CC BY-NC-ND
94
Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics. 2015. Vol. 12. N 2. P. 112-132.
ETHNIC PREJUDICES IN RUSSIA: QUESTIONNAIRE ADAPTATION FOR THE MEASUREMENT OF PREJUDICES TOWARDS MIGRANTS
O.A. GULEVICH, I.R. SARIEVA, I.S. PRUSOVA
^ Olga A. Gulevich — Associate Professor, School of Psychology, HSE;
Leading Research Fellow, Laboratory for Experimental and Behavioural Economics, HSE, D.Sc.
E-mail: o.gulevich@hse.ru
Address: 20 Myasnitskaya str., Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation
a Irena R. Sarieva — Senior Lecturer, School of Psychology, HSE. E-mail: iren.sarieva@gmail.com
Address: 20 Myasnitskaya str., Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation
I
i
Irina S. Prusova — student, School of Psychology, HSE.
E-mail: itirik@mail.ru
Address: 20 Myasnitskaya str., Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation
This study was conducted with financial support from Russian Humanitarian Scientific fund. Grant N 12-06-00618 “Multiple categorization as method of improving intergroup relations” (2012-2013).
Questionnaire Adaptation for the Measurement of Prejudices towards Migrants
113
Abstract
Ethnic prejudices is a crucial factor affecting the relationship between ethnic groups. To measure blatant ethnic prejudice questionnaires are used which include questions and statements that reflect different aspects of negative attitudes towards ethnic groups. Since most of these techniques were created in North America and Western Europe, they reflect the content of ethnic prejudices prevalent in these regions, and need cultural adaptation. The aim of this study is to adapt the scale of blatant and subtle prejudice by Pettigrew and Meertens (Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995) for a Russian sample. The study included a pilot phase and a main phase. Participants of the pilot phase (N = 354) filled out the original version of the questionnaire translated into Russian, evaluating migrants who arrived in Russia from Central Asia and the Caucasus. The results showed the low structural validity of the original version of the scale. Participants of the main phase of the study (N = 402) filled out a modified version of the questionnaire, which included 28 statements that form six scales. The results showed that the highest structural validity is exhibited by a five-factor model, which includes the following scales: the perceived economical threat, the perceived physical threat, the avoidance of close contact, the perceived problems in adaptation, the exaggeration of cultural differences. The results demonstrated that Russian prejudices against migrants from Central Asia and the Caucasus are associated with relative deprivation, ethnic identity and the intensity of intergroup contact. The structure of the methodology is universal and the link between individual factors and variables depend on the group that serves as the object of prejudice. In particular, relative deprivation and the number of contacts are more tightly linked to prejudice against migrants form Central Asia than prejudice against migrants from the Caucasus.
Keywords: ethnic prejudice, ethnic identity, relative deprivation, contact hypothesis.
Ethnic prejudices — the negative evaluation of out-groups — are widely spread in modern societies and causes discrimination against different ethnic groups. These include both members of ethnic and racial minorities who have lived in a country for a long time and migrants who have recently arrived from other regions. The problem of negative attitudes towards migrants who have an unusual appearance in the eyes of the local population and speak a different language, has been actively discussed in the countries of North America and Western Europe for decades. Studies show that in different countries different ethnic groups are subject to prejudices: for example, in Germany this role is filled by Turks, in France by the natives of Asia and North Africa, in Holland by Turks and Surinamese and in the UK by the nati-
ves of Asia and the West Indies (Hamberger & Hewstone, 1997; Meertens & Pettigrew, 1997). Over the past three decades, the problem of hostility towards migrants has become relevant for Russia. The main target of negative attitudes are immigrants from Central Asia and the Caucasus.
Psychological studies conducted in North American and Western European countries allow us to distinguish between two fundamentally different forms of negative attitudes towards ethnic and racial out-groups — blatant and subtle prejudice (Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995). Blatant prejudice presupposes the open expression of negative attitudes towards the outgroup, whereas subtle prejudices include the rejection of the out-group in a socially acceptable manner and are a response to the emergence of societal
114
O.A. Gulevich, I.R. Sarieva, I.S. Prusova
rules prohibiting discrimination based on ethnicity/race.
Studies have shown that ethnic prejudice affects various aspects of interethnic perception and interaction. However, blatant and subtle prejudice leads to different consequences. People who highly exhibit both blatant and subtle prejudice call for the limiting of ethnic out-groups’ rights and refuse to engage in contact with them. People who exhibit low blatant, but high subtle prejudice reject ethnic out-groups in a socially accepted way: they do not exhibit overt hostility and thus do not break societal norms, but at the same time call for the limiting of ethnic minorities’ rights in the presence of “objective reasons”. People who exhibit neither blatant nor subtle prejudices support the rights of ethnic out-groups and engage in contact with their members.
One of the best known methods of measuring blatant and subtle prejudices against members of the ethnic outgroup is the Meertens and Pettigrew questionnaire. It includes 20 questions and statements that reflect different aspects of the negative attitude towards minorities by the host population: the perception of threat from the out-group, avoiding close contact with its representatives; recognition that out-group representatives violate traditional values; the exaggeration of differences between their own and the alien ethnic out-group; the denial of positive emotions towards the out-group.
