The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER TEN EXPLAINING DISCRIMINATORY ATTITUDES - CULTURAL THREAT AND CULTURAL DIVERSITY

Introduction

10.1 In the first part of this report we described the character of apparently discriminatory attitudes in Scotland and examined how these attitudes have changed in recent years. In this and the next chapter we look at possible explanations of why people hold such attitudes. In particular, we describe a number of questions that were included in the survey in order to assess the validity of certain social psychological explanations, look at the relationship between them and examine how well they enable us to understand people's attitudes towards prejudice in general. In the next chapter we examine how far the answers to those questions enable us to account for people's attitudes towards specific groups in each of the three contexts addressed by our research.

Background

10.2 In our previous work, based on the 2002 Scottish Social Attitudes survey, we argued that who is and who is not most likely to express a discriminatory viewpoint is best explained by a 'psychological' account (Bromley and Curtice, 2003). Such an account argues that people's views are influenced by the affective identities to which they adhere and their images of those who do not share the same identities as themselves (Tajfel and Turner, 1979). Those who have a strong sense of belonging to a particular social group and, at the same time, have negative images of those who belong to other social groups are expected to be particularly likely to profess discriminatory viewpoints (Stephan and Renfro, 2002). For example, those who have a strong sense of national identity (such as 'British' or 'Scottish') and who feel that those who belong to an ethnic minority support cultural values that threaten what they regard as 'the British (or Scottish) way of life' are thought particularly likely to express discriminatory attitudes towards ethnic minorities. ¹⁵

10.3 Our emphasis on the psychological basis of discriminatory attitudes was echoed by Abrams and Houston (2006) in work on prejudice they conducted for the Cabinet Office Equalities Review. They argued that 'what sets the most negatively perceived groups apart is the higher levels [sic] of cultural and physical threats that they pose' (p. 77) - in short, prejudice is most prevalent when a group is imbued by others with a negative image or stereotype that arouses negative emotions such as fear or disgust.

10.4 One of our key pieces of evidence for our claim about the importance of a psychological explanation was that our 2002 survey found people were far more likely to say that 'sometimes there is good reason for people to be prejudiced against certain groups' if they stated they preferred to live in an area where most people are similar to themselves, than if they said they liked to live in a neighbourhood containing lots of different kinds of people. ¹⁶ This pattern is replicated in our current study. Just 17% of those who say they would prefer to live with different kinds of people also say that sometimes there is good reason to be prejudiced. In contrast, 41% of those who said that they preferred to live with people similar to themselves expressed that view.

10.5 However, at the same time, our previous research also ascertained that people were less likely to express a discriminatory attitude towards a particular group if they felt that members of that group had a lot in common with the rest of society - or indeed if they simply knew someone who belonged to that group. As noted in previous chapters that latter finding is also replicated in our current study.

10.6 In combination, these findings could be regarded as contradictory. On the one hand, discriminatory attitudes are less common among people who prefer to live amidst diversity; on the other, it seems they are also less likely to occur amongst people who do not consider others to be different from themselves. In this chapter, we try to examine whether it is possible to ascertain which of these perspectives is the more important in accounting for attitudes towards prejudice.

10.7 We do so by developing measures of 'cultural threat' and 'cultural diversity'. The first of these is designed to tap the fears that people may have about the impact on 'their' culture of the presence of people who are seen as 'different'. It is intended to help us tap the fears that people may have when they do not feel that a group has something in common with themselves. The second is intended to capture the degree to which people feel at ease when exposed to public displays of cultural practices that they may regard as 'alien' or 'unusual'. Our aim here is to capture the degree to which people feel emotionally at ease in the presence of what they may consider to be 'difference'. By comparing the relative importance of these two orientations in accounting for discriminatory attitudes, we hope to cast some light on whether such attitudes are more likely to be reduced if people are persuaded to embrace difference, or whether instead this is more likely to happen if people are encouraged to feel they have something in common with members of other groups.

Measuring perceptions of 'cultural threat' and 'cultural diversity'

10.8 In order to try and tap these two potentially somewhat separate aspects of the psychological basis of discriminatory attitudes we developed a number of questionnaire items that were not included in our earlier research. Three of these items addressed directly the degree to which those in different groups were perceived to pose a 'cultural threat'. These were:

Scotland would begin to lose its identity if more Muslims came to live in Scotland

Scotland would begin to lose its identity if more people from Eastern Europe came to live in Scotland

and

Scotland would begin to lose its identity if more black and Asian people came to live in Scotland

While a more positively worded item was:

People from outside Britain who come to live in Scotland make the country a better place.

