Suchergebnisse

This examination of the association between nationalist orientations & exclusionist reactions among the Russian & titular populations of five former Soviet republics -- Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, & Kazakhstan -- distinguishes between patriotic & chauvinistic nationalism & between social-distance & negative-stereotype exclusionism. The attitudes of both the Russian & titular populations are examined, based on analysis of survey data collected in the mid-1990s. The results confirm two hypotheses: that chauvinism, more than patriotism, was related to negative stereotypes & social distance; but that both types of nationalism were related to more negative stereotypes than to more social distance. Also, it was found that the association between nationalism & exclusionism was greater among the titular than the Russian population. Tables, Figures. J. Stanton

This chapter explores the positions of Russian minority groups (totaling 25 million individuals) in five countries that had been part of the Soviet Union: Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, & Kazakhstan. The Russians, who had considered themselves Soviets rather than Russians, have had to reconsider their national identification, & many have chosen Russian identity, not based on ethnic criteria, but rather on political, socioeconomic or cultural-linguistic terms. Their position in their current countries is affected by individual-level & contextual-level indicators of ethnic competition & assimilation, which were assessed via surveys conducted in urban areas with at least 10% Russians. Individual assimilation factors, in particular, Russian mixed marriages, tended to reduce Russian identification, & contextual ethnic competition factors to increase it, but a puzzling result was that larger proportions of Russian mixed marriage in a given area led to higher levels of Russian identification. Tables. J. Stanton

Bogardus' concept of social distance is used to examine the position of Russian minorities vis-a-vis the titular populations in the former Soviet republics of Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Georgia, & Kazakhstan. Maintaining social distance from outgroups is defined as aversive prejudice, ie, simply avoiding contact with outgroup members in the everyday life of workplaces, schools, neighborhoods, & social circles. Analysis of survey data (a total of 2,886 respondents) revealed significant variation among the five republics, with the greatest social distance exhibited in Moldova & the least in Georgia. Social & economic factors affecting the degree of social distance are delineated & the results tabulated. Generally speaking, greater ethnic competition was associated with higher levels of social distance. However, in Georgia, whose economic situation was the worst, there was greater social cohesion, rather than the aversive prejudice one might expect because of competition for scarce resources. Tables. J. Stanton

A crossnational analysis of intergroup stereotypes in five former Soviet states focuses on the attribution of goals to outgroups. The literature is reviewed & the significance of "fifth column" attributions is discussed. It was hypothesized that fifth column attributions reinforce negative stereotypes of Russians but the effect only occurs in relation to outgroup, not ingroup, goals. The effect was expected to be stronger in countries with recent histories of violent conflict between groups. Data were collected in 1995 from surveys completed by a total of 1,200 Russian nationals & 1,200 indigenous nationals from randomly selected cities in Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Kazakhstan, & Georgia. Predictors of negative stereotypes highlighted income, occupation, education, age, gender, language competence, ethnicity, & civic identification. The results of simple slope analysis & a test of effects across countries using a general linear model showed the impact of fifth column attributions most strongly reinforced negative stereotypes of Russians in Georgia & Moldova, where recent military conflicts have occurred. The outcome of the second hypothesis was contradictory. The implications are discussed. 3 Tables, 2 Figures, 25 References. J. Lindroth