Relative Group Position and Intergroup Attitudes in Russia

The studies in this book investigate the impact of structural arrangements of power on intergroup attitudes. The disintegration of the Soviet Union altered the political borders of the region and raised concerns about the quality of intergroup relationships between Russian and ethnically non-Russian so-called titular groups. Two large scale surveys were conducted in the Russian Federation, in 1999-2000 (N = 10557; Russians N = 5233, and titulars N = 5182) and 2005 (N = 4858; Russians N = 2431, titulars N = 2427). The surveyed ethnic groups were residing either inside or outside the borders of ten (of the 21) autonomous republics of the Federation. We investigated how the variation in relative group position (based on ethnic group membership and residence on a particular administrative territory) affected a range of attitudes: intergroup stereotypes, perceptions of conflict, support for minority rights, multiculturalism and assimilation. Our analyses revealed crucial interactions between one’s sense of group position (especially people’s social identifications) and the macro-level defined criteria of group status. In the introduction chapter we present the theoretical framework for our studies, based on Social Identity Theory (Tajfel, 1968) and the Group Position Model (Blumer 1958 and Bobo & Tuan, 2006). We discuss why the Russian-titular context was particularly interesting for testing our hypotheses. The five empirical chapters include analyses of the effects of social psychological factors (such as social identification, relative deprivation and perceived threat) on intergroup attitudes, discussing their interaction with the structural indicators of group position (such as ethnic group membership, residence in a position of privilege or subordination). There were significant differences based on ethnic group membership in people’s identification patterns (Chapters 2 and 6). Group position conditioned in particular the potential of superordinate identification (with the republic and federation) to be inclusive or to provide a new battleground for intergroup differentiation. Residing in a position of privilege or subordination also conditioned political attitudes (Chapters 5 and 6). Within a structure of institutionalized privileges, group members strove to protect their dominant status (increasing their support for assimilation), and a position of subordination seemed to translate in increased support for minority rights. Nevertheless, our findings also suggested that the moderating effects of contextual factors (such as relative group size) are not as straightforward as predicted by the Group Position Model. The effects of relative ingroup size on perceived conflict were accentuated by perceptions of threat (Chapter 4). In addition, group members in a subordinate position were not unconditionally motivated to challenge the status quo (e.g., they did not support multiculturalism more, Chapter 6); instead, they used superordinate identifications to justify their sense of belonging and assimilation into the main-stream (Chapter 6). In Chapter 3 we focused on stereotypes of third outgroups, namely Jews and Chechens, presenting a different approach for the analysis of stereotype content. We emphasized both the general evaluative dimensions of benevolence and power and the specific history-bound characteristics attributed to certain groups. The conclusion chapter provides a summary and general discussion of the advantages and challenges in studying the micro-dynamics of intergroup attitudes embedded in a specific ethno-national context.