Equality and Human Rights Commission
Research report 119
Developing a national
barometer of prejudice
and discrimination
in Britain
Dominic Abrams
1
, Hannah Swift
1
and Diane Houston
2
1
University of Kent, Centre for the Study of Group
Processes
2
Birkbeck, University of London
October 2018
2
© 2018 Equality and Human Rights Commission
First published October 2018
ISBN 978-1-84206-763-5
Equality and Human Rights Commission Research Report Series
The Equality and Human Rights Commission Research Report Series publishes
research carried out for the Commission by commissioned researchers.
The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily
represent the views of the Commission. The Commission is publishing the report as
a contribution to discussion and debate.
Please contact the Research Team for further information about other Commission
research reports, or visit our website.
Post: Research Team
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Arndale House
The Arndale Centre
Manchester M4 3AQ
Email: [email protected]
Telephone: 0161 829 8500
You can download a copy of this report as a PDF from our website.
If you require this publication in an alternative format, please contact the
Communications Team to discuss your needs at:
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Developing a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
3
Contents
Acknowledgements .................................................................................................... 6
Foreword from our Chief Executive ............................................................................ 7
Executive summary .................................................................................................... 9
1 | Introduction.......................................................................................................... 12
1.1 Why do we need a ‘barometer’ to measure prejudice and discrimination? . 12
2 | Designing the survey ........................................................................................... 15
2.1 Defining and measuring prejudice ............................................................... 15
2.2 Experiences and perceptions of prejudice .................................................. 17
2.3 Prejudice ..................................................................................................... 18
3 | Data collection ..................................................................................................... 21
3.1 Data collection ............................................................................................. 21
3.2 Interpretation and significance testing ......................................................... 21
Table 3.1 Experience of discrimination in the last year (per cent) summary
table ....................................................................................................... 22
4 | Survey findings .................................................................................................... 23
4.1 Equality endorsement ................................................................................. 23
4.2 The prevalence of experiences of discrimination ........................................ 24
Table 4.1 Prevalence of prejudice (per cent) for respondents with protected
characteristics (including boost data) ................................................................ 24
Table 4.2 Experiences of prejudice (per cent) based on age and sex by
country ....................................................................................................... 25
4.3 Areas of life in which people experience discrimination .............................. 26
4.4 Perceived seriousness of discrimination .................................................... 27
Figure 4.1 Perceived seriousness of discrimination ........................................ 27
4.5 Overtly positive and negative attitudes (feeling thermometer) .................... 29
Figure 4.2 Feelings towards people with each protected characteristic,
excluding those who belong to the target protected characteristic .................... 30
Table 4.3 Negative feelings expressed (%) towards people with particular
protected characteristics across England, Scotland and Wales ........................ 31
4.6 Stereotypes ................................................................................................. 32
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Developing a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
4
Figure 4.3 Evaluations of each protected characteristic group on warmth and
competence ...................................................................................................... 33
4.7 Social distance ............................................................................................ 34
Figure 4.4 How comfortable would you feel if a member of the relevant group
was appointed as your boss? ............................................................................ 34
Figure 4.5 How comfortable would you feel if a member of the relevant
protected characteristic moved in next door to you? ......................................... 35
Figure 4.6 How comfortable would you feel if a person with one of the relevant
protected characteristics married one of your close relatives? .......................... 36
4.8 Equality endorsement for specific protected characteristics ........................ 37
Figure 4.7 Have attempts to give equal opportunities to the following groups
gone too far or not far enough? ......................................................................... 37
4.9 Intergroup contact ....................................................................................... 38
Figure 4.8 Percentage of respondents that have friendships with different
groups (excluding members of the target group) .............................................. 39
4.10 Motivation to control prejudice ................................................................. 40
4.11 Summary ................................................................................................. 41
5 | Insights from using the survey as a complete set of measures ........................... 43
5.1 Contrasting the experiences of two different protected characteristics ....... 44
Table 5.1 Case study measures of experiences of prejudice ......................... 44
5.2 Prejudiced attitudes ..................................................................................... 45
Table 5.3 Case study attitudes towards black people and disabled people with
a physical impairment ....................................................................................... 46
6 | Conclusions ......................................................................................................... 48
References ............................................................................................................... 52
Appendix A: Summary of measures ......................................................................... 55
Table A.1 Overview of measures of prejudice ................................................ 55
Appendix B: Questionnaire ....................................................................................... 58
Appendix C: Data collection approach ..................................................................... 73
C.1 Overview of the approach ........................................................................... 73
C.2 NatCen panel and ScotCen panel ............................................................... 74
C.3 Survey response to the NatCen and ScotCen panels ................................. 75
Table C.1 Survey response ............................................................................ 75
Table C.2 Sample profile of the NatCen panel ............................................... 76
Table C.3 Sample profile of the ScotCen panel .............................................. 77
Table C.4 Profile of protected characteristics within survey respondents ....... 78
C.4 PopulusLive panel ....................................................................................... 81
C.5 Weighting and analysis ............................................................................... 81
Developing a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
5
C.6 Coding of domains ...................................................................................... 83
Appendix D: Recommendations on usage of the survey .......................................... 84
D.1 Reliability and validity .................................................................................. 84
D.2 Survey approach ......................................................................................... 86
Tables and figures
Tables
Table 3.1 Experience of discrimination in the last year (per cent) summary table 22
Table 4.1 Prevalence of prejudice (per cent) for respondents with protected
characteristics (including boost data) ................................................... 24
Table 4.2 Experiences of prejudice (per cent) based on age and sex by country 25
Table 4.3 Negative feelings expressed (%) towards people with particular
protected characteristics across England, Scotland and Wales ........... 31
Table 5.1 Case study measures of experiences of prejudice ............................... 44
Table 5.3 Case study attitudes towards black people and disabled people with a
physical impairment .............................................................................. 46
Table A.1 Overview of measures of prejudice ...................................................... 55
Table C.1 Survey response ................................................................................... 75
Table C.2 Sample profile of the NatCen panel ...................................................... 76
Table C.3 Sample profile of the ScotCen panel .................................................... 77
Table C.4 Profile of protected characteristics within survey respondents ............. 78
Figures
Figure 4.1 Perceived seriousness of discrimination ............................................... 27
Figure 4.2 Feelings towards people with each protected characteristic, excluding
those who belong to the target protected characteristic........................ 30
Figure 4.3 Evaluations of each protected characteristic group on warmth and
competence .......................................................................................... 33
Figure 4.4 How comfortable would you be if a member of the relevant group was
appointed as your boss?....................................................................... 34
Figure 4.5 How comfortable would you be if a member of the relevant protected
characteristic moved in next door to you? ............................................ 35
Figure 4.6 How comfortable would you be if a member of the relevant protected
characteristic married one of your close relatives? ............................... 36
Figure 4.7 Equal opportunities for protected characteristic groups ........................ 37
Figure 4.8 Percentage of respondents that have friendships with different groups
(excluding members of the target group) .............................................. 39
Developing a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
6
Acknowledgements
This research was designed by Dominic Abrams, Hannah Swift and Diane Houston
at the University of Kent Centre for the Study of Group Processes and at Birkbeck,
University of London. The survey implementation and summary data were provided
by Hannah Morgan and Martin Wood at NatCen. We are grateful to collaborators at
the Centre for the Study of Group Processes, University of Kent for the early stages
of the development work and to Hazel Wardrop and Gwen Oliver at the Equality and
Human Rights Commission for advice and comments on earlier drafts of the report.
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Developing a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
7
Foreword from our Chief Executive
How many times in the past year has someone shown you a lack of respect because
of your race, impairment or sexual orientation? Would you feel comfortable if an
immigrant lived next door, or if your boss had a mental health condition? These are
some of the questions we asked in the first national survey of prejudice for over a
decade – and often the answers are surprising.
Almost 3,000 people across Britain talked to us about their experiences of prejudice
and their attitudes towards different groups. Forty-two per cent of all respondents
said they had experienced prejudice in the last year, with this figure being higher
among minority groups. This is a matter for concern, particularly as the survey also
found that some people think efforts to provide equal opportunities for particular
groups have ‘gone too far’.
Our work is framed by the principle that if everyone gets a fair chance in life, we all
thrive. We therefore need to understand the nature and extent of prejudice and
discrimination in Britain in order to tackle the barriers that are holding people back.
This requires having robust data on people’s attitudes towards others and on
people’s experiences of being disrespected, patronized, bullied or treated less well
because of their race, sex, impairment or any other protected characteristic. By
understanding the attitudes that underlie discrimination, we can ensure that efforts to
tackle it are more likely to hit the mark.
We are therefore calling for the UK Government to fund a regular national survey,
the findings of which would form a barometer showing the current state of prejudice
and discrimination in Britain. This report sets out a workable model that could be
carried forward by others. We also need social researchers, civil society and NGOs
to continue to develop and test this set of questions with other protected groups,
especially those who are hard to reach, to provide a comprehensive picture.
As part of our programme of work in this area, we have already examined the links
between attitudes and behaviours, and worked with partners to strengthen our
knowledge on ‘what works’ to tackle prejudice and discrimination. We will shortly be
launching our three-yearly review of the state of equality and human rights in Britain.
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Developing a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
8
‘Is Britain Fairer? 2018’ will be an important counterpart to this survey, allowing us to
see where prejudiced attitudes towards certain groups may be holding them back in
life.
Taken together, these reports are a significant contribution to our bank of evidence
on how people in Britain live and work together. We will use this data in our own
work, and we hope policy-makers in general will use it in theirs – in order to drive
lasting change. Britain has a proud history of tackling intolerance and prejudice and
we must ensure that we continue to lead the way as we leave the European Union.
We believe that justice, freedom and compassion should be the traits that define our
nation into the future.
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Developing a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
9
Executive summary
This is the first national survey of prejudice for over a decade. It measures prejudice
and discrimination in Britain experienced by people with a wide range of protected
characteristics: age, disability, race, sex, religion or belief, sexual orientation,
pregnancy and maternity, and gender reassignment.
Our report demonstrates the value of using a national survey of this type to measure
prejudice and discrimination in Britain and to set out a benchmark for future surveys.
The purpose of this research is to help establish a national ‘barometer’ for monitoring
changes in the attitudes and experiences of the general population.
We were commissioned by the Equality and Human Rights Commission to design
and run a national survey of prejudice, using a consistent set of measures across a
range of protected characteristics. We surveyed 2,853 adults in Britain using the
NatCen Panel surveys and carried out an additional survey to target minority groups
that may otherwise not be well represented in the survey.
Our approach provides new insights into the form and prevalence of prejudice and
discrimination in Britain. Measuring these issues in a consistent way across
protected characteristics groups and across England, Scotland and Wales, gives us
a uniquely recent and comparable overview. It enables us to look across a range of
measures to paint a meaningful picture of the prejudice affecting a particular
protected characteristic, rather than looking at individual measures on their own.
Although it does not yet provide a picture of prejudice and discrimination for all
protected characteristics – which would require a larger and further-developed
survey – it sets out a workable model for a future national instrument for monitoring
these issues in Britain.
This report provides an overview of what we have found out about people’s
experiences and expressions of prejudice in Britain.
Experiences of prejudice and discrimination
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Developing a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
10
42% of people in Britain said they had experienced some form of prejudice in
the last 12 months.
Data from the combined representative panel survey and boost sample data
indicated that experience of prejudice was higher in minority groups. This
should be interpreted with some caution because of methodological
differences from the main survey. In the last year:
- 70% of Muslims surveyed experienced religion-based prejudice
- 64% of people from a black ethnic background experienced race-based
prejudice
- 61% of people with a mental health condition experienced impairment-
based prejudice, and
- 46% of lesbian, gay or bisexual people experienced sexual orientation-
based prejudice.
Ageism can be experienced by people at any age. In line with previous
research, a higher proportion of British adults reported experiencing prejudice
based on their age (26%) than on any other characteristic.
Attitudes
Nearly three-quarters of people in Britain (74%) agreed that there should be
equality for all groups in Britain, but one in ten (10%) people surveyed
disagreed.
More people expressed openly negative feelings towards some protected
characteristics (44% towards Gypsies, Roma and Travellers, 22% towards
Muslims, and 16% towards transgender people) than towards others (for
example, 9% towards gay, lesbian or bisexual people, 4% towards people
aged over 70, and 3% towards disabled people with a physical impairment).
A quarter expressed discomfort with having a person with a mental health
condition as their boss (25%) or as a potential family member (29%). Around
one-fifth of respondents said they would feel uncomfortable if either an
immigrant or a Muslim person lived next door (19% and 18% respectively),
and 14% said they would feel uncomfortable if a transgender person lived
next door.
Around a third of British adults felt that efforts to provide equal opportunities
had gone ‘too far’ in the case of immigrants (37%) and Muslims (33%). In
contrast, nearly two-thirds thought that such efforts had ‘not gone far enough’
for people with a mental health condition (63%) or people with a physical
impairment (60%).
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Developing a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
11
Developing a national barometer
We have identified some examples of how this survey generates useful insights
when used as a complete set of measures:
People’s perceptions of the seriousness of discrimination in Britain in relation
to different protected characteristics did not match levels of personal
experiences of discrimination. For example, more than half (54%) thought that
the issue of discrimination based on age was not at all or only slightly serious,
despite more British adults reporting experiences of prejudice based on their
age (26%) than any other protected characteristic.
People’s resistance to improving equal opportunities was greatest towards
those groups that they considered to be less ‘friendly’ and more ‘capable’
(such as Muslims and immigrants) and least in relation to those they
considered less ‘capable’ but more ‘friendly’ (such as disabled people).
Prejudices are likely to be quite specific, and there are differences in the ways
that people express their prejudices towards people with different protected
characteristics. Although similarly low numbers of people expressed negative
feelings towards disabled people with a physical impairment and those with a
mental health condition, fewer people were comfortable with the idea of
having a person with a mental health condition as their boss or neighbour
compared to a disabled person with a physical impairment.
The form and prevalence of prejudice may differ across regions of Britain. For
example, the percentage of respondents who expressed negative feelings
towards Muslims, immigrants and Gypsies, Roma and Travellers was lower in
Scotland than in England.
Our report identifies a set of measures that can be repeated regularly to create a
consistent evidence base on the form and prevalence of prejudice and discrimination
in Britain. The survey can be adapted and extended to assess specific additional
aspects of prejudice and discrimination, as well as affected groups and areas of life
not covered in this report. The ongoing development of the survey measures is
essential to ensure it remains an accurate, relevant and useful tool for seeking to
understand prejudice and discrimination in Britain.
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Developing a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
12
1 | Introduction
This report presents evidence from the first national survey since 2006 to measure
prejudice and discrimination in Britain using a consistent set of measures across a
range of protected characteristics.
