-
This article was downloaded by: [Rutgers University]On: 11 May
2013, At: 21:40Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in
England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office:
Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T3JH, UK
Ethnic and Racial StudiesPublication details, including
instructions forauthors and subscription
information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rers20
Prejudice in the former SovietUnionJoseph Hraba a , Carolyn S.
Dunham b , SergeyTumanov c & Louk Hagendoorn da Professor of
Sociology, Iowa State University ofScience and Technology, 107 East
Hall, Ames, IA,500111070, USAb Doctoral candidate in Sociology,
Iowa StateUniversityc Director of the Center for Sociological
Studies,Moscow State Universityd Professor of Social Sciences,
University of UtrechtPublished online: 13 Sep 2010.
To cite this article: Joseph Hraba , Carolyn S. Dunham , Sergey
Tumanov & LoukHagendoorn (1997): Prejudice in the former Soviet
Union, Ethnic and Racial Studies,20:3, 613-627
To link to this article:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01419870.1997.9993978
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use:
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private
study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction,
redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply,
or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or
make anyrepresentation that the contents will be complete or
accurate or up todate. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae,
and drug doses shouldbe independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not
-
be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or
costs ordamages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly inconnection with or arising out of the use of this
material.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [R
utgers
Univ
ersity
] at 2
1:40 1
1 May
2013
-
Research note
Prejudice in the former Soviet UnionJoseph Hraba, Carolyn S.
Dunham, Sergey Tumanov and LoukHagendoorn
AbstractResearch in the United States and Europe has focused on
the prejudice ofmajority groups towards minority groups, the
implication somehow beingthat majority groups were more prejudiced
than minority groups. In theformer Soviet Union, ethnic
environments were more complex; the sameethnic group could be a
majority in one region but a minority in others.Using a sample of
1,459 first- and fourth-year university students fromeight regions
of the former USSR, this study focuses on Russian, Tatar
andUkrainian respondents (n = 821) to test the hypothesis that the
status of anethnic group (majority/minority) or in-group bias
explains members'prejudice. According to in-group bias, all ethnic
groups are equallyprejudiced, minority and majority alike, whereas
group status posits thatgroups in a majority position are more
prejudiced. Findings show thatgroup status has greater impact on
prejudice than does in-group bias. Thisapplies, however, only to
Russians. Interpretations of the findings rest onSoviet history and
the rise of nationalism during the breakup of the SovietUnion.
Keywords: Prejudice; Soviet Union; Russians; Tatars and
Ukrainians.
Introduction
The former Soviet Union was a nation of over 276 million people
whomade up nearly 200 distinct ethnic groups. Since its dissolution
in Decem-ber 1991, this socialist state with an official
assimilationist ideologybecame the setting for ethnic conflict and
some former republics haveseceded along ethnic lines. Ethnic
conflict and secession are seeminglysucceeding any pan-Soviet
assimilation.
This article examines prejudice in the USSR at the time of its
breakup,1991-1992. The Soviet setting provides a unique opportunity
to examinewhether group membership per se (in-group bias) or group
status as a
Ethnic and Racial Studies Volume 20 Number 3 July 1997 Routledge
1997 0141-9870
Dow
nloa
ded
by [R
utgers
Univ
ersity
] at 2
1:40 1
1 May
2013
-
614 Joseph Hraba et al.
majority or a minority explains members' prejudice. The same
ethnicgroup could be a majority in one ethnic environment of the
Soviet Unionbut a minority in others. Virtually no research was
done on ethnic atti-tudes in the USSR (Karklins 1986), be it on
that of majority or minoritygroups, and comparing majority/minority
prejudice is a neglectedresearch topic in other parts of the world
as well (Hraba, Brinkman,Gray-Ray 1996). This article addresses
both these needs.
In-group biasIn minimal-group experiments, the random assignment
of subjects toartificial, arbitrary and impermanent in- and
out-groups was sufficient toresult in in-group bias towards
out-groups (Tajfel et al. 1971;Tajfel andTurner 1979,1986;Tajfel
1981;Turner 1982). The implication is that preju-dice towards
targets is due to membership in an in-group per se, even aminimal
one, and that all in-groups, majority and minority alike,
areequally prejudiced. Social identity theory assumes that all
people wantto achieve and maintain a positive self-concept and
therefore prefer toview their in-groups positively compared to
out-groups (Tajfel andTurner 1979,1986; Tajfel 1981; Turner 1982).
According to the in-groupbias hypothesis, Russians, Ukrainians and
Tatars in this study will beequally prejudiced towards each
other.
Group statusAccording to Blumer (1958), a majority group's
prejudice towardsminority groups is motivated by protecting its
status advantage as well asits proprietary claim to certain
privileges. 'The dominant group is notconcerned with the
subordinate group as such but it is deeply concernedwith its
position vis--vis the subordinate group' (Blumer 1958, p. 4).
