The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER ELEVEN DIFFERENT CONTEXTS, DIFFERENT GROUPS, DIFFERENT PREJUDICES?

Introduction

11.1 In the previous chapter we concluded that concern about cultural threat appears to be the most potent source of discriminatory views in general, while feeling uncomfortable about cultural diversity seems to play a rather lesser role. In this chapter, we examine how far this picture holds when we look at specific groups in particular contexts. Does, for example, concern about cultural threat underlie discriminatory attitudes towards someone with a learning disability as much as it does attitudes towards an asylum seeker? And is cultural threat just as important in accounting for discriminatory attitudes in less intimate contexts, such as the workplace, as it is in more intimate ones such as family relationships or the home?

11.2 To answer these questions we look in this chapter at how far the incidence of discriminatory attitudes towards specific groups varies according to where people stand on each of the three scales - cultural threat, cultural diversity and minority versus majority culture - we introduced in the previous chapter. We do so by looking at attitudes in three different contexts. We begin with family relationships, looking primarily at attitudes towards prospective partners for marriage or a long-term relationship. We then subsequently consider, in turn, attitudes towards employment and the provision of services, focusing primarily on perceptions of the suitability of different kinds of people as a primary school teacher and on the provision of bed and breakfast within one's own home.

Family relationships

11.3 Table 11.1 shows for each of the three categories on the cultural threat scale the proportion who would be unhappy if a close relative of theirs were to marry someone who belonged to a particular group. Note that the groups are listed in the table in order of the total proportion who said that they would be unhappy about such a marriage or relationship (see Table 3.1 in Chapter Three). Table 11.1 also shows, in the final column, the difference between the proportion of those most concerned about cultural threat who would be unhappy and the equivalent proportion amongst those who are least concerned.

Table 11.1 Unhappiness about potential long-term relationships by concern about cultural threat

Note: Gap = difference between those who are least and most concerned about cultural threat.

11.4 In each case those who are most concerned about cultural threat are clearly most likely to express unhappiness about the relationship in question. For example, as many as two-thirds of those most concerned about cultural threat would be unhappy about a close relative forming a relationship with a transsexual person, compared with slightly less than a third (32%) of those who are least concerned - a 'gap' of 34 points. It would appear that the prospect of relationships with members of these groups is particularly likely to evoke the fears that underlie concern about cultural threat.

11.5 Broadly speaking the greater the overall level of expressed unhappiness about a particular kind of relationship, the bigger the percentage point difference between the attitudes of those with high and low cultural threat scores. Thus whereas there is a difference or 'gap' of 34 points in respect of a transsexual person (the group about whom unhappiness was most likely to be expressed overall), the equivalent figure for a Jewish person (about whom unhappiness was least likely to be expressed) is just half that - 17 points. This would seem to suggest that the overall incidence of discriminatory attitudes towards close relationships depends significantly on the degree to which a particular group evokes concern about cultural threat. This, however, is a point to which we will return below.

11.6 In any event, even those least concerned about cultural threat are more likely to express unhappiness about a close relative forming a relationship with someone from one of the groups in the top half of our table than they are those in the lower half. For example, while just 5% of those least concerned about cultural threat express unhappiness about a relationship with a Jewish person, as many as 32% say the same about a transsexual person. Thus, the high level of unhappiness expressed by the public in general about the prospect of a close relative having a relationship with a transsexual person - or indeed someone from any of the groups in the top half of the table - cannot simply be explained by the existence of greater antagonism towards such relationships amongst those who are most concerned about cultural threat; unhappiness about such relationships is also relatively high amongst those least concerned about cultural threat.

11.7 We should also note that feelings about a relative marrying or forming a relationship with someone with a learning disability are not particularly strongly related to concerns about cultural threat. The 'gap' score in Table 11.1 is just ten points, lower than in respect of any other group. The basis of unhappiness towards such a prospect is evidently somewhat different than is true of a marriage involving any of the other groups in our table.