An important and distinctive feature of the survey is that it brings together a set of
measures both of people’s experiences of prejudice and of people’s attitudes. This
provides a more comprehensive picture of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
than single measures allow, and helps us to understand the impact of prejudice on
people’s lives.
A second important feature of the survey is that it measures these factors across
multiple protected characteristics. This enables us to understand how people’s
prejudiced attitudes and experiences of discrimination differ for different protected
characteristics, although we were not able to measure all aspects of prejudice across
all nine protected characteristics set out under the Equality Act 2010. The survey has
been designed to be easy to use and to adapt for different protected characteristics.
This report demonstrates the use and value of a survey of this kind and provides a
benchmark for assessing the prevalence of prejudice in Britain against which future
evidence can be collected and compared to form a national ‘barometer’ of the
changing landscape of prejudice and discrimination in Britain.
1.1 Why do we need a ‘barometer’ to measure prejudice and
discrimination?
To tackle prejudice and discrimination faced by people because they share a
particular protected characteristic, we first need to understand the levels of prejudice
and discrimination in Britain and the forms they take. These forms of prejudice and
discrimination may differ depending on which protected characteristics are involved.
1
1
For an overview of hate crime legislation in Britain, see Walters, Brown and Wiedlitzka (2017).
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Developing a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
13
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (‘the Commission’) was established
under the Equality Act 2006 to work towards the elimination of unlawful
discrimination, to promote equality of opportunity, and to protect and promote human
rights. The Equality Act 2010 provided a single legal framework to tackle
disadvantage and protect people from discrimination. The Act prohibits
discrimination against someone because of their perceived age, sex, race,
2
disability, religion or belief (including lack of belief), sexual orientation, for being
pregnant (or having a baby), being married or in a civil partnership, or being
transgender.
In 2016, a review of the available data sources and indicators of prejudice and
discrimination used in the last ten years identified a lack of up to date, consistent and
comparable measures for understanding the prevalence of prejudice in Britain
(Abrams, Swift and Mahmood, 2016). The review revealed that current evidence
from Britain does not allow meaningful comparisons across protected characteristics
or make it possible to comment on the rate of changes in the nature and extent of
prejudice and discrimination.
This research provides a set of measures that can be used by the Commission and
others to capture experiences of discrimination across different areas of life (EHRC,
2017), and that provides a picture of prejudice and related attitudes held towards
different social groups in society. The survey can be used and extended by others to
establish comparable evidence with which to regularly monitor national-level
changes in prejudice and discrimination over time. Regularly collected comparable
evidence of this type would form a national ‘barometer’ of prejudice and
discrimination in Britain.
The set of indicators to measure prejudice used in this survey is based on social
psychological theories of prejudice. It draws on questions used in an initial
benchmarking study which was commissioned as preparation for the establishment
of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, examining prejudices affecting six
protected characteristics in 2005 (Abrams and Houston, 2006). We also drew on a
database of items identified in the 2016 review (Abrams et al., 2016). The theory and
measurement issues underpinning the current research, as well as implications for
interventions, are extensively considered in the Commission’s 2010 report
‘Processes of Prejudice’ (Abrams, 2010). The set of measures in the barometer are
outlined in chapter 2. The set is not exhaustive but provides sufficient breadth to
capture core features of prejudice. What is new in this research is that we are using
2
The protected characteristic of race refers to a group of people defined by their race, colour and
nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origins.
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Developing a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
14
this set together for the first time since Abrams and Houston (2006), to capture
experiences and expressions of prejudice towards most of the protected
characteristics. We are measuring these across the same representative sample of
respondents (as well as additional samples of people with particular protected
characteristics that tend to be under-represented in national surveys). This enables
us to compare and draw conclusions about the state of prejudice and discrimination
affecting many of the protected characteristics across much of Britain.
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Developing a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
15
2 | Designing the survey
2.1 Defining and measuring prejudice
There are many definitions of prejudice (for example, see Nelson, 2009). The
definition we use here captures its primary feature – a bias that is based on whether
or not people share membership of particular social categories with each other.
Specifically, we define prejudice as:
‘Bias that devalues people because of their perceived membership of a social
group.’ (Abrams, 2010)
The term ‘bias’ refers to a preference for or against, but either direction can have
harmful consequences. The term ‘perceived membership’ underlines the importance
of perception as distinct from any objective information – that is, when people judge
or act towards other individuals based on assumptions about differences between
groups, their application of these assumptions may well be misguided. Biases and
perceptions are not always intentional, easy to recognise or control, but this does not
reduce the need to establish their presence and impact.
People may show prejudiced attitudes in a variety of forms. The most obvious are
direct and explicit statements of dislike or abuse, but there are also indirect and more
subtle forms such as objections to equal rights for particular groups or patronising or
‘benevolent’ stereotypes about particular groups. Even a bias, or preference, in
favour of someone based on their perceived group membership can be harmful to
people from other groups because it might indirectly imply lower importance, value,
status or level of deservingness to those other groups.
Prejudice has been measured in a variety of large surveys, such as research for the
Cabinet Office Equalities Review (Abrams and Houston, 2006), surveys by Stonewall
(2012; Cowan, 2007), the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey (SSAS) 2006 and 2010
and the British Social Attitudes Survey (BSAS) 2008-14 (NatCen, undated).
However, measures vary across different types of research, for different protected
characteristic groups, across regions of Britain and are not all conducted regularly
enough to get a consistent or comparable picture of prejudice in Britain.
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Developing a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
16
Some key components of prejudice are routinely studied by social psychologists.
Some feature occasionally in national surveys but rarely appear together.
These are:
views about equality and equal opportunities for different protected
characteristics
the perceived seriousness of the issue of discrimination against different
groups can provide insight into awareness and perceptions of the problem
directly expressed positive and negative attitudes towards the group
(measured using a ‘feeling thermometer’)
stereotypes of warmth and competence that reflect the core elements of
people’s understanding of how groups compare with one another across
society
emotions that people feel towards members of different social groups
willingness to maintain ‘social distance’ or engage in social contact with
members of other groups in important contexts
the extent of meaningful social contact that actually exists between members
of different groups, and
norms and the perceived social acceptability of expressing prejudiced
attitudes.
All of these components are well-suited for use in quantitative surveys and we have
included them in the survey.
3
This survey focused on aspects of prejudice that people are able to recognise or
control. There are other forms of prejudice that are not easily measured by surveys,
and other methods may be better suited to capture these. For the most part these
are not appropriate for large scale evaluation and benchmarking.
3
For an in-depth review of theories of prejudice each measure pertains to, please see Abrams (2010)
and Abrams et al. (2016). Other measures that are used in prejudice research include: how we
categorise one another; values; political preferences; personality characteristics; their use of various
forms of media; their perceptions that particular groups pose a threat to the livelihood or way of life of
others; their exposure to certain forms of influence; and their willingness to engage in action to
support disadvantaged groups (see Abrams and Houston, 2006). Although all of these are highly
relevant to why people are prejudiced (Abrams, 2010), they are beyond the scope of the current work
wherein we concentrated on measuring prejudice itself.
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Developing a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
17
We briefly introduce each component included in the survey and provide a summary
of the set of the measures we have used in appendix table A.1. The specific items
are provided in chapter 4.
2.2 Experiences and perceptions of prejudice
Experiences of prejudice and discrimination
To measure experiences of prejudice we used a measure developed in previous
research with Age UK (see Abrams, Eilola and Swift, 2009; Ray, Sharp and Abrams,
2006), the Cabinet Office Equalities Review (Abrams and Houston, 2006) and the
2008 European Social Survey (see Bratt, Abrams, Swift, Vauclair and Marques,
2017). We conducted further pilot work for this survey to ensure that it was well-
understood by respondents with different protected characteristics. We used a
general measure to ask whether people have experienced prejudice against
themselves: ‘In the last year, has anyone shown prejudice against you or treated you
unfairly because of your (list of protected characteristics).’
Prejudice can be expressed and experienced in different ways. For example,
sometimes it may be directly confrontational but it can also be more patronising or
passive (for example, neglectful). Therefore, if people report they had experienced
any prejudice, we asked them two further questions (see survey item summary in
appendix A) to explore what type of prejudice they had experienced.
Discrimination can be experienced in different areas of life. Some areas of life may
pose greater risks of discrimination for groups with a particular protected
characteristic than others. Therefore, we asked a further question about the areas of
life in which the experiences of prejudice occurred (Q1a).
Importance attached to equality and perceived seriousness of prejudice
We asked respondents to say how much importance they attached to equality, which
can then be compared with their responses to other questions about their attitudes
towards people with particular protected characteristics. In principle, we would
expect most people to place equality very high on their list of value priorities.
Similarly, they might be expected to view discrimination on the basis of all protected
characteristics as equally serious (Abrams et al., 2015), and we captured this by
asking people how serious they felt discrimination was when it was directed at
people with particular protected characteristics.
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Developing a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
18
These questions give us insight into whether people apply different standards when
thinking about different groups, for example, by endorsing greater protection of
equality or by regarding prejudice as a less serious problem in some cases rather
than others.
Comparing responses from these two questions with the responses from the
experience of prejudice questions provides important information about whether the
experiences of people with particular protected characteristics match the general
population’s perceptions of how serious a problem prejudice against these groups is.
For example, if very few people regard prejudice toward a certain group as being
serious, but many members of that group have experienced prejudice, this could
indicate that people do not attach much importance to the prejudice (for example,
because it is seen as harmless), or aren’t aware of or don’t recognise the treatment
as being based in prejudiced or discriminatory attitudes.
2.3 Prejudice
Feeling thermometer
To measure how directly people are willing to admit to feeling negatively about a
particular group we based a question on the so-called ‘feeling thermometer’ that has
been used in previous work (see Abrams and Houston, 2006; Pettigrew and
Meertens, 1995). This is sometimes presented as a picture of a thermometer
(ranging from 0 to 100 degrees), on which people are asked to indicate how they feel
toward a social group by marking a position on the temperature scale. The measure
used in the present research is a version on a five-point scale that asks people, even
more directly, how positive or negative they feel about different groups in Britain.
Stereotypes and associated emotions
A stereotype is a shared image of a social category or group that is applied and
generalised to members of the group as a whole regardless of their individual
qualities. It may or may not be accurate, and stereotypes can sometimes be an
important source of prejudice and discrimination because of the assumptions they
reinforce and the feelings they arouse.
We used the Stereotype Content Model (Fiske et al., 2002) to examine the two
central elements of stereotypes about some minority groups – their warmth and their
competence. Different evaluations of warmth and competence tend to imply different
emotions towards a given group. These emotions include pity (linked to high warmth
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Developing a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
19
and low competence), admiration (high warmth and high competence), contempt and
anger (low warmth and low competence) and envy (low warmth and high
competence) (Cuddy, Fiske and Glick, 2007). The model has received support from
numerous national and international studies involving a very large number of
different groups (Cuddy et al., 2009). Based on the model we also included
perceptions of whether the groups are ‘moral’ and whether they are ‘receiving
special treatment’, and the emotions of fear and disgust. These stereotypes and
emotions are measured in a way that is slightly less direct than the feeling
thermometer (asking how the respondent thinks other people view the groups, not
how the respondent views them). This is a way of reducing people’s concerns about
the social appropriateness of stating that they hold a stereotyped view themselves.
But because most people assume others (broadly) share their own views, this is still
quite a good measure of stereotypes across society (Robbins and Krueger, 2005).
Social distance
Following a long tradition of research on prejudice we included measures of ‘social
distance’, the extent to which people would be comfortable with various degrees of
closeness of relationship with members of different groups. This well-established
measure is important because it reflects people’s actual behavioural inclination to
engage with people with particular characteristics. We asked respondents to what
extent they would feel comfortable if a member of the relevant group was their boss,
moved in next door to them, or married (or formed a civil partnership) with a close
relative (see tables E14-16).
Intergroup contact
The extensive literature on intergroup contact (see Pettigrew, 1998, and Pettigrew
and Tropp, 2006 for a meta-analysis of over 500 studies) demonstrates that contact
between members of different groups fosters positive intergroup attitudes if the
contact also involves similarity, common goals, institutional support and equal status.
Research suggests that a critical type of contact is friendship, more specifically the
number of friends we have who belong to social groups different from ourselves. If
we are friends with people from a different social group we are less likely to sustain
prejudicial attitudes towards their group. Friendship builds trust and reduces anxiety
about interacting with people from the other group. It also encourages us to take
similar perspectives and increases our empathy with other members of their group.
Using the measures we developed for research with Age UK and European Social
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Developing a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
20
Surveys we asked respondents about the number of friendships they have with
people who share different protected characteristics.
Subtle prejudice
An item that is partly a measure of ‘modern’ or ‘subtle prejudice’ is whether people
think equality policies to support a particular group have gone too far. Previous
research has shown equality is a principle that almost everyone endorses very
strongly. Given that equality can only be achieved, not surpassed, people who think
equality has gone too far are indirectly expressing prejudice or resentment towards
that group. We included two questions on subtle prejudice in the survey: whether
attempts to give equal opportunities to different groups in society have gone too far,
or not far enough.
Motivation to control prejudice
Finally, expressions of prejudice may be affected by one’s own concerns or by social
pressures. To the extent that people feel they do not want to, and do not want to be
seen to express prejudice, this promotes a social norm that should gradually make
prejudice less likely to emerge or spread. The extent to which such norms are taken
on as personal standards for behaviour can therefore be a useful index of progress
in tackling prejudice generally. In this research we use measures of ‘internal and
external control’ over prejudice to assess these factors, asking people to what extent
they act in a non-prejudiced way because it is important them, and to what extent
they do so to avoid disapproval from others.
All the items included in the survey, and surveys in which the items have been
fielded previously are included in appendix table A.1.
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Developing a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
21
3 | Data collection
3.1 Data collection
The aims of the survey were to gain a representative picture of prejudice and
discrimination in Britain, provide insight into the experiences of some relatively small
protected characteristic population subgroups, and look at findings separately for
England, Scotland and Wales. A full overview of the measures included in the survey
can be found in Appendices A and B.
To achieve these aims, the study collected data using the random probability NatCen
and ScotCen Panels (which use a sequential online and CATI data collection
approach) in combination with the non-probability PopulusLive Panel (which uses
online data collection).
We used the PopulusLive panel to provide larger samples of some specific protected
characteristic groups – black British people, lesbian, gay and bisexual people,
Muslims, and people with mental health conditions – and to boost the size of the
sample available in Wales. Non-probability panels provide an effective means of
accessing small incidence populations that would be very costly to achieve via
probability approaches, although findings should be considered indicative only and
treated with caution.
As described in appendix C, probability and non-probability data have been brought
together in this study to provide some indicative findings for these small incidence
groups. In addition, the probability ScotCen panel was used to provide a sample of
sufficient size for robust analysis in Scotland.