Theimplication is that majority groups are more prejudiced than
minoritygroups. Mullen, Brown and Smith (1992) concluded that
research bothsupports and rejects this proposition. Majority status
is positively associ-ated with prejudice in experimental groups,
but it is negatively associated(only a non-significant trend) with
prejudice in research on real groups.The minority is more
prejudiced in the latter case, contrary to Blumer's(1958) argument.
The former Soviet Union is a good setting to testfurther the
group-status hypothesis for real groups, since one ethnicgroup
could be a majority in one ethnic environment but a minority
inanother.
Karklins (1986) defined different regions in the former Soviet
Unionas ethnic environments. During the Soviet era, ethnic Russians
dispersedthroughout the Soviet Union to manage the government and
economiesof the non-Russian republics, and non-Russian groups also
moved toRussia, but in smaller numbers. While Russians were the
majority in
Dow
nloa
ded
by [R
utgers
Univ
ersity
] at 2
1:40 1
1 May
2013
-
Prejudice in the former Soviet Union 615Russia, a titular
non-Russian group was a numerical majority of thepopulation in
eight of the other Soviet Republics. In this study, majorityand
minority status is defined by a group's relative size in an
ethnicenvironment, with Russians the majority group in Moscow and
Gorki(Russia SSR) and Ukrainians and Tatars minority groups.
Ukrainians inHarkov (Ukraine SSR) and Tatars in Kazan (Tatar ASR)
are majoritygroups at those sites, respectively, with Russians a
minority group(Furtado and Hechter 1992; Laitin et al. 1992;
Batalden and Batalden1993). According to the group-status
hypothesis, Russians should bemore prejudiced in Moscow and Gorki
and less so in Harkov and Kazanonce target groups are held
constant. Tatars and Ukrainians should bemore prejudiced in Kazan
and Harkov, respectively, and less so at theother sites in which
they are a minority. The test of the group-statushypothesis is done
by controlling for ethnic-group membership andtarget of prejudice,
allowing group status as majority or minority to varyby ethnic
environment.
Types of prejudiceThere are thought to be four types of
prejudice in the United States andWestern Europe: classical
prejudice, ethnocentrism, symbolic/culturalprejudice, and aversive
prejudice (Sears and Kinder 1971; McConahayand Hough 1976;
Pettigrew 1979; Barker 1981; Bobo 1983; Hagendoornand Hraba
1987,1989; Sears 1988; Kleinpenning and Hagendoorn 1993).Classical
prejudice (also called biological prejudice) is based on thenotion
that out-groups are genetically inferior to one's in-group
andtherefore should be segregated and denied civil rights. Research
in theUnited States and Europe indicates that classical prejudice
has been sup-planted, however, by symbolic prejudice, a newer, more
indirect andsubtle form of prejudice (Sears and Kinder 1971;
McConahay and Hough1976; Pettigrew 1979; Barker 1981). This newer
prejudice is based on per-ceived cultural rather than biological
differences between in- and out-groups, implying that advances of
out-groups would be a threat to thein-group's culture and
habits.
The ethnocentric person judges the worth of out-group cultures
interms of in-group cultural standards and, since other cultures
are differ-ent, they are believed to be inferior. Ethnocentrism is
based on in-grouppreference and out-group derogation, and is
considered by scholars to bea universal human characteristic (Brown
1986). Aversive prejudice isavoiding contact with out-group
members, motivated by uneasiness ordiscomfort about that contact
without explicitly denying ethnic equality(Bogardus 1925/1959;
Hagendoorn and Hraba 1987; Hagendoorn 1991).This type of prejudice
is measured by social distance towards targets incontact domains
(Bogardus 1958,1967,1968; Crull & Bruton 1979,1985;Owen, Eisner
and McFaul, 1981; Hagendoorn and Hraba 1987;
Dow
nloa
ded
by [R
utgers
Univ
ersity
] at 2
1:40 1
1 May
2013
-
616 Joseph Hraba et al.Hagendoorn and Hraba 1989; Hraba,
Hagendoorn and Hagendoorn1989; Hagendoorn and Kleinpenning
1991).
Kleinpenning and Hagendoorn (1993) found that ethnic Dutch
studentsdistinguished between these four types of prejudice and
held them to becumulative stages, with aversive the least and
classical the most extremetype. Our first task is to ascertain
whether Russian, Tatar and Ukrainianstudents made any distinction
between these types of prejudice, and oursecond is to test the
in-group bias and group-status hypotheses regardingprejudice in
different ethnic environments in the former USSR.
Data and measures
The sampleThe Public Opinion Research Center of the Department
of Sociology atMoscow State University conducted this survey from
late autumn 1991to March 1992. The questionnaire was printed in
Russian and includedprejudice terms used in The Netherlands and the
United States. Respon-dents were 1,459 first- and fourth-year
university students in eight regionsof the former USSR: Barnaul,
Altaian ASSR; Kazan, Tatar ASSR;Novopolotsk, Belorussian SSR;
Moscow, RSFSR; Gorki, RSFSR; Ulan-Ude, Buryat ASSR; Ufa, Bashkir
ASSR, and Harkov, Ukrainian SSR. Forprejudice items, respondents
were assigned from four to six target groupsbased on their region's
ethnic mix, with Russians assigned as a targetgroup to all
respondents. Our analysis is limited to Russians (n = 452),Tatars
(n = 173) and Ukrainians (n = 196), representing 31 per cent, 12per
cent and 13.4 per cent, respectively, of the total sample, in
Moscow,Gorki, Harkov and Kazan. These groups at these sites had
sufficient N toenable analysis when holding target groups
constant.