Over the last two decades this method has been translated into German, (Zick, 1997; Neumann & Seibt, 2001), Dutch (Van Hiel & Merviedle, 2005), Italian (Arcuri & Boca, 1996), Spanish (Gonzalez-Castro, Ubillos, & Ibanez, 2009; Rodriguez et al., 2009) and a
number of other languages. It has been used to conduct studies in Australia, (McGrane & White, 2007), Central (Rodriuez-Garcia & Wagner, 2009) and North America (Adesokan et al., 2011; Eller & Abrams, 2003; Eller, Abrams, & Gomez, 2012; Wright et al., 1997), and also a number of European countries, including Germany (Cohrs & Asbrock, 2009; Degner & Wentura, 2007, 2008, 2010; Eyssel & Ribas, 2012; Gawronski, 2002; Gawronski, Geschke, & Banse, 2003; Geschke et al., 2010; Hofmann et.al., 2008; Keller, 2005; Kessler et al., 2010; Kuchenbrandt, Eyssel, & Seidel, 2013; Mummendey, Klink, & Brown, 2001; Petersen & Dietz, 2005; Pettigrew, 1997; Rangel & Keller, 2011; Steffens, Kirschbaum, & Glados, 2008; Stellmacher & Sommer, 2008; van Dick et al., 2004; Zick et.al., 2001 ), UK (Meertens & Pettigrew, 1997; Mummendey et al., 2001; Vrij, Akehurst, & Smith, 2003), France (Meertens & Pettigrew, 1997), Belgium (Dhont et al., 2012; Dhont, Roets, & Van Hiel, 2011, 2013; Franssen, Dhont, & Van Hiel, 2013; Gordijn, Koomen, & Stapel, 2001; Onraet et al., 2011; Onraet & Van Hiel, 2013; Saroglou et al., 2009; Van Hiel et al., 2007; Van Hiel & Mervielde, 2005), Norway (Horverak et al., 2012), the Netherlands (Bijleveld, Scheepers, & Ellemers, 2012; Pettigrew, 1997), Italy (Azevedo et al., 2013; Castelli, Arcuri, & Zogmaister, 2003; Castelli, Zogmaister Tomelleri, 2009; Castellini et al., 2011; Kosic, Mannetti, & Sam, 2005; Kosic, Phalet, & Mannetti, 2012; Manganelli, Rattazzi, Bobbio, & Canova, 2007; Passini, 2013; Prezza et al., 2008; Voci & Hewstone, 2003), Spain (Gonzalez-Castro et al., 2009; Rodriguez et al., 2009).
Questionnaire Adaptation for the Measurement of Prejudices towards Migrants H5
The main advantage of the Meertens and Pettigrew questionnaire is the complex approach to the measurement of prejudice. At the same time, it has certain limitations. The first limitation is related to the structure of the questionnaire. Different studies have highlighted the single-factor structure (Hofmann et al., 2008; Rangel & Keller, 2011), and the classical and modified two-factor, three-factor (Van Hiel & Mervielde, 2005) and some other variants (Gonzalez-Castro et al., 2009). In the classical two-factor structure the perception of the threat posed by the out-group and the avoiding close contact form blatant prejudices, while the protection of cultural values, the exaggeration of cultural differences and denial of positive emotions form subtle prejudices (Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995, 2001). In a modified two-factor structure the first factor is formed by the perception of threat from the outgroup, the avoidance of close contact, the protection of cultural values and the denial of positive emotions while the second is formed by the exaggeration of cultural differences (Coenders Scheepers, Sniderman, & Verberk, 2001).
The second limitation is related to the content of the individual scales. Several items of the questionnaire which work well in some countries, lose their meaning in others (Gonzalez-Cas-tro et al., 2009; Rodriguez et al., 2009). Consequently, modified versions of the Meertens and Pettigrew have been created. Such differences suggest the cultural specificity of prejudice against migrants and as a consequence, the need to adapt the Meertens and Pettigrew methodology for each particular culture. Our study adapts this questionnaire for a Russian sample and
determines its structural and criterial validity. The adaptation of the questionnaire included the pilot study and the main study.
Pilot study
Sample. At the pilot study 354 people participated, age 18-63 years, 122 men and 232 women. All respondents identified themselves as “Russian” or “Slavs”.
Method. The original version of the questionnaire by Pettigrew (Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995) was translated into Russian. The composition of the statements was adjusted with the help of proficient English speakers. From the total pool of questions one question was deleted concerning the attitude of the respondent to his grandson possibly having a different skin color. The question was removed because, in our view, it is irrelevant for the Russian sample. The final version included 19 items that formed five subscales: the perceived threat from the out-group (PT), the avoidance of close contact (ACC), the protection of traditional values (PTV), the exaggeration of cultural differences (ECD), the denial of positive emotions (DPE). The first, second and third subscales included statements, with which the respondent could agree or disagree. At the same time, the fourth and fifth subscales included questions which had the respondent evaluate members of the outgroup on a scale of “completely different” to “completely similar” and “very seldom” to “very often”. Furthermore, the second, fourth and fifth subscales were inverse. When analyzing the results of the inverse subscales, their values were overturned. With this
116
O.A. Gulevich, I.R. Sarieva, I.S. Prusova
technique, respondents rated their attitude towards one of two groups, migrants from the North Caucasus or Central Asia. Accordingly, the text of the questionnaires used the expressions “migrants from the North Caucasus” and “migrants from Central Asia.”
Results
The analysis of the results was performed using confirmatory factor analysis in the statistical package MPlus. The study analyzed the structural validity of the three theoretical models: the one-factor model, in which all the statements comprise the general ethnic prejudice factor (model A); the classic two-factor model, in which the statements make up the blatant and subtle prejudice factors (model B); and the five-factor model, in which the statements comprise five distinct dimensions of ethnic prejudice (model C). Models A and B were taken from the Pettigrew and Meertens study that tested the methodology. Model C was added in the course of our study. In this case we assumed that Russian respondents do not make the distinction between blatant and subtle prejudices, but also don’t unite them into one factor.
The results showed that the original version of the methodology has a low structural validity (Table 1). CFI para-
meters vary from 0.605 for the two-factor model to 0.766 for the five-factor model; RMSEA parameters vary from 0.102 for the two-factor model to 0.077 for the five-factor model.
The consistency of different subscales was also low: the perceived threat from the out-group (a = 0.632), the avoidance of close contact (a = 0.641), the protection of traditional values (a = 0.358), the exaggeration of cultural differences (a = 0.616) and the denial of positive emotions (a = 0.650). This is due to the fact that a number of items “fell out” from the factor structure of the methodology. Therefore, in the next phase of cultural adaptation a modified version of the questionnaire was created.
Main study
Sample. At the second stage of the study 402 people participated, age 16-78 years (M = 35, SD = 14), 40% men. All respondents identified themselves as “Russian” or “Slavs”.
Method. Study participants completed a questionnaire, which consisted of four parts: ethnic prejudice, ethnic identity, deprivation, and intensity of contact with out-groups’ members.
Prejudice towards migrants. The questionnaire used in the main version of the study differed from the original
Table 1
The structural validity of the original version of the ethnic prejudices questionnaire
Model X (df P) RMSEA (90% CI) CFI TLI SRMR AIC
Model A 877.288 (354, 0.000) 0.087 (0.080 ... 0.094) 0.647 0.623 0.226 15428.822
Model B 706.745 (151, 0.000) 0.102 (0.094 ... 0.110) 0.605 0.552 0.108 17532.074
Model С 441.452 (142, 0.000) 0.077 (0.069 ... 0.085) 0.766 0.718 0.095 17326.064
Questionnaire Adaptation for the Measurement of Prejudices towards Migrants
117
Meertens and Pettigrew version of the questionnaire by three parameters.
