« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
CHAPTER TWELVE CONCLUSION
Introduction
12.1 It will be recalled that our aim in this project was to answer two main questions. These were:
1. What is the extent and character of discriminatory attitudes in Scotland?
2. Why do people hold discriminatory attitudes?
12.2 In this concluding chapter we bring together the threads of our research and indicate what answers to our questions we have uncovered. We look first at the extent of discriminatory attitudes, who holds those attitudes, and finally why they do so.
The extent of discriminatory attitudes
12.3 For the most part only a minority of people avowedly express a discriminatory attitude. Only rarely have we ascertained instances where a majority of people, or something close thereto, have supported a discriminatory standpoint. On the other hand it is not uncommon for the minority who do to be a substantial one, constituting around a quarter or third of the people in Scotland - as typified by the 29% of people who say that sometimes there is good reason to be prejudiced against certain groups.
12.4 It might be thought that our research underestimates the incidence of discriminatory attitudes because people will be unwilling openly to express such attitudes in the presence of an interviewer. However, it should be remembered that some of our questions were administered by a self-completion supplement, not face to face. In particular this included the questions where we asked about the suitability of someone as a primary school teacher, yet these questions did not elicit a particularly high level of discriminatory attitudes. Meanwhile, when we attempted to uncover evidence of discriminatory attitudes covertly, this did not for the most part disturb the picture painted by our more overt measures.
12.5 However, some groups are clearly more likely than others to be the object of discriminatory attitudes. In some circumstances at least, this is certainly true of Gypsies/Travellers and transsexual people. For example, around half think that a Gypsy/Traveller would be unsuitable as a primary school teacher, while around half say they would be unhappy about a relative forming a long-term relationship with a transsexual person. Discriminatory attitudes towards gay men and lesbians are not uncommon too, and especially so in the case of the right of someone to refuse a bed and breakfast booking from a same sex couple.
12.6 In contrast, discriminatory attitudes on the grounds of religion or ethnic background were less commonly expressed. Gypsies/Travellers aside, in none of our three main scenarios about relationships, primary school teaching or the provision of bed and breakfast did as many as a quarter uphold a discriminatory point of view in respect of these groups. That said, discriminatory views are more likely to be expressed about Muslims than they are any other religious group. Equally, it looks as though while discriminatory views may not commonly be expressed towards individual black or Asian people (as evidenced by our questions on relationships and primary school teaching), such views seem more common when reference is made to black and Asian people as a group. They may also in this instance be somewhat more covertly held. Meanwhile, the presence of religious and ethnic minority groups certainly has the potential to evoke concern; around half express concern about the consequences of their presence for Scotland's 'identity' and around three in ten about the implications for labour market competition. Whatever the current level of discriminatory attitudes on the basis of religion and ethnic background, the underlying potential for such attitudes to appear might be considered relatively widespread.
12.7 Less common still is the expression of discriminatory attitudes in respect of the roles of men and women. Our research on this topic focused primarily on the role of women in the labour market. One in seven say that women should stay at home. Substantial majorities agree that fathers should have the same ability as mothers to take time off work to look after sick children, and state that women's promotion chances should not be affected by taking time off to have a child. Still, stereotypical views of what constitutes "women's work" are evidently held by around one in five, and a similarly sized minority does feel that women should accept that having a baby might affect their promotion opportunities.
12.8 In the case of discrimination on the grounds of disability, we primarily concentrated on learning disability and mental health, areas where other research has shown discriminatory attitudes to be more common than in the case of physical disability (see, for example, Spiro et al, 1993; National Disability Authority, 2007). In practice on the two measures available to us only around one in six expressed a discriminatory attitude towards someone with a learning disability. On the other hand over half said that someone who occasionally experiences depression would be suitable as a primary school teacher. Even if avowedly discriminatory attitudes towards those with a learning disability or mental health problem are not frequently held, evidently they may arise in particular circumstances, perhaps because of concerns about the ability of someone with such a condition to 'cope'.
12.9 A not dissimilar picture emerges in respect of age. Only one in five support a compulsory retirement age, yet half feel that someone aged 70 would not be suitable as a primary school teacher. It seems that age discrimination too may arise because of perceptions of the ability of someone to 'cope'. Meanwhile the potential for discriminatory attitudes to be expressed towards younger people is indicated by the fact that nearly three in ten say a bed and breakfast owner should be able to refuse a booking to anyone aged under 21.
12.10 However, the pattern we have uncovered is not necessarily an unchanging one. While discriminatory attitudes on the grounds of sexual orientation may still be more common than on many other grounds, its incidence appears to be in decline. It seems that until relatively recently a majority of the public held avowedly discriminatory attitudes towards gay men and lesbians. But a long-term shift in attitudes has taken place, a shift that has been reflected in recent changes in the legal position of same sex couples and may well have been boosted yet further by those changes. In contrast recent events appear to have stimulated a greater incidence of discriminatory attitudes towards Muslims, and perhaps also ethnic minorities. This development would appear to reinforce our suggestion that whatever the current level of discriminatory attitudes on the grounds of religion or ethnic background might be, it is still possible for such attitudes to be reignited.
12.11 Meanwhile, although a specific circumstance may evoke the expression of discriminatory attitudes towards one particular group, there also seems to be a more general pattern. In line with our initial expectations, the more intimate the context, the greater the likelihood that a discriminatory attitude will be expressed towards a particular group. It appears that people often find it easier to accept that others are entitled to equal treatment in the public realm of employment or the provision of goods and services than in the private realm of intimate relationships.