Measures of prejudicePrejudice is calculated from respondent
scores on fifteen items adaptedfrom Kleinpenning and Hagendoorn
(1993). Factor analysis will be usedto test whether these items
from Kleinpenning and Hagendoorn (1993)form the same pattern
(aversive, biological and symbolic prejudice andethnocentrism) for
Russian, Tatar and Ukrainian respondents. Variablesloading on
individual factors at .3 or more will be reported along withtheir
commonalities (the part of each variable's variation related to
thecommon factors). All items are coded so that higher values mean
moreprejudice.
In-group biasRespondents' in-group membership (Russian, Tatar
and Ukrainian) istheir self-reported father's nationality,
consistent with Karklins (1986).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [R
utgers
Univ
ersity
] at 2
1:40 1
1 May
2013
-
Prejudice in the former Soviet Union 617Mean prejudice scores
will be calculated for Russians, Tatars andUkrainians with mixed
targets and with each other as targets. T-tests willbe used to
determine significant differences between means.
Group statusStatus is determined by whether a group was a
numerical majority orminority of the population at a specific site.
The 1989 All-Union Censusindicates the population of the Russian
Republic was 82.8 per cent ethnicRussians, 3 per cent Ukrainians
and 3 per cent Tatars; the Republic ofUkraine included 73.6 per
cent Ukrainians and 21.1 per cent Russians;and in the Tatar ASSR,
Tatars were 48.5 per cent and Russians were 43.3per cent of the
population (Batalden and Batalden 1993). In Moscow andGorki, both
located in the former Russian Republic, ethnic Russians heldthe
majority position, and Ukrainians and Tatars were minority
groups.In Kazan in the former Tatar ASSR, Tatars were the majority
group, andRussians and Ukrainians were minority groups. In Harkov,
Ukraine,Ukrainians were the majority group and Russians and Tatars
were minor-ity groups. T-tests will be used to test for mean
differences within groupsby ethnic environments.
Results
Types of prejudiceFactor analysis of the prejudice terms showed
that seven of the fifteenvariables loaded on two factors for the
three respondent groups (seeTable 1). The three social distance
items formed an aversive prejudicefactor and four other items
formed an ethnocentrism factor. Eight vari-ables were dropped from
the analysis because they correlated negatively,or because they did
not load in the factor analysis at .3 or higher. Onlytwo of the
four types of prejudice found in the Dutch study (Kleinpen-ning and
Hagendoorn 1993) were found for Russians, Tatars and Ukraini-ans,
and the ethnocentrism factor combines two ethnocentric items andtwo
classical prejudice items from the Dutch study. Alphas for the
aver-sive prejudice factor were for Russians (.84), Tatars (.85),
and Ukraini-ans (.81). For ethnocentrism, the alpha for Tatars was
.84, for Ukrainians.82, and .66 for Russians.
