Centre for the Study of Group Processes Equality, Diversity and Prejudice in Britain Results from the 2005 National Survey Dominic Abrams & Diane M Houston Report for the Cabinet Office Equalities Review October 2006 Centre for the Study of Group Processes Equality, Diversity and Prejudice in Britain Results from the 2005 National Survey Dominic Abrams & Diane M. Houston Report for the Cabinet Office Equalities Review October 2006 Equality, Diversity and Prejudice in Britain Acknowledgements This research was originally commissioned by the Women and Equality Unit which forms part of the Department for Communities and Local Government. It is a DCLG contribution to the work of the Equalities Review. The work was also guided and stimulated by contributions from representatives from the DRC, CRE, EOC, Age Concern England and Stonewall at meetings and seminars held at the WEU during 2004. The empirical part of the project involved several stages. Andrew Harrop, Sujata Ray (Age Concern England), and particularly Leslie Sopp (Age Concern Research Services) were closely involved in development of a prior survey focusing on ageism (ACE, 2005, Sopp & Abrams, 2004), and the development work for that contributed to some of the material in the present survey. A team from the Centre for the Study of Group Processes at the University of Kent was involved in extensive preparatory work for the survey. We are indebted to Katerina Tasiopoulou, Tendayi Viki, Anat Bardi, Adam Rutland, Georgina Randsley de Moura, and Mario Weick, for their assistance and guidance with the item development and pilot research for this survey. This included detailed and lengthy discussions about the conceptual framework, as well as the practical structure, form and wording of the items, and a trial with over 400 participants which enabled us to reduce and select some measures. We were also able to test an electronic version of the extended survey and are grateful to the technical staff (Gary Samson and William Sonnen) for their work in preparing the on-line version. The fieldwork was conducted by TNS. We are grateful to Joanne Kilpin and Anita Emery for management of the data collection and preparation of the dataset and for working closely with us in the pilot and preparatory stages of the survey and in the organisation of the data file. Equality, Diversity and Prejudice in Britain ii Contents Page Chart index iv Executive Summary 1 Chapter 1 Introduction 6 Equality, diversity and prejudice in Britain 7 Aims of the research 11 Issues to be examined 11 What is new about the approach? 13 Chapter 2 Methodology and Definitions 16 Definitions and terminology 16 Versions of the survey 20 The sample 21 Chapter 3 Equality and Human Rights 24 Core values 25 Equality for all? 28 Summary and Conclusions 30 Chapter 4 Expressions and Experiences of Prejudice 32 Feelings towards different groups 32 Experiences of prejudice 36 Do different minorities suffer from different 38 prejudices? Summary and Conclusions 45 Equality, Diversity and Prejudice in Britain iii Page Chapter 5 The Conditions for Prejudice 48 A culture of prejudice? 49 Political correctness 52 Summary and Conclusions 56 Chapter 6 Social Stereotypes that Underpin Prejudice 58 The Stereotype Content Model 58 Warmth and competence 59 Competition and status 60 Emotions about different groups 62 Summary and Conclusions 63 Chapter 7 Together or Apart? 65 Social distance 65 Threat 66 Common identity 68 Choices 69 Summary and conclusions 77 Chapter 8 Conclusions 79 Equality and other values 79 Being a target of prejudice 79 Expressing prejudice 80 The media 80 Stereotypes and emotions 80 Threats and Inclusion 80 Selective prejudice 81 ‘Hostile’ and ‘benevolent’ forms of prejudice 81 The future 83 Equality, Diversity and Prejudice in Britain iv Page Appendices 84 Questions asked in the survey 85 References 99 Biographical details 105 Equality, Diversity and Prejudice in Britain v Table and Chart Index Page Table 1 Numbers and percentages of respondents from different social categories 23 Figure 1 Percentage who say different values are ‘like me’ or ‘very like me’ rank ordered according 26 (value and value types in parentheses) Figure 2 Percent who agree or strongly agree with social attitudes about individualism, equality, diversity 27 and work ethic. Figure 3 Percent who believe it is important to satisfy the needs of different groups in society. 