetween +.48 and +.70 and are similarly
relatedto predictorvariables.
We consideredin detailclaimsthatsubtleprejudiceis confoundedwith
politicalconservatism.Contraryto such claims, we show thatCONSER-

This content downloaded from 131.94.16.10 on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 23:33:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Is Subtle Prejudice Really Prejudice? 67

VATISMrelateseitherequallyor more positively with BLATANTthan

SUBTLEPREJUDICEand does not sharethe same predictorswith the
SUBTLE scale. We also used confirmatoryfactor analyses across the
seven samplesto test the one-factormodel called for by critics and two-
factormodels requiredby the blatant-subtledistinction.In every sample,
two-factormodels provedsuperior.
We then demonstratedthe usefulnessof the blatant-subtledistinction.
First, we saw that both prejudicescales, as well as POLITICALCON-
SERVATISM,predictedOPPOSITIONTO IMMIGRATION.But only
BLATANTPREJUDICEpredictedrejectionof NOMINALREMEDIES,
with neitherconservativesnorthe subtletyprejudicedresistingthesenon-
committingactions.
Next we analyzedthe datawith a typologyof respondents:bigots (high
scorerson both prejudicescales), subtles(low scorerson the BLATANT
scale but high on the SUBTLEscale), and equalitarians(low scorerson
both scales). Bigots tendedto favor the restrictionof immigrants'rights,
andequalitarians typicallyfavoredextendingtheirrights,butsubtlesoften
optedfor no change.Only equalitariansin substantialnumberssupported
makingnaturalizationof citizenshipeasier, while subtlesjoined them in
favoringNOMINALREMEDIES.And while bigotspreferredharshpoli-
cies of immigrantexclusion, subtlespreferredostensiblynondiscrimina-
tory methodsof exclusion.
Then we saw how the distinctionsharpensour understandingof in-
tergroupprejudiceamongwell-educatedGermans,left-wingItalians,and
the younger,better-educated, left-wingrespondentsin each of our seven
nationalsamples.Whileeach of thesegroupsis significantlyless blatantly
prejudicedthancomparisongroups,this differencenarrowswhen SUB-
TLE PREJUDICEis measured.This repeatedfindingsuggests a norma-
tive basis for what is seen as socially acceptableand unacceptablein in-
tergroupbeliefs.
Fromtheseconsistentresults,we concludethatsubtleprejudiceis genu-
ine prejudiceand that the distinctionbetweenit and blatantprejudiceis
highly useful. These findingspresenta strikingexample of the conver-
gence of experimentaland surveyevidence.
Two issues remainbefore we can fully conceptualizethis newer type
of prejudice.The first concernsits structuralrelationshipwith the long-
studied,traditionalformof prejudice.Ouranalysessuggestthreepossible
relationships:(1) a second-orderfactormodelwith BLATANTandSUB-
TLE PREJUDICEfirst-orderlatent factorsundera more generallatent
factorof prejudice;(2) a correlatedtwo-factormodel; or (3) a Guttman-
like cumulativemodelin whichSUBTLEPREJUDICEactsas aninterme-
diate level between BLATANTPREJUDICEand tolerance.More work
is neededto evaluatethese possibilities.
A second and relatedissue concernsdifferentforms of the nontradi-

This content downloaded from 131.94.16.10 on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 23:33:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
68 Roel W. Meertens and Thomas F. Pettigrew

tional types of prejudice (Brown 1995, pp. 232-33). Investigators have

advanced competing terms and operational definitions for the phenome-
non-aversive racism (Kovel 1970; Gaertnerand Dovidio 1986), modem
racism (McConahay 1983; Pettigrew 1989), and symbolic racism (Sears
1988) as well as subtle prejudice (Pettigrew and Meertens 1995). These
various forms are overlapping in content and positively intercorrelated,
yet they appear to tap different levels of subtlety and severity.
A Dutch study suggests that the modem and symbolic racism forms
are the least subtle and aversive racism, epitomized by the avoidance of
out-groups, the most subtle (Kleinpenning and Hagendoom 1993). We
suggest that our measure of SUBTLE PREJUDICE lies between these
other forms. More research, however, is needed.