11.8 Table 11.2 undertakes the equivalent analysis of attitudes towards marriage and relationships involving a close relative by position on the cultural diversity scale. Many of the patterns we identified in respect of the cultural threat scale are true of this scale too. Those who embrace cultural diversity are less likely to express unhappiness about any particular kind of relationship. This is especially so where the overall level of unhappiness about a relationship with someone from that group is relatively high. So, for example, nearly half (49%) of those who are uncomfortable about cultural diversity would be unhappy about a close relative marrying or forming a relationship with an asylum seeker, whereas only just over a quarter (26%) of those who are very comfortable with diversity express that view.

11.9 However, even those who are the most comfortable with cultural diversity are more likely to express unhappiness about a potential partner who belongs to one of the groups in the top half of our table than to one in the bottom half. For example, while 26% of those who are very comfortable about cultural diversity are unhappy about a relationship with an asylum seeker, just 7% say the same about a black or Asian person.

Table 11.2 Unhappiness about potential long-term relationships by feelings about cultural diversity

Note: Gap = difference between those who are least and most comfortable with cultural diversity.

11.10 So the pattern of association between attitudes towards relationships with members of different groups and feeling about cultural diversity is much the same as the association with cultural threat. Those who are uncomfortable about cultural diversity are more likely to express unhappiness about each possible kind of relationship, just as those who are most concerned about cultural threat are more likely to do so. But are the two associations equally strong? Judging by the level of the gap between those with a high and those with a low score on each scale, the answer appears to be, 'No'. For example, the gap in respect of an asylum seeker is 41 points on the cultural threat scale, but only 23 points on the cultural diversity one. Only in one instance does this pattern not hold, that is feelings about marriage to someone with a learning disability. Overall it would seem that, as in the case of our analysis of attitudes towards prejudice overall, fears about perceived cultural threat are generally the more important source of discriminatory attitudes in respect of family relationships.

11.11 Meanwhile, Table 11.3 shows how attitudes towards different kinds of partners vary according to where people stood on our minority vs. majority culture scale. As we might anticipate from the analysis in the previous chapter, those who feel that migrants to Scotland should adapt and blend into the majority culture are most likely to express a discriminatory viewpoint, but that thereafter it is those who feel they should keep their customs and traditions who are next most likely to do so. In general it is those in one of the middle categories of our scale who are least likely to express unhappiness. So, for example, 51% of those who place themselves at the 'adapt and blend' end of the scale, express unhappiness about a relationship with a Gypsy/Traveller, as do 41% of those at the 'keep traditions' end, whereas only 27% of those who put themselves exactly in between the two do so. However, inspection of the results indicates that the scale discriminates less well between those who do and do not express unhappiness, than does either our cultural threat or our cultural diversity scale.

Table 11.3 Unhappiness about potential long-term relationships by minority vs majority culture scale

11.12 We can, however, establish the relative strength of the association between our three scales and feelings about the various prospective marriage partners more firmly by undertaking multivariate analysis in much the same way as that reported towards the end of the previous chapter. Such analysis not only enables us to estimate how strongly attitudes are associated with perceptions of cultural threat while taking into account feelings about cultural diversity, but also to take a more subtle approach to measuring the strength of an association than one based on percentage point differences (whose size is, of course, limited by the overall incidence of a viewpoint and which do not take account the full range of responses from 'very comfortable' to 'very uncomfortable').

11.13 One clear and important finding emerges from this analysis (details of which are to be found in Table C.1 in Annex A). Although in each case, cultural threat and cultural diversity are both significantly associated with feelings about a prospective marriage partner, in each case also it is the cultural threat score that is better able to account for how someone feels. Thus, just as in the case of prejudice in general, unhappiness about the possibility of a close relative marrying or forming a relationship with someone from our various groups is clearly linked primarily to concern about perceived cultural threat.

11.14 However, we should also note a few further points. First, perceived cultural threat appears to be particularly linked to feelings about relationships with a Muslim, a Hindu or an asylum seeker. Of course, we should bear in mind that a specific question about Muslims provides one of the items from which our cultural threat scale is derived, and this perhaps might explain why that scale is particularly strongly associated with feelings about a relative marrying a Muslim. On the other hand, the same reasoning cannot be used to explain why our cultural threat scale is particularly strongly associated with feelings about an asylum seeker or a Hindu. Rather it seems more reasonable to conclude that these three groups particularly evoke the fears of those who are apparently concerned about perceived cultural threat. Of course two of them - Muslims and asylum seekers - have been the subject of particularly unfavourable publicity in recent years and this may well help explain why perhaps these groups are particularly likely to be regarded as 'different' or 'outsiders'. Meanwhile, as Hinduism is also an Asiatic religion it may be linked in people's minds with the Muslim faith.