3.2 Interpretation and significance testing
Most of the findings in this report refer to the random probability NatCen and
ScotCen panels. Where findings relate to data from the non-probability source, this is
clearly stated. Statistical testing was applied to the findings that used the probability
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Developing a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
22
samples and differences discussed in the text are significant at the 95% level unless
otherwise stated.
Table 3.1 illustrates the 95% confidence intervals for the key measure of
experiences of discrimination.
Where estimates use data from the non-probability panel boosts for specific
protected characteristics, these estimates should be considered indicative only and
treated with caution. The low incidence of these populations coupled with the non-
probability nature of the sample mean we cannot know how representative these
samples are of the actual population subgroups.
In order to provide a sufficient number of cases for analysis of people in Wales, a
non-probability boost was matched to the probability sample and a weight
developed. For the English and Scottish analysis, only data from the probability
panels were used. Whilst analysis can be carried out within the resulting Welsh
sample, the different methodologies used for cases in Wales mean that direct
comparisons should not be made between England and Wales (comparisons
between England and Scotland can be made).
Table 3.1 Experience of discrimination in the last year (per cent) summary
table
Sex (male or
female)
Age
Race or
ethnicity
Any physical or
mental health
condition you
may have
Sexual
orientation
Religion or
religious beliefs
Experienced
any kind of
discrimination
Experienced
discrimination
in the last year
based on…
Estimate
22
26
16
16
7
12
42
Standard error
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
95%
confidenc
e interval
Lower
19
23
14
14
5
10
39
Upper
24
28
18
18
8
14
45
Did not
experience
discrimination
in the last year
based on…
Estimate
78
74
84
84
93
88
58
Standard error
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
95%
confidenc
e interval
Lower
76
72
82
82
92
86
55
Upper
81
77
86
86
95
90
61
Total
Total
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Unweighted base
2170
2171
2170
2167
2171
2170
2170
Weighted
base
2172
2172
2171
2172
2171
2172
2172
Base: All GB adults aged 18+ (data from NatCen panel)
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Developing a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
23
4 | Survey findings
In this section we report the main findings across the representative sample, and in
some cases from the non-probability boost samples, for individual measures of
prejudice. Statistical testing was applied to the findings that used the probability
samples and differences discussed in the text are significant at the 95% level.
4.1 Equality endorsement
‘To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following
statement: “There should be equality for all groups in Britain.”’
1 ‘strongly disagree’ to 5 ‘strongly agree’
‘don't know’ and ‘prefer not to say’.
Three-quarters of British adults (74%) agreed or strongly agreed that there should be
equality for all groups in Britain, while 15% neither agreed nor disagreed and 11%
disagreed or strongly disagreed (see appendix table E.1). This evidence is quite
encouraging in terms of the implied support for policies designed to address
inequality. This measure should be viewed in the light of people’s views on the
seriousness of discrimination directed at people with particular protected
characteristics, although this comparison was not part of analysis carried out for this
report.
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Developing a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
24
4.2 The prevalence of experiences of discrimination
‘Thinking about your personal experiences over the past year, how
often has anyone shown prejudice against you or treated you
unfairly because of [protected characteristic]?’
‘Almost all of the time’; ‘a lot of the time’; ‘sometimes’; ‘rarely’; ‘not in
the last year’, ‘does not apply’
('don't know' and 'prefer not to say' initially hidden).
(‘don’t know’ and ‘prefer not to say’ initially hidden).
Prejudice had been experienced by two in five people (42%) because of their
membership of at least one of the protected characteristics. Ageism can be
experienced by people at any age, and, in line with previous research (Abrams and
Houston, 2006; Abrams, Russell, Vauclair and Swift, 2011), a higher proportion of
adults reported experiencing prejudice based on their age (26%) than any other
characteristic, followed by sex (22%). Appendix table C.5 shows the proportion of the
population who experienced prejudice based on different characteristics, and the
proportion of people who have experienced any type of discrimination in the last
year.
To explore the experiences of minority groups, we boosted the size of the sample
available for analysis using a non-probability panel. Table 4.1 shows that, within
each protected characteristic, experiences of prejudice are very prevalent, for
instance, 70% of Muslims reported that they had experienced religion-based
prejudice in the last year, and 46% of people belonging to a sexual orientation
minority experienced homophobic prejudice in the last year. These estimates should
be treated with caution; given the way the sample was gathered and the small size of
these populations we cannot know how representative these samples are of the
actual population subgroups. Nonetheless, the reported levels of experience are
notably high given that people in the boost samples agreed to participate without
knowing ahead of time what the content of the survey would be. They did not choose
to participate because of any particular interest in responding to questions about
prejudice.
Table 4.1 Prevalence of prejudice (per cent) for respondents with protected
characteristics (including boost data)
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Developing a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
25
Protected
characteristic group
Black ethnic
background
(%)
Mental health
condition
(%)
Gay, lesbian or
bisexual
(%)
Muslim
(%)
Type of prejudice
Race or
ethnicity
Physical or mental
health condition,
impairment or
illness
Sexual
orientation
Religion
Any prejudice
experienced in the
last year
64
61
46
70
Unweighted base (no
weighting applied)*
210
659
450
294
* This table is based on all respondents from each protected characteristic across the non-
probability boost sample and the NatCen panel. Therefore, no weighting is applied and the findings
are indicative only.
Table 4.2 below shows a comparison between countries, using the NatCen panel
data and boost sample for Wales to capture sufficient numbers from Wales. The
most reliable data are for sex and age because these are similarly distributed in the
three countries. We do not find any statistically meaningful differences in the
prevalence of experiences of sexism or ageism between the three countries.
However, summarising across countries, women report experiencing sexism
substantially more than men do (30% compared with 13%), and those under 35 are
more likely to experience age prejudice than are those aged 35 to 54 or those aged
over 55 years (39% compared with 22% and 20% respectively).
Table 4.2 Experiences of prejudice (per cent) based on age and sex by
country
England
Scotland*
Wales**
Total***
Female
Experienced prejudice in the
last year because of your sex
30
29
28
30
Unweighted base*
1,078
430
335
1,229
Male
Experienced prejudice in the
last year because of your sex
14
16
19
13
Unweighted base*
817
405
301
943
Base: All GB adults aged 18+
* ScotCen and NatCen panel cases
** Combines NatCen panel and boost data for Wales
*** NatCen panel data only – no Scottish or Welsh boost
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Developing a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
26
England
Scotland*
Wales**
Total***
18 to 34 years
Experienced prejudice in the
last year because of your age
40
38
47
39
Unweighted base
312
105
140
352
35 to 54 years
Experienced prejudice in the
last year because of your age
22
22
27
22
Unweighted base
688
295
212
789
55+ years
Experienced prejudice in the
last year because of your age
20
18
30
20
Unweighted base
883
433
284
1,019
Base: All GB adults aged 18+
* ScotCen and NatCen panel cases
** Combines NatCen panel and boost data for Wales
*** NatCen panel data only – no Scottish or Welsh boost
4.3 Areas of life in which people experience discrimination
If respondents said they had experienced any prejudice in the last year, we then
asked them:
‘In which area of your life did the experience of prejudice occur in
relation to your age, sex (male or female), race or ethnicity, any
physical or mental health condition, impairment or illness you may
have, sexual orientation, religion or religious beliefs?’
‘access to or experience of education or training’
‘access to employment or experience at work’
‘access to or experience of health or social care’
‘access to or experience of the police or criminal justice system’
‘access to housing or benefits’
‘access to or experience of public transport’
‘as a consumer (using shops or services)’
‘experience of a social situation, or with close peers or friends’
‘another area’
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Developing a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
27
The areas of life selected were not intended to cover every eventuality but were
derived from the domains in the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s
measurement framework for equality and human rights and analysis of previous UK
research on people’s experiences of prejudice (Abrams et al., 2016).
Sixty per cent of those who had experienced prejudice said it arose in social
situations or with close peers or friends, and nearly half (46%) had experienced
prejudice or discrimination in employment or at work. Over a third (35%) had
experienced it as a consumer, dealing with shops or services, while a quarter (25%)
had done so when using some form of public transport (see table E.6 in appendix).
Further analysis will be needed to know whether these differences are due to a
person’s greater likelihood of having contact with or experiencing an area of life, or if
they reflect genuine differences in the likelihood of a person with a particular
protected characteristic experiencing prejudice when in that setting. The survey did
not ask separately about online experiences, but this may be an important additional
area to consider in future rounds of the survey.
4.4 Perceived seriousness of discrimination
‘In this country nowadays, how serious is the issue of discrimination
against people because of each of the following [protected
characteristics listed]?’
‘not at all serious’, ‘slightly serious’, ‘somewhat serious’, ‘very serious’
or ‘extremely serious’
‘don't know’ and ‘prefer not to say’.
Figure 4.1 shows the percentage of people across Britain who reported the issue of
discrimination to be very or extremely serious, somewhat, or only a slight or non-
serious issue in the case of each protected characteristic. Note that we have
included all respondents in this analysis as the aim is to capture the overall
prioritisation of tackling prejudices across society. Future work should consider how
these perceptions differ depending on people’s membership of different protected
characteristics.
Figure 4.1 Perceived seriousness of discrimination
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Developing a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
28
54
48
30
35
33
43
46
52
70
65
67
57
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Age Gender Race or ethnic
background
Religion or
religious beliefs
Physical or
mental health
condition,
impairment or
illness
Sexual
orientation
%
Base: all GB respondents aged 18+
n= 2180
NET: not at all/slightly NET: somewhat/very/extremely
Discrimination was more likely to be regarded as a somewhat, very or extremely
serious issue when it affected race or ethnicity (70%), physical or mental health
impairment (67%) and religion (65%). But even with these forms, around a third of
respondents viewed discrimination not to be a serious issue (race, 30%; physical or
mental health impairment, 33%; religion, 35%).
Perceptions of the seriousness of discrimination directed at people with particular
protected characteristics did not align with people’s personal experiences of
discrimination, highlighting that people have different levels of awareness of
discrimination. It is possible that people overestimate the frequency and seriousness
of discrimination towards some protected characteristics, while underestimating it for
others. If people do not regard prejudice toward a certain group as being serious, but
many members of that group have experienced prejudice, this could either arise
because those people do not attach much importance to the prejudice (for example,
because it is seen as harmless), or because people are unaware that treatment of
the group is based on prejudicial biases. A question for future research and policy is
whether more needs to be done to expand people’s understanding of the
seriousness of prejudice and discrimination, including the societal implications as
well as the personal implications.
An important area for future analysis of this data is the relationships between how
seriously people view different types of prejudice and their support for equality for
people that share particular protected characteristics.
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Developing a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
29
4.5 Overtly positive and negative attitudes (feeling thermometer)
‘In general, how negative or positive do you feel towards each of the
following groups in [Britain]?’
1 ‘very negative’ to 5 ‘very positive’
‘don’t know’; ‘prefer not to say’.
It is important not to interpret feeling thermometer data at face value. The feelings
are not ‘absolute’ in any sense but reflect how respondents feel about different
groups relative to others.
The feeling thermometer question was asked about the following protected
characteristic groups: men, women, people aged over 70, people aged under 30,
black people, Muslims, immigrants, Gypsy, Roma and Travellers, gay, lesbian and
bisexual people, transgender people and disabled people (physical impairment and
mental health). The measure tells us about the extent to which different groups in
society may be the target of overtly negative attitudes. But it also sheds light on the
presence of more implicit forms of bias – the relative positivity to some groups rather
than others. The thermometer measure also reflects the social conventions
governing whether people feel able to express antipathy openly towards particular
groups. The thermometer gives us insight into which groups are most likely to be
vulnerable to expressions of direct hostility, but it is less sensitive to other forms of
discrimination which can be directed at groups that attract ‘positive’ evaluations,
such as older people, women and disabled people with physical impairment.
A simple way to illustrate the findings is the percentage that expressed a negative,
neutral or positive feeling about the minority categories. This is depicted in figure 4.2,
which excludes the respondents who themselves were a member of the relevant
group (for example, we show men’s attitudes towards women and women’s attitudes
towards men; we show the attitude of non-Muslims towards Muslims, etc.).
Developing a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
30
Figure 4.2 Feelings towards people with each protected characteristic, excluding those who belong to the target
protected characteristic
Base – all GB adults, excluding those belonging to the target group. Unweighted n:
Men 1,231; women 945; people aged over 70 1,852; people aged under 30 1,979; people with a mental health condition 1,957; disabled
people with a physical impairment 1,580; black people 2,129; Gypsy, Roma and Travellers 2,169; Muslims 2,123; immigrants 2,171;
people who present their gender differently to the one they were assigned at birth 2,171; gay, lesbian and bisexual people 2,034.
6
2
4
6
5
3
5
44
22
27
16
9
44
38
39
43
44
38
45
36
44
39
47
47
50
60
57
51
51
59
50
20
35
34
37
44
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Men Women People Aged
Over 70
People aged
under 30
People with a
mental health
condition
Disabled
people with a
physical
impairment
Black PeopleGypsy, Roma
and
Travellers*
Muslims Immigrants* People who
present their
gender
differently to
the one they
were
assigned at
birth
Gay, lesbian
or bisexual
people
%
Net Negative Neither negative nor positive Net Positive
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Towards a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
31
Openly positive feelings were expressed by more than half of respondents towards
many protected characteristics. Gypsy, Roma and Travellers were the only protected
characteristic group for which the most frequent response was openly negative
(44%). Fewer than half of respondents expressed positive feelings towards Muslims,
immigrants, gay, lesbian or bisexual people, and transgender people, and for these
protected characteristics the most common response was neutral.
When respondents express a neutral view it may reflect genuinely that they feel
neither positive nor negative feelings toward the group. But it is also possible that
they feel ambivalent – positive about some members of the group, but negative
about other members. A third possibility is that a neutral response reflects negative
feelings that people feel inhibited from expressing, and so hide behind ‘no opinion’
responses (Berinsky, 2004). Therefore, the balance between neutral and positive
evaluations is informative.
There are also differences in feeling thermometer scores between nations. Table
4.3, shows the percentage of all respondents from the NatCen panel and the Welsh
boost sample who expressed negativity towards the different groups.
Table 4.3 Negative feelings expressed (%) towards people with particular
protected characteristics across England, Scotland and Wales
Scotland %
England %
Wales* %
Men
4
5
3
Aged over 70
4
4
3
Women
2
2
2
Black people
4
5
6
People who present their gender
differently to the one they were
assigned at birth
15
16
19
Muslims
15
22
29
People with a mental health
condition
4
5
5
Gay, lesbian or bisexual people
8
9
9
Immigrants
20
27
31
Disabled people with a physical
impairment
2
3
3
Gypsy, Roma and Travellers
31
44
42
People aged under 30
5
6
7
Unweighted base
837
1903
636
* Note: Base includes all respondents (including boost in Wales)
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Towards a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
32
It is noticeable that the percentage of respondents who express negativity is lower in
Scotland than in England or Wales in relation to feelings towards Muslims,
immigrants and Gypsy, Roma and Travellers. Further analysis could illuminate the
reasons for this finding, and it should be interpreted in the context of, amongst other
factors, the extent to which opportunities for contact between these minorities and
other groups exist and occur in these different regions.
