ETHNICITY, MODERN PREJUDICE AND THE QUALITYOF LIFE
(Accepted 28 August, 2000)
ABSTRACT. The aim of this investigation was to measure levels of ethnic orcultural background diversity, social cohesion and modern prejudice, and theimpact of such diversity, cohesion and prejudice on the quality of life. Using asample of 743 residents of Prince George, British Columbia, we identified diverseethnic or cultural groups, and created several indexes of heterogeneous socialnetworks and a measure of modern prejudice. Dividing the total sample into threeroughly distinct groups containing, respectively, respondents self-reporting anethnic or cultural background that was aboriginal, non-aboriginal visible minorityor anything else, we discovered that all significant comparisons indicated thatpeople with aboriginal backgrounds reported a generally lower quality of lifethan those in the other two groups. The quality of life scores of the other twogroups were practically indistinguishable. Given the demographic structure of oursample, the revealed differences could not be attributed to differences in socio-economic classes. Members of the largest group of respondents tended to bemost prejudiced and optimistic, people with aboriginal backgrounds tended tobe least prejudiced and optimistic and people with visible minority backgroundstended to be between the other two groups. Regressions revealed that a variety ofethnic/culture-related phenomena could only explain 8%, 9% and 10%, respec-tively, of the variation in scores for happiness, life satisfaction and satisfactionwith the overall quality of life. When domain satisfaction scores were added tothe set of predictors, we were able to explain 48%, 69% and 54%, respectively,of the variation in scores for happiness, life satisfaction and satisfaction with theoverall quality of life. In the presence of the domain satisfaction scores, the scoreson the ethnic/cultural related phenomena added only one percentage point ofexplanatory power for happiness and life satisfaction, and three percentage pointsfor satisfaction with the overall quality of life. All things considered, then, it is fairto say that this project showed that ethnic or cultural background diversity, socialcohesion and modern prejudice had relatively very little impact on the quality oflife of our sample of respondents.
The aim of this investigation was to measure levels of ethnic orcultural background diversity, social cohesion and modern preju-dice, and the impact of such diversity, cohesion and prejudice on thequality of life. In the next section (Section 2) we briefly review someof the difficulties and theories related to the concepts of ethnicity,social cohesion and social capital. This cursory review clearly illus-trates the historic and continuing significance of these extraordin-arily complex notions for social science and public policy-making.The third section (Section 3) contains a brief review of somecurrent literature examining differences between traditional or oldforms of prejudice (e.g., racism and sexism) and more subtlemodern forms. The literature on more subtle forms of prejudice isbound to increase and become more important in the future as therequirements of political correctness become clearer to more peopleand old fashioned prejudice becomes more difficult to discovereven in anonymously completed questionnaires. After these reviewsections, we explain our survey sampling technique and question-naire (Section 4), and sample characteristics (Section 5). In thesixth section we show that the distribution of ethnic or culturalgroups changes significantly as one varies the operational defini-tion of ‘ethnic or cultural background’. In the next four sectionswe present several indexes that were created to help us use all ourinformation most efficiently. They include indexes of Heterogen-eous Social Support, Heterogeneous Socializing Network, (Section7), Xenophobia, Cultural/Ethnic Homogeneity Preference (Section8), Personal Fair Treatment, General Fair Treatment (Section 9)and Inegalitarianism (Section 10). In section 11 we present resultsregarding people’s perceptions of anti-aboriginal racism. Followingthat we compare several mean scores indicating people’s satisfactionwith specific domains of their lives and with their overall quality oflife, with the total sample divided into three groups, namely, thoseself-reporting that their backgrounds are aboriginal, non-aboriginalvisible minority or a residual set containing everything else. Thereare then three sections in which regressions are run to measurethe shared variation and relative importance of all our potentiallyexplanatory variables and indexes on happiness (Section 13), lifesatisfaction (Section 14), and satisfaction with the overall quality
ETHNICITY, MODERN PREJUDICE AND THE QUALITYOF LIFE 191
of life (Section 15). The final section (Section 16) contains someconcluding remarks.
2. ETHNICITY, SOCIAL COHESION AND SOCIAL CAPITAL
In 1922 the pioneer sociologist Max Weber (1971) complained thatwhile the concept of an ethnic group was practically inescapable,it was fraught with so much ambiguity that its scientific usefulnesswas severely limited. According to Bader (1997: p. 106) “One mainproblem recognized long ago [by Weber] has always been that thedemarcation of ethnicity from other ascriptive categories in general,and from racialized, national, cultural and religious categories inparticular, was always unclear, in everyday language as well asin scientific discourse”. Nearly eighty years after Weber’s classictreatise was published Bader (1997: p. 104) wrote that “Ethnicity isa highly complex and very much contested concept”.
If one consults theInternational Encyclopedia of the SocialSciences, one finds the following apparently simple definition: “Anethnic group is a distinct category of the population in a largersociety whose culture is usually different from its own” (Sills, 1965:p. 167). In fact, the definition is deceptively simple because the‘distinct category’ can be specified by “a multiplicity of factors,among them language use, religious practice, endogamy, parochialeducation, choice of ingroup friends, use of ethnic media, and parti-cipation in ethnic voluntary organizations” (Driedger, 1996: p. 130).Later in his book Driedger (1996: p. 150) offers the followingdefinition.
Ethnic identification may be defined as a positive personal attitude and attachmentto a group with whom the individual believes he has a common ancestry based onshared characteristics and shared sociocultural experiences. Such identificationcan take place at various levels, ranging from persons to groups and categoriessuch as ethnicity. Similarly there may be identification with a territory, ethnicinstitutions, culture, historical symbols, ideology, or leaders.
Identifying oneself as a member of a particular ethnic group andhaving other members of the group reinforce one’s identity helpsbuild self-esteem and self-confidence in individuals and social cohe-sion in groups. In an excellent review of social cohesion literaturefrom a political point of view Jensen (1998: p. 38) wrote that
This is not the first time social cohesion has seized the attention of policycommunities. The concept has gained popularity as a way of maintaining socialorder each time that economic turbulence and political adjustment has loosenedthe mooring of familiar patterns and practices. At the end of the 19th century,in the 1930s and 1940s, and again today the concept of social cohesion appealsto social commentators who fear social turmoil associated with new forms ofproduction, patterns of gender and other social relations, and population move-ment. At each of these times popular discourse expressed fears and uncertainty,that ‘things were falling apart.’ In response, some – but always only some –analysts sought mechanisms and institutions that might foster shared valuesand commitment to community. . . . Those who use it demonstrate an analyticalproclivity for seeing social order as the consequence of values more than interests,of consensus more than conflict and of social practices more than political action.Other ways of seeing may have been displaced by enthusiasm for social cohesionbut they remain as alternative voices in on-going conversations.
In several publications Putnam (1993, 1995, 1996) argued thatsocial cohesion is the stuff of which social capital is made. In brief,to individuals’ and communities’ stocks of financial, physical andhuman capital, one may add social capital, and to some extent defi-cits of one sort may be compensated by surpluses of another sort.What’s more, unlike physical capital stocks, for example, whichtend to decrease with use, social capital stocks tend to increasewith use. Exchange networks grow in numbers and variety of parti-cipants, they grow across political jurisdictions, and communicationbecomes easier as trust builds with each successful exchange. Inother words, social capital is a species of public good, like morality,love and knowledge (Michalos, 1995).
