Content uploaded by Colin Wayne Leach
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Colin Wayne Leach on Jan 19, 2025
Content may be subject to copyright.
British Journal of Social Psychology (2000 ), 39, 449±465 Printed in Great Britain
#2000 The British Psychological Society
449
Is racism dead? Comparing (expressive)
means and (structural equation) models
Colin Wayne Leach*, Timothy R. Peng and Julie Volckens
University of Michigan, USA
Much scholarship suggests that racismÐbelief in out-group inferiorityÐ is
unrelated to contemporary attitudes. Purportedly, a new form of racism, one which
relies upon a belief in cultural di
å
erence, has become a more acceptable basis for
such attitudes. The authors argue that an appropriate empirical assessment of racism
(both `old ’ and ` new ’) depends upon (1) clear conceptua lization and
operationalization, and (2) attention to both mean-level expression and explanatory
value in structural equation models. This study assessed the endorsement of racism
and belief in cultural di
å
erence as well as their association with a measure of general
attitude in a secondary analysis of parallel representative surveys of attitudes toward
di
å
erent ethnic out-groups in France, the Netherlands, Western Germany and
Britain (N¯3242; see Reif & Melich, 1991). For six of the seven out-group
targets, racism was strongly related to ethnic majority attitudes, despite low mean-
level endorsemen t. In a pa ttern con sistent with a ` new ’, indirect racism, the
relationship between British racism and attitudes toward Afro-Caribbeans was
mediated by belief in cultural di
å
erence.
From Aristotle to apartheid, racism has been a determinant force in the history of
Western societies (see Delacampagne, 1990). It is now widely believed, however, that
Hitler `gave racism a bad name’, tendering assertions of inferiority unacceptable in
the contemporar y express ion of attitudes toward ethnic out-grou ps (see McConahay,
1986). In accordance with this view, both large-scale public surveys (see Ford, 1991 ;
Pettigrew & Meer tens, 1995 ; Schum an, Steeh, & Bobo, 1985}1988) and more local
studies (Hraba, Hagendoorn, & Hagendoorn, 1989 ; Judd, Park, Ryan, Brauer, &
Kraus, 1995 ; Kleinpenning & Hagendoorn, 1993; Wetherell & Potter, 1992) suggest
that the open expression of racism is rare. In apparent recognition of the moral
implications of endorsing a belief in out-group inferiority, those expressing negative
attitudes toward out-groups often make an explicit distinction between their
`reasonable ’ sentiment and an antiquated and vulgar racism. As one British
commen tator put it :
It is from a recognition of racial di
å
erences that a desire develops in most groups to be among
their own kind ; and this leads to distrust and hostility wh en newcomers come in ¼ the whole
question of race is not a matter of being superior or inferior, dirty or clean, but of being di
å
erent
(Page, 1977, as cited in Barker, 1981, p. 20, emphasis added).
* Requests for reprints should be addressed to Dr Colin Wayne Leach, Department of Psychology, Sw arthmore
College, 500 Co llege Avenue, Swarthmore, PA 19081-139 7, USA (e-mail : cleach1 !swarthmore.edu).
450 Colin Wayne Leach et al.
Rather than relying on claims of out-group inferiority, such arguments stress a
`natural’ preference for fellow in-group members and the inevitable rejection of out-
groups. This reasoning is surprisingly consistent with evolutionary theory (e.g. Fox,
1992), as well as social psychological work on ethnocentrism (Brewer, 1986; Levine
& Campbell, 1972), belief congruence theory (Rokeach, Smith, & Evans, 1960), and
in-group favouritism (Tajfel, 1982)."
Some, however, have been unwilling to accept the apparent decline of racism at
face value. On both sides of the Atlantic it is argued that a `new ’ form of racism has
supplanted the `old’, allowing racism to be expressed through ostensibly non-racist
political symbols (Sears, 1988) or `sanitized codes ’ (Reeves, 1983). In Western
Europe it is claimed that this new racism is expressed in terms of a `common sense’
(see Billig, 1 982) belief in the natural inco mpatibility of ethnic gr oups with ` wildly ’
di
å
erent cultures (see Barker, 1981}1982 ; Essed, 1991 ; Guillaumin, 1995, ch. 4 ;
Miles, 1993 ; Taguie
å
, 1990 ; Todorov, 1986; see also Kleinpenning & Hagendoorn,
1993 ; P ettigrew & Meert ens, 1995 ), sentimen t similar to th at express ed in the
passage quoted above. The `new ’ European racism is described by Balibar (1991) as
`a racism whose dominant theme is not biological heredity but the insurmountability
of cultural di
å
erences, a racism which, at ®rst sight, does not postulate the superiority
of certain groups or peoples in relation to others but ``only ’’ the harmfulness of
abolishing frontiers, the incompatibility of life-styles and traditions’ (p. 21, emphasis
added).
Despite the popularity of the new racism thesis in some quarters, it has received
little direct support. Although some work suggests that `subtle ’ expressions of
ethnic prejudice are more strongly endorsed than the more `blatant ’ variety
(Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995), no research to date has shown that racism itself
underlies more ambiguous attitudes toward ethnic out-groups. Given the parallels
between what is describ ed as the `new racism ’ and social psych ological explanations
of group antipathy, the ®eld is in a weak position to criticize such expressions
without linking them to the more obviously problematic ideology of racism (Leach,
1998). Unfortunately, psychologists have made little e
å
ort to examine the substantive
nature of racism or its relation to more guarded forms of sentiment.