First, all items were formulated as statements. This was done to ensure that the grammatical structure of the items would not encourage respondents to similarly answer the questions that form a single subscale.
Secondly, items were excluded from the questionnaire that during the pilot phase of the study were weakly associated with the respective subscales.
Third, the questionnaire included additional statements reflecting the specifics of Russian ethnic prejudice. To do this, a content analysis of articles in Russian popular print media and discussion forums with nationalist orientations was conducted. The final version of the questionnaire consisted of 28 statements that form six subscales (discourse analysis has shown that respondents make a distinction between the economic and physical threat posed by the out-group):
The perceived economic threat from the out-group (PET). This subscale includes five statements concerning economic dangers posed by migrants (see Appendix 1, items 1 to 5).
The perceived physical threat from the out-group (PPT). This subscale includes five statements concerning physical danger posed by migrants (see Appendix 1, items 6 to 10).
The avoidance of close contact (ACC). This subscale includes 5 statements reflecting the willingness of respondent to engage in close relations with migrants (see Appendix 1, items 11 to 15).
The perceived problems in adaptation (PPA). This subscale was included in the method instead of the “protecting traditional values” subscale. It
includes 5 statements reflecting the desire of migrants to stay isolated and unwillingness to communicate with the local population (see Appendix 1, items 16 to 20).
The exaggeration of cultural differences (ECD). This subscale consisted of 6 statements about the similarity between migrants and the local population (see Appendix 1, items 21 to 26).
The denial of positive emotions (DPE). This subscale included two statements regarding the extent to which migrants cause positive emotions in the respondent, namely sympathy and empathy (see Appendix 1, items 27 to 28).
The first, second and third subscale reflect blatant, and the fourth, fifth and sixth — subtle prejudices. As in the original version the third, fifth and sixth subscales were inverse. In processing the results of the inverse scale were overturned.
Respondents filled in one of two questionnaires measuring prejudice towards migrants from the Caucasus or Central Asia. Answers used a five-point scale ranging from 1 — “strongly disagree” to 5 — “strongly agree.”
Ethnic identity. To measure identification with “Russian” ethnicity a questionnaire developed by Leach and colleagues (Leach et al., 2008) was used, adapted for the Russian sample. It included 14 statements that form five subscales: “self-stereotyping” (e.g., “I have a lot in common with the average Russian”), “in-group homogeneity” (e.g., “There are many similarities between Russians”), “satisfaction” (e.g., “I am glad that I am Russian”), “solidarity” (“I feel a connection with Russians”) and “centrality” (“I often think that I’m Russian.”) The first and second subscale form the factor “self-determination”
118
O.A. Gulevich, I.R. Sarieva, I.S. Prusova
and the third, fourth and fifth subscales form the factor “personal contribution”. For answers a seven-point scale was used, ranging from 1 — “strongly disagree” to 7 — “strongly agree.” The results demonstrated adaptation reliability when measuring ethnic identification (x2 = 98.59, df = 71, p < 0.05, CFI = 0.965, RMSEA = 0.052) (Agadullina & Lovakov, 2013).
Relative deprivation. Respondents answered two questions: “In your opinion, in the last 5 years how much has the economic well-being of Russians improved or deteriorated in comparison with migrants living in Russia”, and “In your opinion, in the last 5 years how much has the economic well-being of Russians improved or deteriorated in comparison with other people living in Russia “. The answer was in the form of a 5-point scale ranging from “1” — “deteriorated significantly” to “5” — “significantly improved (Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995).
Contacts with representatives of other groups. Respondents answered four questions about the number of friends among (a) migrants, (b) people of other nationalities, (c) other religions, and (d) members of another social class. Each time they could choose one of three options: “no”, “some” or “a lot (Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995).
Results
Structural validity of the questionnaire for measuring ethnic prejudice.
To verify the factor structure of the modified version of the questionnaire a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted with Mplus. During the analysis the validity of five models was checked (Table 2): the one-factor model, in
which all the statements comprise the general ethnic prejudice factor (model A); the classic two-factor model, in which the statements make up the blatant and subtle prejudice factors (model B); the modified two-factor model (model C); the six-factor model in which the statements comprise six various dimensions of ethnic prejudice (model D) and the five-factor model, which excludes the “Denial of positive emotions” factor (model E). Models A and B were borrowed from the Pettigrew and Meertens study, model C - from the Coenders study, both of which tested the structural validity of the method. Models D and E were added in the course of our study.
The results of confirmatory analysis (Table 2) show that the single-factor (model A) (x2 = 2253.880, df = 350, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.556, RMSEA = 0.116), the classical two-factor (model B) (x2 = 1678.598, df = 349, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.690, RMSEA = 0.097) and the modified two-factor model (C) (x2 = = 1560.018, df = 349 p < 0.001, CFI = = 0.717, RMSEA = 0.093) have low structural validity. Higher structural validity is demonstrated by to model D, which distinguishes between six different dimensions of prejudice (x2 = = 698.594, df = 335 p < 0.001 CFI = = 0.915, RMSEA = 0.052). The greatest structural validity is attributed to the five-factor model E (Figure 1, x2 = = 633.370, df = 289, p < 0.001 CFI = = RMSEA = 0.054). Thus, during further analysis the scale with five dimensions of prejudice was considered.