Aversive prejudiceIn-group bias: If in-group bias predicts
prejudice, then each group (Rus-sians, Tatars and Ukrainians) would
be equally prejudiced. Aversiveprejudice values ranged from 1 to 9,
with a higher score indicating moresocial distance. Prejudice
scores against mixed target groups at all eight
Dow
nloa
ded
by [R
utgers
Univ
ersity
] at 2
1:40 1
1 May
2013
-
618 Joseph Hraba et al.
Table 1. Factor loadings for prejudice factors, Russians, Tatars
and UkrainiansRussians:
Item:Targets as co-workersTargets as neighboursTargets as
marriage partnersOther groups don't have a
right to live their own wayOther ethnic groups are
less intelligentMust prevent other groups
in one's territoryOther groups are genetically
differentTatars
Item:Targets as co-workersTargets as neighboursTargets as
marriage partnersOther groups don't have a
right to live their own wayOther ethnic groups are
less intelligentMust prevent other groups
in one's territoryOther groups are genetically
differentUkrainians:
Item:Targets as co-workersTargets as neighboursTargets as
marriage partnersOther groups don't have a
right to live their own wayOther ethnic groups are
less intelligentMust prevent other groups
in one's territoryOther groups are genetically
different
Factors:Aversiveprejudice
.96133
.82825
.63454
-.03960
-.01866
-.02093
.15782
Aversiveprejudice
.95915
.88538
.61296
.01181
-.05919
-.02948
-.04451
Aversiveprejudice
.93378
.91078
.55410
.07835
.08794
.03902
.06810
Ethnocentrism-.0.3461
.07405
.00372
.49098
.70005
.57881
.57799
Ethnocentrism-.02307-.00714
.04757
.90187
.82820
.77032
.66046
Ethnocentrism.05119.04510.09010
.89559
.82326
.76796
.66342
Communality.69175.92539.40943
.24673
.49118
.33762
.36115
Communality.92178.79871.38653
.82420
.72711
.63691
.51355
Communality.87691.83355.35119
.81615
.72233
.62249
.53861
sites were first calculated (see Table 2). Tatars had a
prejudice score of6.5, Russians had a prejudice score of 4.4 and
Ukrainians had a score of3.1. T-tests for differences between group
means showed that Tatars weresignificantly more prejudiced than
both Russians and Ukrainians, andRussians were significantly more
prejudiced than Ukrainians.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [R
utgers
Univ
ersity
] at 2
1:40 1
1 May
2013
-
Prejudice in the former Soviet Union 619Table 2. Mean aversive
prejudice scores of Russians, Tatars and Ukrainians,
withnon-specific targetsTatars3 mean = 6.52 s = 4.220 n =
173Russians'3 mean =4.44 s = 3.241 n = 450Ukrainians mean = 3.13 s
= 2.477 n = 196
N = 819a Tatars were significantly more prejudiced than Russians
(t = -6.58, p.>.000) and Ukraini-
ans (t = 9.53, p.>000)b Russians were significantly more
prejudiced than Ukranians (t = 5.03, p>.000)
Next, mean prejudice scores for the domains of marriage, work
andneighbours were compared across respondent groups. It was
expectedthat Tatars, who were significantly more prejudiced than
either the Rus-sians or Ukrainians, would be more prejudiced than
Russians andUkrainians in the domain of marriage, given their
Muslim religion andculture, but perhaps not in the other domains
(work and neighbours). Asexpected,Tatars were significantly more
prejudiced in the domain of mar-riage than Russians (t = -3.85, p
> .000) and Ukrainians (t = 6.76,p. > .000). However, Tatars
were also significantly more prejudiced thaneither Russians or
Ukrainians in the domains of work (Russians, t =-7.26, p > .000;
Ukrainians t = 8.72, p > .000) and neighbours (Russians,
Table 3. Aversive prejudice scores of Russians, Ukrainians, and
Tatars with eachother as target groups"
In-groupRussians
Ukrainians
Tatars
Target group
Ukrainiansmean = 3.09b
n = 129s = 2.082Russians
mean = 1.84n = 33s = 1.261Russians
mean = 3.49n = 136s = 2.033
Tatarsmean = 4.6641e
n = 129s = 1.919
Tatarsmean = 4.7273d
n = 33s = 2.394Ukrainians
mean = 4.2034n = 136s = 2.147
a These comparisons were made with paired t-tests
b Russians were more prejudiced against Ukrainians than
Ukrainians were against Rus-
sians (t = 4.29, pxOOO).c Russians were more prejudiced against
Tatars than Tatars were against Russians (t = 4.60,
pxOOO)d There was no significant difference between Tatars'
prejudice against Ukrainians and
Ukrainians' prejudice against Tatars.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [R
utgers
Univ
ersity
] at 2
1:40 1
1 May
2013
-
620 Joseph Hraba et al.
t = -8.18, p > .000; Ukrainians, t = 9.18, p > .000).The
third step was to test for differences in mean prejudice scores
of
these same respondent groups by holding their target groups
constant,that is, with each group having each other as targets (see
Table 3). Thisstep removed the variation in mean scores that may
have been due to thevariation in targets for the respondent groups.
Paired t-tests show thatRussians were more prejudiced against
Tatars than Tatars were againstRussians (t = 4.60), p > .000),
and Russians were more prejudiced againstUkrainians than Ukrainians
were against Russians (t = 4.29,p > .000). However, there was no
significant difference between Tatars'prejudice against Ukrainians
and Ukrainians' prejudice against Tatars.The in-group bias
hypothesis is not supported with non-specific targetsand when
controlling for target groups.
Group status: The group-status hypothesis is tested for Russian,
Tatarand Ukrainian respondents in three ethnic environments
controlling for
Table 4. Aversive prejudice scores of Russians, Ukrainians, and
Tatars by groupstatus with each other as target groups
Group status
In-group MajorityRussians (prejudice against Ukrainians)3
in Russiamean = 3.05
n = 118s = 1.888
Russians (prejudice against Tatars)bin Russia
mean = 5.13n = 60s = 2.234
Tatars (prejudice against Russians)0in Kazan
mean = 3.53n = 45s = 2.039
Ukrainians (prejudice against Russians)din Ukraine
mean = 2.26n = 56s = 1.590
Minority
in Ukrainemean = 2.29
n = 64s = 1.729
in Kazanmean = 4.15
n = 34s = 1.977
in Russiamean = 3.54
n = 51s = 1.849
in Russiamean = 2.59
n = 59s = 1.697
a Russians were significantly more prejudiced in Russia than in
Harkov (t = 2.66, p>.008)
b Russians were significantly more prejudiced in Russia than in
Kazan (t = 2.13, p>.036)
c Tatars were more prejudiced in Russia than in Kazan, but the
difference was not signifi-
cant (t = -.01,p>.995)d Ukrainians were more prejudiced in
Russia than in Harkov, but the difference was not
significant (t = -1.08,p>.283)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [R
utgers
Univ
ersity
] at 2
1:40 1
1 May
2013
-
Prejudice in the former Soviet Union 621Table 5. Mean
ethnocentrism scores of Russians, Tatars and Ukrainians, with
non-specific targetsRussians" mean = 2.3575 s = .709 n =
451Ukrainians mean = 2.2003 s = .695 n = 196Tatars'3 mean = 2.1809
s = .679 n = 170
N = 817
" Russians were significantly more prejudiced than both Tatars
(t = 2.86, p>.005) andUkrainians (t = 2.63, p>.009).b Tatars
were not significantly more prejudiced than Ukrainians.