28 Figure 4 Percentage of people who believe attempts to give equal employment opportunities to each group in Britain have gone too far/much to far, 29 are about right/don’t know, or have not gone far enough/ not gone nearly far enough. Figure 5 Percentage of respondents that expressed negative, positive or neutral feelings to different 34 groups in Britain Figure 6 Percentage who have ever in the last year personally suffered from prejudice or discrimination on the basis of each type of 36 group membership Figure 7 Percentage who report having personally suffered from prejudice or discrimination on the 37 basis of any type of group membership Figure 8 Percentage of men and women who have personally suffered from prejudice or discrimination on the basis of each type of 39 group membership Equality, Diversity and Prejudice in Britain vi Page Figure 9 Percentage of heterosexual and non- heterosexual people who have personally suffered from prejudice or discrimination on the 40 basis of each type of group membership Figure 10 Percentage of people under 31, 31-60 and over 70 who have personally suffered from prejudice or discrimination on the basis of each type of 41 group membership Figure 11 Percentage of Christians, Muslims, other religions and no religion who personally suffered from prejudice or discrimination on the basis of 42 each type of group membership Figure 12 Percentage of ‘white’, ‘black’ and ‘Asian’ people who have suffered from prejudice or discrimination on the basis of each type of 43 group membership Figure 13 Percentage of non-disabled and disabled people who have personally suffered from prejudice or 44 discrimination on the basis of each type of group membership Figure 14 Percentage of people who think media coverage of each group has been negative or almost all 49 negative in the last year. Figure 15 Percentage who believe members of different ethnic or racial groups living in Britain are mostly or completely accepted as British by the 50 majority of people in Britain. Figure 16 Percentage who believe followers of different religions in Britain are mostly or completely accepted as British by the majority of people in 51 Britain. Table 2 Political correctness: Percentage with personal 52 and social motivations to be unprejudiced Equality, Diversity and Prejudice in Britain vii Page Figure 17 Percentage who claim no prejudice or who feel but do not express prejudice, or who are willing 54 to express prejudice against each group Figure 18 Perceived stereotypical warmth (friendliness) and competence (capability) of different social 60 groups. Figure 19 Perceived stereotypical competitiveness and economic status of different social groups 61 Figure 20 Percentage that believe each group attracts each kind of emotion (very much or extremely) 62 Figure 21 Percent who say they would feel comfortable or very comfortable if a member of the relevant minority was close to them as an in-law, boss or 65 neighbour. Figure 22 Percent who perceived ‘threats’ of different types from different minority groups within 67 Britain. Figure 23 Perceptions of individuality and collective group membership between members of contrasting categories in Britain (Percentage choosing each 68 option) Figure 24 Preferences for which two charities would receive £5 donation (Percent nominated). NB: Grey = presented in all versions, other colours 70 = presented only in subset of the survey Figure 25 Charitable choices within version A of the survey (gender and sexuality). 71 Figure 26 Charitable choices within version B of the survey (age and religion). 71 Equality, Diversity and Prejudice in Britain viii Page Figure 27 Charitable choices within version C of the survey (ethnicity and disability). 72 Figure 28 Percentage of different group members that would donate to different charities unrelated to 73 their own membership Figure 29 Percentage of men and women, heterosexual and non-heterosexual people who chose to give 74 to charities for women, gay people or others. Figure 30 Percentage of people of different ages and faiths who chose to give to charities related to 75 age or Muslims. Figure 31 Percentage of people of different ethic background and disability who chose to give to 76 charities for Black people and disabled people. Executive Summary 1 Executive Summary Britain is an increasingly diverse and multifaceted society. Consequently, manifestations of inequality, prejudice and discrimination are potentially becoming more varied and complex. The meaning of equality itself is a matter of considerable debate. Perceptions, attitudes, stereotypes and emotions permeate social relationships between groups, whether conflictual or harmonious. How are different groups perceived? How do images of different groups map onto prejudice? To what extent do people experience prejudice directed against themselves? There is increasing interest in whether Britain is becoming a more or less tolerant, accepting or indeed coherent society. This report describes the findings of a survey which employed social psychological methods and measures to assess a range of different aspects of prejudice towards six significant groups in British society – defined by gender, age, ethnicity, sexuality, disability and religion. The report examines the values people espouse, their experiences, and their expressions of prejudice, the extent that ‘political correctness’ may affect expressions of prejudice, the social stereotypes underpinning prejudice, whether prejudice is expressed differently towards different types of group, and the extent to which British society is perceived as a cohesive whole or as being formed of distinct and separate groups. It also explores whether prejudice is predominantly an issue of personal attitudes or whether it is rooted more in the relationships between particular social groups.