Us Against Them: Part 3, Generalized Prejudice

As noted in the previous posts, in Us Against Them Kinder and Kam describe ethnocentrism as generalized prejudice. We tend to think prejudice is group specific, and it can be. For example, one might have very negative feelings about a particular out-group (e.g., Whites, Blacks, gays, Muslims, etc.). However, the research on ethnocentrism has revealed that prejudices tend to cluster together. Thus, if we hear a person make a comment about blacks on welfare we can make a good guess about where this person stands on gay marriage or immigration reform.

Is there any evidence for this notion of generalized prejudice? In Chapter 3 of Us Against Them Kinder and Kam present research that supports this conception of ethnocentrism.

Kinder and Kam measure ethnocentrism by examining the relative roles of in-group favoritism and out-group denigration. They accomplish this by examining how various groups apply favorable or unfavorable stereotypes to both in-groups and out-groups. For example, Kinder and Kam share data on how various ethnic groups apply the adjectives lazy versus hardworking across ethnic groups, including their own. So, for example, Whites are asked how lazy versus hardworking Whites are as well as Blacks and Hispanics.

Not surprisingly, people tend to see their in-group as more hardworking relative to the out-groups. Whites see Whites as more hardworking than Blacks or Hispanics. Blacks, by contrast, see Blacks as more hardworking than Whites or Hispanics. And so on. Interestingly, Whites tend to be the most ethnocentric of all the ethnic groups. Overall, these trends support the view that ethnocentrism is generalized prejudice, a prejudice produced by seeing the in-group in a more favorable light relative to out-groups.

Kinder and Kam go on to examine some of the correlates of ethnocentrism. How is ethnocentrism related to political ideology or views regarding limited government? How is ethnocentrism related to education?

Overall, Kinder and Kam show evidence that ethnocentrism, across ethnic groups, is generally uncorrelated to various political positions (e.g., party identification, views on limited government). Among Whites there are some slight trends. Ethnocentrism is, albeit weakly, correlated with political conservatism, a distaste for egalitarianism (e.g., social welfare to produce "fairness"), social distrust, and a desire for a more limited government. Generally, however, ethnocentrism is a force in American life that is distinct from other, more commonly discussed, political variables. Consequently, ethnocentrism needs to be examined as a political force in its own right if we are going to get a true and accurate sense of the dynamics involved in American policy debates.

Finally, ethnocentrism declines with increasing education. The most important factor appears to be college education. As Kinder and Kam summarize the data: "Based on these results, it would seem that education, and especially the experience associated with higher education, build tolerance and erode ethnocentrism."