11.15 Second, contrary to what appears to be the case from looking at the percentage point gaps in Table 11.1, cultural threat appears to be just as important in understanding differences in attitudes towards those about whom overall unhappiness is less common ( e.g. someone who was Jewish or Chinese) as it is attitudes towards those about whom unhappiness is more common ( e.g. a Gypsy/Traveller). The same is true of cultural diversity.

11.16 Third, the multivariate analysis confirms that it is those in the middle of our minority vs majority culture scale who are least likely to express unhappiness. Moreover, this pattern is still statistically significant even when we take into account both someone's cultural threat and cultural diversity scores. The strength of the pattern varies somewhat however; it is, for example, relatively weak in the case of asylum seekers but relatively important in respect of a same sex partnership. Meanwhile the views of the relatively small group of people who say that migrants should keep their customs and traditions are usually not significantly different from those who say migrants should adapt and blend into the larger society.

11.17 Finally, as we have already had reason to suspect (see Chapter Three, especially para 3.16), attitudes towards the prospect of a relationship with or marriage to someone with a learning disability are rather different in character. As compared with all of the other groups about whom we asked, cultural threat appears to be a far less important source of professed unhappiness in this case. Again, this suggests that not all discriminatory views necessarily arise for exactly the same reason.

11.18 As discussed in Chapter Three, we also asked in our survey a range of further questions about attitudes towards sexual orientation. Tables 11.4, 11.5 and 11.6, which show how the answers to these questions varied according to where people stood on our three scales, suggest that both concern about cultural threat and feelings about cultural diversity influence people's responses. However, multivariate analysis (see Table C.2 in Annex A) indicates that cultural threat appears to be the more important source of discriminatory attitudes. At the same time it also indicates, as we remarked earlier was true about attitudes towards a prospective same-sex relationship, that whether or not someone puts themselves in the middle of our minority vs majority culture scale is particularly important in accounting for attitudes towards sexual orientation. This may be an indication that discriminatory attitudes towards gay men and lesbians arise not just because they are thought to constitute a cultural threat, but also because they are regard by some as a group that does not conform to the social mores of the bulk of society.

Table 11.4 Attitudes towards same-sex relationships by concern about cultural threat

Note: Gap = difference between those who are least and most concerned about cultural threat.

Table 11.5 Attitudes towards same-sex relationships by feelings about cultural diversity

Note: Gap = difference between those who are least and most comfortable with cultural diversity.

Table 11.6 Attitudes towards same-sex relationships by minority vs majority scale scores

Employment

11.19 We now turn to attitudes towards employment. How far are the patterns we uncovered with respect to close family relationships replicated in this less intimate context? We begin in Table 11.7 by examining how far attitudes towards the suitability of various kinds of people for the job of primary school teacher vary according to someone's score on our cultural threat scale. In similar vein to the equivalent tables in the previous section we list the various kinds of teacher in order of the overall proportion that deemed such a person unsuitable. Meanwhile, bearing in mind the traditional gender stereotyping of primary school teaching as a "woman's job", we also show the proportion who think that women are more suitable than men for such a position.

11.20 Two points are immediately evident. First in all cases those who are most concerned about perceived cultural threat are more likely to state that someone is unsuitable for the post of primary school teacher. So, for example, as many as 63% of those who are most concerned about cultural threat feel that someone who has occasional episodes of depression would be unsuitable to be a primary school teacher, compared with just 38% of those who are least concerned. Evidently cultural threat helps account for discriminatory attitudes in this less intimate context too. Second, the difference of attitude between those least and most concerned about cultural threat is much the same in all but one instance. In general the 'gap' statistic in Table 11.7 is around 20 points. The one clear exception - whether a black or Asian person would be suitable as a primary school teacher - is one where the percentage point gap is clearly constrained by the low overall proportion (just 4%) who feel that such a person would be unsuitable as a primary school teacher.

Table 11.7 Attitudes to possible teachers by concern about cultural threat

Note: Gap = difference between those who are least and most concerned about cultural threat.