Outside of psychology, racism has been examined across numerous times and
places. The term `racism ’ is generally used to describe the belief that some ethnic out-
groups (whether de®ned as a `race ’ or not) are `congenitally inferior’ to others
(Benedict, 1942}1959) and should thus stand in subordinate relation to them (see
Banton, 1987, ch. 4; Fields, 1990 ; Miles, 1989, 1993 ; Said, 1978}1994 ; UNESCO,
1980 ; van den Berghe, 1967 ; Wilson, 1973). Conceptually it is this devaluation of an
out-group relative to an in-group that allows such varied historical examples as the
Greek representation of `barbarians ’, Nazi herrenvolk ideology and South African
apartheid to all b e d escribed as instan ces o f racis m (s ee Delacam pagne, 1990 ; van den
Berghe, 1967). It is the apparent absence of devaluation in recent attitudes toward
ethnic out-groups that has led some theorists to pronounce the death of racism and
announce its replacement by a `new racism’. However, examining the role that a
"A number o f observers has discussed t he possibility of a `social scienti®c racism ’, where scholarly theories are used
to legitimate intergroup inequality and hostility (see Balibar & Wallerstein, 1991; Banton, 1987, ch. 2 ; Barker, 1981}
1982 ; Condor, 1987 ;Fiske, 1989 ; Henriques, 1984; Hopkins, Reicher, & Levine, 1997; Leach, 1998, for discussions).
Is racis m dead ? 451
clearly ( and in t his case co nservatively) d e®ned racism plays in contemporary attitudes
is an important ®rst step in the assessment of the new racism thesis. What is more,
given the paucity of recent empirical research on `old ’ racism, rumours of its death
may be much exaggerated.
As outlined above, racism and ascribed cultural di
å
erences characterize two
distinct dimensions of belief regarding ethnic out-groups. While racism turns on an
axiomatic or moral devaluation of the out-group as relatively inferior to the in-group
(see Reeves, 1983; Todorov, 1984), belief in cultural di
å
erence di
å
erentiates the out-
group from the in-group. Out-group devaluation and di
å
erentiation have been
identi®ed as important by a number of theorists interested in the epistemology of
ethnic and other group prejudice (see Reeves, 1983 ; Rokeach et al., 1960 ; Sartr e,
1948}1976 ; Tajfel, 1982 ; Todo rov, 1984 ). Given the po tential com plexity of
contemporary discourse regarding ethnic out-groups, an appropriate examination of
racism (both `old ’ and `new ’) must t herefore as sess bo th racism and belief in cultur al
di
å
erence. It must also allow for the possibility that racism is expressed indirectly
through a belief in cultural di
å
erence, as suggested by the new racism thesis. The
possibility of a new, more indirect expression of racism also raises important
concerns about how such beliefs can be assessed and examined empirically.
Empirically assessing racism: (expressive)means vs. (structural equation)models
The possibility of a `new ’ sophistication in the expression of racism challenges the
very concept of attitude as it has been utilized in the social psychological study of
prejudice. Some have gone so far as to suggest that the failing of the attitude concept
in this regard indicates a more general conceptual and methodological shortcoming
(see Green wald & B anaji, 1995 ; Po tter & Weth erell, 1987 ; van Dijk , 1984 , 1987 ;
Wetherell & Potter, 1992, for discussions). While raising important concerns
regarding attitude conceptualization and measurement, such pronouncements by
quantitative sociologists, discourse analysts and social cognition researchers alike
rely heavily on analyses of the mean-level endorsement of attitudes. While the
relatively weak endorsement of explicitly racist beliefs provides important
information about the contemporary expression of racism, it says little about the
degree to which such beliefs, despite guarded endorsement, are related to important
attitudes and behaviour (Leach, 1995 ; see also Kleinpenning & Hagendoorn, 1993 ).
Despite a relatively low degree of endorsement, people may still vary in their level
of (dis)agreement. It is this variance in response, and its association with relevant
outcomes, that indicates the explanatory importance of racism, an issue quite separate
from expression. Owing to normative proscriptions against explicitly racist views,
the mean-level endorsement of racism may not be congruent with its explanatory
importance. As such, an appropriate assessment of contemporary racism requires an
analysis of beliefs at both the expressive and explanatory levels.
What follows is an empirical study of racism and belief in cultural di
å
erence
informed by the implications of the `new ’ racism thesis. In accordance with the
above arguments the authors conceptualized and operationalized distinct measures of
racism and belief in cultural di
å
erence. Then, both the expressive and explanatory
aspects of these beliefs were examined and compared across seven targeted ethnic
452 Colin Wayne Leach et al.
out-groups in Western Europe. This approach provides a more appropriate
examination of racism, given the possibilities of a new racism or a new norm of
expressing (`old’) racism, than has been heretofore o
å
ered.
General method
This study is based upon the secondary analysis of a 1988 cross-national survey of attitudes toward
ethnic out-groups in Western Europe (see Reif & Melich, 1991, for full details) that has been used by
a number of social psychologists to examine theoretical issues important to the study of ethnic prejudice
(e.g. Hamberger & Hewstone, 1997; Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995; Wagner & Zick, 1995). In face-to-
face interviews, ethnic majority respondents (total N¯3925) were asked questions regarding salient
ethnic out-group s in F rance (North Africans : N¯457, or Southeast Asians, N¯495), the Netherlands
(Turkish, N¯500, or Surinamese, N¯479 ), the former West Germany (Turkish, N¯1017) and
Britain (South Asians, N¯480, or Afro-Caribbeans, N¯497 ). The Ns for the analyses reported here
(see Table 1 ) are somewhat lower because of missing values.#The total valid N, 3342, represents 83 %
of the total sample.
The authors believe that the use of representative survey data of this type is the most appropriate way
to address the issues raised in this study. Given the possibility that respondents will actively avoid
strong endorsement of explicit racism, the measurement of attitudes in a sample of limited variance
could p roduce m isleading results. Given the re lative positivity of a ttitudes e xpressed by college studen ts
it also seems inadvisable to utilize such a sample for the present questions. Unfortunately, much of the
contemporary psychological research on racism, ethnocentrism and ethnic prejudice relies on
convenience samples of college students who, given their demographic position and presence in
institutions of higher learning, are often not representative of the larger population (see Fazio, Jackson,
Dunton, & Williams, 1996; Sears, 1986, for related discussions).
