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 t raditional and contemporary forms of prejudice, Pettigrew and Meertens have actually attempted to distinguish the two empirically and developed measur es to gauge each. Replication of their study: on the distinction between bl atant and subtle prejudice, discloses a number of methodological flaws that have led to debatable substantial conclusions. We found two distinct measu res, however substantially different from the ones proposed by Pettigrew an d 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 f actor labelled perceived cultural differences. The first factor is well exp lained by a number of social characteristics; the second is rather poorly e xplained and has a rather poor discriminatory power. The first one has stro ng effects on some consequential variables whereas the second has hardly an y effects. Other evidence, considered to be crucial by Pettigrew and Meerte ns, contains other methodological flaws, i.e. the neglect of interdependent items. After this correction. their piece of evidence turns out to be arti ficial. As a benefit to future research, we try to clarify conditions for d istinguishing empirically and conceptually between traditional and contempo rary prejudice. Copyright (C) 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.