In a critical analysis of some of the key research studies involvingsocial capital, Portes (1998: pp. 22–2) urged researchers to becautious. In his view,
Social ties can bring about greater control over wayward behavior and provideprivileged access to resources; they can also restrict individual freedom and baroutsiders from gaining access to the same resources through particularistic prefer-ences. For this reason, it seems preferable to approach these manifold processes associal facts to be studied in all their complexity, rather than as examples of value.A more dispassionate stance will allow analysts to consider all facets of the eventin question and prevent turning the ensuing literature into an unmitigated celeb-ration of community. Communitarian advocacy is a legitimate political stance; itis not good social science. As a label for the positive effects of sociability, socialcapital has, in my view, a place in theory and research provided that its different
ETHNICITY, MODERN PREJUDICE AND THE QUALITYOF LIFE 193
sources and effects are recognized and that their downsides are examined withequal attention.
As a matter of fact, Portes’s concerns about the real connec-tions between social cohesion and social capital were exploredusing other terms by Mullin and Copper (1994). These authors dida careful meta-analysis of 49 studies of the relationship betweengroup cohesiveness and performance in order to measure theextent to which “a cohesive group will exhibit successful taskperformance”. (We assume that a successfully performing groupwould be a productive group, and that productivity would lead tothe accumulation of some sort of social capital.) The 49 studiescontained 66 distinct tests of the relationship and involved 8,702subjects. Sixty-one (92%) of those tests resulted in a significantpositive cohesiveness-performance effect averaging aboutr = 0.25.Besides demonstrating the existence of the relationship, Mullen andCopper showed that while the causal arrows run in both directions,successful performance had a greater impact on group cohesivenessthan the latter had on successful performance. The difference in therelative strength of the impacts was only a couple of percentagepoints. Concluding their investigation, they claimed that
. . . the studies integrated here suggest that what distinguishes the groups thatperform well is not that their members interact with smooth coordination, likeone another, or are proud of their group but that they are committed to successfultask performance and regulate their behavior toward that end (Mullen and Copper,1994: p. 225).
Reflecting on the theoretical connections among the concepts ofethnicity, social cohesion and social capital, one of the aims of thisinvestigation became to try to construct empirical measures of themand to see how, if at all, the latter were associated with the quality oflife. As usual, we operationalized the latter concept with our globalindicators of happiness, satisfaction with life as a whole and withthe overall quality of life.
3. MODERN PREJUDICE
The more we thought about the potential positive benefits of identi-fying with a particular ethnic group, the more we became aware
194 ALEX C. MICHALOS AND BRUNO D. ZUMBO
Exhibit 1
Sun City Plan of Human Development
of the potential costs. More precisely, we thought that one of thedownsides of being a comfortable member of some group might bethat such comfort may entail discomfort in the presence of peopleoutside the group and even prejudicial attitudes and discriminatorybehaviour against such outsiders. Prejudice and discrimination arecertainly familiar phenomena to everyone. In Michalos (1988) itwas shown that a number of distinct kinds of prejudice form alogically compact and coherent view of human development. Theview was called the Sun City Plan, named after the South Africanresort city that was boycotted by some artists during the apartheidperiod. Exhibit 1 illustrates the Plan. First, all living things are
ETHNICITY, MODERN PREJUDICE AND THE QUALITYOF LIFE 195
divided into those that are subhuman versus those that are human.‘Specism’ designates the belief that human beings are in some essen-tial respect(s) superior to any other living things. Within the classof humans, white people are supposed to be essentially superior tononwhite people. This isracism. Within the class of white folks,the (economic) upper classes are supposed to be essentially superiorto the working classes. This isclassism. The hierarchy continueswithin the white upper classes, for even there, men are supposedto be essentially superior to women. This issexism. Finally, evenwithin the illustrious class of white upper class males, one may findan inherently superior class, namely, those who emphasize the virtueof thinking versus mere feeling. This, for want of a better name,we may call ‘rationalism’. Human progress in the Sun City Plan, asindicated in the exhibit, proceeds by moving presumably geneticallyas well as politically from left to right.
Since most people do not have carefully thought-through beliefsystems, one would not expect them to have thoroughly consistentand logically tidy clusters as illustrated in Exhibit 1. Nevertheless,casual observation indicates that chunks of the Sun City Plan do tendto exist in the same individuals. People who express racist views, forexample, frequently tend to reveal sexist and classist views as well.Andersen and Collins (1995: pp. 3–4) hit the nail right on the headwhen they wrote
. . . knowledge is not just about content and information; it provides an orientationto the world. What you know frames how you behave and how you think aboutyourself and others. If what you know is wrong because it is based on exclu-sionary thought, you are likely to act in exclusionary ways, thereby reproducingracism, anti-Semitism, sexism, class oppression, and homophobia of society. Thismay not be because you are overtly racist, anti-Semitic, sexist, elitist, or homo-phobic (although it may encourage these beliefs), but it is simply because you donot know any better. Challenging oppressive race, class, and gender relations insociety requires a reconstruction of knowledge so that we have some basis fromwhich to change these damaging and dehumanizing systems of oppression.
At this point in time most people, in North America at least,are sensitive to expressions of prejudice and reluctant to utter orotherwise display it. For example, in a public meeting or discussion,most people would not refer to women as ‘broads’, ‘dames’ or even‘girls’ today as they might well have twenty years ago. They will notcasually say that they think women should get married, have babies
196 ALEX C. MICHALOS AND BRUNO D. ZUMBO
and look after men and children as their life work, although theymight very well think it. Most people would be reluctant to say theydo not believe women and men should receive equal pay for workof equal value, if that was what they believed. Modest progress asit surely is, there is no doubt that most people have a good senseof what is politically correct and acceptable in most circumstances,and they usually behave accordingly.
That creates a problem for contemporary researchers interestedin measuring levels of prejudice. To solve this problem, measuresof subtle forms of prejudice have been developed. For example,McConahay (1986) designed and tested a scale ofmodern racism,Swim, Aikin, Hall and Hunter (1995) and Morrison, Morrison,Pope and Zumbo (1999) developed a scale ofmodern sexism,and Morrison (1998) developed a scale ofmodern homonegativity.Below we introduce an Index of Inegalitarianism which providesa rough measure of subtle or modern prejudice capturing, amongother things, modern racism, sexism and homonegativity.
The most carefully documented account of subtle prejudice wefound was that of Henry, Tator, Mattis and Rees (1995) concerningan attitude they call ‘democratic racism’ in Canada. According tothese authors,
Democratic racism is an ideology in which two conflicting sets of values aremade congruent to each other. Commitments to democratic principles such asjustice, equality, and fairness conflict but coexist with attitudes and behavioursthat include negative feelings about minority groups and differential treatment ofand discrimination against them.
One of the consequences of the conflict is a lack of support for policies andpractices that might ameliorate the low status of people of colour. These policiesand practices tend to require changes in the existing social, economic, and polit-ical order, usually by state intervention. The intervention, however, is perceivedto be in conflict with and a threat to liberal democracy. Thus democratic racismholds that the spread of racism should only be dealt with – if at all – by leavingbasic economic structures and society relations essentially unchanged. . . . Effortsto combat racism that require intervention to change the social, economic, andpolitical order will lack political support. More importantly, they will lack legit-imacy, according to the egalitarian principles of liberal democracy (Henry, Tator,Mattis and Rees, 1995: p. 21).
Democratic racism is supposed to be supported by “a set of justi-ficatory arguments and mechanisms that permit . . . contradictoryideologies to coexist”. They are characterized as fourteen “myths”
ETHNICITY, MODERN PREJUDICE AND THE QUALITYOF LIFE 197
to emphasize their nature as pervasive and unsubstantiated beliefs.Some are apparently more unsubstantiated than others. The mythsare as follows.
