Social desirability of subtle and blatant prejudice scales

The present paper analyzes the relation between the measurement of subtle and blatant prejudice proposed by Pettigrew and Meertens in 1995 and the tendency to give socially desirable responses. It also tests whether items that measure subtle prejudice are judged as more socially desirable than those that measure blatant prejudice. Data were obtained from two groups, one of 497 Italian high school students and one of 77 university students. In the first case, the analysis concerns the relation between the prejudice scores and scores on a shortened form of Marlowe and Crowne's Social Desirability Scale. In the second case, we analyzed the social desirability judgments expressed on single items of the Petrigrew and Meertens scales. Analyses indicate that (1) neither Subtle nor Blatant Prejudice scores correlate with the tendency to give socially desirable responses and (2) when the items of the two prejudice scales are placed in order on the social desirability continuum, with very few exceptions the Blatant Prejudice items are situated at the not socially acceptable pole and Subtle Prejudice items at the socially acceptable pole.     

Prejudice,categorization and particularization: From a perceptual to a rhetorical approach

This paper seeks to offer an alternative approach to the study of prejudice than that based upon the notion of categorization which is currently influential in cognitive social psychology. It is argued that the categorization approach assumes the inevitability of prejudice and ignores the issue of tolerance. The assumptions of the categorization approach are criticized, and it is suggested that, by focusing on categorization as a cognitive process, it has overlooked an opposing process—that of particularization. The result has been a rather mechanical and bureaucratic model of cognition. A less mechanical view is possible if the relations between the two processes of categorization and particularization are considered from a rhetorical perspective, which examines the argumentative nature of thought. For theoretical and empirical reasons, this perspective does not equate prejudiced thinking with rigid categorization; instead a rhetorical approach permits a distinction between prejudice and tolerance on the basis of content, rather than form, and thereby avoids assuming the inevitability of prejudice.     

An examination of the MMPI-2 Wiener-Harmon Subtle subscales for D and Hy: implications for parent scale and neurotic triad interpretation

This research explores the scale development process for the MMPI-2 Wiener and Harmon (1946) Subtle subscales for Depression (D) and Hysteria (Hy) to provide insight into why certain items were included on these scales and were subsequently but inappropriately assumed to be subtle indicators of the same pathology that the Obvious items measure. In this research, I also explore what the Subtle scales on D and Hy measure and their potential utility for the interpretation of their parent scales and the "neurotic triad." It was hypothesized that the D and Hy Subtle subscales are related to denial, repression, or both and this hypothesis was supported. In a sample of 1,240 inpatient and outpatient psychiatric patients at a large Army medical center, it was found that these subscales had strong positive correlations with othe scales on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2; Butcher, Dahlstrom. Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989) related to denial, repression, or both. It was also found that they had strong negative correlations with scales on the MMPI-2 and Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI-II; Millon, 1987) that are related to symptom endorsement, which can be considered the opposite of denial or repression. In addition, ratings of the Subtle items on D and Hy by clinical psychology residents were consistent with the hypothesis that these items reflect a denial of psychological or physical dysfunction.     

Attitudes toward Out‐groups and the perception of consensus: All feet do not wear one shoe

Although social perception research has been carried out across a number of diverse domains, to the best of our knowledge, studies have not directly assessed the relationship between attitudes toward the out‐group and perceptions of community support for those attitudes. In the present research, we report the findings of a study conducted in Western Australia using data collected from 653 participants from three different locations. The main thrust of our study was the accuracy of beliefs about consensus as it related to attitudes toward two marginalized groups: Indigenous Australians and asylum seekers. With respect to their attitudes toward these two groups, our respondents were placed in seven categories corresponding to their responses to our seven point attitude scales. Three main findings emerged. First, respondents at all seven levels overestimated community support for their views with respect to both Indigenous Australians and asylum seekers. Second, as respondents in both groups became more rejecting, their estimates of community support progressively increased in a linear fashion. Third, respondents in the more negative categories were significantly less accurate in their estimates than those in the more positive categories. How these findings might contribute to programmes designed to reduce prejudice is discussed. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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

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 flaws 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 fit to the data: a first broad factor labelled general prejudice, and a small second factor labelled perceived cultural differences. The first factor is well explained by a number of social characteristics; the second is rather poorly explained and has a rather poor discriminatory power. The first 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 flaws, i.e. the neglect of interdependent items. After this correction, their piece of evidence turns out to be artificial. As a benefit to future research, we try to clarify conditions for distinguishing empirically and conceptually between traditional and contemporary prejudice. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Right‐wing authoritarianism,social dominance orientation and personality: an analysis using the IPIP measure