Measures
Belief in cultural di
å
erence. One set of questions assessed belief in the similarity}di
å
erence of the target
group. Respondents indicated the degree to which they believed the target group to be similar or
di
å
erent across six domains. In each domain the target group was judged as very similar (1 ), somewhat
similar (2), somewhat di
å
erent (3 ), or very di
å
erent (4 ). The four items that directly refer to the values,
beliefs and practices of the target group were developed by Pettigrew and Meertens (1995) as a measure
of belief in `cultural di
å
erences ’. These four items asked about the values taught to children, religious
beliefs and practices, sexual values and practices, and the language spoken by the target group. In
reasoning similar to that behind the new racism thesis, Pettigrew and Meertens (1995) consider belief
in cultural di
å
erence to be an indicator of what they call ` subtle ’, as opposed to `blatant ’, prejudice.
Racism. A second set of questions assessed the degree to which respondents endorsed ®ve reasons why
the out-group `may not do as well a s the majority ’. On a 4-point Likert-type scale, responses co uld range
from 1 ¯disagree strongly, 2 ¯disagree somewhat, 3 ¯agree so mewhat, an d 4 ¯agree strongly. Two
items in particular stated that the target group was relatively inferior to the ethnic majority, and thus
match the present authors’ conceptualization of racism as out-group devaluation. The ®rst item stated
that the target g roup `comes from less ab le `` races ’’ ’ an d the second item stated that the `culture of the
home country ’ of the target group is `less well developed’ than that of the majority. It is important to
note that both items a re worded in relative rather than absolute terms. Thus, endorsement of these items
is agreement that the group is `less able ’ and `less well developed’ than the ethnic majority ; they are not
absolute statements of inferiority. This sort of relative judgment appears to be less suspect (as racist),
and thus more easily endorsed by respondents (see Bobo & Kluegel, 1991 ; Hraba et al., 1989).
#The mean of all valid scale responses was used to substitute for missing values. Other approaches to the handling
of missing data, including strict listwise deletion ( N¯2021 ) and pairwise deletion (N¯3134) produced nearly
identical results (which are available from the authors).
Is racis m dead ? 453
Table 1. Mean-level endorsement of measures regarding ethnic out-groups
Racism
Cultural
di
å
erences
Attitude
toward out-group
MSD MSD MSD N
France
N. Africans 2.29 .89 3.48 .49 4.81 2.15 396
S.E. Asians 1.71 .7 8 3.34 .52 5.57 1.99 390
The Netherlands
Turkish 2.03 .94 3.51 .53 5.90 1.74 421
Surinamese 1.98 .89 2.81 .64 6.45 1.57 409
Western Germany
Turkish 2.00 .85 3.41 .48 5.17 2.19 848
Britain
S. Asians 2.26 .85 3.39 .55 5.50 1.92 383
Caribbeans 2.51 .84 2.87 .74 5.61 1.89 395
General attitude. The oft-used National Election Study `feeling thermometer ’ was selected as a measure
of general attitude toward ethnic out-groups (see Esses, Haddock, & Zanna, 1993 ; Judd, et al., 1995;
Wagner & Zick, 1995). Respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which they felt favourable
or unfavourable toward the speci®c out-group on a 100-point scale. Responses from 0 to 49 indicate an
unfavourab le or ` cold ’ feeling, a nd re sponses from 51 to 100 indicate a favou rable o r `warm ’ feeling.
Responses were coded along a 10-point scale at the time of the interview. The present authors were
interested in the degree to which general attitudes toward the ethnic out-groups in this study were
related to racism, belief in cultural di
å
erences, or their combination as suggested by the new racism
thesis.
Results and discussion
Expressive means
Attitudes. At the mean level, attitudes toward ethnic out-groups tended to be mildly
positive with means just above the mid-point of the 10-point scale (see Table 1).
There was, however, a great deal of variability in response, with large numbers
expressing explicitly negative attitudes. It is also important to note that attitudes
toward out-groups were lower than attitudes toward the potential in-group of
`Northern Europeans’ (all p!.001). Mean attitudes toward this in-group ranged
from a high of 7.04 in the Netherlands to a low of 6.70 in Britain (see Reif & Melich,
1991). Thus, attitudes toward ethnic out-groups appeared mildly positive given their
position on the measurement scale, but appeared quite negative when compared to
attitudes toward the in-group.
Belief in cultural di
å
erences. On average, respondents in all four countries expressed a
belief that the targeted out-groups are di
å
erent from themselves, with values above
the mid-point of the 4-point scale (see Table 1). The strong endorsement of cultural
di
å
erences at the mean-level may suggest to some that beliefs about di
å
erence are
strongly related to attitudes toward the out-group, as is argued by those who defend
their opposition to out-groups in the name of `natural ’ ethnocentrism. It is also
apparen t, however , that th e endors ement of cult ural di
å
erence is weaker regarding the
454 Colin Wayne Leach et al.
Surinamese in the Netherlands and Afro-Caribbeans in Britain than it is for the other
groups. This may suggest to some that belief in cultural di
å
erence is more strongly
related to attitudes for those groups believed to be more di
å
erent. According to this
reasoning, lower endorsement of cultural di
å
erences in regard to Surinamers and
Afro-Caribbeans should result in a weaker association between these beliefs and the
general attitude toward these groups.