Table 3 shows the descriptive statistics of the scales of ethnic prejudice and the correlation between them. The results suggest that the coordination of subscales for the entire sample ranges
Questionnaire Adaptation for the Measurement of Prejudices towards Migrants
119
Table 2
The structural validity of the modified version of the questionnaire for measuring ethnic prejudice
Model (df p) RMSEA (90% CI) CFI TLI SRMR AIC
Prejudice towards migrants from Central Asia (N = 195)
Model A 1422.026 (350, 0.00) 0.125 (0.119 ... 0.132) 0.632 0.603 0.101 15481.833
Model B 1118.999 (349, 0.00) 0.106 (0.099 ... 0.113) 0.736 0.714 0.111 15139.377
Model C 1045.881 (349, 0.00) 0.101 (0.094 ... 0.108) 0.761 0.741 0.089 15060.931
Model D 654.139 (335, 0.00) 0.070 (0.062 ... 0.088) 0.890 0.876 0.079 14648.603
Model Е 531.258 (289, 0.00) 0.066 (0.057 ... 0.074) 0.913 0.902 0.075 13605.157
Prejudice towards migrants from the Caucasus (N = 207)
Model A 1402.036 (350, 0.00) 0.121 (0.114... 0.127) 0.441 0.397 0.139 17714.108
Model B 1123.653 (349, 0.00) 0.104 (0.097. 0.110) 0.589 0.554 0.139 17402.765
Model C 1031.706 (349, 0.00) 0.097 (0.090. 0.104) 0.637 0.607 0.114 17297.459
Model D 583.956 (335, 0.00) 0.060 (0.052. 0.068) 0.868 0.851 0.067 16835.488
Model Е 531.499 (289, 0.00) 0.064 (0.055. 0.072) 0.871 0.855 0.069 15612.498
Prejudice: general (N = 402)
Model A 2253.880 (350, 0.00) 0.116 (0.112... 0.121) 0.556 0.520 0.115 33490.126
Model B 1678.598 (349, 0.00) 0.097 (0.093... 0.102) 0.690 0.664 0.117 32803.631
Model C 1560.018 (349, 0.00) 0.093 (0.088. 0.098) 0.717 0.694 0.095 32675.972
Model D 698.594 (335, 0.00) 0.052 (0.047. 0.057) 0.915 0.904 0.058 31706.494
Model Е 633.370 (289, 0.00) 0.054 (0.049. 0.060) 0.919 0.909 0.058 29418.397
from 0.70 (subscale “the perceived problems in adaptation”) to 0.87 (subscales “the perceived physical threat” and “the exaggeration of cultural differences”). However, when measuring prejudice against migrants from Central Asia the consistency of subscales was higher than with migrants from the Caucasus.
Several subscales of the questionnaire are correlated. For the full sam-
ple, the correlation coefficient ranges from rs = 0.20 to 0.69. However, the degree of correlation between the subscales of the questionnaire varies depending on which out-group is the object of prejudice. Various components of prejudice against migrants from Central Asia are more strongly related to each other than the components of prejudice against migrants from the Caucasus.
120
O.A. Gulevich, I.R. Sarieva, I.S. Prusova
The five factor model of prejudices towards migrants
Figure 1
PPA
ECD
0.487
0.676
0.7S0
0.638
0.293
•[ Hem 15 ]
I Item 17 ]
I Item 18 ]
Г Item 19 1
I Item 20 I
0.667
0.749
0.667
0.810
0.847
0.680
I Item 21 1
I Item 22 I
I Item 23 1
I Item 24 I
I Item 25 1
I Item 26 I
Note. PET — the perceived economic threat from the outgroup, PPT — the perceived physical threat from the outgroup, ACC — the avoidance of close contact, PPA — the perceived problems in adaptation, ECD — the exaggeration of cultural differences.
Table 3
Descriptive statistics and the correlation of the ethnic prejudice subscales
М SD a 1 2 3 4
Prejudice towards migrants from Central Asia
1. Perceived economic threat 3.78 0.95 0.82 -
2. Perceived physical threat 3.31 1.09 0.89 0.78** -
3. Avoidance of close contact 3.17 1.19 0.89 0.62** 0.59** -
4. Perceived problems in adaptation 3.66 0.81 0.70 0.54** 0.43** 0.33** -
5. Exaggeration of cultural differences 4.21 0.82 0.91 0.61** 0.51** 0.58** 0.33**
Prejudice towards migrants from the Caucasus
1. Perceived economic threat 3.96 0.88 0.80 -
2. Perceived physical threat 3.58 0.94 0.84 0.57** -
3. Avoidance of close contact 3.19 0.99 0.81 0.23** 0.25** -
4. Perceived problems in adaptation 3.52 0.84 0.70 0.48** 0.41** 0.06 -
5. Exaggeration of cultural differences 4.11 0.84 0.84 0.02 0.18** 0.33** 0.10
Questionnaire Adaptation for the Measurement of Prejudices towards Migrants
121
Table 3 (termination)
М SD a 1 2 3 4
Prejudice: general
1. Perceived economic threat 3.87 0.92 0.81 -
2. Perceived physical threat 3.45 1.03 0.87 0.69** -
3. Avoidance of close contact 3.18 1.09 0.86 0.43** 0.43** -
4. Perceived problems in adaptation 3.59 0.83 0.70 0.49** 0.41** 0.20** -
5. Exaggeration of cultural differences 4.16 0.83 0.87 0.27** 0.34** 0.46** 0.21**
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
Criterial validity of the questionnaire. To measure the criterial validity three indicators were used which in other studies, were related to the level of prejudice: ethnic identity, relative deprivation and the number of friends among the out-groups. To determine the criterial validity a correlation analysis was performed between these indicators and subscales of prejudice. The results are shown in Table 4.
They show that all the components of prejudice toward migrants are related to in-group identification with the group “Russian”. The correlation coefficients for the total sample varied in the range of rs = 0.23 to 0.39. At the same time, the in-group identity is associated with stronger prejudices towards migrants from Central Asia than towards migrants from the Caucasus.
Furthermore, prejudice towards migrants is related to the level of relative deprivation. The correlation coefficients for the total sample ranged from rs = 0.19 to 0.43. An exception is the subscale the exaggeration of cultural differences. However, the strength of this connection also depends on the out-group. Relative deprivation is more
strongly associated with prejudice against migrants from Central Asia than with prejudice against migrants from the Caucasus. This primarily concerns the subscale the exaggeration of cultural differences.
Finally, ethnic prejudices are related to the intensity of contact with the outgroup. The weakest link is observed between the intensity of exposure and the subscale the perceived problems in adaptation, and the strongest between the intensity of contact and the exaggeration of cultural differences. However, this relationship depends on the outgroup: prejudice against migrants from Central Asia is more strongly related to the intensity of contact than prejudice against migrants from the Caucasus. This primarily concerns the subscales the perceived economic threat, the perceived physical threat, the avoiding close contact and the perceived problems of adaptation, but not the the exaggeration of cultural differences subscale.