10.9 The answers these items secured certainly suggest there is a widespread perception that certain groups could pose a cultural threat. As we have already seen in Chapter Seven, as many as 50% agree that Scotland would lose its identity if more Muslims were to come to live in the country; only 31% disagree. At 45% and 34% respectively, the equivalent figures for people from Eastern Europe are not dissimilar. Equally, they are also much the same in respect of black and Asian people (46% and 35% respectively). On the other hand a rather less negative view is taken of the claim that people from outside Britain who come to live in Scotland make the country a better place. Only 25% disagree with this statement while 34% agree. Nevertheless, 40% neither agree nor disagree, suggesting that most people regard such immigration, at best, as a mixed blessing.

10.10 Meanwhile, we also developed two items that were designed to tap people's affective or emotional reaction to being exposed to cultural practices that they might regard as 'alien' or 'unusual', and thus might tap how far people felt comfortable living in a culturally diverse environment. The first of these two measures was:

Some people say they feel comfortable if they see a woman breastfeeding her child in public. Others say they feel uncomfortable. How comfortable or uncomfortable does it make you feel if you see a woman breastfeeding her child in public?

10.11 Respondents were asked to answer using a five point scale ranging from 'very comfortable' to 'very uncomfortable'. Our second item was worded similarly except that it referred to:

A Muslim woman with her face covered

10.12 This latter practice is of course a highly visible and distinctive symbol of adherence to the Muslim faith. It thus makes highly visible an apparent cultural difference between Muslims and both adherents of other faiths and those who do not practice any religion at all. Meanwhile, recently the practice has been the subject of some debate and controversy. In particular the discomfort it appears capable of evoking was demonstrated when a senior member of the UK government, Jack Straw, indicated in October 2006 that he asked Muslim women who attended his constituency surgery to take off their veil on the grounds that it acted as a barrier to effective face to face communication.

10.13 In contrast, under the terms of the Breastfeeding etc (Scotland) Act 2005, it is now illegal in Scotland to debar a woman from breastfeeding in public. This might be thought to mean that such a practice is now widely culturally accepted and that thus lack of discomfort with the practice hardly constitutes evidence of acceptance of an 'unusual' cultural practice. However, the fact that Holyrood has recently felt it necessary to pass such a law is an implicit recognition of the fact that some people do still object to the practice. In any event its social acceptability may be considered relatively recent in origin, a reflection of both more liberal mores about the public exposure of women's breasts and the promotion of breastfeeding by the medical profession. Thus we should not be surprised if some people (and perhaps particularly those of an older generation) do in fact feel uncomfortable with a practice that for them is associated with a set of cultural values (in particular about sexuality and nudity) which they regard as 'different' (Li et al, 2002; Li et al, 2004). In this respect attitudes towards breastfeeding may be regarded as an indicator of feelings about difference; the question of whether, in combination with attitudes towards the veil, it helps to provide a reliable measure of feelings about cultural diversity in general is discussed further in para 10.23 below.

10.14 As we might expect, of the two practices, that of a Muslim woman covering her face in public is more likely to evoke discomfort. Just over one in five (22%) say they feel uncomfortable seeing a Muslim woman wearing a veil, while just one in ten (10%) say the same about a mother breastfeeding. Nevertheless, even in the case of the Muslim woman more people - 31% - say they feel comfortable with the practice of using a veil than say they are uncomfortable. Still, with as many as 45% saying they feel neither comfortable nor uncomfortable, we might surmise that use of the veil is not necessarily a practice with which many people in Scotland feel entirely comfortable (although of course such a response could also simply indicate indifference). In contrast, two-thirds of people in Scotland (67%) say they actually feel comfortable about seeing a woman breastfeeding in public.

10.15 Meanwhile, we also included one further item that was intended to tap views about the relative importance of, on the one hand, protecting minority cultures and, on the other hand, promoting the 'majority' culture. Respondents were presented with a 'show card' (displayed below) containing five boxes and were then asked:

Some people say it's much better if people who move to Scotland from other countries keep their own distinct customs and traditions. They would place themselves in box B on this scale. Others say it's much better if people who move here adapt and blend into the larger society. They would place themselves in box K. Others have views that are somewhere in between. Which box best describes your view?