Although both right‐wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO) have been found to predict racial and intergroup prejudice, previous research has suggested that RWA and SDO have quite distinct psychological features. We therefore examined the Big Five personality correlates of these two measures using facet scales from the International Personality Item Pool measure. Respondents were 220 university undergraduate volunteers. Significant sex differences were noted with respect to SDO and some facet scales. A series of analyses supported the view that RWA and SDO are aligned with different personality traits, while the discussion centred on the psychological profile of authoritarians and dominators. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Ethnic identity and racial attitudes in a minority group of mixed racial origin

Limited information exists on the racial attitudes and ethnic identities of groups of mixed racial origin. The present research tested the hypotheses that the construct of ethnic identity is valid among such groups and that ethnic identity is related to out-group prejudice, as predicted by social identity theory. The Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure, the Anti-White Scale, and the Subtle Racism Scale were administered to 70 South Africans of mixed racial descent, the so-called Coloureds. A factor analysis supported the structural validity of the 12-item measure of ethnic identity with this sample, but correlations between scales did not support the prediction that group identity would be positively associated with out-group prejudice. Group identity was positively related .27 to positive attitudes toward Whites consistent with the tenets of social dominance theory.     

Prejudice against Australian Aborigines: old-fashioned and modern forms

Prejudice is a pervasive and destructive social problem. Theories of prejudice distinguish between old-fashioned and modern forms. The former is an open rejection of minority group members; the latter is subtle and covert, with a veneer of outgroup acceptance. The present study examines the distinction in the context of contemporary attitudes to Australian Aborigines. Separate measures of each, and of other variables, were included in a random survey of the Perth metropolitan area in 1994. The two forms of prejudice were correlated (r=0.55), but factor analysis revealed that the two constructs are separable. Further, they were distributed differently in the population, with modern prejudice being more prevalent than old-fashioned prejudice (57.9 per cent scoring above the midpoint on the modern scale, and only 21.2 per cent on the old-fashioned scale). Modern prejudice was predicted more strongly by social psychological variables (R²=0.51) than was old-fashioned prejudice (R²=0.30), and the pattern of results from regression analyses differed for the two types of prejudice. Overall, the results confirm the distinction between old-fashioned and modern forms of prejudice, but indicate that the two are conceptually and empirically related to one another. Comparisons with earlier research reveal the declining prevalence of old-fashioned prejudice, but indicate prejudice is still a major social problem. ©1997 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

‘Would it not be better to get someone out workin?’: ‘Safe prejudice’ against Polish workers

One recurring criticism of immigrant groups is their alleged failure to be employed and contribute to the host society. Here we examine how speakers mobilise a criticism that has attracted less research attention: that through their economic activity immigrant groups usurp others’ employment entitlements. Discourse analysis of data from seven focus group discussions about pre-Brexit Polish immigration into the UK, involving 31 UK nationals, shows that participants accomplish exclusionary outcomes in two divergent ways. The first attributes qualities to Polish workers but also makes explicit the consequences of these attributions for UK nationals, rendering speakers’ investment in such claims visible. The second relies on the production of category pairs, within which claims can be made for the category that excludes Polish workers. This use of categories comprises ‘safe prejudice’, a form of prejudice not previously identified but which is less open to challenge than other forms of prejudiced talk.     

The relation between personality and prejudice: a variable‐ and a person‐centred approach

The relationship between Big Five personality (measured by the NEO‐PI) and prejudice was examined using a variable‐ and a person‐centred approach. Big Five scores were related to a generalized prejudice factor based on seven different prejudice scales (racial prejudice, sexism, etc). A correlation analysis disclosed that Openness to Experience and Agreeableness were significantly related to prejudice, and a multiple regression analysis showed that a variable‐centred approach displayed a substantial cross‐validated relationship between the five personality factors and prejudice. A cluster analysis of the Big Five profiles yielded, in line with previous research, three personality types, but this person‐centred approach showed a low cross‐validated relationship between personality and prejudice, where the overcontrolled type showed the highest prejudice and the undercontrolled the lowest, with the resilient falling in between. A head‐to‐head comparison sustained the conclusion that, based on people's Big Five personalities, their generalized prejudice could be predicted more accurately by the variable‐ than the person‐centred approach. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The anticipated belief differences theory of prejudice: Analysis and evaluation