targets with aversive prejudice. We expected, for example,
Russianrespondents in Russia to be more prejudiced against
Ukrainians thanRussian respondents living in the Ukraine, and
Russians in Moscow andGorki to be more prejudiced towards Tartars
than are Russians in Kazan(see Table 4).
Russian respondents in Russia were significantly more
prejudicedtowards Ukrainians than were those in Harkov (t = 2.66, p
> .008), and
Table 6. Ethnocenrism scores of Russians, Ukrainians, and Tatars
by group statuswith non-specific targets
In-groupRussians8
Russians'3
Tatars0
Ukrainians'1
Group status
Majorityin Russia
mean = 2.4855n = 121s = .781in Russia
mean = 2.4855n = 121s = .781in Kazan
mean = 2.1778n = 45s = .700
in Ukrainemean = 2.3596
n = 57s = .079
Minorityin Ukraine
mean = 2.1667n = 63s = .611in Kazan
mean = 2.3309n = 34s = .730in Russia
mean = 2.1000n = 50s = .680in Russia
mean = 2.2292n = 60s = .808
a Russians were more significantly ethnocentric in Russia than
in Harkov (t = 3.04,p>.003)
b Russians were not significantly more ethnocentric in Russia
than in Kazan (t = 1.07,
p>.287)c Tatars were not significantly more ethnocentric in
Kazan than in Russia (t = .55, p>.585)
d Ukrainians were not significantly more ethnocentric in Harkov
than in Russia (t = 1.00,
p>.321)
Dow
nloa
ded
by [R
utgers
Univ
ersity
] at 2
1:40 1
1 May
2013
-
622 Joseph Eraba et al.Russian respondents in Russia were
significantly more prejudicedtowards Tartars than those in Kazan (t
= 2.13, p > .036). When Russianswere a majority they were more
prejudiced than they were as a minor-ity. As for Tatar and
Ukrainian respondents, their aversive prejudice wasnot affected by
group status with targets controlled.
EthnocentrismIn-group bias: Ethnocentrism scores ranged from 1
to 5, with a higherscore meaning more ethnocentrism. Scores for the
three groups againstmixed target groups at all eight sites were
calculated (see Table 5). Rus-sians had a mean score of 2.36,
Ukrainians 2.20 and Tatars 2.18. T-testsfor differences between
group means showed that Russians were signifi-cantly more
ethnocentric than both Tatars and Ukrainians.Group status: Russians
were significantly more ethnocentric when theywere the majority in
Russia than they were as a minority in Harkov.There were no
significant differences between Russian ethnocentrism inRussia and
Kazan, and Tatars' and Ukrainians' ethnocentrism did not
sig-nificantly vary by group status (see Table 6). Data were not
available totest for differences in mean ethnocentrism scores of
these respondentgroups by holding target groups constant, that is,
with each group havingeach other as targets. Respondents were asked
to respond generally to'other groups' with ethnocentrism items.
DiscussionIt was hypothesized that group status has greater
impact on prejudicethan does group membership per se, and the
ethnic environments of theold Soviet Union provided a unique test
of these competing hypotheses.Factor analysis identified two types
of prejudice for Russian, Tatar andUkrainian respondents, aversive
prejudice (social distance items) andethnocentrism (combination of
classical prejudice and ethnocentrismitems). Although inconsistent
with Dutch results, these scales are con-sistent with definitions
of prejudice as feelings of superiority and sub-ordination,
proprietary claims on citizenship rights (inclusion/exclusion),as
well as simple avoidance of out-groups (Sumner 1906; Sears
andKinder 1971; McConahay and Hough 1976; Pettigrew 1979; Barker
1981;Bobo 1983; Hagendoorn and Hraba 1987,1989; Sears 1988; Crocker
andLuhtanen 1990; Kleinpenning and Hagendoorn 1993).