Discussion
Our study was focused on the cultural adaptation of the Pettigrew and
122
O.A. Gulevich, I.R. Sarieva, I.S. Prusova
Results of the correlation analysis
Table 4
Perceived economic threat Perceived physical threat Avoidance of close contact Perceived problems in adaptation Exaggeration of cultural differences
Prejudice towards migrants from Central Asia
Relative deprivation (migrants) 0.46** 0.51** 0.35** 0.24** 0.22**
Relative deprivation (other peoples) 0.38** 0.41** 0.35** 0.25** 0.26**
Friends — migrants -0.34** -0.24** -0.44** -0.25** -0.31**
Friends — other nationalities -0.28** -0.24** -0.41** -0.12 -0.21**
Friends — other religions -0.34** -0.26** -0.41** -0.10 -0.28**
Friends — other classes -0.09 -0.06 -0.18* -0.01 -0.14*
Identification: personal input 0.54** 0.50** 0.53** 0.28** 0.43**
Identification: self-determination 0.43** 0.38** 0.41** 0.19** 0.35**
Relative deprivation (migrants) 0.29** 0.31** 0.26** 0.18* -0.01
Relative deprivation (other peoples) 0.19** 0.22** 0.18** 0.18* -0.05
Friends — migrants 0.01 0.07 -0.12 -0.06 -0.26**
Friends — other nationalities -0.01 0.01 -0.04 -0.15* -0.24**
Friends — other religions -0.05 -0.01 -0.07 -0.08 -0.26**
Friends — other classes -0.03 -0.08 -0.08 -0.09 -0.21**
Identification: personal input 0.20** 0.20** 0.23** 0.25** 0.24**
Identification: self-determination 0.27** 0.15* 0.14* 0.30** 0.19**
Prejudice: general
Relative deprivation (migrants) 0.39** 0.43** 0.31** 0.19** 0.09
Relative deprivation (other peoples) 0.29** 0.33** 0.27** 0.21** 0.09
Friends — migrants -0.16** -0.09 -0.28** -0.16** -0.28**
Friends — other nationalities -0.17** -0.16** -0.23** -0.12* -0.21**
Friends — other religions -0.21** -0.17** -0.25** -0.08 -0.26**
Friends — other classes -0.07 -0.10* -0.13** -0.04 -0.16**
Identification: personal input 0.39** 0.37** 0.30** 0.26** 0.33**
Identification: self-determination 0.36** 0.30** 0.29** 0.23** 0.27**
* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
Questionnaire Adaptation for the Measurement of Prejudices towards Migrants
123
Meertens questionnaire designed to measure ethnic prejudice. The advantages of this technique include the ability to use it to measure both blatant and subtle prejudices against ethnic groups. However, research showed that the content and structure of this technique have cultural characteristics. This is clearly seen when comparing the version adapted for the Russian sample, with the version used in Western European studies.
First, the Russian version includes two different components related to the threat posed by the out-group -economic and physical threat. The idea of introducing into the methodology items related to economic threat was born during the content analysis of Russian print media. It demonstrated that the economic aspect of the relationship with migrants is touched on in public discussions as frequently as the aspect related to their effect on the lives and health of the local population. Of course, the subscale of the perceived economic and physical threats are strongly correlated with each other. However the estimation of the economic threat is greater than that of the physical threat, and this applies to both prejudice against migrants from Central Asia and migrants from the Caucasus.
Second, the Russian version of the questionnaire is missing the subscale the protecting traditional values, which was replaced by the subscale the perceived problems of adaptation. This was done based on the first phase of the study, which showed that in the minds of Russian respondents the idea of migrants not making enough effort is not related to the inability of migrants to adapt to the host community. This is
probably due to the weak prevalence of the Protestant work ethic in Russia, which were reflected in the original version of the questionnaire. As a result, adaptation to the host community is not seen as the result of systematic effort and hard work. Because the content analysis showed that one of the key topics discussed in relation to migration is cultural adaptation and not lack of effort, this subscale was included in the modified version of the questionnaire.
Third, the new version of the methodology included an extended subscale of the avoidance of close contact. It included statements concerning willingness to have a relationship with a migrant as a friend, colleague or neighbor. This was done in order to allow for different levels of communication. The high consistency of this subscale suggests that prejudices are associated with either willingness to have contact or refusal to do so.
Fourthly, the subscale the denial of positive emotions was excluded from the modified version of the questionnaire. The low internal consistency of this subscale indicates that admiration and sympathy reflect two fundamentally different attitudes towards migrants. Admiration suggests a positive attitude towards a powerful, high-status group, while sympathy — a weak, low status one.
Overall, this study demonstrated the structural validity of a modified version of the Pettigrew and Meertens questionnaire, which includes five separate subscales. These subscales are related to three criterial variables: identification with the group “Russian”, the intensity of contact with the out-group, and relative deprivation.
124
O.A. Gulevich, I.R. Sarieva, I.S. Prusova
Counterintuitively, the stronger the ethnic identification, the more a person has friends among the out-group, the lower the relative deprivation, the greater the prejudice towards migrants. However, the degree of connection between these indicators and prejudice depends on the out-group. Prejudice against migrants from the Caucasus is more weakly related to Russian identity, the intensity of contact and relative deprivation than prejudice against migrants from Central Asia. Apparently, this is due to the fact that prejudice against migrants from the Caucasus has become a kind of “cultural norm.” It originated earlier than the prejudice
against migrants from other regions, it was strengthened during the two Chechen wars and the Russian-Georgian war, and continually fueled by reports of crimes committed by “people from the Caucasus”.
Furthermore, the study results show that Russian respondents don’t make a distinction between blatant and subtle prejudice towards migrants. That kind of prejudice can be considered as a sum of various components which are created by various conditions. Thus, the further direction of research would be the study of how exactly these components are linked to behavior towards ethnic minority groups.
References
Agadullina, E., Lovakov, A. (2013). Measurement model of in-group identification: Validation in Russian samples. Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 10(4), 139-153.
Adesokan, A. A., Ullrich, J., van Dick, R., & Tropp, L. R. (2011). Diversity beliefs as moderator of the contact-prejudice relationship. Social Psychology, 42, 271-278.