11.21 From this last pattern an important point follows. Even those who are least concerned about cultural threat are relatively likely to state that certain kinds of person would be unsuitable as a primary school teacher. The 38% of this group that believes that someone who experiences depression would be unsuitable - or the 40% who feel someone aged 70 would be - contrasts sharply with the equivalent figure of just 3% in respect of a Muslim and 13% a gay man or lesbian. Discriminatory viewpoints about the suitability of those in certain groups, such as someone with depression or an older person, are simply more prevalent across society in general.

11.22 Meanwhile, and not least of all, we should note that the percentage point gaps in Table 11.7 are typically rather smaller than those in the equivalent table about prospective partners (Table 11.1). So, for example, whereas in that earlier table the percentage point gap for a Gypsy/Traveller was 32 points, and that for a transsexual person, 34 points, in this table the equivalent figure in both cases is 23 points. So while concerns about cultural threat also matter in this less intimate environment, they apparently have somewhat less force than they do in respect of close family relationships.

Table 11.8 Attitudes to possible teachers by feelings about cultural diversity

Note: Gap = difference between those who are least and most comfortable with cultural diversity.

11.23 Table 11.8 examines how attitudes towards the suitability of various people as primary school teachers varies according to someone's score on our cultural diversity scale. A familiar pattern emerges. Those who are more accepting of diversity according to our scale are less likely to regard someone as unsuitable as a teacher. Thus, for example, someone who feels uncomfortable about diversity is 26 points more likely to regard someone who experiences depression as unsuitable. Moreover this gap is much the same for nearly all of the various kinds of people about which we asked.

11.24 Meanwhile, if we compare the results of this table with those of Table 11.2, which performed the equivalent analysis in respect of attitudes towards prospective partners, we find that the percentage point gap figures are typically much the same or even higher in this table than they were in that earlier table. For example, the percentage point gap figure for a Gypsy/Traveller is 31 points here, compared with 27 points in the earlier table. The gap here for a gay man or lesbian is 27 points where it was 19 points earlier. So whereas concern about cultural threat appears less strongly related to attitudes to employment than it does to a prospective relationship, the same is not true of feelings about cultural diversity. Thus, relatively speaking at least, cultural diversity seemingly matters rather more in accounting for discriminatory attitudes in respect of employment than it did in respect of prospective marriage partners. Of course the two underlying items in our cultural diversity scale are both about feelings about certain kinds of behaviour in public, and this may help explain why it is relatively better able to tap the existence of discriminatory attitudes in this less intimate situation.

11.25 In contrast, for the most part where someone stands on our minority vs majority culture scale is less strongly associated with perceptions of the suitability of someone as a school teacher than it is with feelings about prospective partners (see Table 11.9). While those who place themselves in the middle boxes are usually somewhat less likely to say that someone is unsuitable to be a primary school teacher, the difference between their attitudes and the views of those who place themselves in one of the two end boxes is usually relatively modest. The biggest such difference is between the 39% of people in the middle box who feel that a Gypsy/Traveller is unsuitable to be a primary school teacher and the 59% of those in the adapt and blend box who take that view.

Table 11.9 Attitudes towards possible teachers by minority vs majority culture scale

11.26 We can again assess the relative impact of our measures of psychological orientation more formally by undertaking multivariate analysis, details of which are shown in Table C.3 in Annex A. One point immediately becomes apparent. Cultural threat is less strongly associated with discriminatory attitudes towards the suitability of someone to be a teacher than it is attitudes towards a prospective marriage partner. The same, however, is not true of the cultural diversity score. Therefore, our interim conclusion that, relatively speaking at least, feelings about cultural diversity are a more important source of discriminatory viewpoints about employment than they are in respect of family relationships is confirmed. Indeed, in accounting for differences in attitude towards who would make a suitable primary school teacher, feelings about cultural diversity matter more or less as much as concerns about perceived cultural threat.

11.27 We should note, however, that when we consider the relationship between all three of our scales and attitudes towards the suitability of someone to be a primary school teacher, their combined ability to account for the incidence of discriminatory attitudes is typically less than it was in the case of attitudes towards a prospective partner. As we have measured it at least, psychological orientation is generally a less strong source of discriminatory attitudes in this less intimate context of primary school teaching.