Hagendoorn, Drogendijk, Tumanov and Hraba (1995) suggested
thatdifferent and fewer types of prejudice in the former Soviet
Union couldbe due to at least two factors: (1) a difference in the
way in which theseitems measured prejudice in the former Soviet
Union compared to else-where; (2) there were not the same types of
prejudice in the former SovietUnion as in Europe and the United
States. No symbolic prejudice was
Dow
nloa
ded
by [R
utgers
Univ
ersity
] at 2
1:40 1
1 May
2013
-
Prejudice in the former Soviet Union 623found in the Soviet
Union, nor did we find there a concern with the statebacking
minority rights through affirmative action, school busing, etc.,
anecessary antecedent in the United States to symbolic prejudice.
Instead,respondents expressed social distance towards out-groups,
aversiveprejudice, and combined ethnocentrism with biological
prejudice into asecond orientation towards out-groups. This second
prejudice possiblyjustified their social distance. It is only the
newer or symbolic prejudicethat we did not find in the old Soviet
Union, and this is the only incon-sistency between these findings
and those in the United States andWestern Europe.
Russians were more ethnocentric towards mixed targets than
bothTatars and Ukrainians, and expressed more aversive prejudice
thanUkrainians towards mixed targets. Russians were also more
aversivelyprejudiced towards Tatars and Ukrainians than were Tatars
and Ukraini-ans towards them. These results do not support the
in-group bias hypo-thesis that the three groups would be equally
prejudiced. Nor do thesefindings support the conclusion drawn by
Mullen, Brown, and Smith(1992) that in-group bias would be stronger
among real minority groups.Instead, the majority was more
prejudiced.
Furthermore, Russian respondents in Russia expressed more
aversiveprejudice towards Tatars and Ukrainians than did Russian
respondentsin Harkov (Ukraine) and Kazan towards the same, matched
targets. Thisis the strongest test for the group-status hypothesis,
since targets are alsocontrolled. Russians in Russia were also more
ethnocentric towardsmixed targets than those at Harkov. This
further supports the group-status hypothesis. However, the
prejudice (aversive and ethnocentrism)of Tatar and Ukrainian
respondents did not vary by ethnic environment.Neither group was
more prejudiced at home than in another environ-ment. Thus, support
for the group-status hypothesis is limited to Russians.
One interpretation of these findings is that Tatar and
Ukrainianrespondents in Kazan and Harkov respectively, felt no more
like amajority group than did Tatars and Ukrainians in other ethnic
environ-ments. If we change the meaning of majority/minority from
relative sizeto relative power, we become aware that non-Russian
groups in theSoviet Union might have had little reason to see
themselves as a majorityeven in their titular republics. Local
politics outside of Russia were oftenmarked by competition between
the titular group and Russian immi-grants who had the all-union
authorities, that is, Moscow, to support them.Some nationalities
had no national territorial formations at all, and weredeprived of
what little power and status formations offered; among thesegroups
were the Crimean Tatars whose ASSR was abolished duringWorld War II
(Bremmer 1993; Zaslavsky 1993). Even in the Ukraine,famines were
set off in the 1930s due to directives from Moscow. This ishardly a
picture of titular nationalities having majority power at home.
The Soviet Center in Moscow sought to assimilate titular
nationalities
Dow
nloa
ded
by [R
utgers
Univ
ersity
] at 2
1:40 1
1 May
2013
-
624 Joseph Hraba et al.into a Soviet model, through extensive
Russian migration, Soviet indoc-trination in schools and youth
groups, the co-optation of religious groups,and the development of
local economies that were dependent on theSoviet Center (Bremmer
1993). In non-Slavic regions, the Soviet Centerworked to create the
idea that these diverse nations had no culture priorto the Soviet
period. While Soviet nationality policies imposed a formalSoviet
identity on all its peoples, the Soviet state developed
administra-tive mechanisms that controlled the composition and
activities of localadministrations, preventing them from acting as
unified ethnic entitiescapable of independence from the Center
(Zaslavsky 1993). For thesereasons, non-Russian groups may not have
felt like majority groups evenin their home territories.
Soviet citizens never came to feel that a Soviet nation existed
and thateven among Russians the Soviet state was perceived to be
the naturalextension of the Russian nation. Dunlop (1983) noted
that while theRussian people had no privileges and did not live
noticeably better thandid the people in the titular republics,
their status came from the 'advan-tages' they enjoyed as 'the
surest ally of Communism'. They were encour-aged by the Soviet
regime to take pride in this and in the fact that theybelonged to a
'great power', a symbolic status which other groups withinSoviet
boundaries did not enjoy to the same extent.
Another interpretation of Russians being more prejudiced at
Russiansites has to do with the breakup of the Soviet Union rather
than with theSoviet history of Russian centrality. By 1991, when it
was clear that theSoviet Union would fragment, Russians in Russia
began resurrecting aRussian identity to replace a Soviet one, an
ethnic revivalism that laggedperhaps two or three years behind that
of non-Russian groups. Not onlyhad Russians voluntarily adopted a
Soviet identity more than non-Russian groups, but they were also
later in replacing it with a nationalistone. Russians still felt
that they had a home territory, Russian sites at thetime of this
study, while conceding their former dominant position at
non-Russian sites. They were now a threatened majority, however,
defendingwith prejudice their status at least at Moscow and Gorki.