4.6 Stereotypes
‘To what extent are people viewed in the following ways:
As capable
As friendly’
1 ‘strongly disagree’ to 5 ‘strongly agree’
'don't know' and 'prefer not to say'.
‘don't know’ and ‘prefer not to say’.
The classification of several groups along dimensions of competence and warmth
has been examined in several countries around the world (Fiske et al., 2002; Cuddy
et al., 2009). Figure 4.3 shows evaluations of groups along these two dimensions.
Whether a group is viewed as capable or friendly can affect the form of prejudice that
emerges towards them. Because of this, it is important to consider these stereotypic
evaluations relative to one another. For ease of comparison we have grouped
characteristics that tend to share common stereotypical characteristics. This is
simply for visual purposes and is not a statistically based grouping. According to this
previous research, those viewed as being relatively high in competence (capability)
and warmth (friendliness) are likely to be viewed with admiration. Here we find
women were viewed most positively as high in competence and warmth, followed by
gay, lesbian and bisexual people and black people.
Groups that are only evaluated highly on one dimension are typically perceived less
favourably. People over 70 and disabled people with a physical impairment are
perceived to be relatively warm but relatively less capable. These groups are likely to
be viewed with pity. Immigrants, Muslims and people with a mental health condition
are all perceived as the least warm groups, but they differ in terms of perceived
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Towards a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
33
competence. Groups that are perceived as less warm but as somewhat competent
are likely to experience envy from others, and envy generates dislike and hostility.
Groups are perceived as being relatively low in both competence and warmth tend to
be accorded lower social status and more likely to be viewed with contempt.
Figure 4.3 Evaluations of each protected characteristic group on warmth and
competence
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Towards a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
34
4.7 Social distance
‘How comfortable or uncomfortable do you think you would feel if a
suitably qualified person was appointed as your boss if they
were…’ [protected characteristics included are: a person with a
mental health condition, a black person, a Muslim, a pregnant
woman or new mother, a woman, a gay, lesbian or bisexual person,
a disabled person with physical impairment, a person over 70]
‘How comfortable or uncomfortable do you think you would feel if
someone married one of your close relatives (such as a brother,
sister, child or re-married parent if they were…’ [protected
characteristics included are: a person who represent their gender
differently, an immigrant, a gay, lesbian or bisexual person, a
Muslim]
‘How comfortable or uncomfortable do you think you would feel if
someone moved in next door to you if they were…’ [protected
characteristics included are: a black person, a person with a mental
health condition, an immigrant, a disabled person]
1 ‘very comfortable’ to 5 ‘not very comfortable’
‘don't know’ and ‘prefer not to say’.
someone married one of your close relatives (such as a brother,
sister, child or re-married parent if they were…’ [protected
characteristics included are: a person who represent their gender
differently, an immigrant, a gay, lesbian or bisexual person, a Muslim]
The responses to these questions can be assessed in various ways (for example, on
how many of the items people say they would be uncomfortable with, or their
average level of discomfort, etc.). As with the thermometer data it is also useful to
compare social distance responses toward different protected characteristics. Figure
4.4 and figure 4.5 show, for example, that there is quite strong discomfort with the
idea of connection to a person with a mental health condition, not only as a boss
(25%), but also as a family member (29%). However, we did not apply all questions
to all protected characteristics in this survey, both for practical and survey-length
considerations.
Figure 4.4 How comfortable would you feel if a member of the relevant group
was appointed as your boss?
‘How comfortable or uncomfortable do you think you would feel if
someone moved in next door to you if they were…’ [protected
characteristics included are: a black person, a person with a mental
health condition, an immigrant, a disabled person]
1 ‘very comfortable’ to 5 ‘not very comfortable’
‘don't know’ and ‘prefer not to say’.
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Towards a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
35
Base – all GB respondents excluding target group: person with a mental health condition
933; a black person 1,027; a Muslim 1,031; a pregnant woman or new mother 1,123; a
woman 482; a gay lesbian or bisexual person 1,057; a disabled person with a physical
impairment 834; person aged over 70 900.
77
73
71
67
61
58
48
35
19
21
22
23
34
33
37
40
4
6
8
9
5
9
15
25
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
A woman A pregnant
woman or
new mother
A disabled
person with
a physical
impairment
A gay,
lesbian or
bisexual
person
A black
person
Person aged
over 70
A Muslim A person
with a
mental
health
condition
%
Net: Comfortable Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable Net: Uncomfortable
Figure 4.5 How comfortable would you feel if a member of the relevant
protected characteristic moved in next door to you?
Base – all GB adults aged 18+ excluding the target group: a person who presents their
gender differently to the one they were assigned at birth 1,051; an immigrant 1,126; a gay,
lesbian or bisexual person 1,058; a Muslim 1,033.
52
48
63
45
34
33
29
37
14
19
8
18
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
A person who presents
their gender differently
to the one they were
assigned at birth
An immigrant A gay, lesbian or
bisexual person
A Muslim
%
Net: Comfortable Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable Net: Uncomfortable
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Towards a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
36
Figure 4.6 shows that around one fifth of respondents said they would feel
uncomfortable if either an immigrant or a Muslim person moved in next door.
Figure 4.6 How comfortable would you feel if a person with one of the relevant
protected characteristics married one of your close relatives?
59
35
50
63
32
36
30
29
9
29
20
8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
A black person A person with a mental
health condition
An immigrant A disabled person with
a physical impairment
%
Net: Comfortable Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable Net: Uncomfortable
Base – all GB adults aged 18+ excluding the target group: a black person 1,032; a person
with a mental health condition 938; an immigrant 1,124; a disabled person with a physical
impairment 835.
Figure 4.6 and figure 4.8 also show that attitudes in relation to disability differs
markedly depending on whether we ask about physical and mental conditions. It is
worth recalling that the feeling thermometer revealed similarly (very) low numbers of
respondents who expressed negative feelings toward either group (figure 4.2). Yet
the social distance evidence highlights that prejudices are likely to be quite specific
and can manifest differently for different types of protected characteristic. It also
suggests that people with mental health conditions may be particularly vulnerable
(relative to other protected characteristics) to stigmatisation and exclusion from
social relationships if their condition is known.
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Towards a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
37
4.8 Equality endorsement for specific protected characteristics
‘Now we want to ask your personal opinion about some changes that
have been happening in this country over the years. Have attempts
to give equal opportunities to each of the following groups gone too
far or not far enough?’
Gone much too far, gone too far, about right, not gone far enough,
not gone nearly far enough'
'don't know' and 'refuse to respond'.
not gone nearly far enough’
Around a third of respondents thought equal opportunities efforts had gone ‘too far’
in the case of Muslims (33%) and immigrants (37%) (figure 4.7). In contrast, only 4%
and 5% thought this in relation to people with mental health conditions or disabled
people with physical impairments.
Around half of respondents thought attempts to give equal opportunities were ‘about
right’ for black people (57%) and gay, lesbian and bisexual people (51%).
It is interesting to compare responses to this question with the stereotype responses
reported in section 4.6. For example, it is clear that resistance to improving equal
opportunities is greatest toward those groups that are seen as least warm and as
having some competence (Muslims and immigrants). Conversely, those perceived to
have least competence but quite high warmth are seen as deserving much more
effort and support, with nearly two thirds agreeing that equal opportunities efforts had
not gone far enough for people with a mental health condition (63%) and with a
physical impairment (60%). The groups that tended to be viewed as having both
relatively high competence and warmth are those that most respondents felt
attempts to give equal opportunities to were ‘about right’.
Figure 4.7 Have attempts to give equal opportunities to the following groups
gone too far or not far enough?
‘don't know’ and ‘refuse to respond’.
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Towards a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
38
Base – all GB adults aged 18+ excluding target group: people with a mental health condition
927; black people 1,024; Muslims 1,023; immigrants* 1,118; disabled people with a physical
impairment 830; gay, lesbian or bisexual people 1,049; women 485; people aged over 70
889
* It was not recorded whether respondents were immigrants so this column contains all
respondents
4
11
33
37
5
20
10
5
32
57
41
33
35
51
50
49
63
32
27
30
60
30
40
47
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
People with
a mental
health
condition
Black
people
Muslims Immigrants Disabled
people with
a physical
impairment
Gay,
lesbian or
bisexual
Women People
aged over
70
%
Net: gone too far About right Net: not gone far enough
4.9 Intergroup contact
‘Of your friends or people you feel close to, how many are in any of
the following groups? People aged over 70, people with a mental
health condition, Black people, immigrants, Muslims, Disabled people
(physical impairment) and sexual orientation.’
‘none’, ‘1’, ‘2–5’, 6–9’ or ’10 or more’
'don't know' and 'prefer not to say'.
‘don't know’ and ‘prefer not to say’.
The theories about inter-group contact show that positive personal relationships,
especially friendship with members of other groups, are important determinants for
reducing prejudice between different groups. Therefore, the type of contact we
investigated was the number of friendships, but other research has investigated
contact in other contexts such as family and work. The most important difference is
between having no friends and having at least one friend because having any friends
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Towards a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
39
from another group is likely to have a positive effect. Figure 4.8 shows the
percentage of participants who have no friends and those that have at least one
friend from different groups.
Figure 4.8 Percentage of respondents that have friendships with different
groups (excluding members of the target group)
3
20
27
28
39
40
53
55
97
80
73
72
61
60
47
45
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Women People
aged over
70
People with
a mental
health
condition
People who
are gay,
lesbian or
bisexual
Black
people
Disabled
people with
a physical
impairment
Immigrants Muslims
%
NET: None NET: One or more
These results need to be interpreted carefully, considering the opportunities for
contact. If only a small proportion of people have a certain protected characteristic
then relatively small numbers of others could have them as friends (assuming most
people have a fairly limited set of possible friendships). The sample size limits our
capacity to comment on regional differences but there are obviously some regions
and cities in which it is much less likely that one would find an immigrant or a Muslim
person to befriend. However, evidence that over half of respondents have no friends
who are immigrants or none who are Muslim (53% and 55% respectively) is also
consistent with the earlier finding that social distance from these two groups tends to
be highest. Future work will need to establish whether there are strong regional
variations and whether regional and local residential integration yield more positive
attitudinal changes (and vice versa) over time.
However, some findings cannot be attributed to the possibility that some people
simply have no chance to meet certain groups (for example, due to geographical
concentrations of particular protected characteristics). For example, given that older
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Towards a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
40
people and people with physical disabilities are likely to live throughout the country it
is perhaps surprising that 20% of people have no friends who are aged over 70 and
40% have no friends with a physical impairment. Both of these findings might reflect
local age segregation in social relationships.
4.10 Motivation to control prejudice
There are clear social norms against expressing prejudice. However, social
psychological research shows that people’s internal or personal concern about being
prejudiced is different from their external, or social, concern about being perceived
by others as prejudiced (Monteith et al., 1998; Plant and Devine, 1998).
Of those surveyed, 76% agreed that they attempt to act in a non-prejudiced way
towards other groups because it is personally important to them. A total of 44% of
those who agreed it was personally important to them to control prejudice disagreed
that they attempt to control prejudice in order to avoid disapproval from others.
Eleven per cent said they felt neither motivation to avoid prejudice, and 22% said
they had both motivations.
This shows the importance of assessing both types of motivation and not assuming
that people limit their prejudices solely for one reason. The important implication of
this evidence is that interventions that target one type of motivation may not
necessarily affect the other. So, motivating people to be unprejudiced by highlighting
the personal value of not being prejudiced may not be sufficient for them not to
appear prejudiced in front of others. Therefore, their unconscious biases may persist.
Conversely, targeting the appearance of behaviour may not reduce the underlying
‘To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following
statement: “I attempt to act in non-prejudiced ways toward other
groups because it is personally important to me.
”
‘
To what extent
do you agree or disagree with the following
statement: “I try to appear non-prejudiced toward other groups
in order to avoid disapproval from others."
1 'strongly disagree' to 5 'strongly agree'
'don't know' and 'refuse to respond'.
order to avoid disapproval from others.”
1 ‘strongly disagree’ to 5 ‘strongly agree’
‘don't know’ and ‘refuse to respond’.
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Towards a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
41
motivation to be non-prejudiced, and might even reinforce prejudices if people feel
coerced into resisting their personally held attitudes.
4.11 Summary
It is striking that more than four in ten people (42%) said they had been the target of
some form of prejudice or discrimination in the past 12 months. Across the
population as a whole, age and gender discrimination were found to be the most
commonly reported. As the largest population groups this is not necessarily
surprising; it is important to consider the proportion of a population that is affected so
as not to underestimate the experiences of minority groups. The survey revealed that
some groups in Britain face particular challenges; 70% of Muslims sampled said they
had experienced prejudice motivated by their religion or belief, and 46% of lesbian,
gay or bisexual people sampled said they had experienced prejudice based on their
sexual orientation, while a high portion of respondents expressed openly negative
attitudes towards Gypsies, Roma and Travellers.
This survey demonstrates the useful insights that a barometer based on these
measures could provide. By assessing not just whether but also where
discrimination arises, these measures could provide useful insights into where
interventions may be most urgently required. Respondents across all protected
characteristics were most likely to report that these experiences of discrimination had
happened to them in informal social situations. This is important as it is the only
setting in the survey that is not regulated in some way, and which it would be difficult
or impossible to regulate. The second most common area of life in which people’s
experiences took place was employment. However, further analysis is needed to
establish whether these findings reflect the frequency of contact a person has with
these settings, or if prejudice is more likely to occur for these groups in these
settings.
Most respondents said they value the principle of equality for all groups in Britain
(only 11% did not), but it is also clear that some people do not regard this principle
as something that should be applied equally strongly to all groups in society.
Underpinning these differences is that respondents tend to regard some groups as
more vulnerable or dependent than others, and it tends to be for these groups (for
example older people and disabled people) that others consider that attempts to give
equal opportunities had not gone far enough. Other groups, such as Gypsy, Roma
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Towards a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
42
and Travellers, are viewed by others as less warm, less deserving of equality and as
a lower priority in terms of the seriousness of discrimination on the basis of race and
ethnicity.
Our findings suggest a lack of social contact even for those protected characteristics
that are more evenly distributed geographically across the population. For example,
one in five people aged under 70 have no friends who are aged over 70, and 40% of
non-disabled respondents have no friends with a physical impairment. Lack of
connection makes it harder to break down social barriers, or may even create
greater resistance to forming new relationships. Nearly a fifth of respondents said
they would be uncomfortable having a Muslim person move in next door. And about
one in four respondents were uncomfortable with having someone with a mental
health condition as a boss or as a new family member (in-law), suggesting that
stigmatising social attitudes remain a significant issue for people with particular
protected characteristics.
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Towards a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
43
5 | Insights from using the survey as a
complete set of measures
In this section we explore how using the full set of measures in the survey can help
to paint a meaningful picture of the prejudices affecting any particular protected
characteristic, compared to looking at individual measures on their own. To illustrate
this, we will now consider what the survey captures about prejudice and
discrimination affecting black people and those with a physical health condition or
impairment. We chose these two protected characteristics for this section of the
report because we obtained complete data for each with good sample sizes from
boost samples, and because they were the groups for which we had the best
coverage of questions throughout the survey. We covered a smaller range of
protected characteristics in the questions on experiences of prejudice, and so were
not able to cover some groups (for example, transgender people, or Gypsies, Roma
and Travellers) as a case study. We also felt it would be helpful to contrast the
findings from the survey for two protected characteristics for which long-standing
discrimination has been generally well-evidenced, and which often align with
traditionally ‘hostile’ and ‘benevolent’ forms of prejudice, allowing us to demonstrate
the survey’s ability to detect and explain a range of different forms of prejudice.
Because this analysis uses data from the non-probability boost samples the figures
are indicative only.
The case studies provide interesting contrasts but item-by-item comparisons are not
appropriate: it is the pattern across the whole set of measures for each protected
characteristic that provides a more complete picture. We also comment on how the
prejudice experienced by each can be more readily interpreted in the context of
evidence about the attitudes and beliefs held by others in the population.
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Towards a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
44
5.1 Contrasting the experiences of two different protected
characteristics
In the main representative sample 54% of respondents who were from ethnic
minorities (n=85) said they had been a victim of ethnic or racial prejudice in the last
year (as compared with only 11% of people who classified themselves as white). In
the boost sample, 64% of black people reported experiencing prejudice based on
their race or ethnicity in the last year, although this is not comparable with the main
sample as it cannot be confirmed to be representative (Table 5.1).
One in four (25%) disabled people with a physical impairment reported experiencing
prejudice because of their impairment in the last year.
Table 5.1 Case study measures of experiences of prejudice
Black
people*
People with a
physical health
condition or
disability**
Experienced any prejudice in last year
(due to ethnicity / due to health condition or
disability)
64%
25%
Base (unweighted): Black people; physically
disabled (no mental health condition)
210
527
Of those experiencing prejudice, experienced
being treated badly in last year (insulted, abused,
refused service)
71%
64%
Of those experiencing prejudice, experienced
being treated with a lack of respect (e.g. ignored
or patronised)
81%
74%
Base (unweighted): Black/ physically disabled (no
mental health condition) who experienced
prejudice in the last year due to ethnicity/disability
135
131
* Figures are from the non-probability boost sample combined with the NatCen panel data –
all respondents who identified as being from a black ethnic background – findings are
therefore indicative only
** Figures are from the NatCen panel data. Findings are representative of the population.
Protected characteristics are described consistently unless the survey used for the data
collection used a slightly different term, in which case we have replicated the term used in
that survey to avoid misrepresenting the findings.
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Towards a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
45
Prejudice can arise in different forms. The survey focuses on hostile and paternalistic
forms. Hostile prejudice is more likely to be overt and aggressive (for example,
neglect, abuse, or mistreatment). Paternalistic prejudice can appear to be more
benevolent but is nonetheless undermining (for example, patronising, showing lack
of respect or using unnecessarily simplified and slow communication).
We asked those who said they had experienced prejudice two further questions to
capture both hostile and benevolent or paternalistic forms of prejudice. The ‘hostile’
prejudice question asked respondents, ‘how often in the past year has someone
treated you badly because of your [protected characteristic], for example, by insulting
you, abusing you or refusing you services?’
The ‘benevolent’ prejudice question asked, ‘how often in the past year have you felt
that someone showed you a lack of respect because of your [protected
characteristic], for instance by ignoring or patronising you?’
As shown in Table 5.1, of those who had experienced prejudice, around two-thirds
said that it had been expressed in a hostile form and over three-quarters said it had
been expressed in a patronising form.
5.2 Prejudiced attitudes
The data on prejudiced attitudes shed more light on how and why the experiences of
these different protected characteristics are qualitatively different (Table 5.3). Nearly
a quarter of people who did not have a physical impairment regarded prejudice
against physically disabled people to be a very or extremely serious issue (24%). Of
respondents who identified as white, 33% regarded prejudice on the grounds of race
as very or extremely serious (not surprisingly, a much higher proportion of
respondents from an ethnic minority background (51%) judged race prejudice to be
very or extremely serious).
These judgements of seriousness made by people who do not share a protected
characteristic should be interpreted in the light of other evidence from this survey.
People are more likely to feel pity towards disabled people with physical impairments
than towards black people (34% compared with 2%) and less likely to be feel anger
and resentment (3% compared with 11% for black people) or fear (3% compared
with 14% for black people). Respondents regarded the (relatively more patronising)
prejudice towards people with a physical impairment as less serious than the
(relatively more hostile) prejudice towards black people This finding is consistent with
the idea that people are more likely to view patronising forms of prejudice as
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Towards a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
46
relatively harmless, or as non-serious, and they might, therefore, be less vigilant or
concerned to prevent it from happening.
The implications of paternalising prejudice toward physically disabled people are
also revealed in the thermometer and stereotype evidence. People were more likely
to view disabled people with physical impairment positively on the thermometer
measure and as friendly on the stereotype measure than they were black people.
However, people were much less likely to see disabled people with a physical
impairment as capable (25%) compared to black people (58%), echoing findings
from the ‘pity’ emotion measure.
We note a higher proportion of respondents felt that equal opportunities had ‘gone
too far’ for black people (11%) than for disabled people with physical impairments
(5%).
Two fifths of respondents had no friends from these protected characteristics, but we
also observed greater resistance to elevated status for black people, as non-black
respondents were less likely to view having a black boss positively (61%) than non-
disabled people were to view having a physically disabled boss positively (71%).
Respondents were also slightly less likely to feel comfortable with a black person as
a close family member (59% rather than 63%).
Table 5.3 Case study attitudes towards black people and disabled people
with a physical impairment
Base: non-black and non-physically disabled
respondents, respectively
In relation to
black people
(%)
In relation to those
with physical health
condition or disability**
Discrimination viewed as very/extremely serious
(race or ethnicity / physical or mental health
condition)
33
24
Positive feelings towards the group
50
59
Viewed as friendly (usually/always)*
53
64
Viewed as capable (usually/always)*
58
25
Viewed with pity (usually/always)*
2
34
Viewed with anger/resentment (usually/always)*
11
3
Viewed with fear (usually/always)*
14
3
Equal opportunities gone too far
11
5
Comfortable with person as their boss
61
71
Comfortable with person as close family member
59
63
No friends in this group
39
40
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Towards a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
47
Unweighted base
2,129
1,580
*Base = all respondents
** Protected characteristics are described consistently unless the survey used for the data
collection used a slightly different term, in which case we have replicated the term used in
that survey to avoid misrepresenting the findings.
In summary, these case studies reveal patterns of evidence that are consistent with
contemporary theories of prejudice. Whereas some groups in society tend to be
targets of direct, hostile prejudices, others may suffer from forms that are harder to
recognise, detect or report, such as paternalising prejudices. The two illustrative
cases help to show how the different measures can be interpreted together to shed
light on the particular problems of prejudice and discrimination that are faced by
people with any particular protected characteristic.
These more nuanced and multidimensional pictures for any given protected
characteristic are key to understanding the types of interventions that may be most
useful. Comparisons among different pairs or sets of protected characteristics may
also be informative for different types of policy question by shedding light on where
particularly distinctive risks may occur.
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Towards a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
48
6 | Conclusions
This ‘barometer’ survey is the first national evidence since Abrams and Houston
(2006) to evaluate prejudice and discrimination in Britain across a large set of
protected characteristics using a consistent set of measures. It asks about nine
aspects of prejudice, which together explore attitudes towards eight of the nine
protected characteristics.
4
An important and distinctive feature of the survey is the inclusion of measures both
of experiences and expressions of prejudice. The questions capture the prevalence
of experiences of discrimination across the population, the probability that it will be
experienced by people who share particular protected characteristics and the
different ways in which it is experienced, as well as the feelings, stereotypes, values
and attitudes that respondents express toward people that share different protected
characteristics. This provides a more comprehensive picture of prejudice and
discrimination in Britain than single measures allow, and helps us to understand the
impact of prejudice on people’s lives.
A second important feature of the survey is that it measures these factors across
multiple protected characteristics. This enables us to understand how prejudice and
experiences of discrimination differ for different protected characteristics, although
we were not able to measure all aspects of prejudice across all nine protected
characteristics.
The survey identified that prejudice is experienced across protected characteristics.
Ageism can be experienced by people at any age, and ageism and sexism were the
most commonly experienced forms of prejudice when exploring across the
population as a whole. However, the probability of being discriminated against was
higher for people who were members of groups who make up a smaller proportion of
the population. Muslims, black people, those with a mental health condition and gay,
lesbian and bisexual people were particularly likely to be affected by prejudice
directed at that particular protected characteristic (chapter 4 section 2). Self-
identified transgender respondents (those who represent their gender differently to
4
Marriage and civil partnership were excluded.
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Towards a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
49
the one they were assigned at birth) were very infrequently represented in the
sample and protected characteristics were not assessed extensively (for example,
pregnancy and maternity) owing to cost and survey space limitations but these
certainly warrant attention in future research and with bespoke samples. The survey
can readily be adapted for these purposes.
The types of prejudicial attitudes shown toward groups of people who share
protected characteristics are likely to be linked to the different ways in which
prejudice is expressed toward these groups, and the different ways in which they
experience prejudice and discrimination. The survey revealed that people who did
not share the relevant protected characteristic felt least positive towards Gypsy,
Roma and Traveller groups, Muslims, immigrants, gay, lesbian or bisexual people,
and transgender people. By comparison, most respondents expressed positive
feelings towards women and younger people even though both of these groups
reported high levels of experiences of prejudice against themselves (chapter 4
section 5). Analysis of other measures in the survey, such as the stereotyping items,
provides insight into the different levels of progress made in addressing different
aspects of prejudice. An example is the different stereotypes and emotions people
hold about physical and mental health conditions, where it seems that there is still
considerable stigma attached to mental health conditions (chapter 4, section 6).
With over four in ten people experiencing prejudice and discrimination there is clearly
a substantial challenge for a society that wants acceptable levels of fairness and
equality. An important insight from the survey is that the forms and texture of
prejudices and discrimination are quite complex and different for different protected
characteristics. It is not possible to declare that prejudice against one particular
group is ‘worse’ than that against others. However, for social analysts, policy makers
and practitioners, this more nuanced and comparative picture provides essential
insights into where to concentrate efforts and which strategies might be most
important.
By identifying not only the ‘who’ and ‘how much’ questions but also asking ‘in what
ways’, ‘where’ and ‘when’ prejudice affects people, the survey provides a more
sensitive and useful picture than single-measure approaches. Findings such as the
consensual support for equality in general, and people’s general desire to be non-
prejudiced invite interventions that build on these to strengthen an overall climate
that bears down on prejudice across the board. These interventions might focus on
wider social norms (such as challenging the acceptability of expressing attitudes in
particular ways, and raising awareness that some types of attitude can be prejudicial,
even if that was not the intent). However, where particular groups are experiencing
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Towards a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
50
high levels of discrimination, more intensive interventions may be needed, and these
may need to be directed at particular situations, localities, or particular sets of
perpetrators (see Abrams et al., 2016; British Academy 2017).
In some cases the first priority may be to challenge hostile stereotypes (that the
group is incompetent, immoral or directly competing), and to deal with directly hostile
discrimination (such as hate crime). In other cases the priority may be to challenge
paternalising stereotypes (those that assume a group is helpless or incompetent),
and to deal with more subtle forms of discrimination such as being overlooked,
disrespected or excluded.
The role of a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination
The survey provides a meaningful benchmark for assessing the prevalence of
prejudice in Britain. It has been designed to be easy to use and to adapt for different
groups or protected characteristics. Most importantly, the present evidence provides
a clear benchmark and reference point against which future evidence can be
compared.
Looking backward, briefly, it is reassuring that the subset of these items that were
also fielded in 2005 (see Abrams and Houston, 2006) show patterns of responses to
different protected characteristics that are fairly stable over time. There have also
been interesting changes in average responses to various measures; these changes
should be explored through future analysis.
The survey shows some commonalities across protected characteristics, and shows
that people generally are sympathetic to the idea of reinforcing equality and reducing
discrimination. Nonetheless, people with different protected characteristics are likely
to experience prejudice in different forms and in different types of context. These
differences are also reflected in the different forms of prejudiced attitudes towards
these groups.
We can identify five important ways that a national barometer of prejudice and
discrimination based on the survey presented here can be used:
1. to provide a benchmark for comparison over time, enabling monitoring of
changes in experience and attitudes (for example, through repeat surveys at
regular intervals, such as three years and through longitudinal studies)
2. to provide a more nuanced picture of the situation of members of a particular
protected characteristic (for example, by characterising the multidimensional
nature of the way that prejudice affects a protected characteristic)
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Towards a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
51
3. to enable comparisons between different protected characteristics that can
highlight where particularly distinctive risk factors may be occurring (for
example, through comparative case studies)
4. to identify areas in which general interventions (and change) may be desirable
to affect all protected characteristics (for example, awareness campaigns to
influence interactions and promote anti-prejudice norms operating in social
domains), and
5. to identify areas where more targeted or specific interventions would be more
appropriate to address particular features of prejudice or discrimination or
issues that are unique to particular protected characteristics (for example,
experimental tests of interventions for specific attitudes or domains).
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Towards a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
52
References
Abrams, D. (2010). Processes of prejudice: Theory, evidence and intervention.
Equalities and Human Rights Commission. Research Report 56. London:
Equality and Human Rights Commission [accessed 24 August 2018].
Abrams, D., Eilola, T., & Swift, H. (2009). Attitudes to age in Britain 2004-08.
Department for Work and Pensions [accessed 24 August 2018].
Abrams, D., & Houston, D.M. (2006). A Profile of Prejudice in Britain: Report of the
National Survey. The Equalities Review. Cabinet Office [accessed 24 August
2018].
Abrams, D., Houston, D. M., Van de Vyver, J., & Vasiljevic, M. (2015). Equality
hypocrisy, inconsistency, and prejudice: The unequal application of the
universal human right to equality. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace
Psychology, 21, 28–46. doi:10.1037/pac0000084
Abrams, D., Russell, P. S., Vauclair, M., & Swift, H. J. (2011). Ageism in Europe:
Findings from the European Social Survey. London: Age UK.