The main supporting evidence for Rokeach's theory of prejudice (the Anticipated Belief Differences Theory of Prejudice) comes from the strong belief effects obtained in a simple Race/Belief manipulation. Analysis shows that the theory is unfalsifiable with this paradigm and is therefore neither tested nor confirmed by the many studies purporting to do so. The Belief-undefined/Belief-partially-defined manipulation of Stein, Hardyck and Smith (1965) does test the theory. However, these authors' conclusion that favourable evidence was obtained is incorrect owing to the use of an inappropriate statistic. Although race effects can be incorporated within a theory of belief prejudice it is equally possible to incorporate belief effects within any theory of prejudice which is contingent on an initial categorization into in-group and out-group. An empirical distinction between Rokeach's theory and other theories of prejudice can be made using a Belief-undefined/Belief-partially-defined manipulation. Finally the theoretical adequacy of Rokeach's theory is discussed in terms of more general characteristics of prejudice.     

The structure of prejudice: associative strength as a determinant of stereotype endorsement

Previous research obtained inconsistent findings as to whether implicit and explicit measures of prejudice are related. According to our view, some of these inconsistencies are due to whether implicit measures assess exclusively the strength of association between the social category and the evaluation or the activation of the social category in addition. Derived from recent theorizing we suggest that it is especially associative strength between the social category and its evaluation that determines the endorsement of prejudice assessed in explicit measures. To test this assumption we used the Implicit Association Test (IAT) to assess the associative strength of German students' prejudice towards Turkish people and the Blatant‐and‐Subtle‐Prejudice‐Scale (BS scale) as an explicit measure of prejudice. We obtained evidence for prejudice at a relative level in that the category of Turks was more closely associated with a negative evaluation and the category of Germans more closely associated with a positive evaluation. In line with our assumptions the implicit measure was correlated with the explicit measure in that the stronger the representation of Turks was associated with a negative evaluation the more prejudiced individuals responded in the explicit prejudice measure. Using a trait assignment technique, we found that neither associative strength nor the endorsement of the prejudice in the explicit measure were related to the contents of the stereotype. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Needs for cognitive economy and self‐enhancement as unique predictors of intergroup attitudes

This research tested the extent to which two motivations commonly assumed to predict prejudice—needs for cognitive economy and needs for self‐enhancement—were simultaneously able to predict two underlying components of prejudice—social categorization and ingroup favoritism. Across three studies, diverse measures of the two motivations showed them to be consistently differentiated. Furthermore, both motivations were found to be independently predictive of both ingroup favoritism and social categorization in each of the three studies. The research adds to existing knowledge about the personality correlates of prejudice by demonstrating the conceptual independence of these two underlying motivations as well as their relationships to components of intergroup attitudes. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

From Wishing to Intending: Differences in Salience of Positive versus Negative Consequences

ABSTRACT Goal ratings by 345 subjects in seven data samples supported a functional distinction between two types of positive incentive value, one based on approaching positive affect (positive-based value or PBV), the other on avoiding negative affect (negative-based value or NBV). Ratings of PBV were more related to ratings of earlier action-phases of motivation (“wishing”), whereas ratings of NBV tended to be more related to factors entailed in later action-phases (“urgency/priority” and “intention”). These findings and previous ones are consistent with the proposal that this distinction parallels distinctions in Maslow's motivation theory. If the parallel is accepted, the findings support predictions from Maslow's theory. Results also indicate that purportedly unidimensional rating scales of motivation can reflect more than one underlying attribute.     

The formation of in-group favoritism and out-group prejudice in young children: are they distinct attitudes?

Although standardized measures of prejudice reveal high levels of ethnocentric bias in the preschool years, it may reflect in-group favoritism or out-group prejudice. A measure that partially decouples the two attitudes was given to White children between 4 and 7 years of age to examine the reciprocal relation between and the acquisition and correlates of in-group and out-group attitudes. The two attitudes were reciprocally correlated in 1 sample from a racially homogeneous school but not in a 2nd sample from a mixed-race school. In-group favoritism did not appear until 5 years of age but then reached significant levels; it was strongly related to developing social cognitions. Out-group prejudice was weaker, but its targets suffer from comparison with the high favoritism accorded in-group members.     

Prejudice, Prodigality, and the Precariousness of Life

In this essay, I focus on James Dittes' Bias and the Pious (1973), which addresses the relationship of religion and prejudice from a psychological perspective. I give particular attention to his discussion of the needs that underlie prejudice, his suggestion that religion may meet these needs better than the prejudice itself, and his distinction between contractual and prodigal faith. The incident discussed in the book involving conflict between the minister and church leaders of Augustana Lutheran Church in Omaha is highlighted because of my personal association with this church.     

