First to Read_Prejudice in the Former Soviet Union

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


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





differentUkrainians:





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


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


n = 51s = 1.849


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

Documents

First to Read_Prejudice in the Former Soviet Union