Abrams, D., Swift, H.J. & Mahmood, L. (2016). Prejudice and unlawful behaviour:
Exploring levers for change, Research report 101, London: Equality and
Human Rights Commission. Available at: [accessed 24 August 2018].
Berinsky, A.J. (2004). Silent voices: Public opinion and political participation in
America. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Bratt, C., Abrams, D., Swift, H., Vauclair, C.-M., & Marques, S. (2017). Perceived
age discrimination across age in Europe: From an ageing society to a society
for all ages. Developmental Psychology, 54, 167–180.
doi:10.1037/dev000039
British Academy (2017). If you could do one thing…: Local actions to improve social
integration [accessed 24 August 2018].
Cowan, K. (2007). Living together. British attitudes to lesbian and gay people.
Stonewall.
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Towards a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
53
Cuddy, A.J., Fiske, S.T., Kwan, V.S.Y., Glick, P., Demoulin, S., Leyens, J.P., Bond,
M.H., Croizet, J-C., Ellemers, N., Sleebos, E., Htun, T.T., Kim, H-J., Maio, G.,
Perry, J., Petkpva, K., Todorov, V., Rodriguez-Bailon, R., Morales, E., Moya,
M., Palacios, M., Smith, V., Perez., R., Vala, J., & Ziegler, R. (2009).
Stereotype content model across cultures: Towards universal similarities and
some differences, British Journal of Social Psychology, 48, 1–33. doi:
10.1348/014466608X314935
Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2007). The BIAS map: Behaviors from
intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 92, 631-648. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.4.631
Equality and Human Rights Commission (2017). Measurement framework for
equality and human rights, London: Equality and Human Rights Commission
[accessed 24 August 2018].
Equality and Human Rights Commission (2016). England’s most disadvantaged
groups. Is England fairer? The state of equality and human rights 2016 (pp.
103–24) [accessed 24 August 2018].
Fiske, S.T, Cuddy, J.C., Glick, P. and Xu, J. (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.
Monteith, M.J., Sherman, J.W. and Devine, P. (1998). Suppression as a stereotype
control strategy. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 63–82.
NatCen (undated). Our research [accessed 24 August 2018].
Nelson, T. D., (2009). Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping and Discrimination.
Psychology Press
Pettigrew, T.F., Meertens, R.W. (1995). Subtle and blatant prejudice in Western
Europe. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 57–75
Pettigrew, T.F. (1998). Intergroup Contact Theory, Annual Review of Psychology, 49,
65–85.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact
theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751–783.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751
Plant, E.A. and Devine, P.G. (1998). Internal and external motivation to respond
without prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75: 811–832.
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Towards a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
54
Ray, S., Sharp, E., & Abrams, D. (2006). Ageism – A benchmark of public attitudes
in Britain. Age Concern.
Robbins, J. M., and Krueger, J. I, (2005). Social projection to ingroups and
outgroups: A review and meta-analysis, Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 9, 32–47. Available at: doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0901_3
Stonewall. (2012). Living together: British attitudes to lesbian gay and bisexual
people in 2012. Stonewall.
Walters, M., Brown, R. and Wiedlitzka, S. (2017) Causes and motivations of hate
crime. Equality and Human Rights Commission research report 102.
[accessed 24 August 2018].
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Towards a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
55
Appendix A: Summary of measures
Table A.1 Overview of measures of prejudice
Experiences or
expressions of
prejudice
Measure
Previous
surveys
Inclusion
/ order in
survey
Perceived prejudice
and discrimination:
Understanding
personal
experiences of
prejudice and
discrimination, and
the perception of
prejudice
General: Thinking about your
personal experiences over the past
year, how often has anyone shown
prejudice against you or treated
you unfairly for each of the
following?
[protected characteristic groups]
European
Social
Survey
(ESS)
Q1
Domains: In which area of your life
did the experience of prejudice
occur in relation to your:
1. Employment / work – access to
or experience at work
2. Health care – access to or
experience of health or social
care
3. Justice and personal security –
access to or experience of the
police or Criminal Justice
System
4. Living standards – access to
housing or benefits
5. Participation – when using
public transport
6. Other
New,
areas of
life based
on EHRC
domains.
Q1a
-
And how often in the past year has
someone treated you badly
because of each of the following,
for example by insulting you,
abusing you or refusing you
services?
Age UK,
ESS
Q1b
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Towards a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
56
Experiences or
expressions of
prejudice
Measure
Previous
surveys
Inclusion
/ order in
survey
-
And how often in the past year
have you felt that someone
showed you a lack of respect for
each of the following, for instance
by ignoring or patronising you?
Age UK,
ESS
Q1c
-
Seriousness of discrimination: In
this country nowadays, how serious
is the issue of discrimination
against people because of each of
the following?
[protected characteristic groups]
Age UK,
Abrams &
Houston,
2006, ESS
Q9
Equality values
To what extent do you agree or
disagree with the following
statement: There should be
equality for all groups in Britain.
Abrams &
Houston,
(2006)
Q16
Direct prejudice:
Tapping the publicly
‘acceptable’
manifestations of
prejudice in its
blatant (hostile)
forms
Feeling thermometer: In general,
how negative or positive do you
feel towards each of the following
groups in Britain:
[protected characteristic groups]
Abrams &
Houston,
2006,
Q2
-
Social distance [boss]: How
comfortable or uncomfortable do
you think you would feel if a
suitably qualified person was
appointed as your boss if they
were…[protected characteristic]
Social distance [marry]: How
comfortable or uncomfortable do
you think you would feel if someone
married one of your close
relatives (such as a brother, sister,
child or re-married parent if they
were…[protected characteristic]
Social distance [neighbour]: How
comfortable or uncomfortable do
you think you would feel if someone
moved in next door to you if they
were…[protected characteristic]
-
Q15–16
Stereotypes:
Identifying the
content of
To what extent are [protected
characteristic group] viewed in
the following ways?
Stereotype
content
model
Q3–6
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Towards a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
57
Experiences or
expressions of
prejudice
Measure
Previous
surveys
Inclusion
/ order in
survey
stereotypes and
hostile and
benevolent prejudice
1. As capable
2. As friendly
3. As moral
4. As receiving special treatment
which makes things more
difficult for others in Britain
Emotions: likely
manifestations of
prejudice
To what extent are [protected
characteristic group] viewed in
the following ways?
1. With admiration
2. With pity
3. With anger or resentment
4. With envy
5. With fear
6. With disgust
Stereotype
content
model /
intergroup
emotions
Q7–13
Application of
equality
Now we want to ask your personal
opinion about some changes that
have been happening in this
country over the years. Have
attempts to give equal opportunities
to each of the following groups
gone too far or not far enough?
Abrams &
Houston,
(2006)
Q17
Internal and external
motivation to control
prejudice
I attempt to act in non-prejudiced
ways toward other groups because
it is personally important to me.
I try to appear non-prejudiced
toward other groups in order to
avoid disapproval from others.
-
Q18–19
Direct contact:
Evaluates the
potential for
prejudice reduction
and identifies where
cohesion / contact
may be low between
groups.
Of your friends or people you feel
close to, how many are in any of
the following groups?
[protected characteristic groups]
-
Q20
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Towards a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
58
Appendix B: Questionnaire
INTRO2 {ASK ALL}
In the next set of questions we would like to ask you about your experiences of living
in Britain, and your attitudes to different groups of people living in Britain today.
{ASK ALL}
ExpDis
{RANDOMISE GRID ROWS, RANDOMLY FLIP RESPONSE SCALES 1..5}
Thinking about your personal experiences over the past year, how often has anyone
shown prejudice against you or treated you unfairly because of each of the
following?
{#G_Grid_II1}
GRID ROWS:
1. Your sex (male or female)
2. Your age
3. Your race or ethnicity
4. Any physical or mental health condition, impairment or illness you may have
5. Your sexual orientation
6. Your religion or religious beliefs
GRID COLUMNS:
1. Almost all of the time
2. A lot of the time
3. Sometimes
4. Rarely
5. Not in the last year
6. Does not apply
VARNAME1: ExpDisGen
VARNAME2: ExpDisAge
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Towards a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
59
VARNAME3: ExpDisEth
VARNAME4: ExpDisDis
VARNAME5: ExpDisSexO
VARNAME6: ExpDisRel
{IF ExpDisGen = 1..4}
DomainGen
{RANDOMISE ORDER EXCEPT ‘OTHER’}
And, in which area of your life did the experience of prejudice occur in relation to
your <B>sex (male or female)</B>?
{#G_Multi_II1}
MULTICODE
1. Access to, or experience of education or training
2. Access to employment or experience at work
3. Access to, or experience of health or social care
4. Access to, or experience of the police or Criminal Justice System
5. Access to housing or benefits
6. Access to or experience using public transport
7. As a consumer (using shops and services)
8. Experience of a social situation, or with close peers or friends
9. Another area [WRITE IN]
{DomainAge to DomainRel to have same principle in routing and in same
format as DomainGen, substituting ‘sex (male or female)’ with corresponding
category from ExpDis}
{IF ExpDisAge = 1..4}
DomainAge
{IF ExpDisEth = 1..4}
DomainEth
{IF ExpDisDis = 1..4}
DomainDis
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Towards a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
60
{IF ExpDisSexO = 1..4}
DomainSexO
{IF ExpDisRel = 1..4}
DomainRel
{IF ANY ExpDis = 1..4}
ExpBad
{EACH GRID ROW PRESENTED IF CORRESPONDING ITEM AT ExpDis=1..4}
{RANDOMISE GRID ROWS, RANDOMLY FLIP RESPONSE SCALES 1..5}
And how often in the past year has someone <B>treated you badly</B> because of
each of the following, for example by insulting you, abusing you or refusing you
services?
{#G_Grid_II1}
GRID ROWS:
1. Your sex (male or female)
2. Your age
3. Your race or ethnicity
4. Any physical or mental health condition, impairment or illness you may have
5. Your sexual orientation
6. Your religion or religious beliefs
GRID COLS:
1. Almost all of the time
2. A lot of the time
3. Sometimes
4. Rarely
5. Not in the last year
6. Does not apply
VARNAME1: ExpBadGen
VARNAME2: ExpBadAge
VARNAME3: ExpBadEth
VARNAME4: ExpBadDis
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Towards a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
61
VARNAME5: ExpBadSexO
VARNAME6: ExpBadRel
{IF ANY ExpDis = 1..4}
ExpResp
{EACH GRID ROW PRESENTED IF CORRESPONDING ITEM AT ExpDis=1..4}
{RANDOMISE GRID ROWS, RANDOMLY FLIP RESPONSE SCALES 1..5}
And how often in the past year have you felt that someone <B>showed you a lack
of respect</B> because of each of the following, for instance by ignoring or
patronising you?
{#G_Grid_II1}
GRID ROWS:
1. Your sex (male or female)
2. Your age
3. Your race or ethnicity
4. Any physical or mental health condition or illness you may have which has a
substantial and long-term adverse effect on your ability to carry out normal
day-to-day activities
5. Your sexual orientation
6. Your religion or religious beliefs
GRID COLS:
1. Almost all of the time
2. A lot of the time
3. Sometimes
4. Rarely
5. Not in the last year
6. Does not apply
VARNAME1: ExpRespGen
VARNAME2: ExpRespAge
VARNAME3: ExpRespEth
VARNAME4: ExpRespDis
VARNAME5: ExpRespSexO
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Towards a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
62
VARNAME6: ExpRespRel
{ASK ALL}
Feeling
{RANDOMISE GRID ROWS, RANDOMLY FLIP RESPONSE SCALES}
{MAX OF 5 ROWS PER GRID – SPLIT INTO EVEN NUMBER OF ITEMS PER
PAGE}
In general, how negative or positive do you feel towards each of the following groups
in <B>Britain<\B>?
{#G_Grid_II1}
GRID ROWS:
1. Men
2. People aged over 70
3. Women
4. Black people
5. People who present their gender differently to the one they were assigned at
birth (including transgender, non-binary and intersex people)
6. Muslims
7. People with a mental health condition
8. Gay, lesbian or bisexual people
9. Immigrants
10. Disabled people with a physical impairment
11. Gypsy, Roma and Travellers
12. People aged under 30
GRID COLUMNS:
1. Very negative
2. Somewhat negative
3. Neither negative nor positive
4. Somewhat positive
5. Very positive
VARNAME1: FeelingMen
VARNAME2: Feeling70
VARNAME3: FeelingWomen
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Towards a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
63
VARNAME4: FeelingBlack
VARNAME5: FeelingTrans
VARNAME6: FeelingMuslim
VARNAME7: FeelingMent
VARNAME8: FeelingLes
VARNAME9: FeelingMigrant
VARNAME10: FeelingDis
VARNAME11: FeelingTrav
VARNAME12: Feeling30
{ASK ALL}
Some questions in this section are asked of two random halves of the sample
(versions) and will cover different PC Groups (PCGroup):
IF Nov17SampSplit = 1
PCGroups =
1. people aged over 70
2. people with a mental health condition
3. Black people
4. Muslims
IF Nov17SampSplit = 2
PCGroup =
1. immigrants
2. disabled people with a physical impairment
3. gay, lesbian or bisexual people
4. women
Stereo
{Loop of grids in line with PCGroup – each PCGroup to be asked about within
Version}
{RANDOMISE GRID ROWS, RANDOMLY FLIP RESPONSE SCALES}
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Towards a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
64
There are many different groups in this country and we would like to know how you
think some of these groups are viewed by people in general. To what extent are
<B>{Loop of PCGroup}<\B> viewed in the following ways?
{#G_Grid_II1}
GRID ROWS:
1. As capable
2. As friendly
3. As moral
4. As receiving special treatment which makes things more difficult for others in
Britain
GRID COLUMNS:
1. Never viewed that way
2. Rarely
3. Sometimes
4. Usually
5. Always viewed that way
VARNAME1: Stereo_70_Cap
VARNAME2: Stereo_70_Frnd
VARNAME3: Stereo_70_Moral
VARNAME4: Stereo_70_Spec
VARNAME5: Stereo_Ment_Cap
VARNAME6: Stereo_Ment_Frnd
VARNAME7: Etc. to VARNAME32
{ASK ALL}
StereoEmot
{Loop of grids in line with PCGroup – each PCGroup to be asked about within
Version}
{RANDOMISE GRID ROWS, RANDOMLY FLIP RESPONSE SCALES}
To what extent are <B>{Loop of PCGroup}<\B> viewed in the following ways?
{#G_Grid_II1}
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Towards a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
65
GRID ROWS:
1. With admiration
2. With pity
3. With anger or resentment
4. With envy
5. With fear
6. With disgust
GRID COLUMNS:
1. Never viewed that way
2. Rarely
3. Sometimes
4. Usually
5. Always viewed that way
VARNAME1: Emot_70_Adm
VARNAME2: Emot _70_Pit
VARNAME3: Emot _70_Ang
VARNAME4: Emot _70_Env
VARNAME5: Emot _70_ Fear
VARNAME6: Emot _70_Disg
VARNAME7: Emot_Ment_Adm
VARNAME8: Emot _Ment_Pit
VARNAME9: Etc. to VARNAME 48
{ASK ALL}
DistBoss
{RANDOMISE GRID ROWS, RANDOMLY FLIP RESPONSE SCALES}
How comfortable or uncomfortable do you think you would feel if a suitably qualified
person was appointed <B>as your boss<\B> if they were…
{GRID ROWS DIFFERENT FOR EACH VERSION }
GRID ROWS:
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Towards a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
66
{#G_Grid_II1}
{IF Nov17SampSplit = 1}
1. A person aged over 70
2. A person with a mental health condition
3. A Black person
4. Muslim
{IF Nov17SampSplit = 2}
1. A pregnant woman or new mother
2. A woman
3. A gay, lesbian or bisexual person
4. A disabled person with a physical impairment
GRID COLUMNS:
1. Very comfortable
2. Comfortable
3. Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable
4. Uncomfortable
5. Very uncomfortable
VARNAME1: DistBoss_70
VARNAME2: DistBoss_Woman
VARNAME3: DistBoss_Black
VARNAME4: DistBoss_Preg
VARNAME5: DistBoss_Muslim
VARNAME6: DistBoss_MentalHlth
VARNAME7: DistBoss_Gay
VARNAME8: DistBoss_Disabled
{ASK ALL}
DistRel
{RANDOMISE GRID ROWS, RANDOMLY FLIP RESPONSE SCALES}
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Towards a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
67
How comfortable or uncomfortable do you think you would feel if someone
<B>married one of your close relatives<\B> (such as a brother, sister, child or re-
married parent) if they were…
{#G_Grid_II1}
{GRID ROWS DIFFERENT FOR EACH VERSION}
GRID ROWS:
{IF Nov17SampSplit = 1}
1. A Black person
2. A person with a mental health condition
{IF Nov17SampSplit = 2}
1. An immigrant
2. A disabled person with a physical impairment
GRID COLUMNS:
1. Very comfortable
2. Comfortable
3. Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable
4. Uncomfortable
5. Very uncomfortable
VARNAME1: DistRel _Black
VARNAME2: DistRel _MentalHlth
VARNAME3: DistRel _Migrant
VARNAME4: DistRel _Dis
{ASK ALL}
DistNext
{RANDOMISE GRID ROWS, RANDOMLY FLIP RESPONSE SCALES}
How comfortable or uncomfortable do you think you would feel if someone
<B>moved in next door to you<\B> if they were…
{#G_Grid_II1}
{GRID ROWS DIFFERENT FOR EACH VERSION}
GRID ROWS:
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Towards a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
68
{IF Nov17SampSplit = 1}
1. A Muslim
2. A person who presents their gender differently to the one they were assigned
at birth (including transgender, non-binary and intersex people)
{IF Nov17SampSplit = 2}
1. An Immigrant
2. A gay, lesbian or bisexual person
GRID COLUMNS:
1. Very comfortable
2. Comfortable
3. Neither comfortable nor uncomfortable
4. Uncomfortable
5. Very uncomfortable
VARNAME1: DistNext _Muslim
VARNAME2: DistNext _Trans
VARNAME3: DistNext_Migrant
VARNAME4: DistNext_Gay
{ASK ALL}
EqualAll
{RANDOMLY FLIP SCALE}
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement:
There should be equality for all groups in Britain.
{G_ReadOut_II1}
1. Strongly disagree
2. Disagree
3. Neither agree nor disagree
4. Agree
5. Strongly agree
{ASK ALL}
EqualEmp
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Towards a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
69
{RANDOMISE GRID ROWS, RANDOMLY FLIP RESPONSE SCALES}
Now we want to ask your personal opinion about some changes that have been
happening in this country over the years. Have attempts to give equal opportunities
to each of the following groups gone too far or not far enough?
{#G_Grid_II1}
GRID ROWS:
IF Nov17SampSplit = 1
PCGroups =
1. People aged over 70
2. People with a mental health condition
3. Black people
4. Muslims
IF Nov17SampSplit = 2
PCGroup =
1. Immigrants
2. Disabled people with a physical impairment
3. Gay, lesbian or bisexual people
4. Women
GRID COLUMNS:
1. Gone much too far
2. Gone too far
3. About right
4. Not gone far enough
5. Not gone nearly far enough
VARNAME1: EqualEmp_70
VARNAME2: EqualEmp _Woman
VARNAME3: EqualEmp _Black
VARNAME4: EqualEmp _Trans
VARNAME5: EqualEmp _Muslim
VARNAME6: EqualEmp _MentalHlth
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Towards a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
70
VARNAME7: EqualEmp _Gay
VARNAME8: EqualEmp _Migrants
{ASK ALL}
Serious
{RANDOMISE GRID ROWS, RANDOMLY FLIP RESPONSE SCALES}
In this country nowadays, how serious is the issue of discrimination against people
because of each of the following?
{#G_Grid_II1}
GRID ROWS:
1. Age
2. Gender
3. Race or ethnic background
4. Religion or religious beliefs
5. Physical or mental health condition, impairment or illness
6. Sexual orientation
GRID COLS:
1. Not at all serious
2. Slightly serious
3. Somewhat serious
4. Very serious
5. Extremely serious
VARNAME1: Serious_Age
VARNAME2: Serious _Gender
VARNAME3: Serious _Race
VARNAME4: Serious _Religion
VARNAME5: Serious _Disability
VARNAME6: Serious _SexO
{ASK ALL}
MotivImp
{RANDOMLY FLIP RESPONSE SCALES}
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Towards a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
71
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement:
‘I attempt to act in non-prejudiced ways toward other groups because it is personally
important to me.’
{G_ReadOut_II1}
1. Strongly disagree
2. Disagree
3. Neither agree nor disagree
4. Agree
5. Strongly agree
{ASK ALL}
MotivAppr
{RANDOMLY FLIP RESPONSE SCALES}
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement:
I try to appear non-prejudiced toward other groups in order to avoid disapproval from
others.
{G_ReadOut_II1}
1. Strongly disagree
2. Disagree
3. Neither agree nor disagree
4. Agree
5. Strongly agree
{ASK ALL}
Contact
{RANDOMISE GRID ROWS, RANDOMLY FLIP RESPONSE SCALES}
Of your friends or people you feel close to, how many are in any of the following
groups?
GRID ROWS
IF Nov17SampSplit = 1
PCGroups =
1. People aged over 70
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Towards a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
72
2. People with a mental health condition
3. Black people
4. Muslims
IF Nov17SampSplit = 2
PCGroup =
1. Immigrants
2. Disabled people with a physical impairment
3. Gay, lesbian or bisexual people
4. Women
GRID COLS:
1. None
2. 1
3. 2-5
4. 6-9
5. 10 or more
VARNAME1: Contact_70
VARNAME2: Contact_MentalHlth
VARNAME3: Contact_Black
VARNAME4: Contact_Muslims
VARNAME5: Contact_Migrant
VARNAME6: Contact_Dis
VARNAME7: Contact_Gay
VARNAME8: Contact_Women
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Towards a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
73
Appendix C: Data collection approach
C.1 Overview of the approach
The Commission required a cost-effective means of providing high quality data from
the population in Britain aged 18 and over within a relatively limited timeframe. It also
wished to provide insight into the experiences of some relatively low-incidence
protected characteristic population subgroups and to be able to provide findings
separately for England, Scotland and Wales.
To achieve these aims, the study collected data using the random probability NatCen
and ScotCen panels (which use a sequential online and CATI data collection
approach) in combination with the non-probability PopulusLive panel (which uses
online data collection).
The NatCen panel provides the core of the study’s findings. As a random probability
sample approach, the benefit is that the population of interest has a known and non-
zero chance of selection and considerable effort is made to maximise response from
the selected sample, thereby avoiding the bias that might occur from reliance on a
‘volunteer’ sample. Statistical theory can be applied to provide an assessment of the
level of reliability of the results.
However, non-probability panels provide an effective means of accessing small
incidence populations that would be very costly to achieve via probability
approaches. This approach was used to provide samples of some specific protected
characteristic groups and to boost the size of the sample available in Wales.
Probability and non-probability data have been brought together in this study to
provide some indicative findings for these small incidence groups. In addition, the
probability ScotCen panel was used to provide a sample of sufficient size for robust
analysis in Scotland.
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Towards a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
74
C.2 NatCen panel and ScotCen panel
The NatCen and ScotCen panels were developed via a ‘piggy-back’ approach to two
high quality random probability face-to-face surveys: the British Social Attitudes
survey (BSA) and the Scottish Social Attitudes (SSA) survey. Panellists for this
research were recruited at the end of the interviews in BSA in 2016 and 2017 and
from the SSA in 2015 and 2016. These surveys provide representative samples of
adults aged 18 and over in Britain.
Both panels employ a ‘sequential mixed-mode’ fieldwork design, which for this
research ran from 4 December 2017 to 7 January 2018. At the start of fieldwork, all
active panel members were sent a letter and/or email with a link to the web survey
and a unique log-in code to access the questionnaire and invited to take part in the
research online (no quotas are used given the probability design). A £5 incentive
was also offered as a ‘thank you’ to those who participated. During the first two
weeks of fieldwork, active panel members who had not yet completed the survey
were sent reminders via multiple modes (letters, emails and texts) to maximise
response.
After two weeks of fieldwork, all active panel members who had not yet taken part in
the survey online, and for whom we had a phone number, were issued to the NatCen
telephone unit to follow-up by phone and either support them to take part online or
complete an interview over the phone (there was some variation in this timing
resulting from a ‘targeted’ fieldwork design which prioritised effort with specific
categories of under-represented subgroups to efficiently improve quality). The
telephone fieldwork aims to boost response rates, but also allow those without
internet access to take part. Considerable effort is put into contacting eligible panel
members and all are called a minimum of six times, at a variety of times of the day
and days of the week, before being coded as a ‘non-contact’.
The multimode approach using online and CATI approaches meant that questions
used in previous studies required some adaptation and optimisation for the mode in
which they were to be asked. Questions were then included in an online pilot to
provide some reassurance that they would work as anticipated. However, care
should be taken when comparing estimates from surveys that used a face-to-face
approach: given the subject matter, it is plausible that there could be measurement
differences between interviewer-administered and self-completion approaches for
some estimates (80% of NatCen panel interviews were achieved online).
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Towards a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
n
75
C.3 Survey response to the NatCen and ScotCen panels
The probability design of the NatCen and ScotCen panels allows us to apply
statistical theory to the study, including tests of statistical significance or the ‘margin
of error’. Response rates are a simple indicator of quality for surveys of this sort and
are provided in table C.1. The main NatCen panel survey achieved a 60% response
rate among those panellists invited to participate. When taking account of non-
response at the BSA interview and then also at the point of recruitment to the panel,
our overall response rate was 14%. Whilst the ScotCen panel had a lower survey
response rate at 36%, the rate of recruitment to that panel was higher (a different
recruitment approach was taken in that survey). The overall response rate, including
non-response to the original survey, was similar to that of the NatCen panel at 13%.
Whilst these overall response rates appear relatively low for a probability sample, the
rich information about sample members collected in the initial BSA/SSA interviews
enables a sophisticated weighting approach that accounts effectively for subsequent
non-response bias (see section C.5).
Tables C.2, C.3 and C.4 provide profile information on the survey respondents.
Table C.1 Survey response
NatCen panel
ScotCen panel
Response to the survey
Issued
3,729
1,894
Deadwood
3
8
Achieved
2,180
673
Survey response rate (%)
60
36
Overall response
BSA/SSA issued
16,718
5,910
BSA/SSA deadwood
1,529
633
BSA/SSA productive
6,930
2,525
Recruited to panel
4,003
2,087
BSA/SSA response rate (%)
46
48
Panel recruitment rate (%)
58
83
Panel deadwood
3
0
Overall survey response rate (%)
14
13
Equality and Human Rights Commissio
Published: October 2018
Towards a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
76
Table C.2 Sample profile of the NatCen panel
BSA
population
estimate
(weighted, %)*
Panel survey
estimate
(weighted, %)
Panel survey
sample
(unweighted,
%)
Sex
Male
49
49
43
Female
51
51
57
Age
18–24
11
11
4
25–34
17
18
14
35–44
16
17
18
45–54
18
18
19
55–64
15
15
19
65+
23
21
26
Region
North East
4
4
4
North West
11
11
12
Yorkshire and The Humber
9
9
11
East Midlands
7
8
8
West Midlands
9
9
8
East of England
10
10
12
London
13
13
9
South East
14
14
14
South West
9
9
10
Wales
5
5
5
Scotland
9
9
8
Social grade
Managerial and professional occupations
38
40
50
Intermediate occupations
12
13
14
Small employers and own account
workers
9
8
8
Lower supervisory and technical
occupations
8
8
7
Semi-routine and routine occupations
27
28
20
Highest level of education
Degree
26
27
35
Higher education below degree
11
10
13
A level or equivalent
19
19
18
O level/CSE or equivalent
26
26
24
Foreign or other
2
2
1
No qualifications
17
15
9
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Towards a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
77
Household type
Single person household
17
17
27
Lone parent
4
4
6
2 adults (no children)
36
38
38
2 adults (with children)
21
20
19
3+ adults (no children)
15
14
7
3+ adults (with children)
7
6
3
Economic activity
Full time education
5
5
2
Paid work
56
58
55
Unemployed
5
6
4
Retired
24
23
30
Other
11
9
10
Tenure
Owned/being bought
64
63
71
Rented (LA)
10
9
7
Rented (HA/Trust/New Town)
8
8
7
Rented (Other)
18
19
15
Other
1
1
1
Unweighted base
7270
2180
2180
* Estimates are based on combined BSA 2016 and 2017 datasets, each weighted to reflect the
population at the time.
Table C.3 Sample profile of the ScotCen panel
SSA
population
estimate
(weighted, %)*
Panel survey
estimate
(weighted, %)
Panel survey
sample
(unweighted,
%)
Sex
Male
48
46
48
Female
52
54
52
Age
18–24
11
13
4
25–34
16
17
9
35–44
15
15
14
45–54
18
18
24
55–64
15
16
23
65+
22
21
26
Social grade
Managerial and professional occupations
34
33
48
Intermediate occupations
10
10
10
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Towards a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
78
Small employers and own account workers
7
7
9
Lower supervisory and technical
occupations
11
13
9
Semi-routine and routine occupations
27
27
19
Highest level of education
Degree
22
23
37
Higher education below degree
15
15
14
A level or equivalent
21
23
17
O level/CSE or equivalent
21
22
18
Foreign or other
2
0
1
No qualifications
18
16
12
Household type
Single person household
20
21
32
Lone parent
3
4
4
2 adults (no children)
35
36
37
2 adults (with children)
20
20
16
3+ adults (no children)
15
13
7
3+ adults (with children)
7
6
3
Economic activity
Full time education
6
6
3
Paid work
55
58
53
Unemployed
6
5
4
Retired
23
22
31
Other
10
9
10
Tenure
Owned/being bought
62
64
73
Rented (LA)
15
14
11
Rented (HA/Trust/New Town)
9
9
7
Rented (Other)
13
14
9
Other
1
0
0
Unweighted base
2525
673
673
* Estimates are based on combined BSA 2016 and 2017 datasets, each weighted to reflect the
population at the time
Table C.4 Profile of protected characteristics within survey respondents
Protected characteristic
Survey estimate
(weighted, %)
Survey estimate
(unweighted, %)
Sex
Male
49
43
Female
51
57
Age
18–24
10
4
25–34
17
13
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Towards a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
79
Protected characteristic
Survey estimate
(weighted, %)
Survey estimate
(unweighted, %)
35–44
17
18
45–54
18
19
55–64
16
19
65+
22
28
Ethnicity
BLACK: of African origin
2
1
BLACK: of Caribbean origin
1
1
BLACK: of other origin
<1
<1
ASIAN: of Indian origin
3
2
ASIAN: of Pakistani origin
2
1
ASIAN: of Bangladeshi origin
1
<1
ASIAN: of Chinese origin
<1
<1
ASIAN: of other origin
1
1
WHITE: of any origin
88
93
MIXED ORIGIN
2
1
OTHER
1
1
Religion
No religion
39
37
Christian
52
56
Other religion
8
6
Disability
Yes – physical health condition or
disability only*
22
24
Yes – mental health condition or
disability only
7
7
Yes – Both physical and mental health
condition or disability
3
3
No, neither
68
65
Sexual orientation
Heterosexual or straight
93
94
Gay or lesbian
2
2
Bisexual
3
4
Other sexual orientation not listed
0
0
I prefer not to say
2
2
Transgender
Respondents identifying with gender
different to that assigned at birth, or
currently identify their gender as
‘something else’
<1
<1
Base: 2,180 respondents, NatCen panel sample
* Protected characteristics are described consistently unless the survey used for the data
collection used a slightly different term, in which case we have replicated the term used in
that survey to avoid misrepresenting the findings.
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Towards a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
80
Protected characteristic
Survey estimate
(weighted, %)
Survey estimate
(unweighted, %)
Sex
Male
46
48
Female
54
52
Age
18–24
11
3
25–34
16
9
35–44
15
12
45–54
18
23
55–64
16
23
65+
23
31
Ethnicity
BLACK: of African origin
1
<1
BLACK: of Caribbean origin
0
0
BLACK: of other origin
0
0
ASIAN: of Indian origin
<1
<1
ASIAN: of Pakistani origin
1
<1
ASIAN: of Bangladeshi origin
0
0
ASIAN: of Chinese origin
1
<1
ASIAN: of other origin
1
<1
WHITE: of any origin
96
98
MIXED ORIGIN
1
<1
OTHER
0
0
Religion
No religion
43
40
Christian
52
56
Other religion
3
3
Disability
Yes – physical health condition or
disability only*
21
25
Yes – mental health condition or
disability only
10
7
Yes – Both physical and mental health
condition or disability
3
3
No, neither
66
64
Sexual orientation
Heterosexual or Straight
89
93
Gay or Lesbian
3
2
Bisexual
4
2
Other sexual orientation not listed
0
0
I prefer not to say
5
2
Transgender
Respondents with gender different to
that assigned at birth, or currently
identify their gender as ‘something
else’
<1
<1
Base: 673 respondents, ScotCen panel sample
* Protected characteristics are described consistently unless the survey used for the data
collection used a slightly different term, in which case we have replicated the term used in
that survey to avoid misrepresenting the findings.
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Towards a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
81
C.4 PopulusLive panel
The PopulusLive panel is a web panel with approximately 130,000 active members.
The panel is recruited via a number of approaches including standard web
advertising, working with selected database partners, and word of mouth to provide a
cross section the population.
There were separate approaches for the boosted protected characteristic groups and
the boost for Wales. For the latter, sample members for this survey were selected
using a quota approach: quotas were set by sex, age, region and highest level of
education to achieve a representative sample on those characteristics of those aged
18 and over living in Britain (whilst the sample used for the study was limited to
Wales, interviews were carried out with panel members across Britain to enable a
matching approach to the weighting – see below). Fieldwork lasted for four weeks in
December 2017, with panel members offered an incentive to take part. Invitations
were staggered to enable those who were slower to respond or harder to reach the
opportunity to participate. Quota sample approaches do not look at response
maximisation as an indicator of quality and are not presented here, but the efforts to
ensure a longer than usual fieldwork period which encourages participation will go
some way to improving the profile of the resulting sample.
Separately, boost samples for Black, Muslim, Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual and those with a
mental health condition were achieved with emailed invitations to the full panel over
the four-week period.
C.5 Weighting and analysis
Analysis of the British population uses the NatCen panel and that of Scotland on its
own uses the ScotCen panel. A similar approach is taken to the weighting for both
panels (though separately computed). A weight is applied that takes account of three
stages of the panels’ design:
The BSA and SSA survey weights. Panel members were recruited from the
BSA 2016 and BSA 2017 and from SSA 2015 and SSA 2016. Firstly, for both
surveys, the weights account for unequal chances of selection in their
sampling (for instance SSA over-samples rural areas and in both surveys
individuals in larger households have a lower selection probability). Secondly,
a non-response model is used to produce a non-response weight. This weight
adjusts for non-response at the survey. Finally, the weights make the samples
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Towards a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
82
representative of the general British population (for BSA) or Scotland (for
SSA) in terms of gender, age and Government Office Region (GOR).
Panel weight. This weight accounts for non-response at the panel
recruitment stage where some people interviewed as part of the BSA/SSA
survey chose not to join the panel. A logistic regression model was used to
derive the probability of response of each panel member; the panel weight is
computed as the inverse of the probabilities of response. This weight adjusts
the panel for non-response (for the NatCen panel the survey variables used
were: age and sex groups, GOR, survey year, household type, household
income, education level, internet access, ethnicity, tenure, social class group,
economic activity, political party identification, and interest in politics). The
resulting panel weight was multiplied by the BSA/SSA weights, so the panel is
representative of the population.
Survey weight. This weight is to adjust the bias caused by non-response to
this particular panel survey. A logistic regression model was used to compute
the probabilities of response of each participant. The panel survey weight is
equal to the inverse of the probabilities of response. The initial set of
predictors used to build the model was the same as for the panel weight; and
at this wave the final set of variables used was also the same. The final
survey weight is the result of multiplying the survey weight by the
compounded panel weight.
Country analysis (England, Scotland and Wales) is made possible by the ScotCen
panel and by the non-probability Welsh boost. To be more confident about the Welsh
sample, a propensity matching approach was taken to match the PopulusLive GB
sample to the NatCen panel sample on key variables,
5
with the sample calibrated by
age-sex within country. Data for Wales is therefore a mix of NatCen panel and
PopulusLive data, weighted to be representative of the Welsh population.
Results for the boosted protected characteristic groups in the ‘experiences’ section
should be regarded as indicative – we cannot know how representative the sample
that we achieved is of these subgroups in the wider population. Unlike the Welsh
boost, quotas were not set (due to the relatively small numbers available on the
Populus panel) and all available cases were invited to be interviewed. Given the
small numbers of these subgroups in the NatCen panel a matching approach similar
5
These variables were as follows: age, sex, region, relationship status, tenure, religion, highest
educational qualification, disability, whether any children in household, economic activity and
ethnicity. Note that the questions asked on the Populus omnibus were slightly different from those
asked for the NatCen panel for disability, education and economic activity.
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Towards a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
83
to that for the Welsh sample was not undertaken for these boosts and data are left
unweighted for analysis.
C.6 Coding of domains
The questions about the context in which experiences of prejudice took place
included the collection of verbatim responses where the experience was not in one
of the listed codes. These verbatim responses were coded in the office by specialist
NatCen coders and either placed into new codes (where there was a number of
similar responses), back-coded into the existing codes, or kept in an ‘other’ category.
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Towards a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
84
Appendix D: Recommendations on usage
of the survey
D.1 Reliability and validity
The items in the survey are underpinned with social psychological theories of
prejudice, and have been widely used in social psychological research (for example,
in experimental studies) and in national and international surveys (Abrams and
Houston, 2006; ESS, 2008 etc.) to capture experiences of prejudice and attitudes
towards groups with protected characteristics. The items were based on established
social psychological research (see reviews in Abrams, 2010; Abrams, Swift and
Mahmood, 2016) to capture the multi-faceted nature of prejudice in as economical a
form as possible.
The items are considered to have good content and face validity. Face validity is
when the items appear valid and meaningful to respondents, those administering the
items and non-experts. Our pilot work established that respondents understood the
items and experienced no ambiguity over their meaning or how to use the response
formats. For instance, participants understood the concepts such as ‘prejudice’ and
what it meant to be ‘treated unfairly’ which formed the general item measuring
experiences of prejudice.
Content validity refers to the adequacy of the items to capture knowledge about
domains for which it was intended. The case studies illustrate content validity (and
how the set of items as a whole can be interpreted together) in showing how
prejudice can manifest differently for different protected characteristics.
Because of resource constraints (something many social researchers are likely to
face), as well as limits of how many questions it is reasonable to ask of respondents
in a single session, the survey was limited to 30 items. There are other aspects of
prejudice (such as threat) that we could have assessed, and we would not argue that
the survey is exhaustive (see Abrams, 2010 for a fuller set). However, the items that
were selected do, in our view, cover many of the core elements of prejudice that are
amenable to assessment through surveys and questionnaires. Future work, whether
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Towards a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
85
an expanded version of the survey, or research to explore the situation of one
protected characteristic in greater detail, could usefully include additional questions
to explore the context, and other forms of experiences and expressions of prejudice.
Evaluating the full potential of the survey, and a ‘barometer’ that uses it, is a longer-
term task that needs to be supported and should be conducted through further
academic research.
6
For example, previous research shows that the three items we
have used to measure experiences of prejudice, when applied to prejudice based on
age, do have the same meaning for younger and older respondents (Bratt et al.,
2017). Therefore, we are confident that the items work well across other protected
characteristics, but this will need to be evaluated by further statistical work.
7
The test of the survey did not cover the whole range of protected characteristics.
Some further work will be needed to examine experiences associated with marriage
and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, and gender reassignment. In
addition, we included some additional groups as part of this research because of
particular risks they face even though they may not necessarily be afforded specific
legal protections (Gypsy, Roma and Traveller, and immigrants). Further work is also
needed to ensure that emerging categories and groups that may require protection
are assessed in future. The survey can readily be adapted for these groups, and we
hope that benchmark measures will be established as soon as is feasible across the
whole set in order to ensure that new data can be compared meaningfully with
existing evidence. It is also important to continue to look beyond protected
characteristics to other vulnerable or at-risk groups, as noted in the Equality and
Human Rights Commission Is England Fairer? report (2016; chapter 9).
6
The construct validity of the items (that is, how well the items capture a non-observable construct
such as prejudice) need to be tested. This can be explored in two ways. One way is by analysing the
relationships between the items capturing attitudes towards one protected characteristic (e.g. testing
how all the constructs that capture attitudes towards, for example, black people, relate to one
another). Another is by exploring how one item captures an attitude towards multiple protected
characteristics (e.g. how well the feeling thermometer captures feelings towards multiple groups).
Further analyses should also test for convergent validity, the extent to which the attitude items
converge with other items measuring the same construct. This can be tested by analysing the
correlations between the items measuring prejudice attitudes towards protected characteristic groups
with items assessing equality values and motivation to control prejudice. We would expect that people
who value equality and have higher motivation to control prejudice express less prejudice.
7
This will be tested by exploring the measurement invariance of the items, where good items will be
invariant across protected characteristic groups. Conducting these analyses will ensure that the items
have the same meaning for each protected characteristic.
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Towards a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
86
D.2 Survey approach
A new element of the approach in this research was the use of an online/CATI
probability panel, supplemented by a non-probability panel. The piloting and the
initial findings described in this report support the view that the measures worked as
anticipated in a (largely) self-completion setting. The probability sampling approach
used for most of the analysis, coupled with sophisticated weighting, provides
reassurance that adjustments can be made to correct non-response bias, and
assess the level of error in our estimates. Efforts to adjust the non-probability sample
in Wales did not entirely account for the variation observed between the probability
and non-probability samples in that country on key measures, meaning that direct
comparisons should not be made between Wales and England or Scotland, where
all cases were from the probability panel. Future research could usefully focus on
identifying variables that could better account for differences between these types of
sample as they relate to the key measures of prejudicial attitudes and experience.
There is also some uncertainty about the extent to which the boosted low-incidence
protected characteristic group samples were representative of their counterparts in
the wider population. More reliable estimates would be possible from larger
probability samples and we hope that the survey measures will be taken up in further
studies to achieve this.
Every three years, the Commission evaluates whether Britain is becoming fairer or
not. We strongly recommend that new research is conducted to evaluate how
prejudice and discrimination have changed by repeating the benchmark survey and
its set of measures to coincide with these intervals. In addition, it would be highly
desirable to conduct longitudinal panel studies to examine whose attitudes are
changing and what other factors may be influencing these changes in relation to
other indicators of inequality.
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
Towards a national barometer of prejudice and discrimination in Britain
87
Contacts
This publication and related equality and human rights resources are available from
our website.
Questions and comments regarding this publication may be addressed to:
[email protected]. We welcome your feedback.
For information on accessing one of our publications in an alternative format, please
contact: [email protected].
Keep up to date with our latest news, events and publications by signing up to our e-
newsletter.
EASS
For advice, information or guidance on equality, discrimination or human rights
issues, please contact the Equality Advisory and Support Service, a free and
independent service.
Telephone 0808 800 0082
Textphone 0808 800 0084
Hours 09:00 to 19:00 (Monday to Friday)
10:00 to 14:00 (Saturday)
Post FREEPOST EASS HELPLINE FPN6521
© 2018 Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published October 2018
ISBN 978-1-84206-763-5
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published: October 2018
You can download this publication from
www.equalityhumanrights.com
© 2018 Equality and Human Rights Commission
Published October 2018
ISBN 978-1-84206-763-5
