“I Am Prejudiced and I Do Not Know Why”: Negotiating Prejudice and Moral Identity in Everyday Talk

Relations between the Roma minority and the Czech majority remain shaped by persistent structural inequalities, despite the public salience of egalitarian norms. This exploratory qualitative study examines how members of the Czech ethnic majority negotiate, articulate and regulate anti‐Roma bias while maintaining an egalitarian moral identity. Drawing on reflexive thematic analysis of two focus group discussions ( n = 14), predominantly with educated young adults, we generated three overarching themes: (1) Constructing the origins of bias through structural distance and socialised caution; (2) navigating the discrepancy between spontaneous reactions, the subjective “warning light,” and self‐regulatory management; and (3) moral boundaries under pressure regarding bystander hesitation and relational constraints in the face of overt racism. Rather than expressing blatant hostility, participants framed prejudice as an involuntary, socially conditioned reflex requiring ongoing internal and discursive self‐regulation. Limited intergroup contact was narrated as an unchosen, structural given and reinforced by familial warnings and normalised humour. Furthermore, reluctance to confront overt discrimination reflected tensions between abstract anti‐racist principles and concerns over peer cohesion. Integrating frameworks on prejudice self‐regulation, motivational orientations and discursive accountability, these findings illustrate that contemporary majority prejudice functions as a dynamic moral enterprise. Addressing subtle bias requires educational and community interventions that support individuals in translating private egalitarian convictions into normatively supported, active bystander practice.