Who holds discriminatory attitudes?
12.12 In general, some sections of society do appear to be more likely to hold discriminatory attitudes than others. Those with higher educational qualifications are usually less likely to express discriminatory attitudes than those with fewer or no qualifications. Often we have found that discriminatory attitudes (together with stereotypical views about gender roles) were more common amongst older people than younger people. Meanwhile, sexual orientation is a particularly strong source of dissensus. Not only are differences of attitude on this subject between different age groups particularly striking, but in addition those who regularly practice a religion are more inclined to hold discriminatory attitudes towards gay men and lesbians, while the same is also true of men. These contrasts perhaps help explain why the position and status of same sex couples continues to be the subject of considerable controversy in Scottish society.
12.13 But to each of these generalisations there is an exception. The potential at least for younger people to express discriminatory attitudes is revealed by the fact that they are particularly likely to express concern about the impact of the presence of ethnic minorities and people from Eastern Europe on the competition for jobs. Indeed, intriguingly, younger people were not less likely to say that sometimes there is good reason to be prejudiced. So while, as in the case of sexual orientation for example, it appears from Britain-wide evidence that a process of generational change is occurring, with new generations of younger people with relatively 'liberal' attitudes gradually replacing older generations with less 'liberal' views, it should not be presumed that younger people will necessarily always continue to be more liberal in all circumstances or in respect of all groups.
12.14 Equally we found that those with more educational qualifications do not hold particularly distinctive views about the right of a bed and breakfast owner to refuse a bed and breakfast booking. This indeed is but one clue that perhaps attitudes towards this topic do not necessarily have the same character as those evoked by our attitudes towards relationships and primary school teaching. Moreover, we found that those with higher educational qualifications were less likely to support positive action measures. Despite their apparent opposition to discrimination, it seems that those with advanced education too become more equivocal in their attitudes when their own interests appear to be threatened.
12.15 We have also uncovered one further important pattern. For the most part those who say they know someone that belongs to a particular group are less likely to express discriminatory attitudes towards that group. In part this may be because those who do not hold discriminatory attitudes towards a particular group are more likely to be willing to form a friendship with someone from that group. But equally this evidence is consistent with the argument that contact between members of a minority group and the wider population serves to reduce the impact of discriminatory attitudes (Allport, 1955; Hewstone, 2003). However, it appears to matter more for some groups than others. It seems particularly important in the case of gay men and lesbians; it seems relatively less important in the case of someone with a learning disability. Perhaps in the latter case this may be an indication that discriminatory attitudes may arise because of a wish to 'protect' someone from demands with which it is thought they may not be able to cope.
Why do people hold discriminatory attitudes?
12.16 However, despite this evidence that contact between members and non-members of a group may make a difference to attitudes, for the most part it does not appear that living in a neighbourhood where relatively large proportions of a particular group reside affects the incidence of discriminatory attitudes. In particular we did not uncover any evidence that those who live in an area where there is a relatively large proportion of Muslims or members of an ethnic minority are less likely to express discriminatory attitudes in respect of Muslims or black and Asian people respectively. It may be that there are too few neighbourhoods in Scotland with sufficiently large numbers of Muslims or members of an ethnic minority to make a difference. Alternatively it may be that the kind of contact fostered by geographical proximity does not enable people to get to know each other sufficiently well to make a difference.
12.17 In any event, the impact or otherwise of contact between different groups cannot tell us why discriminatory attitudes arise in the first place. To tap this we have focused in particular on the degree to which such attitudes appear to be associated by concerns about 'cultural threat' or by discomfort in the presence of 'cultural diversity'. In general our analyses suggest that concern about 'cultural threat' is the more important source of discriminatory attitudes. This is certainly true of attitudes towards prejudice in general, and of attitudes in the intimate more private world of relationships. On the other hand, it is rather less true of the more public realm of who would make a suitable primary school teacher. Overall, it seems that the incidence of discriminatory attitudes is unlikely to be reduced only by encouraging people to embrace diversity; they probably also need to feel that they have something in common with those who belong to a different group from themselves.
12.18 But still we should be wary of assuming that all discriminatory attitudes arise for the same reason. Neither 'cultural threat' nor 'cultural diversity' appear to be particularly important in accounting for whether people believe that a bed and breakfast owner should be able to refuse a booking from someone. Together with the fact that such attitudes towards our bed and breakfast scenario are not associated with educational attainment strongly suggests that views on this subject are influenced by different or additional considerations than is true of our other two scenarios, such as whether people should feel able to decide whom to admit to their own home.
12.19 Equally, concerns about 'cultural threat' appear to matter more for some groups than others. It seems to be particularly important in accounting for discriminatory attitudes towards Muslims. On the other hand it seems to be relatively unimportant in accounting for attitudes towards people with disabilities, at least as evidenced by questions we asked about learning disability and someone who has a guide dog. The same also largely seems to hold for attitudes towards discrimination on the grounds of age and gender. This pattern is consistent with the work of Abrams and Houston (2006) that suggests that perceptions of 'threat' are more important in accounting for prejudice towards some groups, such as religious and ethnic minorities together with gay men and lesbians, than it is for other groups such as older or younger people, people with disabilities and women. The creation of an integrated Equality and Human Rights Commission clearly should not be at the expense of appreciating what is different about attitudes towards different groups as well as what they have in common.
« Previous | Contents | Next »