Russianrespondents at non-Russian sites did not have this option
and, thus, wereless prejudiced. Tatars and Ukrainians at their home
sites had less needfor such a defensive prejudice and, thus, were
no more prejudiced inKazan and Harkov respectively, than those at
sites away from home.Furthermore, the rise in their prejudice might
have passed, having startedearlier than the resurgence of Russian
nationalism and moving towardsa different expression in more
independence from Russians with the col-lapse of the Soviet
Union.
We imposed a quasi-experimental design on these survey data by
con-trolling ethnic-group membership of respondents and the targets
of theirprejudice, letting majority/minority status as relative
size vary acrossethnic environments. However, ethnic environments
can vary in other
Dow
nloa
ded
by [R
utgers
Univ
ersity
] at 2
1:40 1
1 May
2013
-
Prejudice in the former Soviet Union 625ways as well (Karklins
1986; Harris 1993). To illustrate, Harris (1993)stated that
language shifts towards Russian indicated the extent to
whichRussification had taken hold in a particular ethnic
environment. Factorsrelating to language shifts include
urbanization of an ethnic group, its ageand gender composition,
Slavic linguistic affinity of its language, itsreligion and its
frequency of mixed marriages with Russians. If we assumethat
greater Russification means less prejudice of an in-group towards
atleast Russian targets, then we can explain the Tatars' being more
preju-diced towards Russians that were the Ukrainians. Compared to
Ukraini-ans in Harkov, Tatars in Kazan were more dissimilar to
Russians on anumber of these conditions, particularly religion,
lack of language affin-ity and infrequency of mixed marriages with
Russians. It appears we mustat least specify, if not control, other
conditions defining ethnic environ-ments to determine who is more
prejudiced, majority or minority groups.
AcknowledgementsAn earlier draft of this article was presented
at the 1994 Meetings of theAmerican Sociological Association, Los
Angeles, August 1994. Theauthors wish to thank Gang Lee, Frederick
Lorenz, and Hub Linssen forcontributions to the data management and
analysis.
ReferencesBARKER, M. 1981 The New Racism, London: Junction
BooksBATALDEN, S. K. and BATALDEN, S. L. 1993 The Newly Independent
States of Eurasia:Handbook of Former Soviet Republics, Phoenix, AZ:
OryxBLUMER, HERBERT 1958 'Race prejudice as a sense of group
position', Pacific Socio-logical Review, vol. 1, Spring, pp.
3-7BOGARDUS, EMORY S. 1925/1959 Social Distance, Yellow Springs,
OH: The Antioch Press
1967 A Forty-Year Racial Distance Study, Los Angeles, CA:
University of SouthernCalifornia Press
1968 'Comparing racial distance in Ethiopia, South Africa and
the United States', Soci-ology and Social Research, vol. 52, pp.
149-56BOB, LAWRENCE 1983 'Whites opposition to busing: symbolic
racism or realistic groupconflict?', Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, vol. 45, pp. 1196-210BREMMER, I. 1993
'Reassessing Soviet nationalities theory', in I. Bremmer and R.
Taras(eds), Nation and Politics in the Soviet Successor States,
Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPressBROWN, R. 1986 Social
Psychology: The Second Edition, New York, NY: Free PressCROCKER,
JENNIFER and LUHTANEN, RIIA 1990 'Collective self-esteem andingroup
bias', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 58, no.
1, pp. 60-67CRULL, SUSAN R. and BRUTON, BRENT T. 1979 'Bogardus
social distance in the1970s', Sociology and Social Research, vol.
63, pp. 771-83
1985 'Possible decline in tolerance toward minorities: social
distance on a midwestcampus', Sociology and Social Research, vol.
70, pp. 57-62DUNLOP, JOHN 1993 'Russia: confronting a loss of
empire', in I. Bremmer and R. Taras(eds), Nation and Politics in
the Soviet Successor States, Cambridge: Cambridge
UniversityPress
Dow
nloa
ded
by [R
utgers
Univ
ersity
] at 2
1:40 1
1 May
2013
-
626 Joseph Hraba et al.FURTADO, JR, C. F. and HECHTER, M. 1992
'The emergence of nationalist politics inthe USSR: a comparison of
Estonia and the Ukraine', in A. J. Motyl (ed.), Thinking
Theor-etically about Soviet Nationalities, New York: Columbia
University PressHAGENDOORN, LOUK 1991 'Ethnic categorization and
outgroup exclusion', unpub-lished paper, University of Utrecht, The
NetherlandsHAGENDOORN, LOUK, et al. 1995 'Perceived ethnic
hierarchies in the former SovietUnion', unpublished paper, Utrecht
University, The NetherlandsHAGENDOORN, LOUK and HRABA, JOSEPH 1989
'Foreign, different, deviant, seclu-sive and working class: anchors
to an ethnic hierarchy in The Netherlands', Ethnic andRacial
Studies, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 441-68HAGENDOORN, LOUK and HRABA,
JOSEPH 1987 'Social distance towards Holland'sminorities:
discrimination against and among ethnic outgroups', Ethnic and
Racial Studies,vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 120-33HAGENDOORN, LOUK and
KLEINPENNING, GERARD 1991 'The contribution ofdomain-specific
stereotypes to ethnic social distance', British Journal of Social
Psychology,vol. 30, pp. 63-78HARRIS, CHAUNCY D. 1993 'A geographic
analysis of non-Russian minorities in Russiaand its ethnic
homelands', Post-Soviet Geography, vol. 34, no. 9, pp. 543-97HRABA,
JOSEPH, HAGENDOORN, LOUK and HAGENDOORN, ROELAND 1989'The ethnic
hierarchy in The Netherlands: social distance and social
representation', BritishJournal of Social Psychology, vol. 28, pp.