11.28 One characteristic in particular seems largely unrelated to all of our measures of psychological orientation - that is whether someone aged 70 or over is suitable for the job of a primary school teacher. The feeling that such a person would indeed be unsuitable is evidently shared by many people who would otherwise not be expected to hold a discriminatory point of view. This would appear to confirm our conclusion in Chapter Four that attitudes towards an older person being a primary school teacher may have more to do with perceptions (however erroneous they may be) about their likely effectiveness in the job rather than because they would not be a fit and proper person to be employed. We should note too that the perception that women are more suitable than men to be a primary school teacher also exhibits little relationship with any of our measures.

11.29 It will be remembered from Chapter Four that our survey also included a range of other questions about attitudes towards employment. Two of these are, perhaps unsurprisingly, strongly linked to concern about cultural threat in particular. Those who are most concerned about cultural threat are more than 40 points more likely to say both that people from ethnic minorities and that people who come to Scotland from Eastern Europe take jobs away from other people in Scotland. Evidently concern about perceived cultural threat easily spills over into hostility towards a group on economic grounds.

11.30 In contrast, most of the other questions we asked about employment are only weakly related to our scales. This includes views on whether or not older people should be required to retire, as well as attitudes towards whether fathers should be able to take time off work when their children are ill. However, there is some relationship between the scales - and the cultural threat scale in particular - and whether or not people agree that a man's role is to go out to work to earn money while that of a woman is to look after the home. That very traditional understanding of the roles of men and women does seem to some degree at least to be part and parcel of a tendency towards a discriminatory point of view.

Bed and Breakfast

11.31 We now turn to our third main area of enquiry, that is whether someone running a bed and breakfast business in their own home should be allowed to refuse a booking from certain kinds of people. As we have argued earlier, this situation is a mixture of the intimate and the less personal. On the one hand the scenario refers to what people should be allowed to do in their own home. On the other hand, it also refers to the provision of a commercial service.

Table 11.10 Attitudes towards Bed and Breakfast bookings by concern about cultural threat

Note: Gap = difference between those who are least and most concerned about cultural threat.

11.32 Table 11.10 immediately suggests that the character of attitudes towards this situation is rather different from the two we have considered already in this chapter. As the table shows, where someone stands on our cultural threat score makes relatively little difference to whether or not they think a bed and breakfast owner should be allowed to refuse a booking. Even in the case of a booking from a same-sex couple, where over half as a whole think that it should be possible to refuse a booking, those who are most concerned about cultural threat are only ten points more likely than those who are least concerned to say it should be possible to do so. Meanwhile, in the case of two other situations, someone with a guide dog and someone with a learning disability, it is actually those who are least concerned about cultural threat who are a little more likely to say that it should be possible to refuse a booking.

11.33 Equally, much the same is true of our other two scales, neither of which is strongly associated, if at all, with attitudes towards the right to refuse a bed and breakfast booking (analysis not shown). For example, those who are very comfortable with cultural diversity are just 13 points more likely than those who are uncomfortable to say that someone should be allowed to refuse a booking from a gay or lesbian couple, while in the case of someone under 21 there is no difference between the two groups at all. Those who occupy a middle box on the minority vs majority culture scale are a dozen points or so less likely to say that someone should be allowed to refuse a booking from a gay or lesbian couple, but otherwise there are hardly any differences at all. This of course is in tune with our earlier comment about the relative importance of this scale in accounting for attitudes towards sexual orientation.

11.34 The relative weakness of all three associations is confirmed by multivariate analysis (see Table C.4 in Annex A to this report). While in most cases both our cultural threat and cultural diversity scores are significantly associated with attitudes towards the right to refuse a booking, the relationship is typically much weaker than in the case of family relationships and employment. Meanwhile, only in the case of gay men and lesbians are those in the middle boxes on our minority vs majority culture scale significantly less likely to express a discriminatory point of view.