Azevedo, R. T., Macaluso, E., Avenanti, A., Santangelo, V., Cazzato, V., & Aglioti, S. M. (2013). Their pain is not our pain: Brain and autonomic correlates of empathic resonance with the pain of same and different race individuals. Human Brain Mapping, 34, 3168-3181.
Bijleveld, E., Scheepers, D., & Ellemers, N. (2012). The cortisol response to anticipated intergroup interactions predicts self-reported prejudice. PioS ONE, 7. Retrieved from http://www.plosone.org
Brown, T.A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. N.Y.: The Guilford Press.
Byrne, B. (2012). Structural equation modeling with Mplus. N.Y.: Routledge.
Castelli, L., Arcuri, L., & Zogmaister, C. (2003). Perceiving in-group members who use stereotypes: Implicit conformity and similarity. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 163-175.
Castelli, L., Zogmaister, C., & Tomelleri, S. (2009). The transmission of racial attitudes within the family. Developmental Psychology, 45, 586-591.
Castellini, F., Colombo, M., Maffeis, D., & Montali, L. (2011). Sense of community and interethnic relations: Comparing local communities varying in ethnic heterogeneity. Journal of Community Psychology, 39, 663-677.
Coenders, M., Scheepers, P, Sniderman, PM., & Verberk, G. (2001). Blatant and subtle prejudice: Dimensions, determinants and consequences: some comments on Pettigrew and Meertens. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 281-297.
Cohrs, J., & Asbrock, F. (2009). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and prejudice against threatening and competitive ethnic groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 270-289.
Questionnaire Adaptation for the Measurement of Prejudices towards Migrants 125
Degner, J., & Wentura, D. (2007). Hostility-related prejudice against Turks in adolescents: Masked affective priming allows for a differentiation of automatic prejudice. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29, 245-256.
Degner, J., & Wentura, D. (2008). The extrinsic affective Simon task as an instrument for indirect assessment of prejudice. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 1033-1043.
Degner, J., & Wentura, D. (2010). Automatic prejudice in childhood and early adolescence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 356-374.
Dhont, K., Roets, A., & Van Hiel, A. (2011). Opening closed minds: the combined effects of intergroup contact and need for closure on prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 514-528.
Dhont, K.D., Roets, A., & Van Hiel, A. (2013). The intergenerational transmission of need for closure underlies the transmission of authoritarianism and anti-immigrant prejudice. Personality and Individual Differences, 54, 779-784.
Dhont, K., Van Hiel, A., De Bolle, M., & Roets, A. (2012). Longitudinal intergroup contact effects on prejudice using self- and observer-reports. British Journal of Social Psychology, 51, 221-238.
Eller, A., & Abrams, D. (2003). “Gringos” in Mexico: cross-sectional and longitudinal effects of language school-promoted contact on intergroup bias. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6, 55-75.
Eller, A., Abrams, D., & Gomez, A. (2012). When the direct route is blocked: the extended contact pathway to improving intergroup relations. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36, 637-646.
Eyssel, F., & Ribas, X. (2012). How to be good (or bad): on the fakeability of dehumanization and prejudice against out-groups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15, 804-812.
Franssen, V., Dhont, K., & Van Hiel, A. (2013). Age-related differences in ethnic prejudice: evidence of the mediating effect of right-wing attitudes. Journal of Community and Applied Psychology, 23, 252-257.
Gawronski, B. (2002). What does the implicit association test measure? A test of the convergent and discriminant validity of prejudice-related IATs. Experimental Psychology, 49, 171-180.
Gawronski, B., Geschke, D., & Banse, R. (2003). Implicit bias in impression formation: associations influence the construal of individuating information. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 573-589.
Geschke, D., Mummendey, A., Kessler, T., & Funke, F. (2010). Majority members’ acculturation goals as predictors and effects of attitudes and behaviours towards migrants. British Journal of Social Psychology, 49, 489-506.
Gonzalez-Castro, J. L., Ubillos, S., & Ibanez, J. (2009). Predictive factors of ethnic prejudice toward immigrants in a representative subsample of Spanish young people. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39, 1690-1717.
Gordijn, E. H., Koomen, W., & Stapel, D. A. (2001). Level of prejudice in relation to knowledge of cultural stereotypes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 150-157.
Hamberger, J., & Hewstone, M. (1997). Inter-ethnic contact as a predictor of blatant and subtle prejudice: tests of a model in four West European nations. British Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 173-190.
Hofmann, W., Gschwendner, T., Castelli, L., & Schmitt, M. (2008). Implicit and explicit attitudes and interracial interaction: the moderating role of situationally available control resources. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 11, 69-87.
126
O.A. Gulevich, I.R. Sarieva, I.S. Prusova
Horverak, J. G., Sandal, G. M., Bye, H. H., & Pallesen, S. (2012). Managers’ selection preferences: The role of prejudice and multicultural personality traits in the assessment of native and immigrant job candidates. Revue Europeenne de Psychologie Appliquee, 63, 267-275.
Keller, J. (2005). In genes we trust: The biological component of psychological essentialism and its relationship to mechanisms of motivated social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 686-702.
Kessler, T., Mummendey, A., Funke, F., Brown, R., Binder, J., Zagefka, H., Leyens, J. P., Demoulin, S., & Maquil, A. (2010). We all live in Germany but ... In-group projection, group-based emotions and prejudice against immigrants. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 985-997.
Kosic, A., Mannetti, L., & Sam, D. L. (2005). The role of majority attitudes towards out-group in the perception of the acculturation strategies of immigrants. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 273-288.
Kosic, A., Phalet, K., & Mannetti, L. (2012). Ethnic categorization: The role of epistemic motivation, prejudice, and perceived threat. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 34, 66-75.
Kuchenbrandt, D., Eyssel, F., & Seidel, S. K. (2013). Cooperation makes it happen: Imagined intergroup cooperation enhances the positive effects of imagined contact. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16, 635-647.
Leach, C. W., van Zomeren, M., Zebel, S., Vliek, M. L. W., Pennekamp, S. F, Doosje, B...Spears, R.
(2008). Group-level self-definition and self-investment: A hierarchical (multicomponent) model of in-group identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 144-165.
Manganelli Rattazzi, A. M., Bobbio, A., & Canova, L. (2007). A short version of the Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1223-1234.