Racism cannot exist in a democratic society.Discrimination is a problem faced by everyone from time to time.White European immigrants also experienced discrimination.Racism is a result of immigration; racial conflict occurs because races mix.Minority groups refuse to fit in and adapt to Canadian society.Minority groups cannot fit into Canadian society; they change the nationalidentity.People of colour have cultural problems. Race is not the issue.Non-Whites lack the skills and motivation to succeed.Multicultural policies are sufficient.Racism comes from ignorance; therefore, education about other people willeradicate it.Racism is a problem for non-Whites to solve.All we need to do is to treat everyone equally.Although racism exists, individuals have the right to freedom of speech.Anti-racism is racism in reverse (Henry, Tator, Mattis and Rees, 1995: p. 308).
Presumably a similar set of “myths” could be discovered thattend to justify subtle forms of sexism, homonegativity and so on.That is not a task that can be pursued here, but it would be worthundertaking at another time. For our purposes, it is enough tonote that we agree with the authors who see prejudice as a multi-faceted phenomena that requires a multi-item index to appropriatelymeasure it. Our Index of Inegalitarianism is a modest attempt toconstruct such an index. Below, then, we explain the index andexplore relationships among modern prejudice measured by thisindex, ethnicity, social cohesion and the quality of life.
4. SAMPLING TECHNIQUE AND QUESTIONNAIRE
Two thousand 10-page questionnaires were mailed to a simplerandom sample of Prince George’s 34 000 households in November1998. The first page and a half contained 15 items identifyingvarious aspects of people’s cultural or ethnic background, e.g.,first language, respondent and parents’ country of birth, citizen-ship and participation in specifically cultural/ethnic associations.
198 ALEX C. MICHALOS AND BRUNO D. ZUMBO
These were followed by 22 items designed to measure respond-ents’ cultural/ethnic relations. For example, an item in this sectionwas ‘The cultural/ethnic background of your closest friends is. . . ’.There were five Likert-type response categories and an off-scale ‘notapplicable’ option. The responses ran from ‘exactly the same as yourown background’, through ‘a mixed variety’ to ‘totally differentfrom your own background’. Next came 15 items about respond-ents’ preferences and experiences, with five response categoriesrunning from ‘strongly disagree’ to ‘strongly agree’. For example,an item in this section was ‘It is best if most people’s friends have thesame cultural or ethnic background as they do’. In the same Likertformat there was then a section with 29 items on fair treatmentand human rights. An example of items in this section is ‘Police inPrince George are generally helpful and treat you fairly’. There wasa page of questions about respondents’ satisfaction with particulardomains of their lives (e.g., their family relations, jobs and housing),their overall happiness and satisfaction with the overall quality oftheir lives. The questionnaire ended with two pages of demographicquestions, e.g., age, marital status and so on.
5. SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS
By the end of December 610 (30%) useable questionnaires werereturned. To these we added 133 questionnaires obtained from over-sampling in our local multicultural and native friendship centres,which gave us a working data-set of 743 cases. On the basis ofresponses to the question ‘How would you name your cultural orethnic background? (e.g., Italian, Carrier, Metis, English Canadian,etc.)’, we divided the randomly selected and over-sampled respond-ents into three broad but roughly distinct groups, namely, thoseidentifying their backgrounds as fully or partly aboriginal, non-aboriginal visible minorities and everyone else. In the randomlyselected group 5% identified their backgrounds as aboriginal, 3%as non-aboriginal visible minorities and 92% as something else,compared to 46%, 15% and 39%, respectively, for the over-sampledgroup. So, we did increase our numbers of people with abori-ginal and non-aboriginal visible minority backgrounds a bit byover-sampling, though not as much as we hoped for. In the total
ETHNICITY, MODERN PREJUDICE AND THE QUALITYOF LIFE 199
data-set of 743 cases, there were 89 (12%) respondents who iden-tified their backgrounds as fully or partly aboriginal, compared to9% identified as such at Statistics Canada’s last census of PrinceGeorge in 1996. Since there were no statistically significant differ-ences between the randomly selected and over-sampled groups withrespect to income, age, gender and education, for most analysesmembers of both groups were combined into one data-set. Insofaras socio-economic classes are mainly distinguishable on the basisof differences in education and income, the fact that our threebroad groups (those identifying their backgrounds as fully or partlyaboriginal, non-aboriginal visible minorities and everyone else)were not distinguishable by these variables indicates that differ-ences among the groups cannot be attributed to differences in theirclasses.
Of the 738 respondents who identified their gender, 55% (402)were females. Fifty-four percent (399) of those who answered themarital status question were now married and another 14% (103)had live-in or common-law partners. The average age was 43, andthe range ran from 18 to 91. Eighty-five (12%) had some univer-sity education, with 139 (19%) holding a university degree. Threehundred and fifty-four (49%) were employed full-time and 106(15%) part-time. Two hundred and nineteen (31%) had total familyincomes of from $40 000 to $69 999, with the median in the $50 000to $59 999 category.
According to the 1996 census, which is the last official full popu-lation count available from Statistics Canada, the average age ofPrince George residents over 18 years of age was 41, 49% of thecity’s adult residents were female, 50% were married and livingwith their spouse, 17% had some university education, 9% helda university degree and 66% were employed. The 1995 medianfamily income for Prince George was $56 125. Broadly speaking,then, our working sample is a bit older, has a few more females andmarried people and still more people with university degrees thanthe population from which it was drawn.
20
0A
LEX
C.M
ICH
ALO
SA
ND
BR
UN
OD
.ZU
MB
O
Exhibit 2
Percentage Distribution of Three Largest Ethnic Groups Variously Defined
Item name Largest Group % 2nd Largest Group % 3rd Largest Group % Total
N
Language spoken at home English 94 Punjabi 1.0 French 0.5 743
First language spoken English 81 German 3.1 French 2.3 743
Country of birth Canada 83 U.K. 3.2 U.S.A. 1.9 742
Mother’s country of birth Canada 70 U.K. 7.3 U.S.A. 4.1 739
Father’s country of birth Canada 66 U.K. 6.6 U.S.A. 4.9 737
Background self-identified Canadian 61 U.K. 8.5 Carrier 3.4 728
Citizenship status Canadian 94 Landed Immigrant 3.0 Other 3.0 701
Religious affiliation Roman Catholic 26 United Church 3.0 Anglican 2.7 422
Ethnic club member Metis Assn. 10 Celtic Club 8.1 Multicult. Society 6.8 74
ETHNICITY, MODERN PREJUDICE AND THE QUALITYOF LIFE 201
Exhibit 3
Heterogeneous Social Support Index
Item: The cultural/ethnic background of people who have . . . Item-total
correlation
Shown they respect and appreciate you 0.57
Given you most encouragement and reassurance 0.72
Given you the most useful information and advice 0.65
Shown they really care about you 0.66
6. PERSPECTIVES OF CULTURAL AND ETHNIC BACKGROUNDS
Exhibit 2 shows that the percentages of respondents with differentcultural or ethnic backgrounds varies with the operational defini-tions employed. The groups created from respondents’ self-identified cultural or ethnic backgrounds are not mutually exclusivebecause people often gave hyphenated responses, e.g., Canadian-Ukranian, Carrier-Welsh-Irish-English. What was most surprisingabout responses to this item was the fact that only five people outof 728 identified their backgrounds as American. Apparently mostof the people in our sample who were born or whose parents wereborn in the United States do not think of that fact as a feature oftheir cultural or ethnic background. Such people typically seem tohave gone back a generation or more to capture what they regardedas their cultural or ethnic background.
According to the 1996 census, 87% of Prince George residentsand 76% of British Columbian residents reported that their firstlanguage was English. Eighty-nine percent of Prince George resid-ents and 73% of British Columbian residents reported that they wereCanadian citizens.
7. NETWORKS OF SOCIAL COHESION
Several of our cultural or ethnic relations items clustered together toform relatively discrete indexes of social relationships that indicatedifferent levels of socializing activity.