Racism. Consistent with the idea of normative proscriptions against the open
expression of racism, mean endorsement fell on the disagree side of the 4-point scale
in regard to six of the seven out-groups (see Table 1). Despite relatively low means,
however , a fair number of r esponde nts actually endo rsed ex plicit r acism : 2 6% of the
French, 30 % of the Dutch, 38% of Western Germans, and 41 % of the British
`somewhat ’ or `strongly ’ agreed with the contention that the out-groups were
relatively inferior. That there is variability around the relatively low mean-level
endorsement of racism is corroborated by the respective scales’ standard deviation.
In addition, the median level of racism toward every out-group except Southeast
Asians (median ¯1.50) equally or exceeded 2 on the 4-point scale. Thus, half of the
respondents agreed more strongly with racism than the `somewhat disagree’
response. These results make it clear that respondents are not simply disagreeing
with racism, which would have made present use of this measure as anything but
opposition to racism di
¬
cult.
The relatively low mean-level endorsement of racism in Western Europe may
suggest to some that such beliefs are not related to general attitudes, as is argued by
those who defend their opposition to such groups as free of racism. A normative
explanation of mean expression suggests, however, that low endorsement may say
little about the explanatory relation of racism to general attitudes toward ethnic out-
groups. It is also apparent in Table 1 that the degree of racism varies, to some degree,
by target. Racism toward Southeast Asians in France was the lowest. The strongest
endorsement of racism came from the British in response to the Afro-Caribbean out-
group. In response to Afro-Caribbeans, the British mean endorsement of racism is in
the middle of the scale. Again, some would see these results as implying that racism
will be related only weakly to attitudes toward Southeast Asians (where endorsement
was weaker), and that racism will be related strongly to attitudes toward Afro-
Caribbeans (where endorsement was stronger).
Structural equation models
To examine the relation of racism and belief in cultural di
å
erence to the general
attitude toward each out-group, seven parallel structural equation models were
tested. The measurement model consisted of two latent factorsÐ`cultural di
å
erence ’
and `racis m ’Ðwh ich w ere free to correlate. This allow ed an ass essment of the
possible mediation of racism by belief in cultural di
å
erence, as suggested by the new
racism thesis. The measure of general attitude toward out-group, the NES `feeling
thermometer ’, had a ®xed loading of .90 (standardized at .827 ). No errors were
assumed to correlate, and measurement items were permitted to load on a single
latent factor only. Parameters were computed with maximum likelihood estimation
Is racis m dead ? 455
(a)
(b)
Figure 1 (a ). France, North Africans. Standardized solution. Non-signi®cant parameters in parentheses. aDenotes
parameters. N¯396 ; AGFI ¯.958 ; RMSR ¯. 038 ; v#(12) ¯24.52, p¯.017 ; v#}d.f. ¯2.04. (b ). France, Southeast
Asians. Standardized solution. Non-signi®cant parameters in parentheses. aDenotes parameters. N¯390; AGFI ¯.988 ;
RMSR ¯.031 ; v#(12) ¯16.62, p¯.165 ; v#}d.f. ¯1.39.
456 Colin Wayne Leach et al.
on LISREL 7.2 (Jo
$reskog & So
$rbom, 1989), using standard bivariate correlation
matrices (which are available from the authors). The N, and four goodness-of-®t
indicesÐAdjusted Goodness-of-Fit Index (AGFI), Root Mean Square Residual
(RMSR), chi square, and chi square divided by degrees of freedomÐare reported
with each of the models. As can be seen in Figs 1±4, all the models produced
acceptable ®ts with all AGFI ".95 and RMSR !.04.
Belief in cultural di
å
erences. Although all seven out-groups were seen as quite di
å
erent,
such beliefs were less strongly related to general attitudes than is suggested by
political commentators and the social psychology literature. While belief in cultural
di
å
erence was consistently associated with more negative attitudes, it did not, in
most cases, predominate. These results challenge the importance of perceived
cultural di
å
erences in prejudice proposed by Belief Congruence Theory and some
versions of ethnocentrism. Indeed, from a Social Identity Theory perspective, there
is little reason to believe that belief in group di
å
erence is the main explanation of
enmity. For groups in search of superiority and positive distinction, similarity to
others can be threatening and lead to derogation and antipathy (e.g. Jetten, Spears,
& Manstead, 1997). This makes the association between perceived cultural di
å
erence
and attitudes toward out-groups more complex than is allowed by Belief Congruence
Theory, and most versions of ethnocentrism.$
Racism is not dead. The structural models show quite clearly that racism,
operationalized as a belief in out-group inferiority, was directly related to attitudes
toward out-groups in all but one of the seven cases. In the exception, attitudes
toward Afro-Caribbeans in Britain, racism had an important indirect relation to
attitudes. Thus, despite low mean-level endorsement, racism was tied to general
evaluations of ethnic out-groups in Western Europe. For attitudes toward two of the
out-groupsÐSoutheast Asians in France and South Asians in BritainÐracism was as
strongly related to attitudes as was belief in cultural di
å
erence. For four of the out-
groupsÐNorth Africans in France, the Turkish and Surinamese in the Netherlands,
and the Turkish in Western GermanyÐracism shared an association with attitudes
generally twice the magnitude of the relationship between attitudes and belief in
cultural di
å
erence. Together, these results strongly con®rm that racism is not dead,
but rather is tied up with Western Europeans’ general attitudes toward ethnic out-
groups. The prominence of racism in Western European attitudes is striking given
$An alternate explanation for this pattern of results is that the extremely strong endorsement of belief in cultural
di
å
erence may have led to a ceiling e
å
ect that atten uated the variance of the measure, and thus limited its ability
to predict general attitudes. We believe, however, that this statistical artifact does not provide an adequate
explanation of our results. First, it could be argued that the racism measure is also subject to a similar mild skew,
leading to a ¯oor e
å
ect that would limit its variability in a similar fashion. The results, however, do not suggest
strong attenuat ion of the direct e
å
ects of racism on general attitudes. In the case of attitudes toward Afro-Caribbeans,
for example, the racism measure has a very normal distribution but does not predict attitudes. Second, in the two
cases where the distribution of the di
å
erence measure is clearly normal (for respondent s asked about Afro-Caribb eans
in Britain and those asked about Surinamese in the Netherlands), one would predict that the cultural di
å
erence
measure would be more strongly related to general attitudes if the relationship between di
å
erence and attitudes were
diminished by a ceiling e
å
ect in the other cases. While the model for respondents who were asked about Afro-
Caribbeans does have a strong direct relationship between cultural di
å
erence and general attitudes, the model for
Dutch respondents asked about Surinamese demonstrates no direct e
å
ect of cultural di
å
erence.