McGrane, J. A., & White, F A. (2007). Differences in Anglo and Asian Australians’ explicit and implicit prejudice and the attenuation of their implicit in-group bias. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 204-210.
Meertens, R. W., & Pettigrew, T. F (1997). Is subtle prejudice really prejudice? Public Opinion Quarterly, 61, 54-71.
Mummendey, A., Klink, A., & Brown, R. (2001). Nationalism and patriotism: national identification and out-group rejection. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 159-172.
Neumann, R., & Seibt, B. (2001). The structure of prejudice: associative strength as a determinant of stereotype endorsement. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 609-620.
Onraet, E., & Van Hiel, A. (2013). When threat to society becomes a threat to oneself: Implications for right-wing attitudes and ethnic prejudice. International Journal of Psychology, 48, 25-34.
Onraet, E., Van Hiel, A., Roets, A., & Cornelis, I. (2011). The closed mind: “Experience” and “cognition” aspects of openness to experience and need for closure as psychological bases for right-wing attitudes. European Journal of Personality, 25, 184-197.
Passini, S. (2013). What do I think of others in relation to myself? Moral identity and moral inclusion in explaining prejudice. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 23, 261-269.
Petersen, L. E., & Dietz, J. (2005). Prejudice and enforcement of workforce homogeneity as explanations for employment discrimination. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 144-159.
Pettigrew, T. F (1997). Generalized intergroup contact effects on prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 173-185.
Pettigrew, T. F, & Meertens, R. W. (1995). Subtle and blatant prejudice in Western Europe. European Journal of Social Psychology, 57, 57-75.
Questionnaire Adaptation for the Measurement of Prejudices towards Migrants
127
Pettigrew, T. F., & Meertens, R. W. (2001). In defense of the subtle prejudice concept: a retort. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 299-309.
Prezza, M., Zampatti, E., Pacilli, M. G., & Paoliello, A. (2008). Territorial sense of community, ethnic prejudice and political orientation. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 18, 315-332.
Rangel, U., & Keller, J. (2011). Essentialism goes social: belief in social determinism as a component of psychological essentialism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 1056-1078.
Rodriguez, F. J., Herrero, J., Ovejero, A., & Torres, A. (2009). New expressions of racism among young people in Spain: an adaptation of the Meertens and Pettigrew (1992) prejudice scale. Adolescence, 44, 1033-1043.
Rodriguez-Garcia, J.-M., & Wagner, U. (2009). Learning to be prejudiced: A test of unidirectional and bidirectional models of parent-offspring socialization. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33, 516-523.
Saroglou, V., Lamkaddem, B., Van Pachterbeke, M., & Buxant, C. (2009). Host society’s dislike of the Islamic veil: The role of subtle prejudice, values, and religion. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33, 419-428.
Steffens, M. G., Kirschbaum, M., & Glados, P. (2008). Avoiding stimulus confounds in Implicit Association Tests by using the concepts as stimuli. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 217-243.
Stellmacher, J., & Sommer, G. (2008). Human rights education: an evaluation of University seminars. Social Psychology, 39, 70-80.
Van Dick, R., Wagner, U., Pettigrew, T. F., Christ, O., Wolf, C., Petzel, T.Jackson, J. S. (2004). Role
of perceived importance in intergroup contact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7, 211-227.
Van Hiel, A., Cornelis, I., Roets, A., & De Clecrq, B. (2007). A comparison of various authoritarianism scales in Belgian Flanders. European Journal of Personality, 21, 149-168.
Van Hiel, A., & Mervielde, I. (2005). Authoritarianism and social dominance orientation: relationships with various forms of racism. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 2323-2344.
Voci, A., & Hewstone, M. (2003). Intergroup contact and prejudice toward immigrants in Italy: The mediational role of anxiety and the moderational role of group salience. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6, 37-54.
Vrij, A., Akehurst, L., & Smith, B. (2003). Reducing ethnic prejudice: an evaluation of seven recommended principles for incorporation in public campaigns. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 13, 284-299.
Wright, S. C., Aron, A., McLaughlin-Volpe, T., & Ropp, S. A. (1997). The extended contact effect: knowledge of cross-group friendships and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 73-90.
Zick, A., Wagner, U., van Dick, R., & Petzel, T. (2001). Acculturation and prejudice in Germany: majority and minority perspectives. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 541-557.
128
O.A. Gulevich, I.R. Sarieva, I.S. Prusova
Appendix 1
Questionnaire for the measurement of prejudices towards migrants (translation from Russian)
Recently the population of our country is becoming more and more ethnically diverse. This is happening because of migration from other countries. Read the statements concerning the (name of group) and rate how much you agree with each of them.
Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree
1 (Name of group) are relentlessly trying to fill economic and political positions that are traditionally filled by the host population !□ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □
2 Many of (name of group) take the jobs that could be taken by the host population 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □
3 Most of (name of group) produce and sell low-quality goods and services 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □
4 Most of (name of group) see Russia solely as a source of income and are indifferent about the country's future 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □
5 Most of (name of group) would take any opportunity to swindle members of the host population for their on profit 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □
6 (Name of group) act more aggressively than the host population 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □
7 (Name of group) break the law more often than the host population 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □
8 (Name of group) create dangerous traffic situations on the road more often than the host population 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □
9 Most politicians in Russia care too much about (name of group) and not enough about the host population 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □
10 In case of conflict between the (name of group) and the host population, the authorities side with the migrants 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □
11 I wouldn't mind if one of my family members married a (name of group) 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □
12 I don't exclude the possibility that a (name of group) could become my friend 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □
13 I wouldn’t mind if a suitably qualified (name of group) was appointed as my boss 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □
14 I wouldn’t mind if a suitably qualified (name of group) became my subordinate 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □
15 I wouldn’t mind if a (name of group) became my neighbor 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □
Questionnaire Adaptation for the Measurement of Prejudices towards Migrants
129
Strongly disagree Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree
16 (Name of group) teach to to their children values and skills different from those required to be successful in Russia !□ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □
17 After coming to Russia (name of group) settle together, which prevents them from adapting to a new culture 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □
18 (Name of group) prefer following their traditions even if they prevent them from achieving success in the society 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □
19 Many of (name of group) are badly educated and are not keen on learning the Russian language to achieve success in Russia 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □
20 After coming to Russia (name of group) engage in marriage primarily with representatives of their culture 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □
21 Values of most (name of group) resemble mine 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □
22 Religious beliefs and rituals of (name of group) resemble mine 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □
23 Sexual practices of (name of group) resemble mine 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □
24 The way of life of (name of group) mostly resembles mine 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □
25 Many family values of (name of group) resemble mine 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □
26 Behavior of (name of group) in business resembles mine 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □
27 I often feel sympathy for the (name of group) 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □
28 I often fell admiration for the (name of group) 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □
130
О.А. Гулевич, И.Р. Сариева, И.С. Прусова
Этнические предрассудки в России:
Методика для измерения предрассудков в отношении к мигрантам
Гулевич Ольга Александровна
Доцент департамента психологии НИУ ВШЭ, доктор психологических наук Контакты: goulevitch@mail.ru
Сариева Ирена Ремаевна
Преподаватель департамента психологии НИУ ВШЭ Контакты: iren.sarieva@gmail.com
Прусова Ирина Сергеевна
Студентка департамента психологии НИУ ВШЭ Контакты: itirik@mail.ru
Резюме
Этнические предрассудки — важный фактор, оказывающий влияние на отношения между этническими группами. Для измерения хорошо осознаваемых этнических предрассудков используются опросники, которые включают вопросы и утверждения, отражающие разные аспекты негативного отношения к этническим группам. Поскольку большинство подобных методик создано в странах Северной Америки и Западной Европы, они отражают содержание этнических предрассудков, распространенных в этих регионах, и нуждаются в изменении с учетом культурного контекста. Целью данного исследования является модификация опросника для измерения отношения к мигрантам на основе шкалы явных и скрытых предрассудков Т Петтигрю и Р Миртенса для российской выборки (Pettigrew, Meertens, 1995). Исследование включало в себя пилотажный и основной этап исследования. Участники пилотажного этапа (N = 355) заполняли русскоязычную версию оригинального варианта опросника Петтигрю и Миртенса, оценивая мигрантов, приехавших в Россию из Средней Азии и с Кавказа. Полученные результаты продемонстрировали низкую структурную валидность оригинальной версии шкалы. Участники основного этапа исследования (N = 402) заполняли модифицированную версию опросника, который включал в себя 28 утверждений. Результаты показали, что наибольшей структурной валидностью обладает пятифакторная модель, включающая в себя следующие шкалы: «воспринимаемая экономическая угроза», «воспринимаемая физическая угроза», «избегание близкого контакта», «воспринимаемые проблемы в адаптации», «преувеличение культурных различий». Они продемонстрировали, что российские предрассудки к мигрантам из Средней Азии и с Кавказа связаны с относительной депривацией, этнической идентичностью и интенсивностью межгруппового контакта. При этом структура методики носит универсальный характер, а связи отдельных факторов с критериальными переменными зависят от группы — объекта предрассудков. В частности, относительная депривация и количество контактов сильнее связаны с предрассудками в отношении мигрантов из Средней Азии, чем мигрантов с Кавказа.
Ключевые слова: этнические предрассудки, этническая идентичность, относительная депривация, гипотеза контакта.
Методика для измерения предрассудков в отношении к мигрантам
131
Приложение
Методика для измерения предрассудков в отношении к мигрантам
В последнее время население нашей страны становится все более разнообразным в этническом отношении. Это происходит благодаря миграции людей из других стран. Прочитайте утверждения, касающиеся (название группы), и оцените, насколько Вы согласны с каждым из них.
Абсолютно не согласен Скорее не согласен, чем согласен Что-то среднее Скорее согласен, чем не согласен Абсолютно согласен
1 (Название группы) настойчиво стремятся занять экономические и политические позиции, которые традиционно принадлежали местному населению. ш 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □
2 Многие (название группы) занимают рабочие места, которые могли бы занимать местные жители. 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □
3 Большинство (название группы) делают и продают низкокачественные товары и услуги. 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □
4 Большинство (название группы) рассматривают Россию только как источник дохода и равнодушны к ее будущему. 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □
5 Многие (название группы) при любой возможности готовы обмануть представителей местного населения ради собственной выгоды. 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □
6 (Название группы) ведут себя более агрессивно, чем местное население. 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □
7 (Название группы) чаще, чем местное население, нарушают закон. 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □
8 (Название группы) чаще, чем местное население, создают аварийные и опасные ситуации на дорогах. 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □
9 Большинство политиков в России слишком заботятся о (название группы) и недостаточно — о местном населении. 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □
10 При конфликте (название группы) с местным населением власть встает на сторону мигрантов. 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □
11 Я не буду против, если (название группы) вступит в брак с членом моей семьи. 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □
12 Я не исключаю того, что (название группы) станет моим другом. 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □
132
О.А. Гулевич, И.Р. Сариева, И.С. Прусова
Абсолютно не согласен Скорее не согласен, чем согласен Что-то среднее Скорее согласен, чем не согласен Абсолютно согласен
13 Я не буду против того, чтобы обладающий соответствующей квалификацией (название группы) был назначен моим начальником. !□ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □
14 Я не буду против того, чтобы обладающий соответствующей квалификацией (название группы) стал моим подчиненным. 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □
15 Я не буду против того, чтобы (название группы) стал моим соседом. 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □
16 (Название группы) передают своим детям ценности и учат навыкам, которые не способствуют достижению успеха в России. 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □
17 Приезжая в Россию (название группы) селятся вместе, что мешает им адаптироваться в новой культуре. 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □
18 (Название группы) предпочитают следовать своим традициям, даже если они мешают им достичь успеха в обществе. 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □
19 Многие (название группы) плохо образованы и не стремятся учить русский язык, чтобы достичь успеха в России. 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □
20 Приезжая в Россию, (название группы) вступают в браки преимущественно с представителями своей культуры. 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □
21 Ценности большинства (название группы) похожи на мои ценности. 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □
22 Религиозные верования и обряды (название группы) похожи на мои. 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □
23 Сексуальные практики (название группы) похожи на мои. 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □
24 Быт (название группы) по большей части похож на мой быт. 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □
25 Многие семейные традиции (название группы) похожи на мои традиции. 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □
26 Поведение (название группы) в деловой сфере похоже на мое поведение. 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □
27 Я часто сочувствую (название группы). 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □
28 Я часто восхищаюсь (название группы). 1 □ 2 □ 3 □ 4 □ 5 □