57-69HRABA, JOSEPH, BRINKMAN, RICHARD and GRAY-RAY PHYLLIS 1996 'A
com-parison of black and white prejudice', Sociological Spectrum,
vol. 16, pp. 129-57KARKLINS, R. 1986 Ethnic Relations in the USSR:
The Perspective front Below, Boston,MA: Allen &
UnwinKLEINPENNING, GERARD and HAGENDOORN, LOUK 1993 'Forms of
racism andthe cumulative dimension of ethnic attitudes', Social
Psychology Quarterly, vol. 56, no. 1,pp. 24-36LAITIN, D. D.,
PETERSEN, R. and SLOCUM, J. W. 1992 'Language and the state:
Russiaand the Soviet Union in comparative perspective', in A. J.
Motyl (ed.), Thinking Theor-etically About Soviet Nationalities,
New York: Columbia University PressMCCONAHAY, J. B. and HOUGH, JR,
J. C. 1976 'Symbolic racism', Journal of SocialIssues, vol. 32, pp.
23-45MULLEN, B., BROWN, R. and SMITH, C 1992 'In-group bias as a
function of salience, rel-evance, and status: an integration',
European Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 22, pp. 103-22OWEN, C.
A., EISNER, H. C. and MCFAUL, T. R. 1981 'A half-century of social
distanceresearch: national replication of the Bogardus studies',
Sociology and Social Research, vol.66, pp. 80-98PETTIGREW, THOMAS
1979 'Racial change and social policy', Annals of the
AmericanAcademy of Political and Social Science, vol. 441, pp.
114-31SEARS, DAVID O. 1988 'Symbolic racism', in P. A. Katz and D.
A. Taylor (eds), Eliminat-ing Racism: Profiles in Controversy, New
York: PlenumSEARS, DAVID and KINDER, D. 1971 'Racial tensions and
voting in Los Angeles', in W.Z. Hirsch (ed.), Los Angeles:
Viability and Prospects for Metropolitan Leadership, NewYork:
Praeger, pp. 51-38SNIDERMAN, PAUL et al. 1991 'The new racism',
American Journal of Political Science,vol. 35, no. 2, pp.
423-47SUMNER, WILLIAM 1906 Folkways, Boston, MA: GinnTAJFEL, HENRI,
et al. 1971 'Social categorization and intergroup behavior',
EuropeanJournal of Social Psychology, vol. 1, pp. 149-78
1981 Human Groups and Social Categories, Cambridge: Cambridge
University PressTAJFEL, HENRI and TURNER, JONATHAN C. 1979 'An
integrative theory of socialconflict', in W. Austin and S. Worchel
(eds), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations,Monterey, CA:
Brooks/Cole, pp. 33-47
Dow
nloa
ded
by [R
utgers
Univ
ersity
] at 2
1:40 1
1 May
2013
-
Prejudice in the former Soviet Union 6271986 'The social
identity theory of intergroup behavior', in S. Worchel and W. G.
Austin
(eds), Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 2nd edn, Chicago, IL:
Nelson-Hall, pp. 7-24TURNER, JONATHAN C. 1982 'Towards a cognitive
redefinition of the social group', inTajfel, H. (ed.), Social
Identity and Intergroup Relations, Cambridge: Cambridge
UniversityPressZASLAVSKY, V. 1993 'Success and collapse:
traditional Soviet nationality policy', in I.Bremmer and R. Taras
(eds), Nation and Politics in the Soviet Successor States,
Cambridge:Cambridge University Press
JOSEPH HRABA is Professor of Sociology at Iowa State
University.CAROLYN S. DUNHAM is a doctoral candidate in Sociology
at IowaState University.SERGEY TUMANOV is Director of the Center
for Sociological Studies,Moscow State University.LOUK HAGENDOORN is
Professor of Social Sciences at the Uni-versity of Utrecht.ADDRESS:
Department of Sociology, Iowa State University of Scienceand
Technology, 107 East Hall, Ames, IA 50011-1070, USA.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [R
utgers
Univ
ersity
] at 2
1:40 1
1 May
2013