10.16 We anticipated that those who favoured the former view, denoting support for the maintenance of minority cultures, would be less likely to express discriminatory attitudes than those who took the latter position that emphasises the importance of everyone being part of the majority culture. In the rest of this report we refer to this scale as the minority vs. majority culture scale.

10.17 There is far more support for the proposition that migrants to Scotland should 'adapt and blend into the larger society' than there is for the argument that they should 'keep their own distinct customs and traditions'. As many as 33% put themselves in the box that indicated the strongest level of support for 'adapt and blend', while another 21% placed themselves in the box adjacent to that. In contrast just 5% professed strong support for maintaining distinct customs and traditions, while only 7% put themselves in the box next to that. It is worth noting, however, that a third put themselves in the middle box, suggesting a reasonable degree of support for a position which recognises the value and interests of both minority and majority cultures.

The structure of perceptions

10.18 Our immediate interest in the seven new survey questions we have just described is not, however, in how many people adopt a particular viewpoint. Rather we are concerned to establish whether they do in fact identify two distinct psychological orientations of 'cultural threat' and 'cultural diversity' - and whether both those orientations are linked to the key psychological measure in our 2002 research, that is the kind of area in which people would prefer to live. In order to establish this we undertook a factor analysis of all seven items, together with that question on the kind of area in which people say they would like to live. Factor analysis is a statistical technique that identifies which of a set of variables is closely associated with which other variables, and with which less so. (Two statements can be said to be 'closely associated' if those who agree with one statement are either particularly likely to agree or particularly likely to disagree with the other.) Where two or more variables are closely associated with each other they are said to form part of a single underlying 'factor' or dimension. If it is the case that our seven new items tap two rather different psychological orientations, both of which are reflected in people's attitudes towards the kind of area in which they live, we would expect to uncover two different dimensions, and that both of these are associated to some degree with people's views about the kind of area in which they would prefer to live.

Table 10.1 Dimensions of psychological orientations

10.19 Table 10.1 provides a simple summary of the results of our analysis (full details can be found in Annex A). It shows the dimensions that were identified by the factor analysis, and which questions belong to each dimension. We can see that for the most part our expectations are upheld. The analysis uncovered two dimensions, largely corresponding to our 'cultural threat' and 'cultural diversity' orientations. Meanwhile both of these orientations are associated with people's preferences for the kind of place in which they live.

10.20 The first dimension includes the three items on the threat that an increase in the number of people from a particular social group would pose to Scotland's identity. It also includes our question on whether those who come from outside Britain to live in Scotland make the country a better place to live. Moreover this dimension is associated with people's attitudes towards the kind of community in which they would prefer to live. Those who feel that more Muslims, Eastern Europeans or black and Asian people would pose a threat to Scotland's identity are also more likely to say that they prefer to live alongside people who are similar to themselves. The same is true of those who do not feel that immigrants make the country a better place.

10.21 The second dimension includes how comfortable people feel with seeing a woman breastfeeding in public and how comfortable they are seeing a Muslim woman with her face covered. Those who say they are uncomfortable about seeing a Muslim woman with her face covered are also somewhat more likely to say that they are uncomfortable seeing a woman breastfeeding in public. ¹⁷ At the same time this dimension is also associated with the kind of place in which people would prefer to live. Those who are comfortable with both of these practices are more likely to say that they feel comfortable living in an area with different kinds of people. However, those who express discomfort about seeing breastfeeding or the veil in public are not particularly more likely to feel that more Muslims, Eastern Europeans or black and Asian people would pose a threat to Scotland's identity. Thus, for example, 44% of those who feel comfortable seeing a woman breastfeeding in public agree that having more Eastern Europeans in Scotland would threaten the country's identity, only a little lower than the equivalent figure of 57% amongst those who do not feel comfortable. This is why our factor analysis has placed these two sets of questions in different dimensions.

10.22 We thus appear to have unpacked somewhat the psychological orientation that our previous research suggested is an important source of discriminatory attitudes. Some of our survey questions appear primarily to tap the degree to which people feel that those who might be considered 'outsiders' to Scotland are thought to pose a 'cultural threat' to existing Scottish society. In contrast, other survey questions appear primarily to help tap the degree to which people feel emotionally comfortable living in a diverse society.

10.23 Nevertheless, it should be borne in mind that our second dimension is based on just two items. This inevitably means that it encompasses a very limited range of cultural practices, while both those that it did cover focus specifically on the role of women. It is thus possible that, as a result of limitations on questionnaire space, the survey was less successful in securing a reliable measure of cultural diversity than it was of cultural threat. This possibility needs to be borne in mind when assessing the results in this and the subsequent chapter.