Is racis m dead ? 457
(a)
(b)
Figure 2 (a). Netherlands, Turkish. Standardized solution. Non-signi®cant parameters in parentheses. aDenotes
parameters. N¯421 ; AGFI ¯.9 54; RMSR ¯.037 ; v#(12)¯29.76, p¯.003 ; v#}d.f . ¯2.48. (b). Netherlands,
Surinamese. Standardized solution. Non-signi®cant parameters in parentheses. aDenotes parameters. N¯409 ; AGFI
¯.950 ; RMSR ¯.0 35 ; v#(12) ¯31.92, p¯.001 ; v#}d.f. ¯2.66.
458 Colin Wayne Leach et al.
(a)
(b)
Figure 3 (a). Britain, South Asians. Standardized solution. Non-signi ®cant parameters in parentheses. aDenotes
parameters. N¯383; AGFI ¯.965; RMSR ¯.0 31; v#(12) ¯20.77, p¯.054 ; v#}d.f. ¯1.73. (b). Britain, Caribbeans.
Standardized solution. Non-signi®cant parameters in parentheses. aDenotes parameters. N¯395 ; AGFI ¯.946 ;
RMSR ¯.033 ; v#(12) ¯32.79, p¯.001 ; v#}d.f. ¯2.73.
Is racis m dead ? 459
Figure 4. West Germany, Turks. Standardized solution. Non-signi®cant parameters in parentheses. aDenotes
parameters. N¯848 ; AGFI ¯.964 ; RMSR ¯.040 ; v#(12) ¯47.73, p¯.000 ; v#}d.f. ¯3.98.
460 Colin Wayne Leach et al.
the broad agreement in quantitative sociology and social cognitive and discursive
social psychology that direct, or `blatant ’, racism is on the wane. Although racism
is not expressed forthrightly, these structural models show that it is strongly tied to
expressed attitudes at the aggregate level.
Outgroup and country patterns
`New ’ (indirect)racism toward Afro-Caribbeans in Britain. The model explaining British
attitudes toward Afro-Caribbeans was highly consistent with what is called `new
racism ’.%Here, racism had no direct association with general attitudes, as shown in
Fig. 3b (c, standardized path coe
¬
cient ¯®.029, p".05). Racism had no direct
relation to attitudes toward Afro-Caribbeans despite the fact that the greatest mean-
level endorsement of racism occurred for this group. Racism did, however, have
an indirect relationship with general attitude through belief in cultural di
å
erence
(c¯.563), which fully mediated this e
å
ect (u¯.440). These results are the ®rst
to provide any quantitative corroboration of the new racism argument. Given that
Barker’s (1981}198 2) p athbreaking b ook o n ` new racism ’ focused m ainly upo n
British attitudes toward Afro-Caribbeans, it is interesting that only these data are
consistent with the `new racism’ pattern. That said, it is also possible that such
indirect forms of racism have become more characteristic of attitudes toward other
groups in the time since these data were collected. Future studies should account for
the possibility of such `covert ’ patterns of attitude, and thus be in a position to assess
its increase or decrease over time and place.
`Cultural racism ’toward Surinamese in the Netherlands. In attitudes regarding the
Surinamese, belief in cultural di
å
erence had a weak direct association with attitudes
(c¯®.160). Belief in cultural di
å
erences was, however, strongly related to racism
(u¯.401), which in turn had a strong direct e
å
ect on attitude (c¯.299). This
pattern suggests an indirect link between cultural di
å
erence and general attitude
mediated by racism. Such a pattern has been described by Balibar (1991) as
`di
å
erentialist [or cultural] racism’ (see also Myrdal, 1944; van den Berghe,
1967). Here, a belief in the out-group’s di
å
erence may lead to the conclusion
that their di
å
erences make them inferior. Of course, such an evaluation relies upon
an ethnocentric valuation of the in-group’s characteristics (Sumner, 1906}1940).
While results cannot con®rm this process of judgment, the pattern of results is
consistent with this explanation. Attitudes toward the Surinamese were the only case
where there was any indication of this pattern.
Dutch tolerance ? Those who know the Netherlands’ reputation as one of the more
tolerant countries in Western Europe may be surprised to see how strongly racism
was tied to attitudes toward the Turkish and Surinamese in Holland. It must be said,
however, that the Dutch expressed more positive attitudes toward the targeted out-
%Note that in showing this indirect model of racism t he authors by no means agree that it is a new form of the
phenomenon. Some time ago, Allport ( 1954 ) also recognized that although `[d]i
å
erence alone does not make for
hostility ¼the prejudiced person almos t always claims that some alleged di
å
erence is th e cause of [her or] his at titude’
(pp. 85±87, emphasis in original). The idea that group devaluation is the source of group di
å
erentiation has been
utilized to explain numerous historical examples of ethnic prejudice (see Allport, 1954, ch. 6; Banton, 1987, ch. 4;
Benedict, 1942}1959 ; Miles, 1989; Myrdal, 1944, ch. 4; Sartre, 1948}1976; Sumner, 1906}1940 ; Todorov, 1984; van
den Berghe, 1967), challenging the notion that such ind irect racism is new.