Dimensions of Social Dominance Orientation: The Roles of Legitimizing Myths and National Identification

Using a representative sample of Dutch natives, the current study examined the distinction between two dimensions of social dominance orientation [SDO‐Dominance (SDO‐D) and SDO‐Egalitarianism (SDO‐E)] and their relation with prejudice towards immigrant groups. Results showed that an empirical distinction between the two dimensions could be made. Furthermore, the relation between SDO and prejudice was fully mediated by hierarchy‐enhancing (ethnic citizenship, assimilation) and hierarchy‐attenuating myths (civic citizenship, multiculturalism), but in different ways for both SDO dimensions. Moreover, there were distinct paths between the SDO dimensions and ethnic prejudice for higher and lower identifiers. For higher identifiers, the relation between SDO‐D and prejudice was fully mediated by the endorsement of hierarchy‐enhancing myths. For lower identifiers, there was an association between SDO‐E and prejudice that was predominantly mediated by the endorsement of hierarchy‐attenuating myths. Copyright © 2014 European Association of Personality Psychology     

The relation of formal education to ethnic prejudice: Its reliability,validity and explanation

This paper examines three issues concerning the frequently documented negative correlation between formal education and ethnic prejudice, namely its reliability, its validity and the manner in which it is mediated. Reliability is demonstrated across three indices of ethnic attitudes in seven representative samples drawn from four European countries (West Germany, Netherlands, France, Great Britain; total N=3788). The hypothesis that this correlation reflects only the tendency of more highly educated respondents to give more socially desirable answers and not true attitude differences was inconsistent with the finding from the survey data that educational level also correlated negatively with responses to an index of subtle prejudice. Results from an experiment employing the bogus pipeline procedure similarly refute this hypothesis, indicating that significant education-related differences in expressed prejudice remain under conditions in which the tendency to give socially desirable responses is reduced. Finally, path analysis based on the survey data show that part but not all of the association between low education and ethnic prejudice is mediated by social psychological variables, particularly group relative deprivation, perceived belief incongruency, political conservatism, and acceptance of inter-ethnic contact.     

Homophobia or sexism? A systematic review of prejudice against nonheterosexual orientation in Brazil

Since it was coined in the 1970s, in the United States, the term “homophobia” has been invoked to define the prejudice against nonheterosexual orientation. Besides the US, the phenomenon has been detected in many contemporary societies, including Brazil. Prejudice against nonheterosexual orientation is strongly associated with the historical and social contexts in which it is embedded, which means that the term should not be used without a clear definition of its local specificities. This applies to the recent debate around homophobia in the Brazilian context. In an attempt to identify existing studies of prejudice against nonheterosexual orientations in Brazil, a systematic review was conducted in SciELO indexes, PubMed, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, and Web of Science. The articles were collected using the keyword “homophobia” and related terms, and “Brazil”, in the languages ??of the databases. The search returned 355 articles. Of these, 247 were removed because they were duplicates. The abstracts of 109 studies published between 1973 and 2011were analyzed. Thirty‐one articles were identified as relevant. The reviewed studies indicate that prejudice against nonheterosexual orientations is an evident and widespread phenomenon that is prevalent in various populations and contexts. Nevertheless, prejudice in Brazil is not homogeneous, and particular attention is necessary to the inequality of gender relations (sexism) and prejudice against gender nonconformity, which seem to explain, if not cause, most of the prejudice against nonheterosexual orientations. Although theoretically there is a clear distinction between sexual orientation and gender expression, from the standpoint of manifestation of prejudice that distinction seems to be more tenuous.     

When Authoritarians Confront Prejudice. Differential Effects of SDO and RWA on Support for Hate‐Speech Prohibition

Two nationwide representative studies (N = 653 adolescents; N = 1007 adults) investigated the psychological correlates of the intention to penalize public expressions of prejudice in the form of support for hate‐speech prohibition. We presented participants with preselected examples of hate speech from the Internet and other mass media and assessed their willingness to support the prohibition of public expressions of such remarks. Both studies found that social dominance orientation and right‐wing authoritarianism are positively correlated with outgroup prejudice, but they have differential effects on hate‐speech prohibition. Social dominance orientation was positively related to the acceptance of hate speech, whereas right‐wing authoritarianism was positively related to hate‐speech prohibition. In discussing this counterintuitive finding, we suggest that right‐wing authoritarians are particularly vigilant toward norm violations—and this makes them more punitive toward counternormative expressions of prejudice, such as hate speech.