10.24 Meanwhile, our five point scale question about the relative importance that should be assigned to minority and majority cultures does not appear to fit in particularly well with either of our dimensions. While the factor analysis does suggest that those who think that migrants to Scotland should adapt and blend into the wider society are somewhat more likely to express attitudes that signify concern about cultural threat, the pattern is not a strong one. (This is why we have placed a bracket around its entry on the first dimension.) At the same time responses to the scale do not appear to be associated with our second dimension at all. We will return to why this might be the case shortly (see para 10.32).

10.25 In the meantime we appear to have the basis to construct two scales. First, to form a cultural threat scale we add together respondents' 'scores' on each of the three items about whether Scotland's identity might be threatened, together with the question on whether immigrants make Scotland a better place to live. In each case respondents could give one of five answers, and we have scored these so that for each question the answer signifying the lowest level of cultural threat has a score of one, and the answer indicating the greatest concern a score of five. We then sum each respondent's score across all four questions and divide the result by four, thereby giving each respondent an average 'cultural threat' score. The higher that score the more a respondent is thought to be concerned about 'cultural threat'. For presentational purposes we have then simplified this scale by bringing together into one group all those with an average score of less than two and a half (that is those who feel least threatened), into a second group those with a score of more than three and a half (the most threatened), while those with a score in between those two bands comprise a third category (the moderately threatened).

10.26 The second scale measuring cultural diversity is constructed in much the same manner, but is based on our questions on breastfeeding and use of the veil in public. In both cases those who are 'very comfortable' with a practice have a score of one, those who are 'very uncomfortable' a score of five. Thus the higher someone's score, the more discomfited they are by displays of cultural diversity. In this case the resulting average scores are divided into four groups, those with a score of one (the very comfortable), those with a tally of more than one but no more than two (the mostly comfortable), those with a rating of more than two but no more than three (the neither comfortable nor uncomfortable), and finally those with a score of more than three (the uncomfortable).

Table 10.2 Distribution of views on Cultural Threat and Cultural Diversity Scales

10.27 The distribution of positions on the two scales is shown in Table 10.2. The cultural threat scale discriminates between people quite effectively. A third fall into the 'least threatened' category, and they are almost equally balanced by just over a third (38%) who fall into the 'most threatened' group. In contrast nearly half (45%) fall into the 'neither comfortable nor uncomfortable' category on the cultural diversity scale, while little more than around one in ten or one in six belong to either end. This scale is evidently less successful than the cultural threat scale at distinguishing between people's views. This may be because, as indicated above, it is based on only two items.

Which perception matters most?

10.28 But how well do our two scales account for the incidence of discriminatory attitudes? In order to obtain a first answer to this question we can use our overall measure of a prejudicial outlook first introduced in Chapter Two, that is whether someone feels that 'sometimes there is good reason to be prejudiced against certain groups'. Are those who feel less threatened culturally less likely than those who do feel threatened to express this view? Are those who are less comfortable about diversity more likely to do so than those who feel more comfortable?

10.29 We can see from Table 10.3 that both patterns are apparent. Half of those who are most concerned about cultural threat say that sometimes there is good reason to be prejudiced. In contrast no more than one in eight (13%) of those who feel least threatened culturally support that view. Table 10.4 highlights that much the same pattern is found in respect of the cultural diversity scale. Nearly half (47%) of those who feel uncomfortable say there is sometimes good reason to be prejudiced, compared with only around one in six (16%) of those who feel very comfortable. However, the gap between those in the first and last categories on the cultural diversity scale is somewhat smaller than that on the cultural threat scale (31 points rather than 37). ¹⁸ It would seem that the cultural threat scale is rather better than its cultural diversity counterpart at accounting for who takes a prejudicial viewpoint.

Table 10.3 Incidence of overall prejudice by concern about cultural threat

Table 10.4 Incidence of overall prejudice by feelings about cultural diversity

Table 10.5 Incidence of overall prejudice by minority versus majority culture scale

10.30 Meanwhile Table 10.5 also shows us how the level of support for prejudice varies according to the answer given on the minority vs. majority culture scale. Those who placed themselves in the box labelled 'keep their own customs and traditions' are on the left hand side of the table, and have been given a nominal score of '1'. Those who placed themselves in the nearest adjacent box to this comprise the group with a nominal score of '2', while those who placed themselves in the middle box are those with a score of '3', and so on.

10.31 We can see that there is a distinctive pattern. As we might expect, those who believe that migrants should adapt and blend into the wider society are most likely to express a prejudicial viewpoint; as many as 43% do so. But thereafter the group that is next most likely to state that sometimes there is good reason to be prejudiced are those who say that migrant groups should keep their own distinct customs and traditions - as many as 33% take that view. It is those who place themselves somewhere in between our two poles who are least supportive of prejudice.

10.32 This analysis helps us to understand why our scale did not clearly form part of either of the two dimensions that emerged from our factor analysis at Table 10.1. above. In undertaking that analysis we assumed that the outlook of those who placed themselves in the 'keep traditions' box contrasted most sharply of all with the views of those who put themselves in the 'adapt and blend' box. This is evidently not the case. Rather than necessarily indicating positive support for a diversity of cultures, it appears that some of those who placed themselves in the 'keep their own customs and traditions' box were saying that migrant groups should confine themselves to those customs and traditions and should not be allowed to become part of wider Scottish society. Those who placed themselves in the middle, in contrast, may well have been indicating that migrant groups should be able to become part of wider society without necessarily having to lose (all of) the distinctive customs and traditions of the society from which they have migrated.

10.33 We are still left with one important question - are the three patterns that we have found in Tables 10.3, 10.4 and 10.5 separate from each other? For example, once we know where someone stands on our cultural threat scale, does their attitude towards whether immigrant groups should keep their customs or adapt and blend tell us anything more about their likelihood of adopting a prejudicial viewpoint? And most importantly for our main purpose, can we confirm which of our scales is the best predictor of someone's chances of supporting a prejudicial viewpoint?

10.34 We can answer these questions by undertaking multivariate analysis. In undertaking this we examine for each of our three scales the strength of the association between someone's attitude to prejudice and their scale score, while simultaneously taking into account the association between their attitude to prejudice and their score on the other two scales. The results of the analysis (shown in Annex A to this report) are relatively straightforward. By far the best predictor of someone's attitude to prejudice is their score on the cultural threat scale. Although both the cultural diversity scale and the minority vs majority culture scale also have a small if statistically significant association with a prejudicial outlook, in both cases the association is clearly much weaker than it is in the case of the cultural threat scale.

Conclusion

10.35 So from this initial analysis it would appear that the psychological orientation that better accounts for the incidence of discriminatory attitudes is fear of cultural threat, rather than discomfiture with the existence of cultural diversity. Fear that a social group to which one does not belong poses a threat to the maintenance of one's own culture and identity appears to be a potent wellspring of prejudice. On its own, acceptance of cultural diversity seems to play a more minor role in discouraging discriminatory attitudes (though we have to bear in mind the limitations of our measure of that concept). Indeed, as we have seen, apparent support for the distinctive traditions of those who move to Scotland may in fact be associated with a wish to maintain cultural separation, rather than a positive endorsement of the culture of others. Instead it appears to be those who feel that the culture of migrant groups should be respected, but that such groups should also have access to the culture of the wider society who seem least likely to uphold a discriminatory outlook.

10.36 The importance of perceived cultural threat as a source of discriminatory attitudes uncovered in this analysis clearly echoes the findings of Abrams and Houston (2006). However, they also argued that cultural threat was more important in understanding attitudes towards some groups, such as gay men and lesbians or black and Asian people, than it was in respect of other groups such as older people or people with disabilities. Equally, as we suggested in the introduction to this report, it may be a more important source of discriminatory attitudes in more intimate contexts than in less intimate ones (see also Abrams and Houston, 2006: 65). In the next chapter therefore we try to chart whether there are important differences between different groups or different contexts in the degree to which cultural threat appears to be a source of a discriminatory point of view.

Key points:

• This chapter attempts to uncover the psychological orientations underlying discriminatory attitudes. It suggests two possibilities. The first is a concern that those who might be considered 'outsiders' to Scotland pose a threat to the culture of the existing society. The second is discomfiture about living in a society that is culturally diverse.
• Discriminatory attitudes appear to be underpinned by concerns about cultural threat more than they are about concerns over cultural diversity.
• In some cases it also appears that apparent support for the distinctive traditions of those who come to Scotland reflects a desire to maintain a distance from people with different cultural practices, rather than a willingness positively to endorse other cultures.

« Previous | Contents | Next »