Whereas research on generalized prejudice is dominated by variable-centered approaches, which focus on communalities between different types of prejudice, we propose a complementary person-centered approach, looking for subgroups of people characterized by similar patterns of prejudice. To this end, we compare the results of a variable-centered (using confirmatory factor analysis [CFA]) and a person-centered (using latent class analysis [LCA]) approach to generalized prejudice. While CFA points to a multidimensional solution with a strong overlap between prejudice dimensions, LCA distinguishes five prejudice patterns that cannot be organized along a linear continuum of more versus less prejudiced dispositions. Explanatory models for the two solutions are estimated. Results show that the two methods are largely complementary in conceptualizing generalized prejudice.
AkramiN.EkehammarB.BerghR. (2011). Generalized prejudice: Common and specific components. Psychological Science, 22, 57–59.
2.
AllportG. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. New York, NY: Doubleday.
3.
AsendorpfJ. B. (2003). Head-to-head comparison of the predictive validity of personality types and dimensions. European Journal of Personality, 17, 327–346.
4.
BäckströmM.BjörklundF. (2007). Structural modeling of generalized prejudice. Journal of Individual Differences, 28, 10–17.
5.
BeierleinC.KuntzA.DavidovE. (2016). Universalism, conservation and attitudes toward minority groups. Social Science Research, 58, 68–79.
6.
BerghR.AkramiN. (2016). Generalized prejudice: Old wisdom and new perspectives. In SibleyC. G.BarlowF. K. (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of the psychology of prejudice (pp. 438–460). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
7.
BerghR.AkramiN.SidaniusJ.SibleyC. G. (2016). Is group membership necessary for understanding generalized prejudice? A re-evaluation of why prejudices are interrelated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111, 367–395.
8.
BillietJ.De WitteH. (2008). Everyday racism as predictor of political racism in Flemish Belgium. Journal of Social Issues, 64, 253–267.
9.
BlalockH. M. (1967). Toward a theory of minority-group relations. New York, NY: John Wiley.
10.
BlantonH.JaccardJ. (2006). Arbitrary metrics in psychology. American Psychologist, 61, 27–41.
11.
BrattC. (2005). The structure of attitudes toward non-Western immigrant groups: Second-order factor analysis of attitudes among Norwegian adolescents. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 8, 447–469.
12.
BrownT. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
13.
CollinsL. M.LanzaS. T. (2010). Latent class and latent transition analysis. With applications in the social, behavioral, and health sciences. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
14.
CrandallC. S.EshlemanA.O’BrienL. (2002). Social norms and the expression and suppression of prejudice: The struggle for internalization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 359–378.
15.
DassonnevilleR.Falk PedersenE.GriebA.HoogheM. (2014). Belgian election panel 2009–2014: Technical Report. Leuven, Belgium: University of Leuven.
16.
DuckittJ. (1992). The social psychology of prejudice. New York, NY: Praeger.
17.
DuckittJ. (2001). A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. In ZannaM. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 41–113). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
18.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. C.GlickP.XuJ. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902.
19.
GrazianoW. G.BruceJ.SheeseB. E.TobinR. M. (2007). Attraction, personality, and prejudice: Liking none of the people most of the time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 565–582.
20.
HagendoornL. (1995). Intergroup biases in multiple group systems: The perception of ethnic hierarchies. European Review of Social Psychology, 6, 199–228.
21.
HodsonG.DhontK. (2015). The person-based nature of prejudice: Individual difference predictors of intergroup negativity. European Review of Social Psychology, 26, 1–42.
22.
KleinO.LicataL.Van der LindenN.MercyA.LuminetO. (2012). A waffle-shaped model for how realistic dimensions of the Belgian conflict structure collective memories and stereotypes. Memory Studies, 5, 16–31.
23.
KunovichR. M. (2004). Social structural position and prejudice: An exploration of cross-national differences in regression slopes. Social Science Research, 33, 20–44.
24.
LubkeG.MuthénB. O. (2007). Performance of factor mixture models as a function of model size, covariate effects, and class-specific parameters. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14, 26–47.
25.
MackieD. M.SmithE. R. (2014). Intergroup emotions. In DovidioJ.SimpsonJ. (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology (Vol. II: Interpersonal Relationships and Group Processes, pp. 263–294). Washington, DC: APA Press.
26.
McCutcheonA. L. (1985). A latent class analysis of tolerance for nonconformity in the American public. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 49, 474–488.
27.
McFarlandS. G. (2010). Authoritarianism, social dominance, and other roots of generalized prejudice. Political Psychology, 31, 453–477.
28.
MeeusenC. (2017). The structure of (generalized) prejudice: The relation between contextual factors and different types of prejudice (Doctoral dissertation). University of Leuven, Belgium. Retrieved fromhttps://lirias.kuleuven.be/handle/123456789/568960
29.
MeeusenC.BarlowF. K.SibleyC. G. (2017). Generalized and specific components of prejudice: The decomposition of intergroup context effects. European Journal of Social Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:0.1002/ejsp.2252
30.
MeeusenC.BoonenJ.DassonnevilleR. (in press). The structure of prejudice and its relation to party preferences in Belgium: Flanders and Wallonia compared. Psychologica Belgica.
31.
MeeusenC.DhontK. (2015). Parent–child similarity in common and specific components of prejudice: The role of ideological attitudes and political discussion. European Journal of Personality, 29, 585–598.
32.
MeeusenC.KernA. (2016). The effect of contextual factors on the association between different forms of prejudice: A cross-national approach on generalized prejudice. Social Science Research, 55, 1–15.
33.
MeulemanB.AbtsK.SlootmaeckersK.MeeusenC. (in press). Differentiated threat and the genesis of prejudice. Group-specific antecedents of homonegativity, Islamophobia, anti-Semitism and anti-immigrant attitudes. Social Problems.
34.
NylundK. L.AsparouhovT.MuthenB. O. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 535–569.
35.
PodsakoffP. M.MackenzieS. B.LeeJ.PodsakoffN. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.
36.
SörbomD. (1974). A general method for studying differences in factor means and factor structure between groups. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 27, 229–239.
37.
SpruytB.Van der NollJ.VandenbosscheL. (2016). Meaning matters. An empirical analysis into public denotations of the label “strangers” and their relationship with general ethnic prejudice. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 51, 41–53.
38.
StephanW. G.StephanC. W. (2000). An integrated threat theory of prejudice. In OskampS. (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 23–45). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
39.
VermuntJ. (2010). Latent class modeling with covariates: Two improved three-step approaches. Political Analysis, 18, 450–469.
40.
ZickA.WolfC.KüpperB.DavidovE.SchmidtP.HeitmeyerW. (2008). The syndrome of group-focused enmity: The interrelation of prejudices tested with multiple cross-sectional and panel data. Journal of Social Issues, 64, 363–384.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