Appendix
The Blatant and Subtle Prejudice Scales and Their
Five Subscales
THREAT AND REJECTION FACTOR ITEMS: THE BLATANT SCALE

1. West Indianshave jobs thatthe Britishshouldhave (stronglyagree to

stronglydisagree).
2. Most West Indiansliving here who receive supportfrom welfarecould
get along withoutit if they tried (stronglyagree to stronglydisagree).
3. Britishpeople and West Indianscan never be really comfortablewith
each other,even if they are close friends(stronglyagree to stronglydis-
agree).
4. Most politiciansin Britaincare too much aboutWest Indiansand not
enoughaboutthe averageBritishperson(stronglyagree to stronglydis-
agree).
5. West Indianscome from less able races and this explainswhy they are
not as well off as most Britishpeople (stronglyagree to stronglydis-
agree).
6. How differentor similardo you thinkWest Indiansliving here are to
otherBritishpeople like yourself-in how honest they are? (very differ-
ent, somewhatdifferent,somewhatsimilar,or very similar)

INTIMACY FACTOR ITEMS: THE BLATANT SCALE

1. Supposethat a child of yours had childrenwith a personof very differ-

ent color and physicalcharacteristicsthanyour own. Do you thinkyou
would be very bothered,bothered,bothereda little, or not botheredat
all, if your grandchildrendid not physicallyresemblethe people on your
side of the family?

This content downloaded from 131.94.16.10 on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 23:33:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Is Subtle Prejudice Really Prejudice? 69

2. I would be willing to have sexual relationshipswith a West Indian

(stronglyagree to stronglydisagree)(reversedscoring).
3. I would not mind if a suitablyqualifiedWest Indianpersonwas ap-
pointedas my boss (stronglyagree to stronglydisagree)(reversed
scoring).
4. I would not mind if a West Indianpersonwho had a similareconomic
backgroundas mine joined my close family by marriage(stronglyagree
to stronglydisagree)(reversedscoring).

TRADITIONAL VALUES FACTOR ITEMS: SUBTLE SCALE

1. West Indiansliving here shouldnot push themselveswherethey are not
wanted(stronglyagree to stronglydisagree).
2. Many othergroupshave come to Britainand overcomeprejudiceand
workedtheir way up. West Indiansshoulddo the same withoutspecial
favor (stronglyagree to stronglydisagree).
3. It is just a matterof some people not tryinghardenough.If West Indi-
ans would only try harderthey could be as well off as Britishpeople
(stronglyagree to stronglydisagree).
4. West Indiansliving here teach theirchildrenvalues and skills different
from those requiredto be successfulin Britain(stronglyagree to
stronglydisagree).

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES FACTOR ITEMS: SUBTLE SCALE

How differentor similardo you thinkWestIndiansliving hereareto otherBritish

people like yourself (very different,somewhatdifferent,somewhatsimilar,or
very similar)....
1. In the values that they teach theirchildren?
2. In theirreligiousbeliefs and practices?
3. In their sexual values or sexual practices?
4. In the languagethatthey speak?

AFFECTIVE PREJUDICE FACTOR ITEMS: SUBTLE SCALE

Have you ever felt the following ways about West Indiansand their families
living here (very often, fairly often, not too often, or never)?
1. How often have you felt sympathyfor West Indiansliving here? (re-
versed scoring)
2. How often have you felt admirationfor West Indiansliving here? (re-
versed scoring)

References
Allport,GordonW. 1954. TheNatureof Prejudice.Reading,MA: Addison-Wesley.
Arcuri,Luciano,and StepanoBoca. 1996. "Pregiudizioe affiliazionepolitica:Destrae

This content downloaded from 131.94.16.10 on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 23:33:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
70 Roel W. Meertens and Thomas F. Pettigrew