202 ALEX C. MICHALOS AND BRUNO D. ZUMBO
Exhibit 4
Heterogeneous Socializing Network Index
Item: The cultural/ethnic background of . . . Item-total
correlation
Your closest friends 0.62
People in most social functions you attend 0.58
Your best friends at work 0.56
Most of your friends 0.74
Your childhood friends 0.48
People in social gatherings you enjoy most 0.58
Most guests in your home 0.67
Most people who invite you to their home 0.69
People who attend your place of worship 0.36
Most of your relatives 0.49
Most of your voluntary organizations 0.47
People with whom you feel most comfortable and secure 0.56
Exhibit 3 lists the four items in ourHeterogeneous Social SupportIndex and their corrected item-total correlations. This index wasformed by calculating each respondent’s average score on the fouritems. A score of ‘1’ would mean that the respondent’s most intimatesocial support network was comprised of people whose cultural orethnic background was perceived to be ‘exactly the same’ as therespondent’s. A score of ‘5’ would mean that the respondent’s mostintimate social support network was comprised of people whosecultural or ethnic background was perceived to be ‘totally different’from the respondent’s. The average score for the 719 individualswho responded to the four items was 2.5 and the range ran from 1.0to 5.0. The Cronbach reliability coefficient alpha for the index was0.82.
Exhibit 4 lists the twelve items in ourHeterogeneous SocializingNetwork Indexand their corrected item-total correlations. This indexwas formed by calculating each respondent’s average score on thetwelve items. A score of ‘1’ would mean that the network of peoplewith whom a respondent did most of his or her routine socializing
ETHNICITY, MODERN PREJUDICE AND THE QUALITYOF LIFE 203
Exhibit 5
Xenophobia Index
Item Item-total
correlation
People with different cultural or ethnic backgrounds fromyours often offend or insult you without knowing it.
0.56
People with different cultural or ethnic backgrounds fromyours often offend you intentionally.
0.65
People with different cultural or ethnic backgrounds fromyours often make you feel physically insecure or unsafe.
0.51
You have actually been physically attacked or abused bysomeone because of your cultural or ethnic background.
0.41
If it were possible, you would avoid any contacts with peoplewho have different cultural or ethnic backgrounds fromyours.
0.45
was comprised of people whose cultural or ethnic background wasperceived to be ‘exactly the same’ as the respondent’s. A score of‘5’ would mean that the network of people with whom a respondentdid most of his or her routine socializing was comprised of peoplewhose cultural or ethnic background was perceived to be ‘totallydifferent’ from the respondent’s. The average score for the 729 indi-viduals who responded to the twelve items was 2.4 and the rangeran from 1.0 to 4.5. The Cronbach reliability coefficient alpha forthe index was 0.87.
8. XENOPHOBIA AND CULTURAL/ETHNIC HOMOGENEITYPREFERENCES
Exhibit 5 lists the five items in ourXenophobia Indexand theircorrected item-total correlations. This index was formed by calcu-lating each respondent’s average score on the five items. A scoreof ‘1’ would mean that a respondent does not perceive people withcultural or ethnic backgrounds different from his or hers as threat-ening and potentially hurtful. A score of ‘5’ would mean that arespondent perceives people with cultural or ethnic backgrounds
204 ALEX C. MICHALOS AND BRUNO D. ZUMBO
Exhibit 6
Cultural/Ethnic Homogeneity Preference Index
Item Item-total
correlation
You would prefer to live in a neighborhood in which mostpeople have the same cultural or ethnic background as you.
0.60
It is best if most people’s friends have the same cultural orethnic background as they do.
0.64
A person’s social functions should be mainly with peoplewith the same cultural or ethnic background.
0.60
If you had or have a son or daughter, you would prefer tohave him or her marry someone with the same cultural orethnic background.
0.67
Marriages between couples with the same cultural or ethnicbackgrounds tend to be happier than others.
0.61
different from his or hers as threatening and potentially hurtful.The average score for the 737 individuals who responded to thefive items was 1.8 and the range ran from 1.0 to 5.0. The Cronbachreliability coefficient alpha for the index was 0.75.
Exhibit 6 lists the five items in ourCultural/Ethnic HomogeneityPreference Indexand their corrected item-total correlations. Thisindex was formed by calculating each respondent’s average scoreon the five items. A score of ‘1’ would mean that a respondent doesnot have a preference for associating with people with cultural orethnic backgrounds similar to his or her own. A score of ‘5’ wouldmean that a respondent prefers to associate with people with culturalor ethnic backgrounds similar to his or her own. The average scorefor the 737 individuals who responded to the five items was 2.3 andthe range ran from 1.0 to 5.0. The Cronbach reliability coefficientalpha for the index was 0.83.
9. FAIR TREATMENT INDEXES
Exhibit 7 lists the eight items in ourPersonal Fair Treatment Index,their mean scores and corrected item-total correlations. This index
ETHNICITY, MODERN PREJUDICE AND THE QUALITYOF LIFE 205
Exhibit 7
Personal Fair Treatment Index
Item Item-total Mean
correlation
Police in your neighborhood are usually helpful andtreat you fairly.
0.46 3.8
Health care providers in Prince George are usuallyhelpful and treat you fairly.
0.59 3.9
Social service workers in Prince George are usuallyhelpful and treat you fairly.
0.51 3.3
People who work in banks and financial institutions inPrince George are usually helpful and treat you fairly.
0.53 3.8
People where you work are usually helpful and treatyou fairly.
0.36 4.0
People who work in local retail stores in Prince Georgeare usually helpful and treat you fairly.
0.54 3.7
Local school officials in Prince George are usuallyhelpful and treat you fairly.
0.53 3.6
Judges and lawyers in Prince George are usuallyhelpful and treat you fairly.
0.46 3.4
was formed by calculating each respondent’s average score on theeight items. A score of ‘1’ would mean that a respondent believesthat most people are usually not helpful and do not treathim orher fairly. A score of ‘5’ would mean that a respondent believesthat most people are usually helpful and treathim or herfairly. Theaverage score for the 737 individuals who responded to the eightitems was 3.7 and the range ran from 1.0 to 5.0. The Cronbachreliability coefficient alpha for the index was 0.79.
Exhibit 8 lists the eight items in ourGeneral Fair TreatmentIndex, their mean scores and corrected item-total correlations. Thisindex was formed by calculating each respondent’s average scoreon the eight items. A score of ‘1’ would mean that a respondentbelieves that most people are usually not helpful and do not treatallpeoplefairly. A score of ‘5’ would mean that a respondent believesthat most people are usually helpful and treatall peoplefairly. Theaverage score for the 733 individuals who responded to the eight
206 ALEX C. MICHALOS AND BRUNO D. ZUMBO
Exhibit 8
General Fair Treatment Index
Item Item-total Mean
correlation
Police in your neighborhood are usually helpful andtreat all people fairly.
0.58 3.2
Health care providers in Prince George are usuallyhelpful and treat all people fairly.
0.67 3.3
Social service workers in Prince George are usuallyhelpful and treat all people fairly.
0.64 3.0
People who work in banks and financial institutions inPrince George are usually helpful and treat all peoplefairly.
0.64 3.2
People where you work are usually helpful and treatall people fairly.
0.39 3.6
People who work in local retail stores in Prince Georgeare usually helpful and treat all people fairly.
0.62 3.1
Local school officials in Prince George are usuallyhelpful and treat all people fairly.
0.63 3.2
Judges and lawyers in Prince George are usuallyhelpful and treat all people fairly.
0.52 2.9
items was 3.2 and the range ran from 1.0 to 5.0. The Cronbachreliability coefficient alpha for the index was 0.85.
Comparing the average scores for the Personal and General FairTreatment Indexes reveals the familiar ego-centric bias phenomenonthat we and other researchers have found (e.g., Michalos, 1995;Michalos and Zumbo, 2000). In fact, examination of the meanscores in these two exhibits for each of the paired eight items inthe two indexes reveals that in every case respondents believed thatthey were personally treated more fairly than all people.
10. INDEX OF INEGALITARIANISM
Exhibit 9 lists the nine items in ourIndex of Inegalitarianismandtheir corrected item-total correlations. This index was formed bycalculating each respondent’s average score on the nine items. A
ETHNICITY, MODERN PREJUDICE AND THE QUALITYOF LIFE 207
Exhibit 9
Index of Inegalitarianism
Item Item-total
correlation
Visible minorities in Prince George have all the rights theyneed.
0.79
Women in Prince George have all the rights they need. 0.79
Gay men and lesbians in Prince George have all the rightsthey need.
0.73
Aboriginal people in Prince George have all the rights theyneed.
0.78
Eastern Europeans in Prince George have all the rights theyneed.
0.76
Senior citizens in Prince George have all the rights theyneed.
0.60
Young people in Prince George have all the rights they need. 0.70
Black people in Prince George have all the rights they need. 0.86
Asian people in Prince George have all the rights they need. 0.86
score of ‘1’ would mean that a respondent is thoroughly egalitarianinsofar as he or she thinks that the rights of people in each of thedesignated groups are not as comprehensive or secure as they shouldbe; i.e., for such respondents the democratic ideal of completeequality for all residents has not yet been achieved. A score of ‘5’would mean that a respondent is thoroughly inegalitarian insofar ashe or she thinks that the rights of people in each of the designatedgroups are as comprehensive and secure as they should be; i.e., forsuch respondents the democratic ideal of complete equality for allresidents has been achieved. The average score for the 731 indi-viduals who responded to the nine items was 3.2 and the range ranfrom 1.0 to 5.0. The Cronbach reliability coefficient alpha for theindex was 0.94. The average score indicates that our respondentswere slightly inclined to being inegalitarian.
The proper interpretation of the Index of Inegalitarianism wasnot immediately discernable. In particular, we did not know if highscores should be interpreted as measuring respondents’ optimism
208 ALEX C. MICHALOS AND BRUNO D. ZUMBO
Exhibit 10
Correlations between Index of Inegalitarianism and Other Items
Item Correlation
Men and women should get equal pay for work of equalvalue.
–0.17
If husbands and wives are both employed full-time, theyshould equally share housework.
–0.10
Heterogeneous Social Support Index –0.14
Heterogeneous Socializing Network Index –0.23
Heterogeneous Social Exchange Index –0.20
Cultural/ethnic Homogeneity Preference Index 0.27
Personal Fair Treatment 0.27
General Fair Treatment 0.44
about the degree to which our society is thoroughly democratic oras measuring the degree of respondents’ reluctance to believe oursociety is not thoroughly democratic (i.e., the degree to which arespondent is prejudiced), or both. In order to determine which ofthese alternatives was most likely true, we did some correlationalanalyses between index scores and some other items. Exhibit 10lists the eight statistically significant relationships (at the 0.01 level)revealed by these analyses. We were surprised that there was nosignificant correlation between our indexes of inegalitarianism andxenophobia. We supposed that a prejudiced person would probablyhave some suspicions and fears about people in different culturalor ethnic groups (producing a positive association), and an optim-istic person would probably not have such suspicions and fears(producing a negative association).
Six of the associations support the hypothesis that higher scoreson the index indicate a subtle form of prejudice, while the othertwo associations support the hypothesis that higher scores indicatesome sort of optimism. Apparently we have an index that capturesboth optimism and prejudice, which may be unfortunate but is notincoherent. From a logical point of view, it is certainly possible forsomeone to be prejudiced against certain groups in our society andoptimistic about how thoroughly democratic our society is. From
ETHNICITY, MODERN PREJUDICE AND THE QUALITYOF LIFE 209
a psychological point of view, if one is prejudiced it is probablyeasier to believe that our society is thoroughly democratic becausethat reduces the perceived costs of one’s prejudice. Conversely,if one believes our society is thoroughly democratic then it isprobably easier to believe that relatively few people are preju-diced, including oneself. Indeed, from this point of view, the twoattitudes, subtle prejudice and optimism, are mutually supporting.Swim, Aikin, Hall and Hunter (1995) reported that their measureof Modern Sexism was positively correlated with optimism. In theirwords,
As predicted, respondents who were high in Modern Sexism were more likely tooverestimate the percentage of women in male-dominated jobs than were thosewho were low in Modern Sexism. This is consistent with the concept that ModernSexism measures the belief that women are not currently victims of discrimi-nation. . . . Respondents who scored high on Modern Sexism were less likelyto indicate that discrimination, socialization, and prejudice against women werecauses for sex segregation and were more likely to indicate that biological differ-ences were causes. These explanations may translate into different assumptionsabout the likelihood of attaining equality and the extent to which organizationsshould address gender-related issues (pp. 205–208).
Of the six significant correlations that support the prejudicehypothesis, the positive one (r = 0.27) tells us that people whotend to be prejudiced against people in cultural or ethnic groupsdifferent from their own also tend to prefer culturally or ethnicallyhomogeneous relationships. Conversely, people who tend to haveheterogeneous social support (r = –0.14), socializing (r = –0.23) andsocial exchange networks (r = –0.20) also tend to have less prejudiceagainst people in cultural or ethnic groups different from their own.Finally, people who do not believe that women and men should havethe same benefits (r = –0.17) or burdens (r = –0.10) when they arein the same circumstances also tend to have more prejudice againstpeople in cultural or ethnic groups different from their own. Theselast two associations are consistent with other studies showing thatracist, classist and sexist views tend to co-exist and mutually supporteach other (Michalos, 1988; Henry, Tator, Mattis and Rees, 1995).
The two significant correlations that support the optimism hypo-thesis tell us that people who tend to be prejudiced in a subtle wayalso tend to believe that they (r = 0.27) and all others (r = 0.44) areusually treated fairly.
210 ALEX C. MICHALOS AND BRUNO D. ZUMBO
Exhibit 11
Number and Percent Believing There Is or Is not Anti-aboriginalRacism
Yes Yes No No
% N % N
There is widespread anti-aboriginal racism in . . .
Canada 64 456 36 258
British Columbia 66 474 34 240
Prince George 67 480 33 234
More discrimination against aboriginals than others in . . .
Canada 38 267 62 439
British Columbia 42 298 58 409
Prince George 48 343 52 367
We also undertook some analyses of variances (ANOVAs) inorder to see if any of our demographic categories were significantlyassociated with inegalitarianism. We found three significant rela-tionships. First, we found that people with aboriginal backgroundshad the lowest average scores for inegalitarianism (2.6), peoplewith visible minority backgrounds were slightly higher (3.1) andeveryone else had still higher scores (3.3). In other words, membersof the largest group of respondents tended to be most prejudiced(and optimistic), people with aboriginal backgrounds tended to beleast prejudiced (and optimistic) and people with visible minoritybackgrounds tended to be between the other two groups. Second,we found that on average males had higher inegalitarianism scores(3.5) than females (3.0). This was consistent with the finding ofSwim, Aikin, Hall and Hunter (1995) that males scored higherthan females on both Old-Fashioned and Modern Sexism. Third,we found employment status was significantly related to inegalitari-anism, with retired people scoring highest (3.5) and students scoringlowest (2.7). Generally speaking, students are fairly notorious fortypically being very tolerant of all kinds of people and ideas(Michalos, 1991).