11.35 In line with the evidence already uncovered in Chapter Five, our questions about refusing a bed and breakfast again appear to have tapped a rather different set of attitudes than did those on family relationships and employment. In part this might be because attitudes are influenced by the feeling that people should be allowed to decide for themselves whom they admit to their own home, albeit as a paying guest. Perhaps, as suggested earlier, some people feel that although they themselves would be happy to have, for example, a gay couple or a younger person staying in their home, they accept that others may not feel that way and believe that those feelings should be respected. In any event, this finding suggests that it should not be assumed that those who themselves do not hold a discriminatory point of view will necessarily always support attempts to outlaw discriminatory behaviour.

Covert discrimination and positive action

11.36 As we indicated in Chapter Eight, it has been argued that discriminatory attitudes may sometimes take a covert rather than an explicit form. Someone might not be willing to state, for example, that they would be unhappy if a close relative of theirs married an individual black or Asian person, but would feel able to indicate that they think too much has been done to help black or Asian people as a group, thereby covertly revealing a discriminatory attitude. In addition, we might also wonder whether a discriminatory point of view would reveal itself in the form of opposition to positive action. In any event, if either suggestion is true, we would anticipate that attitudes towards the opportunities that have been given to various groups or to various forms of positive action would be associated with concern about cultural threat and feelings about cultural diversity.

Table 11.11 Covert discrimination and attitudes to positive action by concern about cultural threat

Note: Gap = difference between those who are least and most concerned about cultural threat.

11.37 Table 11.11 shows the relationship between concern about cultural threat and, first (in the initial five rows of figures), various measures of potentially covertly discriminatory points of view and, second (in the last three rows), forms of positive action. Clearly there is some evidence of an association between concern about cultural threat and our measures of covert discrimination. Those who are most concerned about cultural threat are most likely to state that equal opportunities for both black and Asian people and for gay men and lesbians have gone too far. The gap between the views of the most and least concerned are 33 points and 22 points respectively. Moreover in the case of black and Asian people at least, our question uncovers a particularly negative response amongst those most concerned about cultural threat that was not so evident in the case of attitudes towards relationships or primary school teaching, though was apparent in attitudes towards whether ethnic minorities take jobs away from other people. Here at least it seems possible that this alternative line of questioning has helped uncover potential antipathy towards black and Asian people that our more direct measures of discriminatory attitudes did not always demonstrate. Meanwhile, so far as attitudes towards women are concerned, one of the two lines of questioning at least also seems to have had some success in uncovering a pattern of association. Those who are most concerned about cultural threat are 19 points more likely than the least concerned to believe that women being treated unfairly is now a thing of the past.

11.38 On the other hand, so far as our three measures of positive action are concerned we do not uncover the pattern of association that by now has become familiar to us. Rather, in each case it is those who are least concerned about cultural threat who are somewhat more likely to feel that the form of positive action described by our questions would be unfair. Evidently, as we might have already anticipated from the evidence presented in Chapter Eight, doubts about the use of positive action extend well beyond those who typically are more inclined to express discriminatory points of view.

11.39 The patterns of association with our other two scales (not shown) are much as we would expect. Those who are more comfortable with diversity are in general somewhat less likely to feel that equal opportunities have gone too far (except in the case of women) and that (in the case of women but not black and Asian people) being treated unfairly is not a thing of the past. The relevant percentage point gaps are, however, typically somewhat lower than in the case of our cultural threat scale. In contrast there is little relationship at all between feelings about cultural diversity and attitudes towards positive action. Equally there is little relationship between our minority vs majority culture scale and attitudes towards such action, although on occasion those in the middle boxes are notably less likely to express views that might be thought to provide evidence of covert discrimination.

11.40 Multivariate modelling (see Table C.5 in Annex A) confirms the strength of the relationship between concern about cultural threat and whether equal opportunities for black and Asian people, and for gay men and lesbians, have gone too far. It also indicates a more modest relationship between perceptions of whether unfair treatment of women, together with that of black and Asian people, is a thing of the past. In contrast if anything it is those who are least concerned about cultural threat who are more likely to oppose positive action. The same modelling shows that those in the middle of our minority vs majority culture scale are least likely to think that unfair treatment of black and Asian people, and of women, is a thing of the past, and equally are less likely to think that equal opportunities for gay men and lesbians have gone too far. However, once these patterns are taken into account feelings about cultural diversity matter little, if at all, to either attitudes towards positive action or the responses given to those questions that might provide covert evidence of a discriminatory point of view.