Is racis m dead ? 461
groups in their country than did the French, Western Germans or British. It was also
the case that the Dutch expressed the second and fourth lowest levels of racism at the
mean-level. Despite the appearance of tolerance (at the mean-level), however, Dutch
attitudes to ward both ou t-groups were mo re stron gly associated wit h racism than w ith
belief in cultural di
å
erence, as shown in Figs 2a±2b. In fact, for attitudes toward the
Turkish, racism was associated almost three times as strongly as belief in cultural
di
å
erence. These results are consistent with the argument that the Dutch are highly
concerned with appearing tolerant (as shown in their muted mean-level expression of
racism and general attitude toward out-groups), but have not necessarily internalized
non-racist norms. These data cannot identify the proximate causes of the patterns in
the Dutch data, but the results are quite consistent with previous quantitative and
qualitative research in the Netherlands (see Essed, 1991 ; Kleinpenning &
Hagendoorn, 1993 ; van Dijk, 1984, 1987 ; see also Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995 for
a relevant discussion).
Conclusions
This study set out to assess the role that racism plays in contemporary attitudes
regarding ethnic out-groups in France, the Netherlands, Western Germany and
Britain. It was argued that an appropriate assessment required attention to two
issues : the conceptualization of (`old’ and `new ’) racism and the di
å
erence between
its expressive and explanatory dynamics. In response to this argument, racism was
de®ned as a belief in the relative inferiority of ethnic out-groups and distinguished
from beliefs about the cultural di
å
erences of these groups. A two-level analytic
strategy was employed to deal with the possibility that the weak explicit endorsement
of racism might belie its explanatory signi®cance. Thus (expressive) means were
compared to (structural equation) models.
The r esults st rongly con ®rm th at ( `old ’ ) r acism is alive and well in Western
Europe despite the fact that respondents tend not to endorse such beliefs explicitly.
Despite high mean-level endorsement of cultural di
å
erences and a tendency toward
disagreement with racism, racism was a stronger predictor of general attitudes
toward out-groups in most cases. Interestingly, stronger endorsement of racism did
not necessarily translate into an association with attitudes. In Britain, for example,
mean-level endorsement of racism was higher than in the other countries. Despite
this stronger endorsement, however, British attitudes toward out-groups were the
least strongly associated with racism. Thus, expressive means had no direct bearing
on the explanatory models.
It is important to note that racism is not only involved with general attitudes
toward out-groups; it is also tied to more policy-oriented attitudes and behavioural
intentions. For example, using parallel analyses, relating racism and belief in cultural
di
å
erence to a concrete measure of support for various immigration policies (see
Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995), Leach (1994 ; see also Leach, 1995 ) found racism to be
strongly related to increasingly exclusive policy preferences. Racism had a stronger
association with immigration policy preferences than did belief in cultural di
å
erence
in every case except that of Afro-Caribbeans in Britain. While some of the
contemporary opposition to ethnic out-groups in Western Europe may truly be free
462 Colin Wayne Leach et al.
of racism, it is clear from these results that a fair portion of this opposition is tied up
with a belief in relative inferiority.
Many may be surprised by the role of racism in contemporary attitudes toward
ethnic out-groups. According to those who conduct large-scale surveys, small-scale
questionnaires, social cognitive experiments and analyses of discourse, racism is only
rarely expressed in contemporary society. At some level, the present authors agree
with this characterization. Most people in this study did not endorse a belief in the
inferior ity o f ethnic out-gro ups when asked by an interviewer. There is no doubt t hat
the open endorsement of racism is seen by most as unacceptable, and this is a
monumental change that has occurred mainly in the last 50 years (see Schuman
et al., 1985}1988). The present authors’ argument, however, is that this low
degree of endorsement at the mean level has been taken to mean more than it
should. Once there is aggregate variability in respondents’ level of (dis)agreement
with racism, low average agreement with or infrequent mention of racism does not
itself constitute evidence that racism is dead. The results show that variability in
(dis)agreement with racism is associated with variability in general attitudes toward
out-groups. This structural or explanatory approach to quantitatively measured
attitudes o
å
ers something quite di
å
erent from the examination of quantitative means
or the frequency of mention in qualitative interviews. As such, calls for the exclusive
use of subliminal priming, response latencies, and `implicit ’ measures of attitude as
an answer to the `new racis m’ may be prematu re (s ee e.g . Dev ine, 1989 ; D ovidio &
Fazio, 1991; Fazio et al., 1996; Greenwald & Banaji, 1995). Existing methods of
attitude measurement may be su
¬
cient to study the phenomenon if su
¬
cient
aggregate variability is attained.
The new racism thesis erroneously concluded from the weak endorsement and
infrequent expression of racism that a new form of sentiment had developed to allow
the open expression of opposition to ethnic out-groups. Although the results for
British attitudes toward Afro-Caribbeans showed that racism had an indirect relation
to attitudes through belief in cultural di
å
erence (as the new racism thesis suggests),
this pattern was clearly not present in the six other cases examined. Despite the
limited support for the new racism thesis, the approach developed here may serve as
a model for future examinations of the new racism idea. It is quite possible that, over
time, the indirect form of racism described as new racism will gain ascendance and
the means vs. models approach allows an empirical assessment of this possibility.
In addition to the one case of `new ’, indirect racism, and the ®ve examples of
straightforward, direct racism, Dutch attitudes toward the Surinamese conformed to
what has been called a cultural or di
å
erentialist racism. Thus, there were at least three
patterns by which racism was related to attitudes in this study : direct racism, indirect
(`new ’) racism, and cultural or di
å
erentialist racism. These results are consistent with
an approach that expects racism, and other types of ideology}discourse, to be
context-speci®c rather than universal in form (see Centre for Contemporary Cultural
Studies , 1982 ; Hall, 1980 ; Miles , 1989, 1993 ). This view is based in the notio n that
racisms are a way of interpreting and talking about intergroup relationships, based
in speci®c political, economic, cultural and psychological conditions (see Wetherell
& Potter, 1992). Social psychology has, as a ®eld, invested little in the examination
of the substantive nature of racism or prejudice, typically assuming that all such
Is racis m dead ? 463
sentiment shares a common cause and expression (Leach, 1995, 1998). Accepting the
possibility of multiple racisms allows for the closer examination of how it is that
context a
å
ects the content and structure of ideology and discourse. Finding a way to
integrate a contextualist perspective with the social psychological approach to
prejudice-as-attitudes is a challenge for future work in this area.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by an H. H. Rackham graduate fellowship and a U. C. Berkeley
Chancellor’s post-doctoral fellowship to the ®rst author, a Jacob Javits graduate fellowship to the
second, and an NIMH pre-doctoral fellowship to the third author. Additional support was provided by
the International Institute and the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan as well
as by Swarthmore College faculty research funds.
The auth ors tha nk J ames S . J ackson and the `Internation al Wo rk G roup ’ for their gene rous sup port.
They also thank Russell Spears, Jacquie Mattis, Nastia Snider, Roel Meertens, Nancy Mirabal, Lara
Tiedens, Tom Pettigrew, the `brownbag’ participants at the University of Amsterdam department of
social psychology, and several anonymous reviewers, for their helpful comments on previous versions
of this paper.
Portions of this paper were presented at the 1994 annual convention of the American Psychological
Association, Los Angeles, California.
References
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA : Addison-Wesley.
Balibar, E. (1991 ). Is there a neo-racism ? In E. Balibar & I. Wallerstein (Eds.), Race,nation,class:
Ambiguous identities (pp. 17±28 ). London: Verso.
Balibar, E., & Wallerstein, I. (Eds.). (1991). Race,nation,class : Ambiguous iden tities. London: Verso.
Banton, M. (1987). Racial theories. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Barker, M. (1981}1982). The new racism : Conservatives and the ideology of th e tribe. Frederick, MD :
University Publications of America.
Benedict, R. (1942}1959). Race and racism. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Billig, M. (1982 ). Ideology and social psychology. Oxford : Blackwell.
Bobo, L., & Kluegel, J. R. (1991). Modern American prejudice : Stereotypes,social distance,and perceptions of
discrimination toward Blacks,Hispanics,and Asians. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Sociological Association, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Brewer, M. B. (1986). The role of ethnocentrism in intergroup con¯ict. In S. Worschel & W. G. Austin
(Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 88±102). Chicago, IL : Nelson-Hall.
Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (Eds. ). (1982). The Empire strikes back: Race and racism in 70s
Britain. London: Routledge.
Condor, S. (1987 ). `Race stereotypes ’ and racist discourse. Text,8, 69±89.
Delacampagne, C. (1990 ). Racism and the west : From praxis to logos. In D. T. Goldberg (Ed.),
Anatomy of racism (pp. 83±88). Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Press.
Devine, P. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,56, 5±18.
Dovidio, J. F., & Fazio, R. H. (1991). New technologies for the direct and indirect assessment of
attitudes. In J. Tanur (Ed.). Questions about survey questions : Meaning,memory,attitudes and social
interaction (pp. 204±237). New York : Russell Sage Foundation.
Essed, P. (1991). Understanding everyday racism : An interdisciplinary theory. New bury Park, CA: Sag e.
Esses, V. M., Haddock, G., & Zanna, M. (1993). Values, stereotypes, and emotions as determinants of
intergroup attitudes. In D. M. Mackie & D. L. Hamilton (Eds.), A
å
ect,cognition and stereotyping (pp.
137±166). San Diego, CA : Academic Press.
464 Colin Wayne Leach et al.
Fazio, R. H., Jackson, J. R., Dunton, B. C., &Williams, C. J. (1996). Variability in automatic activation
as an unobtrusive mea sure of racial attitudes : A bona ®de pipeline ? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,69, 1013±11027.
Fields, B. J. (1990). Slavery, race, and ideology in the United States of America. New Left Review,181,
95±118.
Fiske, S. (1989). Examining the role of intent : Toward understanding its role in stereotyping and
prejudice. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp. 253±283). New York:
Guilford.
Ford, G. (1991). Committee of inquiry on racism and xenophobia: Report of the ®ndings of the inquiry.
Luxembourg: O
¬
ce for O
¬
cial Publications of the European Community.
Fox, R. (1992). Prejudice and the un®nished mind : A n ew look a t a n o ld failing. Psychological Inquiry,
3, 137±152.
Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition : Attitudes, self-esteem, and
stereotypes. Psychological Review,102(1), 4±27.
Guillaumin, C. (1995). Racism,sexism,power and ideology. London : Routledge.
Hall, S. (1980). Race, articulation and societies structured in dominance. In UNESCO (Ed.), Sociological
theories,race and colonialism. Paris : UNESCO.
Hamberger, J., & Hewstone, M. (1997). Inter-ethnic contact as a predictor of blatant and subtle
prejudice : Tests of a model in four Western European nations. British Journal of Social Psychology ,36,
173±190.
Hammer, T. (1990). Democracy and the Nation State: Aliens,denizens and citizens in a world of international
migration. Aldershot : Ave bury.
Henriques, J. (1984). Social psychology and the politics of racism. In J. Henriques, W. Holloway, C.