ETHNICITY, MODERN PREJUDICE AND THE QUALITYOF LIFE 211
11. ANTI-ABORIGINAL RACISM
Exhibit 11 lists responses to two questions about perceived anti-aboriginal racism in Canada, British Columbia and Prince George.The first question asked respondents if they believed ‘there is wide-spread anti-aboriginal racism (racism against Native Indians)’ in thethree areas and the second asked if they believed ‘there is morediscrimination against aboriginals than against any other group’.About two-thirds of respondents believed there is such racism inthe three areas, with a bit more in Prince George (67%) than inCanada as a whole (64%). Regarding perceptions of relatively morediscrimination against aboriginals than other groups, more respond-ents believed such discrimination existed in Prince George (48%)than in British Columbia generally (42%) or in Canada as whole(38%). Since we expected to see something like an ego-centricbias in favour of the local situation, these results were surprising.Presumably most of those perceiving greater discrimination inPrince George would have perceived this to be their neighbours’biases rather than their own.
12. COMPARISONS AMONG QUALITY OF LIFE SCORES
Exhibit 12 lists the mean scores for satisfaction with 14 specificdomains of life, life as a whole, the overall quality of life andhappiness. For the current survey, the sample was divided into threegroups, including people whose backgrounds were self-identified asaboriginal (first column), non-aboriginal visible minorities (secondcolumn) and everyone else (third column). The fourth, fifth andsixth columns of the exhibit list mean scores on the same itemsfrom surveys of November 1998, November 1997 and June 1994,respectively. In broad strokes, for the samples over 500, one mayassume that pairs of scores with differences greater than 0.4 areprobably statistically significant at the 0.05 level. For the currentsurvey, insignificant differences are indicated in the exhibit by anasterisk.
Beginning with the bottom row, the figures in Exhibit 12 showthat the average of the mean scores for all variables for people withaboriginal backgrounds (4.4) was lower than the average for the
212 ALEX C. MICHALOS AND BRUNO D. ZUMBO
Exhibit 12
Respondent Mean Quality of Life Scores: 1999, 1998, 1997, 1994
Domains of Life 1999 1999 1999 1998 1997 1994
Dec. Dec. Dec. Nov. Nov. June
Aborig Vis.Min. Other N = 723 N = 737 N = 501
N = 89 N = 36 N = 598
Your house, apartment, 4.8 5.7 5.7 5.8 5.5 5.8
mobile home
Your neighbourhood as 4.4 5.4 5.5 5.9 5.3 5.7
a place to live
Your family relations 5.1 5.9 5.7 5.7 6.0 5.9
Your living partner 5.4 5.7 6.1 5.9 6.3 6.1
Your job 5.0∗ 5.1∗ 5.3∗ 5.1 5.4 5.4
Your life as a whole 5.1 5.4 5.6 5.5 5.8 5.6
Your friendships 5.6∗ 5.8∗ 5.8∗ 5.6 5.8 5.8
Your health 4.5 5.7 5.4 5.3 5.4 5.6
Your religion/spiritual
fulfilment 4.8∗ 5.5∗ 5.2∗ 5.0 5.3 5.4
Your financial security 3.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.6 4.7
Your recreation activities 4.0 4.2 4.9 4.7 4.9 5.0
Your self-esteem 4.7 5.5 5.4 5.2 5.5 5.5
Federal government
officials 2.6∗ 3.4∗ 2.8∗ 2.8 2.8 3.0
Provincial government
officials 2.5∗ 3.0∗ 2.3∗ 2.2 2.5 3.0
Local government officials 3.0∗ 3.4∗ 3.4∗ 3.4 3.6 3.5
Your overall quality of life 5.0 5.5 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7
Your overall happiness 4.9 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.5 5.6
Mean Score 4.4 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.1 5.1
∗Differences between scores for aboriginals, visible minorities and others were notstatistically significant.Sources: Michalos, 1996; Michalos and Zumbo, 2000; and Michalos, Zumbo andHubley, 2000.
ETHNICITY, MODERN PREJUDICE AND THE QUALITYOF LIFE 213
other two groups (5.0). In fact, the average for people with abori-ginal backgrounds is lower than all the other average figures in theexhibit. The highest averages in the row belong to the 1997 and 1994samples (5.1).
Examining the three global indicators in the first three columns,one finds that people with aboriginal backgrounds had the lowestmean scores for life satisfaction (5.1), happiness (4.9) and satis-faction with the overall quality of life (5.0). People with a non-aboriginal visible minority background had the highest score forsatisfaction with the overall quality of life (5.5). The residual grouphad the highest life satisfaction (5.6) and happiness (5.4) scores.Comparing the 1999 residual group scores with the 1998 scores,one finds no significant differences.
For the current sample (first three columns), the highest levelof domain satisfaction reported for people with aboriginal back-grounds came from friendships (5.6), for those with non-aboriginalvisible minority backgrounds the highest level came from familyrelations (5.9) and for the residual group it came from living partners(6.1). Also for the current sample, for each of the three groups, thelowest levels of domain satisfaction came for provincial governmentofficials. There were no statistically significant differences in thesescores, although those with non-aboriginal visible minority back-grounds had the highest mean score (3.0) and the residual group hadthe lowest mean score (2.3).
Without reviewing all the figures in the exhibit here, it seems fairto say that all the significant comparisons indicate that people withaboriginal backgrounds report a generally lower quality of life thanthose in the other two groups, while the quality of life of the othertwo groups is practically indistinguishable. This is hardly surprisinggiven previous research as reviewed, for example, in the five hugevolumes of the 1996Report of the Royal Commission on AboriginalPeoples. However, we are the first scholars to undertake broad-based survey research on this subject in this community using theparticular array of items and indexes described here. Furthermore,it is perhaps worth repeating that the differences revealed in thesubjective reports summarized in Exhibit 12 cannot be attributedto differences in socio-economic classes. Studies of the reportedquality of life in Japan usually indicate lower average levels of
214 ALEX C. MICHALOS AND BRUNO D. ZUMBO
life satisfaction and happiness than similar studies in the UnitedStates and the differences are generally attributed to some feature ofculture rather than to socio-economic class distinctions (Michalos,1991). It is possible that the lower average levels of reported satis-faction and happiness uncovered in our data are also the result ofsome feature of culture, although it will take many more and variedstudies than this one to determine the robustness of our findings.
13. EXPLAINING THE IMPACT OF CULTURAL OR ETHNICATTITUDES AND DOMAIN SATISFACTION ON HAPPINESS
We applied regression procedures to assess the shared variation ofcultural or ethnic attitudes and domain satisfaction on our threeglobal indicators of happiness, life satisfaction and satisfaction withthe overall quality of life. Exhibits 13, 14 and 15 summarize theresults of these analyses. Nine cultural/ethnic attitude measureswere used as potentially explanatory variables, namely, the Indexesof Heterogeneous Social Support, Heterogeneous SocializingNetwork, Xenophobia, Inegalitarianism, Cultural/Ethnic Homogen-eity Preference, Personal Fair Treatment, General Fair Treatment,frequency of engagement in religious practices and specificallycultural/ethnic social events.
In each of Exhibits 13 through 15 the first column reports theregression model with our cultural/ethnic attitude measures alone,the second column reports the results of using our satisfaction meas-ures alone, and the third column reports the results of including bothour cultural/ethnic measures and satisfaction measures. For eachregression model we report both the overall explained variation (i.e.,the R-squared value for the model) and the proportion of the R-squared value that is attributable to each explanatory variable, i.e.,the variable importance as measured by the Pratt index introducedin Thomas, Hughes, and Zumbo (1998).