Conclusion

11.41 As in the case of attitudes towards prejudice in general, it appears that fears of perceived cultural threat appear to be the more important source of discriminatory attitudes towards specific groups in specific contexts. However, the degree to which this is the case varies somewhat. It is most obviously true when people are asked about the prospect of someone from a particular group becoming part of their extended family. It is less true when people are asked who would make a suitable primary school teacher. A willingness to embrace diversity may be relatively more important in the public sphere of employment than it is in the private world of marriage and family relationships. But in both cases it seems that discriminatory attitudes are likely to continue to exist for as long as those who belong to certain groups are regarded as 'other', and having little in common with the rest of society.

11.42 Cultural threat also appears to be more potent in respect of some groups than others. It certainly seems to shape attitudes towards Muslims in particular, and may also play a particularly important role in attitudes to asylum seekers. Both groups have been subjected to highly adverse media publicity in recent years. The same appears not to be true of black and Asian people, minority groups whose position within the UK has perhaps been discussed and debated over a much longer period of time (albeit of course that some black and Asian people are adherents of the Muslim faith). Nevertheless, references to black and Asian people or ethnic minorities in general can still sometimes uncover evidence of particularly negative reactions amongst those most concerned with cultural threat, as evidenced by our questions on whether equal opportunities for them have gone too far or whether they take jobs away from other people.

11.43 Meanwhile, it looks as though neither concern about cultural threat nor feelings about cultural diversity are particularly important sources of discriminatory attitudes towards some groups at all. This certainly appears to be true of someone with a learning disability while it may also be true of attitudes towards both older and younger people and perhaps, also, women. In this our work echoes the findings of Abrams and Houston (2006) who argue that attitudes towards those with a disability and towards older people are the result of a 'patronising' attitude towards such groups rather than a 'hostile' one. However, in contrast to them we have been able to demonstrate the difference in the character of discriminatory attitudes towards different groups through statistical analysis, rather than simply infer it from differences in the images and stereotypes people have of different groups.

11.44 Meanwhile there is perhaps one further consideration to bear in mind so far as gay men and lesbians are concerned. Attitudes towards this group are particularly more likely to be unfavourable amongst those who place themselves in the 'adapt and blend' box on our minority vs majority culture scale. This may be an indication that for this group at least, discriminatory views arise not only because some people feel that gay men and lesbians constitute a threat to 'their' culture, but also because they are thought by some not to conform to what are regarded as the social or 'moral' norms of society in general.

11.45 In any event whatever lies at the heart of discriminatory attitudes towards particular groups, it appears that the same motivations may not necessarily account for opposition to attempts to overcome the inequalities and discrimination that may be experienced by certain groups. Psychological orientation, be it fear of cultural threat or concern about cultural diversity, plays relatively little role in people's opposition to denying someone who runs a bed and breakfast the right to refuse a booking. It appears to play little role too in accounting for the perception that various forms of positive action might be unfair. Even if they do not themselves hold discriminatory views members of the public will not necessarily endorse particular measures designed to eliminate discrimination or efforts to overcome its effects.

Key points:

• This chapter examined whether the association between discriminatory attitudes and both concerns about cultural threat and feelings about cultural diversity is consistent between different groups and across different contexts.
• Overall, fears of perceived cultural threat remain the most important predictor of discriminatory attitudes towards most groups and in most contexts.
• However, it appears that fears about threat are more important in shaping attitudes towards the more private realm of family relationships than they are the less intimate realm of employment.
• Fear of cultural threat seems to affect attitudes to some groups more than others. For example, views about Muslims and asylum seekers are shaped by fears of cultural threat to a greater degree than are those towards black and Asian people. This may be linked to the relatively recent emergence of media concerns about the first two groups.
• Neither cultural threat nor cultural diversity appear to be important sources of discriminatory attitudes towards some groups, for example people with a learning disability, older and younger people, and women.
• In addition, neither fears about cultural threat nor feelings about diversity account for opposition to attempts to overcome inequality and discrimination through positive action measures. Equally neither measure is strongly associated with people's views on whether a B&B owner should be allowed to refuse a booking from certain groups.
• This last analysis further confirms the earlier finding that people who do not typically hold discriminatory views are not always in favour of measures to counter discrimination.

« Previous | Contents | Next »