Urwin, C. Venne, & V. Walkerdine (Eds.), Ch anging the subject : Psychology,social regulation and
subjectivity (pp. 60±89). London: Methuen.
Hopkins, N., Reicher, S., & Levine, M. (1997). On the parallels between social cognition and the `new
racism ’, British Journal of Social Psychology,36, 305±329.
Hraba, J., Hagendoorn, L., & Hagendoorn, R. (1989). The ethnic hierarchy in the Netherlands : Social
distance and social representation. British Journal of Social Psychology,28, 57±69.
Jetten, J., Spears, R., & Manstead, A. S. R. (1997). Distinctiveness threat and prototypicality :
Combined e
å
ects on intergroup discrimination and collective self-esteem. European Journal of Social
Psychology,27, 635±657.
Jo
$reskog, K. G., & So
$rbom, D. (1989). LISREL 7 Users Reference. Mooresville, IN: S cienti®c Software
Inc.
Judd, C. M., Park, B., Ryan, C. S., Brauer, M., & Kraus, S. (1995). Stereotypes and ethnocentrism :
Interethnic perceptions of African-American and White American youth. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology,69, 460±481.
Kleinpenning, G., & Hagendoorn, L. (1993). Forms of racism and the cumulative dimension of ethnic
attitudes. Social Psychology Quarterly,56(1), 21±36.
Lawrence , E. (1982). Just plain com mon sense : The ` roots ’ of racism. In C entre for Contempora ry
Cultural Studies (Ed.), The Empire strikes back: Race and racism in 70s Britain (pp. 47±94 ). London :
Routledge.
Leach, C. W. (1994 August). Racialized vs. cultural di
å
erences in ethnic attitudes. Paper presented as part of
the symposium, C ross-National Perspectives on Preju dice and Intergrou p Relations (L. Bobo, Chair),
at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles, CA.
Leach, C. W. (1995). Ethnic prejudice(s)as a ttitudes : An eco-phen omenological approach. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.
Leach, C. W. (1998). Toward a social psychology of racism ? : Comment on ` On social cognition and
the `` new rac ism ’’’ by Hopkins, Reiche r, & Le vine, 199 7. British Journal of Social Psychology ,28,
255±258.
Levine, R. A., & Campbell, D. T. (1972). Ethnocentrism. New York : Wiley.
McConahay, J. B. (1986). Modern racism, ambivalence, and the Modern Racism Scale. In S. L. Gaertner
& J. F. Dovidio (Eds.), Prejudice,discrimination,and racism (pp. 9 1±125). New York : Acade mic P ress.
Miles, R. (1989). Racism. London : Routledge.
Miles, R. (1993). Racism after `race relations ’. London : Routledge.
Is racis m dead ? 465
Myrdal, G. (1944). An American dilemma : The Negro problem and democracy. New York : Harper & Row.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Meertens, R. (1995). Subtle and blatant prejudice in Western Europe. European
Journal of Social Psychology ,25, 57±75.
Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology : Beyond attitudes and behaviour. London :
Sage.
Reeves, F. (1983 ). British racial discourse: A study of British political discourse about race and race-related
matters. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Reif, C. H., & Melich, A. (1991). Euro-Barometer 30 : Immigrants and outgroups in Western Europe,
October±November,1988 (computer ®le). Conducted by Faits et Opinions, Paris, ICPSR ed.
Ann Arbor, MI : Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (producer and
distributor).
Rokeach, M., Smith, P. W., & Evans, R. I. (1960). Two kinds of prejudice or one? In M. Rokeach
(Ed.), The open and closed mind (pp. 13 2±170). New York : B asic Books.
Said, W. W. (1978}1994). Orientalism. New York : Vintage.
Sartre, J. P. (1948}1976). Anti-Semite and Jew. New York: Schocken Book Inc.
Schuman, H., Steeh, C., & Bobo, L. (1985}1988). Racial attitudes in A merica: Trends and interpretations.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Sears, D. O. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: In¯uences of a narrow data base on
psychology’s view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,51, 515±530.
Sears, D. O. (1988). Symbolic racism. In P. Katz & D. Taylor. (Eds.), Eliminating racism : Pro®les in
controversy (pp. 53±84). New York : Plenum.
Sumner, W. G. (1906}1940). Folkways: A study of the sociological importance of usages,manners,customs,
mores,and morals. Boston, MA : Ginn & Col.
Taguie
å
, P. A. (1990). The new cultural racism in France. Telos,83, 109±122.
Tajfel, H. (1982). Instrumentality, identity and social comparisons. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social identity and
intergroup relations (pp. 483±507). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Todorov, T. (1984). The conquest of America : T he question of th e other (R. Howard, Trans.). New
York : Harper Row.
Todorov, T. (1986). `Race,’ writing, and culture. In H. L. Gates, Jr. (Ed.), `Race,’ writing,and di
å
erence
(pp. 370±380 ). Chicago, IL : University of Chicago Press.
UNESCO (Ed.) (1980). Sociological theories of race and colonialism. Paris: UNESCO.
van den Berghe, P. L. (1967). Race and racism. New York : Wiley.
van Dijk, T. A. (1984). Prejudice in discourse : An analysis of ethnic prejudice in cognition and conversation.
Amsterdam : J. Benjamins.
van Dijk, T. A. (1987). Communicating racism : Ethnic prejudice in thought and talk. London : Sage.
Wagner, U., & Zick, A. (1995 ). The relation of formal education to ethnic prejudice: Its reliability,
validity, and explanation. European Journal of Social Psychology,25, 41±56.
Wetherell, M., & Potter, J. (1992). Mappin g the lan guage of racism : Discourse and the legitimation of
exploration. New York: Columbia University Press.
Wilson, W. J. (1973). Power,racism,and privilege. New York : Free Press.
Received 8 September 1998 ; revised version received 21 June 1999