The first column of Exhibit 13 shows that cultural/ethnic atti-tude measures accounted for only 8% of the variation in happinessscores, with only three variables having any statistically significantinfluence. As we can see in Exhibit 13, 42% of the model R-squared value is attributable to Personal Fair Treatment scores.The belief that most people are helpful and treat respondents fairly
ETHNICITY, MODERN PREJUDICE AND THE QUALITYOF LIFE 215
Exhibit 13
Regressions of Happiness Scores on Cultural or Ethnic Attitudes andDomain Satisfaction Scores
Explanatory Beta Beta Beta
Variables Values Values Values
N = 678 N = 541 N = 539
Personal Fair Treatment 0.16 (42%) a a
Xenophobia –0.18 (46%) a a
Inegalitarianism 0.08 (12%) a a
Self-esteem satisfaction a 0.32 (39%) 0.30 (37%)
Living partner satisfaction a 0.21 (23%) 0.21 (22%)
Friendship satisfaction a 0.16 (17%) 0.17 (18%)
Job satisfaction a 0.12 (10%) 0.11 (10%)
Family satisfaction a 0.11 (11%) 0.10 (9%)
Financial security sat. a a 0.05 (4%)
% Variation explained 8 47 48
Note: The Pratt Indices are in parentheses; “a” denotes that the variable wasnot in the regression equation.
contributes to respondents’ happiness. Xenophobia scores werenegatively related to happiness; i.e., finding people with differentcultural or ethnic backgrounds as threatening or hurtful contributesto respondents’ unhappiness. Inegalitarianism scores were modestlybut positively related to happiness. Apparently having some subtleprejudices and feeling that most people are getting what is comingto them also contributes to respondents’ happiness. This is not avery attractive finding, but it is not extraordinary. Several studies ofDownward Comparison Theory have shown that people’s subjectivewell-being increases with their belief that some other people areworse off than they are and that comparison groups are oftenselected precisely because they are worse off than those making thecomparison (Michalos, 1985). In terms of the relative importanceof the explanatory variables, 88% of the model R-squared value isattributable to Xenophobia and Personal Fair Treatment.
The second column shows that our battery of domain satisfac-tion scores accounted for 47% of the variation in happiness scores,with self-esteem satisfaction dominating the set of predictors (Pratt
216 ALEX C. MICHALOS AND BRUNO D. ZUMBO
Exhibit 14
Regressions of Life Satisfaction Scores on Cultural or Ethnic Attitudes andDomain Satisfaction Scores
Explanatory Beta Beta Beta
Variables Values Values Values
N = 730 N = 573 N = 571
Personal Fair Treatment 0.22 (76%) a a
Xenophobia –0.12 (24%) a a
Cultural/ethnic homogen.
Preference a a –0.07 (1%)
Self-esteem satisfaction a 0.32 (33%) 0.30 (30%)
Living partner satisfaction a 0.18 (15%) 0.19 (15%)
Friendship satisfaction a 0.30 (30%) 0.30 (31%)
Job satisfaction a 0.14 (14%) 0.17 (15%)
Health satisfaction a 0.08 (8%) 0.13 (8%)
% Variation explained 9 68 69
Note: The Pratt Indices are in parentheses; “a” denotes that the variable wasnot in the regression equation.
Index of 39%), followed by satisfaction with one’s living partner,friendships, job and family relations.
The third column shows that the two sets of predictors togetheraccounted for 48% of the variation in happiness scores, with self-esteem satisfaction scores having the greatest influence (Pratt Indexof 37%), followed by living partner satisfaction. Together these twovariables account for 59% of the explained variation.
Examination of the figures in the last row of the three columnsreveals quite clearly that the great variety of cultural and ethnicattitudes captured in our measures have very little explanatorypower compared to the power of satisfaction obtained from diversedomains of life. When all of our potential predictors were enteredinto the regression equation simultaneously, the cultural and ethnicmeasures added only a single percentage point of explanatory powerto the power of domain satisfaction measures to explain happiness.
ETHNICITY, MODERN PREJUDICE AND THE QUALITYOF LIFE 217
14. EXPLAINING THE IMPACT OF CULTURAL OR ETHNICATTITUDES AND DOMAIN SATISFACTION ON LIFE
SATISFACTION
The first column of Exhibit 14 shows that cultural/ethnic attitudemeasures accounted for only 9% of the variation in life satisfactionscores, with only two variables having any statistically significantinfluence. Personal Fair Treatment scores had the greatest influence,with 76% of the explained variation attributable to it. The beliefthat most people are helpful and treat respondents fairly contrib-utes even more to their life satisfaction than to their happiness.Xenophobia scores were negatively related to happiness; i.e., findingpeople with different cultural or ethnic backgrounds as threateningor hurtful contributes less to respondents’ life satisfaction than totheir happiness.
The second column shows that our battery of domain satisfactionscores accounted for 68% of the variation in life satisfaction scores,with satisfaction with one’s own self-esteem and friendship satisfac-tion dominating the set of predictors. From the Pratt Indices we cansee that we can attribute 63% of the explained variation to these twovariables.
The third column shows that the two sets of predictors togetheraccounted for 69% of the variation in life satisfaction scores,with self-esteem and friendship satisfaction scores practically tiedfor having the greatest influence, followed at some distance bysatisfaction with one’s living partner, job and health. The onlycultural/ethnic measure with a significance level great enough toallow it to enter the equation was the Cultural/Ethnic Homogen-eity Preference Index. As respondents’ preference for associatingwith people whose cultural or ethnic background is like their ownincreases, their satisfaction with life as a whole decreases.
Again, the figures in the last row of the three columns revealthat the cultural and ethnic attitudes captured in our measures havevery little explanatory power compared to the power of satisfactionobtained from diverse domains of life. When all of our potentialpredictors were entered into the regression equation simultaneously,the cultural and ethnic measures still added only a single percentagepoint of explanatory power to the power of domain satisfactionmeasures to explain satisfaction with life as a whole.
218 ALEX C. MICHALOS AND BRUNO D. ZUMBO
Exhibit 15
Regressions of Satisfaction with Overall Quality of Life Scores on Culturalor Ethnic Attitudes and Domain Satisfaction Scores
Explanatory Beta Beta Beta
Variables Values Values Values
N = 731 N = 589 N = 575
Personal Fair Treatment 0.28 (82%) a 0.11 (5%)
Xenophobia –0.11 (18%) a a
Self-esteem satisfaction a 0.33 (42%) 0.34 (42%)
Living partner satisfaction a 0.13 (11%) 0.11 (9%)
Friendship satisfaction a 0.18 (18%) 0.11 (13%)
Family satisfaction a a 0.12 (7%)
Health satisfaction a 0.11 (9%) 0.11 (8%)
Services by unelected fed.govt officials satisfaction
a 0.06 (3%) a
Financial security sat. a 0.18 (17%) 0.17 (16%)
% Variation explained 10 51 54
Note: The Pratt Indices are in parentheses; “a” denotes that the variable wasnot in the regression equation.
15. EXPLAINING THE IMPACT OF CULTURAL OR ETHNICATTITUDES AND DOMAIN SATISFACTION ON
SATISFACTION WITH THE OVERALL QUALITY OF LIFE
The first column of Exhibit 15 shows that cultural/ethnic attitudemeasures accounted for 10% of the variation in satisfaction with theoverall quality of life scores, with only two variables having anystatistically significant influence. Personal Fair Treatment scoreshad the greatest influence, accounting for 82% of the explainedvariation, i.e., Pratt = 82%. Xenophobia scores were negativelyrelated to satisfaction with the quality of life scores; i.e., findingpeople with different cultural or ethnic backgrounds as threateningor hurtful lowers respondents’ satisfaction with the overall qualityof life.
The second column shows that our battery of domain satisfactionscores accounted for 51% of the variation in satisfaction with theoverall quality of life scores, with self-esteem satisfaction domin-
ETHNICITY, MODERN PREJUDICE AND THE QUALITYOF LIFE 219
ating the set of predictors (Pratt Index = 42%). At some distancecame satisfaction with one’s friendships, financial security, livingpartner and health. At the end of the line of influential variablescame satisfaction with unelected federal government officials.
The third column shows that the two sets of predictors togetheraccounted for 54% of the variation in satisfaction with the overallquality of life scores, with self-esteem satisfaction scores having thegreatest influence (Pratt Index = 42%), followed at some distance bysatisfaction with one’s financial security, family and health, livingpartner and friendships. Only one cultural/ethnic measure had asignificance level great enough to enter the equation, namely, thePersonal Fair Treatment Index. So, respondents’ satisfaction withthe overall quality of life increases as their perception of beingtreated fairly by most people increases.
Finally, the figures in the last row of the three columns againreveal that the cultural and ethnic attitudes captured in our meas-ures have very little explanatory power compared to the power ofsatisfaction obtained from diverse domains of life. When all of ourpotential predictors were entered into the regression equation simul-taneously, the cultural and ethnic measures added three percentagepoints of explanatory power to the power of domain satisfactionmeasures to explain satisfaction with the quality of life. Although, inthe context of all our predictors, the cultural and ethnic measures hadthree times the power to explain satisfaction with the overall qualityof life than they had to explain life satisfaction and happiness, suchmeasures certainly had relatively little influence on respondents’most global attitudes toward life.
16. CONCLUSION
The aim of this investigation was to measure levels of ethnic orcultural background diversity, social cohesion and modern preju-dice, and the impact of such diversity, cohesion and prejudice on thequality of life. Using a sample of 743 residents of Prince George,British Columbia, we identified diverse ethnic or cultural groups,and created several indexes of heterogeneous social networks anda measure of modern prejudice. Dividing the total sample intothree roughly distinct groups containing, respectively, respondents
220 ALEX C. MICHALOS AND BRUNO D. ZUMBO
self-reporting an ethnic or cultural background that was aboriginal,non-aboriginal visible minority or anything else, we discovered thatall significant comparisons indicated that people with aboriginalbackgrounds reported a generally lower quality of life than thosein the other two groups. The quality of life scores of the othertwo groups were practically indistinguishable. Given the demo-graphic structure of our sample, the revealed differences could notbe attributed to differences in socio-economic classes. Membersof the largest group of respondents tended to be most prejudicedand optimistic, people with aboriginal backgrounds tended to beleast prejudiced and optimistic and people with visible minoritybackgrounds tended to be between the other two groups. Regres-sions revealed that a variety of ethnic/culture-related phenomenacould only explain 8%, 9% and 10%, respectively, of the variationin scores for happiness, life satisfaction and satisfaction with theoverall quality of life. When domain satisfaction scores were addedto the set of predictors, we were able to explain 48%, 69% and 54%,respectively, of the variation in scores for happiness, life satisfactionand satisfaction with the overall quality of life. In the presence of thedomain satisfaction scores, the scores on the ethnic/cultural relatedphenomena added only one percentage point of explanatory powerfor happiness and life satisfaction, and three percentage points forsatisfaction with the overall quality of life. All things considered,then, it is fair to say that this project showed that ethnic or culturalbackground diversity, social cohesion and modern prejudice hadrelatively very little impact on the quality of life of our sample ofrespondents.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to express their appreciation to DavidCoflin, Bill Kennedy, Murry Krause, Shelley Rennick and ShelleyWebber for the help they gave us in the development, adminis-tration, analysis and reporting of the survey. Leo Driedger andJames S. Frideres also gave us helpful comments. We are of courseresponsible for the final product.
ETHNICITY, MODERN PREJUDICE AND THE QUALITYOF LIFE 221
REFERENCES
Anderson, M.L. and P.H. Collins: 1995, ‘Shifting the center and reconstructingknowledge’, in M.L. Andersen and P.H. Collins (eds.), Race, Class, and Gender:An Anthology (Wadsworth Pub. Co., Belmont), pp. 1–9.
Bader, V.: 1997, ‘Ethnicity and class: a proto-theoretical ‘mapping’ exercise, inW.W. Isajiw (ed.), Multiculturalism in North America and Europe: Compara-tive Perspectives on Interethnic Relations and Social Incorporation (CanadianScholar’s Press, Toronto), pp. 103–128.
Henry, R., C. Tator, W. Mattis and T. Rees: 1995, The Colour of Democracy:Racism in Canadian Society (Harcourt Brace and Co. Canada, Toronto).
Jensen, J.: 1998, Mapping Social Cohesion: The State of Canadian Research,(Canadian Policy Research Networks Inc., Ottawa) Study No. F/03.
McConahay, J.B.: 1986, ‘Modern racism, ambivalence, and the Modern RacismScale’, in J.F. Dovidio and S.L. Gaertner (eds.), Prejudice, Discrimination, andRacism (Academic Press, Orlando), pp. 91–125.
Michalos, A.C.: 1985, ‘Multiple discrepancies theory (MDT)’, Social IndicatorsResearch 16, pp. 347–413.
Michalos, A.C.: 1988, ‘A feminist view of women and development’, Worldscape2(1), pp. 5–7.
Michalos, A.C.: 1991, Global Report on Student Well-Being: Volume 1, LifeSatisfaction and Happiness (Springer-Verlag, New York).
Michalos, A.C.: 1995, A Pragmatic Approach to Business Ethics (SAGE Publica-tions, Thousand Oaks).
Michalos, A.C.: 1996, ‘Aspects of the quality of life in Prince George’, SouthAsian Journal of Psychology 1, pp. 45–70.
Michalos, A.C. and B.D. Zumbo: 1999, ‘Public services and the quality of life’,Social Indicators Research 48, pp. 125–147.
Michalos, A.C. and B.D. Zumbo: 2000, ‘Criminal victimization and the qualityof life’, Social Indicators Research 50, pp. 245–295.
Michalos, A.C., Zumbo, B.D. and A.M., Hubley: 2000, ‘Health and the Qualityof Life’, Social Indicators Research 51, pp. 245–286.
Morrison, M.A.: 1998, The Development and Validation of the ModernHomonegativity Scale (MHS) (University of Northern British Columbia, M.Sci.Thesis).
Morrison, M.A., T.G. Morrison, G.A. Pope and B. D. Zumbo: (1999). ‘An inves-tigation of measures of modern and old-fashioned sexism’, Social IndicatorsResearch 48, pp. 39–49.
Mullen, B. and C. Copper: 1994, ‘The relation between group cohesiveness andperformance: an integration’, Psychological Bulletin 115, pp. 210–227.
Parsons, T.: 1951, The Social System (Free Press, New York).
222 ALEX C. MICHALOS AND BRUNO D. ZUMBO
Portes, A.: 1998, ‘Social capital: its origins and applications in modern soci-ology’, Annual Review of Sociology 24, pp. 1–24.
Putnam, R.: 1993, Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy(Princeton University Press, Princeton).
Putnam, R.: 1995, ‘Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital’, Journal ofDemocracy 6, pp. 65–78.
Putnam, R.: 1996, ‘The strange disappearance of civic America’, AmericanProspect 24, pp. 34–48.
Sills, D.L. (ed.): International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (Collier andMacmillan, New York).
Swim, J.K., K.J. Aikin, W.S. Hall and B.A. Hunter: 1995, ‘Sexism and racism:old-fashioned and modern prejudices’, Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology 68(2), pp. 199–214.
Thomas, D.R., E. Hughes and B.D. Zumbo: 1998, ‘On variable importance inlinear regression’, Social Indicators Research 45, pp. 253–275.
