Subtle and blatant prejudice in Western Europe
Abstract
This paper develops, measures, and tests two types of intergroup prejudice—blatant and subtle. Blatant prejudice is the traditional, often studied form; it is hot, close and direct. Subtle prejudice is the modern form; it is cool, distant and indirect. Using data from seven independent national samples from western Europe, we constructed 10‐item scales in four languages to measure each of these varieties of prejudice. We report the properties, structure and correlates of both scales across the seven samples, and make initial checks on their validity. The cross‐nationally consistent results support the value of the blatant‐subtle distinction as two varieties of prejudice. While they share many correlates, their distinctive differences suggest better specification of these correlates of prejudice. And the blatant‐subtle distinction also aids in more precise specification of the effects of prejudice on attitudes toward immigrants. The paper closes with a normative interpretation of Subtle Prejudice.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The absence of positive emotions has been identified as an important component of subtle racial prejudice.
“This absence of positive emotions has been identified as an important component of subtle racial prejudice [113]”
From Reducing Racial Inequities in Health: Using What We Already Know to Take Action (2019) · cites this paper as [113]
The lack of positive affect towards an outgroup is a strong predictor of discriminatory behavior and policy preferences.
“and research documents that the lack of positive affect towards an outgroup is a strong predictor of discriminatory behavior and policy preferences.”
From Reducing Racial Inequities in Health: Using What We Already Know to Take Action (2019) · cites this paper as [113]
A study in Germany, the Netherlands, France and the U.K found that the absence of positive emotions (measured by two items that captured the lack of feelings of sympathy and admiration towards the outgroup) was a strong predictor of opposition to policies regarding immigrant outgroups.
“A study in Germany, the Netherlands, France and the U.K found that the absence of positive emotions (measured by two items that captured the lack of feelings of sympathy and admiration towards the outgroup) was a strong predictor of opposition to policies regarding immigrant outgroups [113].”
From Reducing Racial Inequities in Health: Using What We Already Know to Take Action (2019) · cites this paper as [113]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 33 · Cited by 1,948
- Authors
- Pettigrew, T. F., & Meertens, R. W.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Santa Cruz (US)
- University of Amsterdam (NL)
- ORCID
- Pettigrew, T. F.
- Venue
- European Journal of Social Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1995-01
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 57-75
- ISSN
- 0046-2772 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-0992
- OpenAlex
- W2155162789
- Cited by
- 1,948
- References
- 33
- Citations by year
- 2026: 53 · 2025: 59 · 2024: 126 · 2023: 84 · 2022: 64 · 2021: 91 · 2020: 66 · 2019: 112 · 2018: 81 · 2017: 93 · 2016: 70 · 2015: 81 · 2014: 72 · 2013: 85 · 2012: 77
- FWCI
- 74.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- European Journal of Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
- UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion)
- UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Migration, Refugees, and Integration
- Keywords
- intergroup prejudice, blatant prejudice, subtle prejudice, prejudice measurement, scale development, cross-national comparison, attitudes toward immigrants, Western Europe
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