sinistradi fronteall'immigrazionedal terzo mondo" (Prejudiceand political

affiliation:Right and left confrontedwith immigrationfrom the ThirdWorld).In
Psicologia e Politica, ed. Paolo Legrenziand VittorioGirotto,pp. 241-74. Milan,
Italy:RaffaelloCortina.
Barker,Martin.1984. TheNew Racism:Conservativesand the Ideologyof the Tribe.
Frederick,MD: Aletheia.
Bergmann,Werner,and RainerErb. 1986. "Kommunikationslatenz: Moralund
OffentlicheMeining" (Latentcommunication:Moraland public meaning).Kolner
Zeitschriftfur Soziologieund Sozialpsychologie38:223-46.
Bollen, KennethA. 1989. StructuralEquationswith LatentVariables.New York:
Wiley.
Brown,Rupert.1995. Prejudice:Its Social Psychology.Oxford:Blackwell.
Crosby,Faye J., SusanBromley,and LeonardSaxe. 1980. "RecentUnobtrusive
Studiesof Black and White Discriminationand Prejudice:A LiteratureReview."
PsychologicalBulletin87:546-63.
Dijker,AntonJ. M. 1987. "EmotionalReactionsto EthnicMinorities."European
Journalof Social Psychology 17:305-25.
Dovidio, JohnF., JeffreyA. Mann,and SamuelL. Gaertner.1989. "Resistanceto
AffirmativeAction:The Implicationsof AversiveRacism." In AffirmativeAction in
Perspective,ed. FletcherA. Blanchardand Faye J. Crosby,pp. 83-102. New York:
Springer.
Essed, Philomena.1984. AlledaagsRacisme(Everydayracism).Amsterdam:Sara.
Freriks,Paul. 1990. "FranseAnti-RacistenWillen HandenVuil Maken" (French
antiracistswant to take action).De Volkskrant,May 1, p. 2.
Gaertner,SamuelL., and JohnF. Dovidio. 1986. "The AversiveFormof Racism." In
Prejudice, Discrimination, and Racism: Theory and Research, ed. John F. Dovidio
and SamuelL. Gaertner,pp. 61-89. New York:AcademicPress.
Jacobson,CardellK. 1985. "Resistanceto AffirmativeAction." Journalof Conflict
Resolution29:306-29.
Kleinpenning,Gerard,and Louk Hagendoorn.1993. "Formsof Racismand the
CumulativeDimensionof EthnicAttitudes."Social PsychologyQuarterly56:21-36.
Kovel, Joel. 1970. WhiteRacism:A Psychohistory.New York:Pantheon.
McClendon,McKee J. 1985. "Racism,RationalChoices, and White Oppositionto
Racial Change:A Case Studyof Busing." Public OpinionQuarterly49:214-33.
McConahay,JohnB. 1982. "Is It the Buses or the Blacks?Self-Interestversus
SymbolicRacismas Predictorsof Oppositionto Busing in Louisville." Journalof
Politics 44:692-720.
. 1983. "Modem Racismand Modem Discrimination:The Effects of Race,
RacialAttitudes,and Contexton SimulatedHiringDecisions." Personalityand
Social PsychologyBulletin9:551-58.
Pettigrew,ThomasF. 1989. "The Natureof Modem Racismin the U.S." Revue
Internationalede PsychologieSociale 2:291-303.
Pettigrew,ThomasF., and Roel W. Meertens.1995. "Subtleand BlatantPrejudicein
WesternEurope."EuropeanJournalof Social Psychology25:57-75.
. 1996. "The VerzuilingPuzzle:UnderstandingDutchIntergroupRelations."
CurrentPsychology 15:3-13.
Reif, Karlheinz,and Anna Melich. 1991. Eurobarometer30: Immigrantsand Out-
Groupsin WesternEurope,October-November 1988. Ann Arbor,MI: Inter-
UniversityConsortiumfor Politicaland Social Research.
Rokeach,Milton. 1960. The Openand ClosedMind.New York:Basic.
Sears,David 0. 1988. "SymbolicRacism." In EliminatingRacism:Profiles in
Controversy,ed. Phyllis A. Katz and DalmasA. Taylor,pp. 53-84. New York:
Plenum.
Sniderman,Paul M., ThomasPiazza, PhilipE. Tetlock,and Ann Kendrick.1991. "The
New Racism."AmericanJournalof Political Science 35:423-47.
Sniderman,Paul M., and Philip E. Tetlock. 1986a. "Reflectionson AmericanRacism."
Journalof Social Issues 42:173-87.

This content downloaded from 131.94.16.10 on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 23:33:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Is Subtle Prejudice Really Prejudice? 71

. 1986b. "SymbolicRacism:Problemsof Motive Attributionin Political

Debate." Journal of Social Issues 42:129-50.
Tetlock,PhilipE. 1994. "PoliticalPsychologyor PoliticizedPsychology:Is the Road
to Hell Paved with Good MoralIntentions?"Political Psychology 15:509-30.
Vanneman,Reeve, and ThomasF. Pettigrew.1972. "Race and RelativeDeprivationin
the UrbanUnited States." Race 13:461-86.
Wagner,Ulrich, and AndriasZick. 1995. "The Relationof FormalEducationto Ethnic
Prejudice:Its Reliability,Validity,and Explanation."EuropeanJournalof Social
Psychology 25:41-56.

This content downloaded from 131.94.16.10 on Tue, 10 Sep 2013 23:33:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions